Calvin on the efficacy of baptism

Davidius · #1 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:20 PM

Would someone please help me make sense of these passages from Calvin's "Antidote to the Council of Trent"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvin on the 1st decree of the 5th session

That there may be somewhat in this Decree in accordance with the Preface, they borrow the first four heads from the ancient and approved doctrine of the Church. As to these there will be no dispute, and therefore it was obviously malicious in them to premise that their object was to settle the dissensions which have arisen at this time. Of what use was it, pray, to thunder out so many anathemas? Just to make the unskillful believe that there really was some ground for it; though, in fact, there was not. In the fifth head, where they introduce something of their own, they begin to act in their own way, that is, to inculcate the futilities of their sophists, and pertinaciously defend them. They pronounce anathema on any one who denies that everything which has the proper nature of sin is taken away by baptism, and who holds that it is only erased or not imputed. Here they craftily introduce the term erase, which they know to be in bad odor, as the Pelagians annoyed Augustine with it. Let them, therefore, have it their own way, as far as erasing goes. We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvin on the 6th Session

Towards the end of the fifth head they affirm that no transference to a state of grace takes place without Baptism, or a wish for it. Would it not have been better to say, that by the word and sacraments Christ is communicated, or, if they prefer so to speak, applied to us, than to make mention of baptism alone? But they have been pleased to exclude infants from the kingdom of God, who have been snatched away before they could be offered for baptism. As if nothing were meant when it is said that the children of believers are born holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14.) Nay, on what ground do we admit them to baptism unless that they are the heirs of promise? For did not the promise of life apply to them it would be a profanation of baptism to give it to them. But if God has adopted them into his kingdom, how great injustice is done to his promise, as if it were not of itself sufficient for their salvation! A contrary opinion, I admit, has prevailed, but it is unjust to bury the truth of God under any human error, however ancient. The salvation of infants is included in the promise in which God declares to believers that he will be a God to them and to their seed. In this way he declared, that those deriving descent from Abraham were born to him. (Genesis 17:7) In virtue of this promise they are admitted to baptism, because they are considered members of the Church. Their salvation, therefore, has not its commencement in baptism, but being already founded on the word, is sealed by baptism.

InevitablyReformed · #2 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:47 PM

armourbearer · #3 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:56 PM

The apostle Peter teaches baptism saves us; yet it is not as an opus operatum that it saves, but as the answer of a good conscience. Calvin's remarks should be understood in the same sense. When we consider what baptism seals to the believer, Calvin's language faithfully represents the biblical teaching.

Davidius · #4 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The apostle Peter teaches baptism saves us; yet it is not as an opus operatum that it saves, but as the answer of a good conscience. Calvin's remarks should be understood in the same sense. When we consider what baptism seals to the believer, Calvin's language faithfully represents the biblical teaching.

His reference in the second passage makes it look like what he's saying applies to all the children of believers.

Cotton Mather · #5 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:12 PM

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!

armourbearer · #6 (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The apostle Peter teaches baptism saves us; yet it is not as an opus operatum that it saves, but as the answer of a good conscience. Calvin's remarks should be understood in the same sense. When we consider what baptism seals to the believer, Calvin's language faithfully represents the biblical teaching.

His reference in the second passage makes it look like what he's saying applies to all the children of believers.

It does in the judgement of charity. Baptism is a revealed ordinance for us and for our children. The secret decree of election belongs unto the Lord.

christianyouth · #7 (**permalink**) 05-22-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is effaced it is null in regard to imputation.

How is this different from the Roman Catholic view, that original sin is done away with at Baptism? Also, where in this context do we have mention of this regeneration only being for elect infants?

Contra_Mundum · #8 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:08 AM

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.

Davidius · #9 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:27 AM

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.

Contra_Mundum · #10 (**permalink**) 05-23-2008, 12:39 AM

That's because he's speaking sacramentally, a manner of speaking that we have grown unaccustomed to using through a too-timid fear of being mistaken for papists. He speaks of the sign and the thing signified together, since it is not critical that they be always spoken of distinctly, but may be spoken of singly (or sacramentally).

I agree that Calvin suggests that many an infant IS, in fact, begun in spiritual transformation at or near the time of water baptism--the temporal moment or instant of its beginning is of little consequence. The child's discipleship also begins immediately, or should. I think Calvin would have us "not to doubt" of it.

I think that what we have in the WCF language is perfection of Calvin's thought, and perhaps a slight retreat from his boldest comments. The Continentals, with their statement on dying children of believers, are a bit closer to Calvin's original thought, as expressed here, both in their language and of course in space and time.