I confess I relented...

[DTK]

...and posted to the www.reformedcatholicism.com board some quotes from Calvin and others on baptism and the sacraments. The post can be found in the comment section of the thread, "Insights from a Particular Baptist" as a response to the claim that Calvin viewed Baptismal efficacy as the regenerating and justifying event. Under my post, D. J. Ramsey supplies a most helpful quote from Calvin as well.

For Mark Burns, I thought you would like to know.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[fredtgreco]

David,

Thanks for this - both for setting the record straight, and helping me with some work I am doing regarding John Owen's view of regeneration.

You wouldn't happen to have some good examples of Paul Owen/Wilkins/et al discussing regeneration would you? I could use some to interact with John Owen -whose view is essentially Calvin's (surprise!)

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[wsw201]

You know the more I study what is going on regarding the efficacy of the Sacraments withing the FV guys as well as the RefCats, I tend to think that their view is actually Lutheran versus RC. I have been thinking about this since re-reading Pipa's response to Wilkins in the AAT Colliquay book. After going back and reading the LCMS view of the Sacraments, I think Pipa was right on the money.

Am I crazy?

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
You wouldn't happen to have some good examples of Owen/Wilkins/et al discussing regeneration would you? I could use some to interact with Owen -whose view is essentially Calvins (surprise!)

Fred, check your U2U message box.

Wayne, as the Brits would say, I think you're "spot on."

Blessings,
DTK

 

[DTK]

For what it's worth, the man replied to me, and I think you will see why I've been relunctant to make the post I did.

Blessings,
DTK

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by DTK
For what it's worth, the man replied to me, and I think you will see why I've been relunctant to make the post I did.

Blessings,
DTK

Wow. Eloquent ad homs. Nice scholarly interaction there. Well, hopefully others who read O's page will at least be enlightened.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
David,

Thanks for this - both for setting the record straight, and helping me with some work I am doing regarding John Owen's view of regeneration.

You wouldn't happen to have some good examples of Paul Owen/Wilkins/et al discussing regeneration would you? I could use some to interact with John Owen -whose view is essentially Calvin's (surprise!)

I needed to correct my post above; I realized that I may have caused confusion with too many Owens!

[Edited on 1/6/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

Originally posted by DTK
...and posted to the www.reformedcatholicism.com board some quotes from Calvin and others on baptism and the sacraments. The post can be found in the comment section of the thread, "Insights from a Particular Baptist" as a response to the claim that Calvin viewed Baptismal efficacy as the regenerating and justifying event. Under my post, D. J. Ramsey supplies a most helpful quote from Calvin as well.

For Mark Burns, I thought you would like to know.

Blessings,
DTK

I am most definately greatful. Keep me informed via U2 if you would like.

Those who speak out against these individuals will be blessed, and those that are attacked by them (like Fred Greco) falsely for the sake of the truth will be too.

I really mean that. They called Fred and all of us (the Puritanboard) out. Let's

And why do they have a picture of Charlemagne on the site?

 

[Scott]

Paul:

I thought your comments on Calvin on the RefCat board were good. Calvin is rather complex in my opinion. I have another quote where he expressly says that infants are holy prior to baptism. The RefCat writings do sound pretty Lutheran to me, at least based on my limited experience with Lutheran dogma.

I found Calvin's comments on Eph. 5:26 helpful. He addresses two errors.

Here it is necessary to guard against unsound interpretation, lest the wicked superstition of men, as has frequently happened, change a sacrament [of baptism] into an idol. When Paul says that we are washed by baptism, his meaning is, that God employs it for declaring to us that we are washed, and at the same time performs what it represents. If the truth -- or, which is the same thing, the exhibition of the truth -- were not connected with baptism, it would be improper to say that baptism is the washing of the soul. At the same time, we must beware of ascribing to the sign, or to the minister, what belongs to God alone. We must not imagine that washing is performed by the minister, or that water cleanses the pollutions of the soul, which nothing but the blood of Christ can accomplish. In short, we must beware of giving any portion of our confidence to the element or to man; for the true and proper use of the sacrament is to lead us directly to Christ, and to place all our dependence upon him.

Others again suppose that too much importance is given to the sign, by saying that baptism is the washing of the soul. Under the influence of this fear, they labor exceedingly to lessen the force of the eulogium which is here pronounced on baptism. But they are manifestly wrong; for, in the first place, the apostle does not say that it is the sign which washes, but declares it to be exclusively the work of God. It is God who washes, and the honor of performing it cannot lawfully be taken from its Author and given to the sign. But there is no absurdity in saying that God employs a sign as the outward means. Not that the power of God is limited by the sign, but this assistance is accommodated to the weakness of our capacity. Some are offended at this view, imagining that it takes from the Holy Spirit a work which is peculiarly his own, and which is everywhere ascribed to him in Scripture. But they are mistaken; for God acts by the sign in such a manner, that its whole efficacy depends upon his Spirit. Nothing more is attributed to the sign than to be an inferior organ, utterly useless in itself, except so far as it derives its power from another source.

Equally groundless is their fear, that by this interpretation the freedom of God will be restrained. The grace of God is not confined to the sign; so that God may not, if he pleases, bestow it without the aid of the sign. Besides, many receive the sign who are not made partakers of grace; for the sign is common to all, to the good and to the bad alike; but the Spirit is bestowed on none but the elect, and the sign, as we have said, has no efficacy without the Spirit. The Greek participle kaqari>sav, is in the past tense, as if he had said, "After having washed." But, as the Latin language has no active participle in the past tense, I chose rather to disregard this, and to translate it (mundans) washing, instead of (mundatam) having been washed; which would have kept out of view a matter of far greater importance, namely, that to God alone belongs the work of cleansing.

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by Scott]

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Scott
Paul:

Scott Roberts,

Are you addressing Paul Owen here, someone else, or myself (DTK)?

Thanks and blessings,
DTK

 

[Scott]

Sorry, I meant to say David (you).

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by Scott]

 

[DTK]

Thanks Scott for the clarification. I agree that Calvin's commentary above on Ephesians 5:26 is very helpful in determining his view of baptism in his written collection. You have indicated that you regard Calvin's view as complex, and I suppose I'm inclined to agree (if by that) you mean heavily nuanced. He was surely attempting precision in his expressions. When one reads Calvin's Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Westphal, I think that Calvin expounds to us his nuances more carefully. Throughout the section where Calvin deals specifically with baptism, he shows where the Lutheran Westphal accuses him time and time again of denying the efficacy of baptism because 1) Calvin refuses to limit the efficacy to the time when it is administered, and 2) Because Calvin denies that it is efficacious for the non-elect. As you have noted, Calvin does argue that the children of believers are in some sense holy before the sacrament is administered; and indeed affirms that they adopted by God by virtue of being the children of believers. What Calvin insists upon is that their inclusion as God's children is tied to the promise, I will be a God to your seed after you, and that they are subsequently baptized on that basis. Perhaps it might be helpful for me to offer you some extended quotes here to show why I've understood calvin this way. I hope these help...

John Calvin: Joachim [Westphal] holds the necessity for baptism to be so absolute, that he would sooner have it profaned by illicit usurpation, than omitted when the lawful use is denied. The thing that offends him he immediately after discloses. It is because we give hopes that infants may obtain salvation without baptism, because we hold, that baptism, instead of regenerating or saving them, only seals the salvation of which they were previously partakers.
As I have elsewhere refuted these gross errors at full length, I shall here be brief with my answer. If the salvation of infants is included in the element of water, then the covenant, by which the Lord adopts them, is made void. Let Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the promise, "” I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God do not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the symbol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed children of Adam whom the Lord has not yet called to the fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb, or the only defense that can avail him is, that the grace which was offered in the person of their parents is common to them. Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated by baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God rank them among the members of his Son. With what face can he deny infants the title of holy, by which Paul distinguishes them? If the reader will look at this passage as it is explained in our Catechism, they will pronounce, while I am silent, that our children trained in such rudiments, have much sounder views than this veteran theologian has derived from his speculations. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 319-320.

John Calvin: Akin to this article is that which we next add, viz., that the advantage received from the sacraments ought not to be restricted to the time of external taking, as if they carried the grace of God along with them at the very moment. Herein if any one dissents from us he must of necessity both accelerate the gift of regeneration in many, and fabricate innumerable baptism, for the remainder of life. We see the effect of baptism, which for a time was null, appear at last. Many are dipped with water from their mother´s womb, who, as they advance in life, are so far from showing that they were inwardly baptized that they rather make void their baptism by doing what in them lies to quench the Spirit of God. Part of these God calls back to himself. He, therefore, who would include newness of life in the sign as a capsule, so far from doing honor to the sign, dishonors God.
Then, seeing that repentance and advancement in it ought to be our constant study even until death, who sees not that baptism is impiously mutilated if its virtue and fruit, which embraces the whole course of life, is not extended beyond the outward administration? Nay, no greater affront to the sacred symbols can be imagined than to hold that their reality is in force only at the time of actual exhibition. My meaning is, that though the visible figure immediately passes away, the grace which it testifies still remains, and does not vanish in a moment with the spectacle exhibited to the eye. I have no intention to countenance the superstition of those who absurdly preserve the elements of bread and water in their churches, as if after the present use to which they were; destined the effect of consecration still adhered to them. This it was necessary distinctly to declare, lest any one should affix the hope of salvation, which is liable to no change of times, to temporary signs, and faith apprehend no more than the eye perceives. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Mutual Consent of the Churches of Zurich and Geneva as to the Sacraments, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 236-237.

John Calvin: When Augustine teaches that by the addition of the word the element becomes a sacrament, he is expressly treating of baptism. His words are, Wherefore Christ says not, ye are clean because of the baptism wherewith ye have been washed, but because of the word which I have spoken unto you. The context clearly shows his meaning to be, that by the word the element becomes a sacrament, so that its virtue or effect may reach us. Westphal, excluding the effect, wrests the meaning, and applies it to some strange figment of substance. Augustine adds, Whence such virtue in water to touch the body and clean the heart, but just from the operation of the word? Such is Augustine´s idea of the integrity of a sacrament, viz., that it is an effectual instrument of grace to us. Westphal imagines this operation of the word to take place without grace. But his disgraceful forging of a false meaning is exposed by the clause which Augustine immediately subjoins, viz., This is done by the word, not because it is said, but because it is believed; whereas Westphal contends that the efficacy there spoken of is effectual without faith, and feigns a word with which faith has nothing to do. And yet, after all this, he dares to lay claim to the support of Augustine: for he asserts, that in several passages free from all ambiguity he says that Judas ate the real body of Christ. He might at least have produced one, or let him even now produce it. It is more than vain to pretend that I have intentionally omitted it. Can any one wonder at my producing him as a witness in support of my opinion, when he comes forward of his own accord, and not only gives us his support, but as it were leads the way?
Westphal concludes that no alleged absurdities can induce him to depart from the words of Christ and Paul, and the firm consent of the Church: as if this were not the trite and common excuse for all errors. If it is to be received, I should like to know what answer he will make to the Anabaptists, whose regular custom it is to hold it forth as a shield, and carry it aloft as a banner "” that baptism cannot be lawfully conferred on infants, because it is a symbol of faith and repentance. What then can we infer from his words, but just that he and his band remain fixed in error, being prevented by mere obstinacy from yielding obedience to the truth? And yet by way of attempt to rid himself of some of his many absurdities, he says that there cannot be a falser accusation than that which charges his doctrine with dissevering Christ from his Spirit. It were better to have been silent, than to have exposed his wretched nakedness by so shabby a refutation. For what is his answer? That the same baptism is received by unbelievers, though they do not obtain the virtue of baptism, nor partake of the Spirit of Christ: and yet he upbraids others with a dissimulation which has no existence, while he is plainly evading the question, and substituting a stone for a tree. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 304-305.

John Calvin: He acknowledges with me that the sacraments were instituted to lead us to the communion of Christ, and be helps by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, being ingrafted, be united more and more. He asks why I say that infants begotten of believers are holy and members of the Church before they are baptized? I answer, that they may grow up the more into communion with Christ. He thinks he is arguing acutely in denying that they are ingrafted into the Church before baptism, if they are ingrafted by baptism. I easily retort the objection. For if I am right as to the effect of the sacraments, viz., that it makes those who are already ingrafted into the body of Christ to be united to him more and more, what forbids the application oft his to baptism? I do not, however, insist on this answer.
I admit that the proper office of baptism is to ingraft us into the body of Christ, not that those who are baptized should be altogether aliens from him, but because God attests that he thus receives them. There is a well known saying of Augustine, that there are many sheep of Christ without the Church, just as there are many wolves dwelling within; in other words, those whom God invites to himself by the Spirit of adoption, were known to him before they knew him by faith. Therefore, although God acknowledges as in his Church persons who seem to be strangers, and are so in so far as they themselves are concerned, he is justly said to ingraft them into his Church when he enlightens them unto faith, which is their first entrance into the hope of eternal life. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 336-337.

John Calvin: God gives the name of sons to those to whom the inheritance of salvation has been promised in the person of their parents. By what title can he be their Father if they in no way belong to the Church? There is nothing, however, to prevent his sealing "˜this grace, and confirming anew the same thing that he had given before. It is strange that Westphal denies this right to infants, though without it he could not properly admit them to baptism. But while I acknowledge that we become members of the Church by baptism, I deny that any are duly baptized if they do not belong to the body of the Church. It is not ours to confer the sacraments on all and sundry; but we must dispense them according to the rule prescribed by God. Who authorized you, Westphal, to bestow the pledge of eternal life, the symbol of righteousness and renovation, on a profane person lying under curse? Were an Anabaptist to debate with you, I presume your only valid defense would be, that baptism is rightly administered to those whom God adopted before they were born, and to whom he has promised that he will be a Father. Did not God transmit his grace from parents to children, to admit new-born infants into the Church would be a mere profanation of baptism. But if the promise of God under the law caused holy branches to proceed from a holy root, will you restrict the grace of God under the gospel, or diminish its efficacy by withholding the testimony of adoption by which God distinguishes infants? John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), p. 338.

John Calvin: The law ordered infants to be circumcised on the eighth day. I ask, whether that was a legitimate ingrafting into the Church of God? Who dares deny that it was? But Scripture declares them to have been holy from the womb, as being the offspring of a holy race; in other words, for the reason for which Paul teaches, that the children of believers are now holy. Westphal argues as if God were not at liberty gradually to perfect the faith of his people. I again say, that they are in some respect ingrafted into the Church, though in a different respect they were previously ingrafted. The promise of God must not be deemed of no moment, as if it were insufficient for the salvation of those whom he calls sons and heirs. Confiding in it, I hold that those whom God has already set apart for himself are rightly brought for baptism. We are not now speaking of secret election, but of an adoption manifested by the word, which sanctifies infant not yet born. But as baptism is a solemn recognition by which God introduces his children into the possession of life, a true and effectual sealing of the promise, a pledge of sacred union with Christ, it is justly said to be the entrance and reception into the Church. And as the instruments of the Holy Spirit are not dead, God truly performs and effects by baptism what he figures. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 338-339.

John Calvin: The question between us turns on infants He contends, that by baptism they become members of Christ and heirs of life. By what passage does he confirm this view? Just by one, by which infants would be cut off from the hope of salvation, were it not clear that: it is to be understood as only referring to adults, who from age are already fit to believe. When fanatical men impugn Paedobaptism, they argue from this passage, not without plausibility, that the order appointed by Christ is overthrown if faith do not precede baptism. Their error is properly refuted, by observing, that Christ there treats expressly of the preaching of the gospel, which is addressed to none but adults. Westphal breaks forth, and extracts from it, like oil from stone, that salvation is given to infants by baptism. The other passage, when he has more carefully examined it, he will cease improperly to apply to baptism.
Again, he asks, if the sacraments are instruments by which God acts efficaciously, and testifies and seals his grace to us, why do we deny, that by the washing of baptism men are born again? As if our alleged denial were not a fiction of his own. Having distinctly asserted, that men are regenerated by baptism, just as they are by the word, I early obviated the impudence of the man, and left nothing for his invective to strike at but his own shadow. When he expostulates with me for having charged him and his companions with blindness, because they erroneously affix their confidence of salvation to the sacraments, and transfer to them what properly belongs to God alone, he either is actuated by strange eagerness for quarreling, or he has determined for once to carry all the superstitions in the world into his own stye.
We know how gross the errors on the sacraments are which prevail in the Papacy, how the minds of all, being fascinated by a kind of magical enchantments, pass by Christ, and fix their confidence of salvation on the elements. We know, that so far from applying the sacraments to their proper end, they rather make them the cause of grace. Nothing of all this does Westphal allow to be touched, without crying out that he is hurt: as if to please him, so many vile elements were to be fostered; whereas, had he one particle of true piety in his mind, he would use his utmost endeavor to purge them away. But it is obvious, that under the influence of some incredible perversity, he would sooner immerse himself in the deepest pools of the Papacy than make any approach to us. He denies that he transfers any part of salvation to creatures, because the question is concerning the presence of God working by means which he has appointed. I assent. What he afterwards adds, being borrowed from us almost verbatim, why should I repudiate? Nay, I am rather obliged to him for agreeing and subscribing to my words so far, until, in accordance with his nature, he falls back again upon his calumnies. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Joachim Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 340-341.

John Calvin: He infers, I know not from what principles, that I in ignorance partly destroy the effect of baptism, partly bring it into doubt. How do I destroy it? He answers, Because I deny that the benefit derived from the sacraments is confined to the time at which they are administered. What says he to the contrary? He confesses with me that the virtue of baptism extends to the whole of life, and that infants who have been washed at the sacred font often show no benefit from it after some progress of years. But he rejoins, that their baptism was not therefore void and without effect. By these words he thinks he solves the difficulty. He certainly frees me: only he adds shortly after, that they are always truly regenerated and sanctified in baptism, though afterwards, from want of due training, they relapse into the defilements of sin. In these words he insinuates something too gross to be tolerated by the ordinance of God.
I ask, if Simon Magus was truly sanctified at the same moment when he was washed with the water? It is not likely that the hypocrisy for which he is so severely rebuked by Peter was ever eradicated from his mind: hence it followed, that the effect of baptism did not immediately appear. But had he repented at Peter´s admonition, would not the grace of baptism have resumed its place? And how many daily approach the holy table who by negligence and luke-warmness are deprived of present benefit, and yet, when afterwards aroused, begin to receive it? Who dare say that none partake of Christ but those who receive him in the very act of the Supper? Westphal´s rejoinder, that this does not imply that the sacraments do no good when they are administered, is easily answered. They do good just as a seed when thrown into the ground, though it may not take root and germinate at the very moment, is not without its use. Had it not been sown in this manner it would not in process of time have sent forth its shoot. Baptism becomes at last effectual, though it does not work effectually at the same moment at which it is performed. Westphal objects, that its virtue is not to "˜be put off to distant years, as if God did not regenerate infants when they are baptized. Granting this, he has still to prove that they are always regenerated. For as I do not hold it to be a universal rule, so the exception which I adduce is manifest, that the nature of baptism or the Supper must not be tied down to an instant of time. God, whenever he sees meet, fulfills and exhibits in immediate effect that; which he figures in the sacrament. But no necessity must be imagined so as to prevent his grace from sometimes preceding, sometimes following, the use of the sign. The dispensation of it, its Author so tempers as not to separate the virtue of his Spirit from the sacred symbol. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments: Catechism of the Church of Geneva, Forms of Prayer, and Confessions of Faith, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 340-341.

John Calvin: I come now to the second branch of the calumny. He says, that the effect of baptism is brought into doubt by me, because I suspend it on predestination, whereas Scripture directs us to the word and sacraments, and leads by this way to the certainty of predestination and salvation. But had he not here introduced a fiction of his own, which never came into my mind, there "˜was no occasion for dispute. I have written much, and the Lord has employed me in various kinds of discussion. If out of my lucubrations he can produce a syllable in which I teach that we ought to begin with predestination in seeking assurance of salvation, I am ready to remain dumb. That secret election was mentioned by me in passing, I admit. But to what end? Was it either to lead pious minds away from hearing the promise or looking at the signs? There was nothing of which I was more careful than to confine them entirely within the word. What? While I so often inculcate that grace is offered by the sacraments, do I not invite them there to seek the seal of their salvation? I only said that the Spirit of God does not work indiscriminately in all, but as he enlightens the elect only unto faith, so he also provides that they do not use the sacraments in vain. Should I say that the promises are common to all, and that eternal salvation is offered in common to all, but that the ratification of them is the special gift of the Spirit, who seals the offered grace in the elect, would Westphal say that the word is removed from its place? And what does he himself daily declare to the people from the pulpit, but just that faith comes by hearing, and yet that those only obey to whom the arm of the Lord is revealed? The reason is, that while God invites all by the word, he inwardly gives an effectual call to those whom he has chosen. Let him cease then to cavil and pretend that I render the effect of baptism doubtful when I show that election is the source from which the profit found in the sacraments flows to those to whom it has been specially given. For while, according to the common proverb, things standing to each other in the relation of superior and inferior are not contradictory, an inferior sealing of grace by the sacraments is not denied, while the Spirit; is called the prior and more internal seal; and the cause is at the same time stated, viz., because God has elected those whom he honors with the badge of adoption. John Calvin, Treatises on the Sacraments, Second Defense of the Sacraments in Answer to the Calumnies of Westphal, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 343-344.

If I've duplicated any quotes, please pardon me. I'm posting this hurriedly in order to leave town for Presbytery.

Blessings,
DTK