Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum  The answer to the last is that "regeneration" was used as a term in Calvin's day in a sense that incorporated the idea of new birth and sanctification together. That is, both the genesis of new life and its unfolding. Regarding the context, only the elect are ever given new life. This is Reformed theology 101. It is not necessary to repeat that truth every time such words are stated.
To the first, this is not teaching Romanism. The reason it isn't is because the Reformed taught a genuine sacramental doctrine, and not the sacramentalism of Rome. Rome identified the sign and thing signified; the Reformed distinguished them, sharply. Rome taught that water baptism was a instrument of actual grace transference. Calvin teaches above that the Spirit's baptism is that which removes guilt. But because there is a sacramental union between sign and thing signified, it is proper to speak of "baptism" as a single thought.
This is yet another topic where it might be good to recover the terms "compound" and "divided" senses. But as I said in another thread recently, as when we deal with the apostles' writing on baptism, we of the Reformed side seldom feel compelled to ask this following question which is not especially relevant to our exegetical understanding: "is this "baptism" water or Spirit?" Since it is a sacramental matter, there are ordinarily different senses in which the one thought is being expressed simultaneously.
And, it may as well be said, coming at our view from the baptist perspective--this is bound to sound crypto-roman to you, regardless. But you owe it to yourself to try and understand how our view operates, and how profoundly it differs from Rome's. |
It's obvious to me that he's saying there's nothing about the
water itself that makes the person "clean." But even though he's clearly differentiating himself from Rome in rejecting the Romish idea that the water becomes itself holy and has regenerating properties, it is not so clear to me that Calvin
isn't saying that the Spirit most surely works with the baptism when it is performed. He says that the salvation of infants is included in God's promise to be a God to us and our children (hence my most recent thread). He ties this in with 1 Cor 7, stating that the children are already holy before the baptism, by nature of their covenant inclusion as children of believers, which is why they can die without baptism.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem to me like he's talking about Spirit baptism when he uses the term. He is responding directly to Rome's teachings about water baptism in the declarations of Trent, and makes no qualifications to his responses. I know you said that qualifications don't always have to be made when language is used that carries with it certain connotations, but due to the context of these statements I don't see how he could be talking about anything but water baptism.