I still think the business of God judging individuals, and expelling from his gathering those who have not had met in themselves the requirements for fellowship with God, throws a wet blanket over the notion that the faith of others can make effective the baptism of infants. It’s the same reason I don’t like it when Mormons “baptize” the dead, or when Catholics use their indulgences to save others from Purgatory.

“Night and day we pray most earnestly that we may see you again and supply what is lacking in your faith.”
1 Thessalonians 3:10

At first glance, this appears to suggest that, perhaps, the faith of one person can be employed in some form of substitutionary role for the lack therof in another. However, this isn’t the only instance of Paul using this language, and such an interpretation becomes problematic:

“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”
-Colossians 1:24

Is Paul suggesting here that somehow Christ’s death on the cross was somehow an insufficient atonement, and that he has some ability to make up for it? This really doesn’t make much sense, given that several lines earlier, he said:

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”
-1 Colossians 1:19-20

I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader ;-) to piece together the argument, but what I think Paul is ‘making up for’ here on Jesus’ behalf is a physical, material presence. Now, if you go back and look at the Thessalonians verse, you’ll see that the same interpretation makes for a pleasingly parsimonious explanation of that usage as well.

The point being, a congregation can happily provide a physical manifestation for God’s love and presence towards an infant, but I see no reason to believe that the faith of friends and family provisions an occasion to baptize one with no concept of sin or redemption.

The modern church, at least a part of it, is struggling to extricate itself from a culture that has deified individual choice and freedom, and rightly so. Our individualist cultural assumptions are not a particularly good framework for interpreting scripture written by and for members of a communalist society. However, it seems that at times we are a bit over-eager to attribute the processes worked in individual biblical figures to communal decision making.

Any miracle going on in the baptismal act would be their affiliation with the body of Christ (which can be undone) quite apart from recognizing a prior miracle pre-baptism (which often appears dubious and thus un”recognized” in retrospect).

The attempt to keep baptism super-natural or un-normal is used to exclude the natural family and works against what we normally see occurring.

I just recently read about Luther’s view in Oberman’s book (Between God and the Devil); I think you nail it.

But, when you say:

I think one could still talk about a “credo baptism” (though I would want to discuss what that might mean) that still allows for infants, mentally disabled, and others to be baptized without lessening the “rigor” of the sacrament.

Are you suggesting a Luther[an] perspective, wherein “credo” is framed by the “church’s faith;” and not the “individual’s” profession and testimony in the LORD? So that credo really is subsumed by proxy in the communion of the church.

Another aspect of this that I forgot to include in my message above is with respect to how we talk about a “lack of faith.” What is wonderful about Luther is how he describes the “faith of a child [or "little one"]“…one who technically lacks the “maturity” (we might say) for an “intellectual apprehension of the known good.” Faith, says Luther, involves primarily (not secondarily) a firm trust, fiducia, and children, he goes on to say, display this trust so very innocently, whereas adults can duplicitously smuggle in doubt and self-perpetuation into their “trust.” I think this is very important and not to be overlooked. Faith, as God’s gift, is wholly gratuitous, and so it is not up to us to decide where God’s gracious trust will be manifest (and this is truly the only way to describe faith as a gift that is also truly the act of the person — otherwise, if faith is simply one “can” or “cannot” do, in a neutral fashion, competition is introduced between God and the world).

And along those lines…this sort of “lack of faith” often described with respect to children is not simply to be found in infants (who lack the formative capacities for either intellectual apprehension or the willing of the good) or in those who willfully persist in their unbelief; we have to ask serious questions here about those (adults and infants!) who have serious mental disabilities (not only those who suffer from down’s, but also from serious diseases such as schizophrenia or even alzheimer’s), and who are nevertheless brought by those who love them to the baptismal font. Are these any less “the faithful” [fidelibus]? On what grounds?

Aquinas seems to be saying, well, infants (and let’s add these other others) “lack faith” in the sense that they cannot make a profession of faith — that is, they cannot recite the creed (which of course is not a mere recitation but is a way of throwing ourselves on God and God’s deliverance in Jesus Christ by the power of the Spirit). All of this is to say, I think one could still talk about a “credo baptism” (though I would want to discuss what that might mean) that still allows for infants, mentally disabled, and others to be baptized without lessening the “rigor” of the sacrament.

Well, I really need to shut up. Sorry for talking so much. Thanks for discussion on these difficult but fruitful questions.

Peace.