10.01.2015 Views

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

HOGG: SCHLEIERMACHER’S DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM 21<br />

damnamus of Augustana IX. He holds that fellowship with the Baptists<br />

would be possible provided they recognise that infant Baptism is not<br />

absolutely invalid “when supplemented by confirmation”. 29<br />

As implied earlier, for Schleiermacher the normal candidate for<br />

Baptism was the adult; thus he had to explain whence came the custom of<br />

paedobaptism. He lists four reasons for infant Baptism’s appearance in the<br />

life of the church:<br />

1. The desire to include Christian children who had died before the age<br />

of instruction in the people of God.<br />

2. To make the church more responsible for the children of parents<br />

unable to implement congregational obligations.<br />

3. To separate Christian youth from Jewish and pagan youth.<br />

4. The comfort that children thus brought would not miss the Spirit’s<br />

nurturing care. 30<br />

He finds no biblical ground for infant Baptism, and says in a practical way<br />

that it should be the decision of each household whether to baptise their<br />

children or wait until they were older.<br />

Moving on to consider paedobaptism from the sphere of the<br />

individual’s relationship to God, Schleiermacher denies that infants have<br />

faith.<br />

… infant baptism is the same as any other baptism which has erroneously<br />

been imparted prior to the full faith of the person baptised and yet is<br />

valid; only, its proper efficacy is suspended until the person baptised has<br />

really become a believer. 31<br />

This again points out what has been noted before, that Schleiermacher<br />

denies that infants can believe. And why can children not believe The<br />

answer is tied up with Schleiermacher’s view of both sin and grace as<br />

conscious states in man. Indeed, original sin itself cannot be viewed as<br />

resulting from the sin of Adam and Eve; Schleiermacher focuses in on the<br />

sociological side of original sin, 32 children lacking consciousness of Godforgetfulness<br />

and the consciousness of its being solved in the Redeemer:<br />

... [J]ust as we cannot suppose that before baptism children are subject to<br />

misery due to a consciousness of sin which is growing into penitence, we<br />

cannot after baptism ascribe to them blessedness due to a dawning sense<br />

of divine sonship. 33<br />

29 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith 638.<br />

30 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, summary of pages 634-35.<br />

31 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith 636.<br />

32 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith 282ff., 292.<br />

33 Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith 635.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!