Introduction

The purpose of this paper is not to discuss whether or not children of those who profess their faith in Christ should be baptized. This shall be assumed. We shall consider rather two key questions. First, what is the status of children of believers before God? Second, how should believers think about the status of their children before God?

Within Reformed theology, the central problem is this:

1. We confess to believe that we should baptize the children of those who profess faith.

2. Baptism is a sign and seal of our regeneration.

3. All those who are regenerated persevere to the end and are saved.

4. Not all children who are baptized persevere unto the end.

Therefore, what does baptism mean for those who are saved, and what does it mean for those who are not? In general, as we noted, what is the status of children of believers before God? And how should believers think of their children’s status before God?

In this paper, we shall use the work written by Johannes Heinrich Heidegger (1633-1698), professor of theology at Zurich and one of the key authors of the Formula Consensus Helvetica.[1] In a brief section recorded in Heinrich Heppe’s Reformed Dogmatics, Heidegger explains the major points of Reformed theology on the two questions outlined above. We shall divide this excerpt from Heidegger into eight theses and defend each one from Scripture with confirmations from the Reformed confessions and various Reformed theologians.

Theses

Thesis 1 – “In adults, outward baptism does not seal inward grace for all of them, but for those alone who bear in their hearts a faith the reverse of feigned and confess it in words.”[2]

This does not deal directly with the place of children in the covenant, but indirectly it establishes crucial groundwork: outward baptism does not guarantee salvation. This was a key point emphasized by the Reformers. The sacraments do not work ex opere operato. Consequently, as the Westminster Shorter Catechism (hereafter WSC) teaches that they are made effective by “the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them (emphasis mine).”[3] And thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereafter WCF) asserts that “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed [unto baptism]…that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”[4]

Scripture clearly teaches that the sacraments do not work ex opere operato. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul says that those in the Old Testament partook of the sacraments which symbolized Christ, but this did not mean that they all received salvation. Rather, “[W]ith most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.”[5] Was this something that was for the Old Testament alone? Not at all. On the contrary, “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.”[6] Participation in the sacraments of the Old or New Testaments does not guarantee salvation.

One possible way out of the strength of these texts is to assert just what Rome does, namely, that they are saved but that they lose their salvation. But the Reformed confessions affirm the infallible perseverance of all believers and thereby necessarily denied that infants receive salvation in baptism and then lose it when they fall away.[7] Those who fall away never had it in the first place. While this is obvious in the Reformed Confessions, let us consider one key text from Scripture that teaches this with the utmost clarity. 1 John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” This verse makes it clear that those who are “of us,” i.e. believers, will continue with us. The fact that they left the Christian communion is the decisive proof that they do not belong to us and never did. Many other texts could be added that prove the same thing.[8]

These points are crucial for everything we say after. The sacraments do not guarantee salvation, and those who do fall away never received salvation at any time.

Thesis 2 – “Nor yet the children of believing parents one and all, but only for the elect is baptism the sign of regeneration and universal spiritual grace.”

Many are willing to grant the point that there are adults who do not believe when they are baptized and so are lost, but the same point applies also to children. Scripture makes precisely this point. “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.”[9] And, “the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”[10] Paul also goes back to this in Galatians 4 to explain that Isaac was a child of the promise but that Ishmael was a child of the flesh.

Consequently, as the WCF says, “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed [unto baptism]…that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”[11] As Charles Hodge argues: “If baptism, therefore, is, in all ordinary cases, attended by the regeneration of the soul, then all the baptized will be saved.”[12] If we hold to the perseverance of the saints, then we must conclude as 1 John 2:19 tells us that those children of the covenant who depart were never “of us.”[13]

Scripture proves that this thesis is true, and we believe this testimony. But this is also confirmed by our experience that many children of believers depart from the faith. Just as we would conclude with adults who turn from the faith that they were never regenerate, so we must make the same conclusion with children of believers who turn from the faith.

Thesis 3 – “It is right and godly in the case of individual children of the kind to have good hopes of the judgment in love, in the case of them all it is not so.”

Since not all children of believers will be saved, the obvious question is, “How should we think of our individual children?” This thesis asserts that we should view them positively with a judgment of charity.

In order to illustrate this thesis, let us consider the case of adults. If not all adults who profess faith actually have it, how should we look at individual professors of faith in our churches? The Canons of Dort gives this explanation: “Furthermore, following the example of the apostles, we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us.”[14] The proof of this point of the Canons is “the example of the apostles.” The Apostles are very ready to assume that those who profess faith are actually saved. For example, even in the strongest letters that Paul writes, we find positive statements concerning the faith of those to whom he writes.[15]

What Heidegger is asserting is fundamentally that we should have that same sort of speaking in a “favorable way” toward the children of believers. But children of believers do not have the evidence listed in Article 15 above. What ground, then, could we have for considering them in a positive way? The answer is the promise of God. God promised to Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed after him.[16] Though we recognize that this does not mean that all children of believers will be saved (as we said in Thesis 2 above), it does give us ground to believe that God very often gives grace in the line of families. This is why the great Puritan theologian Edward Leigh would go so far to say: “One hath better ground to go by to administer baptism to a child of believing parents, then to men of years; a man’s profession may be unfound and hypocritical, for the other I have God’s promise, ‘I will be thy God and the God of thy seed.’”[17] Similarly, Turretin explains that the grounds for infant baptism are two: “Because Christ thus commanded and because by baptism graciously, yet freely, God is accustomed to be efficacious in testifying and sealing grace (emphasis mine).”[18] Consequently, just as we do with adult professors, we should have a “favorable way” in dealing with the children of believers. In other words, we should have good hopes and expectations concerning them regarded individually, even though we recognize that not all of them are elect.

We reiterate that this does not mean that all children of believers are or will be saved. It simply means that we should view them with the same positive judgment of charity with which we view adult professors of the faith. We do this because of the promise of God to be a God to us and to our children. This excludes neither the use of means nor the preaching the Gospel to our children just as the judgment of charity for adult professors excludes neither the use of means nor the preaching of the Gospel. It simply means that we should view them as part of the kingdom of God until they prove the opposite to be true.

Thesis 4 – As regards covenant children who die in infancy “it may be assumed that they ‘are so regenerated and sanctified even in their mother’s womb, and therefore baptism is presently the sign of regeneration already made and persevering right up to death.’”

In the case of children of believers who die in infancy, the case becomes particularly sensitive. This thesis answers what we should do in such cases. This is a necessary deduction from Thesis 3. It does not say that they all are regenerated but rather that this may “be assumed.” Again, the case of adults is instructive as we consider this point. Imagine that you have a husband and wife who are faithful members of the congregation, and the husband dies. What do we say to the wife? Should she think of her husband as being in heaven? Of course. There is no reason to believe otherwise. But is it possible that her husband lied and was a secret unbeliever? Indeed, it is possible and, from time to time most likely happens. But how can anyone know that? We must make judgments from what is observable. And we should not torture ourselves concerning things we can never know. Instead, we would encourage her to assume or presume that her husband is in heaven and to think no other thought.

This is the same sort of logic that The Canons of Dort uses in Head of Doctrine 1: “Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.”[19] Notice that this does not say that all children of believers who die in infancy are in fact elect and saved. It says rather that the parents “are not to doubt this.” Why? Because the only thing that they know is the promise that God will be a God to us and to our children. This is all that they have to go by. Why, then, should they pry into the secret counsels of God? They should rest in that promise and not doubt that their child is in heaven.

Thesis 5 – “That children can neither hear nor believe the gospel, does not contradict this assumption, ‘because even without these the Holy Spirit can apply Christ’s righteousness and death to them.’”

One objection that is often brought against infant baptism in general is that infants are unable to repent or believe. But this does not mean that they are incapable of regeneration. As Matthew Henry said concerning John the Baptist in his commentary on Luke 1:66: “God never made a soul but he knew how to sanctify it.”[20] The WCF in Chapter X, “Of Effectual Calling,” says that elect infants, dying in infancy, “are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.”[21] This is especially important because we emphatically deny that children of believers are innocent until they willfully sin. Rather, they are conceived and born in sin. This is part of the confession of baptism, that there is no other hope for us and for our infants beside the blood of Christ. As the Form for the Baptism of Infants in the old Christian Reformed Church noted, the first part of the doctrine of holy baptism is, “That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, so that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again.”[22] The Holy Spirit is able to do this, and we should not let the child’s inability to believe or repent cause us to doubt their salvation.

Thesis 6 – “On the other hand it is different with the children of believing parents who live to the use of their reason and still further, ‘Some lay down for all of these promiscuously, that by baptism comes the sign of grace and regeneration present, not without rashness, certainly without solid reason.’”

This thesis may be taken in at least one of two ways. It could be taken as simply reemphasizing the point made in Thesis 2. The fact that we may presume that children of believers dying in infancy are regenerated by their baptism does not mean that we should presume that all children of believing parents are regenerated.

More likely, however, it is pointing to what is said in the WCF: “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.”[23] In other words, some elect children may be regenerated at a later point. Nevertheless, this should not be understood in a way that would nullify Thesis 3. We still should have the judgment of charity, just as those who profess their faith as adults may be regenerated after that profession but should, nevertheless, be treated with the judgment of charity.

Thesis 7 – “There is a common grace and favour of God, which all baptized persons possess, even the non-elect, viz., initiation and ingrafting into the outward body of the Church, in virtue of which even though perishing they have a right to the name of sons of the Kingdom and enjoy the outward privileges of God’s covenanted.”

Even though reprobate children of believers do not receive regeneration, this does not mean that they receive nothing. As the Apostle Paul says of the external Israel, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”[24] The Westminster Larger Catechism explains this as the difference between the benefits of the visible and in the invisible Church.

The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.[25]

They even participate in some common operations of the Spirit.[26] This is the “common grace” enjoyed by all members of the visible Church.

Thesis 8 –“But this is the mere court-yard, shell and surface of baptism.”

But we must hastily add Thesis 8. Without true saving faith and the consequent benefits of justification, adoption, and sanctification, along with the several benefits which in this life do either accompany or flow from them, this really amounts to very little. The significance of this point is that it makes sure that baptism is not reduced to a mere “sign of membership.” Its testimony is to the grace of God in Christ. It is not merely a sign of the benefits of outward association with the Church but it is a sign and seal of all the benefits of being in Christ. Consequently, for those who do not believe and receive the grace offered in Christ, while they may receive many things that are truly good, these things are merely the “shell and surface of baptism.”

Conclusion

We have attempted in this paper to state clearly a Reformed view of children in the covenant. This view rests on the doctrine of election and the great promises that God makes to us and our children. Not all children of believers are saved, but that does not mean that we should have low expectations for our children. We should rest on the fact that God is a God to us and to our children. But what do we do when some of our children turn from the faith? Indeed, this is one of the most heart-wrenching and difficult experiences of life. Many parents can certainly agree with the bitter statement of Paul, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh.”[27] This is how we may feel when our own children turn from the faith. But Paul did not go on to deny the promises of the covenant or to doubt the goodness of God. He recognized that there was a higher purpose involved, “that the purpose of God according to election might stand.”[28] God has not chosen to save every human being. We must rest in this and trust that the judge of all the earth will do right, and though we may not understand all of it in this life in which we see through a glass darkly, we trust that one day we shall see face to face.[29] In the meantime, we must have the simple trust to receive just what God has given to us and written to us and not attempt to go beyond it.

[1] On Heidegger, see Samuel Macauley Jackson, ed., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 203. On the Formula Consensus Helvetica, see Ibid., pp. 217-8.

[2] All Theses quotations are from Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: A Compendium of Reformed Theology (London: Wakeman Great Reprints, 1950), pp. 622-3.

[5] 1 Corinthians 10:5. All quotations are form the NKJV unless otherwise noted.

[7] See WCF XVII and The Canons of Dort, Fifth Head of Doctrine.

[8] E.g. Jeremiah 32:40, John 10:28-29, Romans 8:29-30, Philippians 1:6, 1 John 3:9, etc.

[12] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. III (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), p. 590.

[13] “Of us” is taken here to mean “saved” or “justified.” In what sense they were “of us” will be explained in Thesis 7.

[14] The Canons of Dort, Heads of Doctrine 3 and 4, Article 15.

[15] E.g. Galatians 4:12 and 2 Corinthians 13:5-6.

[17] Edward Leigh, A System of Divinity, p. 913.

[18] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, XIX:xx.2.

[20] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1997.

[22] From From 1, The Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, Inc., 1976), p. 123.

[26] WCF X:4. One of the prooftexts is Heb. 6:4-6 which describes spiritual benefits that are less than saving.