Turretin Answers Objections Against Infant Baptism (2)

VI. To no purpose is the reply: (1) “Hence it would follow that the Lord’s Supper should also be administered to infants because the thing signified belongs to them.” Although the same thing is signified in both, still there is a difference in the manner of signifying. In the Supper, the grace of Christ is sealed by way of solid food, which infants are not capable of receiving; but in baptism, it is signified by way of the washing of regeneration, which they are (Jn. 3:5). Again, the Supper demands a twofold condition: a preceding in examination; a concomitant in a commemoration of the death of Christ, both of which presuppose the use of reason. Neither is required in baptism; thus formerly the Passover was distinguished from circumcision—that the latter was administered to infants and the former to adults alone. (2) “It is added that infants are not capacious of the grace of regeneration, nor of the other blessings of the covenant which are accustomed to be conferred by the Spirit through the word.” But it is gratuitously supposed that they are not capacious of the blessing of the covenant. For who denies that they are capacious of the remission of sins and of Christ’s redemption, and of the other benefits which depend upon the covenant into which infants are received? Who can doubt that baptism (with respect to these) is able to be a distinctive sign (introducing into the visible church) and a seal both of the divine truth in the federal promises and of our obligation to mutual duty? For if they are not capable of obligation in the present, they can be in the future. As to regeneration, however, why should infants not be capable of regeneration as they are of sin (unless we say that guilt has more power than grace)? And as they are rational (although they do not put forth an act of reason), what hinders them from being called holy and believers by the Holy Spirit given to them, although they cannot as yet exert an act of faith?

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 3 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 19.20.6 (p. 416).

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


2 comments

  1. Question on the last part ” as to regeneration, however, why should infants not be capable of regeneration as they are of sin ( although they do not put forth an active reason), what hinders them from being called holy and believers by the Holy Spirit given to them, although they cannot as yet exert an act of faith?”

    I followed the discussion on regeneration on the previous post so leaving that aside (though this context would seem to mean more then “set-apart” given what it is being contrasted with), is Turretin arguing that the Holy Spirit is imparted to infants at baptism?

    • Samuel,

      I agree that, in this case, Turretin is probably using “regenerate” in the stronger sense.

      He is simply affirming that God is able and free to regenerate infants as he will without affirming that baptized infants are necessarily regenerated.

Comments are closed.