Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 12
July 14, 1960
NUMBER 10, PAGE 8

Beyond The Horizons

By Wm. E. Wallace, Box 399, McAlester, Oklahoma

Miscarriage Baptism

Roman Catholic Canon Law teaches that "In every case of miscarriage no matter at what state of pregnancy, the fetus must be baptized." This matter is of such consequence and gravity in Roman Catholic dogma as to create great concern among devout Catholic couples. They are instructed what to do in case of miscarriage, and if the miscarriage happens at home the Catholic is obligated to seek for the fetus in the extravagate mass and "baptize" it in conformity to Roman Catholic teaching. This obligation comes before "making the mother comfortable" and before "notifying the doctor"! What happens if there is a failure to "baptize" the fetus? "When a fetus dies without baptism through no one's fault, it is not a great tragedy. It will live forever in Limbo and have every ounce of natural happiness of which it is capable." (The Family Digest, September 1959, page 15).

In discussing this matter with Catholics one will find that the Catholic will be inclined to argue the doctrine regarding whether or not the soul is imparted at the time of conception. But that sort of approach does not get to the crux of the matter. The argumentation should center around the authority for infant baptism, and around the authority for the doctrine of inherited or original sin.

The doctrine of the baptism of the fetus is an example of how far and how extreme false teaching goes. Once the devil put the idea of original sin in the apostate church, the practice of infant baptism became inevitable. From infant baptism the Catholics went to the extreme of fetus baptism. The doctrine charges Catholics with a grave responsibility toward the fetus or embryo.

Besides the absence of Biblical authority for the doctrine, we have historical and logical reasons to deny the validity of the contention. In the early apostate church there was much confusion and division over the matter. Some contended that the baby should be baptized on the eighth day, others the third day, and there were differences over whether or not to baptize the unborn and the stillborn. But the doctrine of the universality of original sin misdirected the gospel of Christ to individuals and organisms which are absolutely unable to grasp it and cannot be subject to its requirements.

When the Catholics are led away from their traditions and challenged for Bible proof of the doctrine of infant and fetus baptism, they argue in a manner quite unbecoming to the nature of the infallibility which is claimed for the Roman Catholics Church. Their appeal to the scripture is the same fallacious inference made by other pedobaptists: "If it be said that there is no example of the baptism of infants to be found in the Holy Writ, we may answer that infants are included in such phrases as: 'She was baptized and her household' (Acts 16:15); 'Himself was baptized, and all his house immediately' (Acts 16:33);

I baptized the household of Stephanus' (I Cor. 1:16)." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, page 270).

Now when talking of a modern pope's household they would contend that infants are not included, yet they infer that the households mentioned above had children or infants when none are mentioned! Infallibility indeed. Their approach to the idea of original sin is based on the same kind of inferences — fallacious ones.

Is Fundamentalism Fundamental?

What is now referred to as fundamentalism is not exactly the same thing as fundamentalism used to be. There are certain modifications in present day fundamentalism which would have shocked the fundamentalists of 50 years ago. The terminology used by the fundamentalists today is somewhat the same as was used 50 years ago, but the terms have been redefined, adjusted and made to appear in a different setting. There was a time when fundamentalism vigorously affirmed the doctrine which liberalism questioned or rejected. It proclaimed the verbal inspiration and absolute inerrancy of the Bible. It was militant and critical. It represented a "determined effort to retain the transcendent element of the historic faith."

Denominational fundamentalism has never been quite fundamental enough to accept the full meaning of "speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent where the Bible is silent." It has not been inclined to accept the command-example-necessary inference" approach to Bible authority. While it has upheld the virgin birth, the atonement and the resurrection, it has waved aside worshipping "in spirit and in truth", it has neglected absolute local church autonomy, and it has forsaken the covenant requirements in salvation.

Fundamentalism today is less fundamental than it used to be and thus it is more tolerant to error than it used to be. There is enough difference between fundamentalism and New Testament orthodoxy today as to allow the fundamentalists to refer to us as "legalists". While fundamentalism retains much of its opposition to theological liberalism it finds itself in the stream of a "new orthodoxy". Fundamentalism today will speak of the inerrant nature of the Bible, but it means inerrant up to a point. It will continue to emphasize various doctrines like the virgin birth and the resurrection but will at the same time be inclined to shirk responsibilities in particulars related to individual and church obligations. Fundamentalists are divided into conservative and liberal fundamentalists. And the classification are determined by what or how many fundamentals are accepted or rejected.

In general fundamentalism is a confused picture. It remains for members of the Lord's church to steer away from theological and ecclesiastical movements and walk according to the principle of I Peter 4:11.