Paedobaptists are Credobaptists

In our judgments of individuals, the Scriptures offer various binaries: one is either a child of God or a child of the devil (Jn. 1:12; 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8–12; Matt. 13:38); one either has the Spirit of Christ or does not have the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9); one either walks in darkness or in the light (1 Jn. 1:6–7). The visible way we distinguish between these persons is through baptism, beginning in the Old Testament (e.g., the Flood, the Exodus).

In an older 2015 article (recently reposted, I think) defending paedobaptism, Kevin DeYoung stated: “We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven…We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.”

He mentions several good reasons, but I wonder if the article goes far enough concerning our judgment of the spiritual condition of the child. Many paedobaptists today seem to stop a little too short in their judgment of our covenant children. Is it incorrect to presume the child’s regeneration or faith according to a certain judgment we are to have?  

What of the antipaedobaptists? Among their many reasons, they do not baptize infants because they cannot know whether infants possess faith, and thus they wait till there is a credible profession of faith before baptism. An assumption is made, which I think requires the antipaedobaptist to judge the child to be “in Adam” or “a child of the devil” and not “in Christ” or a “child of God” until they prove otherwise. After all, if we judge one to be “in Christ” then how can we deny them the visible sign of that inclusion?

In my experience, both paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists often don’t want to follow through with the implications of their theology. A sort of pious agnosticism takes place where paedobaptists speak of their infants as “covenant children” but after that they don’t want to affirm much more. Likewise, antipaedobaptists don’t want to baptize infants but many also don’t want to judge their children to be darkness, having the devil as their father (Eph. 2:1–2; 5:8). Both sides waffle at times.  

DeYoung adds, “Children in the church are not treated as little pagans to be evangelized, but members of the covenant who owe their allegiance to Christ.” He is being careful here and I can appreciate this approach, but in my view many of the Reformed have typically been a bit more forceful in their judgment of their children and the grounds for why they should be baptized.  

In short, a major strand of the Reformed tradition believed that faith is required for baptism. We are the original “credobaptists.” And this may come as a surprise to many, but in my own experience the debate between paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists has not always been well understood from both sides.

Geerhardus Vos highlights what he considers to be the generally held Reformed position on the meaning of paedobaptism, namely, that “according to the judgment of charity, salvation is ascribed to these children and they are regarded as elect, as their parents are regarded when they make profession of faith, and continue to be as long as they in fact do not give evidence to the contrary” (Reformed Dogmatics, 5:174; emphasis mine).

Similarly, Herman Witsius says that the blessings sealed by baptism include chiefly the following: “In the first place, General communion with Christ, and with His mystical body; and, consequently, a right to the enjoyment of all its attendant advantages. With this view we are said to be ‘baptized into Christ,’ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:17)…This communion with Christ, without doubt, implies that the baptized infant may be regarded as given by the Father – as redeemed by Christ – as, at least, so far reconciled to God through Christ that its sin can never be imputed to it for punishment” (William Marshall, An Essay on the Efficacy of Baptism of H. Witsius, 309; emphasis mine). To this Witsius adds the washing away of sin, including its guilt (answering to justification) and its filth (answering to sanctification). Thus, regeneration is necessary for these benefits to be applied.

One should note carefully the language of Vos and Witsius: “according to the judgment of charity” and “may be regarded.” While it is true that we cannot have infallible knowledge of who is elect and who is not, and while it is true that some (sadly) leave the church later in life, we are nonetheless to make a judgment of the child that says something about their spiritual condition (see Thomas Goodwin’s position here). The judgment of charity does not require certainty, for, as Vos says, “The church never has certainty, no more for adults than for young children. The difficulty here is thus the same in both cases; and if we can accept it in the one case, we can also do so in the other” (RD, 5:175).

Most of the Early Modern Reformed believed the children of believers are to be baptized because they possess spiritual life. If our children do not possess fellowship with Christ and the church, they are therefore pagans, without Christ and without hope, and should not be baptized (Eph. 2:12). Witsius says there is no “middle condition,” since those who are not “in Christ” belong to Satan (p. 311).

Thomas Manton noted that elect infants “in general have jus ad rem, a right to heaven; but there is no jus in re, no actual right, but by faith…As they are called rational before they had use of reason, so we have found that infants may, must,…have a principle of faith, from when they may be said to be believers” (Works, 14:86). In his view, they do not have actual faith which “begins in knowledge and ends in affiance. It remains therefore that they have the seed of faith, or some principle of grace conveyed into their souls by the hidden operation of the Spirit of God, which gives them an interest in Christ” (14:86). He notes how different expressions are used by the orthodox: the habit of faith, principle of faith, inclination of faith, etc. Because salvation is of the Lord, infants are enabled by “passive reception” (so William Ames; see Ps. 8:2; 22:9-10) to be united to Christ, which means the habit of faith is “not altogether without act, though it be such an act as is proper to their age” (14:86–87).

In Witsius’s view, “The well-known opinion of these divines is, That the efficacy of baptism consists not in producing regeneration, but in sealing a regeneration already produced” (p. 319). Witsius quotes many Reformed divines on this to prove his point. For example, Beza says, “I have little difficulty in concluding on the ground of the divine promise, that they are ingrafted into Christ from their birth” (p. 319). The judgment of charity is therefore based upon the “ground of the divine promise.” The promise is applied, in terms of our judgment of the child, in a manner whereby we assume them to have been engrafted into Christ and thus his body with all the benefits that come from union with the Savior (e.g., baptism).

We are to baptize holy people, that is, those who have the Spirit of Christ. The sign answers to that which is signified. As noted, a large strain of Reformed divines held to believers-only baptism, even if the believer was not able to put forth direct acts of faith. So the Synopsis Purioris Theologiae says in Disputation 44.29,

“We do not therefore join the efficacy of baptism to that moment in which the body is wet with external water; but in all to be baptized, we, along with the Scripture, pre-require faith and repentance, only according to the judgment of charity: and this both in covenant children, in whom we do contend that, from the virtue of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant, the seed and Spirit of faith and repentance should be stated to be; as well as in adults, in whom the actual profession of faith and repentance is necessary.”

One must not forget this was a statement by arguably the greatest theological faculty (Leiden) of its time. The synopsis was a handbook or compendium of theology. It carries significant weight in so far as it reflects not simply an individual opinion but an institutional affirmation of theological truth. 

In a similar manner, Ursinus says to be born in the church is to have a profession of faith: “Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants…infants born of believing parents have faith as to inclination” (The Commentary of…Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 370).

The children of believers are believers; they are in Christ; they are not pagans or children of Satan. I agree with the Baptists: baptism must be given to those who have faith; God does not have “grandchildren”; and the new covenant is for those with faith (which is why John Owen can’t be claimed as a Baptist because of his exposition of Heb. 8). But, because of God’s covenantal promises, we baptize our children because we believe God ordains strength (praise), faith, etc., from the mouths of infants who trust him at their mother’s breasts, so far as we can graciously judge.  

Mark Jones (Ph.D.) is Pastor at Faith Vancouver Presbyterian Church (PCA)