The Nature of Baptism and the Fate of Unbaptized Children

 

As the element of air conveys the Word to the ear in preaching, and as the element of light conveys the Word to the eye in reading, so the element of water conveys the Word to the body in baptism. Whether via the ear, the eye, or the body, which is to say through preaching, reading, and baptism, the Word of God is efficacious unto regeneration and new life.

BUT THE QUESTION might be raised: I can see how air and light in this example each convey linguistic information, but how does baptism do this, too? I don't know how it would, unless one includes the baptismal formula. But even if that is the case, how can it be effective in the same way as the other two?

That’s a good and important question. Martin Luther puts it well in his Small Catechism when he writes, "Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word."

So here we see the water is tied together with linguistic content, i.e. Trinitarian signification, and so becomes a baptismal "water-word." Its capacity to be bound up with signification makes it the communication and application of its specified meaning. The communication of meaning, as we know, can take many forms.

Luther further asks and answers, "How can water do such great things?

"Certainly not just water, but the word of God in and with the water does these things, along with the faith which trusts this word of God in the water. For without God’s word the water is plain water and no Baptism."

So, essential to baptism is both its linguistic content and the water. And because of the water's signified connection with the Trinitarian invocation, the linguistic content becomes inclusive of the water.

There is an analogy when a king is crowned, where the setting of the crown on his head (otherwise just a fancy head cover), together with the ministerial naming, makes the ministerial action of crowning part and parcel of the linguistic act of his being named king. Similarly, the ministerial application of water together with the Trinitarian Name makes it a baptism.

SOMEONE MIGHT FURTHER ASK: What if those who administer baptism are unworthy in some way, say through major sin or unbelief? Could we still conceive of this as a valid baptism? What's the Lutheran take on this?

To answer, we would certainly affirm that it is the Word of God that is what is efficacious in the divine act of holy Baptism, not the virtue or faith (or lack thereof) of the one who administers. In the case of an infant, at least one of the presenters (whether biological parent or legal guardian) is to be a Christian. As regards cognitive capacity, with an infant we believe that the Water-Word of holy Baptism does give and work faith in the infant.

One way to understand this is through the distinction between a simple or directive faith, on the one hand, and a self-aware or reflexive (reflective) faith, on the other. For example, an infant can recognize in a simple, non-reflective way who his parents are, and this just is a kind of faith. When they cry for food or a diaper change, they in some very simple way trust that their cry will be heard. When they see their mother or father, they will often grow calm. Similarly, an infant can, in a simple, non-reflective way, recognize Jesus as Lord (e.g. Psalm 8:2; Psalm 22:9; Luke 1:15, 41; Acts 2:39). We might add that this principle addresses those with mental disabilities as well, or any persons who are incapable of reflexive cognition.

A FURTHER QUESTION could be posed regarding the statement above, commenting on this statement: “One of the administers, parent or legal, is to be a Christian.” But if it is not the case that a parent or guardian is a Christian, then what happens if the child were to pass away prior to a proper baptism? Is he damned for all eternity for something that is of no fault of his making? 

There are at least a couple lines of thought at work in this question. To the first line of thought, it is not the case that the Confessional Lutheran position is that all unbaptized infants are necessarily damned. For example, in the 3rd Volume of his "Christian Dogmatics" (the approved dogmatics textbook of the LCMS), Francis Pieper - who was CFW Walther’s protégée and successor - wrote in the section, "The Necessity of Baptism," that:

"Baptism is not a matter of choice (an adiaphoron), but a divine ordinance; still one may not assert an absolute necessity of Baptism or say that no one can obtain remission of sins and be saved without baptism" (p. 280).

He continues, showing the consistency of this view with the orthodox Lutheran Fathers when he points out that "Quenstedt writes at some length against an absolute necessity of Baptism..." (pp. 280-281). Moreover: 

"Luther and the Lutheran theologians... teach that while faith in the remission of sins purchased by Christ, or regeneration, is absolutely necessary, Baptism is not absolutely necessary, since this faith, or regeneration, can be brought about also by the Word of the Gospel alone" (p. 281).

Lastly, the LCMS website quotes Pieper when he states: 

"There is some basis for the hope that God has a method, not revealed to us, by which He works faith in the children of Christians dying without Baptism (Mark 10:13-16). For children of unbelievers we do not venture to hold out such hope. We are here entering the field of the unsearchable judgments of God” (Rom. 11:33). 

And one note worth making regarding the immediately foregoing quote is that, although we do not positively assert the hope that the children of non-Christians are saved, we do not positively deny its possibility, either, for the simple reason that it is possible that the Word of God has somehow reached them and created faith in their hearts by that means. For it is entirely possible that God's Word of Promise could effectually reach them in some providential fashion unknown to us (say a baby lying in a stroller parked within earshot of Christians sharing the Gospel to the baby's unbelieving parents). In short, the Confessional Lutheran Church does not so tie Baptism to salvation that salvation is impossible without it.

The foregoing sentiment is conveyed by the orthodox Lutheran Father, Johann Gerhard when he states: 

"We make a distinction between the little children who are born within heathendom outside the Christian Church and the children born of Christian parents, who are born within the encircling wall of the Church. Concerning the former, we say with St. Paul 1 Corinthians 5:12 - 'For what do I have to do with those who are outside, that I should judge them? Do you not judge those who are inside? But God will judge those who are outside'" ("A Comprehensive Explanation of Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper," p. 176). 

In other words, we do not as a dogmatic position deny the possibility that God, by some means known to Himself alone, may cause His Word savingly to reach the child of unbelieving parents, for the Atonement is for all, as the Apostle Peter teaches: 

“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

To the second line of thought, I would question, however, the assertion made that infants aren't guilty of sin at birth, for that assertion would be tantamount to saying that Christ didn't die for infants, if in fact infants are intrinsically righteous. But we know that Christ dies for all, including infants, because all are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). In short, Jesus is the hope of infants, too, and the idea that they aren't sinners and so don't need salvation takes away the hope of their Savior, as if they could stand before God clothed in their own righteousness. For Christ died for sinners, and none are righteous. It would therefore be tragic to take away that hope from infants.

Moreover, we do not become sinners by sinning, but sin because we are first sinners, and that is so at the first moments of our life (Psalm 51:5). In fact, "the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22; cf. Romans 3:9-20). The truth, according to Confessional Lutheran teaching, is that infants can believe.

The objective biblical proof that infants are born culpable of sin is the fact of their mortality, for mortality is caused by sin alone. The sin woven into the warp and weft of the heart of infants is even manifested in their earliest behaviors. 

Being born in Adam means that we all were united by nature in solidarity with him in his sin and Fall from original righteousness (Romans 5:12). This points to the significance of the fact that in Christ we partake of both His sinlessness and His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). The imputation of Christ's righteousness forms a counter-parallel to the imputation of Adam's unrighteousness, and infants are born into the faith of Adam's nature and so need the Gift of faith given in the Gospel no less than adults. 

In conclusion, it is clear that the Confessional Lutheran teaching, including that of the LCMS, is not that unbaptized children are necessarily damned, especially those children of believing parents.