I love the memory of my baptism. And my godmother was very faithful even though she lived 6,000 miles a way. She took her responsibility seriously.
Here's a little food for thought from Paul Owen, Anglican, me thinks:
From Calvin's Exposition of the Heads of Agreement in the Consensus Tigurinus:“We next proceed to say [in the Consensus] that the effect of the spiritual blessings which the sacraments figure, is given to believers without the use of the sacraments. As this is daily experienced to be true, and is proved by passages of Scripture, it is strange if any are displeased with it [Note: Calvin has some Lutherans in mind here]. When martyrs shut up in prison CANNOT take the external sign, shall we say that those in whom Christ is triumphantly magnified are without Christ? Nor can anyone altogether devoid of Christ make a due approach to the Supper [i.e., they get the sign, but not the thing signified]. The reality of baptism was not wanting to Cornelius, who, previous to the washing of water, had been sprinkled with the Holy Spirit, just as Moses was not devoid of the divine unction, of which he communicated the sign to others, though he himself never received it. By thus teaching, we by no means intend that we are to lay aside the use of the signs, and be contented with secret inspirations. Although the Lord OCCASIONALLY, TO PROVE THAT HIS VIRTUE IS NOT TIED TO ANY MEANS, performs without sign what he represents by sign, it does not follow that we are to cast away anything which he ordained for our salvation, as if it were superfluous. Far less will this be lawful for us, whose faith ought to be intent on his word and seals. For it has been truly said by Augustine, that although God sanctifies whom he pleases without the visible sign, yet whoso contemns the sign is justly deprived of invisible sanctification.”
That last sentence is crucial. God is not bound by the word and the sacraments–but we ARE. God can bestow salvation on a person without baptism, but according to Augustine and Calvin, a person who seeks salvation without baptism will not be saved. Saving faith looks to the blessings which God offers to us in his word, and bestows upon us through the sacraments. This is entirely consistent with Calvin’s statements throughout this Exposition of the Heads of Agreement.
“[T]he sacraments are neither empty figures nor mere external badges of piety, but seals of the divine promises . . . they are instruments by which God acts effectually in his elect . . . although they are signs distinct from the things signified, they are neither disjoined nor separated from them.”
“It is asked [by the Lutherans] what is the efficacy of the sacraments? . . . we deny not that they are part of that power which God exerts for our salvation, and that the ministry of our reconciliation with God is also contained in them.”
“[B]y distinguishing between the signs and the things signified, we disjoin not the reality from the signs, but confess that all who by faith embrace THE PROMISES THERE OFFERED receive Christ spiritually, with all his gifts.” [T]hey [i.e., the sacraments] are not only badges of all the blessings which God once exhibited to us in Christ, and which we receive every day, but . . . THE EFFICACY OF THE SPIRIT IS CONJOINED WITH THEIR OUTWARD REPRESENTATION, lest they should be empty pictures.”
Finally, in a letter to the pastors of Zurich, Calvin, commenting on the criticisms of the Lutheran party against the Reformed teachings, writes:
“I pray you, do we leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is figured is AT THE SAME TIME given, and that the effect takes place?”
"...the ministry of our reconciliation with God is also contained in them (the two sacraments)."
"The ministry of our reconciliation." Isn't that a lovely phrase? The administration of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit reconciles us daily and makes us increasingly right with God, in part through the application of the sacraments.
Here's where the Reformers broke with the errors of Rome and returned to the early church's understanding of the sacraments as a sign and seal of God's salvation, but certainly not salvation itself. Salvation is by Christ's sacrifice alone. The sacraments are part of our sanctification, not our justification. As Calvin rightly noted, "When martyrs shut up in prison CANNOT take the external sign, shall we say that those in whom Christ is triumphantly magnified are without Christ?"
Calvin -- ""[T]he sacraments are neither empty figures nor mere external badges of piety, but seals of the divine promises . . . they are instruments by which God acts effectually in his elect . . . although they are signs distinct from the things signified, they are neither disjoined nor separated from them."
Calvin knew well the errors of Rome. He witnessed the bartering of the sacraments and the foolish magic that the church stubbornly insisted occurred during transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration, neither of which are taught in the Bible. Calvin, like all the Reformers, rejected such anti-Scriptural beliefs and returned the church to a correct understanding of the two sacraments instituted by Christ -- the Lord's Supper and Baptism, both as signs and seals of the covenant, freely given to God's children as a further display of His gracious love for them.
When I asked my husband once if he worried about me when his faith was so much stronger than my own, he said he relied a lot on 1 Corinthians 7:14...
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."
This verse acknowledges that God creates families as well as believers, and that those family ties mean something. In his commentary on that verse, Calvin writes...
But how will this statement correspond with what he teaches elsewhere - that we are all by nature children of wrath; (Ephesians 2:3;) or with the statement of David - Behold I was conceived in sin, etc. (Psalms 51:5.) I answer, that there is a universal propagation of sin and damnation throughout the seed of Adam, and all, therefore, to a man, are included in this curse, whether they are the offspring of believers or of the ungodly; for it is not as regenerated by the Spirit, that believers beget children after the flesh. The natural condition, therefore, of all is alike, so that they are liable equally to sin and to eternal death. As to the Apostle's assigning here a peculiar privilege to the children of believers, this flows from the blessing of the covenant, by the intervention of which the curse of nature is removed; and those who were by nature unholy are consecrated to God by grace. Hence Paul argues, in his Epistle to the Romans, (Romans 11:16,) that the whole of Abraham's posterity are holy, because God had made a covenant of life with him - If the root be holy, says he, then the branches are holy also. And God calls all that were descended from Israel his sons now that the partition is broken down, the same covenant of salvation that was entered into with the seed of Abraham is communicated to us. But if the children of believers are exempted from the common lot of mankind, so as to be set apart to the Lord, why should we keep them back from the sign? If the Lord admits them into the Church by his word, why should we refuse them the sign? In what respects the offspring of the pious are holy, while many of them become degenerate, you will find explained in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and I have handled this point there." "The passage, then, is a remarkable one, and drawn from the depths of theology; for it teaches, that the children of the pious are set apart from others by a sort of exclusive privilege, so as to be reckoned holy in the Church.
So now I'm off to read what he says on Romans 10 and 11. 8~)