Blogging the Institutes

Blog 219: 4.16.31 - 4.16.32

2009-11-11T15:24:56Z

One of the perplexities we modern Christians encounter in admiring magisterial reformers like Calvin is the severity of their attitude to, and treatment of, Anabaptists. In Calvin's case this may seem all the more mysterious since he married the widow of a former Anabaptist!
Our problem is partly--if only partly--due to the unspoken assumption that credobaptism involves, virtually by definition, personal faith and a commitment to evangelical fundamentals.
Sadly it has become clear that there is no necessary connection between the two. If a credobaptist can point the finger at the baptized babies who now have no connection with the church, the paedobaptist can note churches of fourteen thousand members baptized on profession of faith with a weekly attendance of only eight thousand. The sign is not the reality it signifies.

Perhaps this makes it possible for us to understand Calvin a little better. For him "Anabaptist" was not a synonym for "Evangelical." After all, the best known Anabaptist with whom he had long-term, if profoundly unhappy personal dealings, was Michael Servetus. Horrific though it may sound to an enthusiastic credobaptist, Servetus held to "believer's baptism." His attempted demolition job of orthodox Christianity--none too subtly titled Christianismi restitutio (guess what book that rhymes with!)--included an attack on infant baptism.
Calvin responds in the Institutio with twenty theological "karate chops." Again his underlying contention is that a false hermeneutic is at work--"He always falls back into the same false reasoning for he preposterously applies to infants what was said concerning adults alone."
It is in this context (Institutes IV. 16. 31) that Calvin reveals the reason for his passion in the whole controversy. Baptism is intended to give the Lord's people the assurance of sight (in the visible sign) as well as of sound (in the audible word of promise). Ignore the sign of the promise and little by little the promise itself will be obscured.

For Calvin, the obscuring of any, and every, divine promise is attributable ultimately to one being: Satan. That being the case, the little Frenchman will muster all the weapons he can to vindicate the promise of God that--even after our death--our God and Father will be to our children everything he has been to us--all within the context of faith. The sign is no more than a sign, but it is never a bare sign (signum nudum)--not so long as the one who gives it is the covenant making and covenant keeping God!

Blog 218: 4.16.25 - 4.16.30

2009-11-10T21:21:26Z

Calvin was, and remains, a theologian of the ages. Of course his theology comes to us clothed in the garments of the sixteenth century. But some things never change--including many of the arguments, pro and con, in relation to the baptism of infants. This he passionately believed to be a biblical doctrine.

Calvin meets many of the arguments against infant baptism head on. Typically he deals with them by underlining ways in which they depend on a mis-reading of Scripture.

Thus faced with the insistence that regeneration is required for baptism, he questions the use of Scripture that lies behind such thinking. Rebuffed by arguments that the order of biblical language ("teach, baptize") presupposes instruction prior to baptism, he points out that of course this is the order when adults are hearing and responding to the gospel for the first time. It would be a logical fallacy to think that the corollary of "adults should hear, believe and be baptized" is "infants must not be baptized"! One would no more deduce that infants must not be fed because Paul states that 'those who do not work should not eat (2 Thess. 3:10).`

But there is one argument that credobaptist proponents, then and now, have often used as a kind of reductio ad absurdum: if you baptize infants, you ought also to give them the Lord's Supper.

But Calvin sees a serious flaw here. For while both baptism and the Supper point to Christ, they each point to different aspects of union with him. Baptism points to a once-and-for-all initiation into Christ. It is done to us, not done by us. We do not baptize ourselves, we are baptized.

The Supper, however, is not a sacrament of initiation but of communion. That is why we are active and engaged at the Lord's Table. For it is essential to be able to
     • Discern the Lord's body
     • Examine oneself
     • Proclaim the Lord's death
     • Celebrate the Supper "in remembrance" of Christ.

Just why Calvin is so passionate about this--when, after all, baptism is never more than a sign--will become clear tomorrow.

Blog 217: 4.16.20 - 4.16.24

2009-11-09T20:48:38Z

For some, Calvin seems to be at his most feisty when he writes on the sacraments. Against those who complain that infant baptism is a travesty of the gospel, he stoutly insists "these darts are aimed more at God than at us"! But a little reflection reveals he is also at his most thoughtful, and his analysis of sacramental signs can strengthen credobaptists as well as paedobaptists.

If repentance and faith are in view in baptism, how can infant baptism be biblical? Calvin responds: the same was true of circumcision (hence references to Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Deut. 10:16; 30:6), yet infants were circumcised.

How then can either sign be applicable to infants who have neither repented nor believed?
Calvin's central emphasis here is simple, but vital.

Baptism, like circumcision, is first and foremost a sign of the gospel and its promise, not of our response to the gospel. It points first of all to the work of Christ for us, not to the work of the Spirit in us. It calls for our response. It is not primarily a sign of that response.
So, like the proclamation of the gospel (of which it is a sign), baptism summons us to (rather than signifies) repentance and faith.

In fact all believers are called to grow into an understanding and "improvement" of their baptism. This is as true for those baptized as believers as for those baptized as infants.
Consequently, whether baptism follows faith or precedes faith, its meaning remains the same. Its efficacy in our lives is related to (life-long!) faith and repentance. But its meaning is always the same--Christ crucified and risen, outside of whom there is no salvation.

To see baptism as a sign of my repentance and faith, then, is to turn it on its head. It diminishes, if not evacuates, the sign of its real power in our lives--which is to point us to Christ and to the blessings which are ours in him, and thus to draw forth faith. Grasp this whole-Bible principle, holds Calvin, and all the New Testament's teaching on baptism beautifully coheres.

Blog 216: 4.16.14 - 4.16.19

2009-11-06T14:35:00Z

Another objection to infant baptism is considered: infants are incapable of understanding the gospel and therefore cannot be regenerated. Therefore they should not be baptized. If, Calvin argues, they are not in Christ, they must be in Adam (there is no middle ground). This means that all infants who die (perhaps the majority in the sixteenth century) are consigned to damnation. But the premise needs to be challenged: because we cannot "see" regeneration does not mean it has not taken place. We dare not limit regeneration to those who have understanding. John the Baptist was regenerated in his infancy, after all. True, in the ordinary economy of salvation, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Rom. 10:17), but we cannot say that God cannot grant faith and repentance to whom he desires. They may not possess as much faith as an adult, but it may be true and saving faith nevertheless.

Calvin is by no means through with his polemic for paedobaptism, but we have already seen that the arguments he deals with are very much the same arguments that arise today. Whether credobaptist or paedobaptist (and Calvin's strength of language is perhaps typical of the sixteenth century when the credobaptist argument was viewed with deep suspicion of orthodoxy), one must concede to the Reformer's theological and exegetical skill in theological polemics.

Blog 215: 4.16.7 - 4.16.13

2009-11-05T22:12:37Z

"What does this have to do with baptism?" is the frequent response to citing Jesus' blessing the little children (Matt. 19:13-15), as much in Calvin's day apparently as today. Calvin's response? "If it is right for children to be brought to Christ, why not also to be received into baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them, why is the sign denied which, so to speak, opens to them a door into the church, that, adopted into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven?" These were babies, not half-grown children, he insists and of such is the kingdom comprised.

And who "in his senses" can deny that children were not included in the household baptisms in Acts? In truth, any attack on the "unfitness" of infants receiving baptism as the sign and seal of the covenant is equally an attack upon circumcision. The latter was more than a physical sign of earthly, physical enjoyment in Canaan; it's primary import was union and communion with Jesus Christ and its equation with baptism in Colossians 2:11-12 proves as much. In both Testaments, those who receive the covenant sign are called "children of Abraham."

Baptism floods the hearts of parents with gratitude demonstrative as baptism is of God's love. And the baptized children receive some benefit, too: "being engrafted into the body of the church, they are somewhat more commended to the other members. Then, when they have grown up, they are greatly spurred to an earnest zeal for worshiping God, by whom they were received as children through a solemn symbol of adoption before they were old enough to recognize him as Father."

Blog 214: 4.16.1 - 4.16.6

2009-11-04T16:38:03Z

A polemic in favor of infant baptism built on the following platform:

1) An anagogic relationship between circumcision and baptism: both are covenantal signs and seals to faith of forgiveness of sin; the power of the signs consist in the underlying promise of God rather than any ex opere operato understanding of the efficacy of the sacraments.

2) Both promise (in covenant and to faith) God's fatherly favor, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life - all of which come to pass through regeneration. However different they are externally, inwardly both sacraments point to the same reality: "it appears incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office among us."

3) In both administrations, covenant signs and seals include infants.

4) There is, therefore, an organic unity between the promise made with Abaraham and covenant baptism. "The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. Only the manner of confirmation is different -- what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism."

Calvin's polemic, therefore, for paedobaptism is made on theological grounds - the unity of the covenant of grace as operative under both Old and New Covenant eras.

Blog 213: 4.14.17 - 4.15.22

2009-11-04T16:35:57Z

Various problems are now dealt with: those baptized (infants) often wait many years before repentance is seen. Does this invalidate the baptism? No, "This promise was offered to us in baptism; therefore, let us embrace it by faith." Is there not an example of re-baptism in the case of the Ephesians in Acts 19:2-7 who knew only the baptism of John? No, conscious of giving ground on re-baptism (perhaps with Anabaptists in his sights), Calvin argues that John's disciples in Ephesus were not re-baptized with water but received, in addition to John's baptism, the laying on of hands and the reception of the Holy Spirit that followed. The baptism is synonymous with the expression, "laid his hands upon them." What of the addition of rituals to the simple formula of baptism as described in the New Testament? These he variously describes as "alien hodgepodge," "grosser mockeries," "theatrical pomp," and "outlandish pollution." What about "emergency baptisms" (an infant who may expire before a minister can be found)? To administer (lay) baptism in such circumstances is to suggest that without it, all are lost. This would be a worse condition than "under the law" for at least in the Old Testament it was held that the promise was sufficient before the eighth day and the ritual of circumcision (Gen. 17:7).

And may women baptize in any circumstance (the example of Zipporah is sometimes upheld). Calvin's answer? No!

Blog 212: 4.15.9 - 4.15.16

2009-11-02T21:01:26Z

One suspects that Calvin's candor in his treatment of baptism makes us uneasy. Today, we fear the connection between the "sign" and the "thing signified" that we tend to be more cautious than the Reformers (or Paul!) in asserting synecdochal inferences. Calvin on the other hand, whilst clear that water has no innate regenerative or sanctifying power, moves freely from the sign (baptism) to that which it signifies (in this section, mortification) without feeling the need to reassert that what baptism signifies is only effective in those who believe.

Calvin's baptismal theology gives rise to certain distinct patterns of Christian living in the world. Baptism does not open the door to license; Calvin views baptism as covenantal and therefore conditional. By reminding us of Paul's use of the ordeal of water-judgment in the exodus at the Red Sea in 1 Corinthians 10, Calvin ensures that we recall the effects of baptism on those who failed to believe -- they were drowned. The sign became effectual in those who believed, and moreover, while baptism was a sign of death to the unbeliever, it was a sign of life and obedience to those in whom the Spirit dwelt.

Since baptism is a sign (to faith) of justification, the same antinomian temptation applies: since we have been baptized, can we then sin at leisure? No, of course not! For Calvin, the baptized life is a constant war against sin. Taking the latter half of Romans 7 as depicting the experience of the believer, Calvin says, "He therefore says that he has a perpetual conflict with the vestiges of his flesh, and that he is held bound in miserable bondage, so that he cannot consecrate himself wholly to obedience to the divine law from (7:18-23). Hence, he is compelled to exclaim with groaning: 'Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body subject to death?' (7:24)."

Blog 211: 4.15.1 - 4.15.8

2009-10-30T16:10:14Z

Having discussed the nature of the sacraments generally, Calvin moves to unpack the sacrament of baptism. He defines baptism as "the sign of the initiation by which we are received into the society of the church, in order that, engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God's children" (4.15.1).

As a result, baptism is given first to serve our faith before God and then to serve as our confession before men. Baptism is not merely a means by which "we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession" (as our Baptist friends believe). Rather, it actually is God's testimony to us--confirming for us that his promises to cleanse those who trust in him are trustworthy and sure (4.15.1).

But baptism does not effect what it promises without and apart from faith in the Word of God. This is not magic nor does the water of baptism have power in and of itself. Rather, as we pass through the waters of baptism, we have our eyes drawn from the water to Christ that we might "fasten our minds upon Christ alone" (4.15.2).

What baptism signs and seals for us--the cleansing from sin, assurance of pardon, the reality of repentance, mortification and renewal in Christ, union with Christ--is not just for our past sins. Rather, we can return to our baptism again and again trust that its testimony is true for our entire lives: "we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purchased for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins" (4.15.3; see also 4.15.4).

Blog 210: 4.14.20 - 4.14.26

2009-10-29T20:12:33Z

Calvin argues that the Old Testament sacraments "looked to the same purpose to which ours now tend: to direct and almost lead men by the head to Christ" (4.14.20). In particular, circumcision, baptisms, and sacrifices in the Old Testament all served as signs and seals of God's promises by which God's people looked forward in faith to the promised Messiah (4.14.21).

But New Testament sacraments serve to show forth Christ yet more clearly. "As for our sacraments," Calvin writes, "the more fully Christ has been revealed to men, the more clearly do the sacraments present him to us from the time when he was truly revealed by the Father has he had been promised. For baptism attests to us that we have been cleansed and washed; the Eucharistic Supper, that we have been redeemed" (4.14.22).

There is a fundamental continuity between the Old and New Testament in terms of the substance of the promises held out in the sacraments: "whatever is shown us today in the sacraments, the Jews of old received in their own--that is, Christ with his spiritual riches" (4.14.23).

The discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments comes not with the substance, but with the signs themselves. According to Colossians 2:12, "baptism is today for Christians what circumcision was for the ancients" (4.14.24). Likewise, the Old Testament sacrificial system and especially Passover found their fulfillment in Christ and are replaced by the Supper, which declares the Lord's death until he comes (4.14.25).

Blog 209: 4.14.14 - 4.14.20

2009-10-28T15:21:57Z

While the sacraments are wonderful gifts given to us by God, we have to say that they are not required for salvation. Nor are they even required for assurance of salvation: "Assurance of salvation does not depend upon participation in the sacrament, as if justification consisted in it. For we know that justification is lodged in Christ alone, and that is communicated to us no less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of the sacrament, and without the latter can stand unimpaired" (4.14.14).

The sacraments only have significance as they point us to Christ. "Christ is the matter," Calvin says, "or (if you prefer) the substance of all the sacraments; for in him they have all their firmness, and they do not promise anything part from him." We are only helped by the sacraments if they "foster, confirm, and increase the true knowledge of Christ in ourselves...to possess him more fully and enjoy his riches" (4.14.16). This knowledge of Christ as we receive the sacraments by faith in God's promises (4.14.17).

However, the sacraments also serve as covenantal pledges. There is a sense in which the mutuality of the covenant is affirmed in baptism and Supper; these signs serve as "marks of profession, by which we openly swear allegiance to God, binding ourselves in fealty to him." Or as Calvin puts it a bit later, "God leagues himself with us and we pledge ourselves to purity and holiness of life, since there is interposed here a mutual agreement between God and ourselves" (4.14.19).

Blog 208: 4.14.9 - 4.14.13

2009-10-28T15:20:38Z

Lest we think that we can stir up the faith required to receive the sacraments in a worthy fashion, God grants us his Spirit to accompany his Word and sacrament and to stir our hearts to cling to Christ. "The sacraments properly fulfill their office only when the Spirit, that inward teacher, comes to them, by whose power alone hearts are penetrated and affections moved and our souls opened for the sacraments to enter in" (4.14.9).

If the Spirit doesn't act, then neither the Word nor the sacraments accomplish anything. "The Spirit does this same sort of work in us. For, that the Word may not beat your ears in vain, and that the sacraments may not strike your eyes in vain, the Spirit shows us that in them it is God speaking to us, softening the stubbornness of our heart, and composing it to that obedience which it owes the Word of the Lord." Finally, the Spirit transmits those outward words and sacraments from our ears to our souls" (4.14.10).

This is why the sacraments only have value as instruments that God uses to draw our hearts to him. After all, "God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient, that all things may serve his glory, since he is Lord and judge of all" (4.14.12). And so, our confidence doesn't rest in the sacrament; rather, it rests in God's glory displayed in and through them as he chooses to use them to confirm and assure our hearts.

Blog 207: 4.14.4 - 4.14.8

2009-10-26T15:14:49Z

Following on his dictum that word and sign belong together, Calvin insists, "The sacrament requires preaching to begat faith." Far from the Romanist understanding that the mere "mumbling" of the word-based formula, "without meaning and without faith," was required, Calvin insisted that the faith in the preached Word, filled with meaning and begetting faith, caused the sacrament to function as a true sign pointing to Christ (4.14.4).

Not only are sacraments signs, they also serve as seals. This image of "seal" refers to a government document or other public act "that is nothing taken by themselves," but with the seal serve to draw our faith to the promise in the public act. And so, the sacraments serve to confirm and assure our hearts that the promise that God holds out in the sacraments is true, trustworthy, and directed for us (4.14.5)

But there is a third image that Calvin uses to talk about the sacraments: a mirror. Now "mirror" language is important for Calvin--creation serves as a mirror to see God's glory (1.5.1); the Word serves as a mirror (3.2.6, 29). Here Calvin says, "We might call them [the sacraments] mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of God's grace, which he lavishes upon us. For by them he manifests himself to us...as far as our dullness is given to perceive, and attests his good will and love toward us more expressly than by word" (4.14.6).

And yet, the sacraments only serve as signs, seals, and mirrors to those who receive them by faith: "it is therefore certain that the Lord offers us mercy and the pledge of his grace both in his Sacred Word and in his sacraments. But it is understood only by those who take word and sacraments with sure faith, just as Christ is offered and held forth by the Father to all unto salvation, yet not all acknowledge and receive him" (4.14.7).

Whether in baptism or supper, only those who receive the promise held out by faith will receive the benefit promised. In other words, it is not the bare reception of the sacrament, but faith that enables one to receive it as a sign, seal, and mirror of God's grace in Jesus Christ.

Blog 206: 4.13.18 - 4.14.3

2009-10-23T15:49:13Z

Calvin concludes his discussion on vows by discussing a misinterpretation of 1 Timothy 5:12 regarding widows who married, and whom Paul accuses of abandoning the faith. Calvin's view of this passage is that they renounce the promise of their commitment to Christ only if marrying prevents them from fulfilling the work they had undertaken. Paul's reasoning is no argument for perpetual celibacy; nor is it a justification of asking young girls to enter a convent and take vows of lifelong virginity, since the passage in question deals with widows of mature and senior age.

Calvin is concerned lest his scruples over rash and illegitimate vows should leave people concluding that it would be better to undertake no vows at all. That is far from the case. His argument has only been that 'all works whatsoever which flow not from a pure fountain, and are not directed to a proper end, are repudiated by God' (4.13.20).

Calvin now turns to deal with the sacraments. In some ways this was fundamental to the reformation and lay at the heart of the spiritual movement in which Calvin was caught up. What is the true nature of a sacrament? Calvin's definition is that a sacrament 'is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of goodwill toward us .. and we in our turn testify our piety toward him' (4.14.1).

Calvin reminds us that the church Fathers often used the Latin word 'sacramentum' to translate the Greek word for 'mystery'. 'Great is the sacramentum, the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh' (1 Timothy 3:16). In this passage, the hidden purpose is made manifest by an external sign: God's way of salvation revealed externally, for example, in the incarnation.

There is an important principle here: 'there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise' (4.14.3). The promise is self-attesting, and stands in need of no sign, but the fact that God has given one is a mark of his condescension, mercy and favour.

To use Calvin's language, 'our Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that .... he declines not by means of these earthly elements, to lead us to himself' (4.14.3). Calvin's principle of accommodation is an important one, and is worth pondering. Every act of revelation on God's part is an act of accommodation. How else could the finite ponder the infinite?

Blog 206: 4.13.11 - 4.13.17

2009-10-22T13:13:33Z

The corruption of monasticism in Calvin's day is evidenced by the boastful promise of perfection, and of a superior spirituality. When men boast that they are in a state in which they aspire to perfection more than others, and people admire monasticism as if it represented a life as pure as the angels, something is very wrong. 'How great the insult offered to God,' says Calvin, when some device of man is preferred to all the modes of life which he has ordered, and by his testimony approved' (4.13.11).

There are several strands to this insult. First is the pretence to bear a greater burden than Christ has imposed on his followers, as if some of Christ's commandments had a special reference to monks and were not applicable to all Christians everywhere. But to be a Christian is to follow a common rule, imposed by Christ on all his followers. Anything else is impiety.

Second is the boast of the monks that they are more pleasing to God since they have forfeited their possessions. When Christ said to the rich young ruler to sell all his possessions (Matthew 19:21) it was not to lay down a common rule, but to show this man his besetting sin: 'had he been as good a keeper of the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on hearing these words' (4.13.13). It is no virtue to sell all that we have; our special case may require some other admonition.

Third is the divisive nature of the monastic life. Here are men who separate themselves not only from the world but from the church, erecting a private altar for themselves, and declaring that the common ministry and pulpit is not sufficient for their piety. Instead of simply being called Christians, the monks name themselves after their leaders, and call themselves Dominicans or Franciscans, just as the church at Corinth was divided by a false allegiance to apostles.

These blemishes are within the monastic system; the lengths to which individual monks have gone in these religious pretences is another matter. The differences between ancient and contemporary monasticism, according to Calvin, are striking, and Calvin sees nothing praiseworthy in a religious life of seclusion from the ordinary, daily routines of our respective callings.

As Calvin considers monasticism in his own day he concludes that all their vows are an abomination to God, their lifestyle has no respect for the calling or approval of God, are consecrated more to the devil than to God, and profess to be wiser than God in the hyper strictness of their own religion, despising the means God has ordained for dealing with sin and for growth in personal holiness.