This issue of asking babies to confess has caused some consternation among a few modern Lutherans. Some think it contradicts baptismal regeneration (that the Spirit makes alive in baptism) by assuming faith before baptism and treating the unbaptized as Christian even before the application of water and God’s Word. But all supposed problems with the rite, which Martin Luther and all the following Lutherans inherited and did not change significantly, do not have to be problems. Why is it best to treat adults and infants the same when they appear so different, and what actually matters most in the baptismal rite?
First, the rite itself is man-made, like all church rites. Jesus did not write agendas and hymnals for us in Scripture. Many mistake the man-made rite of private absolution for the general power of absolution in the Gospel itself. But nowhere in Scripture is a practice of private confession and absolution to a pastor found. Yet, if the Gospel is presented, it is a truly forgiving Word to not be despised. But we must be careful to separate what man has created from God’s absolving work in the Word of Christ. We should not place too much weight on what God has not given, but that does not mean it is wrong or sinful to have specific ceremonies and church rites—after all, the Bible does not give us rites and ceremonies, but we are in need of them.
The rite of baptism is from church tradition. Baptism itself is from Christ. The whole idea of sponsors (or godparents, etc.) is one of human tradition. It is customary but not needed or commanded by God. It may be safely disregarded. If a baby were in danger of death, I would not spend one second worrying about sponsors, since eternal life is offered in baptism itself without them. How about the questions asked of the one to be baptized? They are not in the rite of emergency baptism and are in no way essential. Can they be disregarded in the public service? It would put no one’s salvation in danger. Yet, our uniformity in public witness and practice is greatly to be prized, though it is of human origin.
The great thing about the current rite of baptism (in all our LCMS hymnals) is that it is the same for children and adults, those able to speak and those unable. The very same questions are asked about the devil, his works, and his ways. Baptism into Christ means a renouncing of those things to actually live in Christ, which is what is being offered. That consistent set of questions for all being baptized, including adherence to the Apostles Creed, is a strong witness to the fact that baptism depends on Christ’s Word alone and not the willingness, intellect, or expression of the person being brought to baptism.
Any alternation for children specifically would mean two baptismal rites and a segregation by age of sorts, which is what the Baptist does quite radically, by not baptizing babies unable to confess verbally, though without biblical warrant. That would be to give a public confession and indication that baptism is not one, if two separate types of applications and ceremonies are needed. “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6).
So while some baptist-leaning people may see the confession of a child spoken by a stand-in adult as promoting a so-called “believer’s baptism” by asking a baby questions he can’t answer for himself, the best practice is not to modify what we do because it might be twisted by someone who doesn’t believe baptism does much at all in the first place.
The fact that children are baptized, with or without sponsors speaking for them, is a stronger confession that there is only one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Changing the rite based on the person’s age or ability would send a message that baptism is appropriated differently depending on the maturity of the one receiving it. The practical fact that we do baptize children who cannot speak for themselves is a more powerful testimony than the rationalization of one who denies the very efficacy of baptism itself.
The fact that a confession of faith is made on behalf of a child right before water and the Word are applied need not diminish the power of the sacrament of baptism itself. After all, we do not baptize random strangers in the street, catching them by surprise, but those we assume will live in that promise of the Gospel as Christians until death. Adults are to be taught and instructed, at least in the basics of God’s Word, before baptism. How about children? A conscientious pastor will not baptize a child who he knows will not be brought up in the faith and promise of that Baptism.
Baptism is not a magic wand that eliminates the need for further teaching. Our Lord tells us what is to follow baptism in the making of His disciples: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28). When that is not the case, one is treating baptism as a magic spell, and God’s Word is not being honored. There is a duty and presumption for the one bringing up the child to lead them into the salvation baptism proffers. It is not a one-time act to set and forget. Baptism “indicates that the Old Adam in us should by daily contrition and repentance be drowned and die with all sins and evil desires, and that a new man should daily emerge and arise to live before God in righteousness and purity forever.”
It would be a very strange set of circumstances for the child brought to baptism to have never encountered the Word of God previously or been prayed for to God the Father. After all, someone must have brought them and also valued God’s word, since they cannot bring themselves when little. So we assume the Word has come to them, and we trust it to work. Baptism is not to be viewed in a receptionist way—that the child must be an unbeliever and automatically lost before baptism. Luther’s teaching from his essay “Comfort for Women Who Have Had a Miscarriage” is instructive. Just because faith and salvation are sealed by God’s Word with the water does not mean that the Spirit is absent before the baptism. Rather, we are to trust in the physical promise applied but also trust the Word is always effective, even if we can’t determine a response to it. After all, the kingdom belongs to the little children—so we are not to think salvation is unthinkable for them. In fact, the practice of infant baptism says quite the opposite.
It is the rational, confessing adult that must become like the little child to be saved. So the faith of children is not strange or unusual. Originally written long before there was any baptism, Jesus cites, “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise” (Matt. 21). Just because we cannot see the Spirit and are directed to the physical Word of baptism does not mean faith and children are antithetical—no, it is rational adults and faith that Jesus says do not mix so well. Baptism is the Word of Christ, but the Word comes in other forms. We do not play these against each other, for we need many applications of Christ’s forgiveness of sins—His justifying absolution for our comfort. Baptism is the Gospel, but the Gospel is not a bare ceremony of baptism.
Viewed holistically, instead of rationally and piecemeal, the baptismal rite assumes faith—which is exactly what baptism gives. The point is not dissecting the moment of justification with a stopwatch, which we cannot do, but faith in Christ is the point of baptism—deliverance from eternal death. Whether faith came before or at the moment of baptism is immaterial to trusting in the promise of baptism once the sinner is baptized. So the rite is not a mathematical formula; when viewed as a whole, it shows faith, which is tied to confessing with the mouth, is the goal and power of baptism. Asked in the reverse: would we baptize an adult who did not reject Satan or his works? By no means. That would be to blaspheme Christ. And neither would a child be baptized if he were consciously and knowingly publicly resisting Christ’s Spirit and would never purposely be confronted with the Gospel (and therefore the living promise of baptism itself).
After all, baptism is not a physical eraser for sin against the Holy Spirit. The grave original sin we are born with is deserving of death—but that does not mean God limits faith to baptism alone and cannot work salvation apart from it—that is a caricature of baptismal regeneration and limits God’s grace to man’s actions. We are pointed to baptism as a tangible promise and sign, but God saved infants throughout the entire Old Testament before baptism was practiced and instituted. A lack of baptism does not damn one; it is rather unbelief alone that condemns—even for those who have been baptized but refuse the grace it offers. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16). Baptism saves—and we are bound to His revealed truth, yet God works faith through His Gospel. God limits us, so baptism is to be cherished and not despised, but we dare not limit God in the use of His Word.
Conversely, the questions asked of little children are a most powerful witness that children can believe, resist the devil, and resist their own flesh. I think that is the true offense for the non-Lutheran: ascribing faith to those without speech and obvious intellectual powers. In fact, there is an interesting old book, translated and published by Lutheran for Life, called “The Faith of Unborn Children.” Using John the Baptist before his birth and other passages, an old Lutheran theologian highlights that the life-giving Word effects salvation by its own power and not our seeming ability to respond. Just as the dead are called to life by Jesus, so His Word continues to bring those dead in sin to life. And this does not militate against the value or practice of baptism as Lutherans practice it. The point of a rite is not to resist every error and heresy but to be a faithful order so God’s Word may be conveyed and obeyed. Preaching and teaching must preserve the pure Word—not perfect liturgy or ceremonies, which do not exist on earth.
Baptism is not an excuse to not heed God’s Word or believe in Christ post-baptism. Rather, faith must have a Word of Jesus to rely on, and baptism is a certain promise to believe in. So Lutherans do not play baptism against faith nor faith against baptism. Nor do we let those erring and heretical on points of the Christian faith determine our beliefs or practices. While someone may find fault with a man-made rite, based on their own logical deductions, I would argue that any change would not be an improvement but a debasement of the unity of baptism among sinners, whether just born or very old.
Faith cannot be detected but is always tied to public confession in God’s Word. “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). Scripture even mentions the mouths of infants as set apart for divinely ordained praise, so even the noises of a child baptized are not to be considered unspiritual: “Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise” (Matt. 21).
Even for a small child who cannot speak of their faith, we assume that faith is in no way incompatible with the newborn or even the unborn. Yet, we can only baptize those born with water. But it is not for us to pinpoint the moment of faith, which the traditional Lutheran baptismal rite wisely does not do. Faith is part and parcel of confessing Christ and denying the Devil and sin. And without trust in that salvation Christ won and delivers in baptism, no one would bring a child to baptism, nor would anyone depend on their baptism with which Christ baptized them. Amen. —ed.
Christian News 