Here and there in some Reformed theologians a conception intrudes that appears to function at the boundary of the orthodox system, so that one may doubt that it may still be called Reformed. There have been those who posit a kind of justification and regeneration at baptism, signified and conveyed to all the children of covenant members, without exception, but then not necessarily connected to salvation, since it can be lost through the fault of the children in growing up. Pareus taught that all children of the congregation are justified and regenerated by the Holy Spirit, to the extent that befits their age, without that, however, infringing upon God’s counsel, which customarily is first disclosed during adult years. Baron and Forbes, English theologians, had a similar view. The latter appealed to Augustine and Prosper. These, too, maintain that all baptized children are justified, and that thus original sin is forgiven them in baptism; nevertheless, with the difference that Augustine assumed a forgiveness that could be withdrawn and for reprobate children is withdrawn infallibly, while Prosper held this grace to be irrevocable. According to the last mentioned, a person who after his baptism apostatizes from Christ and ends his life alienated from grace certainly comes into damnation. He is not damned, however, because of his original sin. Rather, on account of his later sins he is punished with that death to which he was also subjected on account of the sins that are forgiven him.

Davenant, delegate of the English church at the Synod of Dort, taught something similar. According to him, all children baptized into the covenant are not only adopted and justified but also regenerated and sanctified. But he distinguishes this justification, adoption, and regeneration from the benefits of salvation, incapable of being lost, that adults share in at their regeneration. For the children, he says, those gifts are sufficient to place them in a state of salvation. If they die in childhood, then on that basis they go to heaven. But for adults it is not sufficient. When a baptized child grows up, it may not be regarded as a living member of the church on the basis of the grace of baptism alone. Not that it has lost its initial grace, but it has lost its status as a child, and thereby its condition is changed. If no true conversion follows, then a baptized person who dies as an adult is lost.

We can clearly discover in this outlook the endeavor to give a real, tangible content to baptism. But it is, as Witsius observes, a failed endeavor. In undertaking it one envelops himself in greater problems than one is attempting to evade. First of all, in undertaking it one teaches a grace of baptism that does not really comport with the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments. Baptism does not exist to effect regeneration, justification, and sanctification. Here it becomes, in a Lutheran sense, the means ordained by God for begetting new life. Further, that there would be a partial forgiveness of sins and a partial justification is irreconcilable with Reformed principles. It will not do to say that original sin is taken away but the guilt of actual sin remains. Also, it cannot be that the merits of Christ would be applied to someone for regeneration, justification, and sanctification without the one to whom they are applied being included in election. There is no application (though certainly an offer) of the merits of the Mediator except for those who have been given to Him by the Father. Finally, with the subsequent loss of these gifts of grace one comes into the greatest difficulties. Christ has suffered for that forgiven guilt, for on that basis it is forgiven. But now that forgiveness is lost again, and the person in view is punished for it personally. There is then a double retribution, first borne by Christ and then by the person himself.

In conclusion, grace does not permit itself to be meted out quantitatively, as Davenant intends. As far as regeneration, justification, and sanctification are concerned, a child can do with nothing less than an adult. The true spiritual life that is given in regeneration is sufficient for an adult to live for God. It cannot be made insufficient by the development of natural life. One would then have to assume that it was really lost again, and that would be equivalent to teaching an apostasy of the saints. For all these reasons, the view mentioned is not tenable for one who is Reformed.

Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere et al., vol. 5 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016), 171–73.

HB EDITOR’S NOTE

Since 2004 the confessional Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (e.g., the PCA, URCNA, RCUS, OPC, RPCNA, ARP, RPCGA) have either condemned the Federal Vision theology (as the URCNA, RCUS, RPCGA, and RPCNA have done) or received reports rejecting it (as the OPC and PCA have done). That Davenant and Pareus anticipated aspects of this doctrine does not confer orthodoxy upon it. Thanks to HB reader Bridget for pointing me to this passage in Vos.