On Baptismal Regeneration
One of the questions often left unspoken among members of Reformed churches has to do with what baptism actually does—its efficacy. When we look to our Shorter Catechism, we are given a clue:
Q. 94. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is a Sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.
Of course, this makes good sense when applied to adult professors. After all, assuming that one’s profession of faith is genuine, baptism signifies and seals our union with Christ and all the attendant benefits of that union. But what about infants? And what about the fact that some baptized infants never, unfortunately, seem to participate in a true union with Christ and its salvific benefits?
Such questions were of pressing importance, especially in the early modern period, when infant mortality was much higher than it is today. This is one reason why both the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession address the state of believers’ children who die in infancy. What then was the position of the Reformed regarding the efficacy of baptism among baptized infants?
The first, though admittedly a small minority among the Reformed, held to the position that Augustine and his followers took: baptism washes away original guilt in all baptized infants. If a baptized child dies in infancy, there is no guilt for which he or she can be condemned.
A second position, a position which was popular among many of the Westminster divines and continues to be the prevailing position among American Presbyterians is the assumption that baptism signifies and seals the child’s entrance into the visible community of the church and the blessings of union with Christ which are to be had when the child, later in life, hopefully exercises faith in Christ. In other words, baptism typically anticipates a future, saving grace we pray that the Lord would actually provide to our children.
The third position, a position one finds especially prevalent among the early modern Dutch Reformed, held that baptism always signifies and seals a presupposed grace of regeneration; this position is sometimes called presumptive regeneration. Antonius Walaeus, exemplifying this position, wrote in the famous Leiden Disputations:
We do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the precise moment when the outward water moistens the body, but—following Scripture—we require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of love. This holds both for the infant members of covenant, in whom we assert that the seed and spirit of faith and repentance must be determined to be present by virtue of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, as well as for adults….
It is important not to overlook how radically different this perspective is from the typical modern American Reformed position. Walaeus affirms that one of the reasons we baptize infants of believers is because we presume that they have “the seed and spirit of faith and repentance.” Like Baptists, Walaeus unapologetically says that we Reformed “require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are baptized,” with the caveat “at least according to the judgement of love” or charity.
It is worth explaining, in a bit more detail, what exactly this “seed of faith” is. The late 17th–early 18th century Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Witsius explains in detail, in his essay on the efficacy of baptism among infants, what type of faith and repentance is assumed in the covenant child. To put it simply, Witsius believed that we should presume that all baptized infants, prior to baptism, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit (a la John 3). Think John the Baptist in the womb (Luke 1:41-44). Baptism, then, is a sign and seal not of grace hoped for in some future time when the child or young adult can publicly profess faith, but a sign and seal of an already granted grace—the grace of regeneration, the seed of faith.
Notably, these theologians did not believe that all covenant children are actually regenerated by the Holy Spirit! They knew of situations in which children within the church community grew up and never publicly professed faith in Christ. Moreover, given that these theologians insisted on perseverance of the saints—which claims that all truly regenerate and given the gift of faith will never lose that regeneration or true faith—they insisted that this is merely a presumption (albeit based on God’s promise to be a God to our children) in accordance with charity.
To illustrate what this judgment of charity means, theologians of the period often pointed to the fact that Peter in 1 Pet. 1:1–2 calls those whom he is writing to “God’s elect” and “chosen.” Of course, no one believes that all to whom he was writing were going to persevere to the end and attain eternal life; yet, he treats them as elect, as true believers, in accordance with their profession. We ought to think of and treat our covenant children similarly, so the argument goes.
The way one answers the question of what infant baptism does and signifies raises important practical questions which we should perhaps give more consideration to. For example, does a view change how we pray for our children? Does it change how we speak to them about their baptism? How does it affect how we understand apostasy? Should I treat my young child as a pagan or as a Christian? Reformed ministers and congregants would do well to think through these questions.
My goal here is not to convince anyone that presumptive regeneration is the biblical position on the efficacy of baptism. Instead, it is important to understand these various historical positions if for no other reason than that they push back on our own assumptions and force us to examine our own position a bit more carefully. Moreover, reviewing this paedobaptistic position reminds us that there has been always diversity among the Reformed tradition on this topic. Above all, we should always seek to evaluate such positions against the supreme rule of Scripture.
Q. 94. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is a Sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.
Of course, this makes good sense when applied to adult professors. After all, assuming that one’s profession of faith is genuine, baptism signifies and seals our union with Christ and all the attendant benefits of that union. But what about infants? And what about the fact that some baptized infants never, unfortunately, seem to participate in a true union with Christ and its salvific benefits?
Such questions were of pressing importance, especially in the early modern period, when infant mortality was much higher than it is today. This is one reason why both the Canons of Dordt and the Westminster Confession address the state of believers’ children who die in infancy. What then was the position of the Reformed regarding the efficacy of baptism among baptized infants?
The first, though admittedly a small minority among the Reformed, held to the position that Augustine and his followers took: baptism washes away original guilt in all baptized infants. If a baptized child dies in infancy, there is no guilt for which he or she can be condemned.
A second position, a position which was popular among many of the Westminster divines and continues to be the prevailing position among American Presbyterians is the assumption that baptism signifies and seals the child’s entrance into the visible community of the church and the blessings of union with Christ which are to be had when the child, later in life, hopefully exercises faith in Christ. In other words, baptism typically anticipates a future, saving grace we pray that the Lord would actually provide to our children.
The third position, a position one finds especially prevalent among the early modern Dutch Reformed, held that baptism always signifies and seals a presupposed grace of regeneration; this position is sometimes called presumptive regeneration. Antonius Walaeus, exemplifying this position, wrote in the famous Leiden Disputations:
We do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the precise moment when the outward water moistens the body, but—following Scripture—we require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are to be baptized, at least according to the judgment of love. This holds both for the infant members of covenant, in whom we assert that the seed and spirit of faith and repentance must be determined to be present by virtue of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, as well as for adults….
It is important not to overlook how radically different this perspective is from the typical modern American Reformed position. Walaeus affirms that one of the reasons we baptize infants of believers is because we presume that they have “the seed and spirit of faith and repentance.” Like Baptists, Walaeus unapologetically says that we Reformed “require faith and repentance beforehand in all who are baptized,” with the caveat “at least according to the judgement of love” or charity.
It is worth explaining, in a bit more detail, what exactly this “seed of faith” is. The late 17th–early 18th century Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Witsius explains in detail, in his essay on the efficacy of baptism among infants, what type of faith and repentance is assumed in the covenant child. To put it simply, Witsius believed that we should presume that all baptized infants, prior to baptism, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit (a la John 3). Think John the Baptist in the womb (Luke 1:41-44). Baptism, then, is a sign and seal not of grace hoped for in some future time when the child or young adult can publicly profess faith, but a sign and seal of an already granted grace—the grace of regeneration, the seed of faith.
Notably, these theologians did not believe that all covenant children are actually regenerated by the Holy Spirit! They knew of situations in which children within the church community grew up and never publicly professed faith in Christ. Moreover, given that these theologians insisted on perseverance of the saints—which claims that all truly regenerate and given the gift of faith will never lose that regeneration or true faith—they insisted that this is merely a presumption (albeit based on God’s promise to be a God to our children) in accordance with charity.
To illustrate what this judgment of charity means, theologians of the period often pointed to the fact that Peter in 1 Pet. 1:1–2 calls those whom he is writing to “God’s elect” and “chosen.” Of course, no one believes that all to whom he was writing were going to persevere to the end and attain eternal life; yet, he treats them as elect, as true believers, in accordance with their profession. We ought to think of and treat our covenant children similarly, so the argument goes.
The way one answers the question of what infant baptism does and signifies raises important practical questions which we should perhaps give more consideration to. For example, does a view change how we pray for our children? Does it change how we speak to them about their baptism? How does it affect how we understand apostasy? Should I treat my young child as a pagan or as a Christian? Reformed ministers and congregants would do well to think through these questions.
My goal here is not to convince anyone that presumptive regeneration is the biblical position on the efficacy of baptism. Instead, it is important to understand these various historical positions if for no other reason than that they push back on our own assumptions and force us to examine our own position a bit more carefully. Moreover, reviewing this paedobaptistic position reminds us that there has been always diversity among the Reformed tradition on this topic. Above all, we should always seek to evaluate such positions against the supreme rule of Scripture.
Dr. Michael Lynch teaches language and humanities at Delaware Valley Classical School in New Castle. He contributes regularly to Modern Reformation, lectures for the Davenant Institute and Greystone Theological Institute. Dr. Lynch is the author of John Davenant’s Hypothetical Universalism: A Defense of Catholic and Reformed Orthodoxy (Oxford University Press, 2021).
Share this post:
No Comments