Posted on 05/09/2003 8:17:26 PM PDT by 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].
(Excerpt) Read more at hornes.org ...
That is a point without a distinction .
For IF God is omniscient and IF God foreknows all things , then He foreknows who will "accept" Him under the Arminian Theology with certainity
And inspite of knowing that the person will burn for eternity He creates him for just that purpose
Calvinists believe that God restrains no man from coming to Him, all men are free to do so..every man stands before God without excuse. The "burden " is on all men to repent and believe.
I don't have any problem with God deciding how His universe should run. Judas was created by God so that you and I could share eternity in heaven.
All creation leads up to the Cross. God knew from before time that Judas would do exactly as he was meant to do, wanted to do, had to do...just like all of us.
All men are fallen. We are all Judas. But through the grace of God, some are given everlasting life, their sins paid for by Christ's sacrifice.
Those of us who agree with Calvin believe that man has a free will. And in our sinful nature we will always choose to turn away from God and latch onto sin. It is only when the Holy Spirit touches our hearts that we turn to God. We do not become robots, we are not forced to Christ, it's just that when we see our sin for what it is, we crumble (there are numerous examples throughout the Bible) and see Christ as the only way out of our fallen state....
It took my wife years to finally accept the absolute soveriegnty of God.
Let's do this one step at a time, start with the term irresistable grace. I can't remember who used the analogy, but think of yourself in a desert without water. (use that as an analogy for sin) You come accross a pool full of cold, clear water (grace) Now, you certainly have free will, but what are you going to do? You are going to immerse yourself. You realize how thirsty you are can't resist. Yes you have free will, but are you cannot pass it by when you are dying of thirst/sin.
sure make it sound like man is a robot, without any "real" free will
Does total depravity mean that we are as bad as we can be, or that we are bad enough to reject God if left to our own devices? We are so bad that we will choose sin. Look at someone who is in a fallen state. They will continue their sinful behavior, unless called by God. They don't have the desire to come to God on their own. A bold statement? It is totaly based in scripture.
Romans 3, 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
Friend, read this passage again. Does this say that we have enough good in us to come to Christ, or that no one will seek God?
Now, would you like more?
Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done
Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 7: 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Isaiah 64:6, "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
Read these verses and think about where the Bible says our hearts are and the term total depravity
I believe that it is more correct to say, Calvin believes that Baptism respresents Justification (by imputation).
We shouldn't just "take the author's word" for it, even though I am sure he is making an honest attempt to analyze Calvin's theology. We should read the Calvin citations in question, for ourselves.
It is true that Calvin had a "high view" of the Baptismal Sacrament. But we can't just say, "Calvin had a high view of the Baptismal Sacrament" and leave it at that, as thought he were practically Roman Catholic on the matter. Calvin did indeed have a "high view" of the Baptismal Sacrament, but it definitely was NOT Roman Catholic.
Re-read the citations in question -- with my emphasis in bold, as a Presbyterian Calvinist:
"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."
"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].
In Calvin's view, then, Baptism serves our Faith as it serves our confession before men... it confirms that which it symbolizes, as a token and proof which shows us our mortification in Christ.
Baptism does not "grant" faith. It serves Faith, it confirms Faith, it shows and symbolizes Faith... but nowhere does Calvin ever imply that it "grants" Faith. Mainly because, Calvin himself does not believe that Baptism "grants" faith -- rather, it "arouses, nourishes, and confirms faith" as a true Means of Grace (that is, a "sacrament")
As such, Calvin's view -- though highly sacramental -- was in some ways closer in theology to his AnaBaptist Opponents than to the Roman Catholics around him.
The disagreement, of course, would be whether or not it is true, as Calvin maintained, that the Infant Children of faithful believers could recieve the Gift of Faith even in infancy, and thus be accounted legitimate claimants to the "arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith" which is imparted in Baptism.
To which Calvinist Presbyterians can only cite the example of John the Baptist, and affirm: "Guilty as Charged". We believe that God is Faithful in his Promises to obedient Christian Evangelists; and likewise, We believe that God is Faithful in his Promises to obedient Christian Parents.
But we do not believe (and neither did Calvin) that Baptism "grants" faith. Rather, the sacrament serves for the "arousing, nourishing, and confirming" of that Faith which has already been imparted to Covenant Children... even in their mother's womb.
best, op
That is a great question. On our own devices, even as a Christian, we are still pretty useless, until we have been Sanctified (made Christlike) Now when that happens is another story/argument. I think for some of us it happens pretty quickly in their walk, some others it takes years. Those in whom it takes years often provide a pretty interesting testimony...
2Tim.2 [21] If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
Not exactly, we see it (hear the Word) but in our sinful state we are unable to see that it is life. It is irrsistable grace for the elect because we see it for what it is and are drawn to the water.
And this would be the strongest of predestinations, no free will at all. Men, created soley for the purpose of populating hell?
Don't get wrapped around this argument. And by the way, what is spelled out in scripture, free will or predestination? Remember Paul is addressing this very thing in Romans, chapter 8: 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory-- 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Read verse 20 again? Isn't that the same question you put forth?
As far as God making souls to populate hell, that can be turned around on the free willers as God knew what decision we would make, and yet created those who would go to hell. Does that sound more plausable/palatable?
Try reading this guy, he gives an awesoome defense of election: http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.