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.