Validity of Pedobaptism
A Comparison of Infant Baptism and The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism on the Validity of Pedobaptism
In this paper the topic of infant baptism will be examined by comparing two articles with varying levels of opposing views on the topic. The selection of viewpoints required some research since some form of infant or adolescent baptism is practiced among many Christian faiths. Those who practice this custom are called pedobaptists. The Baptist denomination is one that does not utilize this practice, so one selection chosen for analysis comes from that faith tradition. The logical, if not obvious, selection for the other perspective comes from the Roman Catholic tradition.
The point of this paper will be to analyze the arguments made for and against infant baptism. This will begin with a summary of the article Infant Baptism by Rev. Ervin Lyon, followed by a critique of the assertions made in that article. The same will be done with The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism by Joseph Eagan S.J. Noting that doing so completely is impossible, the author of this paper will try to mitigate personal biases as much as possible.
Summary of Infant Baptism
In Infant Baptism, Reverend Ervin Lyon focuses his critique on pedobaptism into several areas in what appears to be an attempt to answer what he perceives to be the standard arguments for pedobaptism. The basis of his main argument is the lack of scriptural evidence for such a practice. Baptists, according to Reverend Lyon, only baptize believers and an infant cannot profess faith in Jesus Christ.[1] Baptisms are practiced in the New Testament, just not pedobaptism.
The next points of contention following chronologically are the early theological developments of the church and the intermingling of Christianity with the Roman empire. One major theological development that Reverend Lyon mentions is based on the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. While not explicitly stating that baptism is not necessary for salvation, he presents such a statement in a way that implies such a belief. It is possible that this is a common position among non-pedobaptist denominations, but exploring this topic further is beyond the scope of this paper. Reverend Lyon does concede that if baptism is necessary for salvation then pedobaptism is reasonable.[2]
Reverend Lyon notes his belief that pedobaptism is an error that was not left behind during the Protestant Reformation. Given that this practice survived such a major time of reformation, with a particular focus on scripture, it makes sense that Reverend Lyon would address additional scriptural based arguments for pedobaptism and even attempts to connect pedobaptism to circumcision. Finally, Reverend Lyon outlines his belief that pedobaptism does harm to the child and summarizes his arguments against the practice.
Critique of Infant Baptism
Reverend Lyon’s first major point is that neither Jesus nor his disciples ever explicitly baptized an infant. This critique is a reasonable one. The main counter that can be provided to it would be from the conclusion of the Gospel of John when the author states that “there were also many other things which Jesus did”[3] that were not stated in this book. This is scriptural evidence that just because something is not in the Bible does not mean it did not happen. Regardless, Reverend Lyon’s critique here is reasonable.
Reverend Lyon’s next point of contention is the frequency and quantity of errors that were being promulgated in the early Church.[4] This is a reasonable critique, although it involves some editorializing on the part of the Reverend. The prevalence of error in the early Church is well documented, as are the councils that were convened to debate and eliminate these errors. Reverend Lyon states that pedobaptism is an error that was introduced and not eliminated in the early Church.[5] He also disagrees with the further development of this line of logic in determining that baptism is necessary for salvation.[6] There were sufficient heresies and errors promulgated during the early Church to reasonably consider whether pedobaptism applies as an error that was not properly removed from the tradition of Christianity. The dismissal of the need for baptism and doctrine of Original Sin is difficult to engage when no contrary sources or points are provided. The absence of a counter point on such a theological topic is problematic, as well as the willingness to accept some doctrinal developments that came out of the early Church, such as the nuances of the Trinity and the refutation of the heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism.[7]
Reverend Lyon continues by applying that it was, in part, the assimilation of Christianity into the Roman culture that promoted the practice of pedobaptism. This is another example where this could be a valid critique if any supporting material were provided. The lack of any corroborating reference makes this critique sound like conjecture.
Reverend Lyon provides his strongest argument against pedobaptism in the early Church when he references The Didache, which provides instruction for baptism. This document dates towards the end of the first century and does not provide instruction for pedobaptism[8]. The instructions command a period of fasting, and an infant could not be reasonably expected to fast for multiple days.
Up until this point, the critiques of pedobaptism have been aimed at the very early Church prior to any major schisms. Reverend Lyon now argues that the influences of the Roman Catholic Church prevented the error of pedobaptism from being eliminated during the Protestant Reformation[9]. Much like the previous argument about choosing the validity of orthodoxy over heresy in the early Church, Reverend Lyon agrees with some changes from the reformation while specifying others as inadequate. This was a characteristic of the Protestant Reformation, so it is to be expected that such inconsistent arguments would be made.
Another characteristic of the Protestant Reformation was a return to the scriptural basis for practices that had become tradition. Reverend Lyon provides a few examples of scripture verses that claim to be a basis for pedobaptism, although no source is provided for such claims. The first is Jesus saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”[10] It is difficult to see how this could be construed as an endorsement for pedobaptism. In fact, an overly generous interpretation of this line could imply that children do not need to be baptized or profess their faith for they already “belong to the kingdom of heaven”. He mentions verses from Mark and Luke where Jesus takes it a step further when he says “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”[11] This could be interpreted to mean that the understanding of faith that Reverend Lyon professes may be a hinderance, rather than a necessity. That is likely not what Jesus meant.
Reverend Lyon mentions four instances where entire households were baptized. He insists that since no children were mentioned this is somehow proof against pedobaptism. This logic is demonstrating both a confirmation and a belief bias. These examples of household baptism provide no argument for or against pedobaptism.
The final major point of critique by Reverend Lyon is the idea that circumcision has somehow been replaced by baptism. This, more than any other critique that he has offered, would have benefited from a reference to someone making such a claim. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul says they put “off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism”[12], but that does not infer replacing circumcision with baptism. Based on Christian understanding of baptism and a Jewish understanding of circumcision, there is little reason to believe that one could replace the other.
Summary of The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism
In The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, Father Eagan takes a pragmatic rather than argumentative approach to the question of pedobaptism. He starts by framing the argument about pedobaptism as a question of Church authority and the “very nature of the Church.”[13] He makes the following presumptions about those who are against pedobaptism:
1. The New Testament is the source of ultimate authority.
2. God’s grace would not be attached to any object or action.
3. The Church is a local community with ecclesial autonomy.
Based on those presumptions, it makes sense that Father Eagan argues for the contrary presuppositions:
1. The New Testament and “the living Tradition of the church”[14] have ultimate authority.
2. God has provided sacraments as tangible signs of His grace in this world.
3. “A universal Church does exist.”[15]
Father Eagan concedes that neither the New Testament nor early Church documents offer evidence of pedobaptism. He then offers a series of reasons why pedobaptism may have evolved as a natural expression of parental love and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Father Eagan provides several nuanced examples of these reasons which will be discussed in the next section. He concludes the article by offering a series of suggestions for improving relations between those denominations that do and do not practice pedobaptism.
Critique of The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism
Father Eagan begins framing his article by making a supposition about those who do not practice pedobaptism[16]. Father Eagan later states that many churches that are against pedobaptism also lack a universal structure. A generalized supposition in any form will likely be problematic. To this end, he states that the ultimate issue is not pedobaptism, but rather the composition and authority of the Church. Such a statement may be true, and the entire pedobaptism argument may be a proxy for a much deeper argument, but suggesting that the argument is not actually about pedobaptism can be taken as dismissive.
Father Eagan states that “the source of doctrinal authority is both the New Testament and the living Tradition of the church under the guiding help of the Spirit promised by the risen Lord.”[17] To further this point, he offers that the New Testament itself was the result of a lived Christianity. There is agreement among scholars from multiple Christian denominations that “a narrow view of divine inspiration [is] untenable.”[18]
Father Eagan’s next statement is unquestionably firm that sacraments are real. In this definition of sacrament, Father Eagan seems to be describing a physical manifestation of God’s grace and not a narrower Roman Catholic definition of a Sacrament. Jesus used earthly objects to impart grace. Father Eagan argues that holy scripture itself is a physical manifestation of God’s grace. It is a reasonable position to imply that God’s grace does exist in our physical world in some forms, especially in the form of baptism as instituted by Jesus.
The next argument that Father Eagan makes would easily be seen as problematic by one who disagrees with it. He states that there exists a universal Church that includes all baptized Christians. This statement is aimed to counter the argument that ecclesiastical authority lies only with the local church. The assertion that this universal Church has doctrinal authority is easy for a local congregation to dismiss.
As stated previously, Father Eagan agrees that the “New Testament focuses exclusively on the baptism of adults.”[19] There is no credible reason to believe that the gospel writers or the very early Church fathers were concerned with pedobaptism. Father Eagan contends that Jesus’s word that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”[20] combined with high mortality rates of the young makes pedobaptism reasonable. He continues this argument to further indicate that the practice of pedobaptism developed naturally out of a parental love and care of their child. This argument is sound for those who believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and the doctrinal authority of the universal Church.
Father Eagan elaborates with the following grouping of arguments. If the Holy Spirit is living in the Church and guiding its development, then the fact that Christianity is a lived religion means that a diversity of beliefs and practices will occur. While filtering out the beliefs and practices that are erroneous is important, this does not preclude diversity with the ways in which members come into the Church.[21] This diversity and lived experience is also important to consider with the context of the “full Paschal mystery that incarnates God's saving love for us”.[22] Is it more important to consider scriptural authority or to consider the graces bestowed by God? As previously discussed, the Gospel of John mentions that there are many things that are not included within the pages of scripture.
Father Eagan’s arguments thus far have not tried to justify infant baptism as much as they try to explain truths that may allow for such a development to happen. He now moves on to provide some arguments that justify the practice of pedobaptism. The first among these arguments is something that has already been touched upon, that the Holy Spirit is alive within the Church. More than just guiding the Church as a whole, it is the Holy Spirit “who inspires Christians with an intuitive sense of what is authentically Christian.”[23] This argument seems reasonable on a micro level, but when taken to the macro level can become problematic. Evils can be committed under the guise of being a sense of what is Christian.
Father Eagan next argues for the “absolute gratuity”[24] of God’s gifts of grace. Throughout the history of salvation, God always initiates his moves towards his people. “He does not first demand respect and love and petition, least of all sinlessness.”[25] To argue that pedobaptism is invalid is to also argue that the child must make the first step. God’s grace flowing freely and without human intervention is an argument that most theologians would affirm, so the idea that someone has to take the first step is tricky. By itself this argument implies that a profession of faith is unnecessary, so it is only valid with Father Eagan’s next argument.
God has ordained that a child be born of Christian parents who wish for their child to be baptized. This act “witnesses to the Church's confidence that God will lead this infant to faith.”[26] The Church believes that the child receives the Holy Spirit and that the prayers offered on the child’s behalf will lead that child to an adult faith. The arguments that God takes the first step and that the Church is confident in its faith towards its baptized, no matter how young, are reasonable when taken together.
Father Eagan concludes his justification for pedobaptism by again referencing who the Church is and its understanding of its role in salvation. Jesus commanded the Church to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”[27] The Church is to be a vehicle of spreading God’s grace through the world and building communities of believers. For some denominations, this includes pedobaptism, and for others it does not.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to summarize and critique the articles Infant Baptism by Rev. Ervin Lyon and The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism by Joseph Eagan S.J. Both articles provide some sound arguments as well as subjective arguments. Reverend Lyon and Father Eagan wrestle with the idea of pedobaptism as well as the authority necessary for early Church practices to evolve. Reverend Lyon proposes several good arguments, but would need supporting references in order to solidify those points. There are also instances where his arguments become subjective, bordering on conjecture. Father Eagan acknowledges the perspective that Reverend Lyon has and tries to engage that perspective charitably. Father Eagan also provides reasonable narratives of how pedobaptism could have become the norm from very early in Church history and how it was not considered an error. However, Reverend Lyon dismisses hundreds of years of theological development. Father Eagan’s attempt to engage with the counter perspective as well as his inclusion at the end of critiques of both perspectives and how both perspectives could grow together necessarily provides for a more pragmatic argument. Ultimately though, if one believes in the primacy of Holy Scripture alone, it is not likely that Father Eagan’s arguments would change that person’s mind.
References
Eagan, Joseph F. 1980. “The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism.” Review & Expositor 77 (1): 47–61. http://search.ebscohost.com.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000775983&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Lyon, Ervin F. 1911. “Infant Baptism.” Review & Expositor 8 (1): 93–100. http://search.ebscohost.com.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLAiGFE180212000542&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version, Second Catholic Edition. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2005.
Wawrykow, Joseph. The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology, Chapter 24: Oxford University Press, 2019.
[1] Lyon, Infant Baptism, 93.
[2] Lyon, Infant Baptism, 94.
[3] John, 21:25.
[4] Lyon, Infant Baptism, 94.
[5] Ibid., 94.
[6] Ibid., 94.
[7] Wawrykow, Grace and Justification, 408.
[8] Lyon, Infant Baptism, 95.
[9] Ibid., 95.
[10] Matthew, 19:14
[11] Luke, 18:17.
[12] Colossians, 2:11-12.
[13] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 48.
[14] Ibid., 48.
[15] Ibid., 48.
[16] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 47.
[17] Ibid., 48.
[18] Ibid., 48.
[19] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 49.
[20] John 3:5.
[21] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 51.
[22] Ibid., 51.
[23] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 52.
[24] Ibid., 53.
[25] Ibid., 53.
[26] Eagan, The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism, 53.
[27] Matthew, 28:19-20a