"the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God's children"(Inst.4, 15, 1).

J.I. Packer similarly defines baptism as the "union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection"(Packer 212). These two definitions stand in stark contrast to the ones put forth by Stanley Grenz. While acknowledging the different ways to define baptism, Grenz summarizes by stating that it is "a public affirmation of a person's conscious decision to place himself or herself under the lordship of Jesus"(Grenz 684 emphasis added). Grenz also interprets baptism as the "God-given means whereby we initially declare publicly our inward faith"(Grenz 689). He goes on to declare that "believer's baptism is obviously superior" on the grounds that infant baptism "simply cannot fulfill this function"(Grenz 689). He is in one sense quite correct. If baptism is all about a "conscious decision" then Calvin has indeed 'missed the boat' with his advocacy of infant baptism. However, if baptism has more to do with signifying the cleansing of sin and being "reckoned among God's children" then it does with a "conscious decision" then all should give careful attention to Calvin's assertion that infants of believer's must be baptized.

Stanley Grenz asserts that it is likely that "the early church practiced believer's baptism exclusively"(Grenz 687). Calvin attacks the claim that many years passed after Christ's resurrection during which infant baptism was unknown. Calvin calls this claim "shamefully untruthful", noting that "there is no writer, however ancient, who does not regard its origin in the apostolic age as a certainty"(Inst.4, 16, 8). In his footnotes, Calvin cites Irenaeus, Origen, and Cyprian among some of the early advocates for infant baptism(Inst.4, 16, 8). It can be confidently said that by the second century the practice of baptizing infants had become "normal" if not "universal"(McGrath 443).

Calvin reminds us that the children of the Jews were called a holy seed. They had been made heirs to the covenant and distinguished from the children of the impious. For the same reason, Calvin argues, the children of Christians are considered holy; and by the apostle's testimony they differ from the unclean seed of idolators(1Cor.7:14). It naturally follows then, that if infants share the covenant status with their parent, it is fitting "to give them a sign of that status and of their place in the covenant community"(Packer 215).

These passages make it obvious to Calvin, that circumcision is the sign of mortification, and that Israel has been chosen as the people of God out of all the nations of the earth(Deut.10:15; Inst.4, 16, 3). As Abraham commands them[the people of Israel] to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they ought to be circumcised in heart, "explaining the true meaning of this carnal circumcision"(Deut. 30:6; Inst.4, 16, 3). Calvin concludes that "we have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the patriarches in circumcision such as is given us in baptism, since it represented for them[the Jews] forgiveness of sins and mortification of the flesh"(Inst.4, 16, 3). Calvin argues that the symbols of the promise represent the same thing, "namely, regeneration"(Inst.4, 16, 4). For Calvin it appears "incontrovertible" that baptism has taken the place of circumcision "to fulfill the same office among us"(Inst.4, 16, 4).

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to assail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this assertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodŐs institution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).

Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.

Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).

Calvin also anticipates the objection, "how are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated?"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin's reply is that "God's work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled"(Inst.4, 16, 17). Calvin is cognizant of the fact that if infants are born sinners, as Scripture affirms(Eph.2:3; Ps.51:5), either they remain hateful to God, or they must be justified. While Calvin agrees that the water itself does not necessarily save, he reminds us that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb(Luke 1:15), and for Calvin this is "something he could do in others"(Inst.4, 16, 17).

When others object to infant baptism on the grounds that baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins, Calvin suggests that this "abundantly supports our view"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Calvin argues that since we are born sinners, we need forgiveness and pardon "from the time in our mother's womb"(Inst.4, 16, 22). Since God does not withhold from children the hope of mercy(Matt.19:14), Calvin argues that "they must not be deprived of the sign"(Inst.4, 16, 22).

Calvin's arguments are logical, and yet passionate, exemplifying his insatiable desire to proclaim the truth. This treatise is an essential tool for any Christian seeking to understand the significance of their infant baptism. It is equally as valuable for advocates of believer's baptism--to help them apprehend that their view is not the only coherent one that can be extrapolated from Scripture. Calvin's treatment of the doctrine of infant baptism is thorough, informative, and most importantly, faithful to the Word of God. It has been, continues to be, and will remain a valuable resource for educating the body of Christ on the sacrament of baptism.

Wendel, Francois. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1950.