Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - Feb/67

Contributor - G. J. Geurtsen

Title - Holy Baptism in the Confessions of the Reformed Church

Topic - Reformed Church

In this inquiry we will examine

(1) what the doctrinal standards say,

(2) on what word of Scripture that is based, and

(3) whether there could be any doubt about the validity of the fathers' use of Scripture in every particular connection.

It would seem to me that the heart of the whole matter of H. Baptism is expressed in question and answer 74 of the H. Catechism: "are infants also to be baptized?" I consider this the heart of the matter for if this question is answered in the negative the meaning of Baptism as such will be quite different than when the question is answered positively. In the first case H. Baptism is God's (answering) seal of man's faith. In the latter case it could not possibly be that, for the simple reason that an infant cannot have that faith. In that case the sacrament must have a different meaning.

Obviously most churches of the Reformation (and not only they) have answered the question whether infants also are to be baptized, in a positive way. The Heid. Cat.: "Yes, because they as well as their parents are included in the covenant and belong to the people of God". Art. 34 of the Confession of Faith: "And indeed, Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ has done for them." "Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that Baptism is to our children, and for this reason Paul calls Baptism the circumcision ?f Christ", apparently referring to Col. 2 : 11, 12. Does Paul indeed say this?

Paul admonishes the Colossians not to let themselves be talked into the necessity of being circumcised, for the simple reason that They are already circumcised, and in a much more radical way than was the case with the old kind of circumcision. The old kind was done to a tiny part of the body, so often an empty symbol, because lips, ears, tongue, heart remained uncircumcised, unaffected by the ceremony, hostile to God. But a Christian is circumcised in a much more radical way. Not just a part of his body is taken away, his whole carnal existence (vle.eselijk bestaan) he has "put off" (active, not passive!). This happened when "through faith" he surrendered himself to Baptism, which is Christ's kind of circumcision: life through death.

It is quite obvious that Paul speaks to those who were baptized as adults. And yet it seems to me just as obvious that his words certainly cannot be used to exclude the Baptism of infants. And that for the following reasons:

1. The very fact that he does call this Baptism the circumcision of Christ. The two, Baptism and Circumcision are comparable. Neither one does any good if not followed by faith, or accompanied by faith. The value of both is in the promises of God, and in nothing else. If God's promises are not believed, not accepted, if they are even denied, then both are more a burden than a privilege. And that goes for the Baptism of adults as well as infants.

2. The faith through which this burial and resurrection with Christ takes place is a faith, not "in the working of God", as the RSV reads, but as in the King James: "of the operation of God", faith that is caused by the working of God. What God does makes Baptism effective, not what is done by man.

3. This becomes abundantly clear in verse 13 where Paul reminds his Colossians that "you, who were dead in trespasses ... God made alive together with Him." This is the same theme as in Romans: when He died, you died. When He was raised, you were raised with Him. This becomes effective through the faith God gives you, which at the same time is your act of obedience to Him.

As I am told my predecessor in Stoney Creek once used a very effective illustration of this, comparing our Baptism with a check God has written out and signed. You can't buy anything with it until you have endorsed it on the back. Only then it becomes money with which you can buy and pay. But that gives us no right to say that without our endorsement this check is a worthless piece of paper. Without this piece of paper you may write your endorsement a thousand times, but there still is nothing endorsed.

Now back to the Catechism.

We should now come back to the affirmation of the Catechism that "they", that is infants, "as well as the adults are included in the covenant and belong to the people of God". It is clear that this belief is based in the first place on Gen. 17 : 7, where the Lord promises Abraham: "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you". Now I notice that Paul in Gal. 3 : 16 makes it a point that "the promises were made to Abraham and his offspring. It does not say 'offsprings', referring, to many; but referring to one, 'and to your offspring' which is Christ. What the apostle does not say, and could not have said is that God's promises and His covenant were for the one offspring, Christ. The text in Genesis speaks clearly of "throughout their generations". And I do not presume that Paul would make changes in the clear text of the Old Testament. He most likely means to say that in Christ the covenant people as well as the covenant blessings are summed up. Therefore he can say in vs. 29 of the same chapter: "and if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise". And we should not forget that Paul brings up these arguments against those who would return to "works of the law" and "would compel you to be circumcised" (6: 13). In other words the apostle makes a careful distinction, just as our Lord Himself does (John 8 : 39), between belonging to the people of God, being part of the covenant-people and receiving the blessings and the fulfilment of the promises of that covenant. The last depend on faith on the, part of the people. But ... the branches, that bear no fruit, and are therefore taken away, were nevertheless branches of the true vine, Jesus Christ. Certainly, not all those "are Israel, who belong to Israel". Paul knows that. But he says nonetheless in Rom. 3: "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?" If so many Jews have broken the covenant, despising the promises has that nullified those promises oi God? He gives the answer himself: "To begin with the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God". "To them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (Rom. 9). I realize that all this concerns the Jewish people. And when Peter says in Acts 2 "yours is the promise (of the H. Spirit) and your children's" he says this to Jews. That is true.'But to begin with does what is said above take care of several arguments that have been brought up against the baptism of infants. The fact that many, who have been baptized, do not receive the promises of God by faith can never be used against the baptism of infants as such.

However, now we have to turn to a more important question: on what grounds did the fathers dare say that the children of believers are "included in the covenant and belong to the people of God"? The Catechism uses even stronger language: "Since both redemption from sin through the blood of Christ and the gift of faith through the Holy Spirit are promised to these children, no less than to their parents, infants are also by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be incorporated into the Christian Church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the Old covenant by circumcision. In the New covenant baptism has been instituted to take its place." Now where in the Bible does it say so?

1. When God makes an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his descendants throughout their generations (Gen. 17), and when those "who are Christ's are Abraham's offspring" (Gal. 3 : 29), the last are obviously included in the covenant. But how are they included? Also "throughout their generations"? Or is that only valid "for you (the Jews) and your children", and are "those, who are afar off, as many as the Lord will call thereto" only brought in as individuals? So that you get this situation: 'God's covenant with Abraham is compared with a tree (Rom. 11). On that tree grow natural branches - the Jews - who however do not all stay on the tree. Is it now so that the branches of a wild tree, that are inocculated upon this tree, remain just stumps? What grows out of them grows outside the tree and has to be inocculated separately? That could be of course, but is it so? Is an unbelieving child of believing parents not a fallen branch? Was this branch never on the tree?

2. Now the term "and his household" occurring three times in the book of Acts could be important. In Acts 11 Peter explains to the brethren in Jerusalem why he had entered the house of a non-Jew and had eaten with him. He tells then how Cornelius had been visited by an angel, who had told him to send for Peter, "he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household" (su kai pas ho oikos sou). I take notice of the fact that when the time came more than Cornelius' household were there. He had invited "his kinsmen and close friends" (10 : 24). That the Holy Spirit "fell" on all while Peter still was preaching. And that Ah Peter asked: "can any one forbid water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have". That means that it is possible that not too much importance should be attached to the words "and all your household,". If this were the only case mentioned. But in Acts 16 : 33 we read of the jailer in Philippi that after Paul has spoken "the Word of the Lord to him and to all, that were in his house", he was baptized at once "with all his family" (autos kai hoi autou apantes). And in Acts 16 : 15 Luke tells that Lydia's heart was opened by the Lord to give heed to what was said by Paul. "And when she was baptized with her household" (kai ho oikos autes). Again the same expression. Now this could be accidental. And I did not find any reference in the standards of the Ilef. Church to these passages to support the Reformed doctrine of Baptism. But it remains noteworthy that the same language is used as in Gen. 17 : 26, 27: "That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael(!) were circumcised, and all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him". (That the women are included in a society that considers them as part of man - Gen. 1 : 21, 22 - is self-evident, just as self-evident as it is that their position under the New covenant is a different one - Gal. 3 28.)

Yet stronger evidence is mentioned in the so called "proof-texts" of the Heidelberger. 1 Cor. 7 : 14: Paul gives advise about marriages where one parent became a Christian, while the other didn't. "She should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated (hegiastai) through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy (hagia." Both the words "consecrated" and "holy" have the same root. What both of them mean is gloriously expressed in 1 Pet. 2 : 9: "you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people". Now in case somebody might think that this "holiness" is the consequence of man's faith it is very clear that Paul considers is not so. The unbelieving husband as well as the children, whether they are babies or in their teens, it doesn't make any difference - they are holy because it pleased God to count them in the one believer of the whole family. That is a gift of God, not an accomplishment of man. The gift is given with a purpose "that you may declare the wonderful deeds of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light". It is a calling, not a state-of-being. Therefore Peter can address those "chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood" (1 : 2) "but as He who called you is holy. be holy yourselves in all you conduct 1 P. 1 : 15).

I disagree wholeheartedly with Meyer's commentary on 1 Cor. when he says: "For the question of the Baptism of infants this passage doesn't offer any material. Paul speaks about the holiness of the children of believing parents through the promise" (of God", "apart from the fact whether they are baptized or not". I say: "You bet he does." And so does the order of Holy Baptism, teaching that : "our children are sanctified in Christ" and should therefore be baptized. The question is whether the covenant of God is still in Power under the new dispensation. And whether this covenant still works "throughout their generations". And the answer, even if there were no other passages in the N.T. to prove it, would still be: yes, God's covenant is still in power. Underlining that all is still held together by the inexplicable grace of God, and never by our faith. "It is not for your sake, 0 house of Israel, that I am bout to act, but for the sake of My holy Name, which you have profaned" (Ez. 36 : 22).

That the children of believers as well as their parents are included in the covenant and belong to the people of God," cannot be denied. And here lies an important difference with those of our fellow Christians, who hold that the Church of Jesus Christ consists of those, who have willingly and consciously surrendered their lives to Him, and that God's covenant is with them only. "Here is the question decided whether we want to build the Church, or seek our power in sect-forming; here is decided the question whether we want to live by faith in the promises of God, or seek the ground for hope and trust in distinguishing marks" (in ourselves; Ds. J. G. Woelderink, "Ons Doopformulier", translation by me, G.).

This isn't all yet. I Pet. 3 : 20, 21 "the ark, in which a few, that Is eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". This comparison is therefore so remarkable because entirely in line with Paul's words in 1 Cor. 7, the seven were "saved" because of the one, Noah. The saving power is not in the water of Baptism, but in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. With that resurrection-power are the children of believers together with their parents, connected, through the gracious promises of God, which are sealed in the Sacrament.

These promises of God contain "both redemption from sin through the blood of Christ and the gift of faith from the Holy Spirit". And therefore it seems quite in accordance with the Scriptures that circumcision under the Old covenant is identified with Baptism under the New. "Both covenants seal the same promises" (Calvin).

And now it is also justified to bring up in this context Matth. 19: 14. "Jesus said: (when children were brought to Him, that He might lay His hands on them and pray Let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for to 'such belongs the Kingdom of heaven". "And He laid His hands on them". About which the Embden Catechism (in Woelderinks beautiful book) says: "But the children don't understand the mystery of Baptism, do they: That is true, but one has to know first that their inborn weakness and infirmities of their nature, which Christ has carried and which for Christ's sake are not counted against them, cannot prevent God from sealing to them His grace, as this happened in the circumcision, instead of which the Christian congregation received the Baptism of the Lord. Secondly that because of the lack of understanding on the side of the children, the baptism given to them, cannot be useless, otherwise should also have been useless that Christ blessed the children, who hadn't yet reached understanding, and laid His hands upon them". When the apostles lay their hands on somebody it may not effect, but it certainly symbolizes the imparting of the Holy Spirit. If that is not the meaning of Christ's laying on of His hands, then I would like to know what is.

One more quotation from "Ons Doopformulier": "We are not only with Calvin of the opinion that God is so good for His people, that He also gave them a promise for their descendents-after-the-flesh, but we are also of the opinion that the children of the congregation not only may believe on the ground of their baptism, in which these promises are sealed, but should embrace these promises of Divine mercy, and should be admonished thereto. It is not presumptuous when they, whom it pleases God to count among His children, accept such love and mercy with gratitude, but it is gross obstinacy and incorrigible rebellion when, after having been received among God's children in the household of God, one despises this mercy of God and turns to the service of sin".

We are called to repent and return to Him, whose people through His grace that is faithful, we still are. It is time that we remember that and live as the people of God through the Holy Spirit, "so that we may more and more die unto sin and live in a consecrated and blameless way" (answer 70, HC). When I had finished this I was led to Isaiah 51, which I would advise everybody concerned (and who isn't?) to read. You will end up with the first words of the next chapter: "Awake, awake, put on your strength, o Zion". Don't let it go to waste through your sinful and shameful neglect. "And remembering that we are not our own, but belong to our faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, we offer Thee ourselves as servants, in the fulfillment of Thy promise to be our God and the God of our children, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen". (Prayer in the Order of H. Baptism).

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.