Calvin's confidence in the status of covenant children

[steadfast7]

In my reading of Institutes, IV. 4, paedobaptism, I couldn't help but notice the confidence with which Calvin speaks of the status of covenant children. This status is almost one of presumed regeneration and salvation, or, at least, the language comes off that way to me. Consider some quotes:

1. IV. 16.5

The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure?

2. IV. 16.6

The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

3. IV. 16.17

For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.

4. IV. 16.22

Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign.

These are some examples of what I think are clear indications that Calvin had much (if not complete) confidence on the sure salvation of covenant children. It can be argued that he is only speaking only of those children whom God has elected but not all, but I can hardly find anything of this sort of disclaimer in his Institutes, but I'd be happy to be shown some. Furthermore, if he is only speaking of elected children, then wouldn't it be a redundant carry-over from his discussion on election? Why did he go on and on the way he did?

Am I missing some interpretive keys here? Are there places where he clearly retracts from this assurance with a disclaimer? Even if there was a disclaimer, it would be evidence that his language was going to be interpreted in a certain way.

My tentative conclusion is that the idealism of Calvin reflects something that is missing from contemporary discussions on baptism, that is, that the promises conferred on covenant children are not simply pronouncements of what may happen if ... but are sure promises of something that God has done and will do.

responses?

 

[torstar]

Nope, covenant children are not guaranteed election and regeneration.

They are in a subset of people who putatively are more likely to believe, raised by believers and steeped in the faith from birth, but there is no guarantee.

All the more tragic if they don't.

 

[Pergamum]

Dennis,

I am a credo-baptist and I believe paedobaptism is in error.

However, I take Calvin's confidence in the election of covenant children to be akin to the general promises of the Proverbs. If you are wise, then good things will happen. If you teach your children in the way they should go, when they are old, they will not depart from it. This does not happen 100% of the time, but it happens enough that there is a general principle and promise given.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I am a credo-baptist and I believe paedobaptism is in error.

It is ok. We still love you.

 

[steadfast7]

The problem of speaking with confidence in generalities is that it only takes one deviant case for the promise to go awry, in the same way one genuine error in Scripture casts doubt on its inerrancy. The error of Job's friends was that their view of God's justice was too generalized and God set them straight on that.

If Calvin is overconfident about his case (the tentative hypothesis for now), it is because of his confidence in the God of promise, who does not, and cannot fail. So, the trustworthiness and character of God is at stake. If it can be shown that all along Calvin has been thinking not of every covenant child, but only the elect ones, then that'll be the end of this thread, so I'm looking forward for that evidence.

Many in the paedobaptism camp stress how baptism is not a statement of anything about that person's status, but of God's promises. I think the above quotes from Calvin show that he is quite confident about their status and feels baptism should be granted on the basis of their status. See how he phrases it repeatedly: if such and such is true of them (denoting status), [then] why should they be denied the sign? Status seems to precede the sign. If this is true, the paedobaptist attack on the presumption of Baptists may be unfounded.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We have a duty to believe that the promises of God are true, and effectual, and associated with the due use of ordinary means. The last implies that we are ready to employ those means to the ends appointed. Our faith in God is meant to stir us up to pious instruction of our children in order that they should walk in God's ways, and believe in the gospel, witnessed to them in their baptism.

Calvin's doctrine of the efficacy of means is subordinate to his doctrines of election, and salvation through faith. He never says that every baptized child receives the gifts promised by the sign. His words in the first quote obviously cannot mean that Esau "partook of all the things signified." Or of the last, affirming that "infants DO receive forgiveness of sins," does not commit him to the position that EVERY infant receives this grace, or even every infant baptized.

 

[Pergamum]

Dennis:

3. IV. 16.17
For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.
4. IV. 16.22
Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign.

I, too, am awful curious about these two quotes.

As a baptist looking for ammo against the paedo position, these two quotes look an awful lot like baptism actually "does something" to the baby instead of merely declaring something about the baby.

Those that receive forgiveness of sins are, indeed, to be given the sign, but I believe that this giving of the sign should wait until there is more evidence of forgiveness of sins rather than mere lineage.

 

[steadfast7]

As a baptist looking for ammo against the paedo position, these two quotes look an awful lot like baptism actually "does something" to the baby instead of merely declaring something about the baby.

This idea of baptism "doing something" would no doubt be anathematized by the Reformed. It is a very strong confessional point that neither the water nor the time of baptism brings about regeneration. But see how presumption is not foreign to the early Reformed paedobaptists. The early Reformed theologian Walaeus writes (quoting from Vos),

We reject the opinion of the Lutherans who tie the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit to the external water of baptism in such a way that, either it is present in the water itself or at least the principle of regeneration will only work in the administration of baptism. This, however, is opposed to all the places in Scripture, where faith and repentance and hence the beginning and seed of regeneration are antecedently required in the one who is baptized ... therefore, we do not bind the efficacy of baptism to the moment in which the body is sprinkled with external water; but we require with the Scriptures antecedent faith and repentance in the one who is baptized, at least according to the judgment of love, both in the infant children of covenant members, and in adults. For we maintain that in infants too the presence of the seed and the Spirit of faith and conversion is to be ascertained on the basis of divine blessing and the evangelical covenant" (Synopsis Purioris Theologicae, XLIV, 27, 29)

I think the distinctions between what lies behind credo and paedo practice are not as incongruent as many make it out to be. The earlier Reformed theologians made use of presumption when arguing for the inherent status of covenant children, their ability to have faith, and their rightful receiving of baptism. They joined theology with a judgment of charity. Baptists are similar. In fact, their "presumption" is based on visible and active signs of faith in adult professors, which is more limiting. In other words, they seek to presume less. I think it's time to dump the polemics against presumption altogether because both sides are guilty of it.

Calvin's doctrine of the efficacy of means is subordinate to his doctrines of election, and salvation through faith. He never says that every baptized child receives the gifts promised by the sign. His words in the first quote obviously cannot mean that Esau "partook of all the things signified." Or of the last, affirming that "infants DO receive forgiveness of sins," does not commit him to the position that EVERY infant receives this grace, or even every infant baptized.

Let's not be too quick to make inferences for Calvin. To be sure, you are right; in his argument on sacraments, he states that they are only efficacious to those that believe (IV. 14.7). However, infants of believers are in a different category, aren't they. In his paedobaptism argument, I'm only going on what he says and/or implies. The fact is he says very little about the Ishmaels and Esaus. In IV.16.14 he addresses this issue but only as an aside,

For they (those carnally born of Abraham) are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, And, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; And, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance," (Rom 11:29).

There are still promises given to them, and they are still efficacious.

The clear force of Calvin vis a vis paedobaptism, still, is that that infants should be baptized because it belongs to them as a presumed benefit of their membership. His language is unmistakably absolute and ideal.

 

[torstar]

Dennis:

3. IV. 16.17
For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.
4. IV. 16.22
Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign.

As a baptist looking for ammo against the paedo position,



Really?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

But see how presumption is not foreign to the early Reformed paedobaptists...

The term "presumption," as I've indicated, suffers today from overuse in a pejorative sense. So while earlier theologians have used the term, we need to read them carefully and not anachronistically.

Here are a series of factual affirmations:
1) Spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
2) Men are naturally dead to spiritual things.
3) The Spirit gives life to dead men.
4) We nevertheless teach men of either condition spiritual things.
5) The very teaching of these things via the Word is the instrumental means of regeneration.

So, here's are questions:
1) Do we teach our infants and young children spiritual things?
2) Why should we expect such words to have any good effect on spiritually dead creatures?
3) Is it possible for a grown man to have said of him that from childhood he knew the holy Scriptures, able to make him wise unto salvation?
4) Is it possible for an 86 year old man to honestly say on his dying day that he had served the Lord his whole life, so far as he knew it?
5) Is it possible for anyone without faith to please God?
6) Are there people in heaven who lived the shortest lives on earth? How were they saved?

Earlier generations of Reformed theologians were more quick to speak of their unflappable assurance of the realities of the things signified in baptism as present in those children baptized. They were also typically more acquainted with the brutality of infant mortality in those days. So they had a strong incentive to emphasize the promises of the Word to parents. Which emphasis, if overused or accompanied by a neglect of the regular means, could in better days for infant survivors lead to a blithe presumption--which is not a Christian stance.

It is one thing to tell a grieving parent not to doubt of God's promise when a child offers no surer sign than his baptism. It is another thing to tell a parent--who seldom disciplined his child, set a wicked example, did not attend the means of grace himself or bring his child thereunto, or saw in other ways the child's rebellious spirit exhibited--that he should have saving-confidence in that child's baptism.​

Our fathers were also combating Romish superstition, while trying to maintain an accurate statement of the truth between two extremes. It was very important that the Protestant's confidence be no LESS than the confidence of an adherent to Rome. Rome's theology would almost seem to encourage infant-mortality, because a babe baptized by Rome had a better chance of heaven (and much sooner) than anyone who lived out their childhood. Thus, the Magicks of Rome, which gave a strong but false confidence, had to be met with the stronger and better consolations of the Promises of God's Word to the Reformed.

The earlier preferred illustration has some definite value. A good, dry seed springs to life with the application of water. So, taught the fathers, does the seed of faith (present in the elect) drink its first moisture in baptism. The church is the soil of spiritual nurture for the seedlings, it is the orchard of the saplings, the forest of the pillars of the church in maturity. It isn't a bad metaphor. And to "presume" that the means of grace provided by God function as he has ordered them to function, is no "unwarranted" deduction.

Today, the preferred term is often "the judgment of charity." We know our children are born in sin, Job.14:4. The spiritually deaf/blind/dead cannot receive the things of God. And yet we begin, immediately in hope discipling our offspring. We treat them as though they are perfectly capable of hearing and obeying with the right and best incentives, not merely natural ones. Are we schizophrenic? No, we are trusting not in the means, but in the God who ordained various means to his ends, attaching his promises to them. In love/charity, we expect our children are or soon will be, before we can even gauge it with accuracy, living in the faith we are teaching them.

So, more recent RCT has left the "presumptive" condition of the child behind in the past, as providing a particular ground for baptism of infants. Scripture affirms regeneration can take place, and has taken place, in infancy. Coupled with the "holy" status of such persons (1Cor7:14), there can be no objection to infant-baptism on the grounds that such persons cannot be regenerated, or that they they are unsuitable candidates due to their vile qualities. It is wiser simply to affirm that their "presumed" condition renders them plausible candidates; and that is all the weight we rest upon it.

There are still promises given to them, and they are still efficacious.

Whoa! Calvin says in quote #1 above, "...partakers of ALL the things signified by circumcision." That word "all" is the exact qualifier I had in mind. I daresay I quite understand to what he refers, and no, he doesn't or wouldn't affirm that the Ishmaels or Esaus of the world partook of ALL the benefits. What he affirms is that Israelite participants (he neither says nor implies ALL participants) partook of ALL the benefits signified by circumcision--which go all the way to spiritual regeneration and heavenly hope. You cannot proceed from a general statement to a universal statement. That's illogical. There isn't enough information in a general statement to conclude whether SOME or ALL is implied. For that, we need additional source data. And it is without question that Calvin denies that Esau was a beneficiary of true grace.

Wherefore, if Esau sought his own welfare, he ought to have drawn from that fountain, and rather to have subjected himself to his brother, than to have cut himself off from a happy connection with him. He chose, however, rather to be deprived of spiritual grace, provided he might but possess something of his own, and apart from his brother, than to be his inferior at home. He could not be ignorant, that there was one sole benediction by which his brother Jacob had been constituted the heir of the divine covenant: for Isaac would be daily discoursing with them concerning the singular privilege which God had vouchsafed to Abraham and his seed. Esau would not previously have complained so bitterly, unless he had felt that he had been deprived of an incomparable benefit. Therefore, by departing from this one source of blessing, he indirectly renounces God, and cuts himself off from the body of the Church, caring for nothing but this transitory life. But it would have been better for him, miserably to perish through the want of all things in this world, and with difficulty to draw his languishing breath, than to slumber amidst temporal delights.
Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 27:38

That quote is good for illustrating both the fact that Esau was a faithless man and a God-rejecter; and that he enjoyed, in his younger days, the very real effects of the promises as external and temporal benefits. But he manifestly did not enjoy them ALL.

As for the comments on Rom.11:29, those born "carnally of Abraham" refers to the whole Israelite race (and only them, as "first-born of the family of God"). What Calvin is saying in that place is that there are still Jews waiting to be called to faith in Christ Jesus. What he says has little or nothing to do with a degree of residual temporal blessings still settled with them, and awaiting dispensation.

I would suggest reading this: A treatise on the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper : Calvin, Jean, 1509-1564 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive, for a mature, lengthy discussion of the exact question.

we must beware, lest those things which have been written by the old writers, somewhat too vain gloriously to amplify the dignity of sacraments, which lead us away into an error near this: namely, that we should think that there is some secret power knit and fastened to the sacraments, that they can of themselves give us the graces of the Holy Ghost, as wine is given in the cup ; whereas only this office is appointed to them by God, to testify and establish to us the good will of God towards us, and profit no further unless the Holy Ghost join himself to them, who can open our minds and hearts, and make us partakers of this testimony, wherein also clearly appear divers and several graces of God. For the sacraments, as we have above touched, are that thing to us of God, which to men are messengers of joyful things, or earnests in confirming of bargains, which do not, of themselves, give any grace, but tell and show us, ard (as they are earnests and tokens) do ratify unto us those things that are given us by the liberality of God. The Holy Ghost (whom the sacraments do not in common, without difference, bring to all men, but whom the Lord peculiarly giveth to them that are his) is he that bringeth the graces of God with him, who giveth to the sacraments place in us, who maketh them to bring forth fruit. But though we do not deny that God himself, with the power of his Spirit, is present with his own institution, lest the ministration which he hath ordained of the sacraments should be fruitless and vain: yet we affirm that the inward grace of the Spirit, as it is separated from the outward ministry, so ought to be separately weighed and considered. God, therefore, truly performeth indeed whatsoever he promiseth and figureth in signs; neither doth the signs want their effect, that the author of them may be proved true and faithful. The question here is only whether God worketh by his own and by inward power, as they call it, or resigneth his office to outwaid signs. But we affirm, that whatever instruments he use, his original working is nothing hindered thereby. When this is taught, concerning the sacraments, both their dignity is honourably set out, and their use is plainly showed, and their profitableness is abundantly reported, and the best mean in all these things is retained, that neither any thing is attributed to them which ought not, nor again any thing taken from them which is not proper to be taken from them. In the meantime, that feigned device is taken away, whereby the cause of justification and power of the Holy Ghost, is inclosed in elements as in vessels or waggons, and that principal force which hath been omitted of others, is expressly set out. Here, also, it is to be noted, that God inwardly worketh that which the minister figureth and testifieth by outward action; lest that be given to a mortal man which God claimeth to himself alone. The same thing, also, doth Augustine wisely touch. How, saith he, doth both Moses sanctify and God; not Moses for God, but Moses with visible sacraments by his ministry, and God with invisible grace by his Holy Spirit; where, also, is the whole fruit of visible sacraments. For without this sanctification of invisible grace, what do those visible sacraments profit?

from pp.21-23.

In fine, We can affirm that Calvin would have us believe (if you will, "presume" as a synonym) that the grace of God and his sacrament are connected--and that in a mysterious and spiritual manner, which is independent of such temporal questions as to place, time, or mode of application. It is enough to affirm they are connected, and to leave it there, believing in the meaning God has assigned to these things, and that they are of genuine spiritual help to us--even to the least of us. They have benefit unto the receptive faculty of saving faith. And that faculty God may activate at any moment; but ordinarily he does so by the means he has openly testified to (Word and Sacrament).

I can't explain how my wife communicates her love to our infant child through her touch, her heartbeat, her nourishment; but that she does is unquestionable. And I certainly don't know how the Spirit takes the water, and communicates something intelligible to the soul of any person, even an infant. Since I'm not a rationalist, I confess to not even knowing how the Spirit takes the Word, and communicates intelligibly to my own adult soul. My halting understanding of divine things is but inadequately expressed by my intellectual apprehension of his Word, which has been accommodated to my sense. How much the more is my trust in his "translation" of his divine affections in Christ Jesus into the gentle, sensory-accessible application of water to the skin.

One thing I know: that faith alone can lay hold of such gifts; and a carnal heart can only appreciate the superficial, extrinsic qualities that accompany the promise. This is Calvin's doctrine as well.

(see also Ronald S. Wallace's Calvin’s Doctrine of Word and Sacrament)

 

[steadfast7]

Rev. B, I agree. Calvin could not have suggested that Esau was a partaker in ALL the promises, but he does suggest that there is something about the Jews (obstinate though they are), by virtue of what was promised to them, that gives them a special dignity and status. This is all I'm trying to convey because the implication will follow: It is often taught that the covenant promises are merely conditional proclamations of the gospel - something that may happen if particular conditions are met. Additionally, the argument raised by paedobaptists is that baptism does not say anything about a person or their status. But Calvin sees something more substantive in the promises. They speak of what God will do because they are irrevocable, and this becomes a ground for honouring them.

Now, if this is carried over to baptism, then baptism can and does say something about a person and their status, because the promises signified in the sign speak of something very real that we are confident God will bring about. Not sure if that makes sense ... all I'm trying to flesh out is that there is room in Reformed theology for baptism ...
1. to say something about a person's status
2. to be performed based on a presumption of their status

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dennis,
I am rereading the Calvin quotes, and I'm not seeing him affirm special, continuing status as a nationality other than: Paul in his day sought to give them due honor, by going first to the synagogues to preach) UNTIL they reject the offer of mercy from God, and that offer is transferred to the Gentiles, Act.28:28. And we, writes Calvin, are not to despise them still (which is something less than according them honors), knowing that even now there is a remnant according to grace to be found under that name. But he doesn't instruct us (Gentiles, mainly) to defer to them any longer, as if after such long time a first-born status any more remained unto them.

What remains to that family from among the peoples? This: that there are still from that stock persons who are the original heirs of the promise, according to the flesh. To whom were the promises made? If we say the promises were external, then they were made to the the external associates, and those receive them. If we say the promises were internal, then they are made to the elect, and the elect receive them. The latter is what we affirm is essential to the Covenant of Grace. Such external privileges as accompany the elect as a portion of their inheritance, are also accessible by those who are not elect. These external privileges are typically accompanied by ancillary external oaths and vows, which are in the nature of things, conditional. Promises man makes he may well break, and given enough time he will break his word, even inadvertently. "To err is human."

The unconditional aspect of God's promise is solely to his gracious, saving election. Even there, we talk about "conditions" improper, that is, that such are met not by the party to be benefited, but are assumed by the party giving the benefit, who provides the necessary conditions along with the benefit. It is the elective covenant of grace that is "unconditional," so far as we are required to produce anything for it God, in Christ, fulfills all the conditions on our behalf--it is truly, wonderfully, gracious.

But there are no "unconditional" promises that are made to men in general, or to the church in general. Anyone not "in Christ," who nevertheless asserts his right to those promises, takes upon himself the responsibility to perform all that Christ performed (or would perform, ref. OT). God doesn't make unconditional promises outside of Christ.

So once again, I have yet to read a single statement by Calvin, by which he affirms anything substantive respecting the covenant that is not the exclusive domain of the elect. That baptism speaks of what God does for people (whether grown ups or infants) is undeniably Calvin's intent. But here's an analogous expression:

Oxygen imparted to a man's lungs is necessary for life. In other words, if we find a living man, he certainly has oxygen in his lungs. I can say this: Oxygen imparts life to man, and that is undeniably true. But oxygen doesn't impart life to ALL men. I can hook an oxygen tank up to a nasal canula, and pipe straight oxygen into a corpse's lungs, and that man isn't alive.

Have I falsified my first statement, because imparting oxygen to this man did not bring him to life? No, absolutely not, because the statement is still what it ever was: generally true. The statement doesn't say, never did say, that the oxygen would keep every man alive, or bring any man to life. If I'm in medical school, and I have a cadaver on the table, and my purpose as an instructor is to show the lungs at work, my statement concerning the invariable requirement for oxygen to impart life is no less true because the illustration on the table does not live.​

Calvin's purpose is to affirm, strongly, that God's promises are true, and that they are no less true for the infant person as it is for any older person. That the ground for baptizing an infant is really no different than for baptizing an adult, despite circumstantial variations.

And, to the last: of course water baptism says something about a person's... external status; because it corresponds to an objective, external relation. Its witness to the subjective condition of the soul is muted. It is a fallible witness to those things, and even with corroboration still remains uncertain. The internal and the external are supposed to agree; this ideal is not in debate. But perfect alignment is impossible. So, does subjective "status" ever constitute a proper ground for baptism? How can it? Only extrinsic, objective status-markers are legitimate.

We have to distinguish between subject-specific criteria; and objective, theological grounds for our practice. Its like the difference between producing my "picture ID" when I go to the polls (a criteria), or being at least 18 yrs old (criteria), in order to vote; and being entitled to vote grounded on my freedoms guaranteed as a law-abiding citizen of my country. Neither my driver's licence (obtained at age 16) nor my age of 18+ (which, if I am a felon, means nothing) are proper grounds of my right to opine on who I think should run this circus.

Unknowable factors (like election or regeneration) are hardly good grounds for human (e.g. ecclesial) action in this world.

 

[steadfast7]

Thanks Rev B for your post. I think I have read too much into Calvin's view of promises to national Israel and wrongly carried them over to the church. Cheerfully retracted.
I terms of the promises belonging only to the domain of the elect, there's no doubt about that. My observation was there is almost a direct correlation between those who are covenantally baptized and those for whom the promises fully apply. I think it's still substantiated, even if only for the reasons that you provided:

Earlier generations of Reformed theologians were more quick to speak of their unflappable assurance of the realities of the things signified in baptism as present in those children baptized. They were also typically more acquainted with the brutality of infant mortality in those days. So they had a strong incentive to emphasize the promises of the Word to parents. Which emphasis, if overused or accompanied by a neglect of the regular means, could in better days for infant survivors lead to a blithe presumption--which is not a Christian stance.

I would agree that the context has much to inform us about the theology that is being emphasized at the time. Calvin's context was one of a renewed church under strict discipline. Very different from ours where broken families, gospel-less preaching, and poorly led churches abound.