Another OP on Infant Baptism

[Hammster]

It seems to me that Calvin is saying that if you baptize and infant, it automatically makes the infant part of the elect. Is that your understanding of what he is saying?

If not, can you explain what he is saying, because it sure seems like that is what he is saying.

 

[larryjf]

I'm not sure the quote you are considering here, but being elect is different from being part of the covenant community. Perhaps if you quote what Calvin said i could be of more help.

 

[Hammster]

Perhaps you can explain to me what the covenant community is, because quoting Institutions 4:16 would be a really, really, long post.

 

[Hammster]

Here is just a bit of what Calvin wrote. It is a very long section where he compares baptism to circumcision and that they have similar effects.

"But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother's womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21: 27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God?" (John 3: 3.) But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother's womb, (Luke 1: 15,) a proof of what he might do in others"

 

[larryjf]

There are many things that underly what's going on here.

First, the order of salvation is important. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit comes before we come to Christ, therefore one is always regenerated before one willfully comes to Christ, not just infants. This doesn't mean that all infants who are baptized are elect, but certainly elect infants do go to Heaven, whether in infancy or in adulthood.

Second, the connection between the sacrament and salvation must be understood. With infants as with adults, we don't baptize those whom we know are saved. Baptized infants as well as baptized adults will end up in Hell because some are false converts...the weeds among the tares if you will.

In the OT circumcision was the sacrament that brought a boy into the covenant community. This means that he was part of the OT Church. He had blessings, was under its teachings, was under its discipline, etc. etc.

The same is true of the NT sacrament of baptism.

Those these external rites correspond to internal spiritual realities, that doesn't mean that they have to occur at the same time. So even if a baby is elect and baptized, (s)he may not come to Christ for some years to come.

How can we say that baptism must come after profession when circumcision did not, and yet they correspond to the same reality...circumcision of the heart to God?

Also consider that the history of redemption has a layout that expands time...

Abraham (1 man) - Jacob (1 family) - Moses (1 nation) - David (1 kingdom) - Jesus (the entire world).

It would be pretty strange as this expansion happened on so many levels that it would be restricted regarding children.

And with the thousands of years that the people of God had initiated children into the covenant community, one would expect something in the NT that would speak of the change if they were all of a sudden to be excluded from the sacrament.

 

[Hammster]

That really doesn't answer the question on what Calvin taught, though. Are you disagreeing with his views?

 

[larryjf]

That's funny, i thought i was agreeing with Calvin.

He says that infants who are to be saved must previously be regenerated, that's what i said as well. And this regeneration is the purification that he speaks of.

His point in your quote is that infants, just like everyone else, must be regenerated before they can be fit for Heaven because they are born sinners like the rest of us.

Perhaps you can be more specific about what Calvin said that you are trying to get a response to?

 

[Hammster]

That quote was from his whole argument on infant baptism and its efficacy. Like I said, I can't quote the whole thing because it is too long. I assumed that Calvinists had copies of the Institutes. You can look it up online. I googled Calvin infant baptism. It is a long read (with some words I had to look up ) and maybe you can read it and then see if you agree with what he says.

 

[larryjf]

Perhaps you could just quote one sentence where he says infant baptism is "efficacious"

I think you may be reading more into the text than he is actually saying.

I disagree with Calvin on ecclesiology and on his continental view of the Sabbath Day, but i believe i'm pretty inline with his view on infant baptism.

 

[Hammster]

I quoted that section above from his views on infant baptism. He is stating that if an infant is baptized then he is regenerated. But here is the whole paragraph:

17. They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture, (1 Cor. 15: 22.) For, seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath, (Eph. 2: 3,) and conceived in sin, (Ps. 51: 5,) of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?" (1 Cor. 15: 50.) Therefore, let every thing that is our own be abolished, (this cannot be without regeneration,) and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life, we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the of death. But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother's womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21: 27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God?" (John 3: 3.) But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother's womb, (Luke 1: 15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scriptures "from the womb," has the same meaning as "from childhood." But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing that his power is not impaired.

 

[larryjf]

He is stating that if an infant is baptized then he is regenerated.

That's not what he says...not in any of your quotation.

He says that saved infants must be regenerated first, and that is true of all who are saved. Regeneration and Baptism are not the same thing, not even to Calvin. Baptism is a sign of regeneration. Infant baptism is done because the promises are to us and our children, so it is done in faith.

Calvin says elsewhere that infants of Covenant parents (even of 1 covenant parent) are assumed to inherit the Kingdom of God just as adults who are baptized after a profession of faith are assumed to inherit the Kingdom of God. In both instances there is a presumption, not a known fact. Adults are baptized because God's promise is to those who believe. Infants are baptized because God's promise is to believers AND their children.

 

[Hammster]

So are you saying that infants are baptized just in case they may be elect? Or are all children of Christians elect?

 

[larryjf]

So are you saying that infants are baptized just in case they may be elect? Or are all children of Christians elect?

I wouldn't say "just in case"...rather, they are baptized for the same reason confessing adults are baptized - we assume they are elect.

We can't know who is elect and who is reprobate, that is part of God's will that's not revealed to us. So everybody that we look at as being elect is an assumption.

 

[heymikey80]

There are a half-dozen different things going on here that work at cross purposes to understanding Calvin's thrust on baptism.

First, his position is covenantal and remnant. That means that his position both admits to the efficaciousness of a baptism as a covenant sign, but also points out it's efficacious only to a remnant of a people group. Thus when Calvin talks about how baptism is efficacious, he's talking about its efficacy toward those God's chosen, the elect.

Second, though, Calvin is also aware that "the promises are to your children". Calvin's assumption is that when God promises this He isn't being coy or mysterious or allegorical -- He's speaking plainly to a plain people who receive it plainly. But neither is He being the less true to the covenant or the remnant.

Third, Calvin is speaking to a particular time and culture. To understand why Calvin is saying what he's saying, you need to be familiar with that time. Two groups -- one elemental efficacy, the other gnostic efficacy, are fighting over the need for baptism. Calvin is introducing something different to these positions: Spiritual efficacy. Watch for it, and it will be more plain what Calvin is arguing.

Fourth, "regeneration" is a concept that's been changed in modern theology to mean "New Birth" or "Birth by the Spirit" (and sometimes even "indwelling"), and shows almost instantly in our conversion and justification. These concepts are very different in Calvin's theology -- regeneration is a seed that can be planted from the start of life, and grows up being drawn to Christ's side.

With these points in hand, the sections you're quoting directly address anabaptists who think it's impossible for the seed of the reborn spirit to be planted in an infant before birth, before knowledge -- before gnosis. Calvin first points out this is no barrier to God; and then he points out how it places a physical barrier to the higher spirituality that anabaptists claim to have, because it puts the physical ability before the spiritual power.

Once assumed, infant baptism follows fairly readily. We expect God at work in regeneration before salvation, and even from infancy for His chosen. God has promised salvation to our sons and daughters. So even being aware of covenant remnant, that not all receive mercy but only those God chooses, we nevertheless heed the promise of God as it was in the Old Covenant, and baptize those God has promised, not knowing who God will show mercy to in particular, but knowing who God has told us the promise is directed toward.

 

[Hammster]

Once assumed, infant baptism follows fairly readily. We expect God at work in regeneration before salvation, and even from infancy for His chosen. God has promised salvation to our sons and daughters. So even being aware of covenant remnant, that not all receive mercy but only those God chooses, we nevertheless heed the promise of God as it was in the Old Covenant, and baptize those God has promised, not knowing who God will show mercy to in particular, but knowing who God has told us the promise is directed toward.

Okay, first let me thank you for your clear explanation. I know it takes time to do all of that in a concise way.

Let me see if I can draw a conclusion from what you have said. God promises to save the children of the elect. (God has promised salvation to our sons and daughters.) Does he only promise to save those infants who are baptized, or is Calvin just saying that it is okay to do?

I guess what gets me is that Calvin argues that baptism and circumcision are in essence the same thing. Both point to promises of God. However, even Jews who were circumcised fell away. Without even looking at the nation as a whole, we have examples of Eli's sons, Samuel's son's, David's sons, Solomon's sons, etc. Is there are argument that says that they were saved because of circumcision? If so, then who are we to combat those who say that once they are 'saved' (get "their get out of hell free" card) they can go back and live like they did before? If not, then circumcision is a command by God to show that His people are separate, but does guarantee salvation. And I would say the same hold true of baptism.

Well, I will leave it at that for now. Let me know where I have erred.

 

[Hammster]

I wouldn't say "just in case"...rather, they are baptized for the same reason confessing adults are baptized - we assume they are elect.

We can't know who is elect and who is reprobate, that is part of God's will that's not revealed to us. So everybody that we look at as being elect is an assumption.

So you don't know if you are saved. That must be rough. If that is not what you mean, then I invite you to my other thread asking how do you know if you are of the elect.

 

[larryjf]

So you don't know if you are saved. That must be rough. If that is not what you mean, then I invite you to my other thread asking how do you know if you are of the elect.

I think you are blurring distinctions here.
To say that we don't know if others are elect does not imply that we can't know if we are elect.

One of the ways that we know we are elect is through the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, which we don't have with people outside of ourselves.

 

[heymikey80]

Okay, first let me thank you for your clear explanation. I know it takes time to do all of that in a concise way.

Or ... a long time learning & getting into trouble explaining it the wrong way. I'm not as knowledgeable as some might think, I've just been willing to say things and have them questioned and challenged a lot. I expect you're finding the same.

Let me see if I can draw a conclusion from what you have said. God promises to save the children of the elect. (God has promised salvation to our sons and daughters.) Does he only promise to save those infants who are baptized, or is Calvin just saying that it is okay to do?

That's an excellent question. I believe Calvin is saying God demands the infant children of believers be baptized, but in obedience to God, not as some way of saving them. Calvin definitely said things to the effect that baptism of itself wouldn't save someone outside election, nor that an unbaptized believer would be prevented from salvation, but that God had instituted this as the normal way of expressing the conclusion that someone had been promised to be a normal or expected party for salvation.

This is a form of presumptive regeneration, where we assume before the fact (pre-assume, or presume) that someone will be regenerated based on the promises God expressly states. In the 18th and 19th centuries "Presumptive Regeneration" acquired some fairly "out there" theological extremes that I doubt seriously that Calvin ever meant (due to his remnant theology), but I don't think the actual meaning of the term is a deviation from what Calvin meant.

This carries along with it all of Calvin's view of remnant salvation. We baptize because the promise leads us to conclude the person is to be assumed regenerate, before the fact. But the baptism is on the heels of that conclusion, just as the baptism of believers is on the heels of concluding someone is regenerate, because he professes belief.

I guess what gets me is that Calvin argues that baptism and circumcision are in essence the same thing. Both point to promises of God. However, even Jews who were circumcised fell away.

Yes. The point being, circumcised Jews were still circumcised by God's command. They received the signature of the covenant by God's command.
I normally talk about baptism as God's instituted "signature on the covenant". It means something. It doesn't accomplish what it means just by signing. The covenant is promised and signed-up to. But the covenant is not implemented at the signing ceremony. In fact if it's repudiated, the signature brings greater punishment than if no covenant were signed.

Without even looking at the nation as a whole, we have examples of Eli's sons, Samuel's son's, David's sons, Solomon's sons, etc. Is there are argument that says that they were saved because of circumcision?

No, but there is an argument that they were to be treated as part of the people of God until their defiance of Him was expressed quite clearly.

If so, then who are we to combat those who say that once they are 'saved' (get "their get out of hell free" card) they can go back and live like they did before? If not, then circumcision is a command by God to show that His people are separate, but does guarantee salvation. And I would say the same hold true of baptism.

That's correct and accurate. Defiance in the face of your baptism is even greater condemnation on those who have betrayed their covenant with God. To walk away from God Who came near in covenanting with the person, is the subject of Heb 10:26ff, Heb 6:4-6.

Baptism is no "get out of Hell free" card. But neither is baptism simply a picture-separation of the people of God. It's a commitment to God that God deserves to receive, in which He promises life under covenantal terms, or death under its violation. It's both visible, and more than visible -- because the invisible God set visible terms for the covenant.

Are these terms something we can fulfill without God? Well, no. But that's another point to play -- if we're really hopeless without God, then it would be defiant to avoid baptism until we're with God, hoping that God would come near to our children at the very point where we actively defy His help. That's the extended reasoning of infant baptism: that while the child is still unborn spiritually, he may be personally defiant -- but we who are born again are in charge over him and should recognize and actively pursue his need for rebirth with the Only One Who can give it.

 

[Hammster]

That's the extended reasoning of infant baptism: that while the child is still unborn spiritually, he may be personally defiant -- but we who are born again should see and actively pursue his need for rebirth with the Only One Who can give it.

Let me tackle this last point as I think it gets to the heart of the matter (and I am trying to avoid a point/counterpoint debate. But I do want to better understand Calvinism because I don't want to just have knee-jerk reactions to some point I may disagree with).

Two things, I guess. One, what would happen if you have parents who are saved, but due to either neglect, ignorance, or whatever you may call it, do not actively pursue his need for rebirth in a way that some other believer does. I know that as a parent it isn't always easy to do the things I know I should do to teach my children. So what will happen to that child?

Two, what would you say, then, to a parent who does all of the things that they are supposed to do to instruct the child, and yet that child never comes to a saving relationship with Christ? (Or are you assuming that it won't happen to believing parents who baptize their children?)

P.S. This is a much better dialog without Van and Ben Johnson.

 

[larryjf]

Two things, I guess. One, what would happen if you have parents who are saved, but due to either neglect, ignorance, or whatever you may call it, do not actively pursue his need for rebirth in a way that some other believer does. I know that as a parent it isn't always easy to do the things I know I should do to teach my children. So what will happen to that child?

Two, what would you say, then, to a parent who does all of the things that they are supposed to do to instruct the child, and yet that child never comes to a saving relationship with Christ? (Or are you assuming that it won't happen to believing parents who baptize their children?)

First, i would just say that the term "presumptive election" is probably better than "presumptive regeneration" in my opinion.

Now on to the post...

If a child is elect they will be saved, regardless of what the parents do. The parents who neglect this aspect of raising their children will be disciplined for it, perhaps in the form of having a rebellious teen, perhaps in some other form. But in the end, the elect child is always saved.

If the child of believers never comes to a saving relationship with Christ then they were foreordained reprobate, but the parents will not be disciplined because they followed God's prescriptive will in raising the child.

It boils down to this: God does the election and the saving. He chooses to use His Word taught by the parents, the church, etc. as a means of bringing this salvation about in a normal scenario.