# A Letter from Calvin to Clauberger



## DTK (Apr 24, 2006)

*John Calvin (1509-64): But that all doubt may be better cleared away, this principle should ever be kept in mind, that baptism is not conferred on children in order that they may become sons and heirs of God, but, because they are already considered by God as occupying that place and rank, the grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh by the rite of baptism.* Otherwise the Anabaptists are in the right in excluding them from baptism. For unless the thing signified by the external sign can be predicated of them, it will be a mere profanation to call them to a participation of the sign itself. *But if any one were inclined to refuse them baptism, we have a ready answer; they are already of the flock of Christ, of the family of God, since the covenant of salvation which God enters into with believers is common also to their children. As the words import, I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee. Unless this promise had preceded, certainly it would have been wrong to confer on them baptism. Now I ask whether the word of God is sufficient by its intrinsic virtue for our salvation, or whether some aid must be borrowed elsewhere to supply its defect, or help its infirmity? If this promise is not believed to be efficacious in itself, not only the virtue of God, but also his grace and truth will be attached to the external sign. Thus those men, while they strive to honor baptism, cast serious ignominy on God. Now what will become of so many passages in which Christ is represented as satisfied with faith alone?* They will deny that faith is separated from baptism. I admit it, where an opportunity of receiving it is afforded. But if a sudden death carry off any one who shall have embraced the gospel of Christ, will they therefore doom him to destruction, because he has been deprived of the outward washing with water? Do not ancient histories furnish us with some examples of martyrs, who were dragged away by tyrants to execution before they had presented themselves for baptism? And for this want of water, will the blood of Christ be of no avail to the holy martyr, who does not hesitate to shed his own blood for the faith of the gospel in which is placed the common salvation of all? Assuredly the Papists were more moderate, who, at least in this case of necessity, substitute for the washing of water the baptism of blood. In one word, unless we choose to overturn all the principles of religion, we shall be obliged to confess that the salvation of an infant does not depend on, but is only sealed by its baptism. Whence it follows that it is not rigorously nor absolutely necessary. And should we even grant what they perversely demand, viz., that when the danger of death is imminent, infants ought to be baptized, still it should be administered according to the institution and command of Christ. Letter 438, To John Clauberger in _Selected Works of John Calvin, Letters 1554-1558_, Vol. 6, pp. 278-279.

DTK


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 24, 2006)

Thanks for the quote DTK. It seems to me that this quote is supportive of the Presumptive Regeneration view of children. Is that what you gather?


----------



## Scott (Apr 24, 2006)

I ran accross this from the Westminster Directory of Public Worship the other day, and it seems consistent: "That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: *That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism*, and therefore are they baptized. . ."


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Thanks for the quote DTK. It seems to me that this quote is supportive of the Presumptive Regeneration view of children. Is that what you gather?



Jeff, 

I don't think this has much to do with presumptive regeneration, but it gets to the Roman view of baptismal regeneration. Covenant children do not BECOME such by baptism -- by extension neither are they united to Christ "head for head" ex opere operato contra the FV -- but rather they are baptized because they are covenant children.

Baptism is a _ministerial_ act. It recognizes a state of affairs.

Notice too, however, how he was careful to argue the _relative_ necessity of baptism but not the _absolute_ necessity. What is necessary is _true faith_. 

Calvin here refuted the Roman view of baptism and it serves as a rebuke to the FV quasi-papist view of baptismal union with Christ.

rsc


----------



## DTK (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> seems to me that this quote is supportive of the Presumptive Regeneration view of children. Is that what you gather?


Jeff,

Personally, I have never cared for the word "presume" or its cognates in connection with our covenant children. I do think that Calvin is emphasizing that the efficacy of our children's regeneration and adoption resides in the promise of God, and that our trust for their salvation resides in God's covenant faithfulness to His promise. I'm all for trusting God's promise, but throughout my years as a pastor (in both my own studies and experience as such), I am very uncomfortable with the word "presume."

I know others hold different views here than myself, and I'm not going to enter into a debate with those who differ. My main reason for posting the quote was simply to demonstrate that Calvin did not believe the fulfillment of God's promise is "conferred on children in order that they may become sons and heirs of God" by means of baptism. Calvin believed that there is a sacramental union in baptism between the _signa_ (sign) and the _res_ (reality, i.e. regeneration itself), but that the latter did not necessarily accompany the former at the time of its application.

Again, the fartherest thing from my mind is to rehash what has already been debated here in several threads. I'm simply too busy to pursue a debate that holds no interest for me.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 24, 2006)

Thanks DTK. Not looking for a debate, just your thoughts on Calvin's quote.

Thanks for posting it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Thanks DTK ... for posting it.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2006)

> I do think that Calvin is emphasizing that the efficacy of our children's regeneration and adoption resides in the promise of God, and that our trust for their salvation resides in God's covenant faithfulness to His promise.



Without "presume", these are my sentiments exactly.


----------



## DTK (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Thanks DTK. Not looking for a debate, just your thoughts on Calvin's quote.
> 
> Thanks for posting it.


Dear Jeff,

Just for the sake of being clear, I want you to know that I didn't receive that impression from you. But I thought it necessary to make it known that I wasn't interested in such debate in the event any well-intended zealot wanted to load both barrels for me.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> 
> 
> > I do think that Calvin is emphasizing that the efficacy of our children's regeneration and adoption resides in the promise of God, and that our trust for their salvation resides in God's covenant faithfulness to His promise.
> ...



I think we can say "expect" without saying "presume." We should expect our children to come to faith. We should catechize them, pray for them, preach to them (or have them preached to!), i.e., expose them to the means of grace all in the expectation that the ministry of Word and sacrament will be fruitful.

That expectation is not presumption. It is confidence in the divine promise: "I will be your God and the God of your children" It was that promise that was re-stated in Acts 2:39 (I'll not hear quibbling about how that only refers to the prophet!). 

We should neither be presumptuous nor should we regard our children as vipers in diapers. Yes, by nature they are sinful and they certainly need the sovereign regenerating work of the Spirit, but they are also the legitimate recipient of divine promises of which baptism is sign and a seal (promise). We should pray that our children will look back on their baptism and say, "God graciously granted to me faith and through faith all that was promised in my baptism."

rsc


----------



## Scott (Apr 24, 2006)

"nor should we regard our children as vipers in diapers"

Dr. Clark: How would you describe their soteriological status? If they re in need of the regenerating work of the Spirit, presumably b/c they do not have it, how can they not be vipers in diapers - at least until that regeneration happens?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "nor should we regard our children as vipers in diapers"
> 
> Dr. Clark: How would you describe their soteriological status? If they re in need of the regenerating work of the Spirit, presumably b/c they do not have it, how can they not be vipers in diapers - at least until that regeneration happens?



Do we have to know? Who knows when the Spirit works regeneration? Do you know *exactly* when you were regenerated? Think carefully here.

Their soteriological status is that they are covenant children, heirs of the promise, and to be treated as believers until we know otherwise.

You mustn't assume that you know what you probably cannot know.

Leave the secret things to God and concentrate on the revealed things.

What we *can* know is whether our child makes a profession of faith and whether he or she lives congruently with that profession. 

Profession is not faith, I understand, but the heart is the Lord's business not mine. My business is to catechize, pray for, and take to church.

The results belong to the Lord.

rsc


----------



## DTK (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...


I wouldn't presume to dispute Dr. Clark for a moment. I agree with his sentiments as expressed.

But it can be a perplexing struggle pastorally. In our situation where I'm serving, we are dealing with a number of covenant children who have been catechized from their parents knee and in Sunday school classes all their life-long, children who have been raised in church all their lives, exposed to the means of grace, loved and nurtured by their parents, but who are acting, indeed living like vipers out of diapers. I'm speaking of teenagers and college students, some of whom have made public a profession of faith and others who haven't. One communicant member among them is even presently under discipline, suspended indefinitely from the sacraments, and that only after two long years of pleading with him. Their parents are distraught and perplexed, and their faith in God's promises is being tried. Now, they have all been confronted, and we as a session are very concerned for their souls. Just this past Tuesday evening we sat in the home of one of our families and spoke with their children. One of them is a young lady and a communicate member, and I asked her point blank in the presence of her parents and siblings about where she saw herself spiritually. Her response was that she couldn't say. I didn't hesitate to inform her that I was very concerned for her soul. It wasn't simply that she couldn't articulate to me her state spiritually, but the flippant way in which she dismissed my question. These children have been nurtured in the things of God, and have received the blessings of continual exposure to the things of God, and yes one would expect by now to see the fruit of God's promises realized. Yet God's ways and timing are not ours, and I realize as well that all of us pass through seasons of waxing and waning spiritually. I understand that, and yet in hope expect to see the fulfillment of God's promises.

Now, someone might seriously encourage them to look to their baptism, but I think I am more inclined at this point to entreat them by spelling out to them in no uncertain terms the meaning of their baptism in the language of "Repent." Or as Calvin put it...


> Farther, as nothing is more easy than for hypocrites to flatter themselves under a false pretext, that they are in favor with God, or for degenerate children groundlessly to apply to themselves the promises made to their fathers, it is again stated, by way of exception, in the 18th verse, that God is merciful only to those who, on their part, keep his covenant, which the unbelieving make of none effect by their wickedness. The keeping, or observing of the covenant, which is here put instead of the fear of God, mentioned in the preceding verse, is worthy of notice; for thus David intimates that none are the true worshippers of God but those who reverently obey his Word. Very far from this are the Papists, who, thinking themselves equal to the angels in holiness, nevertheless shake off the yoke of God, like wild beasts, by trampling under foot his Holy Word. (_Calvin´s Commentaries_, Vol. VI, p. 140, commenting on Psalm 103:17-18).


It is a solemn thing to be given the responsibility to watch after souls for whom one must give an account; and if such a sentiment is regarded as some misguided pietistic notion, then I most readily confess my guilt.

DTK


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...


Wow! That was incredibly wise and well thought out. Thank you for that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott_
> ...


I listened to your lecture again yesterday while working out (Why Baptism and What Does it Do?). Again, great lecture. A very clear presentation to really clarify the Reformed position. This quote from Calvin really comes alive after having considered some of these points afresh.


----------



## Scott (Apr 25, 2006)

> Wow! That was incredibly wise and well thought out. Thank you for that.


----------



## Scott (Apr 25, 2006)

> Their soteriological status is that they are covenant children, heirs of the promise, and to be treated as believers until we know otherwise.
> 
> You mustn't assume that you know what you probably cannot know.
> 
> ...


Good post and I agree.


----------



## Scott (Apr 25, 2006)

> I listened to your lecture again yesterday while working out (Why Baptism and What Does it Do?). Again, great lecture. A very clear presentation to really clarify the Reformed position. This quote from Calvin really comes alive after having considered some of these points afresh.


What lecture is this? I would like to listen to it.

thanks


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 25, 2006)

> But it can be a perplexing struggle pastorally....
> 
> ....but who are acting, indeed living like vipers out of diapers. I'm speaking of teenagers and college students, some of whom have made public a profession of faith and others who haven't.



I didn't say but was assuming the case of a believer struggling with assurance. This is a different case with a different course of treatment, as it were.

In cases where a baptised member is living in rebellion to their baptism, by not making profession of faith or, having made profession of faith, by not living congruently with that profession, there needs to be discipline as you are doing.



> One communicant member among them is even presently under discipline, suspended indefinitely from the sacraments, and that only after two long years of pleading with him. Their parents are distraught and perplexed, and their faith in God's promises is being tried. Now, they have all been confronted, and we as a session are very concerned for their souls.



Exactly. Two things: 1) The person suspended has been properly confronted with their sin and rebellion. 2) We must trust God the Spirit to use the law to such a one "the greatness of their sin and misery" and thence to drive them to true faith in Christ.

For the parents, however, baptism is a promise. God has promised to be a God to us and to our children. The path may be difficult, but we should, as you say, expect our children to come to faith. The parents are right to be worried, but should they take no comfort from the fact that their children are covenant children, that the sign and seal has been applied to their children? Faith believes what it does not yet see. It may be that God will not ultimately bring that child to faith, but as long as the child is alive the matter is not closed and who knows what the Spirit is doing or shall do. 

That baptism administered in hope continues to testify to the promise and to the claim that God has placed on that child. Every time a baptized person looks in the mirror he/she sees someone upon whom has been placed the name of the Triune God.



> ...I asked her point blank in the presence of her parents and siblings about where she saw herself spiritually. Her response was that she couldn't say. ....but the flippant way in which she dismissed my question.
> 
> ...Yet God's ways and timing are not ours, and I realize as well that all of us pass through seasons of waxing and waning spiritually. I understand that, and yet in hope expect to see the fulfillment of God's promises.



Exactly! Such folk should be confronted with the very serious consequences of rebellion. It ought to be terrified to be handed over to Satan!



> Now, someone might seriously encourage them to look to their baptism, but I think I am more inclined at this point to entreat them by spelling out to them in no uncertain terms the meaning of their baptism in the language of "Repent."



For what it's worth, I agree entirely, but can't we do both? Is it really an either/or matter? Don't we preach BOTH law AND gospel to our congregations? Shouldn't we do both in house visits?

That said, your congregation should give thanks that their covenant God has given them such faithful elders.



> It is a solemn thing to be given the responsibility to watch after souls for whom one must give an account; and if such a sentiment is regarded as some misguided pietistic notion, then I most readily confess my guilt.



I don't think this is pietism (whatever the FV would say). 

Baptism isn't magic, but it is a promise with consequent obligations, chiefly faith and obedience.

God bless your congregation,

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > I listened to your lecture again yesterday while working out (Why Baptism and What Does it Do?). Again, great lecture. A very clear presentation to really clarify the Reformed position. This quote from Calvin really comes alive after having considered some of these points afresh.
> ...



lecture mp3 

rsc


----------



## DTK (Apr 25, 2006)

Dr. Clark,

Thanks for your response and guidance. I'm thankful that the sun of wisdom doesn't rise and set on my own session's heads alone, but on the heads of others as well, united under our great Head.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Scott (Apr 25, 2006)

This is a related question. I have seen statistic that 88 percent of evangelical children leave the church at age 18 and never return. If God promises to be the God of believers' children, why is there such a high spiritual mortality rate?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2006)

Scott,
I think the answer is related to the church in the 20th/21st cetury (not that it didn't happen in the past). It is the result of the outworking of the bad fruit of mistaken ecclesiology.

Because the church outlives us and continues on, its "cycles" or the outworkings of its errors are longer. This is why we have got to maintain the discipline of church history. So we know what has happened, why, and seek to amend our father's errors.

The church has done an awful job in the last century with its "succeeding generations". And the "fixes" proposed have been as bad (or worse) than the original failures. We have coddled the youth, we have given them their own version of "church", and when they are older, we are surprised (!) that they don't stick around once the "party-tricks" and "parlor-games" are over. The mega-churches of today are just bringing the pablum over into the main-service, in order to keep this generation around for a bit longer.

This is why Barna predicts the "end of the church age". He is ignoring the "remnant", but he's not missing the trend at all.

We need to recover some things, but its not the kind of sacramentological recovery promoted by the FV.

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Scott,
> I think the answer is related to the church in the 20th/21st cetury (not that it didn't happen in the past). It is the result of the outworking of the bad fruit of mistaken ecclesiology.
> 
> ...



Bruce, my church doesn't bring pablum over into the main service. It is very conservative. Believe me, my pastor would not allow many of the things during the service that you are referring to. However, we still have children go to their own classes during the service. Children go to their own classes by basis of their age in order to learn. They don't sit in the main service with the adults being bored and causing disruption. 

It is my understanding that the kids who leave the church are the ones who were forced to sit in the pew and listen while their parents received instruction. Why try to feed children meat when they haven't even had enough milk?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BaptistCanuk_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> ...


Brian,

I respectfully disagree. There are numerous reasons why children apostasize and we can come up with all the sociological and psychological reasons why but the Scriptures are very clear. It is both:

1. According to the foreknowledge and election of God.
AND
2. Because faith was not cultivated through education, prayer, and discipline regularly within the home and the Church (emphasis on the former)

There are clear commands that children are to be trained in the home. This is not Law, per se, because even the Gospel has content that requires instruction and labor.

I have variously taught several Sunday School classes of all ages but have quite a bit of experience in the young teen ages. Even in very conservative Churches with faithful parent, I find it is very common for the vast majority of children to be woefully ignorant of their Christian faith. The evidence that their parents neither pray with them nor teach them in the home is manifest.

Now if those children rebel against the faith at age 18 what was the issue? Was it because they had to sit through the Sermon? Hardly. In fact, one of the issues with many young adults is how undisciplined they are. There is a real benefit to training one to be able to sit still and listen attentively for 45-60 minutes straight. That doesn't happen overnight and I see grown adults that fidget more in lectures than 6 year old boys. My 3 year old son sits through the service and is one of the only kids that does not go to Children's Church. Yes he is bored but, No, he will not hate the faith because of 1 hour per week. He might hate the faith if that faith is never inculcated in the home, however, and his only exposure to it is one hour per week.

I always have to be careful in these discussions and I believe Pastor King expressed it as well as I've seen it. The only thing I add is that, because of the "guilty feelings" associated with it, we normally don't like to confront the fact that there were MEANS that led to ordained ENDS. That is to say that God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass and that includes the rebellion of a covenant child. That doesn't mean, however, that God's election is the _proximate_ cause of rebellion but the first cause. The proximate cause is the home in almost all cases. It's the reason why one of the criteria for Elders is that we look at their families for "...if they can't manage their own households well..." then why would I ever go to an Elder for spiritual advice about my own family if his is a total disaster?

I think, in the end, I agree with what Dr. Clark said above and in that lecture referred to: whenever we ask the question "Am I Elect?" it is asking for trouble. I would add that whenever we begin to blame any rebellion on the election of God then we run the same risk. We only know what is revealed and what is before us. If a child is in rebellion then we ought to look at the Scriptural reasons God says children don't follow the faith of their parents. Among those reasons is not that worship is too boring for kids. 

I think we also need to honestly assess other parents' failures. Care must be exercised here so as not too add insult to their sorrow but the message to the rest of the Church that "...they did everything they could..." is not always true. There may be couples with young children that need to hear that they too are in peril of losing their inheritance if they keep squandering their limited opportunities.

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## BaptistCanuk (Apr 26, 2006)

Hey Rich, I hope life is well for you in Japan. 

I don't disagree with all that you said in your post. You were right on everything. I just do believe that one reason kids leave the church is because they were forced to sit in on the main service and had no idea what the pastor was talking about. Most sermons are directed at a more mature audience and are way over kids' heads.

We have to remember that kids learn through the process of play or having fun and for a four year old, sitting in on the main service is not what they would classify as fun. I believe the father AND the mother should teach the children during the week for sure. But on Sunday I think kids should go and learn with their peers. They aren't little adults, they're children. 

This is just one point that we disagree on, the rest of your post I do agree with.

edited for grammar

[Edited on 4-26-2006 by BaptistCanuk]


----------

