From the 17th Article of the Canons:
The Salvation of the Infants of Believers
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.
If children who die in infancy are holy is it true that they are always elect and assured of salvation?
If the answer to that is yes, is it possible that children who grow up can reject the covenant? That is, if they are holy by the covenantal relationship of the parents, of which they were not parties to its creation or consummation in Christ, but only are made its beneficiaries by virtue of relationship with the parent, can they by their actions void that which God promises cannot be voided?
John 1: 12-13 tells us:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
The first thing we notice from this is that it is those who receive who are those who believe and are given the right to become children of God. Second, it is they who are not born of anything inherent in man, but exclusively are born of God.
The word blood in this passage is in the plural indicating lineage; bloods are those who are in relationship to the progenitor as offspring. The right given to become children of God is in contradiction to this means. That is, the right to become the child of God does not inhere in the relationship of natural offspring to their natural parent. It goes along with another famous passage:
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”
This means that it is not the children of the flesh, of natural procreational descent who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. The children of Abraham who are of the faith came through Isaac. There is a natural disconnect and a necessary spiritual connection made with the promise of God. For this is what the promise said:
“About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Notice, it is clear that the relationship to the believing parent does not gaurantee, place into covenant by natural descent, Esau. And that before they were born. The conclusion is that the children are not affirmed as in covenant by natural generation, but election. The promise of Isaac likewise, was not of natural descent, but the passages are clear that his was a miraculous conception beyond the means of natural man.
We remember also that it was not Ishmael who was sanctified by his relationship to Abraham eventhough Abraham pleaded with God that it might be so. In fact all three negative cases out of John come into play in the relationship to the covenant made with Abraham. What makes the covenantal relationship is God’s declaration and the children are so called children of promise… not procreation.
Here is the analysis. Even though Dort has in mind what has been the traditional view, it holds little value except for comfort. In another portion the Canons we read that this mystery is not to be pried open by vain inquiry. There is mystery in election. Infant covenantalism would eliminate such. So it is held that it was the elect infants who are regenerated and made holy ones who are those who are the ones in covenant relationship. It cannot be said that all infants are elect. It is not simply a blanket covering because there is blood lineage. Despite the beauty of this Canon and of the WCF, of Calvin’s erudition and many others also, it is error to say that bloods make for one’s election.
Dort says
not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included.
The bible passage being addressed is:
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
The problem of course is the meaning of holy. If it is true that the children are considered to be elect, then why not the unbelieving spouse? The passage is addressing the legitimacy and sanction of mixed marriage -believer to unbeliever- and whether or not it is acceptable to remain so when one has been converted in marriage and the other not, 1 Cor 7:10, cf. vs 17. Curious is verse 16. There is no reason to accept that a believing spouse sanctifies the husband to election, and likewise no reason to extend election to the children by the same logic. Paul is making appeal to the marriage covenant which is not annullable. If divorce ensues, that would make illegitimate children out of legitimate. Or in other words, it would make unholy what God considers holy and so the issue of that unholy relationship. The context, regardless of Calvin’s take on it or any others, is marriage, not election.
John 1 says that the right to become children is not contingent upon the relationship with the covenanted parent, but it is a covenanted right given to those who receive and believe who are those who are born of God and not of natural descent. Point being, they believe. Short of the confession of faith, we have no knowledge as to the status of a person’s election. To make 1 Cor 7 say what it does not is to contradict John. That cannot be allowed no matter how appealing it might be to think that all children of believing parents are elect.
In the case of this clause of the Canons of Dort, infant baptism is not necessarily indicated, eventhough one may make historical appeal to it. The holiness indicated is that of informal relationship with the fellowship of believers derived from the formal relationship. They can be afforded only the common blessing of the covenantal parent, and cannot be afforded anything more because, as the clause stipulates, they are not regenerate according to nature, and therefore cannot be said to be in the body of Christ. Being unregenerate, having no part in the body of Christ then, they would not be eligible for all benefits pertaining to the believing parent such as baptism and the table.
The mystery of election is great, and one that is not to be taken for granted. We all too often find that holy little children grow to be whores to the faith and horrors of history. To say that those who once were considered elect can grow to dishonor Christ, rejecting him wholly, blasphemously and heretically, and die so, were once holy ones who lost their faith, is to deny the very thing that makes the promised covenant His perfection and not ours.
In a discussion of paedo versus credo baptism, often the arguement resolves to confessions and church history so I approached it through this discursis on a portion of the Canons of Dort. Some appeal to it, and others to the WCF, or the church fathers, as their authority for infant baptism. Our authority should not rest there, but instead in Scripture and what can be reasoned about the subject from it. Making baptism requisite to inclusion in the covenant would reverse much of the rest of what the Canons teach. The Canons reject the works that forms so much of Arminian schemes- much of the reason for the Reformation and the rejection of Roman teaching. Our faith is not one of instrumentalism, nor of implicit mental assent, nor one in which the sacraments become the ticket to heaven because dad happened to believe and it was credited to his children as righteousness. We find that it is for this very reason baptism of infants is not commanded or even indicated in Scripture. Though one might think baptism of infants might find its way into the Canon, it did not. It isn’t because it would have lent credence to the heresies being denied by the Canons which had attempted to make man’s affiliations, efforts and will, the determiners of the convenantal relationship and not that of the grace of God:
This same election took place, not on the basis of foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person to be chosen, but rather for the purpose of faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, and so on. Accordingly, election is the source of each of the benefits of salvation. Faith, holiness, and the other saving gifts, and at last eternal life itself, flow forth from election as its fruits and effects. As the apostle says, “He chose us” (not because we were, but) “so that we should be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:4).
If obedience of faith does not make even a believer to be in covenant according to election, but rather faith itself is a benfit, a “fruit” flowing out of election, if children of believers can reject the faith and be condemned, how much less so infant baptism where it is, without doubt, the act of another’s faith?
The WCF holds:
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.
But we must ask why. If it is true that the efficacy is not attached to time, then why not comform to Scripture which places the right to become children of God as being a receiving and believing post new birth? Why even consider presuming upon the grace of God in this way? As with the Supper, where the body and blood of Christ are offered to be consumed, hiding as it were, Christ within the believer, baptism performs the complimentary symbol of being hidden in Christ. This symbol of vital union, though, is accepted as reality only upon confession of faith. Then we must finally ask, why would anyone diminish its meaning by presumptive baptism of infants as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person?
Brother Thomas I really admire your devotion to the Holy Scriptures. The subject of the real meaning of baptism is very important where Jesus and his apostles taught us to do.
To every true Christian who sincerely try to follow the ways of Christ and His Teachings considerered EVERY word in the Scripture as ALL important, because it is God’s Word.
Now;
Who is to say which is important and not? Who is to say we only need to have the “essentials” and rest are not important in the Scriptures? By claiming and declaring which “one is or not important” is already an affirmation of Authority with which the protestants abhor the Catholic Church for.
Minor differences in protestants?
Take for example baptism… the Church has decided that the references to Baptism in Scripture must be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, no exceptions. In fact, the Council of Trent bases this teaching on John 3:5 where Jesus said: “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Now, granted, you may have a different interpretation of that verse. In fact, yours may even sound better than ours. It’s easy to believe that the water is merely symbolic. The Bible uses symbols all the time.
But the $64,000 question is: is the Bible using symbols in John 3:5? How would we know for sure?
We seem to have at least two possibilities. In fact, there are other possibilities. Some Protestants believe the water refers to the word of God, and base that interpretation on Ephesians 5:26. Others believe the water refers to the amniotic fluid in the mother’s womb. Others believe the water is more than just a symbol but still doesn’t save anyone.
So, in effect, we have five different interpretations of John 3:5, and they all sound very good, but there can only be one correct interpretation and the others are devilish imposters. The context of John 2-4 doesn’t help too much in settling on one meaning. So what do we do? Well, the good Catholic will ask: what did John mean when he wrote the words of John 3:5?
Well, we need to ask John what he meant. But, of course, John is dead. Fortunately, however, we know what John meant because he told his fellow apostles, and they told the disciples, and they told the churches. When we examine the record of the churches (and we know them be reading the documents of those times) it is a fact that every church, every Father, every council, and every other body with any semblance of ecclesiastical authority said that the interpretation which holds that the water is the miraculous means of grace and actually procures justification is the only correct answer, and all the others are pious frauds.
I would just add as an illustration of the basis for Protestant doctrinal decisions: When Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”
Catholics believe that Jesus meant what he said.
Protestants believe that whatever Jesus meant, he certainly did not mean what he said.
And why? Because Jesus statement is not logical or easily understood. It is difficult, too difficult to believe by bible alone.
Related, if you look closer at what Jesus PROMISED to His Church in John 16:12-14.. “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into ALL THE TRUTH; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the THINGS THAT ARE TO COME.”
Jesus promised, ALL Truth, ALL means: whole, every single one, FULLNESS…not one or two or three “essential doctrines” but ALL and still are to COME.
If He promised that, then why do have differing doctrines amongst us? There should only be one True Church from the begining who has a living Authority from Him. There has to be, if indeed Christian doctrine is a divine revelation in which men must believe under the pain of eternal lost, then the promised (gift) of infalliability to the Church is necessary because if she could err at all, she could err in ANY POINT, the flock would have no guarantee to the ALL Truth.
Do you think it is very logical?
Blessings!
I actually don’t think that the water referred to is any of what you claim. I rather connect it, and naturally so, to creation, for that is what Jesus is speaking of in John 3, anothen gennao, recreation. The term water can refer to the Holy Spirit even according to the Roman Catholic Church:
Water signifies birth and life. From a faith perspective, it represents the cleansing and life-giving action of the Holy Spirit at Baptism. (Matthew 3:11; John 3:5) The symbolism of water is addressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#694):
As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13) Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified (Jn 19:34; 1 Jn 5:8) as its source and welling up in us to eternal life. (Cf. Jn 4:10-14; 7:38; Ex 17:1-6; Isa 55:1; Zech 14:8; 1 Cor 10:4; Rev 21:6; 22:17);
and if that is the case then Spirit and water is a parallelism, typical in Jewish thought and writting. The idea of waters, if you check Genesis, in the Hebrew, is also the idea of seminal fluid. If that is correct, and I think it is, then the circle is closed, for we are recreated through a miraculous conception from above, and waters needs only be symbolic, not efficacious. The term born, is by the way, what it means to be conceived and carried. Our English language gets in the way. Another word group altogether is used in the Greek to signify birth. But the gennao group has to do with conception, i.e. creation.
Now anyway you wish to take it is fine, but in any case, I reject instrumentalism which is what you have proposed. The thief on the cross was not baptized, and Jesus did not seem to make it necessary for rebirth for he never baptized anyone. Beside, it is an occult idea. God works directly and he uses means, but in his miraculous working, he always works directly without means. We are thus said to be born of God, or by the Spirit, and we are said to be sanctified by the Spirit. Never, except under the mistaken beliefs of the Jews, is there an idea that God’s grace of justification, regeneration and sanctification is efficacious through means. Like pagan religions, the idea that ceremony is the actual is a false faith and we have it from Paul that those things were mere shadows of things now made known. True enough, we continue with symbolic worship, but the veil of truth has been drawn back to reveal a living way, not the old dead way, into the presence of God. But that was the way it has always been. Though God may use means as the way of signifying the working of the Spirit, it is not the means that are efficacious, but the Spirit Himself.
Your literalism will get you into trouble, in any case. For if you think that only the literal interpretation of the commands are valid, my guess is that it was difficult for you to post your response seeing that you have plucked out your eye and cut off your hand. Unless of course you don’t sin, ever. Then again, if you do sin, you have broken a command and by the literal interpretation, you are not a member of the body of Christ. For only those who keep his commands are His, right?
Brother,
Thanks for the reply.
First of all, some comments in brief, the thief on the cross wasn’t technically in Heaven that day, he was in Paradise, that is Abraham’s Bosom (Acts 16:22). Jesus did not die and go to Heaven immediately but rather freed the OT saints in Abraham’s Bosom and then took them to Heaven.
The real issue is that ‘justification’ and ’sanctification’ were not separated here but rather instantaneous because he died shortly after repenting, and this goes against the Protestant idea that sanctification comes after justification through good works because he simply didn’t have time for that. The Reformed view of Justification and Sanctification are two distinct units but for us, if you take the whole context of the Bible, there is no distinction.
For one thing, justification is not only spoken of in the PAST, but in the PRESENT and the FUTURE (Cf. Romans 5:1, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:7, Romans 8:33, Acts 13:39, Gal 2:17, James 2:24, 1 Cor. 4:4-5, Matt. 12:37, Romans 2:13).
Sanctification is not something that can be separated from justification since WITHOUT sanctification, there CAN BE NO justification. Consider this passage from St. Paul, for instance:
1 Cor. 6:11 “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Notice how sanctification precedes justification? This doesn’t seem to fit into the Reformed view of justification first and then sanctification later, I think that’s because there is no neat little division in existence.
To us, there exist no dividing line between these two and this situation doesn’t prove anything contrary to Catholicism.
I totally agree with you that baptism signifies birth and life but the absence of the actual work of the Master doesn’t necesasarily mean Jesus didn’t do it at all, however it is still commanded for us to do in in the Scriptures , “Repent, and let every one of you be BAPTIZED in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of your sins…” (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 38; Mark 16:16;1 Peter 3:21)
Brother, if I truly have my way according to my reasoning and interpretation I will gladly take your invitation of choosing which interpretation of baptism for me is the best but God didn’t set it up that way.
I think God set up the church and gave His Authority to be an arbiter or a “referee” so to speak that could pass decision and judgment if offenses and disputes arise between camps.(Matthew 18:17) Noticed, Jesus didn’t say go the Bible but go to My Church (singular).I know you believe that the “church” is whole body of believers around the globe, but the important thing to consider is…can this church make a decision and most of all pass a judgment (anathema) as prescribed in the Bible?
Besides the fact, the great promise of Jesus Christ to His Church that the, “Spirit of Truth will guide her unto ALL Truth until the end of ages.”
The Catholic Church teaches that God has bound salvation to the sacraments (i.e.baptism), but He Himself is not bound by the sacraments. In other words, God can do what he wants. He can save people in extraordinary ways.
God is all powerful and He can save His people without any help from anybody but why did He choose men (Moses, etc) to save His people? And instructed to make physical images/ instrumentalities for His honor?
For me, when God Himself ordained and commanded on first place to make physical images/instrumentalities like the Ark of the Covenant which was “overshadowed” by Himself, called it Holy of Holies and demanded His people an utmost reverence and honor to the Ark. The bronze serpent was also ordained by God was a physical “thing” that somehow “channel” His graces to whoever looked was healed. The mere FACT that God Himself ordained to make physical images/instrumentalities would be enough to say that it pleases Him. It is only when people started to worship the bronze image as itself thus it was destroyed.
When God which is spirit became man, the PHYSICAL, TANGIBLE nature and image of Him presented to us and through this PHYSICAL NATURE, He REDEEMED us. The whole economy of image was thus made in His honor.
With regards to reading the Bible, we Catholics approached it in a literal sense first, then metaphorical second.The Bread of Life discourse as you read it from John 6:27-35ff – “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst” – at this point the crowd still understood Him to speak metaphorically (after all He does not look like a piece of bread). They only questioned His statement that He came down from heaven (verses 40-42). Jesus again summarised His previous statements (verses 44-50) and then stated that the bread of life is His FLESH.
John 6:51 (emphasis added)
“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and THE BREAD WHICH I SHALL GIVE FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD IS MY FLESH.”
From their reaction (verse 52), we know that His listeners understood Him to speak LITERALLY. They asked: How can this man give us his FLESH to eat? Then Jesus gave even more emphasis on His statement when He solemnly said:
John 6:53-58 (emphasis added)
“Truly, truly, I say to you, UNLESS YOU EAT THE FLESH of the Son of man and DRINK HIS BLOOD, you have no life in you; he who EATS my FLESH and DRINKS my BLOOD has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. FOR MY FLESH IS FOOD INDEED, AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
Even many of His disciples found His words HARD TO BELIEVE (verse 60) and then LEFT Him (verse 66). Did they misunderstand Him? Was He speaking figuratively? On a number of occasions, Jesus did use figurative words to express Himself. For example He said that He was the vine (John 15:1), the way (John 14:6), the door (John 10:9) and the light (John 8:12). However, if they misunderstood His word, then why did Jesus not correct them? Note that Jesus always corrected if His disciples or listeners misunderstood Him. For example in John 3:3-8 He corrected Nicodemus’ misunderstanding of the meaning of being born from above. Other examples are John 4:32-38, John 11:11-15 and Matthew 16:6-12. In contrast Jesus said that if they could not accept His word, they would not believe either when they saw the Son of man ascending to heaven (verse 61). Then He said: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”
John 6:63
Here Jesus did not refer to His flesh (if He did then He contradicted Himself) . In the garden of Gethsemane He said to Peter, John and James: “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:38). So in John 6:63 Jesus told His disciples not to rely on their carnal thinking to understand His words. It is also worth mentioning that the verb translated as “to eat” actually means to chew or to gnaw, a verb that cannot be used in figurative sense in this context.
Catholics believe that when Jesus said: “This is my body and This is my blood”, the bread and wine truly became His Body and Blood. Whilst it is true that the word “This is” can be used in figurative sense, the New Testament gives supports that it is not the case. Writing about the Eucharistic celebration, Paul wrote:
“Whoever, therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is WHY many of you are WEAK and ILL, and some have DIED.”
1 Corinthians 11:27-30
“If the Eucharist is a just a mere memorial meal or symbol, how can one be guilty of PROFANING His Body and Blood? (same as murder) How could one be CONDEMN TO THE penalty of DEATH and JUDGMENT IF it is just a “mere symbol?” These penalties are VERY serious because OF the person involved and we can’t put on the same category those who committed acts of vandalism to the symbol or flags of the U.S. We do not hear any executions lately?
The Catholic Church states the belief in the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord, just as clearly been taught by Patristic Fathers and councils of the church for the past 2,000 years.
I guessed this is the point where we agree to disagree, but I‘m glad we could discuss our differences in a very Christian way and I agree with the rest of your letter and a true glimpse of graces freely given to us by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Every rich blessing to you and the work you do.
In Christ, Jae