One of the more hotly contested issues between Protestants and Catholics is infant Baptism. What makes this particular practice contentious is that it really gets to the heart of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Protestantism by pitting Tradition and Sacramental Theology against two of the Solas, Scriptura and Fide. Because it is a “test case” of sorts for tackling these differences overall, it is necessary to have a ready answer to this common objection.
Although we have discussed this before, it is helpful to reiterate something related to relationship between Scripture and Tradition, namely the principle of the Development of Doctrine, Because Sacred Scripture is the Word of God written using the words of men, it cannot fully express the divine ideas that God is trying to convey, at least not explicitly. Instead it can contain those ideas implicitly. When those ideas meet different human minds in different times and places, there is development of doctrine in that all of those things found implicitly in the Sacred Word are made explicit.
Infant Baptism and the Development of Doctrine
As it relates to the question at hand, we must admit that nowhere do we find in Scripture an explicit statement regarding the baptism of infants. But this does not make it “unbiblical” because there are implicit mentions of it. In the Gospel of Luke, we find that ““Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16). If the Kingdom of God belongs to children also, the same Kingdom of God that “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.’” (Jn 3:5) then one could infer that infants too should be baptized. That coupled with St. Paul’s explicit connection of baptism with circumcision (Col 2:11-12), a ritual that was performed on the 8th day after a child was born, would seem to suggest that infant baptism is not only permitted but also recommended.
This highlights one of the problems with Sola Scriptura. Because it does not permit any development of doctrine (at least in principle) then its adherents really can’t say anything about this and any number of topics. Strictly speaking because the Bible does not say “thou shalt not baptize infants” then there is absolutely no basis for disputing the fact that Catholics do it. To condemn it is to add to Scripture.
The phrases “one could infer” and “would seem to suggest” imply a certain amount of uncertainty. Any uncertainty is quickly erased when we examine how the Biblical Revelation, especially regarding infant baptism, was received. We hear of the practice of baptizing entire “households” in Scripture so that the practice of baptizing entire families, some of which presumably included infants, was common practice in the early Church. At least, that is how the Church Fathers received the message from the Apostles themselves. St. Irenaeus, who himself was likely baptized by St. Polycarp, a disciple of St. John mentions it as if it is a given in his Against Heresies (2:22). Origen says that the tradition of “giving baptism even to infants was received from the Apostles” (Commentary on Romans, 5). In fact, we do not have a single record of anyone in the first two Christian centuries objecting to infant baptism.
This practice however was not universal in the early Church and, in fact, most Baptisms were of adults. We hear of a number of famous saints like Augustine and Jerome who despite having Christian parents, waited until they were adults. What is clear though is that if at any point a child was in danger of death, they would be baptized immediately. They all agreed that baptism was necessary for salvation and that it was the means b which all sins were forgiven. What they did not agree upon however is what to do when someone sinned gravely after Baptism. They were well aware of the Sacrament of Confession (see for example Didache, 15 ~AD60), but they did not know how many times someone could receive the Sacrament. Was it once, twice, as many times as a person sins, or what? There were rigorists (like Tertullian for example), especially in the 3rd and 4th Century, who thought you could go at most once. Therefore, a practice of delaying Baptism began to become the norm.
In other words, the development of the doctrine of infant baptism depended upon the development of the doctrine of Confession. Once this was worked out, by the 5th Century however we see a concurrent movement towards infant baptism being the norm. Those children that were baptized as infants would however have to answer for their faith. The great Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem imply that these children are among his audience (c.f. Cat XV, 18).
Sola Fide and The Sacrament of Baptism
This leads to the second way in which this discussion acts as a” test case” in confronting the second sola, namely Sola Fide. We must first admit that no one, until we get to the 16th Century ever believed in Sola Fide. The Early Church on the other hand always believed that Baptism was necessary for salvation. Just like Baptism, faith is, by all accounts, necessary for salvation. It is the relationship between the two that is at the heart of this part of the discussion.
Faith, for the Protestant, is always reflexive. Whatever the believer believes is so. If he believes he is saved, then he is saved. If he believes he is forgiven, then he is forgiven. If he believes that Communion really is the Body of Christ, then it is. If he believes then he shows that belief by being baptized. In this construct there is no need for the Sacraments and they can safely be replaced by faith. Faith, not the Sacraments, is the efficient cause of God’s actions.
This is problematic because faith then becomes a work by which we are saved. This is the ironic part of the discussion because it is usually the Catholic that is accused of a “works-based righteousness.” But Catholics are very clear that salvation, and all the is necessary for achieving it, are pure gifts. In other words, baptism from the Catholic viewpoint is not a sign of faith, but a cause of it. Saving faith is not believing you are saved, but believing all that God has revealed. It is baptism that infuses this habit into us and thus it is necessary if we are to be saved. “It is,” St. Peter says, “baptism that saves you” (1Peter 3:21).
In conclusion, we can see that Infant Baptism carries with it a number of principles that are absolutely necessary to grasp if we are to advance the discussion of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. It offers an example of how Scripture is often pitted against Tradition and Faith against the Sacraments. Only by developing a proper understanding of the issue can we begin to talk about it.