INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.25. - 4.16.26.
Calvin continues his defense of infant baptism. His laborious and passionate defense of this sacrament is wearisome but we continue to engage with him. Some, apparently, claim that John 3:5 affords believer's baptism the connection with regeneration. As a baptist I would not draw that conclusion and neither does Calvin. Calvin's take on this passage is to equate it with Matthew 3:11 and say that just as the Spirit is equated with fire in the one, he is equated with water in the other. The water in John 3 does not refer to baptism. I would suggest that the water may even refer to the Word of God. To hold to baptismal regeneration makes baptism the cause of salvation. Calvin is right to oppose that view. Clearly John 5:24 makes it clear that nothing like baptism is the necessary cause of salvation (24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.) Now Calvin is not demeaning baptism for it would form part of the covenantal obligations in his view. He is simply not making it necessary to eternal life.
4.16.27. 4.16.28.
Some will argue with Calvin from Mark 16:16, that reads: "16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." There, they would suggest is the order: belief and then baptism. You say what Calvin? "There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism is to be sought from these ... passages. as containing the first institution . . . The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage."
4.16.29. - 4.16.30.
Some argue with Calvin and say that it is wrong to baptize babies because they cannot be admitted to the Communion Table. He answers: "In the early Church indeed, the Lord's Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food." The call to examine oneself is proof according to Calvin that Communion is for the mature.
Note: Calvin's passionate support of infant baptism is hinged on covenantal theology, itself a system of interpretation. For a godly exegete as Calvin it is sad that he works the texts to support the system. For a good review of paedobaptism from a baptistic position click HERE. We all read Scripture through the lens of our presuppositions. My lens is New Covenant Theology. Study to show thyself approved ...!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.16.20 - 4.16.24
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.20.
Calvin articulates the baptistic argument well: "In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism." Calvin responds from Jeremiah 4 and Romans 4 that circumcision was also a sign of repentance and faith so he calls us baptists to deal with God on the matter! So since circumcision was applied to children, Calvin says, "Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit . . . The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension."
4.16.21. - 4.16.22.
What if a baby dies? "If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient."
What if they continue to grow and come to apprehend the things of God? "They will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives."
"If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom . . . that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 7:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body."
4.16.23. - 4.16.24.
Calvin argues that when we come to the New Testament and see proselyte baptism that this is different for someone born into the community of faith ... Israel. This he argues again from the Old asking, "Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac?" The practice is this: "Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance . . . whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism."
Summary
Paedobaptists and credobaptists differ on the nature of baptism. This is clear in Calvin's teaching. From a Covenantal position baptism is a sign pointing to the Gospel, namely repentance and faith in Christ - crucified, risen and reigning. Credobaptism typifies repentance and faith. The former summons the recipient to the Gospel, the latter signifies his or her reception of the Gospel. Contrary to Presbyterians, they do not mean the same thing.
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.20.
Calvin articulates the baptistic argument well: "In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism." Calvin responds from Jeremiah 4 and Romans 4 that circumcision was also a sign of repentance and faith so he calls us baptists to deal with God on the matter! So since circumcision was applied to children, Calvin says, "Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit . . . The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension."
4.16.21. - 4.16.22.
What if a baby dies? "If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient."
What if they continue to grow and come to apprehend the things of God? "They will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives."
"If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom . . . that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 7:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body."
4.16.23. - 4.16.24.
Calvin argues that when we come to the New Testament and see proselyte baptism that this is different for someone born into the community of faith ... Israel. This he argues again from the Old asking, "Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac?" The practice is this: "Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance . . . whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism."
Summary
Paedobaptists and credobaptists differ on the nature of baptism. This is clear in Calvin's teaching. From a Covenantal position baptism is a sign pointing to the Gospel, namely repentance and faith in Christ - crucified, risen and reigning. Credobaptism typifies repentance and faith. The former summons the recipient to the Gospel, the latter signifies his or her reception of the Gospel. Contrary to Presbyterians, they do not mean the same thing.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.16.14. to 4.16.19.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.14.
Calvin then turns to another objection offered by those of us who are baptistic, that being, Romans 9:7. There Paul says that not all Israel is Israel, thus dividing a carnal, secular group from the spiritual. Calvin sees this as no consequence in regard to baptism of babies. Calvin will argue that the ethnic origins of Israel are being honored here, not dismissed. That even though some were covenant-breakers that the promise still remains with ethnic Israel as well as believing Israel. "We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; and, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:29)."
4.16.15.
" The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents." Calvin quotes Romans 15:8 where Christ is deemed to be the Savior of the circumcision and uncircumcision; and also Acts 2:39 where the covenant promise is made to the children of the covenant. His rebuke is stated thus: "If we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory?"
4.16.16. - 4.16.18.
Calvin argues with others in terms of the timing of circumcision and baptism and issues of gender. A more prevalent argument against paedobaptism is the rationality and awareness of the child itself. " They [baptists] seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed-viz. spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy." But how can infants without comprehension be regenerated? "We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord." Additionally, Calvin argues that "Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction."
4.16.19.
But faith comes by hearing, the Scriptures say. How does Calvin respond to that? "The Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance, before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves, or have any knowledge at all resembling faith (this I would rather leave undecided); but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks, affirm or deny whatever suits them."
Summary
Calvin's arguments are hard to follow and his language is vehement against credo-baptists. What Calvin is saying is that we are all born in Adam, in sin, under wrath. His thought is that all infants who die are then damned. But, Calvin would argue, just because you don't see regeneration doesn't mean it didn't take place. Calvin would not limit regeneration to understanding (Nor would a reformed credo-baptist.). Calvin is intent on not limiting God in such a way that God cannot regenerate and give faith and repentance to whom He wishes. This I hope is a good summary of his argument. A Baptist would not agree; nor would the Scriptures, I would think.
If you want to read a lucid article of a credobaptist turned paedobaptist ... to help you understand their position, I encourage you to read: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/dejbaptism.php
Or another good post is here by Kevin DeYoung.
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.14.
Calvin then turns to another objection offered by those of us who are baptistic, that being, Romans 9:7. There Paul says that not all Israel is Israel, thus dividing a carnal, secular group from the spiritual. Calvin sees this as no consequence in regard to baptism of babies. Calvin will argue that the ethnic origins of Israel are being honored here, not dismissed. That even though some were covenant-breakers that the promise still remains with ethnic Israel as well as believing Israel. "We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; and, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:29)."
4.16.15.
" The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents." Calvin quotes Romans 15:8 where Christ is deemed to be the Savior of the circumcision and uncircumcision; and also Acts 2:39 where the covenant promise is made to the children of the covenant. His rebuke is stated thus: "If we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory?"
4.16.16. - 4.16.18.
Calvin argues with others in terms of the timing of circumcision and baptism and issues of gender. A more prevalent argument against paedobaptism is the rationality and awareness of the child itself. " They [baptists] seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed-viz. spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy." But how can infants without comprehension be regenerated? "We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord." Additionally, Calvin argues that "Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction."
4.16.19.
But faith comes by hearing, the Scriptures say. How does Calvin respond to that? "The Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance, before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves, or have any knowledge at all resembling faith (this I would rather leave undecided); but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks, affirm or deny whatever suits them."
Summary
Calvin's arguments are hard to follow and his language is vehement against credo-baptists. What Calvin is saying is that we are all born in Adam, in sin, under wrath. His thought is that all infants who die are then damned. But, Calvin would argue, just because you don't see regeneration doesn't mean it didn't take place. Calvin would not limit regeneration to understanding (Nor would a reformed credo-baptist.). Calvin is intent on not limiting God in such a way that God cannot regenerate and give faith and repentance to whom He wishes. This I hope is a good summary of his argument. A Baptist would not agree; nor would the Scriptures, I would think.
If you want to read a lucid article of a credobaptist turned paedobaptist ... to help you understand their position, I encourage you to read: http://www.wscal.edu/clark/dejbaptism.php
Or another good post is here by Kevin DeYoung.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.16.7. to 4.16.13.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.7. - 4.16.8.
With great esteem I read Calvin. But as he continues his defense of infant baptism one can readily see that he too is a man of clay feet. However one must understand his point even if we disagree. He takes us to Christ's reception of children in Matthew 19 and makes this connection: " If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits." I have some obvious problems with the leap he takes from "children" to being "like children" but this appears to be an important argument if you are a paedobaptist! It is by these arguments (including a family baptism in Acts 16) that he makes this [over]statement: "Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention."
4.16.9.
To what promise do those who baptize babies expect to see? Calvin would say, "For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation." To what are the parents to think when bringing their children for baptism? "Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children."
Paedobaptists not only trust in God's mercy to rest upon this child, in parallel to circumcision they believe that the child is then made part of the Church, the covenant community. "Children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members."
What is required of the child? "Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father."
4.16.10. - 4.16.11.
Calvin now addresses the objections of us baptists! We do not view the sign of circumcision and New Covenant baptism as parallel. Nor do we view the promise as the same. Calvin is right when he writes, "Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they [the baptists] answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal." Calvin does two things: One, he takes the reader to Colossians 2:11-12:
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The interpretation of Calvin is "what do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews;" and
Secondly, he contends that " it is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life . . . [and] all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place."
4.16.12.
Calvin addresses the argument of some that the children of Abraham are different than those regenerated under the New Covenant. Calvin responds that "we certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12)." But he adds, "All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham."
4.16.13.
Calvin agrees as we all do that at Pentecost the boundaries of grace extended to all nations including the Gentiles. Paul in Romans is noted as saying "expressly that Abraham was not the father of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water."
For a good critique of paedobaptism and the position articulated by Calvin, go to http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.7. - 4.16.8.
With great esteem I read Calvin. But as he continues his defense of infant baptism one can readily see that he too is a man of clay feet. However one must understand his point even if we disagree. He takes us to Christ's reception of children in Matthew 19 and makes this connection: " If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits." I have some obvious problems with the leap he takes from "children" to being "like children" but this appears to be an important argument if you are a paedobaptist! It is by these arguments (including a family baptism in Acts 16) that he makes this [over]statement: "Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention."
4.16.9.
To what promise do those who baptize babies expect to see? Calvin would say, "For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation." To what are the parents to think when bringing their children for baptism? "Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children."
Paedobaptists not only trust in God's mercy to rest upon this child, in parallel to circumcision they believe that the child is then made part of the Church, the covenant community. "Children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members."
What is required of the child? "Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father."
4.16.10. - 4.16.11.
Calvin now addresses the objections of us baptists! We do not view the sign of circumcision and New Covenant baptism as parallel. Nor do we view the promise as the same. Calvin is right when he writes, "Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they [the baptists] answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal." Calvin does two things: One, he takes the reader to Colossians 2:11-12:
11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
The interpretation of Calvin is "what do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews;" and
Secondly, he contends that " it is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life . . . [and] all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place."
4.16.12.
Calvin addresses the argument of some that the children of Abraham are different than those regenerated under the New Covenant. Calvin responds that "we certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12)." But he adds, "All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham."
4.16.13.
Calvin agrees as we all do that at Pentecost the boundaries of grace extended to all nations including the Gentiles. Paul in Romans is noted as saying "expressly that Abraham was not the father of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water."
For a good critique of paedobaptism and the position articulated by Calvin, go to http://www.founders.org/library/welty.html
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.16.1. to 4.16.6.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.1.
As a Baptist, it shall be of great interest to see how Calvin pursues this controversial subject of paedobaptism. He frames the argument in more caustic terms than I, but in essence this would be the baptistic position: "The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious-viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God." Calvin is going to argue that paedobaptism does not originate with man, for if it does, he says, "Let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord."
4.16.2.
Calvin tells us not to just focus on the external, but to go beyond what is seen to the meaning and nature of the sign. To remind us of that he says, " It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ."
4.16.3.
Calvin then makes a contrast and comparison with circumcision. Calvin draws the reader back to God's promise with Abraham, a promise that he would say is eternal. Calvin would argue that we were outside the covenant until we are saved; and then once saved we were cleansed from sin inferring the rite of circumcision which baptism expresses. After salvation we are to work in holiness which circumcision and baptism both express. "And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth." Calvin's thesis is summed up in these words: "We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision."
4.16.4.
So as to similarities we can see Calvin's assertion: "There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both-viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same-viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated." The only difference he would argue is the outward sign, i.e., circumcision versus baptism.
4.16.5. - 4.16.6.
Obviously if one accepts Calvin's proposition then it is easy to see that the admittance of children falls favorably into that viewpoint. Again Calvin rests his case solidly upon the Abrahamic Covenant. " For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews."
"Since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?"
As a Baptist that disagrees with this, it would be necessary, in order to refute Calvin, to refute the unity of the Old and New Covenant that he rests his case on. Certainly there is continuity between the Old and the New, but there is also discontinuity. However, it is helpful to understand the paedobaptist position.
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
4.16.1.
As a Baptist, it shall be of great interest to see how Calvin pursues this controversial subject of paedobaptism. He frames the argument in more caustic terms than I, but in essence this would be the baptistic position: "The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious-viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God." Calvin is going to argue that paedobaptism does not originate with man, for if it does, he says, "Let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord."
4.16.2.
Calvin tells us not to just focus on the external, but to go beyond what is seen to the meaning and nature of the sign. To remind us of that he says, " It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ."
4.16.3.
Calvin then makes a contrast and comparison with circumcision. Calvin draws the reader back to God's promise with Abraham, a promise that he would say is eternal. Calvin would argue that we were outside the covenant until we are saved; and then once saved we were cleansed from sin inferring the rite of circumcision which baptism expresses. After salvation we are to work in holiness which circumcision and baptism both express. "And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth." Calvin's thesis is summed up in these words: "We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision."
4.16.4.
So as to similarities we can see Calvin's assertion: "There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both-viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same-viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated." The only difference he would argue is the outward sign, i.e., circumcision versus baptism.
4.16.5. - 4.16.6.
Obviously if one accepts Calvin's proposition then it is easy to see that the admittance of children falls favorably into that viewpoint. Again Calvin rests his case solidly upon the Abrahamic Covenant. " For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews."
"Since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?"
As a Baptist that disagrees with this, it would be necessary, in order to refute Calvin, to refute the unity of the Old and New Covenant that he rests his case on. Certainly there is continuity between the Old and the New, but there is also discontinuity. However, it is helpful to understand the paedobaptist position.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.15.17. to 4.15.21
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 15.
OF BAPTISM.
4.15.17.
Calvin now expresses the essence of infant baptism. When challenged by us immersionists as to what faith did the infant exercise, Calvin would respond thus: "We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it." This Calvin asserts as he makes the connection with circumcision. Even after circumcision when the Jew is called to repent, the promise of pardon was given at circumcision but not effective until faith is exercised. We Baptists will struggle with this but it helps us understand the paedobaptist position.
4.15.18. - 4.15.21.
Somewhat confusing, Calvin now anticipates the question of the anabaptists ... the re-baptizers. If John's baptism was legitimate why did Paul re-baptize? " I grant that John's was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised." Calvin would interpret the events as not being re-baptized in water, but being baptized in the Holy Spirit by the risen Christ. What of immersion? "Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." As to who will perform such baptisms, Calvin would retain the church clerics to perform this function, not the laity, nor women. "What the custom was before Augustine's day is gathered, first, from Tertullian, who says, that a woman is not permitted to speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, or baptise, or offer, that she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of the priest (Tertull. Cont. Hæres. Lib. 1)."
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 15.
OF BAPTISM.
4.15.17.
Calvin now expresses the essence of infant baptism. When challenged by us immersionists as to what faith did the infant exercise, Calvin would respond thus: "We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it." This Calvin asserts as he makes the connection with circumcision. Even after circumcision when the Jew is called to repent, the promise of pardon was given at circumcision but not effective until faith is exercised. We Baptists will struggle with this but it helps us understand the paedobaptist position.
4.15.18. - 4.15.21.
Somewhat confusing, Calvin now anticipates the question of the anabaptists ... the re-baptizers. If John's baptism was legitimate why did Paul re-baptize? " I grant that John's was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised." Calvin would interpret the events as not being re-baptized in water, but being baptized in the Holy Spirit by the risen Christ. What of immersion? "Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either, according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." As to who will perform such baptisms, Calvin would retain the church clerics to perform this function, not the laity, nor women. "What the custom was before Augustine's day is gathered, first, from Tertullian, who says, that a woman is not permitted to speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, or baptise, or offer, that she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of the priest (Tertull. Cont. Hæres. Lib. 1)."
Monday, November 2, 2009
Calvin's Institutes 4.15.7. to 4.15.16.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 15.
OF BAPTISM.
4.15.7.- 4.15.9.
Calvin makes the point that John the Baptizer's baptism was in essence the same as the Apostles. He writes, " Both baptized unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29), thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?" One might wonder then why Paul baptized those who had been previously baptized by John (e.g. Acts 19:3-5; Mt. 3:11). Calvin would answer that by not concluding that it was a different baptism per se, but that it was a different baptizer. John said that he was a minister of water. The apostolic baptism was a baptism offered through Christ which is a minister of the Spirit.
Even the practices of Israel prefigure the same message of mortification. Calvin notes, "For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us."
4.15.10.
Now as to 'baptismal regeneration' Calvin confirms that "it is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created." Calvin then makes this clarification that is worthy of our consideration. What is 'original sin'?
"Original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed-viz. that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother's womb; for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God."
So to what does the sacrament of baptism point to? His answer is that "believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life-viz. by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent." [Great quote]
4.15.11. - 4.15.14.
Baptism never suggests that the worshiper having been freed from condemnation of original sin is rendered sinless and perfect. Baptism reminds us that sin no longer will have dominion but it is still troublesome. "For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign." Calvin's point denies the Wesleyan heresy of "sinless perfection". This is clearly taught in Romans 6-7. " Baptism serves as our confession before men, inasmuch as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God."
The sacramental concept is affirmed by Calvin as he states most eloquently what God is saying to us through baptism. He writes, "We are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God."
4.15.15. - 4.15.16.
Calvin shows us through the example of Cornelius and Paul the truth of this proposition. And further he gives us this exhortation:"In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13)." All the talk about baptism necessarily being effective or noneffective based upon the one who baptizes is foolish. Baptism "is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator."
OF
THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION
By
John Calvin
BOOK FOURTH.
OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER 15.
OF BAPTISM.
4.15.7.- 4.15.9.
Calvin makes the point that John the Baptizer's baptism was in essence the same as the Apostles. He writes, " Both baptized unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world (John 1:29), thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?" One might wonder then why Paul baptized those who had been previously baptized by John (e.g. Acts 19:3-5; Mt. 3:11). Calvin would answer that by not concluding that it was a different baptism per se, but that it was a different baptizer. John said that he was a minister of water. The apostolic baptism was a baptism offered through Christ which is a minister of the Spirit.
Even the practices of Israel prefigure the same message of mortification. Calvin notes, "For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us."
4.15.10.
Now as to 'baptismal regeneration' Calvin confirms that "it is now clear how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created." Calvin then makes this clarification that is worthy of our consideration. What is 'original sin'?
"Original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed-viz. that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother's womb; for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God."
So to what does the sacrament of baptism point to? His answer is that "believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life-viz. by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent." [Great quote]
4.15.11. - 4.15.14.
Baptism never suggests that the worshiper having been freed from condemnation of original sin is rendered sinless and perfect. Baptism reminds us that sin no longer will have dominion but it is still troublesome. "For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign." Calvin's point denies the Wesleyan heresy of "sinless perfection". This is clearly taught in Romans 6-7. " Baptism serves as our confession before men, inasmuch as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God."
The sacramental concept is affirmed by Calvin as he states most eloquently what God is saying to us through baptism. He writes, "We are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God."
4.15.15. - 4.15.16.
Calvin shows us through the example of Cornelius and Paul the truth of this proposition. And further he gives us this exhortation:"In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13)." All the talk about baptism necessarily being effective or noneffective based upon the one who baptizes is foolish. Baptism "is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
