I know that Cornelius Burgess, a 17th century Westminster Divine, used Calvin to support his particular baptismal theology in Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants. Burgess actually served on the committee that drafed the WCF articles on baptism. Burgess taught that water baptism is the principal means of "initial" or "seminal" regeneration, which he defined as the beginnings, or root, or seeds of new life sovereignly imparted to elect infants. Throughout his work, he continually quotes both Calvin and the Fathers as embracing a very similar sacramentology. I've read a few scholars who embrace Burgess' understanding of Calvin. According to these scholars, Calvin believed that baptism was the ordinary sacramental means of initial renovation or regeneration, this means restricted in scope to elect infants alone. This initial regeneration is actualized and manifested in the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the gospel, in effectual calling, at a later point in life. Burgess states that Calvin's view differs from Luther in that Luther universally applies a spiritually regenerative baptismal efficacy to all baptized infants (elect and reprobate), Calvin limiting it to elect infants alone. Another important thing to remember is that the word "regeneration" is almost never used univocally in 16th century Reformed dogmatics. "Regeneration" was used as a much broader and more fluid category. It referred to the ongoing process of mortification and vivification throughout the entirety of the Christian's life. These are just some things I've come across in my reading. I'm hardpressed to find a satisfying answer to the intricacies of Calvin's baptismal theology. When engaged in polemics against Anabaptist types, he sounds surprisingly Lutheran. Yet many times, when engaging Papist's, Calvin seems a bit more reserved. Tough question indeed!

__________________
Jordan Harris
Dickson City, PA
Faith Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP)
My Blog