귀도 드 브레(Guy de Brès, 1522-1567)의 유아세례론

Abstract

The Belgic Confession supports infant baptism on the basis that Israel’s circumcision was replaced by baptism. The rationale for infant baptism lies in the covenant of God, just as circumcision was. Simultaneously, it confesses that Christ shed his blood for the children of believers as well as for adults, quoting Matthew 19:14 and 1 Corinthians 7:14 in the margin. This, however, is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is merely explaining that the children of believers are distinguished because they are included in the covenant or asserting that the children of believers are regenerated because they have received the atonement. Furthermore, the reference to Leviticus 12:6, stating that a lamb was offered for a newborn child, suggests that the author of the Belgic Confession may have considered the children of believers to be regenerate. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the intent and meaning of the statements in the Belgic Confession cannot be determined without considering the other writings of its author, Guy de Brès. In other words, this research does not aim to highlight Abraham Kuyper’s dangers of assuming regeneration as a basis for infant baptism or to analyze the appropriateness of Herman Bavinck’s concerns and responses to him. I will discuss how the statement in paragraph 34 of the Belgic Confession can be understood by analyzing the doctrine of baptism contained in Le Baston (1559), which de Brès wrote before the Belgic Confession, and La Racine (1565), which he wrote and published after the Confession. De Brès’ other writings reveal that, for him, the only basis for infant baptism was the Word of God. Based on God’s Word, believers’ children are included in God’s covenant and should be baptized indiscriminately. Simultaneously, de Brès considers the children of believers to be the chosen people and includes them in the number of believers. The question of whether de Brès assumes the regeneration of the children of believers is not one that can be answered by binary logic. We do not need to extrapolate de Brès’ thinking to something he was not asked. Rather, when presenting the Belgic Confession as an argument, it is crucial to be able to understand the intent of the author who wrote it.