# Calvin's view on Baptism (and sacraments in general)...



## J. Dean (Sep 14, 2012)

Did he see them as merely symbolic? Or did he see them as something more than symbolic but less than what Rome depicted them?

I ask this because I have seen assertions that Calvin believed that baptism and the Lord's Supper were not merely symbolic. I admit to not having a full understanding about this, and need to get a hold of a full copy of the Institutes (the first copy I had was an abridged one that only had about ten percent of the actual text). But if anybody could clarify I would appreciate it.

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 14, 2012)

Many students of the subject (Reformation correctives for Roman sacramental abuses) divide the diverse attempts at reform into three basic camps:
1) Lutheran, on one side; retaining the highest degree of Roman liturgical tradition and doctrine. Lutherans maintained a belief in the _corporeal_ (bodily) _presence_ of Christ in the Supper elements themselves, even as they separated themselves from Romish transubstantiation. In baptism they maintained the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, while at the same time denying an ex opere operato action in the sacrament.

2) Zwinglian, on the other side; wherein the sacramental character of the rites is almost completely evacuated, and they are treated in a purely symbolic and commemorative manner. Some have questioned whether Zwingli entirely deserved the *credit/blame* for this stance (obviously dependent on whether or not one is inclined to a "memorialist" position). But it seems clear enough that the position he articulated was/is used by those who are generally opposed to the sacramental idea in the church, and prefer the notion of symbolic ordinances.

3) Calvin himself occupied something of a middle ground here, as would Calvinists who adhere to his position (there being not a few Calvinists who have been essentially Zwinglian in their beliefs and teaching). Calvinistic confessions, in the main, adhere to his position. Calvin basically thinks the Lutherans are not nearly far enough from the unbiblical Roman abuses; and at the same time thinks the memorialists are much too far from a proper, sacramental understanding of church rites as genuine "means of grace."

So, to the Lutherans, Calvin's followers are repudiated as "crafty [sneaky] sacramentarians," (sacramentarian being a term of abuse, since none of these people to the left of them are truly sacramental, in Lutheran estimation). And, for having sacraments at all, Calvin and his followers, and everyone to the right of them, are repudiated as not-having-left-Rome-behind.

Calvin's sacramental view is described by those who hold it as an essentially _*spiritual*_ view. The beneficiaries of the gifts of Holy Spirit, which are mediated through physical things (like words and water and bread and wine), are those to whom the Spirit sovereignly and discriminatingly administers his own works; while the church administrates the physical elements in the only way it can: indiscriminately (beyond what simple church-discipline can order). Sacraments are true means of grace unto God's elect people, of whom God has full and exact knowledge; and these people really do receive supernatural gospel-benefits (the thing signified) from connection with the sign. While at the same time, those with a pretended interest in the gospel, dabbling and sporting with gospel-signs, condemn themselves thereby through their trifling with holy things. Such outward-only interest as they display does not benefit them, since their actions are never mixed with faith (Heb.4:2).



Shorthand expression for the Lord's Supper can go as follows (always mindful that when shorthand is treated as a full statement, information is lost):
Romanist: Christ (only) in the mouth of everyone.
Lutheran: Christ (and bread) in the mouth of everyone.
Zwinglian: Bread (only) in the mouth of everyone.
Calvinist: Bread in the mouth of everyone; Christ in the heart of the elect.​


----------



## J. Dean (Sep 14, 2012)

Much obliged, Rev. Bruce. Thank you!


----------

