Calvin on Baptism, Penance, and Absolution

Theologia ^ | 2002 | Rich Lusk

[Cleburne]

CALVIN ON BAPTISM, PENANCE, AND ABSOLUTION

By Rich Lusk

Copyright © 2002

CALVIN ON THE SACRAMENTS: MEANS OF ASSURANCE OR MEANS OF SALVATION?

Calvin was a highly nuanced theologian. Sometimes, though, these nuances have been lost on his theological descendants. For example, Calvin's discussion of predestination includes numerous careful qualifications that are intended to short cut philosophical speculation and prevent the doctrine from appearing arbitrary or tyrannical. But many modern followers of Calvin, especially his numerous popularizers, often truncate, and therefore distort, his pastoral, Christ-centered view of election, turning Calvinism into a caricature of its real self. Nowhere is the loss of nuance more evident than in contemporary views of Calvin's teaching on the sacraments.

Two strands continually emerge in Calvin's sacramental theology. On the one hand, Calvin views the sacraments as signs of assurance that serve to confirm and strengthen our faith. Through the sacraments, God grants certainty to believers. On the other hand, Calvin speaks of the sacraments as genuine instruments of salvation. As means of grace, the sacraments are said to effect what they represent and perform what they picture [1]. In the sacraments, God creates, as well as nourishes, faith. While latter day Calvinists have often felt the need to choose one of these two strands at the expense of the other (and have all too often chosen the first), Calvin himself felt no tension. The two strands were not in a tug-of-war, pulling against each other, but woven together into a beautiful sacramental tapestry [2].

How are these two strands harmonized in Calvin's mind? Certainly Calvin's systematic intellect would not allow his sacramental theology to contain a blatant contradiction on so crucial an issue. One possible approach to relating the two strands would be to offer a diachronic analysis of Calvin's sacramental theology. At different points in his career, he emphasized different aspects of the sacraments' usefulness. Often Calvin seemed to modify his sacramental theology, or at least its emphases, depending on his opponents at the time, his desire for a Reformed ecumenism, his pastoral concerns, and so forth, all the while attempting to build a Protestant consensus. He had quite a gauntlet to run, as he sought to avoid the errors of the Romanists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, and so forth. For example, during his time in Strassbourg, he worked closely alongside Martin Bucer. No doubt, Bucer's own high view of sacramental instrumentality and his ambitious ecumenical projects exercised decisive influence on Calvin. After Calvin returned to Geneva, his attempts to build a coalition with Ulrich Zwingli's successor Heinrich Bullinger led him to tone down, or at least de-emphasize, sacramental efficacy. The result was the less than satisfactory Consensus Tigurerinus of 1549. Towards the end of his career, debates with pesky Lutherans such as Joachim Westphal led Calvin to re-emphasize God's powerful, saving action in the sacraments. Because the Institutes went through several drafts, it is to be expected that bits and pieces reflect the various emphases of the various phases of Calvin's turbulent career. But this in itself cannot account completely for the nuance found in the final 1559 version of the Institutes. There is no question Calvin himself considered the final product to be a coherent, consistent manual of theology.

Another method of resolution is to take into account Calvin's definition of faith. In Book three, he writes, "Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit." In other words, faith = assurance. We can then bridge the gap between sacraments as assuring pledges that fortify pre-existing faith and sacraments as salvific, faith-giving instruments by simply pointing out that faith and assurance are two sides of a single coin. To say the sacraments give assurance is to say they give saving faith, and vice versa [3].

I think the most satisfactory answer is simply to leave the strands side by side. Calvin does not seem to think they need harmonizing, so why should we? The salvific and assuring functions of the sacraments can simply be combined into an organic whole. Calvin himself does this repeatedly and effortlessly in his baptismal theology, as a brief examination of Book 4, chapter 15 in the Institutes shows.

For Calvin, baptism has a God-manward meaning and a man-Godward meaning. Of course, God's action towards man has primacy: "Now baptism was given to us by God for these ends (which I have taught to be common to all sacraments): first to serve our faith before him; secondly, to serve our confession before men...Accordingly, they [e.g., the Zwinglians and Anabaptists] who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism" [4]. Baptism, in reality, is God's work: "For inasmuch as [baptism] is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith, it is to be received as from the hand of the Author himself. We ought to deem it certain and proved that it is he who speaks to us through the sign; that it is he who purifies and washes away sins, and wipes out the remembrance of them; that it is he who make us sharers in his death, who deprives Satan of his rule, who weakens the power of our lust; indeed, that it is he who comes into a unity with us so that, having put on Christ, we may be acknowledged God's children. These things, I say, he performs for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water [5]...And he does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what he symbolizes" [6].

The God-towards-man action of baptism is then unpacked in three dimensions [7]. "The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted, and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us." Calvin begins (in a very pastoral way) with baptism as an assuring pledge. All who believe may know they are washed in Christ's blood just as surely as the waters of baptism have come upon them. As he goes on to explain, the water does not cause salvation by itself; rather "in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts" [8]. However, this does make the significance of baptism merely cognitive, as the next two points demonstrate. Baptism's assuring function does not exhaust its usefulness.

For Calvin, baptism means union with Christ: "Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him...[T]hrough baptism Christ makes us sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it" [9]. Calvin then turns to a brief exposition of Romans 6. It is this baptismal union with the crucified and risen Christ that gives the Christian life its basic pattern of mortification and vivification [10]. Calvin, following Paul exhorts the baptized to live out their union with Christ, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. According to Calvin, Christ himself was baptized in order to include us in his work: "For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us...Thus we see that the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism...For all the gifts proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone" [11]. Our baptisms unite us to The Baptized One, Christ himself in whom all blessings are found.

The third benefit received in baptism is adoption: "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]." Baptism is not only a kind of marriage, uniting us to Christ, but also an adoption ceremony, placing us in God's family. As adopted sons, we are co-heirs of God together with Christ.

As Calvin expounds this threefold grace of baptism, he continually mixes in the two strands: baptism as assuring pledge and baptism as efficacious instrument. Sometimes these two angles on baptism appear side by side on the same page! Consider his words on 1304-5: "For Paul [in Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5] did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts...[The water of baptism] attests with certainty that Christ's blood is our only laver." It seems Calvin has limited baptism to giving assurance, taking away any salvific efficacy. However in the very next section, he states, "But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life" [12]. Thus, the salvific, instrumental power of baptism is preserved.

The same combination shows up on 1315. In expounding Acts 22:16, Calvin focuses on the assuring function of baptism: "Ananias meant only this: 'To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure." However, Calvin immediately corrects the impression of those who would view the sacraments as merely assuring seals: "Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means."

THE ADEQUACY OF BAPTISM

Further insight into Calvin's baptismal theology is gleaned by examining his rejection of penance [13]. In baptism, we receive a once and for all justification that becomes the basis for all subsequent forgiveness: "Through baptism, believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and withdrawn from them, since (as was said) the Lord promises us by this sign that full and complete remission has been made, both of the guilt that should have been imputed to us, and of the punishment that we ought to have undergone because of the guilt. They also lay hold on righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life, that is, by imputation only, since the Lord of his own mercy considers them righteous and innocent" [14].

For Calvin, baptism is a seal of cleansing that extends through the whole of our lives: "But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us only for past time, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek new remedies of expiation in some other sacraments, as if the force of the former one were spent...For, though baptism, administered only once, seemed to have passed, it was still not destroyed by subsequent sins" [15]. It was error at just this point that led some in the early church (e.g., Tertullian) to recommend delaying baptism till one was near death. Otherwise postbaptismal sin might undo the blessings granted in baptism. While this mistaken baptismal theology was roundly condemned by patristic giants such as Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, it was not dealt with thoroughly enough, eventually leaving open the door for the rise of the "sacrament" of penance.

The medieval scholastics developed penance into a full blown, rather mechanical system of dealing with postbaptismal sin. Calvin has already dissected the practice of penance in 3.4, showing it's a counterfeit parody of biblical repentance. The three parts of penance, contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of works, as taught by the papists, are each harmful distortions of true religion. Penance, understood as an attempt to "plug the leak so no more grace runs out" [16], or grabbing hold of the "second plank after shipwreck," undermines baptism, and therefore the gospel itself. Calvin is very clear about the root of the problem: The Romanists have severed the exercise of the keys from baptism, and "this error has provided us with the fictitious sacrament of penance" [17].

What does Calvin mean? And what is his solution to the problem of postbaptismal sin? Calvin claims the power of the keys (in this context, the power to declare forgiveness) depends upon baptism: "We see therefore that the absolution has reference to baptism" [18]. In other words, Calvin would substitute regular confession of sin and absolution for the false sacrament of penance. Absolution is not a stand-alone sacrament; it is a renewal of one's baptism. Penance, on the other hand, is one of Rome's "new helps devised by themselves" [19]. This proper exercise of the keys - absolution rather than penance -- looses us from our sins. It regularly reminds us of and reapplies to us the baptismal promise of forgiveness.

Calvin is specifically directing his words towards those weak believers struggling with assurance: "Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ's blood" [20]. Baptism, not penance, is the believer's refuge after sin. But how is one's baptism best remembered? Through the pastor's declaration of absolution! [20] Again, absolution has reference to baptism.

In other words, weekly [22] confession of sin and absolution must be understood within the framework of baptismal justification. Absolution ("Your sins are forgiven, take heart")[23] harkens back to baptism. It recalls, reapplies, and renews one's baptism. To borrow a metaphor from John 13, baptism cleanses the whole body once and for all; regular confession and absolution wash the feet as we walk through the sin-infested world.

Calvin strongly believes in the efficacy of pastoral absolution. For him, there is not only a once and for all forgiveness granted at the inception of the Christian life, but also a "continual and unceasing forgiveness of sins even unto death" [24]. Consider his teaching on absolution from a variety of his writings:

"We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles [and their successors, pastors]. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust."

"[The forgiveness of sins] is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the Gospel [including the declaration of absolution] or by the administration of the sacraments; and herein chiefly stands the power of the keys, which the Lord has gifted to the society of believers. Accordingly, let each one of us count it his own duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it."

"When Christ enjoins the Apostles to 'forgive sins,' he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his Name, to declare the forgiveness of sins, that through their instrumentality he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers"

"The entire power [of the keys] rests in the fact that, through those whom the Lord had ordained, the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed in the hearts of believers" [25].

Calvin says we must seek ongoing forgiveness where the Lord has placed it: on the lips of our local parish pastor. There, in his spoken word of salvation, our baptismal covenant with is Christ renewed. The gospel comes to us through these external, objective means of grace in the community of the church. Note that for Calvin, absolution adds nothing to baptism. Baptism, in one sense, is complete in and of itself. But absolution does reapply the forgiveness of sins received in baptism, so that baptism's efficacy continues through the whole of life. Whereas the medievals taught that justification begins in baptism and continues in penance, Calvin taught that the once and for all justification received in baptism is freshly enjoyed through absolution [26].

(Read the rest)

[Gamecock]

Oh boy, a new Calvin debate! Bump for a read in the AM.

[Cleburne]

I am curious, how many other FR Protestants would agree with Calvin's quite strong sacramentalism? And if not, how do you explain the abundant Scriptural passages lending so much strength to baptism?

My own sacramental theology is very much in line with Calvin, and the general consensus of the Fathers- and, most importantly, the Scriptures, though that sounds rather puffed-up pious (I believe the Bible and you don't!!).

[NYer]

My own sacramental theology is very much in line with Calvin, and the general consensus of the Fathers- and, most importantly, the Scriptures, though that sounds rather puffed-up pious (I believe the Bible and you don't!!).

Baptism and Confirmation and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Roman Catholic Christians look to the teaching authority of the Church as the sure guide to belief on matters of faith and morals. The latest teaching Council of the Church was Vatican Council II.

On the Church, 4

When the work which the Father had given the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that He might forever sanctify the Church. All believers have access to the Father through Christ in the one Spirit (Eph 2:18). He is the Spirit of life, a fountain of water springing up to life eternal (Jn 4:14; 7:38-39). Through him the Father gives life to men who are dead from sin, till at last he revives in Christ even their mortal bodies (Rom 8:10-11).

The Spirit dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the faithful as in a temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). In them he prays and bears witness to the fact that they are adopted sons (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15-16, 26). The Spirit guides the Church into the fullness of truth (Jn 16:13) and gives her a unity of fellowship and service. He furnishes and directs her with various gifts, both hierarchical and charismatic, and adorns her with the fruits of his grace (Eph 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12:4; Gal 5:22). By the power of the gospel, he makes the Church grow, perpetually renews her, and leads her to perfect union with her Spouse. The Spirit and the Bride both say to the Lord Jesus, "Come!" (Rev 22:17). Thus the Church shines forth as "a people made one with the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."

The Church emphasizes that a person becomes a Christian and first receives the Holy Spirit through faith and Baptism.

Paul's teaching implies that the Holy Spirit is normally first given or conferred to individuals through belief and water baptism.

Eph 1:13

In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit

1 Cor 12:13

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body ...

Titus 3:5

He saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit

Rom 8:9

Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

The Apostles in the Acts of the Apostles appear to have understood the difference between the presence of the Holy Spirit in Baptism and in a later empowering. If a person were only baptized and did not receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles would pray and lay their hands on them, begging God to send his Holy Spirit in greater measure.

Acts 8:14-18

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit. When Simon saw that the Spirit was conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands ...

The Catholic Christian sacrament of Confirmation originates with this practice.

Water Baptism is not the only time or way that the Holy Spirit comes to live in a person; but the New Testament indicates the importance of being baptized into Christ and thus being sealed with the Holy Spirit.

Rom 6:3

Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Eph 1:13

In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised holy Spirit

Jn 3:5

Jesus answered (Nicodemus), "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit."

Roman Catholic Christians believe that they are first born again of water and the Holy Spirit when they receive the sacrament of Baptism. Catholic Christians also believe that Baptism only begins the work of mission of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

The person who is truly "born again" and "Spirit-filled" is not necessarily the one who has had an extraordinary experience of the Holy Spirit at some point (though this is a blessing), but the person who lives and "walks" with the Holy Spirit; who has put to death the "works of the flesh" and manifests the "fruits of the Spirit." This is what it means to be a "new creation" in Christ Jesus - "the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come" (2 Cor 5:17)

Much today is heard of being "baptized in the Spirit." The expression comes from Sacred Scripture.

Mt 3:11

He (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.

Mk 1:8

I (John) have baptized you with water; he (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit.

Lk 3:16

He (Jesus) will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire.

Jn 1:33

On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.

[RnMomof7]

I am having a hard time understanding this article..it seems the author is saying that Calvin believed that baptism grants justification (by infusion?)???

That is far different than the traditional covenential teaching found in Presbyterian churchs today..

[Cleburne]

Baptism is an ingrafting into Christ, but it is not a "get into heaven free" token. Faith is still our justification- indeed, for baptism to be of any effect at all towards us the reciever of it must possess a lively, enduring faith.

That is far different than the traditional covenential teaching found in Presbyterian churchs today...

Calvin's high view of the sacrament has been, either conciously or unconciously, rejected by many if not most of his heirs these days.

Baptismal Efficacy and the Reformed Tradition: Past, Present, and Future, from the same source as the one above, delves further into the historic Reformed baptismal positions.

[Conservative til I die]

Who's John Calvin? He's sorta like Charles Taze Russell, Ellen White, and Mary Baker Eddy right?

[Wrigley]

Since you're trying to start flaming, you left out any number of Popes ending with the current one.

[Cleburne]

I suppose if Calvin alone were the originator of Reformed beliefs, then he certainly would be- however, he is not, but rather one of many Reformers. He- and the other Reformers- carry in the Reformed tradition something of weight that the early Church Fathers bear.

[drstevej]

puerile.

[Conservative til I die]

You're right, I was just having a little fun. However, and this is not to start a discussion but rather just my own opinion and I'll leave it at that, I don't see what the difference is between Calvin and the three other founders of particular theological dogmas are.

[Wrigley]

It's not too often a Romanist is honest enough to admit his ignorance.

[drstevej]

I'll add the gasoline, step back and watch!

[RnMomof7]

Who's John Calvin? He's sorta like Charles Taze Russell, Ellen White, and Mary Baker Eddy right?

Did they like Luther object to the idea of paying the church hard cash as a get out of hell free card?

[drstevej]

[Conservative til I die]

Did they like Luther object to the idea of paying the church hard cash as a get out of hell free card?

No but I believe they erected big strawmen in front of their Churches.

[Conservative til I die]

It's not too often a Romanist is honest enough to admit his ignorance.

I just don't see the difference really. What they all did was just a difference of degree. Don't get mad just because I don't root for your team or something.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

"...you left out any number of Popes ending with the current one."

Funny that. The SSPX people think the same thing.

[drstevej]

***"...you left out any number of Popes ending with the current one."***

They are all waiting for the next one...

- Pope Piel I, the Pocket Fisher of Men

[Wrigley]

Unless your a Cardinal fan, I don't care which team you root for.