Chapter 4: Baptism
1. What were the two ordinary sacraments for the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace?
Circumcision and Passover. These were ordinary sacraments. Certainly some are accustomed to speaking of more sacraments and add, for example, the rainbow, the flood, the exodus through the Red Sea. But the covenant established with Noah was not a covenant of grace, although it was related to the covenant of grace. The flood and the exodus were facts that only occurred once, and thus could be types of later salvation facts, thereby acquiring a certain sacramental significance, but they were not ordinary sacraments that were repeated and used at set times (cf. Calvin, Institutes 4.15.18; our Form for Baptism).
Others go back still further and even speak of the “casting out of paradise” and “denying access to the tree of life” as a sacrament (cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants 4.7.3). But a sacrament is always a means of grace and not of punishment or of threatening. That man was driven from paradise, and the covenant of works was thus closed for him, was in itself no assurance that a covenant of grace was opened, and could not confirm Adam’s faith in it.
2. What is the term for circumcision in Hebrew and Greek?
Hebrew = mulah, mulah, Exodus 4:26, from the verb mwl; Greek = peritomē, from peritemnō, “cut around.” In Hebrew the foreskin, which was cut off, is called arlah, arlah; in Greek, akrobystia, “the tip of the male member,” or according to others, “stopped up from the front” (from byein); as some think intentionally formed to remind by the sound the Hebrew, bosheth, bosheth, “shame” (cf. Cremer on this word).
3. Is this circumcision something original with the Jews?
We read of its institution in Genesis 17:11 (cf. vv. 25–27). It appears here for Abraham and his family as something new that was not in use previously. From this many Reformed have immediately drawn the conclusion that there was no circumcision in the world previously, even in the outward sense, and that everything of this sort found in other peoples in earlier and later times was a corruption of the sacrament that Jehovah gave to Abraham and his seed as a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace (Witsius, Economy of the Covenants 4.8.11: “But in all peoples who have been estranged from the true service of God, circumcision was nothing other than pure superstition and evil imitation of the sacrament that God had given to those in His covenant”). The facts, however, show that in this they judged incorrectly. The Egyptians were circumcised, the Arabs (boys between their tenth and fourteenth year), the Phoenicians and other Canaanites, for in the Old Testament the term “uncircumcised” refers specifically to the Philistines. For the Egyptians, circumcision existed before the Jews came into Egypt. Origen says that only the priests in Egypt were circumcised, but although in his day that might have been so, initially that was not so, and nowadays too it is still otherwise. But there is more. Circumcision is found in Central America, among a few races in the Pacific Ocean, in many tribes in Australia, in Africa among the blacks.
In all of this there is nothing extraordinary. When it is also established of baptism that it has different analogies among pagan peoples and that these were partly in use before Christian baptism itself, then it is not apparent why it has to be otherwise for circumcision. One should not therefore say that God took over a pagan practice. But like causes have like results. That is, there is something in the sign of circumcision, as there is something in the water of baptism, that possesses a natural appropriateness to portray a religious truth. That natural appropriateness has at all times struck the most diverse peoples in all parts of the world, and so circumcision arose, probably in different places in an independent manner. But that circumcision was not a sacrament. It could become a sacrament only because God attached the seal of His approval to that natural idea and made circumcision a divine institution for His covenant people.
It is not impossible that many of the tribes surrounding Israel took over circumcision from Israel, such as the Arabians and the Midianites. But it seems to us hazardous to link to this the further thesis that the descendants of Israel and Esau were within the pale of the church until the making of the covenant at Sinai and even still later. Even Witsius does this: “And it is not to be doubted that He had his elect among the other children and descendants of Abraham. And there is nothing more certain than that within the four centuries, circumcision, and with circumcision, the visible church or congregation was propagated within all those eastern peoples who could have had their origin from Israel and from the sons of Keturah and from Esau,” etc. (Economy of the Covenants, 4.8.5).
4. What was signified and sealed by circumcision?
a)Some associate circumcision with the motif of purification. Herodotus speaks in that vein about Egyptian circumcision. Philo the Jew speaks about four reasons given by tradition, among which purity occurs. This may have been a secondary motif, but circumcision is not explained satisfactorily as a purity and health measure.
b)Others have regarded circumcision as a bloody sacrifice, or as a remnant of earlier human sacrifices, or as a symbol that God has a claim on human life. Here too there is an element of truth. Circumcision is distinguished from baptism precisely by this—that it is accompanied by the shedding of blood—and this is a feature that coheres most closely with the character of the Old Testament dispensation as a whole.
c)We will have to hold ourselves to what Scripture teaches on this point. And this comes down to the following:
1.Circumcision is a sign of the covenant of grace (Gen 17:11) and is called “the covenant in your flesh” (v. 13).
2.It points to the impurity of man in his natural state. That natural state must be changed before man can be received into the covenant of God. That is why circumcision is instituted before the birth of Isaac, the seed of the promise. One could ask why the impurity of the natural state of man is signified specifically by this shameful member. There appear to be three reasons. First, the genitals in themselves are already connected to the pollution of sin. The feeling of shame, including physical shame, points back directly to sin (Gen 3:7). Second, original sin is connected with the propagation of the human race. It is the nature that is corrupt, and nature comes from nasci, “to be born.” Third, God has connected the administration of the covenant of grace with the sexual relationship. The promise is for Abraham, and always “to you and your seed.”
3.It signifies and seals the removal of this natural impurity, is a symbol and seal of the renewal and cleansing of the heart as well as the removal of guilt: “Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and no longer be stiff-necked” (Deut 10:16). “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God” (Deut 30:6). “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD; remove the foreskin of your hearts” (Jer 4:4). Compare also Leviticus 19:23, were mention is made of a circumcision of trees. “Circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom 2:29). “For we are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit” (Phil 3:3). “In whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11). “And you, when you were dead in your transgressions and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all your trespasses” (v. 13). Some think that in this last text the death of the Savior is spoken of as a “circumcision of Christ.” This could be, for in the death of Christ was the true and actual cutting away and rooting out by which guilt is wiped away and the handwriting of sins is taken away out of the midst [Col 2:14]. But this interpretation is still doubtful. The “circumcision of Christ” will surely have to have in view the origin of spiritual circumcision. It is Christ who works this by His Spirit, and therefore it is called the “circumcision of Christ.”
Finally, Paul tells us expressly that circumcision was “a sign and a seal of the righteousness of faith” (Rom 4:11).
5. When did circumcision take place and how?
It took place on the eighth day, with sharp stones or with a knife (Exod 4:25; Josh 5:2). The person who performed it at first was the father of the household (Gen 17:23–24). Later, other persons appear to be appointed specifically for that. There are those who believe that the priests ordinarily performed the procedure. But John the Baptist was not circumcised by his father, who was a priest (Luke 1:59, 62). The giving of a name usually occurred on the very same day with circumcision.
6. Was circumcision a temporary thing or a sacrament that would not be eventually abolished?
It was intended to remain valid during the entire old dispensation of the covenant of grace. Against this it has been objected that God says to Abraham: “And my covenant shall be in your flesh an everlasting covenant” [Gen 17:13]. To this the answer has been that the word translated “everlasting” refers to “this age,” that is, the time before the coming of the Messiah. But it is better to say: the covenant sealed by circumcision was an eternal covenant, not the sign. In the same sense it is said that the Lord gave the land of Canaan as an eternal possession. That, too, is meant as a type. The spiritual benefits that are depicted by the land would be an eternal possession of God’s covenant children. The same is true of circumcision. It is abolished in the New Testament dispensation, and baptism has come in its place (Col 2:17; Gal 5:6; vv. 2–4: circumcision regarded as a means of justification cuts off from Christ). However, circumcision still lived on in practice for a time among Jewish Christians.
7. Where should the origin of Christian baptism be sought?
In answering this question, three points should receive attention:
a)The pagan practices that display similarity, more or less, with baptism.
b)Proselyte baptism, and whether historically it has any connection with the Old Testament washings and with the baptism of John.
c)The baptism of John and the connection between it and Christian baptism.
8. Were there practices among pagans that had some similarity with baptism?
Yes, we find religious washings among the Egyptians, the Persians, the Hindus, and others. They were customary especially in the mystery religions. However, finding a general analogy is something completely different than intending to establish a historical connection. Whatever of this sort is encountered with pagans will have to owe its origin to the dictates of conscience that there is guilt and uncleanness that must be taken away before one can have communion with the gods. It is said that in Norway and Iceland such a pagan baptism existed for a long time alongside Christian baptism. In any case, the baptism of the Bible originated entirely independent of such pagan practices.
9. What was proselyte baptism, and what was its connection with the baptism of Scripture?
Gerim (gerim) or proselytes (prosēlytos) are those pagans who by circumcision and keeping the law were received completely into the community of the Jews. In the Old Testament, the gerim are none other than “strangers,” “sojourners”—that is, those pagans who, without becoming Jews, still lived continually in the land of Israel. And the Septuagint, therefore, uses the word “proselyte.” Consequently, later both words changed in their meaning. In the Talmud a distinction is made between two sorts of proselytes, between a “righteous stranger,” who keeps the entire law, and a “stranger who is a sojourner.” Still later, the latter were called “proselytes of the gate.” When a proselyte of righteousness was received into the Jewish congregation, three things had to take place: (1) circumcision; (2) baptism; (3) a sacrifice. Baptism was called tevilah, tebilah.
The question now is how old this use of proselyte baptism is. Since the beginning of the eighteenth century the opinion has arisen among scholars that it has a much more recent origin than Christian baptism, and is probably only an imitation of it. At present, opinion is divided. Lightfoot, Danz, Bengel, Delitzsch, Edersheim, Schürer maintain that this baptism is very old and existed already at the time of Christ. According to Meyer and others, the usage only arose later, in any case after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans (commentary on Matt 3:6).
The truth seems to be as follows. A pagan who lived as a pagan is impure in numerous ways. Thus, when he is received by circumcision into the Jewish community, this is not sufficient to cause him to participate fully in the community of the pure Jews. To that end, he must undergo a washing, bathe himself, as it is demanded of Jews themselves in the law when they have made themselves impure in one way or another (Lev 11–15; Num 19). Now, it may well be that later various usages were attached to this water bath that were not yet connected to it at the time of Christ. But there is no doubt that the essence of this proselyte baptism is nothing other than the usual Levitical cleansing demanded in this particular case. And as such, baptism will have existed at the time of John, indeed even before that time.
But from that, then, it also follows that it is incorrect to want to explain the baptism of John historically from this practice. John appeared with his demand of baptism in order to indicate that Judaism as a whole was apostate and not any better than paganism; that, consequently, they all had to undergo what the pagans underwent when they became Jews, namely, proselyte baptism. It cannot be proven that at that time the baptism of a proselyte took on such an important place in the initiation ritual that this view could be called correct. It must have still been something more or less subordinate then, to which one could not simply connect the idea of becoming a Jew. Jewish baptism will have only gained this importance as an initiation ceremony at a later time, perhaps under the influence of Christian practice. John himself did not present his baptism from this point of view. Rather, he associated himself with the same Levitical purifications of which the proselyte baptism was a particular application.
10. How should the significance of the baptism of John be assessed?
The Council of Trent has said: “If anyone says that the baptism of John possessed the same power as the baptism of Christ, let him be anathema” (session 7, canon 1). The Reformed maintained the opposite. While Rome thus said that those baptized by John had not received the dispensation of grace of proper baptism and later were baptized again or baptized as Christians for the first time, the Reformed insisted that such a rebaptism did not take place.
It can hardly be denied that there was some difference between the baptism of John and baptism in the New Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. But the question is whether it was an essential difference, so great that the new baptism was necessary. There was difference:
a)In the way in which baptism pointed to Christ. John was not yet in the kingdom of heaven. He stood at the dividing line. The Law and the Prophets were until him [Luke 16:16]. He was the forerunner who announced that the kingdom of heaven was nigh. His baptism, therefore, had to look forward to Christ. Christian baptism points back to the same Christ.
b)A second point of difference is connected with this. Although forming the transition, the baptism of John still belongs to the Old Testament dispensation and derives its features from the latter. The entire Old Testament dispensation places the law in the foreground as a disciplinarian until Christ. It was a dispensation to awaken repentance, consciousness of sin. Accordingly, we also find then that the baptism of John was a baptism for repentance. But this may not be understood as if it had only had a negative meaning, and as if the positive side had been totally lacking. True repentance is not possible without faith.
c)The baptism of John was still national and not catholic. It was a baptism for the Jews, while Christian baptism is a baptism whereby every distinction between Jew and Gentile, barbarian and Scythian, disappears.
d)In the degree of gifts that baptism sealed, the baptism of John naturally ranks below the later baptism of Christians. The Spirit having not yet come, all the special gifts that depended on the Spirit’s outpouring had to be missing at that baptism. But this does not justify saying that in the baptism of John no special gift was sealed that was already available and obtainable at that time.
Alongside of the difference, however, there was essential agreement. The one who instituted the baptism of John was God Himself (John 1:33; Luke 3:3–4; Matt 21:25). Similarly, Christ, out of the fullness of His power as Mediator—by which He, Himself God, represented God—instituted Christian baptism. The thing signified and sealed was the same, namely, forgiveness of sins and regeneration (Matt 3:7–8; Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4; cf. with Acts 2:38). The conversion that John, already preaching, would effect was conversion to faith, for of him it was said that he would convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord, their God (Luke 1:16), that it took place in order to make ready for the Lord a people prepared (v. 17). That thereby John pointed to Christ is apparent from everything (John 1:20, 23, 26–27, 30). The same thing is evident from the fact that Jesus Himself was baptized with this baptism of John, as well as His apostles, and that nowhere are we informed of a rebaptism.
It is asked, however: If this is so, how then can John himself make the sharp distinction he does in Matthew 3:11? He distinguishes there between his baptism, which is a baptism with water, and the baptism of Christ, which is a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. How is that to be understood? Obviously, two outward baptisms are not set over against each other here, for just as John’s baptism was a baptism with water, so the baptism of Christ would be a baptism without water. But contrasted with each other are the outward baptism of John and the special gifts of the Spirit that were signified and sealed by that baptism, and that could only follow later when Christ would have sent the Spirit from the Father. Thus the fire would also have to refer to the dispensation of the Spirit, and it is perhaps added to accentuate the distinction between this extraordinary and ordinary communication of the Spirit. Certainly, the regular activity of the Spirit is described in John 3:5 as “water and Spirit.” Others see this fire as referring to the fiery tongues on the day of Pentecost; sill others to the fire of Gehenna, so that curse and blessing would be set over against each other. Both these interpretations are less satisfactory. Thus we see that nothing can be derived from this saying of John to establish a difference between his baptism and that of Christ. The same thing can also be said of the baptism that Christ had His disciples administer before His suffering (John 4:2; 3:22), namely, that it was not a baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. But it was still Christian baptism.
Another objection that is made is that later there were so many who were baptized on Pentecost that there surely must have been those present who had also been baptized by John: thus, rebaptism. So even Charles Hodge, who on this basis in particular expresses himself in favor of a difference between the two baptisms (Systematic Theology, 3:594). But it is not susceptible to proof that all present there had already been baptized by John, and that those who were already baptized by him were baptized again.
The principal objection, however, lies in Acts 19:1–7. There it is reported how in Ephesus Paul found some disciples who had not received the Holy Spirit—indeed, had not even heard if there were a Holy Spirit—who had only been baptized into the baptism of John. Then Paul says: “John baptized with the baptism of repentance,” etc. Then there follows in verse 5: akousantes de ebaptisthēsan eis to onoma tou kyriou Iēsou, [“and when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”]. “And when Paul laid hands on them, the Spirit came on them, and they spoke in strange languages and prophesied.”
The understanding of this difficult passage depends entirely on the meaning of the words just cited in Greek.
a)The old and most accepted explanation is that these words (v. 5) are not the words of Luke the writer, but the words of Paul the speaker addressed to the disciples. So he intends to say: It is certainly true that John’s baptism was chiefly a baptism of repentance, and that thereby repentance came to the fore, but still those who heard John were also baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and therefore it is not necessary that they be baptized again; it is sufficient for you that we lay hands on you and you will receive the gift of the Spirit. So, then, these disciples were not rebaptized. This is the explanation that our Statenvertaling [Dutch State Translation] favors by the added “him,” which refers to John. This is the explanation of Beza, Calixtus, Calov, and many others, including the majority of the dogmaticians.
b)Another explanation is that verse 5 does in fact give the words of Luke, and not of Paul. But, it is said, according to Luke the baptism that the disciples received here in addition to their baptism by John was not a repeated water baptism; it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, thus baptism in a spiritual sense. This is said to be explained further in in verse 6 by the laying on of hands and what followed, speaking in tongues and prophesying. This is the explanation of Calvin.
c)A third explanation is that of Zwingli, also followed by Dr. [Abraham] Kuyper (De Heraut, no. 643). Zwingli says: These twelve were rebaptized, not because they had received the authentic baptism of John and this was not sufficient for a Christian, but because one or another disciple of John had misled them by baptizing them in the name of John himself and not in the name of Jesus. The meaning of verse 4 then becomes as follows: John certainly baptized unto repentance but also in the name of Jesus, that is to say, “that they should believe in the one who came after him, that is, in Christ Jesus.” You have not received the true baptism of John, but a counterfeit baptism. Verse 5 then becomes the account of Luke. The disciples were baptized by Paul, not rebaptized.
For this latter explanation, an appeal is made especially to verse 3. “And he said to them, ‘Into what then were you baptized?’ And they said, ‘Into John’s baptism (e baptism (aid, b baptis).’ ” That will then have to mean: “baptized in the name of John.” But it is totally uncertain that the words can mean that. Baptism in someone or into someone is never called the baptism of someone. For this explanation we would simply expect “into John.”
d)Others say that the baptism of John was certainly authentic, but that these disciples were not sufficiently instructed regarding the future gifts of the Holy Spirit, the extraordinary charisma, and that this is meant by their saying: “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” That this certainly cannot mean “We have never heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit” is self-evident (cf. John 7:39). And now, supposedly, Paul, taking their weakness into consideration, rebaptized them at their request, which did not happen in normal circumstances. That they desired this is supposedly indicated by the words, “on hearing this” (v. 5).
One must grant that this, in light of the context, is the most natural explanation of all. The rebaptism will then be based on the dual character that Christian baptism initially had, on the charismatic aspect. If one accepts this explanation, then it in no way follows that therefore rebaptism is permissible, as Anabaptists propose, who have always attempted to make capital of this text. That Apollos was baptized by Aquila cannot be positively proven (Acts 18:26).
However, the objection remains to this view, too, that the laying on of hands followed baptism. Usually one assumes that this laying on of hands had specifically as its aim to communicate the charisma of the Holy Spirit. And here too that is the case, for they immediately begin to speak in tongues and to prophesy. One could still say: baptism and the laying on of hands belong with each other.
The first explanation would be the most preferable if we could translate the Greek of verse 5 as “those who heard him.” But one would expect that then the text read: hoi de akousantes auton. This text is and remains a crux interpretum [“crossroads for interpreters,” a passage difficult to interpret]. Turretin acknowledges that rebaptism is possibly spoken of here, but that nevertheless an essential difference need not exist between the baptism of John and Christian baptism. He says that John perhaps did not use a formula such as was used later, and that thereby the repetition was warranted. One can hardly prove that John used a set formula, but with no less difficulty that this in itself gave rise to repetition.
11. What word in the New Testament is used for baptizing, and what is the force of that word?
Baptō (baptō) means “to dip,” “immerse,” for to baptize and to immerse are related to each other (cf. the English “to dive,” “to dip”). In John 13:26 it is used for the dipping of the morsel by Jesus that he gave to Judas. See also Ruth 2:14 [Septuagint] for dipping the morsel in vinegar by Ruth; Luke 16:24 for dipping Lazarus’ finger in water. In all these passages, the word used is baptō, so that positively no doubt need exist about the original meaning. When a Baptist says that baptō means “immerse,” then one should grant him that without reservation.
A strengthened form of baptō is baptizō (baptizō), and this is the usual word in use for “baptize.” This, too, is originally “immerse.” Actually, baptizein means “immerse repeatedly”; it is an iterative form. Hence it is used instead of baptō in 2 Kings 5:14 [Septuagint], which recounts how Naaman dipped himself seven times in the Jordan. But this iterative meaning is not always maintained, so that often enough baptizein is equal in meaning to baptein. Now, however, this baptizein appears at the same time to have been the usual Greek translation for the Levitical washings and purifications, which again may be connected with the fact that this took place generally by bathing—that is, by immersing the body in water. One may compare, for example, Matthew 15:2, “For they do not wash their hands when they eat” (ou gar niptontai tas cheiras), with Mark 7:4, “unless they first wash” (ean mē baptisōntai).
With this, the concept of baptizō is placed directly under the viewpoint of “washing,” a fact of the highest importance. That this “washing” was in most instances a washing by immersion appears as something accidental that could also be something else, and that, if it had been something else, nothing of substance would have changed. The Levitical purifications were washings of the whole body, also where a sprinkling accompanied them (Num 19:19; see also v. 18; Lev 11:24–28 and following; 17:15; 14:2–8; 15:16–18, 19–24, 25–29, 2–15). That in all these purifications the whole body had to be washed and not just a part had to do with the ceremonial and burdensome character of the Old Testament dispensation. If an easy sprinkling had been sufficient, then perhaps it would have quickly become an outward form. The bathing of the whole body did not easily become a meaningless custom. Then one should also not forget that for the Levitical purification its symbolic character came to the fore. It was therefore in all respects fitting that in the case of uncleanness the whole body was subject to a washing. By that was certainly pictured how the entire person is polluted by sin and how complete renewal is necessary. However, from that it may not be inferred that at baptism as a sacrament, too, complete immersion of the body is necessary. With baptism, not the sign but the seal is surely in the foreground. The New Testament sacraments are not in the first place symbols; they are above all seals of the covenant. Thus it is in no way necessary that the entire symbolism of the purifications of the Old Testament be transferred to the baptism of the New Testament.
The error the Baptists make when they insist that baptizein is immersion and nothing else lies in overlooking the fact just mentioned. Words have their meaning by their use, not by their etymology. One can safely grant not only that originally baptizō means to immerse; indeed, one can even go so far as to say that initially immersion was the customary mode of baptism, without playing into the hands of the Baptists. The point at issue between them and us surely lies in this: whether immersion constitutes the heart and essence of the symbolism of baptism, so that abandoning it would be the same as abandoning baptism itself. When one asks a Baptist, “Why did Christ institute the sacrament of incorporation into the Christian church in this way?” then his answer is: “Because it had to be portrayed by descending into and emerging from the water.” That thereby washing takes place at the same time, since one cannot immerse someone without the water at the same time washing his body is, according to him, something incidental. Baptism would be baptism, and its essence preserved, if one could immerse someone in something else that does not have a cleansing quality. If one poses the same question to us, then we answer: The sacrament was instituted by Christ in this way because He intended to have washing and purification portrayed. The fact that this ordinarily took place in a land like Palestine and according to the Jewish law by immersion or bathing was something incidental and subordinate. If a washing takes place without immersion, then baptism retains its essence.
Thus the issue between us and Baptists is not at all whether baptizein means to immerse or to sprinkle. One can grant, and probably will have to grant, that nowhere in the New Testament has it completely lost its original meaning of “immersing” or “dipping.” The issue is simply whether immersion was the main point or something incidental. And then we say the latter. It was immersion with the purpose of washing, and in order to portray purification. We rely on this when we claim that baptism by sprinkling is just as much the ordinance of Christ as baptism by immersion. From their side, Baptists believe that the Reformation has taken half measures, that Luther and Calvin did not fully clean out the Roman Catholic leaven, and that on them the duty rests to restore original Christianity in its purity.
One should preferably not combat Baptists with weak historical arguments from the New Testament. One can appeal to Mark 7:4: baptismous potēriōn kai xestōn kai chalkiōn kai klinōn, “washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and couches.” It is said that cups and pots and copper vessels could be immersed, but not couches. It is a question, however, whether these words (kai klinōn) belong in the text. Westcott and Hort omit them. The Revised Version does also. One can also point to Acts 2:41–42. There were 3,000 people added to the church, who for the most part were also certainly baptized. Was that possible in so short a time if baptism took place by immersion? It is not impossible. An equally large number of converts have been baptized in a relatively short period of time by immersion. The appeal to Acts 10:47 is also not strong, since we evidently have to do there with a figurative expression. Peter intends to say: the Holy Spirit has already come upon them; can anyone still forbid water, by which they are signified and sealed? From Acts 16:33 it has generally been inferred that the jailer and his family were not baptized by immersion but simply by sprinkling. But Baptists say that the jail, like most of the large buildings in the Middle East, had a fountain and a cistern. First Corinthians 10:1–2 states that all the fathers were under the cloud and passed through the sea and were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. The fact that they went through the water, and that certainly with dry feet, can, it is said, be called already being baptized. They were simply sprinkled with the spattering drops. But there is no mention of sprinkling in the account of these events. The apostle apparently conceived of them such that the sea and the cloud surrounded the people, and so became an element in which they were located. The sea was on both sides, the cloud was over the Israelites; that was their baptism.
Appeal is also made to passages that speak of a baptizing with the Holy Spirit: Matthew 3:1 (en pneumati hagiō kai pyri); Mark 1:8 (egō ebaptisa hymas hydati, autos de baptisei hymas en pneumati hagiō); John 1:33 (houtos estin ho baptizōn en pneumati hagiō); Acts 1:5; 11:16 (hymeis de baptisthēsesthe en pneumati hagiō); 1 Cor 12:13 (kai gar en heni pneumati hēmeis pantes eis hen sōma ebaptisthēmen). The question is how this “in the Holy Spirit,” as it literally stands in all these passages, is meant. Is the Holy Spirit the element in which one is baptized, in which God, as it were, immerses, or is it to be understood as a being baptized with the Holy Spirit? In the latter case, en, equivalent to b in Hebrew, would be an instrumental preposition. In Mark 1:8 it is without doubt “by means of water … by means of the Holy Spirit.” But from this it does not yet follow that sprinkling is thought of, for one can also call baptism through immersion a baptism by means of water. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, the translation “by means of one Spirit” appears to us the most natural, but sprinkling is not proven by it. By all of these things one can only deprive Baptists of proofs, not obtain proofs for his own views. See the commentaries on these passages.
12.What is the testimony of the history of the postbiblical period regarding the question of immersion or sprinkling?
It appears that sprinkling was already in use early, especially in so-called “clinical baptism,” namely, for sick persons who had to receive the sacrament. For them immersion was excluded. It appears, however, that in the earliest times many superstitious persons did not regard such a baptism as being complete. Those who were baptized by sprinkling were called “clinici.” At first it was thought that there was no proof from the second century for baptism by sprinkling, because a few texts in Tertullian are regarded as uncertain, and also the age of certain pictures in which sprinkling occurs cannot be determined precisely enough. But change has come through the discovery of the Didache of the Twelve Apostles. From it, it is certainly evident that even in the very earliest times no offense was registered if sprinkling replaced immersion. Still, here it is also added that there had to be an objective grounds that made immersion impossible or inadvisable; for example, if there was no running water in the vicinity. Along this path, too, one cannot prove the apostolic origin of sprinkling.
13. To what, finally, can one still appeal against the Baptists?
To the universal character of Christianity. Christianity is catholic, that is, intended for all times and places. That must come out in its sacraments too. Hence, the signs in these sacraments are such as are to be found everywhere: water, bread, wine—the most common products of nature that can be kept everywhere. But the same thing will also have to apply to their manner of use. Immersion is something that is sometimes feasible in Middle Eastern lands, but then again in many regions, not. If Christianity is thus bound to something like this, then in this respect it is the same as Islam, which obligates all its adherents to a pilgrimage to Mecca. But Islam is then also particularistic; Christianity is universal, catholic, intended for all times, countries, circumstances, and conditions.
14. Is it only Baptists who have immersion?
No, the entire Greek Church also maintains baptism by immersion. It took a long time in the Roman Catholic Church before immersion and sprinkling were recognized as equally legitimate (the end of the thirteenth century). The English Church appears to have practiced immersion for a time. The Westminster Assembly said, “sprinkle or pour” [Westminster Confession of Faith 28.3]. Earlier, when immersion came into use by the Baptists, it was seen as a novelty.
15. In what does the outward matter, the outward sign consist for baptism?
In washing with water. Pure water must be used, and not, as Roman Catholics propose, oil, salt, saliva, honey, or what have you. The water must be used in such a way that an image of washing away emerges. It must be brought into contact with the body of the person to be baptized. There are those who insist that this contact of the body with water must be a threefold action, in order to accord with the Trinitarian baptismal formula. Tertullian, Cyril, Basil, Ambrose speak of a threefold sprinkling. Turretin says: “We hold presently to a single sprinkling, and believe that we need not dispute with anyone in the world about this matter, since there is no express command for the number one or three” (Institutes, 19.11.12). Exorcism, consecration of the water, making the sign of the cross on the forehead and chest of the person baptized, hanging a lit wax candle over him—all of them Roman Catholic practices—are rejected.
16. Indicate further how this water and the action performed with it in baptism becomes a sign.
a)The water is that element in nature that has been created by God for the purpose of physical cleansing. The idea of cleansing has been placed by God in water. This choice of water was not made in retrospect, but water was created for that beforehand. The cleansing in a spiritual sense refers to two things: first, the removal of guilt; further, the removal of pollution. There is a washing of justification; there is also a washing of sanctification. The contact of the water refers to both. One, however, can ask further: What is it, then, that produces this twofold cleansing in a spiritual sense? The answer is: the blood and the Spirit of Christ. These two must therefore also be portrayed by the water of baptism. This is so obvious for the blood that it scarcely needs demonstration. But 1 Corinthians 6:11 also has the Spirit in view: “And this were some of you. But you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”; Hebrews 10:22: “our bodies being washed with pure water”; Revelation 1:5: “and has washed us by his blood”; 1 Peter 3:21: “of which the antitype, baptism, now also saves you, which is not a putting away of filth from the body but an appeal of a good conscience to God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” That the Holy Spirit is also signified in baptism comes out, among other places, in Titus 3:5: “by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit”; John 3:5: “unless one is born of water and the Spirit.” See also Matthew 3:11 as this text has been interpreted above. Here John contrasts the sign and the thing signified with each other and says that he can only give the former, that Christ must and will give the latter.
Scripture does not indicate further how the Spirit is portrayed in the sign of the water. There is no need to be reminded that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is a common image in Scripture. But outpouring is something that makes us think of water. So, there is nothing in itself incongruous that the Spirit is portrayed by water and His action signified by sprinkling with water. Some have pointed to the life-giving power of water, but this surmise appears to lack scriptural grounding.
The blood of Christ applied to the soul justifies. In the shedding of that blood is both the passive as well as the active obedience of the Mediator. That is why the sign of baptism is also a sign, not of a half, but of a complete, perfect justification. Baptism, says Peter, is the appeal of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In baptism there is the appeal, but also the response to it from the side of God.
b)The Baptists and all who insist on the necessity of immersion proceed in a completely different way in their explanation of the symbolism of baptism. They say that baptizō is “dipping.” “Dipping” is putting something in water so that it first goes under water and then comes out of it again. The movement down and up, then, is what is essential. The movement signifies entering into death and emerging from death. The death into which one enters and from which one emerges is in the first place the atoning death of Christ. The believer must enter into it in order to share in it; that is, he must have fellowship with it—the death must be imputed to him. Christ therefore called His death a baptism: “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38); “But I have to be baptized with this baptism, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished” (Luke 12:50). That is why Paul speaks of baptism as follows: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom 6:3).
But that is not the only thing about the symbolism of baptism that we, in the estimation of the Baptists, fail to appreciate and omit. There is more. When the baptized person descends into the water and is baptized downward, that symbolizes the destruction of his own old man. When he makes the movement upward and rises, it signifies the resurrection of his new man. Further, between both of these symbols of death there is now a connection. Baptism signifies that only through fellowship in the death on the cross and the resurrection of Christ (in a juridical fashion) can the killing of the old and the resurrection of the new man take place in us. Our burial and our resurrection are only possible because we enter into the death and the resurrection of Christ, thus into the water of baptism.
And the conclusion is that only immersionists possess the unimpaired sacrament, that, on the other hand, aspersionists [those who sprinkle] have a corrupted sign and are disobedient to the ordinance of Christ. A Baptist writes: “It is a sad thing that those who follow the practice of sprinkling in place of immersion say by that symbol that a man can regenerate himself, or at least that his regeneration can take place without being connected with Christ’s death.… Purification is made to be the essence of baptism, and one concludes that any form of purification corresponds to the purpose of the ordinance. But if Christ’s death is the meriting cause of our purification, we may expect it will be pictured in the ordinance that attests that purification; if the death of Christ is the central fact of Christianity, we may expect it will also be symbolized in the initiating rite of Christianity” (Strong, Systematic Theology, 529)1
Our answer to this view is as follows:
1.That abundance of water and entering into it is a special image of the death of Christ cannot be proven from any place in Scripture. What Christ says in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50, cited above, certainly does not look ahead to Christian baptism but is a figurative expression. The thought is probably connected to Old Testament expressions, such as Psalm 69:1–2, 14–15; Psalm 42:7; 124:4–5; 144:7; Isaiah 43:2; Revelation 12:15.
2.When the water of baptism is brought into contact with the person being baptized, then a connection between him and the death of Christ comes about just as well as it does by immersion. This baptismal water surely signifies, as we have seen, the blood of the Savior. Blood causes one to think immediately of death. And sprinkling with blood shows clearly enough that the death of Christ has something to do with our washing and purification. It is therefore a completely unjustified accusation against the aspersionists when it is said that they detach subjective grace from its origin in the death of Christ. As long as there is an application of water in baptism, in whatever particular way that may be, something like that detachment is naturally impossible. The death of Christ is symbolically there in the water.
3.The Baptistic symbolism is not simple and clear enough to be able do service for the kind of rite that must be generally understandable. The submerging of the person baptized must signify two things at the same time: namely, the death of Christ and the death of the sinner that flows from it. Cause and result merge here. The water in itself, the quantity of water, cannot represent the death of Christ, for, if one admits that, it becomes a purely quantitative question and there are no longer any grounds for saying that the small amount of water that we use does not depict the death. But neither does submerging, for it is the submersion not of the Savior but of the sinner. But few people can understand such a complex symbolism.
4.The passage primarily appealed to from the Baptist side is Romans 6:1–10. One must agree that here Paul here links his argumentation to the symbolism of immersion. He aims to show that justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness, that thereby one does not learn to say, “Let us continue in sin that grace may increase.” The proof lies in the fact that a subjective reversal in the consciousness of man accompanies entrance into the state of objective justification. And for this the apostle finds proof in the ceremony of baptism—that baptism was a baptism into the death of Christ because it was a baptism into Christ. As many of us as were baptized in (into) Christ were baptized into his death. Because by his baptism the Christian has been brought into union with Christ, that union must continue in all its aspects and parts. It must be a union in death. Now it is self-evident that this cannot be understood in an entirely literal way. Our death is not totally the same as Christ’s death. There is only a kind of likeness. The dying of Christ was the dying of sin; our death is a dying to sin. The comparison between these two is thus not so much a comparison between two similar facts as a meaningful allusion. Baptism reminds us that the death of Christ must be at work in us, that the sin that was judged on the cross must now further also be pursued and driven out until its last traces have disappeared. The center of gravity of the discourse, therefore, lies in union with Christ.
Now, however, no one will maintain that baptism loses this element as soon as it ceases to be an immersion. After all, sprinkling, too, takes place into Christ. When the blood of Christ is applied to us in baptism, that signifies not only that guilt but also pollution must be cleansed. The shedding of blood becomes a washing with blood in a double sense, namely, for justification and sanctification. If now in Paul’s day baptism by sprinkling was usual, he could just as well have reasoned from this practice as from baptism by immersion. He could have spoken as follows:
a)In baptism as the sacrament of incorporation into the Christian church, what it means to become a Christian comes out.
b)In baptism the blood of Christ is not only shed outside of us as a sacrifice that is effective for us; it is also sprinkled upon us as blood that cleanses.
c)Baptism signifies and seals, therefore, that the blood of Christ, as the sign of His death, also works in us, that it sanctifies and regenerates us.
d)It is therefore slander if one disseminates that a Christian could say: Let us commit sin, so that grace may increase!
There is, however, more that stands in the way of Baptistic reasoning. One is accustomed to represent this descending into and arising out of the water of baptism as a symbol of regeneration. But Paul is not speaking about regeneration here. It is without doubt that he has conversion in view. Repentance and faith as the source of good works correspond to this descending and arising. It is something that occurs in the consciousness, a breaking with and a crucifying of sin that has the character of something shameful, something painful. Because the Christian, before he came to the peace of justification, had to wrestle through this process of dying, because sin was revealed in him in all its hideousness and is always a disgrace for him, it is therefore impossible that he would ever fall into the frightful error of wanting to commit sin so that grace would increase. Not regeneration, but conversion is thus portrayed here by descending and arising. And now we must agree that for this symbolism immersion alone is fitting. Only submersion with water, plunging into it, produces the thought of something painful and grievous. Paul then also speaks of being buried with Christ, a being crucified of the old man with him, but he never says that the essence of baptism is to be found in that. In Titus 3:5, where he mentions regeneration, he finds the symbolic element in the bath, thus in washing, not in something painful but in something refreshing and enlivening.
The result for us, therefore, is that baptism by immersion can be used with a richer symbolic significance than by sprinkling, but that the latter also is a complete baptism; and that in the institution and origin of baptism, not burial and resurrection but cleansing and washing were in the foreground. Paul used immersion in a meaning-filled way to express a profound thought, but nowhere did he say that he thereby indicated or explained the mode of baptism.
17. Where does one find the institution of Christian baptism?
In principle it already received its divine institution with John the Baptist. But this institution is ratified anew by the Mediator before His ascension (Matt 28:19).
18. What is the meaning of these words of institution?
a)They must be related to verse 18: “And coming to them Jesus spoke, saying, ‘To me is given all authority in heaven and on earth.’ ” As the powerful one, that is, as the one who is fully authorized, who possesses mediatorial power, Christ instituted the sacrament of baptism. It is authority granted, thus the authority of the Mediator.
b)“Having gone out, make disciples of all nations.” This is the literal translation of the word that our translations have rendered with “teach” (mathēteusate). In “all nations” lies the catholicity of Christianity, which with the exaltation of the Lord would receive its full rights. But the Jews are not excluded from this “all the nations.” From now on, Israel is an ordinary nation alongside the other nations. One great Christian people takes the place of the people of fleshly Israel. The Vulgate already translated with docete, “teach,” and thereby this incorrect translation has come into and remained in use.
c)The question further is: What is the connection between the three things: “make disciples,” “baptize,” and “teach”? Evidently, the connection is this: that making disciples takes place by baptizing and by teaching. Accordingly, it has two parts. First, by baptism someone is placed in the relationship of a disciple of Jesus, and then he is taught accurately concerning everything that the Lord has commanded so that he may keep it. By this it is not said, but neither is it excluded, that the persons to be baptized must first receive some instruction. If their baptism is their becoming a disciple, then they must know what that means. For adults that is the case, but if, as for children, instruction is not possible immediately, baptism can precede and the instruction in its entirety allowed to follow. This is important for infant baptism.
d)“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” By this baptism, water baptism is to be understood, not, as the Quakers hold, Spirit-baptism by Christ. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are here mentioned next to each other, and the one word “name” applies to these three together. If the text had read “in the names,” then that could give rise to the impression that each of the three divine persons bore more than one name. The question, however, is: What is meant by this “into the name” (eis to onoma)?
1.The Vulgate has translated it in nomine, “in the name.” Luther has followed this translation, “in Namen.” That would mean: “by order of, by the authority of Father, Son, and Spirit.” But this cannot be so for various reasons. Then nothing would be said about the purpose of baptism, about its signifying and sealing power, and only the person who administers it and his mandate would be mentioned. Further, neither can eis to onoma mean “in the name” (beshem), but will have to be understood otherwise, equivalent to leshem, “into the name.” And this “into the name” does not mean “unto the honor of the name,” neither simply “for the confession of the name,” nor “so that the person baptized may be called by another name.” Rather, the meaning is that by baptism one comes to stand in a personal relationship with the triune God, who is called by the name Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The name is the revelation of the being; the being of God is in His name. Thus, to be baptized into the name indicates entering into that relationship with God whereby His being becomes the full truth for us. By baptism the first person of the Trinity becomes for us (always sacramentally) a Father who “adopts us for His children and heirs, and promises to provide us with all good and avert all evil or turn it to our benefit” (Form for Baptism). Likewise with the Son and the Holy Spirit. These three names occur here economically in their meaning that they have for the covenant of grace. Of course, at the same time a Trinitarian confession is included, but that is still not all. To be baptized into the name of the triune One speaks of much more than being bound by baptism to believe in the Trinity. It speaks of coming into a practical personal relationship with the Trinity. Baptism is not just a general symbol of Christianity; it is a seal of the covenant of grace. And the covenant of grace is in essence a Trinitarian covenant.
2.We thus avoid two extremes in the explanation of these words. The first extreme is that of the explanations mentioned above; the other is that one understands “into the name” as the sphere into which the baptized person enters. Here it is not in the first place a sphere with which we have to do, but a relationship. Of course, that relationship brings consequences with it. But that stems from the fact that it is not we ourselves who place ourselves in this relationship; it is the Triune God who does this. That is the starting point of our Form for Baptism. The Father declares, the Son declares, the Holy Spirit declares, and that is the meaning of our being baptized into their name.
3.In many respects, one has wished to translate: “immersing them in the name of the Father,” etc., as if here the name occurs as the element in which one is immersed. But then the water must picture the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But for that any further basis is lacking in Scripture. The water in which one is immersed is never anything other than the blood and the Spirit of Christ. Thus the entire expression will have to be understood as follows: “Baptize (in water) into the fellowship of the covenant of grace with Father, Son, and Spirit.” And in this is contained the thought that what is signified and sealed by water is the sole means for gaining access into fellowship with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. One must be brought into contact with the water, into the water, and only in this way is it possible to come to the triune God. In baptism we have to see in the sign not so much the goal as the means to that goal. The blood, as blood of the covenant, as the blood of the Mediator, opens to us the entrance to the covenant relationship with God.
e)Are these words, “into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” to be regarded as a formula that must be pronounced at baptism and that may never be changed? Tertullian maintained that the form was prescribed; Origen declared that no baptism was legitimate other than that in the name of the Trinity, as did Athanasius. The latter two, however, appear not to have insisted on the precise form. But Augustine, going along with Tertullian, did. Thomas Aquinas also agreed with them, and required the use of the words as a formula. He says that when the apostles sometimes used other words, they had special permission for that from Christ that we do not have. The Roman Catholic Catechism doubts that the apostles ever baptized with any other formula than the full formula. Bellarmine does not appeal to Matthew 28:19 but to tradition and the church to prove the necessary use of the formula.
On the other hand, there are not a few others who declare a baptism in the name of Christ as legitimate, since in the name of Christ that of the Father and of the Son is already implied. We mention only Ambrose, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Peter Lombard.
Luther denied that the strict formula is demanded and that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would not be valid. Zwingli denied that Matthew 28:19 is intended for use as a formula. Calvin judges otherwise (Commentary on Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor 1:13). He reasons from the thought that Christ certainly intended to prescribe a formula. Voetius said that at baptism there must be an audible word including the command and the promise of God, and for that one does best to keep to Matthew 18:19, but that one may not seek the form and the essence of baptism in the use of those words and in their sequence. Cloppenburg calls it an error to think that Christ gave a command to use precisely these words. Beza, Gomarus, Maresius, Heidegger, and Turretin, in contrast, are in agreement with Calvin. Cocceius said that no formula was prescribed, as do most Cocceians. À Brakel, too, does not hold the formula to be necessary.
One sees that the theologians, in the Reformed church too, answered the question differently. Can it be shown that the apostles used another formula? In Acts 2:38, Peter does call his hearers to let themselves be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, but it cannot be demonstrated that by that he intended to indicate the formula that was to be pronounced at baptism. Bengel thought that the Jews only needed to be baptized in the name of Jesus, while for the Gentiles, who were completely alienated from the true God, the full formula would have been used by the apostles. In Mathew 28:19, then, “all the nations” would have that in view. But, as already has been said, this expression does not at all exclude the Jews. We believe that nothing can be proven from Acts 2:38, nor from Acts 8:16. Acts 10:48 has “in the name of the Lord”; in 19:5, “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Apparently here throughout the purpose of baptism is described, with the baptism formula cited, and in order to describe the purpose nothing was more suitable than to say, “into the Mediator,” “into the name of Jesus Christ.”
It is otherwise in Matthew 28:19. Certainly here, too, emphasis is placed on the purpose of baptism, but this time intentionally, in instituting baptism. Thus we may assume that the words found here are the formulation of our Savior regarding the purport of baptism. And if it is now established that at baptism something must be pronounced, and that this pronouncement must express in a few words the purport of the sacrament, then we rightly ask, Where could one better find the words required than in this commission of the Savior? Although it is true that there is no command here to use that specific form of words, still it borders on audacity even to desire to give a better formulation for the meaning of the sacrament than that Christ has given us here. There is not even the slightest reason conceivable why one would deviate from it.
May one say, however, that baptism not administered with that formula is illegitimate? Here one should make a distinction. If omitting the formula takes place out of a deliberate denial of the Trinity in the church that administers baptism, then that baptism is certainly illegitimate. If, on the other hand, the intention was none other than to baptize into the fellowship of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, then one may not attach such significance to the words in themselves that by their omission the baptism could be altered.
At the same time, it follows from this that in our day the use of the formula is of more weight than in earlier times. If there were no Unitarians in the world, then the omission of the formula would not provide an occasion to regard anyone with suspicion. But now that the Trinitarian confession is being denied most strongly from many sides, there is a great probability that something more is lurking behind the falling of the formula into disuse. That is why it is not permissible for anyone to change the words or omit any of them lightly.
19. What question is related to what is being discussed here?
That concerning the one who legitimately administers baptism. Roman Catholics, following in the footsteps of Augustine, posit an absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. Since it appears cruel to tie the salvation of a person on occasion to the accidental presence or absence of a priest, Rome has seen itself compelled to allow for baptism by laypeople, even by women in cases of emergency. That is called emergency baptism. Even a nonbaptized layman can baptize others in case of an emergency. Rome will even recognize the baptism of heretics, although in the ancient church there was an intense conflict about that. Cyprian and the African bishops rejected the baptism administered by heretical and schismatic churches, and rebaptized. The Donatists insisted on this even much more strongly and developed this divergent belief into heresy. The Church of Rome, in contrast, did not rebaptize those who had received a heretical baptism. At the Nicene Council this latter standpoint was adopted, but an exception was made for heretics who denied the Trinity.
Regarding the one administering baptism, the Reformed have always held to the rule that the ministry of the Word and the administration of the sacraments belong together. In the institution of baptism is a command to the apostles to make disciples. Baptism belongs to this making of disciples. It is a part of making disciples. Teaching precedes and follows it. This teaching is official teaching, teaching first entrusted to the apostles, but in them entrusted to the whole church, its dogmatic power. It is natural, then, that those who occupy this teaching office also perform baptism. It goes without saying that it was not entrusted only to the apostles to baptize. The command in its generality, “make disciples of all nations,” could only be carried out by the church of all ages. The sacraments are seals of the King of the church, but it is inherent in the nature of a seal that it cannot be used by just anyone. The king appoints his lawful servants to affix it for him to those items to which he wishes to have it affixed. Roman Catholics appeal to Zipporah (Exod 4:25). But the cases are not the same. At that time, there was no regular ministry of the Word, and circumcision was ordinarily done by the father of the household. Finally, since we do not teach the necessity of baptism in order to be saved, we also cannot concede that in any instance it would be necessary to depart from the rule that baptism must be administered by ministers of the Word.
Baptism is not a private matter. As a sacrament, it belongs to the church. Therefore it should be administered in a public meeting of the congregation, when believers are gathered for the ministry of the Word.
Of course, it cannot strictly be proven from the New Testament that only ministers of the teaching office administered baptism in the first Christian churches. At Pentecost, some of the disciples could have assisted the apostles in administering baptism. Philip (deacon and evangelist) baptized. Ananias baptized Paul in Damascus, and we know nothing more about him than that he was a disciple (Acts 9:10, 18). In 1 Corinthians 1:7, Paul says that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. That is, what was specific, what distinguished the apostles from others, what others could not do just as well, was not found in baptizing but in the apostolic proclamation of the word of God—proof that Matthew 28:19 was directed to the church as represented by the apostles, and not to the apostles as such. In Acts 10:48 Peter, too, appears to have left the baptizing to others.
Regarding heretical baptism, the Reformed church also takes the standpoint mentioned above by distinguishing between fundamental heresy and non-fundamental deviation in doctrine. We do not recognize a baptism by Arians and Socinians. We do recognize baptism by Roman Catholics and Remonstrants. When someone comes over to us from the first two groups, we do not rebaptize. We baptize for the first time, for he has not been truly baptized. The point is not whether or not the person who administers baptism has been corrupted by fundamental heresy; at issue is only the standpoint of the church in which and for which he has administered baptism. But it is obvious that this is an area where one could raise many hard questions. When the church tolerates a heretical teacher, is it not then itself partly accountable and accessory to so-called heretical doctrine? Can one acknowledge the baptism of a so-called Reformed church that permits someone who denies the deity of Christ to continue to minister the Word and the sacraments? If the heresy of the minister has remained hidden heresy, then that of course is not an issue for the validity or non-validity of the baptism.
20. To whom should baptism be administered?
Its institution makes clear that those should be baptized who are able to be disciples (Matt 28:19). Thus men, not clocks or buildings or the like, as Roman Catholics maintain. Linked permanently to 1 Corinthians 15:29 is the difficult question whether dead persons may also be baptized, at least representatively—that is, whether someone can be baptized on behalf of the dead. There the apostle says, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead (Epei ti poiēsousin hoi baptizomenoi hyper tōn nekrōn), if the dead are not raised at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” Already long past there have been no less than 23 explanations of these words.
a)Calvin and others take this “letting oneself be baptized for the dead” as meaning “letting oneself be baptized in the state of dying, as such who certainly will die, who are as good as dead.” In view then must be sick Christians who had not yet received baptism but still wished to die as baptized persons. It is apparent, however, that the words cannot possibly mean this.
b)Luther and others take hyper in a local sense: “above the graves.” He says that Christians in Corinth carried out the ceremony of baptism above the graves of those who had died. But hyper in such a sense does not occur in the New Testament, and that baptism was administered above the graves cannot provide proof for the resurrection of the dead, for which the words of the apostle must surely contain a proof.
c)Chrysostom: “be baptized for the resurrection of the body,” that is, under the circumstance of confessing the article of Christian faith that speaks of the resurrection of the dead; so the view of many others. But neither can the words mean this.
d)The most natural and, as it appears to us, only tenable explanation seems to be as follows: In the Corinthian congregation a misuse must have existed whereby Christians let themselves be baptized vicariously for unbaptized deceased persons, probably in the superstitious belief that from this baptism the latter would gain an advantage on the day of the resurrection. Thus this misuse included belief in the resurrection of the dead. And to the extent that the practice included this faith, Paul could make use of it as an ad hominem argument. By this, however, it is not being maintained that Paul approved of this superstitious use. Under other circumstances Paul could have remonstrated with the Corinthians about this practice and taught them better. In any case the apostles opposed it, for it did not continue in the church. It is found later only in heretical sects such as, for example, the Marcionites.
One should grant that only this last mentioned explanation does justice to the natural sense of the words. No one will be able to claim, however, that it removes all difficulties. It remains abidingly strange that Paul could make such a dreadful misuse of baptism the basis for his argument without a single word of disapproval.
21. How can one further categorize the recipients of baptism?
Into two groups:
a)Adults who were not baptized in their infancy.
b)Children of the covenant who were baptized as such.
It is necessary to treat the meaning of baptism for these two classes separately. The question of infant baptism is a question of such great importance that it should be discussed independently. It is granted by all that where the New Testament deals with baptism ex professo [by profession], the baptism of adults is meant. In a time of missions, as the New Testament was, that should naturally come to the fore. We first seek, therefore, to establish what meaning the New Testament attributes to baptism as administered to an adult.
22. To what adults was baptism administered according to the ordinance of Christ?
To those who were in truth His disciples. Through baptism one became a disciple of Jesus. One was baptized into Him in order to enter into the fellowship of the covenant of grace with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nowhere is there a hint to be found that by this only an outward relationship is meant, an obligation to be present for or to do this or that. To the words of the Ethiopian eunuch, Philip says: “If you believe with all your heart, it is permitted” (Acts 8:37). Here it is implied that baptism would not be permitted if this heartfelt faith were lacking. Now, Philip is not setting himself up as the judge of the inward condition of the eunuch. Rather, he puts the responsibility completely on the eunuch himself. “If you believe, it is permitted.” The eunuch, knowing that he did not believe, would have had no right to receive baptism. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Thus, saving faith must precede the baptism of an adult. The church may give the sacraments, the seals of God’s covenant, to no one other than believers. There must first be a credible profession of faith.
Whether the profession accords with reality, the church need not investigate further. It is not only possible but also likely in advance that in many cases the reality will not accord with the profession. But even in those cases, the church proceeds freely when it administers the seal of the covenant on the basis of profession, for Christ has not commissioned it to investigate the genuineness of a profession. It only has the commission to take note of a profession and to act on it. And its judgment about that profession itself is purely negative. That is, it may and must put to itself the question: Is there anything that absolutely compels us to doubt the sincerity of that profession? It is self-evident that this question must be posed. It is impossible and would amount to self-mystification, if, for example, one would want to regard as sincere a profession that is openly contradicted by the person’s conduct. Besides that, however, such an investigation is negative—that is, it proceeds from the position that sincerity must be accepted wherever its opposite cannot be shown. It is not the calling of an office-bearer to set himself the task of proving the genuineness of someone’s faith. That is precisely the Labadistic method that demands that, with the help of all possible means, one should obtain moral certainty regarding the inward state of someone who presents himself for the reception of the sacraments. But the Reformed position is to distance oneself completely from doing that after the candidate is satisfactorily instructed regarding the import of the step he is to take. In this entire matter the church does not act in a discretionary manner; it acts by mandate. Fixed rules have been prescribed to it, to which it is to adhere strictly. It is a judge in this sense: it may not rely on subjective impressions or moral convictions that it has formed by itself but must submit to the divine right of its King. And as a judge does not ask himself: Can I regard that man as innocent or trust him? But rather: Is or is not what that man has done within the terms of the condemnation of the law? So, too, does the church. A judge can see himself forced to acquit someone of whose guilt he is morally convinced. The church can see itself forced to permit someone to be baptized about whose sincerity it entertains reasonable doubt. In both cases, any lack of absolute proof benefits the person who is under suspicion.
One can also express all this as follows: the church has no right to withhold the sacrament of baptism from someone if for the same reason it would not be entitled, if the person were already baptized, to excommunicate him. And since now someone is not excommunicated on moral suspicions or subjective convictions but only on objective grounds, so also only the latter are sufficient to warrant withholding the sacrament. The profession that should precede baptism is a profession that can be believed, not one that compels us to believe it.
Our Form for Baptism, in that section that is to be used for adults, understands the matter in this way. It begins with the words: “And although the children of Christians (apart from the fact that they do not understand this) should be baptized by virtue of the covenant, nevertheless it is not permissible to baptize adults, unless they, with a prior sense of their sins, make a profession of their repentance and faith in Christ.” This is then proven by an appeal to the baptism of John, to the institution of baptism, and from the practice of the New Testament. With the questions that the adult to be baptized is asked also belongs this one: whether he believes that by the power of the Holy Spirit he has become a member of Christ and His church. Thus this profession certainly implies a subjective change in the one who makes it. That is no Labadism, but biblical prescription, and common Reformed practice.
On this point one can best distinguish the significance of the sacrament. For the baptism of young children, it is naturally much more difficult. But for adults, no Protestant church has ever doubted that only true, saving faith can entitle to baptism. Here all Protestant churches stand together against Rome. Rome administers baptism to the masses as soon as they are but inclined to receive it, baptizes on the basis of historical faith only, and then also on the basis of a fides implicita [implicit faith]. The Brownists (Puritans in the narrower sense) instituted a Labadistic investigation of the inward state of the person to be baptized. The Reformed church stands midway between these two extremes. It always insists earnestly on truth in one’s relationship toward God and in receiving His covenant seals, and never by word nor action gives the impression that baptism is merely an outward ceremony or that mere historical faith is sufficient. Baptism on the basis of historical faith alone is not permitted. But the church does not permit itself to be used as a discerner of hearts that must distinguish historical faith from saving faith.
What further is contained in such a credible profession cannot be specified so easily. Knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity is required. The baptism of an adult takes place on the supposition that there is grace present in the heart. But the presence of that grace can only be revealed by words. Where every expression of knowledge is lacking, the basis for the supposition just mentioned would be lacking. God has so ordained that the inward life of a Christian can only emerge by a conscious profession. But a difference of opinion can exist regarding the extent of the knowledge required. That extent can vary according to the person. In the Formula, the following doctrines are enumerated in sequence as those in which faith is required: the Trinity-creation-providence-sin-redemption. But before that a private profession has already preceded, and also at the conclusion assent is asked to all the articles of the Christian religion.
23. What is the efficacy of this is baptism for adults?
This question is identical to the other: is baptism a bare sign and seal, or is it also a means of grace by which Christ, along with the Word, ordained to really convey grace to us?
From this then of itself another question develops: What grace may be communicated by baptism?
Regarding the first question, we have already seen how the Reformed conception makes the sacraments to be real means of grace. The Zwinglian doctrine, according to which they are bare symbols of God’s grace and signs of our commitment to God, is rejected decisively. But one need not appeal to exclusively confessional grounds in order to reject this view. Scripture, too, rejects it. It is not probable that Christ would have carried out the institution of a mere symbol in such a serious and solemn way in His last commission to His disciples, more specifically to His apostles. At such a moment we expect more from someone who speaks in this way. Also, in the New Testament dispensation there is really no place for symbols that are not means of grace, since the shadows have passed away and the body has come. The sacramental expressions of Scripture, which present the thing signified and the sign in such close conjunction, become completely inexplicable if one continues to adhere to the concept of symbol.
So, if baptism is a means of grace, then the question arises: What grace is imparted by it? Once again, it should be recalled that here we are only speaking of the baptism of adults. Infant baptism is discussed later. We can establish the following:
a)According to the teaching of Scripture throughout, for adults, receiving baptism presupposes the presence of saving faith, and, consequently, the presence also of everything that saving faith brings with it or presupposes. So, regeneration, conversion, justification. And it is therefore an unbiblical doctrine that in an adult baptism works regeneration, conversion, justification. Even the Lutheran church, which places such a great emphasis on the sacrament as an effective means of grace, has not let itself be misled to depart from this scriptural basis. Although seemingly attributing all these things to infant baptism, the Lutherans teach nevertheless in their Large Catechism: “Only faith makes the person worthy to receive the salvific and divine water with profit.… If faith is absent, baptism remains merely a naked and ineffective sign.”
b)Consequently, one must understand in another way the passages in Scripture that appear to present regeneration as achieved in adults by baptism. Scripture cannot be in conflict with itself. It cannot say in one place, “In order to be baptized, someone must first believe!” and in another place, “Baptism effects regeneration and faith.” The passages that could be considered here are primarily John 3:5 and Titus 3:5.
The first passage has already been discussed earlier. There are various explanations of it. Calvin says, “He applies ‘Spirit’ and ‘water’ to the same thing.… It is a common and everyday mode of expression in Scripture when reference is made to the Spirit, in order to express His power.… The water, therefore, is nothing other than the inward cleansing and enlivening of the Holy Spirit.” Others (for example, Meyer) believe that here Christian baptism is spoken of directly and is made a condition for entering the kingdom of heaven. Still others think of the baptism of John. The correct explanation will be as follows:
Regeneration is delineated here according to its two aspects: the doing away of the old man and the raising up of the new man. These two aspects are described in terms of the most prominent part specific to each. By the doing away of the old man, washing, in particular, is meant—namely, washing that does away with (guilt and) pollution. By the raising up of the new man an implanting of a new life principle, in particular, is meant. The first aspect precedes the second in order. Now to express the first aspect, Jesus uses the image of water that cannot have been strange to Nicodemus. He was well-acquainted with the Levitical washings and, moreover, with the baptism of John. The latter all the more, since with the baptism of John it was just the negative aspect of regeneration, the doing away of the old, that was prominent. Nicodemus would thus have immediately understood what was meant by a regeneration by water.
To express the second aspect, the Lord speaks of a regeneration by Spirit. Spirit occurs here without the article because it is very closely connected to water, “water and Spirit.” It must thus be taken as that which, like water, has a specific function. Water purifies, Spirit makes alive. Water plus Spirit makes pure plus alive. Nicodemus could know that, too, as a teacher in Israel. The Spirit as life-giving was not an unknown concept in the Old Testament.
Thus, our result is that in view here is regeneration with its two aspects, but not baptism. But one can certainly say that the images used here by the Savior are likewise made the foundation for the signifying and sealing of Holy Baptism. Nevertheless, with this distinction: that there [in baptism] water portrays not just the blood but also the Spirit of Christ, while here [in John 3] water and Spirit are differentiated.
In Titus 3:5, there appears to be much more of a basis for the idea that baptism is a means of grace for regeneration. Many think that the washing spoken of here must be baptism. And now there is said to be a washing of regeneration and a renewal of the Holy Spirit. But we observe:
1.It is entirely uncertain that here the apostle is speaking of baptism. “The washing” can be a figurative expression for regeneration. The two genitives that follow serve then as a further clarification of what washing is meant, namely, the washing that consists of regeneration and renewal. The genitive “of the Holy Spirit” says who the author of this washing is, or we could take Him as the instrument of the washing. God is the author who saves us. He does this through a washing, a bathing, and He does this as He richly pours the Holy Spirit over us through Jesus Christ, our Savior. These last words cause us to think even involuntarily that here a washing of the Holy Spirit is in view.
2.However, if by “washing” one wishes to think of “baptism,” it still in nowise follows that regeneration by or in baptism is taught here. The genitive could express multiple relations. It could be: the baptism with which the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit are accompanied. But it could also be: the baptism, in which regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit are signified and sealed.
Calvin understands it in the latter sense: “Baptism seals to us the salvation obtained by Christ.” The apostle says that God has saved us through baptism, since in sacramental phraseology the thing signified can be expressed by the sign. Our [Heidelberg] Catechism understands it in this last sense (question 71). The two concepts, “regeneration” and “renewal,” are not to be sharply divorced. They serve to complement each other. It is a regeneration that at the same time is a renewal.
3.Thus if faith (regeneration, conversion, etc.) must precede the baptism of adults, is there perhaps another special grace that has been linked to baptism by God and is granted in baptism? This has been maintained by not a few. There are those who acknowledge that baptism must follow faith, but that nevertheless at baptism something happens to the believer by which he is essentially changed. He receives the Holy Spirit, is brought into fellowship with Christ by the Holy Spirit, and thereby undergoes a work of Christ that causes him to die according to his old man and to rise according to his new man. It is obvious that on this viewpoint one must assume a twofold possession of the Holy Spirit. In the first place: a being wrought by the Holy Spirit by which faith is produced, a new life principle is infused, and testimony to justification is given. To divorce all these things from the work of the Holy Spirit runs entirely counter to the rule of Scripture. A person must be regenerated by water and Spirit. “And to another, faith by the same Spirit” (1 Cor 12:9); “Since we have the same Spirit of faith” (2 Cor 4:13). Further: a possession of the Spirit as an indwelling person who makes us to be temples of God, unites us to Christ the head, establishes the communion of saints, and forms the mystical body. Now it is supposed that the latter possession of the Holy Spirit is given in baptism, not the former. Appeal is made to texts like the following: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:27–28); “For by one Spirit we all have been baptized into one body … and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).
This would therefore be a special baptismal grace, which nevertheless leaves the principle of faith as a prerequisite for receiving the sacrament completely intact. However, the difficulty of giving the sacrament a specific content of grace lies just in this: by doing that, one is so easily in danger of slipping away from the Reformed basis and making baptism an instrument of generating faith instead of viewing it as a means of strengthening faith. And conversely, one so easily reasons: If faith is already present before the use of the sacrament, what then still remains for the sacrament itself? This theory attempts to navigate between these two difficulties by making the distinction noted above.
This theory has been worked out by Dr. [Abraham] Kuyper in a particular form. He says (De Heraut, no. 638): “If now one asks wherein the special, singular, distinctive and distinguishing characteristic of the strengthening of faith by sacrament lies, then this must undoubtedly be sought in the fellowship of the body of Christ. Holy Baptism ushers our faith into this fellowship and the Holy Lord’s Supper nourishes and maintains this fellowship.” However, this is not meant as if the Holy Spirit is first imparted by the sacrament. “This cannot be, for whoever does not already partake of the Holy Spirit … cannot receive the sacrament.… The Holy Spirit now exercises this singular and special activity in the sacrament, so that he frees our faith-consciousness from its sinful self-containedness and enriches and strengthens it through the faith-communion of the saints.” In number 647, a distinction is made between grace in the root (regeneration), grace in the branches (further development of this life in its diversity), and grace in the fruits (good works). But the grace of baptism is not found in any of these three; it bears a character entirely its own. “If it is already so that Holy Baptism causes reception of the Holy Spirit, this must be so understood that the Holy Spirit appears here in a special sacramental action that as such must be distinguished from all other actions of the Holy Spirit.” And again: “That by your regeneration you are indeed organically joined with the body of Christ through a mystical bond of life is not enough; that bond of life must also become a bond of faith.… By it you first come to know that you … are a member of a body.”
No one who has attentively read the texts in which the New Testament (in particular, Paul) speaks about baptism will be able to deny that there is truth in this view. But still we believe that it cannot be shown that this grace is exclusively the property of baptism or the Lord’s Supper and that it can be called a specifically sacramental grace. On the one hand, it is established that faith, apart from every sacrament, already unites to Christ and, in Christ, with the saints. When Christ dwells in hearts through faith, one learns to fully comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth (Eph 3:17–18). In the Word is the whole Christ, and where the whole Christ is, there, too, is the fellowship with the body of which He is the Head; there, too, is the consciousness that faith has of this fellowship. Thus, to say that the grace of the sacrament is a special grace always amounts to saying that in the sacrament Christ offers us another side of Himself than in the Word. And if Christ offers us another side of Himself in the sacrament than in the Word, and vice versa, then He does not offer Himself completely in each of these. It occurs to us that this is a great objection to this conception. It does not have the sacraments solely strengthen faith, but at the same time—and that is the primary part—it has the sacraments give to faith a new aspect and direction that it cannot get from the Word. And on the other hand, everywhere baptism is discussed, the emphasis is never put on the communion of the saints. Now it is the grace of justification, then the grace of regeneration as inward renewal, then again the grace of regeneration as joining to the mystical body of Christ that is indicated. In still other cases, the bond of the mystical union, the possession of the Holy Spirit, is made prominent. Sometimes conversion, as well, is at the center.
From all of this, it is clear that the grace of baptism cannot be limited to a single specific point. In our Form of Baptism it is understood in this way, and in connection with the Trinitarian formula the entire content of the covenant of grace is developed sequentially. And this is likewise the case in the Form for the Lord’s Supper. Although it is undeniable that the sacraments may only be administered in the gathering of believers, still this in itself does not give us the right to concentrate their function as means of grace on the strengthening of faith’s consciousness of the communion of saints. After all, it is true of the Word, too, that its official ministry belongs there in the gathering of believers.
We may not speak of a twofold possession of the Holy Spirit. If there are passages that appear to teach that, then they must be explained as referring to the Spirit as the author of extraordinary gifts. That the reception of these gifts could accompany baptism in the apostolic church appears from Acts 2:38 and other passages. But more than once baptism appears as full baptism where, nevertheless, the gifts were absent and were only added later by the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 8:16–18).
4.If we nonetheless speak of a grace that is given by God by means of baptism, then this occurs in the following sense:
a)It is not a grace that could not also be received through the Word. Sacramental grace is the regular grace of the means of grace. Baptismal grace is the same grace as grace apart from baptism. The whole Christ is present in both Word and sacrament.
b)It is specifically a grace of faith that is given in the sacrament. All else is joined to it and flows from it. If the use of the sacraments also has significance for the other steps of the ordo salutis, this may be explained from the many-sided significance that faith itself has. Faith does not allow itself to be excluded from anything. It is joined with sanctification as well as with justification, and every strengthening of faith must finally benefit the entire development of the Christian life.
c)It is a grace that is not worked by the outward sign itself. It proceeds directly from Christ. For an adult, too, baptism does not work ex opere operato, as Roman Catholics maintain. Here, again, Word and sacraments stand on the same line. As the Word in itself is not able to produce faith in principle, so baptism in itself is not able to strengthen that faith. In both cases there must be the accompanying action of Christ by the Holy Spirit.
It is also not an action that results in a natural manner from the idea that is symbolized in the sign. The Lutherans teach that the grace in baptism is worked by the power of the Holy Spirit residing in the Word. Luther says in his Small Catechism: “Indeed it is not the water that brings about such great things, but the word of God that is in and with the water, and faith that trusts the word accompanying the water.… When the word of God accompanies it, it is a baptism, that is, salvific water of grace and of life, and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit, as Paul says (Titus 3:5).” To say that the image of water does not work grace is ultimately the same as saying that the spoken Word of itself does not work grace. The Word heard or the image seen differ then only in form, and apart from the Spirit of God the one can do no more than the other. But the Lutherans believe that just in the idea expressed by the Word a supernatural power works in a magical way. This power works, according to the Lutheran conception, per se, when there is no resistance. Hence, too, it is that in children who cannot offer resistance, baptism works regeneration.
d)It is a grace that for adults can only work through a conscious exercise of faith. It is settled for all that faith is necessary for the use of the sacraments by adults. But this is not meant in the sense that the capacity for faith or the disposition of faith must be present; it refers to the activity of faith. This activity is the conditio sine qua non for the recipient in order to receive the blessing of the sacrament. Calvin says: “They [the sacraments], however, impart nothing unless they are received by faith.” He compares faith in this working of the sacraments to the mouth of a vessel in which wine or oil is poured. If the mouth is closed, even though the pouring be ever so copious, the vessel remains empty (Institutes, 4.14.17). “Faith is the only mouth.” In this respect, too, the sacraments must be kept on the same line as the Word. According to the Reformed view, the Word does not work other than with active exercise of faith.
e)Nevertheless, it is a grace that not only or in the first place benefits the conscious side of faith. It is often thought that with a sacrament it has to do with a momentary conscious strengthening of faith. Someone sits at the table of the Lord who thinks that he has already often received all the rich blessing of the sacrament, when for a few minutes he has an exceptional enjoyment in his consciousness of the benefits of the covenant, which, by recalling it, perhaps lingers on in his spiritual life for two or three days, only then to disappear as an impulse that has faded away.
Now for the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper something may be said for this view. This sacrament indeed is continually repeated so that the need for an inward strengthening produced in the disposition of faith is less noticeable. But an adult receives baptism only once, not to mention infant baptism. Thus, if in fact baptism has to do with a working of grace, then that should certainly occur in the disposition of faith. And, conversely, if it does not occur in the disposition of faith, then it must follow that the working of grace at baptism is of secondary importance. What is essential must lie in the symbolic significance of baptism. From this alone it can be explained that baptism is administered only once. But baptism certainly has more than symbolic significance; it is a sacrament and therefore a means of grace.
So we assume that an adult, making use of baptism in faith, is also strengthened inwardly in his faith. But it must be carefully noted that it is a strengthening of faith. It is not a matter of being joined to the mystical body of Christ or of being gifted with the Holy Spirit. Those are things that underlie faith and precede faith. When we deny that in baptism grace has as its purpose the conscious exercise of faith at the time of baptism, at least only has that as its purpose, then by that we are in no sense denying that it is intended for enriching and deepening the ongoing conscious exercise of faith. The point at issue here is not purpose but means. By saying that the sacraments serve to strengthen faith, it is already granted in principle that their ultimate goal lies in their acting upon conscious faith. Faith, as to its nature, belongs to the conscious life of a Christian. It must turn its unconscious power outward, appear in the light of consciousness, and its worth lies in that. The disposition of faith that does not become activity is dead capital. So, when in the use of the sacraments someone desires a strengthening of the activity of faith, then this is completely proper. The sacrament is disposed to do that. But many are caught up in the misunderstanding that this strengthening of the activity of faith by the idea of the sign must work on that activity in a completely conscious way, and that by this conscious activity the habitus [disposition] must be strengthened. To us, the correct view appears to be this: By the use of the sacraments in faith, strengthening is imparted to the disposition of faith, and from there reacts on its active exercise. From there, as well, this strengthening is not merely a momentary one, acting as a passing impulse; but faith, strengthened inwardly in its depth, is now able, again and again, to supply new strength to the conscious exercise of faith.
f)Thus, by the right use of the sacraments, by the right use of baptism, one receives an inward strengthening of faith. This strengthening is connected, in advance and in retrospect, with the conscious exercise of faith. In advance, for this exercise, as conditio sine qua non, must precede. In retrospect, for all strengthening of faith must result in this exercise. Now, saving faith directs itself to Christ the Mediator. Therefore, the strengthening of faith must also consist in a close tie of the life of faith to the Mediator. We have already found that this is the significance of being baptized into Christ. Although baptism as a seal of the covenant of grace joins us with the triune God, still entrance into and strengthening of this bond is always through the Mediator. Christ must dwell in our hearts by faith [Eph 3:17]; we must be one plant with Him [Rom 6:5 KJV], baptized with Him into one body [cf. 1 Cor 12:13]. All of this refers to the bond of faith.
Now, although the activities of faith, which are strengthened with the proper use of the sacraments, are many and various, still in this root they are all one; they rest on a closer tightening the bond of faith that binds to Christ. A sacrament does not bless; nor does baptism bless if it does not enhance the blessing of the bond with Christ. And from this enhancement and strengthening in the root flows of itself the enlivening of the individual acts of faith that are related to particular aspects of grace. So, an enhancement of justifying grace can result from baptism, used in faith. Only by faith does the Christian have access to the grace in which he stands [Rom 5:2], to the consciousness of justification that in God’s tribunal has been pronounced once for all as soon as faith has been quickened in his soul. Faith is before all things justifying faith, and it is that in the same degree as it may be closely bound to Christ. The strengthening of faith and of the bond of faith to Christ is thus the only means that can put us more firmly in the consciousness of justification. It is not even excluded that in many cases the strengthening of faith by baptism has been so great that it coincided with the transition from taking refuge to assured trusting. The justificatio passiva [passive justification] was in that case connected temporally to baptism. Thus it could be said to those just converted, in whom the exercise of faith had just begun and was not yet very developed: “… be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). And the apostle can address the Corinthians: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” [1 Cor 6:11]. That the subjective appropriation of the grace of justification can coincide with receiving baptism does not remotely prove, however, that baptism is the sacrament of justification and that, like faith, so too justification does not usually precede.
It is the same for conversion. Conversion has two parts: repentance and faith, the dying of the old man, the enlivening of the new. But faith is already resident and at work in repentance. The strengthening of faith must always work fresh conversion. Therefore in Romans 6 the apostle Paul connects the crucifying of the old man and the raising up of the new with baptism. He does this, however, again in a specific way, namely, by viewing it as a result of the bond with the Mediator Christ. We have been baptized into Christ, baptized into His death, “… buried therefore with Him by baptism into death …,” etc. That is, by the right use of the sacrament of baptism we are so closely bound to Christ in our faith that we feel the obligation concerning the sin, which has been judged in His death on the cross, also to crucify and oppose it in ourselves. And no less: so closely bound to Christ that the impulse works in us, concerning the new life that He leads since His resurrection, to live together with Him for God, to walk and to work in it. Even the dying of the old man and the enlivening of the new is thus seen here as a fruit of the bond of faith with the Mediator. And now, again, it is not excluded that for those first called in times of missions, this consciousness of conversion coincides with the reception of baptism. It is possible that for them it is as if at the time of receiving the seal of baptism, precisely then their old man was truly buried and their new man raised. Thus, in retrospect, for them it will be as if they were converted at their baptism. But again, that in no sense means that baptism is the sacrament of conversion in the specific sense, or, even less, the sacrament of regeneration, as Baptists claim. Romans 6 does not teach that the crucifixion of the old man and the resurrection of the new man is achieved by baptism as a special grace, but only that the strengthening of faith is also significant for this part of grace. And since, for those suddenly converted, that significance had come to light very clearly, the apostle could appeal to baptism to refute the claim that on Paul’s standpoint someone could commit sin so that grace might increase.
It is no different, finally, with the communion of the saints. Faith is a faith that all Christians have in common with each other and that also binds them together in their consciousness. Strengthening faith must result in strengthening the communion of the saints. But in this aspect, too, faith is directed in the first place to Christ. A closer bond with the saints can only be obtained by a closer bond with Christ. He is the Head, and through their fellowship with the Head the members are in an organic connection. And since the connection with Christ by faith becomes closer in baptism, so the awareness of the communion of saints will naturally be strengthened. Scripture, then, also lays emphasis on this point in passages like Galatians 3:27–28 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. In both the Forms for Baptism and the Lord’s Supper this is pointed to as part of the grace of the sacrament. But only as a part, not as the main thing. Finally, here too it could appear to those just converted as if it were through baptism that this communion of saints and this connection with the body of Christ had first begun for them. But we have no right to derive from that the proposition: as a specific grace baptism produces the connection of faith to the faith of all.
g)Finally, it should be noted that the conscious exercise of faith is strengthened not only at the moment of receiving baptism but also later. God has not bound the blessing, which He intends to impart by baptism, to one moment; it can come much later. Our [Belgic] Confession says: “Neither does this baptism avail us only at the time when the water is poured upon us and received by us, but also through the whole course of our life” (article 34).
24.Does baptism or receiving it also have significance as an act of man toward God?
Yes, for all covenants contain two parts. By his baptism the candidate for baptism commits himself, solemnly and publicly, to all that the status of a member of the covenant brings with it in the covenant of grace. He does this not in his own strength but on the basis of the promises of God made to him in baptism, which he accepts in faith. In all his covenant activities, God is the First, who promises grace, including the grace that ought to enable us to keep His covenant. But it is presupposed of man that he accepts this in faith. So, baptism is not only a seal of the free promises of God, but the administration of baptism with its reception is also a seal of the established covenant. Someone who is baptized as an adult may not judge that he carries about in his person an offer of the covenant that he has not yet taken up and at an opportune time can still accept. He is in the covenant, has from his side submitted himself to it, and is regarded and treated as a member of the covenant. Baptism for adults is not a means of regeneration or conversion. He who receives baptism declares publicly that he will “cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, trust Him, and love Him with his whole heart, soul and mind, and with all his strength, forsake the world, put to death his old nature, and walk in a new godly life.” Baptism is for him a seal and undoubted testimony that he has an eternal covenant of grace with God. It was so under the Old Testament when someone was incorporated into Israel; it is so under the New Testament when an adult receives Christian baptism.
At the same time, for the adult who receives it, baptism is incorporation into the organized church, by which he receives the rights of a full member and sees access to the table of the Lord opened to him. There are those who on the basis of a peculiar view of the covenant deny this, but according to the correct scriptural view, these two sacraments belong together. The baptized person, then, places himself under church admonition and church discipline in entirely the same sense as someone who makes profession of faith. In the Form he is asked expressly whether he has resolved from the heart to subject himself to that admonition and discipline, and he answers that by assenting.
25.To what question have we now come?
To that of infant baptism.
26. What is the historical witness of the New Testament in the matter of infant baptism?
By historical witness we mean what the New Testament teaches regarding the baptism of young children presented as fact—not what the New Testament otherwise teaches dogmatically, or what data it offers us for deriving from them something for infant baptism.
Regarding this historical witness, we will have to acknowledge that a positive, incontestable proof for infant baptism as fact is not to be supplied from the New Testament. Many exegetes then also assume that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice, and that at first only adults were baptized. This has led even Reformed theologians to view infant baptism as something permissible, the strict necessity of which cannot be proven from divine command and apostolic exercise. To that others have rightly answered that the import of this matter is too profound for it to be regarded as a matter of indifference. An adiaphoron like baptism would truly be extremely dubious, since it throws open the door for all kinds of superstition. It is therefore necessary that here one does not take the position of being content with probabilities.
The conflict about infant baptism is carried on between almost the entire catholic Christian church on the one side (Roman Catholic Church, Greek Church, the historic Protestant churches), and on the other side, the Baptists, the Socinians, and the Quakers, with this distinction that the last mentioned (the Quakers) reject all sacraments, even for adults, while the Socinians wish to retain baptism as something allowed for those who become Christians in their adult years. The Arminians stand between the two parties, in that they teach the permissibility (not the necessity) of infant baptism.
The Anabaptists make much use of the silence of the New Testament as a historical witness for the existence of infant baptism. One need consider this fact only somewhat attentively in order to be convinced immediately that it is completely useless for a Baptistic argument. The position of the Baptists is that children born of believing parents may not be baptized as long as they are children, but only such who, having become converted in their adult years, thereby give evidences of being regenerate. Now one would expect, were this the apostolic view, that there would be traces of the Baptistic practice in the New Testament. Not only would one have to show negatively that no children were baptized, but one would have to show positively that adults were baptized who with their parents had previously entered into the circle of the church and for a considerable time had lived in the church. The origin of the New Testament covers enough time to make such positive demonstrations possible. But they are entirely lacking. Certainly baptism is mentioned frequently, but either baptism administered to new converts from Judaism or paganism, or in an undefined manner. Baptists are completely silent about this in their argumentation. They assume that it appears that the New Testament speaks against our practice and for theirs. The truth is that as a historical witness, the New Testament does neither of these two things. It focuses its attention exclusively on those who come over from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. Thus, the dispute between Baptists and paedobaptists cannot at all be decided on this basis.
This remark was necessary beforehand in order to remove the unfavorable impression that all too easily arises when one must make the concession to the Baptists that the New Testament does not positively teach infant baptism as fact. We answer, first of all, that the New Testament does not teach the Baptist practice either. Further, nowhere does the New Testament teach that children were excluded from baptism. Repeatedly, mention is made of households that were baptized: Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15); the household of Stephanas in Corinth (1 Cor 1:16); of the jailer: “and he was baptized, he and all his family immediately” (Acts 16:33). And in these passages it does not say that the entire house believed, or had to believe in order to be able to be baptized, as we would expect if the entire household consisted of adults. But it is simply said: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Lydia paid attention and she was baptized, she and her household.
27. What is the witness of the postapostolic church regarding infant baptism?
Here too one cannot produce any strict proofs from the first period. Irenaeus speaks somewhere of a sanctifying of children by the Redeemer, but does not explicitly mention the baptism of these children. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles [the Didache], discovered a few years ago, and which some even locate in the first century, does not appear to mention infant baptism. Tertullian, as is well known, was a vehement opponent of infant baptism, but one should take into consideration that he never says that it is a novelty. In his day, infant baptism apparently existed as a fairly common followed practice. Origen says plainly that the church had received infant baptism from the apostles. Augustine says that the custom of infant baptism is an apostolic tradition. In his conflict with the Pelagians he appeals to infant baptism as a proof for original sin. Now Pelagius would certainly have responded that infant baptism was an unapostolic innovation if he had been able, with even an appearance of legitimacy, to do so in the light of history. But it does not appear that he gave this answer.
The silence in the time that immediately followed the apostles is certainly somewhat strange. That much must be granted. There will probably be a historical basis for that, although that is not easy to specify. Infant baptism appears to have fallen into disuse early on. This fact could be related to the common tendency to postpone baptism, but we do not know if there are evidences that that tendency existed so early. Later when the practice once again became more common, there were not always clear Scriptural grounds from which one operated. In this Augustine has led the church in a wrong direction by teaching the necessity of baptism for salvation.
According to some, the existence of infant baptism can be demonstrated in the time of Justin Martyr (about AD 139). He says: “By means of baptism we, since we have been sinners, have received spiritual circumcision by the grace of God … and it is commanded to all to receive it in the same way.” The latter words will mean that, differently than circumcision, baptism relates to both genders. One should grant that these words appear to assume infant baptism.
Tertullian opposed infant baptism not with historical grounds but from a principle of usefulness. It is dangerous to baptize the young and unmarried, for temptation is so great. “If one knew of what great weight baptism is, one would be more afraid to receive it than to postpone it.” His argument is not only applicable to the baptism of infants but applies to the baptism of young people in general. This moves within the well-known stream of sacramentalism that attributed a completely unique value to baptism. It was thought that sins committed after baptism could no longer be forgiven.
Here, too, weight must be given to the fact that the church fathers tell us nothing about the time when young people in the church should be baptized. That would have been necessary if infant baptism had been totally absent. It is explainable when one assumes that the time of baptism varied, that some had their children baptized earlier, others later. That a great deal of arbitrariness prevailed is certain.
28. What two matters are there to consider in the further discussion of infant baptism?
a)The foundations on which it rests for us.
b)The significance that is to be attributed to it.
It is certainly not possible at every point to keep these two matters separate from each other. Still, for the sake of clarity, we will endeavor to do this as much as possible. There are grounds for infant baptism that everyone will have to grant regardless of what significance he wishes to give to infant baptism.
29. What is the first ground for baptizing infants?
The fact that under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace, young children of the covenant people were circumcised. If it can be shown that circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in entirely the same sense as baptism is that now, then infant baptism follows from circumcision.
One easily sees that this argument can only be advanced by maintaining the spiritual character of the Old Testament dispensation. Baptists are intent on making this dispensation terminate in what is external. What God established with Israel was a national covenant, nothing more. This national covenant had national covenantal seals, a national continuation in the line of natural propagation. It was a covenant that everyone could keep with his natural capacities, so that without his knowledge, by virtue of his birth he could be obligated to it and taken up into it. The significance of circumcision accords with all that. But in the New Testament, it has become completely different. Now, what is external and national has ceased to be valid. Something spiritual and universal has come in its place. Birth from certain kinds of parents no longer settles status in the kingdom of God. One is what one is by personal choice, whether of God or the person himself. To say that a child of Christian parents as such must or may be baptized means bringing back Old Testament distinctions that are completely terminated.
This is the Baptist position. We deal with it here only to the extent that it is based on a faulty view of the Old Testament. That the Old Testament had a national aspect is certain. For Israel, church and state were merged. The one aspect was embodied in the other. There was thus an external entity that there now no longer is in the new dispensation of the covenant of grace. One can certainly make that external again by establishing a state church, but then one does that contrary to the spirit of Christianity. Neither is it to be questioned that there is also a national aspect to the Old Testament sacraments. By circumcision a Jew was not only a member of the covenant of grace; by circumcision he was also a citizen of the Jewish state. And that, too, is gone from the New Testament sacraments. Baptism no longer has a political significance. Certainly that tie sometimes exists, when, for example, an Englishman baptized in the Anglican Church has access to certain offices in the state. But that is contrary to the character of baptism.
Now the Baptist would naturally have to show that the sacrament of circumcision had an exclusively national significance, or at least that the circumcision of children derived from the national significance of the sacrament. Actually, both assertions amount to the same thing. Circumcision was a complete circumcision of the children (apart from proselytes). The path is cut off to saying that for adults circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace; for children it was solely a sign and seal of the national covenant. Adults, however, were not circumcised in Israel. The Baptist must then also maintain that circumcision did not possess any signifying and sealing power for the covenant of grace. But if not circumcision, then what? Passover, perhaps? Its administration was just as general as that of circumcision. So we see how the Baptist must come to completely despiritualize the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant of grace. Nothing of it remains other than the form of a national covenant.
According to Scripture, circumcision (= circumcision of children) was more:
a)According to Romans 4:11, it was given to Abraham as a seal of the righteousness of faith. Now, someone could say: that was circumcision for an adult. But it is surely the same circumcision of which God commands that it must be administered to all baby boys eight days old. For them, it cannot have been something different than it was for Abraham. Thus, it was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.
b)It was instituted when God formally founded His covenant of grace with Abraham. That was a long time before the covenant people were organized as a theocratic state at Sinai. According to the Baptist view being contested here, circumcision should have come at Sinai, and not already with Abraham. But now, it does not come from Moses but from the patriarchs, as the Lord says [John 7:22]. There is no basis, then, for making its national significance—which the sign received later—its only significance. The promises of the covenant in Genesis 17 were spiritual: “I will be God to you and to your offspring after you” [v. 7]. It is not therefore that some external privileges were sealed to them by circumcision, but that God willed to be their God, and would be, and would be that for the children as well as for the adults.
c)The spiritual significance of circumcision is asserted with emphasis again and again in the Old Testament (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4; Ezek 44:7). Being uncircumcised is used as an image of a spiritual state deserving condemnation (Exod 6:12; Lev 26:41; Acts 7:51). In the New Testament, too, the thing signified by circumcision is spoken of (Rom 2:28–29; Phil 3:3).
d)Even the national bond of the Jew to Jehovah his God may not be so sharply distinguished from his spiritual responsibilities, as the Baptists wish to do. One may really not say that the spiritual relationship of the covenant of grace and the national relationship of the national covenant were side by side but detached from each other, so that the one was independent of the other. God did not say to the Israelite: I require of you that you (1) fulfill your civic duties, and (2) if you can still do something additional, your duties relative to the covenant of grace as well. Rather, again and again it was given to the Israelites to understand that even in their national position they were not right before God if the spiritual truth of that position was lacking. To the Jews in the exile the reproach is added that they are called by the name Israel, have come from the waters of Judah, swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth nor in righteousness (Isa 48:1). And there are many such texts.
e)Baptism has come in the place of circumcision: “a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, being buried with Him in baptism,” etc. (Col 2:11–12). Therefore, those who received circumcision must also receive baptism, and the young children may not be excluded.
30. Where is a second proof for infant baptism found?
In the fact that God’s Word everywhere recognizes children as being fully human, notwithstanding their situation of being underage and their use of reason not yet developed. If one is a Pelagian and makes everything dependent on the conscious choice of the will, then a child will have to be regarded more or less as something neutral that does not count in the kingdom of heaven, that has no status in the church, about which there is nothing to say. If, on the other hand, one recognizes that conscious life as it emerges on the surface has a deeper invisible background, that there is more to a person than he can say and reveal, then we must also take account of children. When now it is said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children, then this shows clearly enough what the answer of Scripture is, and on which side it is positioned. The question here is not whether the kingdom of heaven belongs to every child that is baptized, but simply whether children fall under the terms of this kingdom of heaven.
The Baptist admits that they can. A child can be regenerated—but, he says, we have no basis for assuming that this is the case. In other words, he maintains that children constitute an area that does not count for the visible church. Nothing may be said about them. They are neutral territory. They cannot be received into the organism of the congregation.
But we say: if it is once established that children can be regenerated and partake of the kingdom of heaven, then there must be one way or other by which the status of these children can be objectively settled and they are placed in a definite relationship to the visible church. We do not have to do here with a small minority but with a large majority. And it is impossible to assume that they must grow up entirely without an objective relationship to the visible church.
31. Where is a third proof found?
In the character of the covenant of grace as it continues in history. God maintains His covenant of grace with the believer. But when He gives the promises of the covenant to that believer who is brought into the covenant as an adult, these promises are not only “for you!” but they are also “for your seed after you.” Involved here is a link between the natural relationship between parents and children, on the one hand, and the benefits of the covenant of grace, on the other. This link is not such that it works as a natural law. Grace is not an inheritance that one receives without exception because one has been born of parents who are members of the covenant. In His election God always remains free. But nevertheless the rule remains that He has His covenant continue in history, builds the church from the seed of the church. Thus there is not a founding of a new covenant again and again, but the one covenant is administered throughout the ages and generations.
The opponent of infant baptism has no eye for that. He thinks that nature and grace have not been brought together in an organic connection. According to him, grace comes again and again in each particular instance as something supernatural from above, without it being connected historically with what preceded. It is, moreover, something wholly individual that is not concerned with the connection between generations.
This view is totally wrong. Against it we assert that natural life with its natural context is taken up into the context of grace and receives a corresponding significance. God does not reckon solely with individual persons in an atomistic manner. His covenant is established with the children and their children into distant generations. This is already taken into account at the institution of baptism. It does not read “Baptize people from all nations,” but “Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them,” etc. When Zacchaeus is called, then the Savior says: “Today salvation has come to this house, since he too is a son of Abraham” [Luke 19:9]. This call is based on the promise given for Abraham’s seed, and from it flow further blessings for Zacchaeus’ seed too. Cornelius was a devout man “with all his household”(Acts 10:2); “by which you will be saved, and all your house” (Acts 11:14); see also Paul’s answer to the jailer (Acts 16:31, 34). These households turn to Christianity as entire households (1 Cor 1:16; “in the Lord,” Eph 6:1; 1 John 2:13–14).
32. Where is further proof for infant baptism found?
In the characteristic use that is made by the New Testament of the term “people of God.” Jesus will save His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). John’s work serves to prepare for the Lord an equipped people (Luke 1:17); “That which was not my people I will call my people, and that which was not beloved, my beloved” (Rom 9:25; cf. v. 26); “and I will be their God, and they will be my people” (2 Cor 6:16); “to purify for Himself a people for His own, zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14); Hebrews 8:8–10, citing Jeremiah 31:33, where specifically the new dispensation of the covenant of grace is spoken of; “a holy nation, a peculiar people” (1 Pet 2:9); “and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God” (Rev 21:3).
From all these examples it is sufficiently clear that the New Testament covenant community is not an aggregate of individuals but an organism of a people that continues. A people is a nation, and a nation ([Dutch natie] from [Latin] nascor [to be born]) is a connection perpetuated by birth. God has not chosen an association of individuals, but a people, chosen under the old era in order to entrust His words to them and to establish His covenant with them. And Paul teaches us that the root of this old people has continued to exist, although the majority of the branches are cut off. Converts from paganism are grafted into the good olive tree. They are grafted in as branches from which new branches ought to grow [Rom 11:17–24].
This entire view is based on the participation of children in the covenant. The Baptist must exclude children from the covenant. He will certainly say that the church must care for its children, work with them, teach them, urge them to conversion, and then, in general, the church will be replenished from them. But the fact remains that these children, during all the time of their being underage, are regarded as being outside the church. If they enter later, this happens apart from any connection with their parents as a churchly connection; they come from outside the sphere of Christianity, from out of a kind of paganism. The Baptist church in its entirety is a missionary church. It must therefore also direct its preaching to its own children as it would direct that preaching to pagans.
Peter says in Acts 2:39: “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” Here a distinction is made between: (1) adult Jews who are in the covenant; (2) their children to whom, with them, the promise came; (3) those from among the Gentiles, as many as God in His omnipotence calls. In other words, the Baptist principle is only valid with regard to Gentiles who are worked with in missions, not with regard to those who are already in the covenant. It does not say: “As many of your children as God will call” (the Baptist says that with respect to his own children). But it says: “You and your children.”
33. Is there still another proof for infant baptism?
Yes, in the New Testament little children are regarded as members of the church of Christ. Baptism belongs with the membership of the congregation. Those who are members of the church have a right to baptism. Christ permitted little children come to Him; He has taken them in His arms and blessed them. Paul says of the children of believing parents that they are holy, even when only one of the parents is a believer (1 Cor 7:14).
Much has been written and disputed concerning the meaning of the “holiness” of which the apostle here speaks. Opponents of infant baptism say that it is a holiness that even an unbeliever can possess, for in what immediately precedes it is said that the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Now, it would surely not have entered Paul’s mind to grant that such an unbelieving husband can be baptized on the basis of this holiness. But the two cases are not the same. The unbelieving husband is holy enough to remain the husband of a believing wife. He is holy in his capacity as husband, and everything that is connected to this capacity shares in this holiness. So, if a child is born to him and his believing wife, then for this birth he does not count as someone unholy, and one cannot say of the child: it has been born of someone holy plus someone unholy. Then, too, the child has been born to holy parents. Thus one sees that the holiness of the husband is relative in a certain respect. But that of the children, to which Paul points, is absolute. They are holy with the kind of holiness that is in their entire status, and not only from a certain vantage point. Their holiness is then, for Paul, the established fact on the basis of which he argues against the Corinthians. One should pay attention to the fact that in his argument he does not derive the holiness of the children from that of the parents, but, on the contrary, from the generally recognized truth that the children are holy, he determines the holiness of the marriage relationship between a believer and an unbeliever. So, at that time the children were regarded as holy. And “holy,” when so used without further definition, was synonymous with “member of the church.” It is the members of the church that are addressed by Paul in his letters as elect saints [holy ones]. He has therefore undoubtedly regarded the children as members of the congregation.
34. On what does the meaning one attributes to infant baptism depend?
This depends entirely on the conception one has concerning the covenant of grace. Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. Infants who are baptized are members of the covenant. The meaning that one associates with the baptism of infants will vary according to what one thinks of the covenant. Here we will only discuss the various views that have been defended in the Reformed church, and to that end begin with the least tenable.
35. What is the first view that can be discussed here?
That of a twofold covenant, corresponding to the visible and invisible church. In the defense of this theory one usually links to the Old Testament. However, instead of giving the one covenant in the Old Testament two aspects, one ascertains two covenants there. The one was completely external. The sacraments belong to the external covenant. The obligations of the external covenant are also external obligations. God can also make this subservient to bring someone over into the internal covenant. But formally and officially the covenant member has bound himself to the external covenant. By his entrance he professes only that he possesses historical faith, will be subject to the ordinances and regulations of the church, and make use of the sacraments. He can make use of both baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and in both cases on entirely the same grounds. What gives a right to the one sacrament also gives a right to the other. Christ uses this institution of the external covenant in order to form the internal covenant of His mystical body. For more on this theory one may compare Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:562–63.
The objections to the view are as follows:
a)It is true that the Old Testament dispensation had such an external side. But that was a political side, and with the new age the covenant of grace has lost all of its political character. There is not a trace of evidence that Christ has established an external institution, has founded a double church.
b)The theory is in conflict with the clear requirement of the New Testament that for adults baptism presupposes sincere saving faith. On this point of view, adults ought also to be taken into the church upon a profession of historical faith. But Scripture teaches that for adults the faith upon which baptism follows is a faith that saves (Mark 16:16).
c)In this conception, the unique character of the sacraments is completely misunderstood. They are made means of conversion. The scriptural and Reformed view is that they serve to strengthen faith. Here baptism, as well as the Lord’s Supper, serves to bring someone into an external sphere and to keep him there, where he is under favorable influences and perhaps will be able to attain to regeneration and faith.
d)The question is not whether the external administration of the covenant of grace and its internal essence coincide, but only whether one has the right to separate them in this dualistic way and to make two covenants of them. This must necessarily lead to a falsification of the concept of the church. And the invisible church then lacks its outward manifestation; the visible church is something different, something independent.
36. What is the second view that is associated with the one just mentioned?
This is the so-called Half-Way Covenant. Here a distinction is made between the two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The former becomes the sign and seal of the external covenant, the latter the sacrament of the internal covenant. When someone receives baptism, he does not make a profession of his faith. When he comes to the Lord’s Supper, he does. The result is that someone can also be entitled to request baptism for his children and nevertheless not have access to the Lord’s Supper. In this way, it is believed, a great difficulty is removed. A great number of parents do not dare to come the Lord’s table and still desire to have their children baptized. Now if baptism and the Lord’s Supper are on par as sacraments, then it immediately follows that he who is not entitled to the one for himself is not entitled to the other for his children. Conversely, if baptism and the Lord’s Supper are completely different, then one can partake of the one and be denied the other.
This view, too, is untenable. It separates what God has joined. Scripture nowhere gives us occasion to think that baptism and the Lord’s Supper can be torn apart in this way, to be signs and seals each of a covenant of its own. The designation Half-Way Covenant is also less precise for expressing what is meant. The external covenant is not half of the internal one. It is something next to the internal covenant. All the objections that are valid against the previous view must then also be brought against this view. Here, too, the external institution is something independent. Someone can be born in the church, live in the church, and die in the church as a good, honored member, without having proclaimed the death of the Lord one single time. No one can maintain that this agrees with the teaching of Scripture.
This view was officially accepted by the Congregational churches of New England about the middle of the seventeenth century. However, it also found many opponents there (cf. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:567).
37. Can this last view of a Half-Way Covenant still be presented in a modified form?
Yes, one can also apply the distinction between an external and an internal covenant exclusively to infant baptism. This goes one step less far than the two preceding theories. The first view makes the external covenant applicable to all and involves both sacraments. The second also makes it applicable to all but only involves baptism. This theory again makes it applicable to all, but only involves infant baptism. The reasoning is as follows: All who enter the church as adults do this upon profession of a sincere faith of the heart. In consideration of such a profession, they are baptized. This baptism is twofold: (1) a sign and seal of the internal covenant of grace; (2) a sign and seal of the external church covenant. The former they can naturally enter only for themselves, for saving faith is something entirely personal, in which the father or mother cannot act vicariously for their child. The latter, however, the external covenant, they can also enter at the same time for their children. And on the basis of that established external covenant, the young children receive baptism as sign and seal. If in growing up they come to personal faith, then for them, too, baptism will gain the double significance that it has for the parents. They are then in both the external and the internal covenant.
One sees that this does not differ essentially from the preceding view. The dualism of external and internal covenant remains, without true unity between these two being established. And if baptism for children can be a sign and seal of something completely external, then it is not to be seen why it could not also be that for adults. Or if it is halfway for adults, then why not also, if necessary, for adults only? Expressed here too, in the requirement that, at least for adults, baptism must presuppose the possession of true faith, is the awareness how sacraments are more than seals of a national or external contract.
38. Which views are at the extreme opposite of those just mentioned?
Here and there in some Reformed theologians a conception intrudes that appears to function at the boundary of the orthodox system, so that one may doubt that it may still be called Reformed. There have been those who posit a kind of justification and regeneration at baptism, signified and conveyed to all the children of covenant members, without exception, but then not necessarily connected to salvation, since it can be lost through the fault of the children in growing up. Pareus taught that all children of the congregation are justified and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, to the extent that befits their age, without that, however, infringing upon God’s counsel, which customarily is first disclosed during adult years. Baron and Forbes, English theologians, had a similar view. The latter appealed to Augustine and Prosper. These, too, maintain that all baptized children are justified, and that thus original sin is forgiven them in baptism; nevertheless, with the difference that Augustine assumed a forgiveness that could be withdrawn and for reprobate children is withdrawn infallibly, while Prosper held this grace to be irrevocable. According to the last mentioned, a person who after his baptism apostatizes from Christ and ends his life alienated from grace certainly comes into damnation. He is not damned, however, because of his original sin. Rather, on account of his later sins he is punished with that death to which he was also subjected on account of the sins that are forgiven him.
Davenant, delegate of the English church at the Synod of Dort, taught something similar. According to him, all children baptized into the covenant are not only adopted and justified but also regenerated and sanctified. But he distinguishes this justification, adoption, and regeneration from the benefits of salvation, incapable of being lost, that adults share in at their regeneration. For the children, he says, those gifts are sufficient to place them in a state of salvation. If they die in childhood, then on that basis they go to heaven. But for adults it is not sufficient. When a baptized child grows up, it may not be regarded as a living member of the church on the basis of the grace of baptism alone. Not that it has lost its initial grace, but it has lost its status as a child, and thereby its condition is changed. If no true conversion follows, then a baptized person who dies as an adult is lost.
We can clearly discover in this outlook the endeavor to give a real, tangible content to baptism. But it is, as Witsius observes, a failed endeavor. In undertaking it one envelops himself in greater problems than one is attempting to evade. First of all, in undertaking it one teaches a grace of baptism that does not really comport with the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments. Baptism does not exist to effect regeneration, justification, and sanctification. Here it becomes, in a Lutheran sense, the means ordained by God for begetting new life. Further, that there would be a partial forgiveness of sins and a partial justification is irreconcilable with Reformed principles. It will not do to say that original sin is taken away but the guilt of actual sin remains. Also, it cannot be that the merits of Christ would be applied to someone for regeneration, justification, and sanctification without the one to whom they are applied being included in election. There is no application (though certainly an offer) of the merits of the Mediator except for those who have been given to Him by the Father. Finally, with the subsequent loss of these gifts of grace one comes into the greatest difficulties. Christ has suffered for that forgiven guilt, for on that basis it is forgiven. But now that forgiveness is lost again, and the person in view is punished for it personally. There is then a double retribution, first borne by Christ and then by the person himself.
In conclusion, grace does not permit itself to be meted out quantitatively, as Davenant intends. As far as regeneration, justification, and sanctification are concerned, a child can do with nothing less than an adult. The true spiritual life that is given in regeneration is sufficient for an adult to live for God. It cannot be made insufficient by the development of natural life. One would then have to assume that it was really lost again, and that would be equivalent to teaching an apostasy of the saints. For all these reasons, the view mentioned is not tenable for one who is Reformed.
39. What, in general, is the view of the Reformed concerning the meaning of infant baptism?
On this there are two views that have both had defenders, though not both equally. We first give, in some propositions, the most common view that on good grounds can be called the historic-Calvinistic view.
a)By the fall of our first parents the entire human race has fallen into sin and damnation. Consequently, all men are conceived and born in sin and are by nature children of wrath.
b)Out of this corrupt human race, God wills to redeem certain persons known to Him, accept them in grace, justify them through Christ, sanctify them by His Spirit, and bring them to salvation.
c)In the dispensing or withholding of this grace God is not obligated to a person, but, since grace is free grace, demonstrates this grace to whom He chooses.
d)God therefore would do no one, old or young, an injustice if He would cause them all together, without distinction, to be lost.
e)Communion in this grace can only be made known to us from certain fruits and marks.
f)No one, and so also the church, can judge with certainty who those are who share in this grace and the essence of the covenant of grace. Only believers themselves by the witness of the Holy Spirit have a direct assurance of that.
g)The church, as ministers of God’s covenant, has to observe certain external marks of the grace of God and to act thereon according to the judgment of charity, without concerning itself further with the question, never to be settled, whether the inward state corresponds to that grace.
h)This judgment of charity concerns all the members of the visible church, and only them. To these members belong not only the adults who profess Christ, and do not contradict this profession by their conduct, but also young children born of believing parents belong by virtue of the promise made to Abraham and his descendants and by which they, like their parents, are included in the covenant of God.
i)Consequently, with regard to the judgment of the church, birth from believing parents (at least one) is the equivalent of what for the parents their profession of faith is.
j)Therefore, according to the judgment of charity, salvation is ascribed to these children and they are regarded as elect, as their parents are regarded when they make profession of faith, and continue to be as long as they in fact do not give evidence to the contrary.
k)Believing parents must raise their children as members of God’s covenant in the fear and knowledge of the Lord, just as adult believers are admonished to increase in faith and to advance in godliness.
l)On this basis the children, as members of God’s covenant, are entitled to the sign and seal of the covenant and ought to be baptized, as born into the covenant and, by virtue of the promise of the covenant, members of the congregation.
m)As adult believers who die professing faith and calling on the name of God are held to be saved, so too the same should be judged of the children of believers who die in their infancy.
n)This judgment of charity could nevertheless be mistaken according to the Word. They are not all Abraham’s children because they are Abraham’s seed, nor are they all Israel who are of the father of Israel [cf. Rom 9:6–7], just as in growing up, it is often apparent that the most reprobate children are born from the most pious parents, and the most pious children from the most ungodly parents. But with that we do not concern ourselves further. That is God’s concern, who has commanded us to administer His sacrament in this way, and according to whose command exclusively we are to conform. With adults, too, the same thing appears repeatedly. There are those who upon profession of faith are received into the congregation, whom one thus has to regard as fellow citizens of the saints and of the household of God, who upon the profession of their faith are admitted to the sacrament of baptism and the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and who nevertheless later fall away, so that we can no longer, even according to the judgment of charity, regard them as brothers. But the Word of God has not failed because of that. It has only become evident that, in the faithful administration of the ordinance of God, the church can make a judgment that does not always correspond with someone’s inward state. The church never has certainty, no more for adults than for young children. The difficulty here is thus the same in both cases; and if we can accept it in the one case, we can also do so in the other.
40. Can you provide some citations that show that this conception of matters is what is generally found in Reformed theologians?
Yes. First of all Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.17–18, where he argues extensively that the children of believers can receive regeneration and the Holy Spirit. One should pay attention to the fact that he bases baptism on this can in connection with the promise of God: “to you and to your seed.” He points to the example of John the Baptist and how he was sanctified from his mother’s womb. Then he takes note of the objection of opponents to infant baptism that this only happened once. “But we are not arguing in this way either (that is, as if the Lord is generally accustomed to deal with infants in this fashion). Our purpose is solely to show that they unjustly and wickedly shut God’s power within these narrow limits to which it does not permit itself to be confined.” And in section 20: “This objection can be refuted briefly, namely, that infants are baptized unto the repentance and faith that they will have hereafter, the seed of which two gifts are already in them by the secret working of the Spirit, even though those gifts themselves have not yet taken shape and been formed in them.”
Further, Ursinus (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, question 74). He answers the objection of the Anabaptist (those who do not believe ought not to be baptized) as follows: “This is only true of adults …, for in them faith is demanded before baptism …, but for young children, for baptism it is enough that they are sanctified and regenerate, and their faith and profession is that they are born to believing parents.… Further, it is so that a right decision cannot be made from this that such ought not to be baptized, for here only those are spoken of who do not believe at all, neither in fact nor by profession nor by disposition. But of young children, although they in fact do not believe, one can nevertheless not say that the children are entirely unbelieving. And they have this disposition not from the flesh or from nature, but from the Holy Spirit and from the grace that is promised to them.”
Beza: “There is a special situation with children who are born to believing parents. For although they do not have in themselves that quality of faith that is in adult believers, nevertheless it cannot be otherwise than that those whom God has sanctified from their mother’s body and marked off from the children of unbelievers have the seed and the bud of faith.… With what right, then, would someone deny them the sealing of the thing that the Lord has already imparted to them? If someone objects that those who are born of believing parents are not all elect and consequently not all are sanctified, … we do not lack an answer: for although we do not deny that it is so, nevertheless we say that one must let this hidden judgment remain with God, and, in general, by virtue of the formula of the promise, we hold them all to be sanctified who have been born of believing parents, or of which one of the two is a believer, unless there is something in the way from which one could decide to the contrary.”
Peter Martyr Vermigli: “Because we may not out of curiosity investigate God’s hidden providence and election, we hold the children of the saints to be holy as long as, in growing up, they do not show that they are alienated from Christ. We do not exclude them from the congregation but accept them as parts of the same, hoping that, as they are the seed of the saints, they also share in divine election and have the grace and the Spirit of Christ. And we baptize them on that basis. One should not listen to those who make difficulties of this and say: ‘Is the minister deceived?’ or, ‘Could it be that in truth the child is not a child of the promise of divine election and mercy?’ For one can also bring up such derision about adults. Of them, too, we do not know whether or not they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election or destruction.… Why do you baptize them? You will say: ‘I do it because I follow their outward profession’; so we also say that the church therefore receives and baptizes our children because they belong to us. And so that is for them a sign of God’s will, as the outward profession is for adults.”
Franciscus Junius answers the objection of the Anabaptists that children are not capable of regeneration: “Regeneration is viewed in two senses—namely, as according to its foundation, it exists as a disposition in Christ, and as it is in fact present in us the former regeneration, which can be called the transplanting of the old Adam into the new, is the cause of the latter, which follows as the fruit. Elect children are regenerated in the first-mentioned sense when they are implanted into Christ and the sealing of this becomes theirs in baptism.”
The Leiden Synopsis: “We do not tie the efficacy of baptism to the moment in which the body is sprinkled with external water, but, with Scripture, require faith and conversion beforehand of all those baptized, at least according to the judgment of charity, and that both in the children of the covenant, regarding whom we maintain that in them the seed and the Spirit of faith and conversion must be assumed, by virtue of the divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, as well as for adults in whom an active profession of faith and conversion is necessary.”
Witsius: “Further, we also say that the young children of believers have received the Spirit. Otherwise they could not also be holy, which Paul nevertheless attests to (1 Cor 7:14); nor could they be Christ’s, to whom no one belongs who does not have His Spirit (Rom 8:9).… From this it follows that the water cannot be refused them by injecting that young children should not be baptized.… I go further. God is not only free to impart the grace of regeneration to elect children before baptism, but it is also likely that He generally does so.”
Burman: “Regarding the faith of children, investigation is very obscure, since there is no memory of that age, and the working of the Spirit takes place in secret so that we cannot determine its mode. The elements of regeneration and the seeds of new life do not occur in children any less than the pollution and the evil of the corrupt nature that they have received from the forefather of the human race. It is sufficient that the thing signified in baptism is due them, which can be sealed to them so that no one may think that a blank piece of paper, on which nothing is written, is sealed in that baptism.”
Braun: “To the one who shares in the thing signified, the sign is also due; but children partake of the thing signified—namely, the forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and eternal life—since they belong to the covenant and have the promises, and the kingdom of heaven is given to them.”
Heidegger: “As far as adults are concerned, outward baptism does not seal inward grace to all, but only to those who have in their heart and profess with their words a sincere faith. Also, baptism does not seal regeneration and spiritual grace in its all-inclusive scope to all children and to every child of believing parents, but only to the elect. Although it is right and good concerning each one of these children in particular to hope for the good according to the judgment of charity, still we are not free to do this with an eye to all children taken together.”
A distinction is then made between those children who die before the age of discernment and the rest. Regarding the former, Heidegger maintains that they are already sanctified in the womb and that baptism seals to them this grace already present. Those who grow up are generally endowed with faith in the usual way, that is, by hearing the Word, and so for them baptism was not a seal of present grace.
Marckius: “From the absence of faith (the opponents of infant baptism reason), as well as from the absence of a confession of faith and sins. We require both of these prior to the baptism of adults, but judge that it is sufficient if, with the judgment of charity, they are expected to follow in children. They also reason from the absence of sealed benefits, such as sanctification. These, however, are in fact present according to their measure, such as sanctification, which can just as little be denied as the corruption of nature antecedent to it.”
Turretin: “The same judgment must be made about the faith of the children of the covenant as their reason. They possess both in the first act, not in the second … in the root, not in the fruit.”
41.What is the second view that has existed along with the other in the Reformed church?
The following: In the Word of God, there is an offer of the benefits of the covenant on the condition of faith and repentance. By external calling, the Word says: all these benefits are for you, presupposing that you believe. That is the universal offer of the gospel. But now the sacraments are added. They seal this offer of the gospel—however, not to everyone to whom it comes without distinction, but only to those of whom it is apparent by their profession and conduct that they do not reject and despise it. Olevianus says: “In order that out of this whole multitude would emerge a church, which God unites to Himself in Christ, God thus begins in that solemn transaction, as in a marriage contract, not with the sealing of grace offered in general (for many reject that grace openly and therefore it cannot be sealed to them; on the other hand, the Lord also does not will to bind Himself to hypocrites, who secretly harden themselves, which would happen if He first gave His seal); but with what in the manner of the offer of grace was the last, He makes in its establishment a beginning by visible signs, etc.… Then there follows the sealing of the first in the grace offered in the gospel and the special bond of God” (p. 502).2
Now one must pay close attention to what is implied in this conception. Here in the sacrament there is an offer of the benefits of the covenant, but in what sense?
a)Not as an offer that can still be rejected or accepted, and whereby man is free or remains free. When the sealing takes place, man is bound. The sacrament seals the established covenant.
b)Also, not merely as an offer that must be accepted by virtue of the law and its demand applied to the promises. Every man who hears the gospel is under this obligation. The covenant of grace is not only offered to him, but he is also obliged to accept it and to live according to it. Still, the sacrament cannot yet be administered to him on this basis. The natural obligation to enter into God’s covenant provides no basis for the administration of the seals of the covenant.
c)There must thus be something else, and evidently this other thing is located in the fact that the recipient of the sacrament has solemnly bound himself to live in the covenant and to fulfill the covenant. He has concerned himself with the covenant and has entered into the covenant. It is an established covenant. If he does not walk the path of faith and of repentance, he therefore becomes a covenant-breaker and will be treated as such by God. And he has a weightier responsibility than do those to whom the word of the gospel has merely come, and have never been in relationship with God.
d)This view is thus distinguished from that of an external covenant. In the latter, merely the general offer of the gospel is sealed. Here there is a seal on the promises, whereby it is presupposed that one accepts them in faith. And the basis of that presupposition is the profession of the recipient of the seals that he desires to live in the covenant and from the covenant. Therefore, not merely: if you believe, the benefit of the covenant is for you. But: since you, according to your own declaration, acquiesce in God’s covenant, there is sealed to you here the right to all the benefits of the covenant in the way of ongoing faith and continual repentance. The difference between the doctrine of an external covenant and this view can best be seen in the baptism of adults. And only this view is in agreement with our Form for the baptism of adults.
That principle is now extended to the baptism of the children of believers. By virtue of their birth from believing parents, they are also included in the covenant; one can even say, on the basis of Scripture, born into the covenant. Thus by this relationship the obligation is incumbent on them to live in the covenant and to live out of it. Again, not in the perfunctory sense in which the obligation to believe is incumbent on everyone to whom the gospel comes, but in the very specific sense that the children are no longer free, are members of the covenant, must keep the covenant, and, should they not do so, become covenant-breakers. Incumbent on them is a wholly unique and particular responsibility. On this basis, that is, on the presupposition and with the expectation that they accept and keep the covenant, the seal of the covenant is administered to them. If, in growing up, they show that they do not fulfill it, then they take a step backwards; they are idle and neglectful in keeping the covenant, or they in fact show that they are not willing to keep the covenant and break it.
One will notice that this conception also avoids the danger present in the doctrine of an external covenant. Here the demand of spiritual truth is held high. The internal is kept in contact with the external. The dualism, however much it may remain in practice, is in theory not legitimized and taught systematically. The ideal character of the covenant, its essence, is kept constantly in view.
42. Are both views, as now described, found beside each other in Reformed theologians?
Yes, in many of those mentioned above one at one time finds expressions that recall the first view, and then again expressions that recall the other. Anyone can be convinced of that by reading attentively. And the more one reads, the more one comes to the conviction that proponents of neither view have the right to commend theirs as the only historical Reformed view. Witnesses for both views can be produced in abundance.
43. How then should we judge concerning the meaning of infant baptism?
a)We observe, first of all, that there is a large objection to the first view if it teaches that all children are to be held to be regenerated and to possess the principle of faith until the opposite is apparent. If one assumes that, then one must also carry it through in his dealings with children and work only on the development of their new life. Also, one then cannot, with reason, pray for their regeneration as a thing that they must still receive or still need. The children themselves, in growing up, will be under the illusion that they possess regeneration, and the truth that without regeneration no one can see the kingdom of God will lose its force. It will gradually be seen in the congregation as something self-evident that whoever lives and dies within its circle is saved, since he has come into the world virtually as a regenerate person, is renewed and sanctified from his mother’s womb. This is extremely dangerous. One is also tempted to think that the resoluteness with which this view was expressed by some old Reformed theologians is connected with the pure church-state of their day, or also is to be explained in part by Roman Catholic reminiscences.
b)Further, this view also brings one more or less into conflict with reality. It is ever apparent, as they grow up, how many of those children possess an unregenerate or at least unconverted heart. What then must one think of this supposition of baptism? One answers: that can also happen later with adults who are baptized. Although this is true, there is still a difference. With adults we have a personal profession, and God seals His covenant to those who mean this in truth, who believe. With young children we do not have such a personal testimony. Here it is God who commands us to baptize them. If now He had added, “on the basis and with the presupposition that they are regenerate before their baptism,” then we would have to acquiesce in that. But He does not say that. He has nowhere bound Himself to do that in general, although no one, of course, has the right to assure us that He never or seldom does that. It is a matter that simply cannot be verified by us. Only a positive promise would give the right to assure ourselves of something as certain. Naturally, if it could not happen, then infant baptism would be condemned. For thereby the lifetime of a child in its entirely would be placed outside the circle of God’s supernatural working of grace. Hence the argument of the old theologians repeated again and again: the children partake of the thing signified, therefore also of the sign and the seal. One may not infer from this that they always only meant that all children of the covenant are regenerated by baptism. They only intend to say that children can be regenerated. Compare what we have cited above from Calvin.
c)The seals of the covenant are not foreordained to seal the possession of grace subjectively, but to seal the promise of grace in the broadest sense—to seal to the believer both justifying and sanctifying grace. By saying that children must be regenerated beforehand, one shifts this viewpoint. One wishes to maintain: if they have a right to the sacraments, they must be believers, and they cannot be believers without regeneration. But this applies, however, only as long as and as soon as there is an activity of faith that can be directed to the seal. An adult, therefore, may not properly receive the seal without a profession of faith. For the children, in contrast, it is different. For them it is sufficient that: a) The promises of God are sealed as promises in the widest sense, entirely apart from the question whether or not a subjective appropriation of the promises has already begun. God says to the children who are baptized: “I, God, will be your God; yes, I am your God.” b) The well-founded expectation can be entertained that the children will appropriate the promises for themselves with the use of their understanding, and therefore the demand of the covenant to do that can also be addressed to them.
d)Thus we do not maintain that the children of believers are already regenerated at an early age, but leave that completely undecided. And nevertheless, we assume on the basis of the promise of God that the young children of the covenant who die before the use of their understanding, receive eternal salvation. On what basis do we make this assumption?
1.We should note that Scripture does not offer us any grounds to entertain this expectation for all children wherever they are born among pagans, Mohammedans [Muslims], or Christians. It is clear that one can only reason here from the covenant. Where no covenant relationship exists, every basis for such a verdict is lacking. One need not for that reason preach with emphasis that all such children are lost. But there is no basis for their salvation. All the reasons that are produced for their salvation proceed from a weakening of the concept of original sin. It is believed that original sin (inherent pollution) in itself is not sufficient to consign a child as damnable before God, or at least to cause it to be lost. If the child dies before it commits actual sin, then it is saved. Our answer to this is that original sin is certainly sufficient for damnation, and one may not make this difference in degree between it and actual sin. Further, too much is deduced from the premises. One might only conclude that the children are not lost. To say that they are saved can only happen on the grounds that the merits of Christ are imputed to them. And for that there must be solid grounds. Where those are lacking, then logically one could only draw the conclusion that the children are in a middle state that is neither heaven nor hell. And that would be Roman Catholic.
2.All salvation of young children, therefore, is based on the gracious imputation of the merits of Christ. How can we now hope that the children of the covenant who die before the use of their understanding have received this imputation? This is inferred from their being in the covenant. Now, if this were nothing other than a formula for the fact that they live under the offer of the gospel, then it would not be possible to see how one could draw that conclusion. Every possibility to decide whether they acquiesce in that offer would then be lacking. And we would have to end with saying that we know nothing about that. The comfort of the covenant promise would then be gone. But now that is not how things stand. The covenant is an established covenant. God wills that for adults we regard it as accepted, and as it will and must be accepted by the young children of the covenant. This is now—and we should certainly pay attention to this—not only a bond of obligation by which He has a certain claim to the children; it is also a divine promise. It includes that where believers raise their seed for the Lord, He will continue His covenant from that seed, will build His church. Thus, not only “It is expected of those children and required of those children that will live in my covenant,” but also: “I, God, will to give it to them, and make true my promises to the parents.” Here, therefore, is a firm divine foundation.
God’s covenant is a giving covenant. It also includes, along with other promises, the promise of regeneration. Suppose, now, that this promise is not fulfilled in young children who die before the use of their understanding. The result would then be that God has given us a promise and prescribed a seal of the covenant, but He does not allow us to cling to it and to draw comfort from it, even where every ground for removing it is lacking. He has caused the sacrament of baptism to be administered to young children. That sacrament sealed the established covenant, and so it was given to the child in the expectation, based on God’s promise, that the child would truly live in the covenant. If the child dies, then we have to cling to that expectation, and from it may assume for our solace the child’s salvation.
3.With that said, it is of course also assumed that the child is regenerated before it gains salvation. Without regeneration, no one will see the kingdom of God, and that applies to young children as well as adults. But when the child is regenerated, no one can determine. Whether before baptism, or at baptism, or after baptism—who will say? It can be regenerated at its entrance into heaven, as subsequently the adult believer is completely sanctified as in a crisis. As far as we know, positive data are entirely lacking here.
e)We think, therefore, that one cannot go further than to say that on the basis of the promise it is expected and required of all the children of the covenant that they will fulfill the covenant. That expectation includes that, if the parents honor their promise, God, in His own time, wills to work in their children through His Spirit, and from those who grow up will build the church and further His covenant. And at the same time, that expectation includes that those children who die before the use of their understanding are saved. Both expectations are sealed in baptism. And so there is more in that sealing of baptism than a conditional offer of the covenant; there are positive promises of God. These are the two highly comforting facts. And with an eye to this, no one will be able to say that infant baptism is meaningless.
But we may not individualize. If we knew now which of the children of the covenant would die before the use of their understanding, then from the outset we could say: “This child and that child have the essence of the covenant.” But we do not know that. And even if we did, we could still not say: “They have the essence of the covenant in subjective possession.” In no way, however, do we know who these children are. Only their death gives us a definite answer in this regard, and thus becomes a fact that turns our general expectation into an individual confidence. As far as the other children are concerned, namely those who grow up, these must be prayed for, that in them God may make the promises of the covenant a matter of the truth, may bring those promises to fulfillment where that has not yet occurred. As long as they have not come to an age of discernment, we do not make an individual judgment about them. This, precisely, is the difference. In its official dealings with adults, the church can do nothing else than deal with them as believers. On that basis, it must not only admit them to the Lord’s Supper, but must encourage them and require them to participate. The congregation is officially a believing congregation—something that in the meantime does not take away the fact that, again and again, there must be an insistence on self-examination, to the end of everyone deciding between God and his conscience whether his official status corresponds with his actual relation to God. Through these two means—formally dealing with the members of the visible church as believers and insisting on truth in the believer’s relationship to God—church life must be kept pure, and protected from its two extremes.
f)The children of the congregation belong to the congregation; children of the covenant to the covenant. They are a part of the visible church. And the visible church must be operative as the manifestation of the invisible church. We say, then, that the invisible church is manifested in the children as well as in the adults; it is what is there behind and in the visible church. It is not limited to adulthood but has its ramifications in every age, in that of children too. In the matter of the covenant, there is always a seed for the Lord. But the children are taken as a group, as it were, and we do not speak of them in an individualizing way as we do of the adults.
g)The question now is how the children of the covenant are to be regarded when they come to years of discernment. This question is extremely difficult to answer, especially with respect to practice. The covenant has been sealed to them in the expectation and with the requirement that it be followed; that is, that as soon as the years of discernment would come, faith and repentance would be manifested. The first requirement is that one point to the distinctive obligation that a baptized person has toward the covenant. He may not be brought to the illusion or left in the delusion that in what is external he has enough to be right before God. The error is that one insists entirely too exclusively on making profession, as if it were a requirement that only now is in effect and did not apply previously. That conception is completely wrong. Before making profession, too, there was a covenantal call to show faith and repentance. Making profession is, as has already been remarked earlier, something negative; it is no longer being kept from the Lord’s Supper. If one deals with young members before their profession as if they were unconverted, though living in good standing in the church as loyal covenant members, then the result will be that, being pointed especially forcefully to the spiritual requirements of the covenant in making profession, they draw back. And then the baptized members come. In their profession, then, is compressed, as it were, what should have been spread over the years past. It takes on the character of a crisis. The idea of gradually identifying consciously with the covenant and gradually living in the covenant with one’s consciousness is lost. What is needed is more urging of the truth day by day, in the official cultivation of the children of the covenant as they grow up, and less pressing for a profession at a particular moment.
But not only the requirement; the promise of God must also be pointed to. The positive promise of God certainly remains in effect for the children too as they grow up, that God will further the covenant from the seed of His covenant members. Thus they, too, have a direct relationship to the invisible church. They know that they find themselves in the workplace of re-creating grace, that God’s gifts of grace lie within the sphere in which they were born. They come into contact with the essence of the covenant, its invisible benefits. The kingdom of God is, as it were, among them and in their midst.
The impulse of exhortation and the power of consolation that are present in it are not always noted sufficiently and summoned for help. One can stress the obligations toward the covenant too much and overlook the giving side of the covenant too much. The one needs the other. Only presenting the obligations is deadening; only pointing to the promises causes indifference.
How to proceed if all this does not produce fruits, and after persistent faithful dealings, all spiritual response to the promises of the covenant must be found to be lacking? In such cases, discipline should be applied properly; for that a baptized person lives on year in year out without coming to the Lord’s Supper, or that he desires baptism for his children and does not desire the Lord’s Supper for himself, is a completely false situation that cannot be excused, although in practice one may attempt to make an excuse for it. But we believe, first of all, that with faithful dealings that do not occur spasmodically and expect everything in the making of a profession, such cases will be extremely rare. If that were not the case, then God would have given us a rule that in practice is unusable or must lead to the extinction of the congregation and to the removal of the covenant. For in all such cases, many or few, one would have to come to the conclusion that the covenant had failed, while God promises specifically that His covenant will not fail where it is faithfully administered. If, however, such a case does occur, then one should not act precipitately. Slow, persistent, careful dealing, coupled with earnestness, may be just the means to bring such a person to repentance. For we do not know when the patience of God ceases to surround someone like this with the promises of the covenant. If he in his dying hours comes to repentance, we would still have to view it as a fruit, a subsequent effect of the covenant. Even where a generation has passed away that was apostate, God can still remember His covenant in children’s children. And we may not be less patient than God.
44. In what sense, then, is baptism a means of grace for young children?
Judgments on this question are quite diverse. If one is committed to the view that as a means of grace baptism works specifically at the moment of its administration and thereby keeps focused on the requirement that the sacraments serve to strengthen faith, then one will necessarily have to come to the conclusion that young children are generally regenerated before baptism. This, then, appears to be the principle from which Dr. [Abraham] Kuyper reasons in his view. He also applies to infant baptism the affirmation that there is a special internal grace associated with the external sacrament that differs specifically from grace in root, branches, and fruits: the grace of the forming of faith for the communion of saints. Where that happens, the children must naturally be regenerated, for otherwise they could not possess the seed of faith. It is true that Dr. Kuyper is not alone in affirming the presence of regeneration before the baptism of children. That is sufficiently clear from the citations given above. But as far as we are aware, no one among the Reformed theologians has taught this specific baptismal grace, either for the baptism of adults or for the baptism of young children.
One may observe the following:
a)Those among the Reformed theologians who ordinarily put regeneration before baptism divide into two groups:
1.Those who suppose this only for children who die before their use of understanding. So, for example, Witsius. After first having argued that the grace of regeneration is not tied to baptism, he says: “I go further: not only is God free to grant the grace of regeneration to elect children before baptism is administered, but it is also likely that He ordinarily does this. This is deduced in this way from what has been said. Since already beginning at birth God has received elect children into the fellowship of His covenant, has united them with Christ, has reconciled them with Himself, has forgiven them the guilt of original sin, no reason can be produced why at the same time He would not regenerate them, unless they are not to be regarded as suitable objects for regeneration.… Further, I believe that no single example or witness can be produced of the removal of the guilt of sin by forgiveness, without at the same time the dominion of the same sin being crippled, so that where it loses the power to condemn, it also loses the power to rule. Now where the dominion of sin is diminished, sin is slain. Where sin is slain, the soul is made alive. The enlivening of the soul is nothing other than regeneration.”
But it is otherwise with the children who come to the use of their understanding. For this, Witsius cites the following statement of Beza with approval: “Concerning children who are born in church and in God’s name are elect (and after careful deliberation I have said that all must be held to be such) and die before the use of their understanding, I could easily assume, on the basis of the promise of God, that they are incorporated into Christ at birth. However, what we can establish about the others, without being rash, is that they are first regenerated when by hearing, they are endowed with true faith” (Witsius, Miscellaneorum sacrorum libri II, 633).
One sees that there is no mention here of baptismal grace. Witsius and Beza reason from the seal. They conceive of this (always presumptively) as a positive sealing of God that the children are elect. Thereupon they then draw the conclusion that those dying before they understand are already regenerated before baptism. But how they come to that conclusion is not clear. It cannot be logically deduced from the premises. They surely regard all baptized children as the same, as elect. Perhaps their reasoning is as follows: God wills in general to work regeneration under the hearing of the Word. There is therefore no basis for God to deviate from His rule, and certainly a basis to suppose that He holds to it. But there is no basis at all to say that He would will to regenerate a child who will not come to a conscious use of the means of grace at the age of three rather than immediately. Ergo: it is most probable that He does this forthwith, already at birth. It seems to us that this is the thought process by which one unconsciously lets himself be led. But it does not come out clearly in the words used.
2.Those who suppose the priority of regeneration to baptism for all elect children. This is the view of Voetius. He says: “The teaching of Reformed theologians regarding the function of baptism is well-known, namely, that it does not consist in causing regeneration, but in the sealing of regeneration that has already been caused.” But, as one sees, Voetius, too, does not connect a special grace to baptism. Baptism seals the regeneration that is already present. The power resides, according to him, in the seal.
b)Of course, those who have connected regeneration to the moment of baptism have not been lacking. This view, however, is too strongly Roman Catholic and Lutheran for it to gain many supporters. It found approval in the Anglican Church and with some among the French theologians. Here there is in fact a baptismal grace, but it is not a specific grace following regeneration.
c)It has been said that on this point Dr. Kuyper is Lutheranizing. This is true insofar as he teaches a specific baptismal grace through which baptism is the normal, ordained means. This is what is new in his conception, not known until now among the Reformed. The rest, then, is not the Reformed but still a Reformed view, and represents a line that is not at all new but may be traced back to the first development of Reformed theology. Only it seems to us to be less accurate to present it as the doctrine of the fathers. For the rest, we should pay attention to the fact that there are three great points of difference between Dr. Kuyper’s theory and Lutheran doctrine. The Lutherans say: baptismal grace is granted by baptism to every child; Dr. Kuyper says: only to elect children. The Lutherans say: it is the grace of regeneration; Dr. Kuyper says: a specific grace through which faith already present is formed for the communion of the saints. The Lutherans say: grace is worked by the water in the word [spoken]; Dr. Kuyper says: grace is worked by Christ and the Holy Spirit, not by means of but along with the sign.
d)Here too it appears to us that a Scriptural basis is lacking for the doctrine of a specific baptismal grace. We will have to maintain that baptism is a means of grace, but that its being a means of grace is linked to its being a seal. That is what it was in the baptism of adults. Now, however, the question arises: If this is so, can infant baptism then remain a real means of grace? A seal only has meaning and significance for its conscious use. It is intended to be seen, touched, read. Sealing must pass through the consciousness. And if grace is tied to conscious sealing, how then can baptism be a means of grace for young children?
Our answer is twofold:
1.Because this objection was felt and nevertheless it was desired to maintain baptism as a means of grace, from the Reformed side it has been repeated time and again that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment in which it is administered externally. As far as we know, baptism as a means of grace can only begin to work directly for the child itself, when the child begins to understand something about it. And then it must be assumed that it works in entirely the same way as baptism for adults. That working starts with the conscious exercise of faith and leads back to the conscious exercise of faith. But to that end, it is necessary that the child learn to understand the meaning of his baptism. Here two factors are always working together: sealing coming from God, and faith worked by God, which makes the sealing personal for us. Baptism is a seal of God apart from faith, but it only gains sealing power for our own consciousness as our faith is occupied with it.
2.Baptism as a means of grace has significance not only for the baptized child. The church, too, in whose midst baptism is administered, is concerned with it. Therefore baptism is administered in the gathering of believers. Therefore it is said in the Form that baptism is an ordinance of God to seal His covenant to us and our seed. Prayer is offered beforehand that the holy ordinance may be done for our comfort and for the edification of the congregation. Therefore the parents are asked if they believe what is proposed to them in the questions.
From all of this, it is sufficiently evident that baptism has sealing power for the parents as much as for the baptized children. There is then also a covenant requirement for the parents as there is a covenant promise for them. They must have faith with respect to God’s covenant if before God they will rightly ask for and receive baptism for their children. Also, if there is no faith with respect to the covenant, there can be no prayer with respect to it. That the parents have faith, then, is certainly required. That does not mean, as it has sometimes been propounded, that the faith of the parents is in the place of the children who are not yet able to believe. That cannot be, because faith is something personal, for which no substitution is possible. The faith of the parents is necessary for themselves, in part so that they may make use of the sealing in baptism for the strengthening of their faith, in part that they may fulfill the promises that are asked of them. Again and again when an administering of baptism takes place, it is sealed anew to the congregation that God’s covenant is present in its midst, that with that dispensing, God also wills to maintain and continue the covenant in its midst, that He wills to make its seed to be a holy seed. And when this sealing is appropriated in faith, God thereby wills to increase His grace in the sense described earlier.
45. Which children may or should be baptized?
The children of believers—that is, those who are in the fellowship of the visible church and so are presumed to be believers. At least one of the two parents must be a believer in this sense. And it can be expected of a believer that he or she fulfills the obligations of a believer and values his or her privileges as a believer. Thus, someone who is a member only by baptism and does not make use of the other sacrament is, strictly speaking, not a believer in good standing. But in practice it is very difficult to deal with such persons.
Also, the question whether, in certain circumstances, other children may not also be baptized has already been much debated. On various grounds, the right to the sacrament has been extended more widely.
a)One ground is in the declaration of God, as it is thought, that He makes His promises to children and children’s children until the thousandth generation (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:561). An appeal is also made to Isaiah 59:21: “My Spirit who is upon you and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your offspring’s offspring” (De Heraut, no. 664).
b)Another ground is naturally the teaching that the sacrament is necessary for salvation and imparts grace that cannot otherwise be obtained. Roman Catholics and ritualists must inevitably come to baptizing, without discrimination, all children who are brought within their reach and not asking about the state of the parents.
c)Externalizing the covenant by causing it to coincide with the state, in a state church, leads to entirely the same result. An Englishman, then, has a right to baptism in the Anglican Church just as he has a right to citizenship, regardless of whom he was born. Discipline can naturally not be exercised in such a church, which is wed in this way to the state and must conform to the state.
d)Still another view holds the baptism of the parents who come with their child as merely necessary, without asking about their relationship toward the covenant. Carried out consistently, this naturally leads to two kinds of members in the church. If it is possible in the first generation, then it is also in the second, and third, and so on. It is then possible to have a series of a hundred or more generations who were in the church as those who were baptized but who still have not valued God’s covenant—indeed, have scandalously profaned it. The latter will naturally occur less often, for whoever lives in gross sins will probably no longer desire baptism for his child. But the first case occurs frequently, namely, that parents bring their children for baptism who are in the church by baptism but do not come to the Lord’s Supper. It is said that the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and Scotland follow this practice. The Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the other hand, appears to hold to the practice that only parents who come to the Lord’s Supper can receive baptism for their children.
e)The principle of adoption has been applied to obtain baptism for children who otherwise would have no right to it. Orphans or children of parents who are unfit or unwilling to be parents, to bring them up in the Christian religion and to lead them into a consciousness of the covenant, can, it is said, be accepted on their behalf by others who then vouch for a Christian upbringing. Thus, Abraham had also to circumcise his slaves who were born in his household, including even the slaves who were bought with money (Gen 17:12–13). The Presbyterian Church decided in 1843 that children from paganism can be baptized if they are connected with one missionary or another, such that they are guaranteed a Christian upbringing. The Synod of Dort also debated this point. Some were for it, but the majority decided against—in our opinion, correctly. That believers intend baptism for their children is based on something other than their being willing to raise them in a Christian manner. It is based on the command and the promise of God. And that reads, “to you and to your seed!” not “to all to whom you can give a Christian upbringing.” With Abraham and those born into or bought to be part of his household, it was somewhat different. Although it was in fact the same covenant of grace administered there that we still have, at the same time we must not forget that the basis was laid there for the national existence of Israel. And this was a direct divine command to receive all the servants into the covenant. With that it was not intended that Abraham could bring an indefinite number of pagan children under his oversight and circumcise them. That was decidedly excluded by the Old Testament particularism. Only the Jews shall have the covenant. The Old Testament church was not a missionary church as we are.
f)So we can only hold to this rule: the children of believing parents have the right to baptism. It is very difficult to make a further determination and establish how many generations may be skipped. The church has not always remained the same on this matter. It wishes to baptize even the children of those who are excommunicated (See the Synod of Dort, 1574, question 9). À Brakel ([The Christian’s Reasonable Service], 39.23) says: the children of covenant members born of harlotry too, the children of members under censure too, for the son will not bear the guilt of the father. Reasoning from this, it is fair to ask: Is there anything to be said, then, against baptizing the children of members by baptism only? Generally the reasoning is that members by baptism only are certainly covenant members, but members who do not honor their covenant obligations. And those who are excommunicated and censured for other sins do that much less. This, too, is a consideration: suppose that one admits such baptized members to the sacrament of baptism for their children, what means are there left to exercise discipline over them? Keeping them from the Lord’s Supper is of no avail, since they do not desire the Lord’s Supper for themselves. Denying them baptism for their children appears to be the only means. But that is a means that at the same time affects the children along with the parents, and over against this one must acknowledge that à Brakel is in the right when he says: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
46.What is understood by baptismal witnesses?
Baptismal witnesses are those who are present at baptism, either to provide testimony regarding the persons who desire baptism for themselves or their children, or to bear witness to certain obligations that they take upon themselves with respect to the one to be baptized. Tertullian makes the first mention of this under the term sponsores [sponsors, sureties] in connection with infant baptism. Later the Roman Catholic Church legalized this use of having sponsores and specified that the parents may not serve as such at the same time. The sponsores were gradually transformed as spiritual guides into paters [fathers] and maters [mothers], and the idea arose of a spiritual kinship between them and those to be baptized that then had as a result a covenant of union between these two parties.
There were also witnesses for adults who came for baptism, at least already in the fourth century. The practice was taken over by the Protestant churches, as well as by the Reformed Synod of Dort, 1574, articles 61 and 62: “Because we have no command of the Lord to receive patrons or witnesses in order to present children for baptism, one may not impose this on anyone as a specific necessity.” The purpose of being a witness is specified: to bear witness to the faith of the parents and the baptism of the child, to take upon oneself the task of instructing the child in case his father or mother has died. Also, in order to maintain mutual fellowship and the bond of friendship among the believers, one may not make this a matter of dispute but should abide by the old practice.
47. How many views are there regarding the baptismal Form?
As many as there are views of baptism:
a)Some say the Form takes the standpoint of those who assume regeneration as having preceded baptism. Witsius: “It can scarcely be doubted that the affirmation of the regeneration of young children, at least according to the judgment of charity, is the accepted view of the Dutch [Reformed] Church. Certainly in its baptismal Form this question is addressed to the parents who offer their child for baptism: whether they do not confess that they [the children] are sanctified in Christ,” etc. Then everything naturally acquires an absolute sense. Being sanctified is understood as initial regeneration; new obedience is such that only those are able to manifest it who are regenerated and in whom grace is already at work. The child is without its knowledge adopted into grace, just as without its knowledge it participates in damnation in Adam. All of this is very strongly expressed, as everyone will have to acknowledge.
Only, one comes into difficulty with the prayer: “That you would graciously look upon these children and by your Holy Spirit incorporate them into your Son, Jesus Christ.” How is that to be explained when the children are already regenerated? Various explanations have been given. Dr. Kuyper: It refers to the specific baptismal grace whereby faith obtains that union with the body of Christ that later will enable the child to live in the communion of saints. But it seems to us that it cannot be shown that this view of baptismal grace existed when the Form was composed. Witsius: This must only be understood of sacramental incorporation and of the confirmation of real incorporation, of its increase and fruits. Otherwise the baptismal Form would be contradictory with itself, and that may not be assumed of a Form so closely examined, so generally accepted, so many years in use. The same Form does say that they are sanctified in Christ.
Another solution: The Form speaks in general of us and our children. It does not individualize. But the prayer now applies personally to these children, asks thus that God would make them to be the seed of the congregation to which the promises aim. But the distinction between our children and these children does not hold in the face of the Prayer of Thanksgiving, for there it is said first “that you have forgiven us and our children all our sins through the blood of your beloved Son Jesus Christ and by your Holy Spirit have received us as members of your only begotten Son, and so adopted us to be your children.” And then the same Prayer of Thanksgiving continues: “We also pray that you will always govern these baptized children by Your Holy Spirit.” That is again personal, and so also for this explanation the Form would not remain the same.
b)Others say that the Form presupposes not that the children are already regenerated but that they are elect, and that baptism is a seal only for the elect. “Sanctified in Christ” then intends to say: “That by virtue of that covenant, the children of covenant members … have a right to its benefits and will participate in possessing it.” So à Brakel, with which one may compare his affirmation: “Baptism seals only the elect.”
c)Still others understand being sanctified not only in an objective sense, but also in a lesser sense as meaning “dedicated to God.” If this should mean that the parents intend before the Lord that the children are not Turks or pagans but grow up in the Christian congregation, then this certainly does not do justice to the other expressions of our Baptismal Form.
d)One can also take it in the sense of “sanctified by God for His service and taken into a covenant relationship with Him.” Sanctification stems from God. It is a characteristic of the entire church, the visible church, and to that extent, of all who belong to it and who are born in its fold. The children are holy then, since it is expected and required of them that they live in God’s covenant. But this explanation, too, is not entirely satisfactory, since it does not accord with other expressions of the Form, especially in the Prayer of Thanksgiving.
e)The only thing that we are able to say about this issue is:
1.The Form speaks of us and our children where it says, among other things, that we have been made members of Christ by the Holy Spirit. This appears to have the congregation in view to the extent that God realizes the covenant in it and from it—that is, effects the fellowship of the covenant. Here it is expressed in the past tense, not as if it had already occurred for all children before their baptism or even will surely occur, but because throughout all ages God has been true to His promise to the congregation.
2.The prayer “that God look graciously upon these children” applies this general promise to them personally and assumes at least the possibility that they are not yet regenerated; “incorporate into Jesus Christ” can refer to nothing else than regeneration.
3.The prayer “that God always govern these baptized children by His Holy Spirit” also applies the promise to the children personally—without, however, definitely presupposing that the Holy Spirit has already been given to them.
4.The expressions in the Form itself—that God the Father establishes an eternal covenant of grace, that God the Son washes us in His blood, incorporates us into the fellowship of His death and resurrection, that the Holy Spirit wills to dwell in us, appropriating to us what we have in Christ—all these do not mean that the benefits promised here have their beginning just now or that they will first begin in the future. That cannot be, because the first part of the Form for Baptism is also used for adults; and for them, as appears from the questions, the beginning of subjective grace is assumed. Thus it can only mean that the triune God promises all these benefits to His congregation in general; and this is done without specifying a time when they will begin to be bestowed, also without specifying persons, other than according to a judgment of charity and according to the expectation that is based on the promise. For the individual, there is no other way to have the promise applied to oneself than the way of faith. If A has been baptized as a child and the Holy Spirit has sealed to him that He wills to sanctify him as a member of Christ and to apply to him what he has in Christ, then, as he grows up, he can have a well-founded assurance that that promise also concerns him only to the extent that he believes it.
48. How do we explain the statement in our [Belgic] Confession that by baptism original sin is not entirely abolished or completely eradicated?
a)It was thought that this is an incorrect translation of a statement present in the French copy of the Confession. “Not entirely” should say “not at all.” And that would then refer to Roman Catholic teaching. This teaching includes that by baptism original sin is abolished, and also that remaining concupiscentia [concupiscence] does not have the character of genuine sin. In the English translation of the Confession (adopted by the Reformed Church [in America]) we read: “Nor is it by any means abolished or done away by baptism” (article 15). But when the statement was also modified to have this sense in the Dutch printings, our fathers, in revising the Confession, expressly restored it again to the original. Thus there is more to this statement than a protest against Rome.
b)Dr. Kuyper connects this expression to baptismal grace. By that grace, original sin is broken in the child since it comes into fellowship with the body of Christ. Fellowship with the old Adam is consequently cut off and fellowship with the new Adam, with Christ, entered into. But the words do not cause us to think of such an explanation.
c)The article explains itself further. (a) The root of original sin, as inherent corruption, remains, for new sin always wells up from it as from an unholy fountain. This is against Rome. (b) This original sin is no longer imputed to the children of God as placing them under damnation (although they in themselves naturally remain guilty and worthy of punishment). Take note: the children of God. If someone is a child of God, he accepts in faith the attestation of God directed to him in baptism. He thereby receives the strengthening of grace as well as of justifying faith—a new and solemn assurance that, for the sake of the blood of Christ, all his sins have been forgiven him. This refers not only to past and present sins but also to those that are future. It covers his entire life, just as justification covers his entire life. And original sin, no less than actual sin, is subsumed here. So it can be said that for him baptism is a removal of original sin, namely, from the aspect of hereditary guilt. Now, everything said subsequently in the article fits with this explanation. Indeed, one could think that when a Christian receives such an exemption for the guilt of all his sins, then that would lead him to live a dissolute and careless life, and he would not concern himself very much about remaining corruption. But that by no means follows, the article says: “not in order to sleep easily in sin, but that the sensing of this corruption would often make them groan, longing to be delivered from this body of death.”
49.Give a definition of baptism.
Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace in which, by the washing with water in the name of the triune God, to believers and in the way of faith their participation in the benefits of the covenant is signified and sealed, and they in turn commit themselves to a life in obedience of faith to God.