Reformed View of When Infants Receive The Holy Spirit

[charispistis]

Hello, my sister is witnessing to one of our cousins who is a Roman Catholic, and wants to know the best way to approach some of her (cousin) beliefs regarding Infant Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Here is the question.

The question that has come up that my sister needs help is this: When does an infant receives the Holy Spirit? Our cousins believes that all infants receives the Holy Spirit at baptism and that you need to later let the Spirit "act in your life"...

So my question is: what is the reformed view regarding the receiving of the Holy Spirit in Infant Baptism.

Thank you!

 

[Jack K]

Not at baptism... unless that just happens to be the moment of regeneration when the child is saved, which we don't expect. We don't expect that the timing of salvation and the timing of baptism will coincide.

In fact, we plainly disagree with the notion that we can bring about God's regenerating work by performing a baptism. Baptism is administered as a witness to what God has already seemingly done, either following a credible profession of faith (in an adult) or following the birth of a child into the covenant family (for an infant). In the case of an infant, we look forward in expectation to the time when that child will profess faith for himself, but we cannot know whether or not he is yet regenerate (has received the Holy Spirit) or, for that matter, ever will be.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

Not at baptism... unless that just happens to be the moment of regeneration when the child is saved, which we don't expect. We don't expect that the timing of salvation and the timing of baptism will coincide.

In fact, we plainly disagree with the notion that we can bring about God's regenerating work by performing a baptism. Baptism is administered as a witness to what God has already seemingly done, either following a credible profession of faith (in an adult) or following the birth of a child into the covenant family (for an infant). In the case of an infant, we look forward in expectation to the time when that child will profess faith for himself, but we cannot know whether or not he is yet regenerate (has received the Holy Spirit) or, for that matter, ever will be.

Great question! Now Jack's comment reminded me of something I've been pondering for a while now. If the Reformed view of sacraments is that they ARE a "means of grace", then doesn't this mean that we DO in fact EXPECT that God will work through the conduit of baptism to impart saving grace to some and perhaps many children of believers? Isn't this part of our basis for claiming that Christian parents can be assured that their infants and young children will be in heaven? Like God uses the gospel preached and the scriptures as "a means of grace." So if we hold that baptism is also a means of grace and is NOT symbolic only as Zwingli taught incorrectly in our view, how can we say that baptism doesn't save? Yes, the act of baptism doesn't save because faith is required but since baptism is a means of grace, doesn't this mean God will (not 100%) work through baptism to save many and impart faith to many through baptism? Thanks for any clarification. I'm kind of new to this "means of grace" in sacraments teaching. I'd love to understand it better.

 

[Rom]

Even in the baptism of a child (or an adult!) who is not elect, God ministers to those who are elect who are present. It is a picture of salvation in visible form. See 1 Peter 3:21. So yes, it is still a means of grace - perhaps not to the person receiving the sacrament (infant or adult).

It reminds us of God's promise to us. It is a picture of salvation through the waters of judgment. It moves me each time I see the sacrament administered.

And some elect may be brought to saving faith by the Spirit by being present.

 

[Jack K]

Not at baptism... unless that just happens to be the moment of regeneration when the child is saved, which we don't expect. We don't expect that the timing of salvation and the timing of baptism will coincide.

In fact, we plainly disagree with the notion that we can bring about God's regenerating work by performing a baptism. Baptism is administered as a witness to what God has already seemingly done, either following a credible profession of faith (in an adult) or following the birth of a child into the covenant family (for an infant). In the case of an infant, we look forward in expectation to the time when that child will profess faith for himself, but we cannot know whether or not he is yet regenerate (has received the Holy Spirit) or, for that matter, ever will be.

Great question! Now Jack's comment reminded me of something I've been pondering for a while now. If the Reformed view of sacraments is that they ARE a "means of grace", then doesn't this mean that we DO in fact EXPECT that God will work through the conduit of baptism to impart saving grace to some and perhaps many children of believers? Isn't this part of our basis for claiming that Christian parents can be assured that their infants and young children will be in heaven? Like God uses the gospel preached and the scriptures as "a means of grace." So if we hold that baptism is also a means of grace and is NOT symbolic only as Zwingli taught incorrectly in our view, how can we say that baptism doesn't save? Yes, the act of baptism doesn't save because faith is required but since baptism is a means of grace, doesn't this mean God will (not 100%) work through baptism to save many and impart faith to many through baptism? Thanks for any clarification. I'm kind of new to this "means of grace" in sacraments teaching. I'd love to understand it better.

Yes, it's a means of grace. We anticipate it will be a blessing in the child's life, and as Rom has mentioned it's a blessing also to those who witness it. But we still stop short of saying that by it WE bring about God's regenerating work. That would put it more along the lines of a witch's incantation, by which the witch controls the actions of the spirits. True faith is nothing like such witchcraft. We prefer to state that the Spirit is in control. We witness to his work and perform a rite he has commanded, trusting him that doing so is a blessing to us.

There's a big difference between witchcraft (use the proper incantation and you control the spirits) and using the means of grace in faith (you use the means the Spirit has given you as a way to actively trust him).

 

[Elizabeth]

"We anticipate it will be a blessing in the child's life, and as Rom has mentioned it's a blessing also to those who witness it."

So would you say that it is something for the child's future(when he/she confesses faith) rather than a blessing to them at the moment OF baptism? But for those viewing, it is a blessing AT the moment, as well as in the future(if/when the child confesses faith)? It is, at the moment of baptism, more of a reminder of salvation to those watching?

 

[Jack K]

There are people here better qualified than I am to put the language in the best exact way, so I'm getting beyond my area of expertise, but I think it's right to say that the baptized infant is blessed NOW as a member of God's visible family. There are great benefits to growing up in the church. And since his baptism confirms this, it also ought to give the child great confidence in God and assurance going forward in life, provided that child remains faithful and grows in faith. The benefits of baptism (or any of the other means of grace) are not magical as if they happen unconsciously. They are accompanied by faith. So we look expectantly for faith in the child and the fruition of the grace of God in his life that began at his birth into a believing family. By baptizing a child we are NOT declaring that the child is saved, so the blessing received is not of that level. Yet, the grace of God in the life of an elect child begins now, even if he's not yet converted.

Do the greater (paedo-baptist) theologians on this board agree? Is there a better way I could put it?

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

There are people here better qualified than I am to put the language in the best exact way, so I'm getting beyond my area of expertise, but I think it's right to say that the baptized infant is blessed NOW as a member of God's visible family. There are great benefits to growing up in the church. And since his baptism confirms this, it also ought to give the child great confidence in God and assurance going forward in life, provided that child remains faithful and grows in faith. The benefits of baptism (or any of the other means of grace) are not magical as if they happen unconsciously. They are accompanied by faith. So we look expectantly for faith in the child and the fruition of the grace of God in his life that began at his birth into a believing family. By baptizing a child we are NOT declaring that the child is saved, so the blessing received is not of that level. Yet, the grace of God in the life of an elect child begins now, even if he's not yet converted.

Do the greater (paedo-baptist) theologians on this board agree? Is there a better way I could put it?

I thought we were "declaring them saved" not by but through baptism as "a means of grace"? I thought we declared all covenant children "believers" until they demonstrate or outwardly reject the faith later in life? I thought this was part of our point that all elect infants are saved through a means of grace through faith by the Holy Spirit. So I'm of course not thinking of this like any witchcrafty thing. WE are not saving the child by baptising them. God is saving some of them through our faithfilled act of baptism. Isn't this part of why we can claim that ALL Christian parents can assume their infants or children who die before later in life confirming their faith, do in fact have faith and so when they die early, all these parents can assume their babies and children will be in heaven? If not, what "means of grace" are imparted to the child if not faith and the Holy Spirit to SOME children. Not all, because some will later (example age 19) demonstrate no faith and might be called and drawn later in life (example age 30).

My question is that since baptism is a "means of grace" then what is the grace imparted to the infant? I see that it can be a means of grace to those watching but to the infant who sits and doesn't do anything but receive what God wishes to impart, what is God imparting to that infant if not faith or the Holy Spirit in some infants? Doesn't that imply that if the child is elect, God may at the time of baptism choose to impart the Holy Spirit AND impart faith to the child (since faith is a gift from God)? Certainly God doesn't do this for all children, but for the elect that he choses to give faith to from a young age?

So for us Christians who have believed as far back as we can recall, when did we receive the Holy Spirit? God must have imparted it somewhere along the way before we could mentally understand the gospel message, right? Did some of us receive it through the means of baptism through the conduit of faith?

How did we receive it if we were not baptised (which is the case for some of us)?

 

[Jack K]

I would put it this way: We declare those babies to be part of the covenant community, with all the godly blessings that entails. As they are covenant kids, we look expectantly for them to come to faith. But we don't (and can't) declare them saved. That's not our business.

The issue of covenant kids who die before they're old enough to express faith is somewhat separate. We do believe elect children dying young are saved. But it's not because they were baptized. It's because they belong to Christ. Baptism expresses this relationship and makes in visible and legal. But if the child dies before he's baptized, he's still saved.

God is saving some of them through our faithfilled act of baptism.

I would not put it this way. The saved are saved through faith in Christ. Period. Baptism may coincide with faith or be an expression of faith, and a rejection of baptism demonstrates a lack of faith, but faith does not require baptism to make it effective.

Of course, God may choose to regenerate a child at the moment of his baptism. But we don't expect this to be the norm.

 

[louis_jp]

My question is that since baptism is a "means of grace" then what is the grace imparted to the infant? I see that it can be a means of grace to those watching but to the infant who sits and doesn't do anything but receive what God wishes to impart, what is God imparting to that infant if not faith or the Holy Spirit in some infants? Doesn't that imply that if the child is elect, God may at the time of baptism choose to impart the Holy Spirit AND impart faith to the child (since faith is a gift from God)? Certainly God doesn't do this for all children, but for the elect that he choses to give faith to from a young age?

I would say baptism is a confirming ordinance, not a converting ordinance. It confirms, strengthens, and seals faith, it doesn't impart it.