1. Infants inherit original sin and thus need salvation.
2. Throughout the history of the church several means have been proposed by which the work of salvation can be applied to infants: baptism, salvation for (elect?) infants who die, a gift of adult-like rationality to understand propositional statements about the gospel.
3. The Scriptural, theological, and church traditional support for the baptism of infants is greater than the other proposed means.
4. In order to reject infant baptism as a means by which the work of salvation can be applied to infants, one must choose one of the competing alternatives with less support or propose a new alternative with more overall support.
5. A new alternative would lack church traditional support and would most likely lack Scriptural, theological support.
Conclusion: Therefore, infant baptism enjoys the greatest support as a means for the salvation of infants.
I suspect that those who disagree with the conclusion will most likely challenge the third premise. Or perhaps they could simply deny premise one. Another option would be to argue that I haven’t included all the traditionally proposed means in premise two. For a real stretch, they could deny premise five. But I think that denying any of these is a tough road to hoe. I’m interested to hear objections to the premises or the logic that connects them. Any takers?
Hey John, I don’t know if you remember me, but I was in your youth group at what was then Baptist Bible Church in Elkton way back when. Chaos? Interesting handle.
Now that the re-introductions are out of the way, I’m going to have to disagree with this post, primarily on the grounds of premise one.
It’s true to a point, that infants inherit original sin, but I think you and I have different views on what original sin means. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that inheriting original sin is a sin in and of itself, thus condemning the infant in question to Hell, should they not be given some means of salvation. I personally believe that original sin merely infects us with a sin NATURE, which, in this case means that while the infant does indeed have sin nature, he or she is, after all, just a baby, and incapable of reasoned decision making. Sin is, I believe (and I think Scripture supports this idea) the WILLFUL breaking of the law of God. Infants can’t willfully do anything, hence until the reach the age where they can understand their sin and, by extension, their need of a Saviour are they in any danger of Hell when they die. God does not judge the innocent or the ignorant.
So yeah, tell me what you think. Now that I’ve found this blog I’ll probably start haunting odd articles here and there in the late hours of the night.
~Isaac out
Isaac,
Of course I remember you.
On the matter of original sin, you are defining it in a way that is not what is ever meant by original sin. Original sin is not simply the doctrine that we inherit a sin nature but also that we inherit the guilt of Adam. This is what the doctrine has taught for nearly 1,500 years. Scripture teaches this too. Romans 5:19 says, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners…”
By the way, sin isn’t just the willful breaking of God’s law. In Acts 3:17 Peter calls those who put Christ to death to repent even though he acknowledges that they did it in ignorance, that is, they didn’t know what they were doing was sinful. Leviticus 5:18 makes a distinction for sins committed in ignorance or without intention but they are still sins that must be atoned for. So where does Scripture teach (as you say) that sin is the willful breaking of the law of God?
Also, I think you are selling infants short if you think they don’t have wills. They do plenty of things willfully. They eat, they smile, they reach for things. These are all acts of the will.
I’m interested to know your thoughts in response.
how exactly is salvation a result of ones baptism…paul seems to indicate it works the other direction. just a thought.
Andrew,
To say how EXACTLY salvation is a result of one’s baptism is a long answer, but an answer worth giving. If you are truly interested in my answer you can look at a paper I wrote on this subject in the “Online Papers” at the top of the page.
Where does Paul say that baptism is the result of one’s salvation? In Romans 6, Paul says that we have been buried with Christ in baptism and been united with him in baptism. This is as clear a text as any that what we have in Christ comes to us through baptism.
John,
I’m not an expert in logic but if one of the premises and your conclusion contain the same conclusion, is not the premise begging the question? Premise three assumes the truth of your conclusion and offers no further proof for it leading to a bit of circularity. It is as debatable as your conclusion. If you are appealing to premise three as an axiom, perhaps you could get around this fallacy, but of course premise three is only axiomatic in your context, not mine. Therefore, you need to include reasons under premise three to support it. Baptists will disagree with those reasons for the reasons they do: (1) the gap in the evidence for infant baptism in the second century of the church’s history and that same evidence is read as incompatible with paedobaptism, (2) the biblical-theological arguments usually conclude that the church consists of individual baptized confessors and this conclusion is incompatible with paedobaptism, (3) and the implausibility of the theological argument(s) for infant baptism based on the covenant of grace or the unique fallen nature of the infant, which can only receive and not reject (do you still hold this?).
Thus baptists would already be making a plausibility case for one of the alternatives, but you might want to include the “agnostic” alternative for those who simply don’t think there is enough evidence to solve this question from Scripture in a way that speaks to every individual infant fatality (May God do right).
In your own estimation, do you think premise three is the linch-pin to your argument, the one premise which holds the rest of the argument in tact?
You are saved by grace through faith lest any man boast. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Baptism saves no one
It is interesting how easily we dismiss clear Biblical language for evangelical rhetoric. Of course baptism saves! Peter says so; he even says it in this manner: “baptism saves.” (I Peter 3:21). You may argue that it saves only in one sense and not another…I grant you that. But that it saves is undeniable.
Further, this separation between faith and infants is atrocious. Infants express faith from their mother’s breasts (Psalm 22:9). Again you may say that was hyperbolic language from David or you may say David was a unique example. Well, if either, then prove it Biblically!
Infants express the faith of an infant; the faith that was sufficient to inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:14). As James Jordan writes “every baptism is an infant baptism.” Whether one is an adult or an infant, they are both in the infancy of their Christian lives.
Further reading: see Rich Lusk’s Paedofaith
On Matthew Sniff’s point, he is absolutely correct. Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This is exactly why my baptized 14 month old daughter hears the gospel every Lord’s Day and throughout the week.
John,
There are several ways to tell if the conclusion is contained in one of the premises. But this method will suffice: if someone can accept the premise in question and not be logically required to accept the conclusion, then the premise does not contain the conclusion. In the case of the premise in question, one could accept the third premise and deny the conclusion. Premise three states that infant baptism has more biblical, theological, and church traditional support than the common alternatives. The conclusion states something different, namely, that it has the most support over all the other possible positions. So someone could agree to the third premise but think that I either left out one common alternative or that there’s some uncommon alternative for the salvation of infants that has better support.
You present three reasons why a Baptist could not grant me my third premise. But none of those reasons relate to the question of whether infant baptism as a saving means of grace has more support than the other alternatives to the salvation of infants. The argument isn’t an argument for whose view of baptism is better. It’s an argument for whose view of the salvation of infants is better. And the argument says that the case for infant baptism has more going for it than the common alternatives and possible alternatives do. This is something that I think a Baptist could agree with. I suppose that when I was a Baptist I could’ve agreed with this. I, like many Baptists, never found much support in Scripture for the salvation of infants who die, nor for the belief that an infant can possess adult-like reasoning powers. So I can see a Baptist agreeing with this. There are several ways out of the argument: 1) deny that infants don’t need salvation, 2) agree that infants need salvation, but deny that they can be saved, 3) show a really good argument for one of the alternatives.
Someone recently suggested in conversation that agnosticism about the whole infant-saving business or agnosticism about the means of saving infants is a possible position. This is true, but it’s not a position about how infants can be saved. So while they are possible positions, neither of these agnostic positions require a denial of the conclusion nor how I reached it since the conclusion states that infant baptism has the most support among the available views of how infants may be saved.
So you’ve got three ways out of the argument, which one do you prefer? Note: admiting that the argument is sound and valid doesn’t mean you have to agree to paedobaptism.
“Further, this separation between faith and infants is atrocious. Infants express faith from their mother’s breasts (Psalm 22:9). Again you may say that was hyperbolic language from David or you may say David was a unique example. Well, if either, then prove it Biblically!”
You’ve anticipated two objections to your agrument from Ps 22:9, but have not offered a response to those objections. Make a case for taking 22:9 as being normative to every infant ever born. I would be interested in seeing where you’d go with this.
Tory
John,
3. The Scriptural, theological, and church traditional support for the baptism of infants is greater than the other proposed means.
Conclusion: Therefore, infant baptism enjoys the greatest support as a means for the salvation of infants.
I’m still stuck on how the conclusion is not a simple restatement of premise three and contained therein. You use the comparative “greater” in premise three and superlative “greatest” in the conclusion to describe “support.” Besides this linguistic difference which amounts to the same meaning, I see no difference between these statements. Are you equivocating on the word “support.” In premise three it refers to the only possible lines of evidence or support, namely, Scripture, theology, and history. What do you mean by support in the conclusion? If you intend these same lines of evidence, I see no substantive difference between this premise and the conclusion. If you intend a different meaning of the word support in the conclusion then perhaps your conclusion is not assumed in premise three, but then I don’t know what you mean in your conclusion.
Sorry for my thick headedness here, but could you try to spell out for me again?
John,
The third premise only states that baptism has more support than the salvation of infants who die and the gift of adult-like rationality to an infant. It only claims that baptism has more support than these two competing means of salvation.
But the conclusion claims that baptism has the greatest support out all available means of salvation (which includes those two mentioned in the third premise and any others that one could come up with besides these two).
The third premise has a narrow scope and the conclusion a wide scope. This means that the third premise is contained in the conclusion but there’s no logical problem there. Plenty of valid and sound conclusions contain one or more premises.
I can’t do better than to explain it the way I have.
As for the merits of the third premise, if you reject it, do you do so because you think one of the other views besides infant baptism has as much as, or better, support? Or is it a false trilemma because I didn’t include some other traditional explanation that you’re thinking of for the salvation of infants that has better support than the others?
John –
Thanks for the clarification. Do you think there is a way you can rephrase the syllogism which will make premise three less debatable than the conclusion? Your other premises accomplish this, so I’m only stuck on the third. I guess there are other arguments in which one or more premises are included in the conclusion, but if this is the case, these arguments open themselves up to the same criticism.
Regarding your last question, I find the argument not as much dirty as messy. It’s probably because I don’t think in syllogisms on a regular basis, but this format does not allow for the terms to be defined and thus I find it messy. In particular, you state “church tradition” as support for a means of infant salvation, treating it as a monolithic entity. However, I know that you know that the church has not agreed on this matter all through the ages. The church has certainly not agreed on HOW baptism saves an infant, which you alluded to in one of the comments above. Rather than state church tradition in premise three, you might consider abolishing premise three altogether and making separate premises, each stating the exact import of support from Scripture, theology, and church tradition. Until a step like this is done, it’s a challenge for me to weigh the merits of premise three.
Furthermore, the syllogism depends on a view of baptism that not all hold to. I’m more open to an efficacious baptism than some of the above commentators, but not a salvific baptism apart from faith. I’m not sure where you are on the question today, so I can’t make an assumption. Include another premise which makes clear your view of this.
Last, do you consider the means that you list as competing means of infant salvation? It seems to me that Lutherans still hold to the salvation of the infant, if it dies before its baptism. Is that right? Do Lutherans do this simply with less biblical and theological and traditional support?
“Do you think there is a way you can rephrase the syllogism which will make premise three less debatable than the conclusion?”
John, this statement inclines me to think that you’re still missing the connection between the third premise and the conclusion. The third premise is already less debatable than the conclusion because the conclusion makes a wider claim than the third premise. I will, in a moment, try to clarify the argument but it won’t be a substantive difference.
“Your other premises accomplish this, so I’m only stuck on the third.”
No inductive argument will ever make a multi-level syllogism with premises that would find equal agreement among all people. Even if I satisfied your request and formulated the argument so that you found each premise equally acceptable. There will be others who won’t find them this way. As I stated in my post, I expected that the third premise would be the most objectionable. The argument isn’t meant to force anyone to accept infant baptism. If I thought it could do that, then I’d have much too high a view of my abilities and much too low a view of everyone else’s. So I’m afraid that most arguments produced in this world are going to fail the expectations you have for the one I presented here.
I think part of your reason for finding the argument messy is due to the way in which you still seem to see this as a comparison of paedobaptism with credobaptism, taking me to conclude that paedobaptism is the clear winner. The trouble is that I no where mention credobaptism in the argument. It is only a claim about competing views of how infants can be saved.
You seem to miss this when you object to my claim that church tradition favors infant baptism as the means of infant salvation. I grant that infant baptism was not as developed in the early centuries of the church as it was, say, by the time of Nicea (though, as you are probably aware, we don’t agree on the extent to which it was held and practiced in the first three centuries). But I can only repeat, when I speak of church tradition’s favor of infant baptism, I am not comparing it with church tradition’s acceptance of credobaptism. I’m comparing it with two other candidates for the salvation of infants: giving a free pass to elect infants upon death; and a divine gift of adult-like rationality to accept propositions about the gospel. Since these are the only alternatives which I am aware of for the salvation of infants in the course of church history, I think it is pretty uncontroversial that infant baptism is the clear winner as a means of salvation for infants – even in the early church. If you are in doubt of that, I have neither time for nor interest in convincing you of that. I think most people, regardless of tradition will grant this with me.
“Rather than state church tradition in premise three, you might consider abolishing premise three altogether and making separate premises, each stating the exact import of support from Scripture, theology, and church tradition.”
For those, such as yourself, not inclined to give me an inch, yes, I would need to do that kind of work to take it beyond the quick and dirty stage. But not everyone is so skeptical and I think many people (baptist and non-baptist) would grant that there’s more of a case that can be made for infant baptism (of whatever tradition you would like to choose) from Scripture, theology, and church tradition than the other two alternatives.
For those, such as yourself, not inclined to grant that, I am at present without time to say much more than I have. The argument, admittedly relies on the assumption that a better argument can be made for infant baptism than those other two views. As I say, feel free to reject it, but for those Baptists who are inclined to accept it, the argument will have merit.
One way of perhaps beginning to see the point is to notice that many people who hold to the salvation-upon-death view will admit that there aren’t many places in Scripture that they have to turn to in support but that they find it almost unimaginable that God would send an infant to hell. By contrast, you don’t see the same kind of admission from those who hold to infant baptism. They tend to make a much supported argument from Scripture.
“Furthermore, the syllogism depends on a view of baptism that not all hold to. I’m more open to an efficacious baptism than some of the above commentators, but not a salvific baptism apart from faith. I’m not sure where you are on the question today, so I can’t make an assumption. Include another premise which makes clear your view of this.”
For the sake of argument, let’s just restrict the view of baptism to what you know of my own view from the last we discussed it. With this in mind, I say that there’s much more of a case that can be made for this view than for the two alternatives.
“Last, do you consider the means that you list as competing means of infant salvation? “
They aren’t necessarily idealogically competitive. One could hold to a salvation-upon-death view and a regenerational baptism view, but the argument is simply that if you are committed to the salvation of infants and think God is too, then here are your three options. Infant baptism has more support than the other two. If you don’t like those options then you’ve got to offer a new option, but doing so will put your view at a severe disadvantage. So it seems that infant baptism has the most advantage over the other arguments.
I think it’s the kind of argument that people could see the merit of, while I recognize (and expected) that people, such as yourself, wouldn’t grant me so much in the third premise.
“It seems to me that Lutherans still hold to the salvation of the infant, if it dies before its baptism. Is that right? Do Lutherans do this simply with less biblical and theological and traditional support?”
I suspect that you’d find Lutherans all over the map on this. But in terms of what’s in our confessional documents, baptism is the only means that is promoted as the means of salvation for infants. I think most Lutheran theologians would say, as I do, that infant baptism is the means of salvation for infants that has the most going for it, while saying that salvation for unbaptized infants upon death is not without some support. It just doesn’t have as much support as infant baptism. Since Scripture is pretty silent on the matter, I prefer to take an agnostic stance.
I suspect you take an agnostic stance generally about the salvation of infants. I do not take an agnostic stance, and yet I can recognize that it is a more reasonable and biblically-defensible position than several positions on how infants are saved. Likewise, I think someone can hold an agnostic view and still acknowledge that among the three non-agnostic options, infant baptism (particularly my view, if you need more substance) has more going for it than the other two…even if the argument is made by a bête noire.
John,
I curious to know what you think would happen to an infant who is baptized, goes through confirmation and learns the creeds, then grows up to deny Christ. Will that 50 year old unbeliever be saved because he was baptized as an infant? Do you believe there are different stages in one’s accountability to the gospel? I have not yet made up my mind regarding the validity of infant baptism, and have not yet read all of your paper on the issue. If the preceding questions can be answered by my finishing your paper, please feel free to say so. Otherwise, I’m curious what you think.
Grace and peace.
Chris,
I do address the question in my paper on baptism, but not in great detail.
“Will that 50 year old unbeliever be saved because he was baptized as an infant?”
If we ask, will God grant the person final salvation because he only regards his infant baptism and ignores his final denial of Christ?, then I say no, and confessional Lutheran theology has consistently said no to this as well.
However, if we ask, will the person be saved because God will use his infant baptism to draw him to himself and turn him from away from his rejection of Christ?, then I think this question has a more positive answer. Perhaps. If that 50 year-old believer is finally saved it will be because of his baptism. That is, he will be saved because of the fruitful faith that his baptism bore — even if borne late. This is the proper way in which he will be saved by his baptism.
So what do we say in the meantime about an infant who has been baptized who may very well grow up and die in denial of the faith? I think we say the same thing about this infant that we say about an adult who confesses Christ: until we have good reason to think that he doesn’t believe, we should presume in favor of the power of the gospel of grace (whether in baptism or in the preached word) which he has received.
It may turn out that the infant will grow up to deny Christ, but it also may turn out that the church-going, currently-confessing, Sunday-School-teaching, baptized adult will deny Christ as well, but that future possibility shouldn’t keep us from treating either of them as believers until then.
I never count someone’s baptism as ineffectual — even Christopher Hitchens’ baptism. God may yet use it as a means to bring him to faith. But even if he doesn’t. We can’t say that his baptism was ineffectual. Baptism is never without effect. It can be a means of salvation, but it can also be a means of damnation. There is an alien work of baptism. That is, it may be a means of God’s judgment against a person. Baptism is grace shown to a person, and if it is final despised, then that person is further judged for despising that grace. This is commensurate with what we should say about any rejection of grace. When people hear the gospel and finally reject it, we rightly think of them as accountable for what they have heard, and under further condemnation for it. The same is true of baptism. In neither case does God’s word return to him void.
Perhaps I’ll turn this subject into a post sometime. I’m also considering writing a more condensed version of my paper. I think people are interested in hearing about the Lutheran view of baptism, but lose patience with the length of the paper as it stands. I originally wrote it in response to several Southern Seminary students and professors who were quite critical of my decision to join the Lutheran church. The result was that many of them backed off of criticizing my decision over the differences between Baptist and Lutheran views of baptism and moved to other differences.
Thanks, John. As always you have left me with much to ponder. Such is the nature of Chaos.