Infant Faith

[polemic_turtle]

Speak for yourself! ;-)

Admittedly so, however, since baptism shouldn't delay sanctification, that should be taking place to whatever degree possible, if the conversion is genuine.

We cannot know any more than what we can see and read, so we must accept by the same critera the Apostles did, which was a profession of faith, lineage notwithstanding.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by wsw201
The only real reference to any type of infant faith that I have heard of is from Turretin and that is "seed" faith. Matt has talked about this in other threads. You may want to do a search.

In my humble opinion, to subscribe "faith" or saving faith to an infant, is more than a bit speculative.

I'm inclined to agree Wayne, nonetheless Calvin did make allusion to this when he wrote...

John Calvin (1509-1564): But, to insist still more stoutly upon this point, they add that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and of faith. Accordingly, since neither of these can come about in tender infancy, we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism, lest its meaning be made empty and fleeting. But these darts are aimed more at God than at us. For it is very clear from many testimonies of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance [Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25; cf. Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6]. Then Paul calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith [Rom. 4:11]. Therefore, let a reason be required of God himself why he commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For since baptism and circumcision are in the same case, our opponents cannot give anything to one without conceding it to the other. If they have recourse to their usual way out, that the age of infancy then symbolized spiritual infants, their path is already blocked. We therefore say that, since God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and of faith, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism "” unless men choose to rage openly at God´s institution. But as in all God´s acts, so in this very act also there shines enough wisdom and righteousness to repel the detractions of the impious. For although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend with their understanding what that sign meant, they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, a mortification that they would afterward practice in mature years. To sum up, this objection can be solved without difficulty: infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), IV.16.20, pp. 1342-1343.

Calvin doesn't call it "seed faith" per se, but as best I can understand him here, he speaks of the "seed of both" [i.e., of repentance and faith] is "hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit." I think the key to understanding Calvin here is when he asserts that "infants are baptized into future repentance and faith."

Regardless of one's sentiments about him otherwise, John W. Riggs gives a helpful treatment of this subject in his book, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, and one need not agree with everything he says to find his discussion helpful and thought-provoking. Moreover, anyone interested in the present day controversy over the Federal Vision theology will likewise benefit from Holifield Brooks historical discussion in his book, The Covenant Sealed: the Development of Puritan Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720. The latter book is somewhat difficult to come by and is expensive in its reprint edition from "UMI Books on Demand." I'll offer some sample quotes from these books...

John W. Riggs: By contrast, the Reformed tradition has always held that the Christ who is offered through Word and sacrament does not happen in the Word and sacrament. To make that claim would be to identify sign and reality too closely, mistaking the means of grace for the grace itself. See John W. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: An Historical and Practical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), p. 123.

E. Brooks Holifield: Nevertheless, Calvin had difficulty integrating baptism into his theology. He did not join Luther in seeking the Word "œin" the water and instructed his readers to look beyond "œthe visible element." He repeatedly cautioned that baptism was of benefit only to the elect; he repudiated emergency baptism; and he denied that the sacrament was necessary for salvation. In fact, Calvin emphasized so strongly the freedom of God in election that secondary means of salvation were superfluous. The ground of election was hidden in the Divine Will: we must "œalways at last return to the sole decision of God´s will, the cause of which is hidden in Him." Calvin frequently wrote as though that detracted in no way from the sacrament, but elsewhere he acknowledged that he was not prepared to "œbind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols." Many received the sign, but the Spirit was bestowed on none but the elect. Since the sacrament had no efficacy without the Spirit, the reality of baptism, Calvin acknowledged, would be "œfound only in a few." E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 16.

If I understood him correctly, the above quote reflects essentially what Dr. Clark said in his baptismal address, i.e., apart from Holifield's comments about Calvin's view of election. Holifield is, to be sure, speaking as a historical commentator as one outside of the Reformed Tradition looking in. I'll let Dr. Clark correct me as he may well do.

E. Brooks Holifield: The tension emerged clearly in Calvin´s doctrine of infant baptism. Since faith was necessary for the perfection of baptism, and since infants could not demonstrate faith"”only the elect among them would ever persevere in it"”why baptize infants at all? In the 1536 edition of the Institutes Calvin joined Luther in attributing some kind of faith to infants, but he dropped that idea after 1539. He supported infant baptism by various appeals to Scripture, noting the apostolic practice of baptizing families and Jesus´ command that infants be brought to him. But Calvin´s main argument for infant baptism was based on the covenant motif, which first became prominent in his sacramental theology in the 1538 edition of the Geneva Catechism....But though baptism "œengrafted" children into the visible church, it did not actually place them within the covenant. It simply testified that they had been "œborn directly into the inheritance of the covenant." Since the inheritance was ultimately destined only for the elect, how could one say the testimony was reliable? Calvin confessed that many children of faithful Christians would "œthrust themselves out of the holy progeny through their unbelief." So even if infants were, as Calvin often argued, baptized for future repentance and faith, the sacrament itself offered no assurance that a child would in fact believe. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 16-17.

The word "ambivalence" employed by Holifield in the next quote regarding Calvin and the Puritans is perhaps ill-used, but is otherwise (I think) close to accurate.

E. Brooks Holifield: In adopting Calvin´s baptismal doctrine, however, the Puritans also inherited the characteristic Reformed ambivalence about external sacraments. Salvation, after all, rested ultimately on the unconditioned election of a Deity who was "œFather and the God of all the elect, and only the elect." The ministers criticized any suggestion that the sacrament conferred saving grace, or removed the stain of original sin, or justified the baptized infant, just as they denied that baptism was necessary for salvation. E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), p. 46.

E. Brooks Holifield: The vocabulary of the sacramentalists revealed their intention: to elevate baptism by combining two theological traditions, Reformed orthodoxy and medieval scholasticism. To speak of the Christian life in terms of potency, or form, and actualization, or matter, was to appropriate scholastic imagery. "œInitial grace" was a Reformed adaptation of the medieval gratia prima, also given to children in baptism. Baxter recognized later the similarity between "œseminal grace" and the scholastic notion of infused habits. Burges and Ward carefully inserted the older language into their orthodox Calvinism, but they could not entirely eliminate the incommensurabilities. The medieval language depicted the Christian pilgrimage as a gradual development, approximate to salvation in ascending stages and levels of growth, nourished by sacramental grace from beginning to end. Earlier Reformed theologians spoke of progressive sanctification after the effectual call, and they argued about preparatory development in adults prior to the experience of saving grace, but the sacramentalist language seemed to depict the whole of a man´s spiritual life, from infancy to glorification, as an unbroken continuum beginning with baptism. The problem was to combine that vocabulary with a traditional Puritan notion of genuine conversion as a specifiable experience, restricted to the elect, moving them into a new sphere of life, discontinuous with their past. Puritan theology often consisted of the artful manipulation of images, and Burges and Ward accordingly proposed a sacramental theology based on medieval images of salvation as a new creation.
Few of their Puritan contemporaries shared their vision, however, and the initial response was therefore hostile. When Ward first published his ideas around 1627, a close friend, John Davenant, advised that he not "œsett that controversy on foot," and when Burges published his treatise he complained that he received for his effort nothing but "œclamors, slanders, and revilings without end or measure." E. Brooks Holifield, The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Sacramental Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), pp. 85-86.

In another work of his, Holifield speaks concerning Nevin (one of the Mercerburg theologians, of which Dr. Clark also made allusion to in his baptismal address), and wrote...

E. Brooks Holifield: Like the theologians of the Catholic Church, Nevin rejected the Calvinist distinction between the visible and the invisible church. An invisible church was to him an empty abstraction. The idea of the church included visibility as much as the idea of the human being supposed a body. As actual, the church was holy, one, and catholic only in a fragmented and incomplete way; it required a process of historical evolution to actualize itself fully. But its ideal was not a distant goal; the ideal was immanent within the actual, a life struggling to come to its full manifestation. Just as the ideal could have no reality save under the form of the historical and actual, so the actual could have no truth and inner power except through the presence of the ideal within it. E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 477-478.

A number of the adherents of today's FV theology are fond of referencing Nevin, and with him share (to a greater or lesser extent depending on which one you read) his sentiments regarding the visible/invisible church distinction. I think that Dr. Clark more than adequately addressed this distinction in his exegesis of Romans 2:28-29.

Blessings,
DTK


[Edited on 4-26-2006 by DTK]

 

[fredtgreco]

But David, why actually read and quote all that material when you can simply quote one question from Calvin's catechism completely out of context to make him read as a FVer?

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
But David, why actually read and quote all that material when you can simply quote one question from Calvin's catechism completely out of context to make him read as a FVer?

Alright Fred, if it makes you feel any better, I confess it's a bad habit I picked up in another context 6 1/2 years prior to the year 2001, if that gives you any clue.

DTK

 

[wsw201]

Thanks for the comments David. I forgot about the comment by Calvin in the Institutes.

In my humble opinion I don't think 16th century Calvin is saying what we as 21st century folks think he is saying about infants and faith, especially at first glance. Based on my past readings of Calvin's work I think the comments by Holifield are more in line with Calvin's sotieriology.