The conversation centered more upon the Calvin quotes that I cited, which seem to suggest that, for Calvin, salvation of the child is related to the fact that they are children of believing parent(s).

First, a Catholic definition of a sacrament:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. …

The sacramental grace proper to the Sacrament of Baptism:

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.

Your Presbyterian friend’s comments interest me. While his statement that the children of believers are already part of the visible church and the New Covenant by virtue of who their parents are is pretty standard in Presbyterian belief (usually with 1 Cor. 7:14 appealed to to justify this), I haven’t ever heard of this as ensuring regeneration. Since Presbyterians believe that one can be a member of the New Covenant without ever being justified and regenerate, wouldn’t this serve as answer to your friend the priest’s question? Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding what your Presbyterian friend meant.

Bryan,

You said:

Whether or not they baptized the child is irrelevant, within Calvinism, not only because Calvinism denies baptismal regeneration, but also because even if some relation between baptism and regeneration is granted, the two events are not (for Calvinists) simultaneous, so the regeneration can take place years after the baptism, and thus the baptized child can die while still unregenerate.

In addition to this, the Westminster Confession says this about baptismal efficacy:

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.

So there is a grace in baptism in Presbyterianism, but it is only given to “such as that grace belongs to, according to the counsel of God’s own will.” Thus, Calvinist parents, even if they conceded some sort of connection between baptism and regeneration, could not be certain of whether regeneration was effected, because of its dependence on the election of their child.

Andrew,

You said:

The great difference between Catholic and Calvinist theologies of the Covenant is that the latter tends to regard the efficacy of baptism as basically the same as that of circumcision, while the former regards the New Covenant rites as intrinsically more powerful than those rites by which they are prefigured.

Do you mean that the Catholic theology of baptism would agree with Calvinism about the candidacy of children of believers for baptism but just say that baptism is more powerful than circumcision? I come from a Baptist background and am still not sure of the differences between the Calvinist and Catholic view of infant baptism.

Pax Christi,

Spencer

Andrew McCallum: Baptism is a picture and exhibit of what happens rather than the means by which they are saved.

Is this what the typical Calvinist believes about the Sacrament of Baptism?

I borrowed the term from the late Father Neuhaus who said the Church cannot perform a Sacrament in doubt. In the way he used it he was discussing women’s ordination and the fact that the Church says that the proper matter for orders is that one be a baptized male. The way I am using it I am suggesting that the traditional Reformed cannot tell you what the Sacrament of Baptism does, is it effective (Westminster seems to suggest that it is, its language about not being tied to a moment in time) or is it just a sign of the covenant. Was the child born again by this act of baptism or not? Did the child get clothed with Christ or not? Thus, when the Reformed perform a Sacrament (e.g. Baptism) they perform it in doubt and this is why the Reformed are not able to derive assurance or comfort from the Sacrament. I remember a friend of mine (a PCA minister) attending a Catholic funeral. He was blown away by the beauty of the Liturgy and especially the opening words of Introductory Rite, “In the waters of baptism (name of the deceased) died with Christ and rose with him to new life…” My friend said that he was struck by the confidence and hope expressed in the power of the Sacrament. Cardinal DeLubac in an article he wrote in the journal Communio, stated that the problem with Reformed Sacramentology is that it is trumped by the Reformed doctrine of election.

Back to the quotes from Calvin come from his discussion of extraordinary baptism (e.g. non-cleric baptizing). He adds a bit later, “Hence if, in omitting the sign, there is neither sloth, nor contempt, nor negligence, we are safe from all danger.” What does the “safe from all danger” refer? For Calvin, the context suggests that the salvation of infants born of believing parents are safe provided the omitting of the sign was not due to sloth, contempt, or negligence.

All that being said, as to your question to me, the Church teaches that God is not bound by the Sacraments (but we are). They are His Sacraments not ours. Thus, if one dies without baptism, we can hold out hope that God, who is Mercy and Love, can bring that person into salvation by applying the merits of Christ and the efficacy of Baptism to the individual. The Church teaches three types of Baptism (Desire, Blood and Water) but only water Baptism is the Sacrament. As the Catechism says, “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament” (#1257-58).

I do think Bryan’s options that he posed in #5 put it very well and it would be interesting to see how they could be answered from a Reformed perspective.

Thanks for the conversation.

Likewise for Bryan, if you are going to do something to help ensure their salvation, why baptize them but not give the communion?

Tom,

As per I Cor 7:14 that Andrew P mentions, children of believers are made holy through the faith of their parents but baptism is not mentioned here. Baptism is a picture and exhibit of what happens rather than the means by which they are saved. The Church who first read I Corinthian understood covenantal signs because they knew of the history of God’s covenantal people and the sign that was administered to children of the covenant, that being circumcision. And we see the faithfulness of God to His people that is symbolized in circumcision. But are we to conclude here that circumcision caused salvation because of the close association of circumcision to God’s saving works that was exhibited in circumcision? So likewise in baptism, the sign demonstrates to us what God does in drawing His people to Himself, but we should not draw from this that God uses baptism as a means to justify.

So let me ask you to compare two infants of believers, one who dies unexpectedly at birth and is not baptized and the other who also dies in infancy but is baptized before death. Is there a difference here concerning the fate of the children? Is the fact that one was baptized while the other was not a determinative factor in our being able to assure the parents in these cases? Remember that in both cases the children are “holy” as per Paul’s epistle.

I’m interested in this last phrase you use above, “a sacrament in doubt.” Are you saying that if we are not sure what baptism does we should baptize just to hedge our bets so as to speak?

I am not so sure that Calvin, at least in his discussion on baptism, does not include salvation for the unbaptized child by virtue of their being born of Christian parents. In his discussion on baptism he makes it clear that no one other an ordained minister of the Church may baptize. The danger of death is not sufficient for one, other than an ordained cleric, to baptize. Thus, he writes, “But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means. Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included.”

Again, I know that no seminary professor I had, no former colleagues in my Presbytery, and no one that I served in ministry would say that salvation is by natural generation. My thought is, if they embrace Calvin’s notion, do they have good reason for saying, “no.”

Trying to keep on topic and the topic of “Sola Scriptura, Solo Scriptura” that has been ongoing on the “main stage “-

Is this the Bible doctrine that is supposed to be so easy to understand it needs no “human” authoritative explanation, per J.C?
With all due respect to your former faith (PCA, OPC, etc.), this is completely ludicrous. Luther at least, said in effect, “You are saved by faith alone in Christ who has given you his righteousness so you can just be whatever and not worry…”

Calvin is not easy for the common man to understand fully (he wouldn’t have written all the Institutes and commentaries if everyone could understand his revelations).
What is the “gospel according to J.C .? You may be assured of your salvation IF you are one of the elect, but you don’t know, only God, so …..keep perservering?
I have told Tim (Troutman) before -I know without a doubt that if I found myself in J.C.’s Geneva, I would be running to get out.

My brother in law ( an elder in the RPCUS Church after splitting with the PCA over FV) told me
once,
“You would never commit sin because you would be afraid of the penalties that were in place to take care of that in this glorious time (of Calvin’s Geneva). That would be the true joy of living for The Lord.”
Like I said, I would be running for the nearest door, gate, etc.

As you discuss this issue of infants and elect and assurance, I am reminded of Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University (former Muslim now professor) who spoke on “Why I’m Predestined Not To Be A Hyper Calvinist”.
He spoke against the idea that someone would stand up and say to women in their congregations who had lost infants due to miscarriage or early death – that they could not be assured their baby was in heaven. Only God could determine if the infant was elect. He thought this was heinous.
He, being a former Muslim, said he left that “god” behind when he left Islam – the fatalist god who for his good pleasure damned men and infants because he can.
He said you can call it a “religion” but don’t call that “the good news or gospel” because that is not good news to anyone.
As a former Protestant, I grew up with Liberty and TRBC in my back yard literally.

Blessings to you all for your efforts toward understanding and unity.
May each of you and your families be blessed during this time of Advent. What a gift it is for me to be celebrating it with The Church this year!
Teri

you cannot be infallibly assured of your wife’s salvation any more than your child’s, but you can be infallibly assured for yourself. (Do you think I have that right so far?)

Yes.

You can be greatly assured of your wife’s salvation because of her faith, but you do not know if it is “true” faith. If she became apostate, you would say she never had “true” faith. I wonder what the difference is between the first and second person assurances.

We’ll get into that in our article on assurance. :-)

As for parents being assured, I want to note that a parent’s ability to be so assured (or not) is not probative of the truth of Catholicism or Calvinism. I’m a little unclear what you get by having this assurance, besides the peace of mind.

I completely agree. My point was to show a difference between the Calvinist and Catholic positions, and also to show an inconsistency between theology and practice in Calvinist pastoral practice. The common pastoral practice is to appeal to covenant membership as grounds for comfort for parents whose baptized children died prior to attaining the age of reason. But the theology does not justify drawing comfort from that (or giving comfort on that basis), because covenant membership does not allow us to justifiably draw any conclusions about the likelihood of those children being regenerate / elect-to-glory.

I understand some Calvinists argue that many (or even all) deceased covenant children are saved on account of God’s great grace. I cannot defend this position against the critique you offer above. It seems that some Calvinists are prepared to find an ad hoc exception to the normal rules about sanctification.

I agree. My point is that if we are going to say that God does something, then we need some basis or ground for it (other than wishful thinking). It seems to me that ad hoc comfort is no comfort at all, as soon as those receiving it recognize it as ad hoc.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan