"Passive" is not a good word here. It is confusing.
However, there are are two extremes being propagated on this issue: (1) in defect, by the Anabaptists, who deny all faith to infants and under this pretext exclude them from baptism; (2) in excess, by the Lutherans, who, to oppose themselves to the Anabaptists, have fallen into the other extreme, maintaining that infants are regenerated in baptism and actually furnished with faith, as appears from the Mompeldardensi Colloquy (Acta Colloquy Mantis Belligartensis [1588], p. 459). "The round asserÂtion of our divines is that actual faith is ascribed to infants with the most just right" (Brochmann, "De Fide Justificante," 2, Q. 10 in Universae theologicae systema [1638], 2:429).
Regeneration is NOT faith and faith is NOT regeneration. Regeneration precedes faith (which is the basic reformed position.) Regeneration and faith may happen at the same time, but may not. Regeneration and faith, again, are NOT the same thing. They are separate both in the order of decrees and in the order of salvation. Otherwise, God would be believing for us because when He regenerates us that would be the same as having faith - and that is a contradiction and a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Infants cannot have active faith. Turretin says, "The orthodox occupy the middle ground between the two extremes. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain that a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: (1) that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or ChrisÂtians and the covenanted. (2) Nor do we speak of every single infant as if such faith is given to all without any exception; for although Christian charity commands us to cherish a good hope concerning their salvation, still we cannot certainly deterÂmine that every single one belongs to the election of God, but leave it to the secret counsel and supreme liberty of God. Since indeed the predestination of God makes a difference between children (Rom. 9:11) and the promise of the covenant was ratified (v. 8) not in the children of the flesh, but in the children of the promise, we therefore treat here indefinitely of infants of every order and condition (who pertain to the election of God, whom it is not for human judgÂment to distinguish)."
John 3:3 says that FIRST one must be born again (or regenerated) and THEN he can "see" or "perceive" the truth. Unless one is first born again, he can never believe that the truth is both true and GOOD.
So we have 10 guys listening to a sermon who are all unsaved. Let's say they are all regenerated. But, when do they cognitively and actually believe the propoistion of the Bible? Guy #1 is VERY smart, and endowed with "brains" in the academic use of the term. He has faith, linking the biblical propositions together out of a regenerate heart, understands the message and then beleives it is GOOD, in 5 seconds. Guy #2 takes 1 minute. Guy 3 takes 5 minutes, and so on. The point is that there is time between such. Christ says FIRST one is BORN AGAIN, and SECOND he then perceives. This cannot be simulateousnes unless,a gain, you want to fall into a contradiction and blur the two - which the SCRIPTURES NEVER DO.
Now we have JOhn the Baptist.
Luke 1:15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
From the womb he is filled with the Spirit - or as Jesus says - born again.
Does John have actual faith? or better stated - does he believe the proposition os fthe BIble? If you say "yes" then you are out to lunch. The tehological term for beleiving that is "hogwash."
Does JOhn have ANY type of faith? Of course he does - seed faith. The acron holds in it ALL the properties of the oak tree - but it is not an oak tree just yet. Certain things must take place for the oak tree to grow up - just like certain biblical proposition must be made known to John before HE can believe. He has the soil to grow, the seed is planted, but now he needs it to mature.
Turretin gives three reasons biblically, why infatns do not have actual faith:
The reasons are first because they have not an actual knowledge of anything. Hence they are said not to know good or evil, nor can they discern between their right and left hand (Deut. 1:39; Is. 7:16; Jon. 4:11). Nor ought the objection to be raised (a) "Still the knowledge of many things is born with us." It is one thing to have the principles and seeds of knowledge in the common notions implanted in us (which we grant); another to have actual knowledge (which we deny), (b) "Faith does not depend upon the use of reason; nay, it ought to bring reason into obedience to it" (2 Cor. 10:5). It is one thing for faith to depend on the use of reason as a principle; another for faith to suppose reason as its subject. The former we deny with Paul, who on this account wishes the reason to be captivated into the obedience of faith. The latter we hold with him, who wishes our spiritual worship to be reasonable (iogikon, Rom. 12:1). Therefore where the use of reason is not, there neither the use or exercise of faith can be.
Second, infants are not capable of acts of faith, or of knowledge because intellect does not exist without acÂtion; nor are they capable of assent, which ought to be carried to the object known; nor of trust, which is conÂcerned with the special application of the promise of grace. Therefore neither are they capable of faith, which consists of these three acts. Nay, it is most absurd (asystaton) that there should be a movement of the inÂtellect or of the will without knowledge (which is always supposed for them).
Third, they are not capable of hearing and meditating on the word from which faith is conceived: "for faith cometh by hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Nor must it be said with Brochmann that God appointed baptism as a laver of water for the regeneration of infants in the word, as for adults he destined the hearing of the word. Although baptism is the external sign of regenerating grace (at whose presence God can give it to infants by the Spirit without the hearing of the word), still it cannot be said that actual faith is given to them (which cannot be such except insofar as it actually exerts itself about the hearing of the word).
It is one thing to obtain the fruit of baptism by an active sealing on God's part; another to be sensible of its fruit by a passive sealing on man's part. The former is well ascribed to infants, but not the latter.
The examples of Jeremiah and John the Baptist indeed teach that infants are capable of the Holy Spirit and that he is also given at this age, but it cannot be inferred that they actually believed. Jeremiah is indeed said to have been sanctified from the womb as a prophet of God, and John is said to have leaped in his mother's womb at the presence of Christ, but neither is said to have actually believed. Besides, even if any such thing were ascribed to them, the consequence would not hold good; for this would be singular and extraordinary from which a universal rule ought not to be drawn.
Second proposition: "Although infants do not have actual faith, the seed or root of faith cannot be denied to them, which is ingenerated in them from early age and in its own time goes forth in act (human instrucÂtion being applied from without and a greater efficacy of the Holy Spirit within)." This second proposition is opposed to the Anabaptists, who deny to infants all faith, not only as to act, but also as to habit and form. Although habitual faith (as the word "habit" is properly and strictly used to signify a more perfect and consummated state) is not well ascribed to them, still it is rightly predicated of them broadly as denoting potential or seminal faith. Now by "seed of faith," we mean the Holy Spirit, the effecter of faith and regeneration (as he is called, 1 Jn. 3:9), as to the principles of regeneration and holy inclinations which he already works in infants according to their measure in a wonderful and to us unspeakable way. Afterwards in more mature age, these proceed into act (human instruction being employed and the grace of the same Spirit promoting his own work by which that seed is accustomed to be excited and drawn forth into act).
The reasons are: (1) the promise of the covenant pertains no less to infants than to adults, since God promises that he will be "the God of Abraham and of his seed" (Gen. 17:7) and the promise is said to have been made "with the fathers and their children" (Acts 2:39). Therefore also the blessings of the covenant (such as "remission of sins" and "sanctification") ought to pertain to them (according to Jer. 31 and 32) and are communicated to them by God according to their state. In this sense (as some think), the children of believers are called "holy" by Paul (1 Cor. 7:14). This may with more propriety be referred to the external and federal holiness which belongs to them, according to which (because they are born of covenanted and Christian parents""at least of one) they are also considered to be begotten in "holiness" (i.e., in Christianity, and not in heathenism, which was a state of uncleanness [akatharsias] and impurity).
I hope this helps......
