# Confusing Calvin Quote



## MichaelLofton (Mar 16, 2011)

Hello everyone,

I stumbled across a John Calvin quote where he says the most puzzling thing. Here is the quote:

“Let the readers therefore remember, that we are not here disputing whether it is necessary to baptize infants, nor calling in question whether by baptism they are ingrafted into the body of Christ, nor whether it is to them a laver of regeneration, nor whether it seals the pardon of their sins. The only question is the absolute necessity of Baptism.” (Tracts Relating to the Reformation, volume 3, p. 347) This document can be found on Google books if anyone is interested in reading the context.

It is my impression that baptism is not the laver of regeneration, nor is it the means by which we receive union with Christ. I am confused because John Calvin seems to say the opposite. I realize that Calvin seemed to use the term "regeneration" in the sense of sanctification. This may account for his "laver of regeneration" comment but I am completely confused about the "ingrafted into the body of Christ" comment and the "seals the pardon of their sins" comment. I am still pretty new to the Presbyterian/Reformed understanding of Scripture and welcome any assistance anyone may be willing to provide in how the aforementioned comment is understood within a Presbyterian/Reformed framework.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 16, 2011)

There is in sacraments a sacramental union between the sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament, so that when we speak of the sacrament we are speaking of the thing signified by the sacrament.

E.g. In Romans 6 the Apostle Paul makes no distinction betwen water baptism and the thing signified by water baptism which is regeneration.


> 3Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
> 
> 5For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6We know that our old self[a] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:3-11, ESV)



Calvin is assuming that his readers understand that it is only in the case of infants that have faith or later exercise faith that the sign and the thing signified come together.



> nor calling in question whether by baptism they are ingrafted into the body of Christ, nor whether it is to them a laver of regeneration, nor whether it seals the pardon of their sins.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 16, 2011)

MichaelLofton said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> I stumbled across a John Calvin quote where he says the most puzzling thing. Here is the quote:
> 
> ...



Without seeing more of the context, I wouldn’t assume that Calvin is endorsing any of those ideas. He’s merely making the point that they are not the subject of discussion in this narrative.


----------



## MichaelLofton (Mar 16, 2011)

"Without seeing more of the context, I wouldn’t assume that Calvin is endorsing any of those ideas. He’s merely making the point that they are not the subject of discussion in this narrative."

I'm not sure about that. When I read the context he was clear that he was affirming those things. Check it out when you get a chance if you don't mind. Any help would be appreciated.

---------- Post added at 12:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------




Richard Tallach said:


> There is in sacraments a sacramental union between the sacrament and the thing signified by the sacrament, so that when we speak of the sacrament we are speaking of the thing signified by the sacrament.
> 
> E.g. In Romans 6 the Apostle Paul makes no distinction betwen water baptism and the thing signified by water baptism which is regeneration.
> 
> ...


 
Good point, I didn't think about that. It is possible he assumed people knew "it is only in the case of infants that have faith or later exercise faith that the sign and the thing signified come together". I would be interested in knowing if there are any other explanations though.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 16, 2011)

Interesting. Earlier he says this:



> In my Tract I used the following words, "In regard to Baptism, it is worthwhile to observe, that what they say of the absolute necessity of Baptism had better been omitted. For besides erroneously annexing the salvation of the soul to external signs, no small injury is done to the promise, as if it were insufficient to give the salvation which it offers unless aided from some other quarter. The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the Church by Baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to Baptism profanes it. Now, then, those who hold Baptism to be so necessary, that they exclude from the hope of salvation all who have not been dipt by it, both insult God, and involve themselves in great absurdity. For how can it be lawful to confer the sacred badge of Christ on aliens from Christ? *Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of a half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire: and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism. *Hence, as error usually springs from error, the office of baptizing, which Christ specially committed to the ministers of the Church alone, they delegate not only to any one among the people, but even to women."
> …
> He errs no less in this, that from not observing the state of the question, he gives his arguments at random to the wind. If any one at this time maintains Paedobaptism keenly, and on strong grounds, I am certainly in the number. *As to the cause or end, there is no controversy that they are baptized in order that, being ingrafted into the body of Christ, they may be freed from eternal death, obtain the forgiveness of the sin engendered in them by nature, and be clothed with a free righteousness.* Of this fact clear evidence is given by my Institutes, the Catechism, and the regular Form which I have drawn up for the daily use of our Church. Where, then, lies our difference? In this that I disapprove of the absolute necessity, which they urge too strongly, and do not admit that a child who, from sudden death, has not been able to be presented for baptism, is therefore excluded from the kingdom of God.


It’s almost Federal Vision-esque in its implications.


----------



## MichaelLofton (Mar 16, 2011)

tcalbrecht said:


> Interesting. Earlier he says this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Incidentally, it was from a Federal Vision guy that I came across that quote.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2011)

There is nothing which even remotely resembles the confusion of the FV in Calvin's writings. He is as clear as the noontide of the day. The sacraments minister grace to the believing. They minister grace as signs and seals of spiritual blessings. They are never anything more than signs and seals. It is the Holy Spirit which ministers grace through them. There is nothing in any of this which resembles an "opus operatum" mentality or which hints at the possibility that any other than the elect receive grace by means of the sacraments.

This understanding is clearly exemplified in the quoted portions which seem to be causing confusion to some. Quote: "Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of a half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire: and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism." He could not be any clearer in showing how the thing signified must be present in order for the sign to ratify it. Quote: "As to the cause or end, there is no controversy that they are baptized in order that, being ingrafted into the body of Christ, they may be freed from eternal death, obtain the forgiveness of the sin engendered in them by nature, and be clothed with a free righteousness." Again, baptism is "in order that," or with the purpose that, the benefits it signifies might be enjoyed, not, "with the consequence that" the benefits are enjoyed. In both statements the relative necessity of the sacrament is maintained while leaving room to be able to argue against the idea of absolute necessity.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 16, 2011)

One might do well also to consult Calvin's own full explanation of the phrase in his commentary on Titus 3:5.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 16, 2011)

This remindes me of a funny joke that I heard. 

What is the diference between a federal visionist and a TR? The TR uses " " when citing the WCF or Calvin.

The reason that is funny is that we fail to allow any ambiguity in the words of our fathers. What? you didn't think it was funny?

Temporal provincialism is the reading into the past our modern assumptions & definitions. IT is a logical fallicy that we are all tempted by. Those of us that read old books more so then others. Reading old books in context is a very hard thing to do. Most of the time we fail. Adopting a practice of charity is the crucial element in being able to read older books & to at the same time to remain in the current conversation.

For what it's worth


----------



## MichaelLofton (Mar 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing which even remotely resembles the confusion of the FV in Calvin's writings. He is as clear as the noontide of the day. The sacraments minister grace to the believing. They minister grace as signs and seals of spiritual blessings. They are never anything more than signs and seals. It is the Holy Spirit which ministers grace through them. There is nothing in any of this which resembles an "opus operatum" mentality or which hints at the possibility that any other than the elect receive grace by means of the sacraments.
> 
> This understanding is clearly exemplified in the quoted portions which seem to be causing confusion to some. Quote: "Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of a half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire: and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism." He could not be any clearer in showing how the thing signified must be present in order for the sign to ratify it. Quote: "As to the cause or end, there is no controversy that they are baptized in order that, being ingrafted into the body of Christ, they may be freed from eternal death, obtain the forgiveness of the sin engendered in them by nature, and be clothed with a free righteousness." Again, baptism is "in order that," or with the purpose that, the benefits it signifies might be enjoyed, not, "with the consequence that" the benefits are enjoyed. In both statements the relative necessity of the sacrament is maintained while leaving room to be able to argue against the idea of absolute necessity.


 
Is there a sense in which we could say baptism regenerates, not in the sense of the Westminster Standard's definition, which defines it as effectual calling, but regeneration in the sense Calvin seems to use it, which is the sense of sanctification, or being set apart? Is this a way in which "laver of regeneration" could be understood, or was Calvin referring to elect infants only as those who receive regeneration through what he calls the "laver of baptism"? If elect infants only, can an elect infant receive the benefits of Christ's work of atonement and the grace of adoption if it dies prior to baptism?


----------



## MW (Mar 17, 2011)

MichaelLofton said:


> Is there a sense in which we could say baptism regenerates, not in the sense of the Westminster Standards of effectual calling, but regeneration in the sense Calvin seems to use it, which is the sense of sanctification, or being set apart? Is this a way in which "laver of regeneration" could be understood, or was Calvin on referring to elect infants? If only elect infants only, can an elect infant receive the benefits of Christ's work of atonement and the grace of adoption if it dies prior to baptism?


 
These are useful questions.

1. Calvin's use of regeneration as a lifelong process is still salvific in nature, so I am inclined to say "no" to any idea of common, general, or external regeneration. Internal and external is not really a category which Calvin worked with. He usually speaks of true and false. The scholastics wrestled more with the concepts of "common operations of the Spirit" and functioned alot more comfortably with ideas of internal and external aspects of the covenant in conformity with distinctions in the visible and invisible church. Please note, the FV has not accepted Calvin's true-false category, nor the external-internal covenant of the scholastics, but speaks of an eschatological church which allows for true believers to be temporally in covenant and partakers of spiritual blessings but ultimately excluded from the final realisation of the church. This is contrary to clear cut reformed confessional teachings.

2. On elect infants, there is absolute and relative perspectives. Absolutely, in the decree of God, elect infants alone participate in the grace signified in the sacraments. However, relatively, in the judgment of man, all infants brought up in the faith are considered in a provisional light as participating in grace with the expectation that profession and fruit should be forthcoming. Should the covenant member die in infancy the final resting place is considered in the hope and comfort which the covenant of grace holds out to believers. But again, this is provisional, and is not intended to determine anything with an absolute judgment.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 17, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> There is nothing which even remotely resembles the confusion of the FV in Calvin's writings. He is as clear as the noontide of the day.


Rev. Winzer,

What source would you say does the best job contrasting Calvin’s views with FV, esp. on the matter of baptism?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 17, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> One might do well also to consult Calvin's own full explanation of the phrase in his commentary on Titus 3:5.


 
Indeed....

****************************

_5. Not by works._ Let us remember that here Paul addresses his discourse to believers, and describes the manner in which they entered into the kingdom of God. He affirms that by their works they did not at all deserve that they should become partakers of salvation, or that they should be reconciled to God through faith; but he says that they obtained this blessing solely through the mercy of God. We therefore conclude from his words, that we bring nothing to God, but that he goes before us by his pure grace, without any regard to works. For when he says,—“Not by works which we have done,” he means, that we can do nothing but sin till we have been renewed by God. This negative statement depends on the former affirmation, by which he said that they were foolish and disobedient, and led away by various desires, till they were created anew in Christ; and indeed, what good work could proceed from so corrupt a mass?

It is madness, therefore, to allege that a man approaches to God by his own “preparations,” as they call them. During the whole period of life they depart further and further from him, until he puts forth his hand, and brings them back into that path from which they had gone astray. In short, that we, rather than others, have been admitted to enjoy the salvation of Christ, is altogether ascribed by Paul to the mercy of God, because there were no works of righteousness in us. This argument would have no weight, if he did not take for granted, that everything that we attempt to do before we believe, is unrighteous and hateful to God.

_Which we had done._ To argue from the preterite tense of this verb, that God looks at the future merits of men when he calls them, is sophistical and foolish. “When Paul,” say they, “denies that God is induced by our merits to bestow his grace upon us, he limits the statement to the past time; and therefore, if it is only for the righteousness going before that no room is left, future righteousness is admitted to consideration. But they assume a principle, which Paul everywhere rejects, when he declares that election by free grace is the foundation of good works. If we owe it entirely to the grace of God, that we are fit for living a holy life, what future works of ours will God look upon? If, previously to our being called by God, iniquity holds such dominion over us, that it will not cease to make progress till it come to its height, how can God be induced, by a regard to our future righteousness, to call us? Away then with such trifling! When Paul spoke of past works, his sole object was to exclude all merits. The meaning of his words is as if he had said,—“If we boast of any merit, what sort of works had we?” This maxim holds good, that men would not be better than they were before, if the Lord did not make them better by his calling.

_He hath saved us._ He speaks of faith, and shews that we have already obtained salvation. Although, so long as we are held by the entanglements of sin, we carry about a body of death, yet we are certain of our salvation, provided that we are ingrafted into Christ by faith, according to that saying,—“He that believeth in the Son of God hath passed from death into life.” (John 5:24.) Yet, shortly afterwards, by introducing the word faith, the Apostle will shew that we have not yet actually attained what Christ procured for us by his death. Hence it follows, that, on the part of God, our salvation is completed, while the full enjoyment of it is delayed till the end of our warfare. And that is what the same Apostle teaches in another passage, that “we are saved by hope.” (Rom. 8:24.)

_By the washing of regeneration._ I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism; not that salvation is contained in the outward symbol of water, but because baptism seals to us the salvation obtained by Christ. Paul treats of the exhibition of the grace of God, which, we have said, has been made by faith. Since therefore a part of revelation consists in baptism, that is, so far as it is intended to confirm our faith, he properly makes mention of it. Besides, baptism—being the entrance into the Church, and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ—is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to shew in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus:—“God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.”

Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” *The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.* Although by baptism wicked men are neither washed nor renewed, yet it retains that power, so far as relates to God, because, although they reject the grace of God, still it is offered to them. But here Paul addresses believers, in whom baptism is always efficacious, and in whom, therefore, it is properly connected with its truth and efficacy. But by this mode of expression we are reminded that, if we do not wish to annihilate holy baptism, we must prove its efficacy by “newness of life.” (Rom. 6:4.)

_And of the renewing of the Holy Spirit._ *Though he mentioned the sign, that he might exhibit to our view the grace of God, yet, that we may not fix our whole attention on the sign, he immediately sends us to the Spirit, that we may know that we are washed by his power, and not by water, agreeably to what is said*,—“I will sprinkle on you clean waters, even my Spirit.” (Ezek. 36:25, 27.) And indeed, the words of Paul agree so completely with the words of the Prophet, that it appears clearly that both of them say the same thing. For this reason I said at the commencement, that Paul, while he speaks directly about the Holy Spirit, at the same time alludes to baptism. It is therefore the Spirit of God who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures; but because his grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism.

Some read the word “renewing” in the accusative case, thus:—“through the washing of regeneration and (through) the renewing of the Holy Spirit.” But the other reading—“through the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Spirit”—is, in my opinion, preferable.


Calvin, J., & Pringle, W. (2010). Commentaries on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (330–334). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2011)

tcalbrecht said:


> What source would you say does the best job contrasting Calvin’s views with FV, esp. on the matter of baptism?


 
I can't recall a good work contrasting them. But I do know two good works in which the contrast will be made evident. First, Ronald Wallace's Calvin's Doctrine of Word and Sacrament, and especially chapters 14 and 15. Then for the contrast of FV with traditional reformed theological statement, Guy Prentiss Waters' The FV and Covenant Theology, chapters 6 and 7. There's a feast of rich theological nutriment in those two dishes.


----------

