Submitted to: Dr. Karen Westerfield Tucker
BU TC819 A1 The Sacraments: Rites and Theologies
December 1, 2023
Introduction
Baptism, the moment which one is welcomed into the Church,[1] is a fundamental moment of identity formation in the life of a Christian. In the case of infant baptism, the parents promise to raise the child in the Church[2] and the infant begins their life as a Christian. Adult converts have the opportunity to renounce sin, declare their belief, and receive their first sacrament. Regardless of the age of the baptized, they are adopted by God and become an heir in the covenant made with Abraham. This covenant was given with two signs: circumcision and a name change.[3] Circumcision, the commanded sign, primarily represented purity.[4] It is rendered unnecessary for Christians because the law has been fulfilled and the spiritual effect is signified in baptism.[5] I will argue that the second sign, name change, was not commanded by God as law and instead served as a personal reflection in the changes of identity in Abraham and Sarah. The covenant resulted in a drastic shift in the lives and purposes of Abraham and Sarah through the formalization of their commitment towards God and God’s promises to Abraham. This change occurs in the life of each believer at baptism because it is then that a Christian enters the fulfilled covenant, and it is then that the baptized turn away from the world and towards Christ.
Adoption into the covenant at baptism has long been accompanied by the granting of a name or the adoption of a new name[6]. Infants typically received their names for the first time, while adult converts were offered the chance to take a new name or affirm their current name.[7] While not every Christian tradition has a moment of naming in their baptismal ceremony, the identity transformation experienced by Abraham is still present in the faith in the baptized. In baptism, one’s name becomes a sign of salvation in itself because it contains one’s entire identity every time it is used; now that one identifies as Christian, one’s name announces the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham.
God’s Covenant
The account of the sign of the covenant in Genesis 17 is structured around the institution of circumcision, and the order of God’s speeches is informative. First, God addresses Abraham with a command and then promises “You shall be the ancestor of a multitude of nations.”[8] In response, Abraham prostrates himself before God.[9] The prostration, a sign of faith and obedience, happens before either his name change or the institution of circumcision; Abraham has faith before the signs, not because of the signs. Immediately after another promise, God changes Abram’s name to Abraham.[10] He then continues his promises to Abraham. The next section, beginning at verse 9, is the direction for circumcision. Once that is complete, God changes Sarai’s name to Sarah[11].
The command made by God in verse 1, “I am God Almighty; walk before be, and be blameless”,[12] precedes the covenant and the prostration. Abraham, before any more promises were made to him, was told to be perfectly obedient to God.[13] This initial turn allows for the rest of the narrative to occur. When Abraham “fell on his face”[14] in faith in response to God’s call, he committed himself entirely to God alone and therefore away from his past.[15] In the light of this act of faith, God changed Abraham’s name in order to represent his acceptance of the new purpose that God had given him.[16] Circumcision, as an act to be performed by Abraham and his descendants, came after this change because the decision to obey God’s command needed to occur before the command was given. In the text, the name change codifies Abraham’s new internal state and relation to God, which must occur before the command. If the command to circumcise was given before Abraham’s turn to faith, Abraham’s faith would not necessarily have been unconditional and complete because Abraham would have been able to evaluate the deal before the covenant was cut. Abraham’s immediate obedience is a testament to his faith. Abram was incapable of making this covenant, but Abraham was suitable.[17]
The actual changes to Abraham and Sarah’s names were not a complete abandonment of their previous names, but instead a modification that resulted in new names.[18] “Abraham” is a new name, but it was created by adding a“he” to “Abram”. Sarah was made from Sarai in a similar manner. [19] This symbolizes the integration of the covenant into their identities rather than the creation of entirely new people. Even while the covenant fundamentally changed their relationships to God, the individuals themselves maintained a connection to their pasts and their lives.[20] They moved into their future with new understandings of their stories in light of the covenant.
Although Abraham had turned toward God completely, circumcision was instituted in order to establish and maintain purity as well as to finalize the covenant.[21] Circumcision, which in Romans is called “a seal of righteousness”,[22] is a sign of the righteousness counted to Abraham through faith. This righteousness, as well as the commitment to obey God, constitute significant additions to Abraham and Sarah’s identities. Each sign has a distinct purpose in the life of the recipient; circumcision is a sign of the righteousness itself and the name change is a sign of the believer’s faith integrated into their being.
Circumcision and Baptism
The relationship between circumcision and baptism is established in Colossians 2:11-14. The spiritual significance of circumcision is the same as baptism.[23] Abraham’s circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had been given by faith, is a visible sign of salvation.[24] Baptism also achieves this purpose through the death and resurrection of Christ because it imparts a state of righteousness onto the one baptized. The baptized and the circumcised both are considered to have had a spiritual circumcision.[25]
The effect of the covenant is not different for Abraham than it is for his descendants.[26] Abraham was the first recipient, and God makes the covenant with every individual through their personal spiritual circumcision. Both of the signs of entrance into this covenant are present in the modern Church. Baptism took the place of physical circumcision, but God’s imprint on one’s name has not changed. It was made explicit in Abraham that part of the reception of the covenant is the granting of a new identity in relation to God through the changing of his name. Due to the nature of names and reference, this does not have to be made visible in one’s name to have happened and occurs at every baptism. The second sign is not always made explicit, but the meaning in one’s name, the person that it references along with all of their identities, is modified at baptism. A new identity as an adopted child of God and heir in the covenant is contained within the name of one baptized.
Adoption and Identity
Language of adoption for describing baptism and salvation is present in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. Adoption requires a time during which the one adopted is not a child of the adoptive parent, and this image is used to draw attention to the acquisition of a new identity. The purpose of this imagery, as opposed to telling new Christians that they were always children of God, is to emphasize the difference between their past and present states. In Romans 8:15-17, a “spirit of slavery to fall back into fear” is contrasted with a “spirit of adoption” that results in the believers being “joint heirs with Christ”.[27]. The act of adoption is salvific as it creates a new relationship with God. This new relationship is characterized by freedom from slavery and a lack of fear along with an inheritance with Christ.
Galatians 3 and 4 contrast imprisonment in the law and freedom in faith.[28] In verse 29, the baptized are called “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise”.[29] Through baptism, believers are “clothed” in Christ.[30] Because Christ is the fulfillment of the law, the baptized do not have to obey the command of circumcision given to Abraham; they are granted status as Abraham’s offspring within the covenant through faith and the righteousness of Christ. Galatians 4:1-7 applies the same result, “adoption as children”[31] to those born under the law. The disciplinarian of the law was not instituted to imprison and guard God’s people for eternity, but only until “Faith would be revealed”.[32] At baptism, the believer is freed from the law as they gain the identity of an heir.
Ephesians, speaking to God’s motivation and the divine plan, says that the believers were “destined… for adoption as His children through Jesus Christ”.[33] The divine plan included a period of separation and time under the Law so that the adoption could occur in “a plan for the fullness of time”.[34] The move towards God from a place of separation was God’s intent, and the covenant made with Abraham was the beginning of reunion. God intended each individual to experience adoption, and this could not occur without the fall and His covenant with Abraham.
The new identity, that of an adopted child of God, is unique among the various identities of the baptized. Augustine understood baptism as transformative.[35] Transformation is both non-destructive and complete, so the individual is preserved while being completely changed. The freedom and intimate relationship with God[36] are so significant that one’s self-perception is bound to God after baptism. Helena Słotwińska calls baptism “the foundation of all Christian life, the gateway to the life in the Spirit and the gateway to other sacraments, frees the baptized from sin, making them children of God and members of Christ, and instills them in the Church, and so we become partakers in her mission.”[37] In the case of an adult baptism, the granting of a Christian identity changes all other aspects of that individual’s understanding of themselves. In baptism, the believer gains a new frame of reference and a new understanding of their role in creation. This shift occurs so deeply in one’s perspective that all other aspects of the self, while still remaining in the believer, are reoriented. In the case of infants, they do not know a time when they were not a child of God because the parents take on the responsibility to foster spiritual understanding in them.[38] Just as infants were circumcised on the eighth day and they entered the covenant, so do infants in baptism. They are formed as Christians from the beginning, so it shapes the way they develop the rest of the identity. While they do not remember the transformation, they still spiritually experience it and have the identity of an adopted child of God.
Supernatural Beliefs
The intimacy and authority of proper names is almost universal in human societies. In order to speak about something or someone, a word must be used to identify it. In choosing and making use of references for people, a name is made inseparable from the person it points to. In scripture, it is common to equate speaking of a person’s name with speaking of the person themselves.[39] It is so closely correlated to the core of a person that it is almost indistinguishable, and actions against names are viewed as actions against the person.[40] Birth narratives in scripture commonly include a naming event, and their inclusion is due to their significance as both introductions and as a reflection of their theological importance.[41] Herbert H. Gowen offers a number of examples of supernatural beliefs concerning names, both from within and without the Hebrew Bible.[42] A discussion of his list will establish the notable ubiquity of this type of belief through the comparison of a variety of distinct cultures. In turn, this will serve to argue that names themselves serve a purpose other than mere reference even before or without baptism and that they, in a certain sense, “are” the people that they represent.
Personal names are commonly associated with an individual’s spiritual state. In some Esquimaux cultures, those that fall deathly ill are renamed in order to “avoid the angel of death”.[43] This practice is based in a spiritual understanding of medicine, and they see it as effective because the angel recognizes a person by their name. The spiritual realm therefore must not have another method of identification in their understanding; if the angel was given anything other than a name in order to find the individual, this practice would not be employed. Various cultures “spit out a bad name” to avoid punishment for sin.[44] This is a spiritual practice rooted in a physical action and a reference to the name, which is less than uncommon. There are also hopes to change one’s eternal standing by interacting with a name. In the most stunning example, the Kaffirs throw names of thieves into boiling water for multiple days in order to cleanse it.[45] While this could be interpreted either as a ritual practice performed in order to change one’s reputation within the community or as a spiritual cleansing, both theories contain a common understanding that the name itself can act in the person’s stead and that what happens to the name also in part happens to the person.
The above practices were largely responses to events in the past of the name’s owner, but there is also a broad range of traditions in keeping names secret as a preventative measure. This only is effective if that which is being defended against can only affect the holder of a name if the name is known; the name acts as an entryway or connection to the individual. In China, some mothers keep their children’s names secret by refraining from saying them aloud as a protection from devils.[46] In west Africa, the name of a man is only known by his closest relatives.[47] As a particularly enlightening example, the names of some Greek priests were carved into tablets and then thrown into the ocean. The tension in this ritual is between the supposed benefit of having one’s name carved in stone and therefore eternally present in the world, and the caution taken to keep that name away from public eyes. If the purpose is to be remembered by descendants, the name would not be sunk. If it was to protect the identities of the priests, it would be better to avoid recording the names at all. Spiritually, the name must both exist and be protected from harm.
Peoples have taken care to keep the names of their cities and gods secret from their enemies.[48] Their names were kept secret for spiritual protection much like was seen with personal names, for the names of gods and cities were also seen as having power over their bearers.[49] Knowing the secret name of a city was believed to have been useful when conquering it, and the capture of Tyre by Alexander the Great is credited to the revelation of its secret name to him.[50] In Islam, the one-hundredth name of Allah is not learned in order to avoid transgression.[51] The names of gods themselves are sometimes thought to have magical power when wielded by humans, regardless of the god’s approval. Some Buddhists believe that saying “Amida” is enough in itself.[52] There is not an attachment to belief, or faith, or intent in saying the name because the power is in the spoken name itself. Similarly, in the Hindu tradition, to repeat “Rama” is a blessing due to the power of the name. A cousin of this belief is seen throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as well; God’s name in the Hebrew Bible is treated with extreme reverence, the refrain “in the name of Lord Jesus” is commonplace, and Christ’s name is often described as “above every name”.[53] If to wield the name of a god is enough to invoke its power, the name itself must be an essential part of the deity.
There are 2,800 personal names in the Hebrew Bible, most of which have direct meaning.[54] While the examination of the use of names as a literary tool has been fruitful, it is beyond the scope of this paper. It is sufficient to see merely that names were seen as significant and were given to children deliberately. A name was thought to contain influence in the life of the infant;[55] while that belief is not as easily seen today, it is preserved in the common sentiment of naming a child after a beloved or respected family member or saint. In the Hebrew Bible, it is much more obvious. Avoiding names that were ominous, unlucky, or profane was general practice.[56] It was also common for parents to include “’El” or “Yah” within their child’s name as a blessing.[57] This practice is an example of both a belief in the power of God’s name itself and in the name given to a child.
When viewed together, the above beliefs all contain the same root conviction that a personal name, be that of a human individual, a god, or a city, is in some way essential to the actual entity. The relationship between a name and its object is not that of mere reference, and they influence each other at the basest level of being. Whether a name contains the spiritual state of an individual, power over a being, control over a city, or the power of a god, it is more than an identifiable collection of sounds. They contain the power of gods and the fate of individuals, and a name is all that is required to summon the memory of an individual.
Name, Identity, and Reference
While one’s name is most certainly an integral part of oneself, I argue that a name acts as a nucleation point around which selfhood is built. The granting of a name, whether in a religious baptismal ceremony or not, occurs at or near the beginning of an individual’s life. It is what allows for the child to begin to answer the question of identity.[58] One’s name is given so early in life that all self-conception occurs with it already established; it is what the child has been called for its entire life. A child without a name is not yet an individual, although they are a person.[59] The granting of a name, done at infancy, makes the infant a distinct and full personality.[60] This relationship between development and a name allows for all development to occur within one’s name, and the lifelong changing of the individual is contained in it.
Parents hold a great responsibility when naming their children, and it is especially important for them to remember that they are naming adults as well as children.[61] The infant does not know a time when it did not have a name, but the parents’ perspective, seen before and after the act of naming, can show how the name itself creates the basis for identity. Even before birth, parents know the gravity of the gift of a name. Choosing it is often a source of conflict and prolonged argument because both parties realise the name that they give their child will be worn for eternity.[62] The child is also a stranger made of potential,[63] and the lack of definition and development exudes a sense of fragility. Anything that touches it will have ramifications far into the future. This in itself provokes a sense of reverence which is transgressed in the granting of a name. The parents have very little information to base the name on, so the name is entirely on the discretion of the adults. The imposition of an eternal signifier onto an infant, which grants them definition and individuality,[64] is the basis for personal development.
The name’s foundational place in identity is primarily reflected in the course of life in its use as reference to the individual. Augustine believed that a name acted by “pointing to what it signifies”.[65] The name is not strictly the person itself, but it serves as a connector that allows for the discussion of, reflection upon, and development of the individual. The name thereby can be either the most intimate or least important part of relation to the world.[66] One’s name is so deeply ingrained because it is pointing to the entirety of the person, but it is also used casually, especially in the modern context. The name written by the barista on a coffee cup is not used with the intent to recall childhood memories, but when it is read aloud it may sound to its owner that an old friend is beckoning.[67] This property of names, that they sometimes unexpectedly touch the core of one’s life and experience, reveals their all-encompassing nature.
The actual nature of names and the reason for their efficacy in referencing an individual is discussed in Jerome Gellman’s work Naming, and Naming God.[68] Although a thorough treatment of theories of reference is beyond the scope of this paper, the connection between a name and the thing named in all possible worlds must be mentioned in order to reinforce the binding between an individual’s name and their actual person. The most important distinction to be drawn is between two understandings of the efficacy of names: either being understood as descriptive, or as rigid designators. In a descriptive theory of naming, the name does not begin associated with that which it is referencing, instead, the users of the name gradually learn to associate the existing word with the existing object.[69] If names are understood as rigid designators, there is an initial moment in which the first user of the name decides and declares that the name references the object.[70] This has the advantage of always referring to the object; what happens to it and the changes it undergoes do not change the reference. This is in contrast to the descriptive theory, which is vulnerable to changes in the object of reference. If it becomes unrecognizable, the name is no longer effective. If we take names to be rigid designators, then a personal name references that individual regardless of their change in state, appearance, or identity. The crucial conclusion is this: a name’s meaning is determined by that which it references. When a child is named initially, that name is bound to them and they to it. The conventional term for this moment is an “initial baptism”.
Abraham’s initial naming granted him the name “Abram”, which could have been used throughout his life including after the granting of the sign of the covenant. There is nothing in Genesis 17 that suggests that Abraham’s name needed to change; God did it of His own accord as a sign to Abraham. “Abram” could have referenced that experience and his new identity without issue, and the change in identity would have been just as effective. In using “Abram”, he still would have been referencing his identity within the covenant, and therefore being reminded of it. God chose to explicitly change Abraham’s name in order to give a visible example of the monumental change in Abraham’s life, which would have changed the meaning of the name “Abram” regardless.
The Historical Association Between Naming and Baptism
Sarah Lawrence, in her examination of the historical use of the terms “christening” and “baptism”, traces the associations that each term carried through the history of the church. The secular, practical, and theological uses of each term are closely connected, but there is a gradient between them that allows for a discussion of the link between naming, the ceremony itself, and the theological discussion of the sacrament.[71] “Baptism” seems to have been used when the sacrament is discussed in a soteriological context,[72] but it does not exclude naming or adoption into the visible Christian community. “Christening” has a more complicated linguistic history, which begins with the use of the word “christen” as “Christian” is used now.[73] The use of the word to label Christians, not to reference a ceremony, ended during the Reformation.[74] “Christening” then gained the more modern meaning and was used when talking of the service itself[75] and the act of standing as a godparent.[76]
There was an already established part of the baptismal service that contained naming in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, in which godparents are given credit for naming the recipient of the baptism.[77] This service is also notable for providing a written example of the belief that the granting of a name in baptism is what formally makes someone a Christian.[78] The moment and ceremony being more often discussed as “christening” along with changes to the ceremony during the Reformation is speculated to have led to the modern association between “christening” and naming more broadly.[79] “Baptism” in the modern context does not typically connote naming, except in literature concerning reference theories, but “christen” does. It is important to remember, however, that these two words both refer to the fullness of the sacrament. While each word carries a different emphasis, there is a connection between the theological salvific efficacy of baptism and the practical ceremony, which includes naming, through the understanding in both descriptions that it is the moment that one becomes Christian. The granting of a name, which brings identity, is united in the sacrament with adoption into the Church, which brings salvation.
The Roman Catholic tradition’s emphases on baptism as a sacrament and tradition as a source of knowledge offer a unified perspective that contains language about salvation, adoption, and naming that is useful for this discussion.[80] Słotwińska’s overview of baptism, as well as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, both take time to mention naming.[81] The preservation of the tradition of naming the child at baptism from the beginnings of Christian worship[82] is a link between modern naming practices and those in scripture. Even when the initial naming does not occur in the church and instead when the birth certificate is filled, the priest asks the parents for the child’s name in order to convey it to the congregation.[83] The ceremony still includes a moment of naming, so the sacrament, which is the child’s first direct encounter with God, is also a formal introduction. The parents, godparents, priest, and congregation bring the child to the font, and in the salvific moment, the infant is at once adopted into the Church, given an identity in the Church, and receives the name that God will use for them.
The Fate of Unbaptized Infants
Historical writing about the eternal state of unbaptized infants provides another point of convergence for salvation, naming, and identity. It also contains evidence that naming the infant was thought to be theologically important throughout Christian history. Augustine believed that unbaptized infants were in hell because they were not cleansed from original sin in baptism.[84] Lombard, in Sentences, popularized the idea that instead of punishment, the infants would merely be denied the beatific vision.[85] Pope Innocent III then affirmed this position without making it official dogma, giving it some further legitimacy without closing the issue from further discussion.[86] This state of neither punishment nor salvation became known as limbo.[87]
Emergency baptism by midwives in medieval Italy sought to prevent the infant from limbo, but there was room for controversy at two levels.[88] The first is that although emergency baptisms were allowed to be performed by laity, it was not ideal because the rite was not always performed correctly.[89] The second was that the dead cannot be baptized. It was not uncommon for those in the terrible situation to attempt a baptism on a stillborn infant.[90] Some reported baptisms were of unclear nature, especially those wherein the infant died very shortly after birth. It was often impossible to prove whether the infant had actually been baptized before death. Because the unbaptized could not enter heaven, they were not permitted to be buried in family plots and were instead buried near the graveyard in an unmarked grave.[91] This ban was enforced even if the mother attempted to name the child in baptism if the baptism occurred (or was believed to have occurred) after the death of the infant; the child seemingly could not have even been effectively named if it died before baptism. An infant could not be named after death because the name is not merely attached to the body but also to the individual’s relationship to God. The mother, holding the dead infant, could not grant her child its name because it was too late; any name granted to the corpse would be meaningless. Without life, there is no individual to be granted an identity as a child of God in baptism.
While the primary issue preventing these infants from entering heaven was the presence of original sin,[92] they also lacked a sense of individuality if they had not been named.[93] In baptism, infants are both cleansed and named, giving them “power to become sons of God”.[94] Although this was not explicitly stated, the lack of defined personhood before receiving a name affected the understanding of the fate of these infants. This is most easily seen when writers call unbaptized infants “unnamed infants”.[95] This flatly equates naming and baptism, showing an assumption that in the writer’s context, the reader would associate the two automatically. Not only were these infants still tainted, but they were also missing something seen as essential for salvation. While limbo is no longer a commonly held belief,[96] it’s fall from popularity is due more to a broader understanding of God’s grace than a change in the understanding of individuality and identity as a child of God. The specific place of unbaptized, unnamed children in the beatific vision is still debated because they were never given the opportunity to live as a Christian.[97] A successful naming at baptism, and the integration of the identity of one that had been adopted, allows the believer to life in the freedom of God’s grace.
Conclusion: The Sacramental Nature of Names in Themselves
God’s Covenant with Abraham, during which Abraham was given two signs, holds both theological and personal weight. Spiritual circumcision, which is the result of physical circumcision and then baptism, is a sign of the righteousness counted unto the believer through faith. Commitment to God and a new permanent identity, which are a result of faith, were made visible in changing Abraham and Sarah’s names. That same added identity as a child of God is granted in baptism, during which believers for centuries have taken the opportunity to change their names to reflect their new selves. One’s name, regardless of one’s decision to change or keep it, references the Christian identity each time it is used through the deep-seated power it holds in one’s being. Adoption into the body of Christ comes with new personal relationships with the congregation, the saints, and God. The inherent power in names, present in many cultures, is touched in baptism and helps to form the very identity that it references. A name given to an infant grants it a distinct being and the chance to build an identity, and those that receive infant baptism never know a time before their salvation. Every time a Christian hears their name, they hear, “’N’, who is saved in Christ”.
The sacramental nature of the name in baptism is imprinted in the name eternally. The new name is applied, or the existing name is made to contain the new identity, and that moment’s eternal nature is present in the name. After the ceremony is over and for the rest of that individual’s life, the name remembers God’s covenant. God visibly changed Abraham and Sarah’s names by adding a “he”; that imprint is present in the names of baptized Christians. It cannot be seen in the case of adult believers that do not change their names, and it is harder to see in those that were baptized as infants, but it is clear when a convert decides to change their name. Any time the new name is used to refer to them, they remember: “I am baptized”, in contrast to their past selves. The name itself acts to point towards salvation[98] through the memory of baptism and the reference of the moment of adoption. While it in itself does not have the salvific power of baptism, the name contains it through the development of the individual’s identity within the name. Even though it cannot be seen on paper if an adult believer does not change their name, the reminder is still present. If the ceremony does not include an affirmation of one’s name, the name’s inherent reference to the entire identity still contains the baptism. The identity of the believer, as a Christian, is inside the current name although it cannot be seen or heard. While this makes the action of reminding the believer more difficult, as they are not referenced by a different name, the lack of recognition of the presence of the imprint of baptism in a name does not affect its reality; the believer simply fails to see it.
As in the various supernatural beliefs surrounding names, one’s name does affect the person through its invocation. When someone understands themselves to be a Christian, and they have been baptized, their name brings a memory of the baptism with every use. In view of the spiritual circumcision and the name change as signs of entering into God’s covenant, Ulrich Zwingli’s definition of sacrament can more clearly make a connection to a memorial: he thought that for the celebrant, a sacrament is a time to “bind and pledge themselves to belief”.[99] The binding of the covenant, circumcision, is parallel to baptism. The sign of the change in the individual necessary for that binding, faith, is a change in one’s name. Whether that change is visible or not, the history of the individual that is contained in the name’s reference is affected and the name’s meaning is changed. The only change in one’s name that does not always occur in baptism is on the birth certificate.
Bibliography
Berg, Lynn. 2008. “The Importance of Names and Naming in Religion, Literature, and Librarianship.” ATLA Summary of Proceedings 62: 194–208. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001696970&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Bediako, Daniel Kwame, and Elijah Baidoo. 2012. “The Covenant of Abraham: Relationship between Genesis 15 and 17.” Valley View University Journal of Theology 2: 1–12. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAi5IE190731002577&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Bridge, Edward J. 2014. “A Mother’s Influence: Mothers Naming Children in the Hebrew Bible.” Vetus Testamentum 64 (3): 389–400. doi:10.1163/15685330-12341163.
Cai, Yilun (Thomas Yilun). 2014. “Robert Bellarmine’s Idea of the Child Who Dies Unbaptized in the Commentary on the Summa Theologiae.” Journal of Early Modern Christianity 1 (1): 143–64. doi:10.1515/jemc-2014-0001.
Crow, Madison, Colleen Zori, and Davide Zori. 2020. “Doctrinal and Physical Marginality in Christian Death: The Burial of Unbaptized Infants in Medieval Italy.” Religions 11 (12): 1–20. doi:10.3390/rel11120678.
Dempsey, Patricia A (Patricia Ann). 1980. “I Have Called You by Your Name: You Are Mine.” Sisters Today 51 (9): 590–96. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiFZK170613003239&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Fleishman, Joseph. (n.d.). On the significance of a name change and circumcision in Genesis 17. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society., 28, 19–32.
Gellman, Jerome I. 1993. “Naming, and Naming God.” Religious Studies 29 (2): 193–216. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000865194&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Gibson, David. 2012. “Sacramental Supersessionism Revisited: A Response to Martin Salter on the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism.” Themelios 37 (2): 191–208. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001989831&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Gibson, David. 2015. “‘Fathers of Faith, My Fathers Now!’: On Abraham, Covenant, and the Theology of Paedobaptism.” Themelios 40 (1): 14–34. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiBCB160711000690&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Gowen, Herbert Henry. 1930. “The Name.” Anglican Theological Review 12 (4): 275–85. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001749168&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Kass, Amy A, and Leon R Kass. 1995. “What’s Your Name.” First Things 57 (November): 14–25. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000902477&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Lawrence, Sarah. 2016. “Christening and the Giving of a Name in Baptism: Some Linguistic Reflections.” Practical Theology, 9:1, 46-57. doi:10.1080/1756073X.2016.1149961
Lipski, Victor. 1996. “What’s in a Name.” Stimulus 4 (May): 34–38. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001012659&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Meador, Keith G, and Joel J Shuman. 2000. “Who/Se We Are: Baptism as Personhood.” Christian Bioethics 6 (1): 71–83. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000914559&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
“Pope: Unbaptized Babies No Longer in Limbo.” 2007. The Christian Century 124 (10): 15. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001584356&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
“Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.” 1988. Washington D.C.: United States Catholic Conference.
Słotwińska, Helena. 2022. “The Pedagogical and Religious Dimensions of the Rites of the Sacrament of Children’s Baptism.” Religions 13 (6): 1–11. doi:10.3390/rel13060512.
Sullivan, Francis Aloysius. 2011. “The Development of Doctrine about Infants Who Die Unbaptized.” Theological Studies 72 (1): 3–14. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001825977&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
White, Teresa. 2018. “What Is in a Name, Then?” The Way 57 (1): 51–60. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiGFE180212000800&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Zwingli, Ulrich. 1981. Commentary on True and False Religion. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller. Durham, North Carolina 27701: The Labyrinth Press.
[1] Słotwińska, Helena. 2022. “The Pedagogical and Religious Dimensions of the Rites of the Sacrament of Children’s Baptism.” Religions 13 (6): 5.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bediako, Daniel Kwame, and Elijah Baidoo. 2012. “The Covenant of Abraham: Relationship between Genesis 15 and 17.” Valley View University Journal of Theology 2: 8
[4] Ibid.
[5] Gibson, David. 2012. “Sacramental Supersessionism Revisited: A Response to Martin Salter on the Relationship between Circumcision and Baptism.” Themelios 37 (2): 200.
[6] Słotwińska, 7.
[7] “Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.” 1988. Washington D.C.: United States Catholic Conference. 35.
[8] Gen 17:5 NRSV
[9] Gen 17:4
[10] Gen 17:5
[11] Gen 17:15
[12] Gen 17:1
[13] Fleishman, Joseph. (n.d.). On the significance of a name change and circumcision in Genesis 17. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society., 28: 20.
[14] Gen 17:3
[15] Fleishman, 22.
[16] Ibid., 20.
[17] Ibid., 19
[18] Ibid., 20
[19] Ibid., 20
[20] Fleishman, 23.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Rom 4:11
[23] Gibson, Sacramental, 200.
[24] Gibson, David. 2015. “‘Fathers of Faith, My Fathers Now!’: On Abraham, Covenant, and the Theology of Paedobaptism.” Themelios 40 (1): 22.
[25] Gibson, Sacramental, 204.
[26] Gibson, Sacramental, 196-197; Fathers, 23-24.
[27] Rom 8:15-17
[28] Gal 3:23
[29] Gal 3:29
[30] Gal 3:27
[31] Gal 4:5
[32] Gal 3:23
[33] Eph 1:5
[34] Eph 3:10
[35] Meador, Keith G, and Joel J Shuman. 2000. “Who/Se We Are: Baptism as Personhood.” Christian Bioethics 6 (1): 79.
[36] Słotwińska, 3.
[37] Ibid., 2.
[38] Ibid., 1-2.
[39] Gowen, Herbert Henry. 1930. “The Name.” Anglican Theological Review 12 (4): 276.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Bridge, Edward J. 2014. “A Mother’s Influence: Mothers Naming Children in the Hebrew Bible.” Vetus Testamentum 64 (3): 395.
[42] Gowen, 277.
[43] Ibid., 278.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Gowen, 278.
[46] Ibid., 279.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid., 279.
[49] Gowen, 280-281.
[50] Ibid., 279.
[51] Ibid., 281.
[52] Ibid., 283.
[53] Ibid., 279, 282-283.
[54] Ibid., 277.
[55] Ibid., 278.
[56] Gowen, 278.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Dempsey, Patricia A (Patricia Ann). 1980. “I Have Called You by Your Name: You Are Mine.” Sisters Today 51 (9): 590.
[59] Dempsey, 592.
[60] Dempsey, 592; White, Teresa. 2018. “What Is in a Name, Then?” The Way 57 (1): 51.
[61] Kass, Amy A, and Leon R Kass. 1995. “What’s Your Name.” First Things 57 (November): 16.
[62] Ibid., 15, 17.
[63] Ibid., 15.
[64] Słotwińska, 7.
[65] Berg, Lynn. 2008. “The Importance of Names and Naming in Religion, Literature, and Librarianship.” ATLA Summary of Proceedings 62: 195.
[66] Berg, 199.
[67] White, 52.
[68] Gellman, Jerome I. 1993. “Naming, and Naming God.” Religious Studies 29 (2): 194.
[69] Ibid., 194.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Lawrence, Sarah. 2016. “Christening and the Giving of a Name in Baptism: Some Linguistic Reflections.” Practical Theology 9 (1): 46-47.
[72] Ibid., 53.
[73] Lawrence, 51.
[74] Ibid.
[75] Ibid., 53.
[76] Ibid., 55.
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid., 54.
[80] Słotwińska, 2,3,7.
[81] Rite 35; Słotwińska 7.
[82] Słotwińska, 7.
[83] White, 51.
[84] Sullivan, Francis Aloysius. 2011. “The Development of Doctrine about Infants Who Die Unbaptized.” Theological Studies 72 (1): 3.
[85] Sullivan, 4.
[86] Ibid., 4.
[87] Ibid.
[88] Crow, Madison, Colleen Zori, and Davide Zori. 2020. “Doctrinal and Physical Marginality in Christian Death: The Burial of Unbaptized Infants in Medieval Italy.” Religions 11 (12): 5.
[89] Ibid.
[90] Ibid.
[91] Ibid.
[92] Cai, Yilun (Thomas Yilun). 2014. “Robert Bellarmine’s Idea of the Child Who Dies Unbaptized in the Commentary on the Summa Theologiae.” Journal of Early Modern Christianity 1 (1): 148.
[93] Lipski, Victor. 1996. “What’s in a Name.” Stimulus 4 (May): 37.
[94] Gowen, 283.
[95] Ibid., 293.
[96] “Pope: Unbaptized Babies No Longer in Limbo.” 2007. The Christian Century 124 (10): 15.
[97] Ibid.
[98] White, 52.
[99] Zwingli, Ulrich. 1981. Commentary on True and False Religion. Edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson and Clarence Nevin Heller. Durham, North Carolina 27701: The Labyrinth Press. 181.
Logan Abraham 