Some Difficulties in Covenant Theology’s View of Baptism as a “Seal”

By Daniel C. Lane

[Daniel C. Lane is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.]

By the 1520s, when the Reformation was only a few years old, it was wrenched and divided by debate over infant baptism. For the Anabaptists (in what came to be called the Radical Reformation) the logic of the Reformation indicated that the sacraments were for believers only; so they abandoned infant baptism in favor of believers’ baptism. However, the main branches of the Reformation, following Luther and Calvin, continued to affirm infant baptism. Both sides granted that the Scriptures give no explicit command to baptize the infants of believers, nor does any verse explicitly state that baptism is to be limited to believers only.

Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and Zachary Ursinus[1] developed a defense of infant baptism based on their view that there is one divine-human covenant that brings salvation since the Fall. Zwingli was using this defense by 1525–1526, as reflected in his disputes with the Anabaptist Balthasar Hubmaier.[2] In brief this “covenantal defense of infant baptism” argues as follows: Contrary to the prevailing impression that the Bible reveals two covenants, the Old and the New, there is in fact one covenant that brings salvation, one “covenant of grace,” between the Old and New Testaments.

This covenant applies to believers (i.e., covenant members) and their children. The sign and seal of this covenant in the Old Testament was circumcision. In the New Testament, baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Therefore just as circumcision was applied to the infant children of members of the covenant community, so also the infants of believers are to be baptized. Representative presentations of this view can be found in Hodge, Berkhof, Hoeksema, Beckwith, and Jewett.[3] Perhaps its most extensive exposition is by Pierre Marcel.[4]

A key point is their view of sacraments as “seals,” which confirm the covenant to the recipient. Referring to circumcision, for example, Calvin wrote, “The Lord, immediately after making the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament.”[5] Similarly the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 reads, “They [the sacraments] were given unto both churches as signs and seals of the grace and promises of God.”[6] A century later the Westminster Confession of Faith (1648) likewise affirmed, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace.”[7] Similar statements can be found in Hodge, Berkhof, and Hoeksema.[8]

Of particular note is Marcel’s statement: “Sacraments are not only signs, but also seals which serve to confirm and strengthen faith. It is the recognition of the worth of this biblical affirmation which gives the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments both its original character and, at the same time, its grand precision.”[9]

Covenant theologians contend that circumcision (which was commanded to be given to infants) functioned as the seal of the covenant in the Old Testament, and that baptism replaced circumcision as the seal of the covenant in the New Testament. This, it is argued, is the basis of the perceived command to baptize the infants of Christians. The following quotations illustrate this.

Calvin: “Yet, if it enters anyone’s mind to jest at infant baptism . . . he is mocking the command of circumcision given by the Lord.”[10]

Berkhof: “It will be observed that all these statements [in Reformed creeds about infant baptism] are based on the commandment of God to circumcise the children of the covenant, for in the last analysis that commandment is the ground of infant baptism.”[11]

Marcel: “The efficacy of the sacraments of the Old Testament is identical with that of the sacraments of the New, because equally they are signs, seals, and confirmations of the good will of God for the salvation of men.”[12]

How do covenant theologians understand the function of circumcision and baptism as a seal? Reformers correctly affirm that the sacraments do not have power “in and of themselves.”13 Hence covenant theologians often speak of what God does through the sacrament rather than what the sacrament itself does. What then, in their understanding, happens through the administration of the sacrament?

Views of Reformers on the Function of Circumcision/Baptism as a “Seal”

Reformed and covenant theologians differ in the way they express the function of circumcision and baptism as a seal. Their statements fall into four categories: (1) The seal confirms what individuals already have in the covenant. (2) The seal conveys or confers what members have in the covenant. (3) Infant baptism is not an absolute necessity. (4) The sacramental seal guarantees the eventual covenant blessings of the recipient.

Circumcision/Infant Baptism “Confirms” What Recipients Have In The Covenant

In this view baptism confirms the standing infants already have. Infants of covenant members are baptized because those infants are in the covenant. The sign or seal rightly belongs to those who are in the covenant. It does not change their status; it confirms it.

Zwingli: “The children of Christians are the children of God.”[14] “Since they are also God’s children, who can forbid baptizing them with water?”[15]

Bullinger: “If you connect these statements [in Genesis, 1 Corinthians 7, and Galatians 3], it follows automatically that the children [of the faithful] are the seed of Abraham and they are in the covenant.”[16]

Calvin: “Afterward, a sort of seal is added to the sacrament, not to confer efficacy upon God’s promise as if it were invalid of itself, but only to confirm it to us. From this it follows that the children of believers are baptized not in order that they who were previously strangers to the church may then for the first time become children of God, but rather that, because by the blessing of the promise they already belonged to the body of Christ, they are received into the church with this solemn sign.”[17]

Wollebius (1626): “The sign of the covenant belongs to everyone to whom the kingdom of heaven and the covenant of grace are given. And this covenant is given to the children.”[18]

Berkhof: “Infants of believing parents are baptized on the grounds that they are children of the covenant, and as such [are] heirs of the all-comprehensive covenant-promises of God.”[19]

Bromiley: “Children are included in the promises of God along with their parents, so that they, too, are numbered among the covenant people. It is natural, then, that they should unquestioningly be included in the sign of the covenant.”[20]

In this view the sacramental seal of baptism should be administered to infants of believers because they are already in the covenant. It confirms their status; it does not change it.

The Seal “Conveys” Or “Confers” What Members Have In The Covenant

The Reformers clearly affirm that the sacraments do not have power “in and of themselves.” Instead the sacraments are “means of grace.”[21] When the Reformers describe the sacraments as “conveying” or “conferring” the associated blessing, they often add, “but only where there is faith.” This “yes, but” dynamic pervades the following statements.

Bullinger: “Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God; and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a new and innocent life. . . . All these things are assured by baptism.”[22] “Besides, the symbols have God’s promises annexed to them, which require faith.”[23]

Westminster Confession of Faith: “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them, neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.”[24]

Hodge: “The sacraments are real means of grace, that is, means appointed and employed by Christ for conveying the benefits of his redemption to his people. . . . A promise is made to those who rightly receive that they shall thereby and therein be made partakers of the blessing of which the sacraments are divinely appointed signs and seals.”[25] “Baptism, however, is not only a sign and a seal; it is also a means of grace, because in it the blessings which it signifies are conveyed, and the promises of which it is the seal, are assured or fulfilled to those who are baptized, provided they believe. . . . all this is said on the assumption that [baptism] is what it purports to be, an act of faith.”[26]

Robertson: “In the fullest possible sense, baptism under the new covenant accomplishes all that was represented in circumcision under the old. By being baptized, the Christian believer has experienced the equivalent of the cleansing rite of circumcision.”[27]

Clearly these statements affirm that circumcision/baptism conveys covenantal blessing to the recipients only if they believe. Yet this raises a question. If the sacraments convey nothing without faith, and since the Reformers admit that one can be saved without the sacraments, then how meaningful is it to refer to them as sealing or conveying anything at all?

Is Infant Baptism An Absolute Necessity?

Covenant theologians affirm that infant baptism should be the practice for children of Christians. Only Zwingli and Bullinger go that far and no further. The dominant position among covenant theologians is that infant baptism is, in effect, commanded, and hence is not merely something that should be done. But does this mean it is absolutely necessary for salvation of the child?

View a: Infants should be baptized. Zwingli and Bullinger do not say baptism is commanded for infants, but rather that it is fitting and proper, and is something owed to them.

Bullinger: “Since it has been established sufficiently that their children, even those who have been born of evil parents, were circumcised and inscribed among the people of God, we have no doubts about all the children of Christians, and we recommend that these children of the faithful be freely received into the church by baptism.”[28] “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching . . . they are in the covenant of God. Why then, should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?”[29]

Zwingli: “Baptism then took the place of circumcision. It follows then that baptism, like circumcision, should be performed also on those who will not come to faith until later.”[30] “Accordingly, it follows from this that as circumcision was given to infants in the Old Testament and baptism has come to take the place of circumcision, the children of Christians should also be baptized.”[31]

View b: Infants must be baptized. The dominant position in covenant theology is that baptism is in effect commanded for the infants of Christians. However, they see it as a moral precept, not a precept of means, not an absolute necessity.

Calvin: “Accordingly, let those who embrace the promise that God’s mercy is extended to their children deem it their duty to offer them to the church to be sealed by the symbol of mercy.”[32] “Infants cannot be deprived of [baptism] without open violation of the will of God, its author.”[33]

Hodge: Adults who intend to join the church “are bound to obey the command of Christ to be baptized and to present their children for baptism.”[34]

Yet Hodge writes elsewhere that the Reformed position is that baptism is a moral necessity (“necessity of precept”) rather than an absolute necessity (“necessity of means”).[35]

Berkhof: “By the appointment of God infants shared in the benefits of the covenant, and therefore received circumcision as a sign and seal.”[36] “Protestants, on the other hand, teach that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary unto salvation, but are obligatory in view of the divine precept.”[37]

Marcel: “In our opinion, the sacraments possess a necessity of precept. It is a duty to make use of them, but they are not means necessary for salvation.”[38]

Thus the Reformers maintain that the obligation to baptize infants is at the level of a moral precept. They also affirm that it is a sin to violate this command, and they warn parents who would scorn or neglect it.

Berkhof: “Willful neglect of their use [i.e. the sacraments] results in spiritual impoverishment and has a destructive tendency, just as all willful and persistent disobedience to God has.”[39]

Hodge: “Parents sin grievously against the souls of the children who neglect to consecrate them to God in the ordinance of baptism.”[40]

Marcel: “Believing parents sin gravely against the souls of their own children when they neglect to consecrate them to God by the institution of baptism.”[41]

Calvin: “I do not want anyone . . . to think of me as meaning that baptism can be despised with impunity (by which contempt I declare the Lord’s covenant will be violated—so far am I from tolerating it!).”[42] “Finally, we ought to be greatly afraid of that threat, that God will wreak vengeance upon any man who disdains to mark his child with the symbol of the covenant; for by such contempt the proffered grace is refused, and, as it were, foresworn (Gen 17:14).”[43]

These statements demonstrate that while spiritual harm to the child is feared, the Reformers also clearly warn of God’s judgment on parents who neglect to present their children for baptism.

View c: Although commanded, baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation. While covenant theologians insist that the sacraments are not to be treated lightly, they grant that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary for salvation, and in particular that infants are not lost if they are not baptized.

Bullinger: “Wherefore we conclude that infants who are born of faithful parents and die either before they have begun to live or before they could be inscribed among the people of God with the sacred sign of the covenant cannot be damned with the support of this text [Gen. 17:14]. For God is speaking of despisers of the covenant who are adults.”[44]

Calvin: “Infants are not debarred from the Kingdom of Heaven just because they happen to depart the present life before they have been immersed in water.”[45] “Now, consequently, we must utterly reject the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptized to eternal death.”[46]

Hodge: “The use of [the sacraments] is enjoined as a duty; but they are not necessary means of salvation. Men may be saved without them. . . . Sins may be forgiven, and the soul regenerated and saved, though neither sacrament has ever been received.”[47]

Berkhof: God “is not absolutely bound” to the sacraments; “they are not absolutely necessary and indispensable.”[48]

Marcel: “The Word is thus indispensable to salvation, whereas the sacraments are not.”[49] “Sins can be forgiven and the soul regenerated and saved without ever having received a sacrament.”[50]

The Reformers agree that baptism is a moral duty and that to neglect it is a serious sin; yet they affirm that it is not essential for salvation and that lack of baptism does not consign infants to perdition.

The Sacramental Seal Guarantees The Eventual Covenant Blessings Of The Recipient

Covenant theologians often speak of baptism as a pledge on God’s part that gives assurance to the parents. But does this pledge guarantee the eventual salvation of the recipient? Some writers refer to baptism as a pledge of salvation, but others point out that there is no guarantee of salvation.

There is a covenantal pledge in baptism. This concept is common among covenant theologians.[51]

Hodge: “Baptism is a seal or pledge. . . . When He promised Abraham to be a God to him and to his seed after him, He appointed circumcision as the seal and pledge. So when He promised to save men by the blood of Christ . . . He appointed baptism to be, not only the sign, but also the seal and pledge of those exceeding great and precious promises.”[52]

Marcel: “The covenant, together with its promises, constitutes the legal and objective basis of infant baptism. Infant baptism is the sign, seal and pledge of all that these promises imply.”[53]

There is no guarantee that the recipient will have faith and be saved. In spite of these “pledge” statements covenant theologians affirm that the sacrament of baptism does not guarantee the eventual salvation of the child. A child may or may not eventually come to personal faith in Christ and thereby inherit the blessings promised in the covenant.

Bullinger wrote that Jews who trusted in their circumcision but did not have faith were not the true seed of Abraham.[54] He refers to the circumcision of the heart (Jer. 4:4) as “the true circumcision.”[55] As for baptism the (presumably baptized) children of Christians are to be regarded as heirs and covenant members. But if they reach the age of reason and neglect the conditions of the covenant, they are to be disowned.[56]

Hodge: “God, on his part, promises to grant the benefits signified in baptism . . . to all infants who, when they arrive at maturity, remain faithful to the vows made in their name when they were baptized.”[57]

Berkhof: When it is said that “baptism seals the promise(s) of God, this does not merely mean that it vouches for the truth of the promise, but that it assures the recipients that they are appointed heirs of the promised blessings. This does not necessarily mean that they are already in principle in possession of the promised good, though this is possible and may even be probable, but certainly [it] means that they are appointed heirs and will receive the inheritance, unless they show themselves unworthy of it and refuse it.”[58]

Those who show themselves unworthy are “covenant breakers.”[59] Some writers maintain that the Holy Spirit, not the ritual, determines the outcome.

Marcel: “The lordship of the Holy Spirit is complete over the sacraments, as it is over the Word when it is preached.”[60] “If when they arrive at the age of discretion they do not turn to God and accept Christ by faith, they will for their part have broken freely, voluntarily and consciously the covenant which God offers them.”[61]

Hoeksema: “The question is often asked: What is sealed by the sacraments? Does God assure by this seal everyone that receives the outward sign of his salvation? . . . It is sometimes alleged that the sacrament of baptism seals the internal grace of God to everyone that is baptized. This, however, is impossible. There are many that partake of the sacrament, or receive it, without believing or without having faith. Not all that receive the sacraments are saved.”[62]

Clearly no Reformed theologian affirms that baptism guarantees the eventual salvation of the recipient. To the contrary, some say disobedient children will be rejected and disowned, others describe them as “covenant breakers,” and still others simply say there is no guarantee of salvation. In the end they concede that there is no final guarantee that a baptized infant will be saved.

Critique of Covenant Theology’s View of Circumcision/Baptism as a “Seal”

Difficulties in the Reformed concept of the meaning and function of circumcision/infant baptism as a seal fall into three categories.

The Problem Of The Conceptual Fog Regarding “Confirm” Versus “Convey”

As already noted, many covenant theologians describe baptism as “confirming” the infant’s status in the covenant. Yet other statements indicate that baptism “conveys” the blessings of the covenant to the infant.

“Confirm” means that the status one already possesses is simply being verified; there is no change of status, only a confirmation of it. But “convey” suggests that a person is thereby receiving something he or she did not have before, or is entering a state which the person was not in before; there is a change of status.

If a person does not have the status in question, it cannot be confirmed; it needs to be conveyed. But if one does have it, it may then be confirmed, and it is no longer sensible to speak of something further “conveying” it. Seals can either confirm one’s covenantal standing or else convey it, but not both.

That these mutually exclusive statements are commonly used by covenant theologians to describe the function of baptism suggests a lack of clarity as to what a covenantal seal actually does.

The Problem Of A “Covenantal Pledge” From God That Ultimately Guarantees Nothing

Those who defend infant baptism hold that Christians are commanded by God, by virtue of the covenant, to bring their infants to be baptized. And a covenantal pledge from God is given by means of the sacrament. Yet these writers concede there is no final guarantee that those who receive it will ultimately believe and be saved. And covenant theologians issue severe warnings to Christian parents who would neglect or scorn baptism for their children, even though these writers acknowledge that baptism is in fact not absolutely necessary for salvation.

This raises the question, What kind of a divine covenantal pledge is this? God commands His people to do something which is not actually necessary, and yet if they do not do it, they incur His judgment and perhaps imperil the salvation of their children. Even if they do observe the sacrament faithfully, He guarantees nothing. How then can that constitute a meaningful notion of a covenantal pledge on God’s part?

Some may protest by replying, “Yes, there is a guarantee of salvation in baptism, but it is only for those who believe.” However, the question remains, If faithful Christian parents in obedience to God bring their children for baptism, does God pledge to guarantee the eventual salvation of the child? By their own admission the answer is no. Thus the “covenantal pledge” that covenant theology claims to be present in baptism proves functionally meaningless.

The Problem Raised By “Yes, But” Statements

As already noted, when covenant theologians state that sacraments convey covenantal blessing, they often add, “but only where there is faith” (the “yes, but” formulation). There is no problem with this formulation as such. In this view the sacraments are God’s means of conveying grace, but only to those who approach them with faith. Those who lack genuine faith or who scorn the sacraments will not receive God’s grace. One may or may not agree with that view, but it does make sense.

However, the problem is that in Reformed theology this view does not exist in and of itself; two other affirmations bear on it. First, Reformed theologians clearly affirm that the sacraments are not absolutely necessary for salvation. Second, the Reformers correctly insist that justification comes by faith alone.

Is the “yes, but” formulation compatible with these other two affirmations? Is there not at least some tension between claiming that salvation is by faith alone while also claiming that one’s covenantal standing comes by means of baptism?

Is salvation by faith alone or not? In their view of the sacraments and especially of baptism, covenant theologians seem to say, “yes and no.” The following quotations from Hodge illustrate the tendency of Reformed theology to affirm that salvation is “by faith alone,” and yet also to affirm that salvation is “via the sacraments.”

Hodge: “The first, the most obvious, and the most decisive argument against this doctrine [of baptismal regeneration], is that . . . the Bible everywhere teaches that the only indispensable condition of salvation is faith in Jesus Christ.”[63] Baptism “is a pledge on the part of God that, if sincere and faithful, he shall partake of all the benefits of the redemption of Christ. It is only in this sense that the Reformed Church teaches the necessity of baptism. It has the necessity of divine precept. It is the condition of salvation, in the sense that confession is, and in which circumcision was.”[64]

It is difficult to avoid the impression that Hodge is saying both “yes and no.” His statements constitute an equivocating use of language. The same tension can be seen in his following statements.

The sacraments “are not the exclusive channels of the spiritual benefits which they signify [as if] such benefits can be received only through and in the use of the sacraments. We have by faith alone, and by the free gift of God, all that the sacraments are made the means of communicating.”[65]

In these two sentences Hodge has apparently affirmed three points. First, the sacraments are not absolutely necessary; the benefits they signify can be received without them. Second, the sacraments are the means of communicating those benefits. Third, those same benefits are received by faith alone. But how can all three affirmations be true? These affirmations are incompatible with each other and reflect the sort of difficulties one encounters when covenant theologians try to explain how salvation is by faith alone and yet is also mediated by the sacraments.[66]

The present writer heartily concurs with the Reformers’ affirmation that justification is by faith alone. The problem is that their “yes, but” statements about the role of the sacraments seem incompatible with that affirmation. If the sacraments are not truly essential to salvation, one should not make statements that seem to say they are. Or if they are essential, then how can one say that salvation is by faith alone?

Suggested Source of the Conceptual Difficulties

It seems that the underlying problem in covenant theology’s view of the sacraments is that they are viewed not only as signs and symbols but as seals of the covenant. In other words the sacraments do not merely serve as signs to remind the believer that there is a covenant. Nor do they symbolically portray something about the covenant. Instead as a “seal” the sacrament does something when one receives it. If the “seal” is related to getting saved, then how can this be reconciled with the affirmation that believers are saved by faith alone? If salvation is by faith alone, it seems to be double-speak to say that a sacrament, a physical ritual, is a part of the process. These tensions within the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism result from the fact that Reformed theologians view baptism as a covenantal “seal.”

Although the practice of infant baptism is accepted by many Protestants, when it is examined closely a number of problems can be found with it. One such problem is the conceptual difficulties involved in seeking to explain how baptism functions as a “seal.” In conclusion the logic of the Reformation—and of the Scriptures—leads, in this writer’s opinion, to believer’s baptism, not infant baptism.

Notes

1. For Ursinus’s view see Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinuson the Heidelberg Catechism, ed. and trans. G. W. Willard, 2nd ed. (1852; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 365–76.
2. Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, trans. and ed. H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1989), 150–53.
3. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 3:546–57; see also 3:574–76; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 632–35, 637–38; Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free, 1966), 685–700, esp. 685–86; Roger T. Beckwith, “Baptism/Infant Baptism,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:154–60, esp. 159; and Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 83–87.
4. Pierre Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, trans. Philip E. Hughes (London: James Clarke, 1953), 80–94, 107–23, and esp. 198–203, “The Covenant Is the Sole Basis of Infant Baptism.”
5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 4.16.6.
6. Heinrich Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, in Creeds of the Churches, ed. John H. Leith, 3rd ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), chap. 19, par. 8.
7. Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 27, par. 1. Also the Westminster Shorter Catechism answer to question 92 reads, “A sacrament is a holy ordinance . . . wherein . . . the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.”
8. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:498, 588; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 632–33; and Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 634.
9. Marcel, Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 29 (italics his).
10. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9.
11. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 638 (italics added).
12. Marcel, Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 90; see also 198.
13. Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 27, par. 3; Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 20, par. 3; Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:500; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 605, 608, 616; and Marcel, TheBiblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 40, 46.
14. Ulrich Zwingli, “On Rebels and Rebellion,” in The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, ed. Leland Harder, Classics of the Radical Reformation (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1985), 320.
15. Ulrich Zwingli, “Letter to Lambert,” in The Sources of Swiss Anabaptism, 307.
16. Heinrich Bullinger, “The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God,” in Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition, ed. Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 107.
17. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.22; cf. 4.16.5 and 4.16.6.
18. Johannes Wollebius, “Compendium Theologiae Christianae,” in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John W. Beardslee (New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1965), 131.
19. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 638; cf. 633, par. 3.
20. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Children of Promise: The Case for Baptizing Infants (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 25.
21. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.7; Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 604–9; Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 55; and Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 632–24.
22. Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 20, par. 3.
23. Ibid., chap. 19, par. 3.
24. Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 27, par. 3 (italics added).
25. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:499 (italics added); cf. 3:500.
26. Ibid., 3:589 (italics added).
27. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 166 (italics added).
28. Bullinger, “The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God,” 108 (italics added).
29. Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 20, par. 8.
30. Zwingli, “Letter to Lambert,” 307.
31. Zwingli, “On Rebels and Rebellion,” 319–20.
32. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9.
33. Ibid., 4.16.8 (italics added).
34. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:576; see also 3:557–58.
35. Ibid., 3:516.
36. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 633.
37. Ibid., 618.
38. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 56 (italics his).
39. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 618. He also writes, “Their willful neglect can only result in spiritual loss” (ibid., 608).
40. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:588. He adds that it is “a great sin to neglect or undervalue it” (ibid., 3:590).
41. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 241.
42. Calvin, Institutes of the Chrisitian Religion, 4.16.26.
43. Ibid., 4.16.9 (italics added).
44. Bullinger, “The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God,” 131; and idem, Second Helvetic Confession, chap. 17, par. 14.
45. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.22.
46. Ibid., 4.15.26.
47. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:516; see also 379, 557, 584.
48. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 605–8, esp. 608; see also 616–19.
49. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 55.
50. Ibid., 56.
51. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9–10. The Westminster Confession of Faith also speaks of a “promise” that is associated with the sacraments (chap. 17, par. 3).
52. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:588; cf. 3:499–500.
53. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 198 (italics his).
54. Bullinger, “The One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God,” 106; cf. 111.
55. Ibid., 107.
56. Bullinger states that the conditions of the covenant are repentance and genuine faith in God and a life that gives evidence of it (ibid., 108–11).
57. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:582 (italics added).
58. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 641. “By no means [is this intended] to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel” (ibid., 640).
59. Ibid., 638.
60. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 46.
61. Ibid., 131 (italics added).
62. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 665.
63. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3:600.
64. Ibid., 3:585.
65. Ibid., 3:579.
66. This can also be seen in Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, 41–55.