INFANT BAPTISM REPORT
A Statement from a special committee of the South Grand Rapids Classis, for the Classis Executive Committee. Special Committee Members: Tom Stark, Chairman, Robert Bast, and George Kroeze
Though we may wish it were otherwise, it must be acknowledged that the Reformed view of infant baptism is not uniform. There have been some (though we believe a minority) who had a view of infant baptism that in effect taught a doctrine of “baptismal regeneration”. There have been others, especially in the Christian Reformed Church, who taught the doctrine of “presumptive regeneration.” On the other hand, there may be some within the Reformed church who are leaning toward seeing infant baptism as scarcely different in substance from “infant dedication”, as practiced in Baptist churches.
Nevertheless, we must attempt to state what we believe some of the vital aspects of the Reformed view of infant baptism are:
1) We do not teach that covenant children are regenerated at baptism, in distinction from the historic doctrine of the Lutheran, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches.
2) We do not teach that covenant children are always regenerated at some future time. The examples of the children of King David, and of the twin brothers, Jacob and Esau, illustrate that covenant children may reject their birthright.
3) Though regeneration is not automatic, the covenant promises are great, and serve an important function in the life of the church: they are a source of comfort to Christian parents, they are an incentive to those parents in the education of their children, they are a means of teaching children about God’s promises, they are a means of warning for children of the covenant.
4) There is a unity of the covenant of God. Though the sign of the covenant changes, its dependence on the promises of God remains.
5) Covenant children are rightly regarded as “members” of the family of God. The relationship of members of a human family is so close that even unregenerate members are a part of the family of God through their membership in a human family.
It is worth noting what the baptistic view is. In Baptist churches, parents are normally encouraged to present their children for dedication to God, at which time the parents make solemn vows as to Christian instruction and example for their children. The Reformed view of infant baptism agrees with all that such a service of dedication includes, but it includes more. Baptist parents could agree to some of the questions addressed to parents in our Liturgy for infant baptism, but not with all. Nor could they agree with all the explanation of the meaning of baptism which is included in the RCA Liturgy. They would not see baptism as the sign of God’s covenant to be administered to believers’ children. They would not agree that children are baptized as “heirs” of the Kingdom. They would not want to describe children as being “sanctified” in Christ because of their covenant relationship (recognizing that the meaning of “sanctified” in the Liturgy is to be set apart for God’s holy purpose, as in I Corinthians 7:14).
What do church members have to believe regarding infant baptism? It is clear from the RCA membership vows that there is nothing in the questions addressed to those who enter the church by baptism and confession of faith, or for those admitted to church membership by transfer of letter from other churches, that could be construed as obligating the individual to accept the teaching of the Reformed Church on the doctrine of infant baptism.
For those already baptized and coming to make a confession of faith, nothing in the questions before the elders, or suggested further areas of examination by the elders would touch on the question. Before the congregation individuals are making a confession faith “for the deliberate and public confirmation in your own person of that covenant of God of which your Baptism is the sign and seal.” Among the questions to which they respond affirmatively are a promise to “make faithful use of the means of grace, especially the hearing of the Word and the use of the Sacraments . . . .” It seems reasonable to assume that anyone making a confession of faith in those terms does not object to but in fact agrees with the doctrine of infant baptism as taught in the church. If they should, subsequently, come to doubt this doctrine, the question would be raised as to whether their promise to make “faithful use of the means of grace, especially the hearing of the Word and the use of the Sacraments” did not obligate them to use the Sacrament of Baptism when appropriate, which would mean that they would seek baptism for their infant children. But perhaps someone who came to doubt or reject infant baptism would argue that they would still be exercising their parental responsibility by urging their children, once they came to accept Christ as Savior and Lord, to seek baptism.
Both those becoming church members by confession of faith and baptism, and by confession of faith, having been baptized as infants, are asked, among other things, if they promise to “seek the things that make for purity and peace in the Church of Jesus Christ, as long as you live.” This would surely mean that, even if church members cannot be required to accept the doctrine of baptism taught by the Reformed Church, membership obligates them to avoid an attitude of divisiveness and party spirit in the church.
What do elders and deacons have to believe regarding infant baptism? The Liturgy includes an exposition of the meaning of the offices of elder and deacon as well as questions addressed to these individuals before they are ordained and/or installed. Nothing in this whole section of the Liturgy would require an elder or deacon to necessarily accept the Reformed view of infant baptism. One of the questions before ordination states “Do you promise to be loyal to the witness and work of the Reformed Church in America, using your utmost endeavor to further her mission at home and abroad?”, but it would be hard to see how that question could be so interpreted as to prevent someone who did not subscribe to the church’s practice of infant baptism from serving as an elder or deacon. No requirement is made of subscription to the Reformed church’s doctrinal Standards, in contrast to the Christian Reformed Church, where elders and deacons are asked if they agree that the doctrinal standards of the church are in harmony with the Scriptures.
However, though it may be argued that nothing in the Liturgy requires an individual to subscribe to the Reformed Church’s practice on infant baptism, practical questions could be raised as to how elders in particular would function when the question of administration of the Sacrament of infant baptism is raised. Perhaps someone who did not believe that infant baptism was a scriptural practice would decline to assist the pastor (or, in the case of a vacant church, administer the baptism himself under the authority of the board of elders). But even this assumption might not apply to all cases. Some elders may be willing to assist the pastor in good conscience, if they find that they do not consider the practice of infant baptism an offense to them, but are not prepared to grant that it is a scriptural requirement. In practice, it is hard to imagine a board of elders not having sufficient members who personally are convinced of the validity of infant baptism and available to assist at baptisms.
It should also be remembered that church officers, no less than church members, have the same responsibility mentioned above to avoid what is divisive and fosters “party spirit” in a congregation. Certainly some members of baptistic persuasion, or of non-Reformed persuasion as to infant baptism, could not refrain from making the subject a matter of considerable controversy in a congregation, thus being unable to foster the peace of the church. Others would have no such difficulty.
What do ministers have to believe regarding infant baptism? In the case of the minister of the Word the requirements of the Reformed Church are spelled out in the Declaration for Licensed Candidates, signed in the presence of the Classis, usually after the successful completion of ordination exams, and the Declaration for Ministers which is made in the presence of the Classis at the time of ordination, and each subsequent installation. In the service of ordination and installation, as prescribed in the Liturgy, there is an exposition of the nature of the office, followed by questions which the candidate is to answer affirmatively before the ordination and laying on of hands. The Declaration for Licensure includes a statement that “I believe the Gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and as expressed in the Standards of the Reformed Church in America. I accept the Scriptures as the only rule of life and faith. I accept the Standard as historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God.” The same wording is included in the Declaration signed at the time of ordination or installation. Both Declarations include the following promise “I will conduct the work of the church in an orderly way and according to the Book of Church Order.” The exposition in the Liturgy mentions a threefold responsibility of the minister which is evident from Scripture, including “To call upon the name of the Lord in behalf of the whole congregation; to administer, according to the command of Christ to his Apostles and through them to all his ministers, the Sacraments which the Lord has instituted as seals of his grace; and to care for the flock of Christ.” The last question addressed to the candidate is “Will you, with the help of God, strive to fulfill all the duties of a minister of Christ; preaching the Word of God is sincerity; administering the Holy Sacraments in purity; maintaining proper discipline in the house of God; and shepherding the flock faithfully?”
The above quotations relate directly to the question of what the minister must believe regarding baptism. It is obvious that much more extensive doctrinal conviction is required of the minister than of the elders, deacons, or church members. All are required to accept the doctrines of the Apostles’ Creed, a basic requirement of church membership. Other doctrinal convictions are required, by implication, in the questions answered by church members and church officers and ministers of the Word. But the minister of the Word is also very clearly required not only to have a particular acceptance of the Scriptures as the Word of God, the only rule of faith and life, but also to be personally convinced that the Standards are faithful witnesses to that Word. It would not be possible for a minister to be convinced that the Scriptures, properly interpreted, don’t teach the practice of infant baptism, and yet sign the declarations for Licensure or Ordination. No one would deny that the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession plainly teach the doctrine of infant baptism. It is hard to see how anyone could in good conscience sign the Declarations while not conscientiously accepting what the Standards teach, i.e., that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of infant baptism.
This underlying doctrinal requirement leads into other requirements reflected in the quotations above. The minister is asked at ordination if he will fulfill the duties of a minister of Christ, including “administering the Holy Sacraments in purity”. The Liturgy and Book of Church Order make plain for the ministers that the Reformed Church regards the pure administration of the Sacraments to include the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism to the infant children of believers. How could a minister ethically remain in the Reformed Church while denying that infant baptism, as taught in the Standards and the Liturgy, is scriptural?
It might be well to remember where we are not as a denomination:
1. We are not in the position of those Swiss or French Reformed groups which have for some time officially sanctioned both the practice of infant baptism and the practice of parents choosing to wait and urge their children to seek baptism when they make a confession of faith.
2. We have no tradition such as a few denominations do (Free Methodists and Evangelical Covenant) in which both practices of infant dedication and infant baptism occur within the denomination, both are regarded as legitimate, and either is available to parents. The Reformed Church could conceivably vote to become like such denominations, but it has not done so, nor has it ever considered such a possibility.
3.The Reformed Church does not ask parents, elders, or ministers to observe the sacrament of infant baptism because the church says it is the proper thing to do, nor because it is a very ancient practice, but only because it is the conviction of the Reformed Church that it is a required scriptural practice.
4. Nothing in the Reformed Church Liturgy would forbid a board of elders or consistory from authorizing some sort of “dedication service” for the infant child of church members when the parents could not in good conscience present their child for baptism, but desired to testify publicly to their dependence upon God and their need of the help of the fellowship of Christ’s people, and of their intention to dedicate their child to God’s good purposes. The board of elders would be under no obligation to authorize such a service, but out of pastoral concern, remembering the Lord Jesus’ compassionate concern that the little children should come to him, might chose to help the parents and the child in this way.
The quotations above should make clear what the ordination vows of a minister require:
1. The minister of the Word must regard the practice of infant baptism as scriptural, as a sound inference from the nature of God’s covenantal relationship with His people, and therefore, as a necessary practice in the church.