![](space.gif)
|
Is
the baptism of infants legitimate? Is it founded on the Bible? Ought
one to-continue to baptize infants, and, if so, which infants? These
are questions of doctrine and of discipline which occupy the theological
attention of the Church today, and they confront us with a problem
of the utmost importance. F. Lovsky has depicted the scene of the
“antipedobaptist unrest since the Reformation,”1 and
Pastor Conord, Secretary General of the Reformed Church of France,
has given us a brief survey of the chronology of the events of the
last twenty years.2 Those who oppose infant baptism have
published studies which have made and still are making a considerable
stir. In the presence of attitudes which are becoming more and more
decisive, and of “the unrest which today manifests itself in some
quarters concerning the significance of baptism,”3 it
was indispensable that the problem should be studied by the Church
herself. In I946, at the mandate of the National Synod of Lyons,
the National Council of the Reformed Church constituted a Commission
on Baptism charged with the study of the questions involved.
A large number of believers are interesting themselves
in the question, quite independently of their Church leaders and
counsellors, and rightly so since the affairs of the Church are
their proper affairs. It is self-evident that a question of this
importance cannot be studied by believers as it were with a blank
mind, in view of the fact that each has been placed before a Bible
of a thousand pages. It is a fundamental principle of Reformed theology
that the teachers of the Church ought to think together with the
people, and the people together with the teachers. Who is it that
understands and preaches the Word, if not the people of God, whose
different functions and specialized offices constitute none the
less but one body? The literature of those who oppose infant baptism
has been enriched during these last ten years by important contributions
which are easily accessible to all. One may suppose that their authors
are satisfied with these works and that they consider that by them
the people of the Church have been sufficiently informed of the
motives of their convictions.
We declare with regret that the same is not the
case with the advocates of infant baptism. “It seems clear that
the vast majority of the members of our parishes are attached to
the administration of baptism to newly born infants,” affirms the
Commission.4 But this does not constitute a proof of
the legitimacy of this baptism! The fact is that the theologians
who favour infant baptism have not placed at the disposal of the
Church pamphlets or books which permit her to interpret this study
seriously, with all the respect owed to the Word of God. The only
exceptions are the remarkable exegetical work of Professor O. Cullmann5
and the dogmatic response of the Synod of the Reformed Church of
the Netherlands which resulted from the consultation with foreign
Reformed Churches initiated by the National Synod of Lyons, 1946.
These works examine effectively a collection of publications which
are extremely brief or are devoted to only one aspect of the question,
and of which none, to our knowledge, makes a true appeal to the
Reformed position or to the arguments which have been and which
remain proper to it. The Reformed Church of France cannot solve
the question of baptism in isolation. Her theological reflection
ought to be conducted in solidarity with her sister Churches and,
together with them, in the fellowship of thought and of faith.
The present study is not addressed merely to
theologians, but also to the people in the pews. We shall, therefore,
avoid all superfluous theological erudition and also an unduly specialized
vocabulary, in order to make it readily accessible to the greatest
number. Where the sacraments are concerned it is the instruction
given to the people which counts most of all. Apart from a certain
apparent complexity which might confront those who are not accustomed
to studying a theological subject under its principal aspects, we
are convinced that every believer of the average spiritual level
will be able to read this study and to understand its various parts.
It is not beyond their ability. God does not reveal anything of
essential importance in Scripture which is beyond the capacity of
him to whom He has granted the gift of faith and who makes the effort
necessary for obeying the commandment which he has been given, to
love God “with all his mind.”
DIFFICULTY AND COMPLEXITY
OF THE SUBJECT
Certain doctrines are very clearly revealed to
us in the Scriptures. No one, however, will disagree that Holy Scripture
does not contain a systematized doctrine of the sacraments.
It speaks, without doubt, of circumcision and the passover, of baptism
and the Lord’s supper, but in it we never find a general theory
of the sacraments of the Old and New Testaments; no synthetic
conception of the different sacramental institutions is presented
to us. The question of the sacraments is most frequently approached
only in conjunction with some other subject which introduces it
and which imposes on the author a certain orientation of thought
(cf. Rom. vi; i Cor. xii. 17-34). The majority of texts do not speak
of one sacrament taken by itself, but only of one of its
aspects. The texts of Scripture, brief, full of force and weight,
are in general partial and only afford tests or definitions that
are partial. It seems that in Scripture the sacrament matters more
than the concept, or that the concept is expressed or ought to be
sought elsewhere in the statement of another fundamental doctrine
upon which the sacraments are founded. Without doubt, also, the
Hebrew mentality moved with greater ease than our own amongst these
questions. The absence of biblical texts, which embrace at a single
glance and clearly explain to us the sense, the scope, and the methods
of the sacraments, opens the way for a theological work which ought
to be conducted in accordance with the methods proper to dogmatics
and to the harmonious application of the principle of the Soli
Deo Gloria.
This declaration ought, from the very beginning,
to incite to modesty and humility those who have been called to
treat of this question. It will be possible for certain, differences
to exist between those who agree in recognizing in Holy Scripture
the inspired source and standard of all faith, and who confess that
nothing must be added to it, nor anything removed from it. Such
differences ought to be examined in love: here exclusivism, condemnation
without appeal, sectarianism, are banned.6 Some difficulties
result from our sources of information, but others arise through
our own fault, from our own nature, while others again are connected
with the extreme complexity of the subject.
A priori considerations often play a large
part in any development affecting the sacraments. They do not belong
to the virgin spirits, the fresh hearts, .who inquire into this
problem, but to men who have a mentality which is largely indebted
to a priori philosophical notions and who instinctively mark what
they touch with the stamp of this mentality. It is because of a
priori ideas, associated in the first place with human philosophies,
that the same texts cited on one side and on the other are interpreted
in a different sense and according to the viewpoint from which they
are being considered. These a priori notions explain the
differences of interpretation, the wilful rejection of one text,
and even the “inadvertent oversight” of others, however essential
they may be. The recent debate opened in the bosom of the Reformed
Churches confirms once again this remark. These a priori
considerations provide the explanation why, in the course of history,
this debate is always resumed on the same terms, without any notable
progress being recorded; each one stands by the positions which,
through their continuance, have become the historic positions.
The problems remain enclosed within the same limits.
Much integrity and clarity of thought are required
if the sacraments are to be treated objectively. It is a simple
question of scientific honesty to indicate one’s philosophical presuppositions,
to avow them plainly, after having made a Critical examination of
the “immediate” data of one’s method of working. When an individualist
exegete has explicitly avowed that he is individualist, he will
have done much to elucidate and simplify the debate. It will be
easier to make the distinction between that which comes from man
(the commentary on the texts) and that which can truly be imputed
to Scripture (the truly scriptural sense to which it behoves us
to strive to attain).
It is incontestable, and a point of capital importance,
that the question of the sacraments cannot, in theology, be treated
in isolation, as certain writers seem to wish.7 The task
of exegetes is, indeed, to attempt to circumscribe the problems
and, in accordance with the plan of the exegesis, to define in the
best manner possible the sense and the scope of such or such a sacrament.
But the exegetes themselves find it impossible to remain on the
exact terrain of the exegesis of texts. In studying the sacrament
of baptism, as baptism or as sacrament, they voluntarily
commit themselves to constructions which exceed to a considerable
extent the strict sense of the texts under consideration. Discerning
that the question of sacraments is a point of convergence of numerous
doctrines, they have recourse to innumerable interconnected notions
which it is important to have disentangled from elsewhere, and to
associations of ideas—often quite legitimate—and they construct
systems of doctrine.
Whether they wish it or not, numerous exegetes
transform themselves into New Testament dogmaticians. To integrate,
without further reference, the fruit of their studies in a dogmatic
debate on baptism is to throw it into confusion. Dogmatics cannot
be either New or Old Testament dogmatics: it must be biblical
dogmatics, that is to say, it must take into account the whole of
revelation. We are in agreement with O. Cullmann when he says that
“all discussions about Baptism should begin with this question,
viz, with the theological definition of the essence and meaning
of Baptism”8; and again: “The question must be put from
another standpoint than that of evidence. The position is that it
can be decided only on the ground of New Testament doctrine:
Is infant Baptism compatible with the New Testament conception of
the essence and meaning of Baptism?”9
Karl Barth, in his pamphlet,10 does
not quote a single text of the Old Testament, with the exception
of Isaiah lv. 10 f., which, however, has reference to the efficacy
of the Word of God. This is undoubtedly a fact unique in a study
of baptism, producing a collection of serious consequences and an
impressive number of categorical judgments. On this particular question,
on the sacraments or every other question which has anything to
do with baptism, the Old Testament counts for nothing, it does not
even exist ! On this question there is an absolute cleavage between
the Old and the New Testaments, nay, even a drastic opposition—
as witness Barth’s judgment regarding circumcision and the cancellation
of the principle “from generation to generation” in the covenant
of grace: we shall return to this point. On this question the Bible
is cut into two. Karl Barth wishes to base the study of baptism
on the New Testament point of view alone.11 We might
contest the limited choice of New Testament texts which he
makes and the perspective in which he interprets them.12
But we put the question: Is such a method of “dogmatic reflection”
valid? Where does it find its justification? Is it there in regular
dogmatics? Or perhaps, has not Barth, in contrast to his regular
dogmatics, voluntarily given us in his pamphlet an example of irregular
dogmatics, in order to disturb the Church and oblige her to rethink
critically her dogmatics?13
The dogmatician as well will seek to elaborate
a general conception of the sacraments to assist in the assembling
of the indications which he finds in Scripture. The work of the
exegetes will occupy his attention. But, in taking notice of the
meagre sources which are strictly sacramental that Scripture places
at his disposal, the dogmatician will inquire whether it is not
the case that Scripture is so discreet regarding sacraments taken
in themselves for the reason that they have not in reality the importance
which one has formerly wished to accord to them, or quite simply
for the reason that they have reference to other ideas and to other
spiritual realities expressly revealed, of which, under another
form, they are only the secondary expression. We shall endeavour
to show that such is in fact the case with sacraments: they have
reference to preaching, to Jesus Christ, to the covenant of grace,
regarding which we have abundant instruction.
The celebrated dogmatician H. Bavinck has well
remarked14 that the doctrine of the sacraments has always
been the shibboleth, the touchstone, of every dogmatic system. It
is there that the principles from which one sets off in the Church
and theology, in questions of faith and of life, find their practical
and concrete issue. The doctrines of the affinities of God and the
world, of creation and regeneration, of Christ’s divine and human
natures, of the modes of action of the Holy Spirit, of sin and of
grace, of spirit and of matter, are all more or less present and
implicit in the doctrine of the sacraments. The diverse roads of
theology converge, whether one wishes it or not, sooner or later,
consciously or unconsciously, in the highway of the sacraments.
It is necessary to take this into account.
It is an illusion to wish to treat of this or
that sacrament in abstracto or taken by itself. Every divergence
of view in the manner of conceiving the sacraments finds its origin
in other doctrines envisaged in a different manner. Going to the
root of the matter, when parties confront each other they have the
impression that they do not understand each other, and that too
in the interpretation of what at first sight are the most simple
of texts, because, at root, they do not understand each other any
more in connection with many other antecedent questions. Failing
a return to the true sources, the sound of the discussion rises
and quickly takes a most disagreeable tarn: recent publications
and articles afford proof of this.
A further requirement for an intelligible treatment
of the sacraments is therefore the possession of a general view
of theology, a perspective and panoramic view of the whole content
of revelation, lacking which one will condemn oneself to the inability
of ever dealing with more than a portion of the question and to
a relapse into internal contradictions which cannot be resolved.
On the one hand, whatever affirmation one makes respecting baptism
must not come into conflict with the plainest themes of Scripture;
on the other hand, it is not only a duty, but a scientific necessity,
to make common cause with those truths which are clearly revealed
and which have such close connections with the sacraments. To take
this into account will permit the resolution of questions which
otherwise would, remain dependent on man’s subjective opinion. The
dogmatics of baptism must be a “regular” dogmatics. Advocates or
opponents of infant baptism have too frequently, for want of general
perspectives, done disservice to the cause which they have claimed
to defend. The idea which one can obtain of the palm of the hand
depends also on the knowledge which one has of the wrist and the
arxn which bear it, and of the five fingers which it holds together
and whose movements it co-ordinates. To speak of the palm by itself
would be to speak very inadequately of it. A study of baptism which
is too specialized will always be a bad study.
METHOD
It is beyond dispute that a great many theologians
and Protestant pastors have maintained and practised, and do maintain
and practise, the baptism of infants without preserving (for the
reason that they have renounced or forgotten it—a fact more
frequent than one might think) the theology which was and which
remains at the foundation of the justification and of the possibility
of the baptism of certain infants, namely, those of believers.
That does not necessarily mean that they no longer had or have any
reason for baptizing infants. Those who keep in close contact with
Holy Scripture taken in its totality often have powerful internal
motives which are founded on the knowledge and the experience of
the Word, but, failing a theological explanation, these motives
take a subjective and sentimental turn which those who oppose infant
baptism violently take to task—and justly so! Many are those who
feel and know that those who oppose infant baptism are wrong but
find themselves unable to prove theologically why or how they are
wrong.15
At this present moment the cause of pedobaptism
is theologically lost, and its advocates, deprived of theological
arguments, attempt to find a precarious refuge in facts and notions
which cannot afford the least bit of genuine justification, such
as the testimony of history, the tradition of the ancient Church
or Reformed tradition, inscriptions, mosaics, sculptures, pieces
of money, citations from the fathers, and so on—what have they not
tried to seize upon!
O the inconsistency of Protestants who wish to
found baptism upon tradition or upon “the authority” of the Reformers!16
As though for us who are Reformed tradition could have any value
in itself and did not need, when it exists, to be ceaselessly
at each instant, even today, biblically justified and confronted
with the Word of God as fundamental and formative! The testimony
of tradition can have some value for Reformed Christians, but only
after the biblical foundations have been brought into prominence.
In a question of this importance a tradition merely “ecclesiastical”
or merely “Reformed” establishes and justifies nothing. “It
would be a very poor and miserable refuge,” says Calvin,17
“if, in defending the baptism of little children, we were obliged
to have recourse to the bare and simple authority of the Church;
but it will become plain that this is by no means the case.”
Still less do we need to lean on the traditions
of the second and third centuries, however firmly established they
may be, for it could well be that in that age infants were
baptized for motives other than those to which Reformed theologians
can or ought to give pre-eminence, motives otherwise identical with
those invoked at the same moment for delaying baptism until
the adult stage or until the hour of death. On this point those
who oppose infant baptism ought to revise their method. No more
have they, if they are Protestants, any right to lean on tradition.
And if their conception of baptism is not that which prevailed in
the second and third centuries, the historical proofs which
they claim to adduce concerning the baptism of adults and the theological
reason for these adult baptisms such as were practised are not valid
for them. From the theological point of view this method
is doubly vicious.
Nor is it necessary for us to scrutinize feverishly
the patristic texts in’order there to seek and discover, or to insert,
by means of complicated commentaries, traces of the baptism of infants;
and we ought not to venture on to this terrain because it is completely
unnecessary for us to engage in such researches. It is for this
reason that studies of a certain type, like that of Ph.-H. Menoud,18
when they are understood as though the author had wished
to establish and justify infant baptism historically, justly arouse
opposition which is more lively and, in our opinion, in principle
more pertinent.19
By all means let historical texts, inscriptions,
mosaics, sculptures, coins, and whatever else you will, produce
their testimony! But if we are Reformed, that is to say,
established on the Word of God, this testimony is in no way essential
for us. It is even forbidden for us to make common cause
with them before we have completed our task as men of the
Bible and dogmaticians.
For certain advocates of infant baptism the sky
has seemed suddenly to have become clear! The works of Professor
J. Jeremias confirm the baptism, from the commencement of the Christian
era, and for some exponents even earlier, of proselytes coming over
to Judaism and of their minor children.20 J. J. von Allmen
considers that the importance of this pamphlet is “decisive.”21
Certainly, the conclusions of Jeremias are of the greatest interest
and in certain respects of capital importance. But let us beware
lest we rejoice unduly!—and this for three reasons. Firstly, as
good Reformed Christians it is impossible for us to found infant
baptism on extra-canonical texts, no matter how compelling their
authority may be. In the Christian Reformed Church the baptism
of infants must be established and justified biblically. Secondly,
the fact is that those who oppose infant baptism are in no way disconcerted
by the new facts which have come to their knowledge. Some of them
criticize the date of the texts and move them on to the commencement
of the second century, which leads us back to the problem of the
utilization of tradition22; others contest the sense,
the scope, and the validity of the texts, and, from the methodological
viewpoint, we affirm that they are right.23 Thirdly,
it would, in fact, be catastrophic if theological and dogmatic reflection
were to be brought to an end because it is considered that historical
proof is sufficient. Rather the contrary! Historical proof
should imperiously demand theological and dogmatic
justification and should compel exegetes and dogmaticians to get
to work.
These new facts will not change by a single jot
the arguments or the method of discussion of those who disagree
with us; no more will they afford us a new weapon with which to
oppose them. Unless we are bemused by troublesome illusions or false
hopes, we ought from now on to be persuaded of this.
But if we delay to place the question of infant
baptism in its true biblical and theological setting,
our adversaries will attack us with perfect justification, as they
have begun to do, by accusing us of being able to defend infant
baptism only with a bad conscience24 on grounds
that we ourselves recognize as “far from certain,” by “a method
of argument which is as little worthy of faith as our exegetical
foundations are unsatisfactory,” and without which we could never
pretend to be “certain of our case,” etc. . . .
Let us admit that the vigour and the persistence
of these attacks has succeeded in giving a “bad conscience” to certain
pedobaptists who find themselves temporarily unable to justify
their point of view theologically. So far from reproaching those
who disagree with us because of this, we ought to thank them for
it. To point out the weaknesses of his armour to one who is engaged
in battle is always to render him a great service. It is as though
one were crying to us: “it is high time for you to awake out of
sleep!” (Rom. xiii.ii). Let us hearken to this brotherly call! Would,
then, that the sleepers would rouse themselves, whatever has been
the cause of their languor, and that they would devote time to the
repairing of theology! “If history proves that pedobaptism is not
an invention of precatholicism,” says J. J. von Allmen,25
“but that it was admitted without discussion and without uneasiness
by the canonical age, it follows that then they had a doctrine
of baptism within the context of which pedobaptism was neither discordant
nor ill-fitting, nor a facile and deplorable means of ensuring the
recruitment of the Church, nor a distortion of the new covenant
between God and His people.”
In all good Christian conscience, in all good
theological conscience (this conscience also has its value!),
we believe that this doctrine existed and exists, that
it is biblical, Christian, and Reformed. We shall endeavour
to delineate it, for we are not unmindful of sound doctrine, and
to show to all who are willing to study our arguments really seriously
that we do not belong to the class of people who find themselves
under the obligation of “snatching at rags of texts in order to
make weapons of them.”26
The method of the present exposition is therefore
dogmatic. It leans upon the works of Reformed exegesis and
effects a synthesis in accordance with the standards which characterize
its discipline. That is to say, it is not bound either in order
or in methods to the critical exegesis. The last word of an exegetical
study on baptism, namely, that it is a seal of grace, can
legitimately become one of the first words of a dogmatic study.27
We regard Holy Scripture as a whole. We study
it in accordance with the classical principle of the analogy of
faith. We believe that if the Word of God is self-consistent it
will show that the Soli Deo Gloria is also the spirit that
inspires the whole doctrine of the sacraments. From the philosophical
viewpoint we are neither individualists nor subjectivists, and this
for no a priori reason, but because we have not succeeded
in discovering in Scripture the least trace of the modem individualist
and subjectivist ideas. On the contrary, Scripture compels
us to be most attentive on the one hand to the objectivity of the
Word, of the promises and acts of God, and on the other hand to
the realities of spiritual solidarity—realities which we experience
objectively, realities which proclaim the revealed intentions
of God—which never cease to throw into relief the unity of the family,
of the nation of Israel, of the Church visible or invisible, and
of the intimate communion which unites objectively those whom God
calls, and not only those whom He elects, to the body of Christ.
We shall adduce scriptural proofs of these facts.
But the pressure of philosophy and of individualistic
conceptions upon the mentality of the children of this age is such
that we are not, however, certain that we are free from : all individualism.
Without doubt traces will still be found in the course of this exposition,
one or other part of which could have been presented in a yet more
biblical sense. We should be grateful if clear-sighted spirits would
point them out to us. We have explained above the character of general
simplicity which we desire to give to this exposition.
PLAN
What will be our plan of study?
First.—We shall start off from the biblical
affirmations of the New Testament relative to the sacraments, and
we shall establish their relation to the Word.
Second.—We shall declare that the sacraments
have reference to Jesus Christ Who is their central content.
Third.—Christ being the Executor, the
Mediator, of the promise of redemption by His sacrifice, we shall
turn to the reason for His coming, which is the covenant of grace,
the actualization in history of God’s eternal decree that He should
be the Saviour of sinful man.
Fourth.—We shall declare that the covenant
of grace is unique, as much within the Old Testament as within the
New, and that the sacraments are all the sacraments of the covenant.
Though starting from the New Testament, our study will have become
biblical.
Fifth.—Having traversed (in accordance
with a method of investigation which we believe to be rigorous,
scientific, and conformed to a “normal” dogmatic exposition) the
road: sacraments, Jesus Christ, the Promise, the covenant of grace,
we shall return from this summit and, traversing the inverse route,
we shall study the consequences of the covenant for those to whom
it is in the first place addressed, then in the doctrine of the
Church, then the sense, the scope, the practical application and
the validity of the sacraments, in particular of baptism, and of
the preaching of the promise and its efficacy.
Sixth.—We shall specify what is the doctrine
of baptism as founded upon the covenant of grace, and we shall justify
theologically the baptism of the infants of the covenant.
Seventh.—Finally, we shall reply to some
objections.
Notes
- Notes d’ Histoire pour contribuer
à l'étude du problème baptismal: Foi
et Vie. Jan. 1950, i.
- Christianisme au xxe
siècle, Feb. 23, 1950, p. 69.
- Resolution xxviii of the National Synod
of Lyons, 1946
- Conclusions of the Commission on Baptism,
para. 3.
- Oscar Cullmann: Baptism in the New
Testament (English translation by J. K. S. Reid). S.C.M.
Press, 1950.
- It is obvious that those who treat
the Word of God as they please can in this matter, as in others,
be led to conclusions which ought to be strongly denounced.
This “modesty” of which we speak will not cause us to make light
of fundamental biblical themes.
- Cf. F.-J. Leenhardt, Le Baptême
chrétien, pp. 69-70.
- Op. cit. (English translation
by J. K. S. Reid), p. 24.
- Ibid., p. 26.
- The Teaching of the Church Regarding
Baptism (English translation by Ernest A. Payne), p. 42;
S.C.M. Press, 1948.
- Cf. Op. cit., pp. 43, 44.
- O. Cullmann considers that Karl Barth’s
interpretation “is not true to the New Testament in its essential
conclusions.” Op. cit., p. 27.
- The Conclusions of the French Commission
on Baptism. II, Preamble, also, in this point, reduce “Scripture”
to the New Testament.
- Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, IV,
p. 221.
- 5. Assuming that it is possible to
prove an article of faith. This proof can only be effective
in the case where it is addressed to someone who is disposed
in advance to believe the Word of God and, when it has been
admitted, who finds in its proper truth his internal force of
conviction. The application of such proof leads one right back
to the question of the efficacy of the Word of God and of preaching.
- “Several amongst us invoke the authority
of the Reformers”: Conclusions of the French Commission on Baptism,
II, para. I.
- Instt. IV. viii. 16.
- Le Baptême des enfants dans
l’Eglise anscienne, Verbum Caro, Feb. 1948, pp. 15-26.
- Cf. F. Lovsky, Notes d’histoire
pour contribuer à I’étude du problème baptismal,
Foi et Vie. March 1950. pp. 109-138. But historical conclusions
are of no more service to those who contradict us for establishing
their thesis theologically!
- Joachim Jeremias: Hat die Urkirche
die Kindertaufe geübt? 2nd edn., 1949.
- J. J. von Allmen: L’Eglise primitive
et le baptême des enfants, Verbum Caro, No. 13, pp.
43-47.
- Cf. A. Benoît: Le Problème
du pedobaptisme, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses,
1948-1949, No. 2, p. 135.
- F.-J. Leenhardt, Le Baptême
des enfants et le Nouveau Testament, Foi et Vie. Jan. 1949,
p. 90: “I find no reason at all for thinking that that which
passed for Judaism, in so far as a rite of purification is concerned,
should have a value which is normative, or even only significant,
in so far as Christian baptism is concerned. Besides, there
is not the least justification for deriving this connection
from the realm of pure conjecture.”
- This is the gravest accusation which
could be formulated against Christian brothers, and it is necessary
to pay heed to it! It would be less humiliating if they
treated us simply as imbeciles. Cf. for example, Karl Barth,
op. cit., p.49; P..J. Leenhardt, op. cit., pp.
66.67. We shall have occasion to return to these animadversions.
- Op. cit., p. 47.
- This reproach has been actually formulated
by F.-H. Leenhardt. op. cit., p. 67.
- F. -.J. Leenhardt: Le baptême
chrétien, p. 63. last line.
From The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism:
tr. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes; James Clarke & Co., Exeter, England
(1953).
Return to the Main Highway ![](sgnmrg.gif)
Return to Calvinism and the Reformed Faith
![Go to the Resource Page](morelnks_bapt.gif)
:-) <——
|