Introduction⤒🔗

It is no exaggeration to say that infant baptism is a subject of great importance. Those who reflect on this doctrine come into contact with divine realities which are of the utmost significance for the church of Christ.

Much has been written on infant baptism and the result has often been bitter controversy among Christians. So much so, that many people have drawn the conclusion that it is much too complicated an issue for the average church member to grapple with and that therefore it had better be left alone.

This is very sad. I do not deny that baptism in general and infant baptism in particular raises some very profound theological questions for which there are no easy answers. Yet I also maintain that the basic meaning of the gospel of baptism is accessible to every member of the church. God did not present us with riddles when He gave us the sacrament of baptism. He instituted it in order to strengthen our faith. It is unfortunate that this sacrament, especially the baptism of infants of believers, is so enshrouded in fog that the proper view of this blessing is often obscured.

We must therefore continue to reflect on our baptism and that of our children until, under the blessing of the Lord, we come to a clear understanding of what God has given us in this sacrament. This is necessary for ourselves and no less for our children, for baptism is of fundamen­tal importance for the life of faith.

What our Confessions Say about Infant Baptism←⤒🔗

The churches of the Reformation confess, together with the early Christian Church, that God gives to believing parents the right to have their children baptized. Our fathers read this in the Bible and were amazed. Thankfully they embraced this privilege, but they saw it also as a calling and a duty; the Lord had a right to it that their children were baptized.

The churches of the Reformation confessed this clearly and unambiguously. Just think of the Heidelberg Catechism, question and answer 74. "Should infants also be baptized?" "Yes: for since they, as well as adults, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adults, they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted (Dutch: ingelijfd = incorporated) into the Christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant."

Our Confession of Faith in Article 34 states: "we reject the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with the one only baptism which they have once received, and who also condemn the baptism of the infants of believers whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made to our children. And indeed, Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them."

Here the Reformed Church confesses not only that children of believers may be baptized, but that they should be baptized. This is on the basis of the fact that such children are included in the covenant and congregation of the Lord. For that reason baptism is also called a sign of the covenant whereby children of believers are distinguished from children of unbelievers.

Opposition to Infant Baptism←⤒🔗

Infant baptism has always been opposed in the church but especially since the Reforma­tion and the rise of baptistic and charismatic movements. Today also this opposition is vocal. Although they use the same old arguments, these people often speak passionately and with conviction and in doing so make an impression on those who are not well-grounded in the Reformed faith. Sometimes those who argue against infant baptism have themselves been baptized as children but they have since been rebaptized which was for them a wonderful experience. They reason as follows:

"Infant baptism is contrary to God's Word; nowhere in the Bible do we find a command to baptize children. Scripture is totally silent on this matter." That should not surprise us, because the Bible teaches that faith comes first and then baptism. In Mark 16:16 we read: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' When the Ethiopian eunuch asks for baptism, Philip says to him, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.' Conclusion: baptism is only for believ­ers. Children cannot believe, therefore it is not right to baptize them. To do so is contrary to God's will and no blessing can rest on it. It robs church members of the joy that is experienced when undergoing baptism consciously as the divine response to their faith."

As mentioned above, these arguments are old, but they are used with new vigour in order to challenge the believers' right and privilege to baptize their children.

Is our Confession in Harmony with Scripture?←⤒🔗

At first blush these arguments against infant baptism seem irrefutable. The case is air­tight it seems: baptism is only for believers. It seals and strengthens their faith. Why then do we baptize little children who are not yet capable of faith? Is this practice according to Scripture?

We should realize that it is especially the churches of the Reformation which confess with emphasis that the sacrament aims at the strengthening of faith. Nowhere is the sacrament separated from faith. On the contrary, sacrament and faith are very closely related to each other. This was no less so with infant baptism; also here our fathers sought to maintain a close connection between sacrament and faith. But how? To understand this we must look again at answer 74 of our Catechism, which says that children of believers are with their parents included in God's covenant and congregation.

God's Covenant←⤒🔗

To get the right view on this subject we have to go to the Old Testament. God has established a covenant with Abraham and his seed. In Genesis 17:7 He says, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant." God will maintain this covenant throughout the generations of Isaac and Jacob and his sons. Following the exodus from Egypt Israel becomes God's special nation and people with whom God confirms this covenant. In this covenant God promises His people a full salvation. It culminates in the gift of God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. As King of Israel He will save His people from their sins, sanctify them by His Spirit and lead them to eternal glory. They are called to entrust themselves to God and His Christ, submitting to Him and letting themselves be saved by Him. Alas, Israel has broken the covenant. They have rejected and crucified the Christ of God. Yet God has not rejected Israel. Read Romans 11. Israel remains the people of God and Christ remains King of Israel. By the power of His abounding grace God takes care that a part of Israel be­lieves in the Lord Jesus and acknowledges Him as Israel's King. These believers are like branches in the noble olive tree, Christ. Thus in the Saviour and the believing Jews the true Israel stands before us. The unbelieving Jews are compared to branches that were cut off. They severed themselves from the olive tree, which is the true Israel.

It is extremely important that we under­stand that God's covenant is basically a covenant with Israel. It was that and it remains that. The Old Covenant may have become a New Covenant by the coming of Christ, but it remains a covenant with Israel. That people has received the great gift of the covenant, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is King of that people and not of the people of the Netherlands or any other nation. We are by nature heathens. As such we are excluded. We are branches, not of the good olive tree, but of the wild olive tree (Romans 11:24).

Thus Israel is highly privileged that God has established His covenant with them and wants to give His salvation to them. That is why the Jews have always been hated. The election of God evokes the enmity of all non-Jews against His favoured people. How sad that so many Jews reject their Lord and King! They are for the most part cutoff branches. But there is a promise that before Christ returns many of these branches will be grafted into the good olive tree again! (cf. Romans 11:24).

What About Us Who Are Heathens By Nature?←⤒🔗

Seen in this light we Dutchmen, Englishmen, Americans or Canadians are outside of this covenant. We all have a pagan background. That fact alone should help to rid us of pride which so easily besets us.

But here is the miracle of the New Testament: also for us the way has been opened to be included in Israel. We, pagans by nature, can be grafted into the good olive tree. That way is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Already in the Old Testament we have prophetic state­ments to this effect, for instance Psalm 87, where the Lord says, "I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there … The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there." Or, as the rhymed version puts it:

God will Himself confirm them with His blessing,
And on the roll of nations He will count
All these as born on Zion's holy mount,
In many tongues one God, one faith confessing.

This theme recurs in Romans 11 where in verse 17 we read with reference to believers from the Gentiles, "and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (the Jews), and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

This is the miracle of which the New Testament speaks again and again, that those who believe in Christ are incorporated into Israel and receive a place among the people of God.

Thereby they come under the blessed rule of the Lord Jesus Christ and may call Him their King. There is no room for pride here. We pagans by nature, may be part of God's ancient covenant people. That is grace. "Therefore," writes Paul to the Ephesian Christians who had a pagan background,

Remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ … Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. Ephesians 2:11-13, 19

All this has great significance for understanding the validity and meaning of infant baptism.

Circumcision and Baptism Have the Same Meaning←⤒🔗

Under the Old Covenant the sign of belonging to the people of God was circumcision. It was a meaningful sign, for it pictured the cleansing of sins which God had promised to give to His people through the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, circumcision sealed and confirmed this promise. For that reason circumcision was called "the covenant in your flesh" (Gen. 17:13). Circumcision was the ordinance by which God granted His promise and covenant or testament to Israel. This prom­ise could be received in no other way than by faith. Also in the Old Testament the law of the kingdom of God is: believe in the (coming) Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

To believe is to bow before and entrust oneself to the Lord, the King of Israel. This is God's summons to every Israelite. No one may remain disobedient to Israel's lawful King. He who refuses to submit to the Lord through unbelief is a rebel and will be cast out even though he is a child of the kingdom (Matt. 8:12). Branches in the Vine that remain unfruitful are cut off and thrown into the fire (Jn. 15:1-8).

In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12 tells us that the New Testament believers were circumcised when they were baptized, that is to say, baptism conveyed to them the same blessings believers and their children received from circumcision in the old dispensation.

Baptism is the sacrament of the New Covenant. Circumcision pointed forward to the shedding of blood which would someday take place at Calvary. The sprinkling with water at baptism points back to that blood shedding. Whereas circumcision was restricted to males, baptism is administered to both sexes (e.g. Lydia, Acts 16:15).

Yet the essential meaning of baptism remains the same as that of circumcision. It is the sign of belonging to a people with whom God has made His covenant. Both sacraments depict the cleansing of sin which God offers to sinners, and both confirm the promise of forgiveness to everyone who believes.

Picture this scene: here is a Gentile coming out of the darkness of paganism into the light of the Gospel. He kneels down before the Lord and asks if he may share in the salvation of His people. This is in effect what the Syro‑Phoenician woman did. "Lord, help me," she cried. We all know the Lord's answer: "It is not meet (or right) to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs." But when she insisted and persevered, this "dog" did receive some crumbs of that bread (Matt. 15:25-27). This was a foreshadowing of what was to happen soon.

Since Pentecost the Gentiles receive not just some crumbs of the bread belonging to Israel's children, but they are adopted into the family of God! As foretold in Psalm 87:6, the Lord Himself enters their names into the record book of the New Jerusalem and gives them the right to bear the name of Zion's children. This is a special privilege, almost too wonderful to believe for all who realize how unworthy they are of the least of God's mercies. The Lord knows how to deal with the weakness of our faith. To the solemn declarations of the Gospel He adds the sacrament of baptism, whereby He assures us that He reckons us among His people.

Thus baptism becomes the outward sign of belonging to the people of God and of being included in His covenant and congregation. What makes this so indescribably rich is that to that people and congregation God has given the Lord Jesus as a Prophet, Priest and King. In Him covenant children possess a complete salvation and they will surely be saved unless they refuse to humbly and sincerely entrust themselves to the care of the Lord.

Sad to say, this does happen in the Church of God. Besides loyal subjects there are also revolutionaries who reject their lawful King. They will not be saved; on the contrary, such children of the kingdom will be cast out. We cannot and may not say that everyone who is baptized will be saved, but we may say and must say that all who are baptized receive a place in the Church of God and come under the official care and supervision of the Saviour.

We see then, that baptism is a sign of the incorporation into the people of God. As our Confession states in Article 34:

Jesus Christ … having abolished circum­cision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are re­ceived into the Church of God and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to Him, whose ensign and banner we bear, and which serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father.

Would that all baptized church members would "acknowledge this Fatherly goodness and mercy of God and live in all righteousness under our only Teacher, King and High Priest, Jesus Christ!" (Baptismal Form).

Sad to say, there are many among Zion's children who do not do this. They are the unconverted children of the kingdom, the eldest sons of the parable of Luke 15. But this does not take anything away from the meaning of baptism. The testimony of this sacrament remains the same and for all who learn to honour the Lord in sincerity and truth, baptism will always be a rich source of strength and consolation.

What About the Children of Believers?←⤒🔗

In light of the above considerations, how should we view the baptism of infants? What is the basic question at issue here? When a father and mother are drawn out of the world, come to faith in Christ and are taken into the fellowship of the Church, what happens to their children? That is the crucial question. It is only in this context that we can rightly discuss infant baptism. We need to answer the question: should the chil­dren of believers stay behind in the world or should they also be assigned a place in the Church of the Lord? Are there only adults in the Church of God and are children excluded? These are important questions, don't you think? Becoming a Christian is like moving from one place to another. When parents come to faith they move out of the world of paganism and darkness into the City of Light. But what about their little ones? Should they be left behind in the world?

Throughout the ages the Church has emphatically said: parents, when you believe in Christ and come to us and desire to live with us under His wings, you may bring your children with you. They don't have to stay behind in the world. Like you, they are incorporated into the congregation of the Lord and come with you under His gracious dominion. Why then would we keep the sacrament of baptism from our children? Do they not rightfully belong to the Lord, just as we, their parents, do? Those who reject infant baptism attack the basic structure of the congregation of the Lord!

Is all this in accordance with what Scripture teaches? We firmly believe it is. The Bible nowhere views parents as individual and distinct persons, but always as parents in whom their children are included. There is an inseparable oneness between parents and children in Scripture. If the parents are branches in the Vine, their children are seen as offshoots (tiny plants: cf. Psalm 128:3). True, many people today no longer experience this union as in Bible times, but we trust that among Christians this closeness between parents and children is still very real. Are our children not our very own flesh and blood? And do we not experience the loss of a child as the tearing away of a part of our own life?

It should not surprise us therefore, that the Lord always deals with families. Certainly, He is concerned with individuals too, but not in isolation. Israel is the people of the Lord, not a collection of individuals who stand like bowling pins next to each other. It is a people organically grown out of families with children. Thus we read that in the Old Testament not only adults, but children as well, were circumcised (Gen. 17). The New Testament tells us that entire households were baptized. When Zacchaeus is converted, Jesus says, "this day is salvation come to this house" (Lk. 19:9). When Lydia comes to faith she is baptized along with her house (Acts 16:15). Paul also baptized the household of Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16).

We don't need to be surprised at this. God deals with believers and their children. Parents don't leave their flesh and blood in the world when they come to Christ and enter His Church and Covenant. Therefore, children of believers may and must be baptized. This becomes very clear from 1 Corinthians 7:14, where Paul says that "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Paul did not need to teach the Corinthians that the children of a believing husband or wife were holy; they knew that very well. But that an unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by his or her spouse was not so clear to them, apparently. Also here we see that when the Lord brings one of the marriage partners to faith, He lays His hand upon the entire household, on the unbelieving man or woman and on the chil­dren. Of course, the unbelieving adult cannot be baptized if he withdraws himself from the congregation of the Lord in unbelief, but infants cannot do this (yet). They are included with the believing father or mother in the congregation and therefore ought to be baptized.

The New Testament is richer than the Old Testament. The sacrament does not point forward to a Saviour who is still to come, but it points back to Him Who has come and Who has shed His blood to cleanse us from our sins. The sacrament is no longer restricted to male members of the congregation, but reaches out to all the members of Christ's Church, whether male or female or children. If under the Old Testament covenant children were admitted to the sacrament of circumcision, would children of the New Covenant be excluded from its counterpart, baptism? We believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that the young children of believers ought to be baptized, for Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for the adult persons (Confession of Faith, Art. 34).

By baptizing our little ones we honour the goodness of God. Again, picture this scene: here are Gentile parents coming out of the world to the Lord and they ask, Lord may we belong to Thee and Thy people? The answer is: yes! The Lord then confirms this divine yes by baptism, but the parents ask for more. They ask if they may also bring their children with them.

They cannot be happy until their little ones also receive a place among the people of God. Again the answer is, yes! To strengthen their faith in this promise of God, their children also receive the sign and seal of His gracious covenant. What tremendous comfort this gives the parents! What a privilege this means for the children!

Background to the Attack on Infant Baptism←⤒🔗

It should be clear by now that the conflict over infant baptism is a serious matter. We cannot isolate infant baptism and reject it while leaving the rest of Scripture untouched. Infant baptism forms an integral part of the totality of Scripture. Those who reject this doctrine will usually hold to erroneous views on other truths of God's Word as well. I will mention just a few.

The principal error here is that the unity of the Old and New Testaments is broken. We confess that we have one Bible. The Old and New Testament may be distinguished from each other but not separated. They constitute parts of the one testament of God. There is only one covenant in which we see the unfolding acts of God. He goes from the old to the new and from the lesser to the greater, but the essence of His saving dealings with man remains the same. Salvation and the way in which we become partakers of it does not change.

The Old Testament saints were saved the same way we are. Therefore we do not believe, as the opponents of infant baptism do, that in the New Testament God deals with His people in a different way. For us the line of God's covenantal dealings runs right through both Testaments. Baptism has replaced circumcision.

To say, "the New Testament nowhere mentions a command to baptize infants," does not impress us. If the Lord had wanted to exclude children from His covenant of grace and the fellowship of His church, one would expect to find a clear prohibition in the New Testament to baptize children of believers. Since such a prohibition is lacking, we also lack the courage to discontinue the Old Testament practice of including children.

For the opponents of infant baptism the Old Testament is fundamentally different from the New. They reject the idea of a basic continuity between the two and believe instead that with the New Testament God makes a new start. That's why they look for a command to baptize infants. Since the New Testament does not mention such a command, they conclude it is forbidden.

This splitting up of the Bible into two separate parts is a serious error which must lead to harmful consequences. One's entire spiritual life will be influenced by it and take on a character that can no longer be called Biblical. Let us recognize this error for what it is and continue to confess as well as experience the unbroken unity of Scripture as the divinely intended progression from the Old to the New.

But there is more. The opponents of infant baptism tend to be individualistic in their thinking. They do not see that God has a people on earth, a people built from families and ruled by a King! They think in terms of individuals who live more or less isolated from others, severed from their natural relations and connections. Their "church-life," such as it is – actually one cannot really speak of church-life here – is organized along very different lines. The congregation is viewed differently, and so are the offices in the church. Everything is seen from an individualistic rather than a covenantal perspective. Scripture teaches us that God deals with us as a people which includes children and that He works with His grace and Spirit in the line of continuing generations.

Contributing Factors to Opposition to Infant Baptism←⤒🔗

While it is true that those who reject infant baptism do so for theological reasons, there are also other factors which contribute to this rejection. I am thinking here of the unscrip­tural views many people in Reformed churches have of this doctrine and the low value they attach to it. In all too many cases the baptism of infants has become a meaningless ceremony. In our first instalment mention was made of the connection between the sacrament of baptism and faith. We may never sever that connection, whether it concerns the baptism of adults or of children. If infant baptism is not supported by truly believing parents who fear the Lord, this sacrament must devaluate. We know of situa­tions where parents come to church to have their child baptized only to disappear again after the service! This can only confirm critics in their rejection of infant baptism.

The Church, therefore, must see to it that the observance of this sacrament be kept pure and that what is sacred be not profaned. There are church members who would not think of celebrating the Lord's Supper but who in an almost casual manner approach the baptismal font with their children. Is only the Lord's Supper instituted for believers and the sacrament of baptism for children of unbelievers? That sacrament too, is administered properly only where believers ask: "Lord, be pleased to be a God unto me and to my children!"

This is what the churches of the Reformation have always maintained, even though they have not always practised what they preached in this respect.

It is significant that the heading of the original form for infant baptism reads: "Form for the Administration of Baptism to the Little Children of Believers." The parents who request this sacrament for their children are asked the baptismal questions and confess their faith before the sacrament is administered. When the parents fall into sin and become objects of church discipline they are denied access, not only to the Lord's table, but also to the baptismal font. This shows there is an inseparable connection between baptism and faith. The church cannot neglect this connection with impunity. If it does, one need not be surprised that the church has no defence against the attacks made on infant baptism. True, the assault is usually aimed at a caricature of infant baptism, rather than on this sacrament itself. But to the extent that the church itself has contributed to the creation of this caricature, it needs to ask itself where it has gone wrong. We have to admit that there is among us a tendency to separate the sacrament of infant baptism from the faith of the parents. While much has been written on the baptism of children, not enough attention has been paid to the parents' motives for requesting this sacrament for their children.

Parents and the Baptism of their Children←⤒🔗

In his Institutes, IV, 16, John Calvin writes this about the meaning of baptism:

It remains for us, to indicate briefly what sort of benefit comes from this observance, both to the believers who present their children to be baptized, and to the infants themselves who are baptized with the sacred water – lest anyone despise it as useless and unprofitable … For this holy institution of (God) by which we feel our faith singularly comforted, does not deserve to be called superfluous. For 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 also to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descend­ants even to the thousandth generation (Ex.20:6). God's boundless generosity, in showing itself there, first gives men ample occasion to proclaim his glory, then floods godly hearts with uncommon happiness, which quickens men to a deeper love of their kind Father, as they see his concern on their behalf for their posterity. If anyone should object that the promise ought to be enough to confirm the salvation of our children, I disregard this argument. For God views this otherwise; as he perceives our weakness, so he has willed to deal tenderly with us in this matter. Accordingly, let those who embrace the promise that God's mercy is to be extended to their children deem it their duty to offer them to the church to be sealed by the symbol of mercy, and thereby to arouse themselves to a surer confidence, because they see with their very eyes the cov­enant of the Lord engraved upon the bodies of their children.

These sentences deserve to be read ten times and to be memorized. This is truly the Scriptural way of speaking about infant baptism! Here we see parents standing with their little ones before the face of the Lord as they desire the sacrament of baptism for their seed. Their request is granted, in order that this sacrament may help them believe that God's mercy extends also to their child.

Who still dares to say that there is no connection between sacrament and faith and that therefore the baptism of infants is meaningless? Parents, you and your children live in a sinful world, full of spiritual dangers. But thanks be to God, we and our children belong to a fellowship of which the Lord Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King. We may live under His gracious care and we may hide under His wings together with our children.

Children and their Baptism←⤒🔗

Baptism is also meaningful for the children themselves. As Calvin continues:

On the other hand, the children receive some benefit from their baptism: being engrafted into the body of the church, they are somewhat more commended to the other members. Then, when they have grown up, they are greatly spurred to an earnest zeal for worshipping God, by whom they were received as children through a solemn symbol of adoption before they were old enough to recognize him as Father.

Calvin does not mean that all baptized children are regenerated. He knows better. In our Baptismal Form we have a similar statement, namely that "God the Father witnesses and seals to us that he makes an eternal covenant of grace with us and adopts us for his children and heirs." Here the reference is to our being adopted into the fellowship of the people of God so as to be placed under the official care of the Lord Jesus Christ. All baptized children share this privilege; they are members of the household of God.

While this dispensation lasts, God's household comprises two kinds of sons: those who have the heart of a child and those who lack such a heart. To be a child of God by virtue of membership in the covenant of grace is not the same thing as being a child of God by virtue of the new birth. We generally limit the expression "child of God" to those who are truly born again and converted. The Bible does not do this, however. Scripture also speaks of lost or prodigal sons.

This does not take anything away from the fact that baptism is of great significance for our children. They have been taken up into the fellowship of the people of God. They have received a Saviour in whom they possess (in the promise) everything they need for salvation. They have been marked with the sign of God's mercy. Should we then think lightly of this? It is our calling to help our children understand these things. They must know what it means to belong to the people whose God is the Lord! They must see what prospects this implies for them, but also what responsibilities flow from their privileged position. Again, the baptism of our children does not presuppose their regeneration; rather it calls for the new birth. Without a new heart they will remain prodigal sons and daughters.

This they need to understand clearly. They will become aware of the tendency to turn their backs on the Lord and serve the world. There will be times when they wish they had been born in the world instead of the church. We should not react to this with shock and surprise. Rather, we should be honest with our children and tell them that we all are like that by nature and that we all need the grace of God to make us willing to surrender to the Lord and to seek our salvation in Him.

We should also tell them that in the sacrament of baptism the grace of regeneration and faith is promised to them. The Spirit is willing to apply everything they have in Christ to their hearts and lives. Let us teach our chil­dren to plead these firm and unshakable promises. Those who by faith cling to these promises may be sure that they will be fulfilled. As certainly as those who despise the Lord will be cast out, so certain it is that those who learn to honour and serve Him will be saved.

We have seen how important a right understanding of infant baptism is. If we go wrong here there is no telling where we will end up. But if we get a firm grasp of what Scripture teaches on this subject we penetrate to the heart of the Gospel. Then we are built up in the most holy faith and we will know what it means to belong to the church and people of God!