Basic HTML Version
621
the covenant and are as such heirs of the rich promises of God including a title, not only to
regeneration, but also to all the blessings of justification and of the renewing and sanctifying
influence of the Holy Spirit. Others, however, while recognizing the truth of this representation,
were not wholly satisfied with it. They stressed the fact that baptism is something more than
the seal of a promise, or even of all the covenant promises; and that it is not merely the seal of
a future good, but also of present spiritual possessions. The view became rather prevalent that
baptism is administered to infants on the ground of presumptive regeneration. But even those
who accepted this view did not all agree. Some combined this view with the other while others
substituted it for the other. Some would proceed on the assumption that all the children
presented for baptism are regenerated, while others would assume this only in connection with
the elect children. The difference of opinion between those who believe that children of
believers are baptized on the ground of their covenant relationship and of the covenant
promise, and those who find this ground in presumptive regeneration persisted up to the
present time and was the source of a lively controversy, especially in the Netherlands during
the last period of the nineteenth, and the beginning of the twentieth, century. Dr. Kuyper at
first spoke of presumptive regeneration as the ground of infant baptism, and many readily
accepted this view. G. Kramer wrote his splendid thesis on Het Verband van Doop en
Wedergeboorte especially in defense of this position. Later on Dr. Kuyper did not use this
expression any more, and some of his followers felt the need of more careful discrimination
and spoke of the covenant relationship as the legal, and presumptive regeneration as the
spiritual, ground of infant baptism. But even this is not a satisfactory position. Dr. Honig, who is
also a disciple and admirer of Kuyper, is on the right track when he says in his recent Handboek
van de Gereformeerde Dogmatiek:[p. 655.] “We do not baptize the children of believers on the
ground of an assumption, but on the ground of a command and an act of God. Children must be
baptized in virtue of the covenant of God” (translation mine). Presumptive regeneration
naturally cannot be regarded as the legal ground of infant baptism; this can be found only in
the covenant promise of God. Moreover, it cannot be the ground in any sense of the word,
since the ground of baptism must be something objective, as the advocates of the view in
question themselves are constrained to admit. If they are asked, why they assume the
regeneration of children presented for baptism, they can only answer, Because they are born of
believing parents, that is, because they are born in the covenant. Naturally, to deny that
presumptive regeneration is the ground of infant baptism, is not equivalent to saying that it is
entirely unwarranted to assume that infant children of believers are regenerated. This is a
question that must be considered on its own merits.
It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of
Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: “And, finally,
as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned, Synod declares that,