Calvin on forgiveness in baptism

[RemovedbyRequest]

Calvin here sounds very different from most of the reformed theology I've heard (from popular sources like ligonier).




From book 4 chapter 4:

"The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings."

"Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it?"

"Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us,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."

"We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. ... it wipes and washes away all our defilements."




He sounds more like the lutherans and anglicans. Was protestantism historically more unified on this issue of baptismal efficacy? Has the reformed tradition drifted from Calvin (and the other reformers) on this point?

 

[The Original Secession]

Calvin here sounds very different from most of the reformed theology I've heard (from popular sources like ligonier).




From book 4 chapter 4:

"The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings."

"Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it?"

"Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us,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."

"We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. ... it wipes and washes away all our defilements."




He sounds more like the lutherans and anglicans. Was protestantism historically more unified on this issue of baptismal efficacy? Has the reformed tradition drifted from Calvin (and the other reformers) on this point?

Read this:

The Efficacy of the Sacraments | William Perkins

William PerkinsReformed Catholic, Works VII, pp. 134-138Of the Efficacy of the Sacraments I. Our Consent Conclusion 1. We teach and believe that the sacraments are signs to represent Christ with Hi…

purelypresbyterian.com

 

[Afterthought]

He is speaking of assurance to those who are believers. Believers have faith, but they may lack assurance and waver. Remembering their baptism can help assure their faith--not because baptism regenerated them or justified them or that they were regenerated or justified in their baptism--but because it is a visible token of God's promise that we earthly creatures can cling onto and reassure our faith that God's promsies are true to save all who believe.

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

He is speaking of assurance to those who are believers. Believers have faith, but they may lack assurance and waver. Remembering their baptism can help assure their faith--not because baptism regenerated them or justified them or that they were regenerated or justified in their baptism--but because it is a visible token of God's promise that we earthly creatures can cling onto and reassure our faith that God's promsies are true to save all who believe.

How could it be a promise if it doesn't achieve what it promises for everyone?

He is speaking of assurance to those who are believers.

That sounds like you need to already know you're a believer in order to get assurance from baptism. If you already know you're a believer, then you already have assurance. Those who lack assurance don't know if they are true believers.

Calvin seems to be more objective than that.

 

[Afterthought]

How could it be a promise if it doesn't achieve what it promises for everyone?

The promise is that God will save all who believe. Those who are baptized have that promise confirmed to them in a personal way that helps grow faith: God has reached out to them tangibly to confirm that he really will save them if they have faith.

That sounds like you need to already know you're a believer in order to get assurance from baptism. If you already know you're a believer, then you already have assurance. Those who lack assurance don't know if they are true believers.

That is simply the contradiction of "I believe, help thou my unbelief." If you have ever struggled with assurance before or know someone who has, then you will get this. To try to help you enter into their experience, it usually goes like this in their head and emotions: "I'm such a sinner. How can I ever possibly be saved? I see no marks of grace in me. How can a believer have no marks of grace? I see such great sin in me: how can a Christian ever sin such sins? Oh how can I know that God loves me? How can I know that I am saved?"

There are many ways to deal with such questions. These questions often arise because people doubt that God will truly fulfill his promise to save those who believe, and that's all that's needed: apprehending Christ by faith is enough and our sins are cleansed from us! In such cases, one way back into the light is through remembering baptism. It goes like this: "But wait! I am baptized. God really truly will save those who believe. I believe; I must be saved. I can hardly believe it: I'm such a sinner; I feel their weight on me daily and feel so guilty and ashamed. But I know it must be true: the Lord has confirmed it with oath and has touched me in baptism to confirm it again. I believe Lord!"

As baptism confirms the promise of eternal salvation to all who believe, it also helps the believer struggling with sin. It reassures them that God's promsies are true and can strengthen their faith to believe him when by sight all seems hopless in their struggles against sin and the world.

I read through Perkins posted earlier: he does treat this well. You will notice in the Westminster Standards how the sacraments are only efficacious for believers. The Heidelberg Catechism experientially shows how this works in the believer's experience.

Calvin seems to be more objective than that.

Calvin says: "Believers become assured by baptism."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

How could it be a promise if it doesn't achieve what it promises for everyone?


That sounds like you need to already know you're a believer in order to get assurance from baptism. If you already know you're a believer, then you already have assurance. Those who lack assurance don't know if they are true believers.

Calvin seems to be more objective than that.

1) It is a promise to everyone-who-believes. Not a blanket promise on the basis of the sacramental work performed or word uttered (ex opere operato). That one's personal name is spoken along with the promise makes the declaration personal, but not without qualification: namely faith must believe the promise.

2) Lots of believers have trouble with assurance. This is a human factor, the reality of life in the fallen world. The sacraments are for strengthening faith, which strengthened produces assurance. You must be a believer to be benefited by the sacraments. This is Protestantism 101. A child may early know (from being told by reliable sources) that he was baptized in infancy. The fact of it is not true assurance. Only faith in what baptism signifies constitutes what our Confession describes as "efficacy" for the sacrament. Believe what God said to/about you even a long time ago, and it is so--and very clearly not because of anything you accomplished or participated. Baptism meets the believer at the point of his need for a reminder of God's love.

The objectivity to which Calvin speaks is the objective truth of baptism, and what it is witness to: God's declaration that he doth wash from sin within, as surely as water washes from dirt without, whomsoever puts his faith in the work of God in Christ--including this person being baptized. There is no word in baptism itself that the subject of it is (with or without his personal profession) assuredly "in Christ." Adults lie, they can be confused or self-deceived, so their own subjective witness is imperfect, lacking objectivity. There is no extra assurance in baptism+profession. The objectivity is bound to baptism itself and what God says in conjunction with his gift from the mouth of the minister.

 

[Romans678]

Awesome thread.

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

The promise is that God will save all who believe. Those who are baptized have that promise confirmed to them in a personal way that helps grow faith: God has reached out to them tangibly to confirm that he really will save them if they have faith.

It is a promise to everyone-who-believes. Not a blanket promise on the basis of the sacramental work performed or word uttered (ex opere operato). That one's personal name is spoken along with the promise makes the declaration personal, but not without qualification: namely faith must believe the promise.

What's to stop a false believer from saying the same thing? They think they believe, and they know they've been baptized.

 

[Afterthought]

What's to stop a false believer from saying the same thing? They think they believe, and they know they've been baptized.

They will either have false assurance, which they hopefully will be awakened out of by the searching preaching of the word that examines men's souls and forces them to reckon with their soul's condition, or they can look for the presence or lack of marks of grace. Baptism is for the benefit of believers, not unbelievers. Of course, a believer struggling with assurance may doubt so much that even their baptism will not help, thinking that a false believer could presumptuously make use of their baptism to gain a false assurance: in that case, some good counsel for them is to remind them that where there is struggle there is life. The unregenerate does not struggle with their salvation and sin: there is no war between the Spirit and lusts of the flesh.

Baptism is a helpful means for growing in assurance of salvation, assurance of God's love, and growing in faith that God will do all he promises (e.g., a believer who knows they are saved but doubts they have truly been forgiven of their sins). It is not the only means.

In the time of Jesus, it was known that not all who are circumcised and in the church are saved, and the unbelieving Jews looked to their circumcision to falsely claim themselves children of Abraham. The unbeliever will always abuse God's covenant and things he has given for the benefit of his children: What of it? Let believers make use of the good things God has given to them, and let the chaff be blown by the wind. The Lord may discipline them himself for their abuse (as in the Lord's Supper).

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

They will either have false assurance (...)

That's the problem I'm seeing. It's not absolute or objective assurance, and can be falsely applied. It seems we're trying to say that something that doesn't give us assurance is intended to give us assurance; that something that doesn't necessarily do anything is supposed to assure us that something has done.

 

[Afterthought]

It's not absolute or objective assurance, and can be falsely applied. It seems we're trying to say that something that doesn't give us assurance is intended to give us assurance; that something that doesn't necessarily do anything is supposed to assure us that something has done.

Being reminded that God's promises are sure is objective. For a person struggling with assurance, being reminded of the surety of God's promises and that all that is needed is to just believe--casting ourselves upon him--can help. If you have never struggled with assurance (not just assurance of salvation; there is also assurance of God's love and assurance that God has done what he said he would do) or tried to counsel someone who does, this will not make sense, but this is the way people are. I am puzzled why this is a problem to your mind: it may help if you came forth with whatever angle you are trying to get at, so we don't keep responding to the wrong thing.

Baptism always does something for those who believe--even if they doubt they have true faith if they have true faith their true faith is still there to make use of the means of grace--subject to the Spirit's application, just like the Word of God always does something. You might as well argue that the Word of God does not give assurance because it requires faith to apprehend the promises in order for it to do so, yet the promises of God are the most powerful means of assurance, and they ground the marks of grace (how can we know that the marks of grace are signs of one who truly believes? Or how can we be sure that the marks of grace suffice to tell us that we are true believers? Trusting the Word of God is the only way. But then what if we don't trust the Word of God? Does that mean we are unsaved? But baptism helps assure us that we can trust God's Word that he does what he says he does to those who come to him.).

 

[RemovedbyRequest]

Being reminded that God's promises are sure is objective

You don't need to remember your baptism to remember God's promises. So what does baptism actually do?

I am puzzled why this is a problem to your mind: it may help if you came forth with whatever angle you are trying to get at, so we don't keep responding to the wrong thing.

No angle, this just doesn't make sense to me. Just trying to understand what Calvin meant.

You might as well argue that the Word of God does not give assurance because it requires faith to apprehend the promises in order for it to do so,

A believer believes God's promises in his word. But the question is, is their faith real? This is why I'm confused, you seem to be saying assurance is only for those who already have assurance. But what can assure the believer who doubts whether their faith is real? Then you say "if they're believers, God promises them" but that doesn't help them know if they are believers.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What's to stop a false believer from saying the same thing? They think they believe, and they know they've been baptized.

I guess you can't prevent a false believer from saying the same thing. They may think they are getting the same assurance that a believer lays hold of, but they aren't. Heb.3:19, "So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." God made those folk a clear and definite promise (Ex.3:17); was there anything false in the promise? Who got the benefit of the promise? Men like Joshua and Caleb. But there were others who "claimed" the promise yet were rebels at heart, Num.14:40-45; and these got nothing.

People resolve to have assurance from many things; some even use the means of grace. Then a day comes when they say something like this: "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" (Mt.7:22). But if you, a genuine believer, use those means properly, do you not have true assurance from that sure, objective word of God? Wrong use does not invalidate the right use.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

You don't need to remember your baptism to remember God's promises. So what does baptism actually do?

A believer believes God's promises in his word. But the question is, is their faith real? This is why I'm confused, you seem to be saying assurance is only for those who already have assurance. But what can assure the believer who doubts whether their faith is real? Then you say "if they're believers, God promises them" but that doesn't help them know if they are believers.

Well, God gave you baptism and attached his promises; so you may use and benefit, or you may neglect and miss the same. Or persuade yourself you have just as good benefits from alternates. You don't get a different ministry of Christ toward you in sacramental form, than you get by the word; but you may get him better by sacramental ministry, because God knows our needs better than we do. He knows our weakness, "our frame, that we are dust," Ps.103:14. The sacraments are "sensible signs," that minister to us tangibly, to our eyes and hands, our nose and mouth. Whether we recognize it or not, God says we need this ministry, so we should accept it and believe its purpose. The gospel is being shown to us, and that better than some drama-team's idea of a good time.

If you meet with someone, you can't read the heart of him. He tells you, "I am doubting," and you respond, "Here are many promises God has made; and what about your baptism? Was that not also a strong promise, and has not the church been his place of refuge provided for you, where you have found comfort?" You are pointing to actual facts, words and actions that have meaning. How does a man know he is believing? Faith is knowledge, assent, and trust. That's what it is.

How does a man know he is seeing? He opens his eyes, which take in light, color, and all the rest. Oh, but what if he is delusional, or dreaming, and he's not really seeing? Some folk are not in their right mind; that doesn't change your advice to whoever you meet with his eyes closed, asking you to help him see: "Open your eyes, turn on the light." He does and starts seeing things, yet he asks you, "How can I know this is real, and not hallucination?" What else can you tell him but to operate on the basis of what he "sees," and the success of his operation will prove that his eyes are working.

The man who sits still and won't do anything with his eyes open, because he doesn't KNOW that he isn't "in the matrix" might as well be a brain in a vat. He is also blind, who refuses to see. People who actually can see, wake up in the morning and start seeing their way around; they don't overthink the process (the ones who do, we tend to think of them as handicapped in some way). So, there are also some people whose faith doesn't seem to work quite so well. Sometimes, it's just a temporary issue, and they only pause for a brief time before they are believing their way around again, however imperfectly, walking by faith. A few who claim they can see have really a false faith, Jn.9:40-41. And that's something that maybe only the Last Day will reveal to them.

Most believers walk by faith, because having been given spiritual eyes to see, they just see. A newborn baby opens his eyes on the world, and starts to process (assuming all is normal). So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit. A baby looks to his parent for comfort, this is the design. The parent is an objective reality, it is the baby's "promise" of sorts. Just because there are terrible parents, and just because even good parents slip up on the job, this does not change the promise of what a parent is supposed to be. Unlike with people, God is everything he claims to be, and does everything he claims to do. He is the promise. He is THERE. His word is FACT. He has made provision for our weakness. Great and precious are his promises toward them that believe. Baptism is one such promise. It should be believed.