By directive of the late John Paul II, a Catholic committee is now reexamining the doctrine of "Limbo" - i.e., perceived place or state somewhat between heaven and hell reserved for infants having died prior to baptism. Given the necessity of being "born of water" (John 3:5, here understood as denoting baptism), the issue has long presented something of a dilemma.
Lacking specific biblical pronouncement on the subject, St. Augustine proposed that since the kingdom cannot be entered apart from baptism, unbaptized infants are necessarily consigned to hell on the basis of original sin - although, given the absence of willful sinfulness, theirs is a considerably mitigated state.
Augustine's thesis has not always satisfied everyone, however. In more recent times, Catholic understanding has often tended to view the unbaptized infant's state in terms of a positive existence, albeit apart from God's presence and realization of redemptive provision. Again, not all would agree. Thus the late Pontiff's interest in reconsidering the issue, particularly "in the light of God's grace."
This is not to say that the rest of us have always handled the question well. We recall a fellow pastor who, upon being advised that definitive scriptural detail regarding deceased infants might prove somewhat elusive, appeared a bit perturbed by both the suggestion and his inability to demonstrate otherwise - particularly in terms of the position to which he subscribed.
Is the unbaptized (or from an Evangelical/Fundamentalist perspective, "unconverted") infant lost? In terms of the question at large, we submit the following:
Under Old Testament dispensation, circumcision represented the physical act whereby one entered into identity with the covenant community. By divine order, the rite was administered on the eighth day of an infant male's life. One of David's sons died on the seventh day. Did David perceive his son to be in perdition? No. He rather envisioned a day of reunion with his son (II Sam. 12:23).
By definition, meaningful baptism is to constitute more than mere legalistic routine. Its significance lies in the physical act of commitment to Christian faith and identity (ask the Christian convert in any fundamentalist Islamic society). Given such, the fulfilling of baptismal requirement or any other prescribed observance of faith necessarily involves one's ability to comply. Paul underscores this point in relation to giving. The generous will reap abundantly; those of a miserly spirit will reap sparingly (II Cor. 9:6), while those lacking the means to give will find acceptance on the basis of their willingness to do so: "If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted" (II Cor. 8:12).
Within this frame of reference, the thief on the cross found acceptance despite not having been baptized. Somewhat similarly, we recall a lady who, at the age of ninety-six, made profession of faith in Christ. She desired baptism. Although serving a congregation that practiced baptism by immersion, the fact was that such here represented a practical impossibility. We baptized her by aspersion. Even should immersion be proven the preferable form, was her baptism then acceptable to the heavenly Father? Of course. "If there be first a willing mind..."
Finally, what of the infant or small child? While lacking a necessary capacity for meaningful comprehension or response associated with baptism (e.g., faith and repentance, Mark 16:16; John 3:36; Acts 2:38; 8:36,37, etc.), the "little ones" are nonetheless acknowledged and represented before the Father in heaven (Matt. 18:10).
We would view the late John Paul II's emphasis on "God's grace" at this point a step in the right direction. It will prove interesting to see where it all leads.
Burl Ratzsch
