But there is one argument that credobaptist proponents, then and now, have often used as a kind of reductio ad absurdum: if you baptize infants, you ought also to give them the Lord’s Supper. Calvin sees a serious flaw here. For while both baptism and the Supper point to Christ, they each point to different aspects of union with him. Baptism points to a once-and-for-all initiation into Christ. It is done to us, not done by us. We do not baptize ourselves, we are baptized. The Supper, however, is not a sacrament of initiation but of communion.
For some, John Calvin seems to be at his most feisty when he writes on the sacraments. Against those who complain that infant baptism is a travesty of the Gospel, in the Institutes he stoutly insists, “these darts are aimed more at God than at us!” But a little reflection reveals he is also at his most thoughtful, and his analysis of sacramental signs can strengthen credobaptists as well as paedobaptists.
If repentance and faith are in view in baptism, how can infant baptism be biblical? Calvin responds: the same was true of circumcision (hence references to Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Deut. 10:16; 30:6), yet infants were circumcised.
How then can either sign be applicable to infants who have neither repented nor believed? Calvin’s central emphasis here is simple, but vital.
Baptism, like circumcision, is first and foremost a sign of the gospel and its promise, not of our response to the gospel. It points first of all to the work of Christ for us, not to the work of the Spirit in us. It calls for our response. It is not primarily a sign of that response. So, like the proclamation of the gospel (of which it is a sign), baptism summons us to (rather than signifies) repentance and faith.
In fact all believers are called to grow into an understanding and “improvement” of their baptism. This is as true for those baptized as believers as for those baptized as infants.
Consequently, whether baptism follows faith or precedes faith, its meaning remains the same. Its efficacy in our lives is related to (life-long!) faith and repentance. But its meaning is always the same–Christ crucified and risen, outside of whom there is no salvation.
To see baptism as a sign of my repentance and faith, then, is to turn it on its head. It diminishes, if not evacuates, the sign of its real power in our lives–which is to point us to Christ and to the blessings which are ours in him, and thus to draw forth faith. Grasp this whole-Bible principle, holds Calvin, and all the New Testament’s teaching on baptism beautifully coheres.
While Calvin was a theologian of the ages and his theology comes to us clothed in the garments of the sixteenth century some things never change–including many of the arguments, pro and con, in relation to the baptism of infants. This he passionately believed to be a biblical doctrine.
Calvin meets many of the arguments against infant baptism head on. Typically he deals with them by underlining ways in which they depend on a mis-reading of Scripture.
Thus faced with the insistence that regeneration is required for baptism, he questions the use of Scripture that lies behind such thinking. Rebuffed by arguments that the order of biblical language (“teach, baptize”) presupposes instruction prior to baptism, he points out that of course this is the order when adults are hearing and responding to the gospel for the first time. It would be a logical fallacy to think that the corollary of “adults should hear, believe and be baptized” is “infants must not be baptized”! One would no more deduce that infants must not be fed because Paul states that ‘those who do not work should not eat (2 Thess. 3:10).
But there is one argument that credobaptist proponents, then and now, have often used as a kind of reductio ad absurdum: if you baptize infants, you ought also to give them the Lord’s Supper.
Calvin sees a serious flaw here. For while both baptism and the Supper point to Christ, they each point to different aspects of union with him. Baptism points to a once-and-for-all initiation into Christ. It is done to us, not done by us. We do not baptize ourselves, we are baptized.
The Supper, however, is not a sacrament of initiation but of communion. That is why we are active and engaged at the Lord’s Table. For it is essential to be able to
• Discern the Lord’s body
• Examine oneself
• Proclaim the Lord’s death
• Celebrate the Supper “in remembrance” of Christ.
Just why is Calvin so passionate about this–when, after all, baptism is never more than a sign?One of the perplexities we modern Christians encounter in admiring magisterial Reformers like Calvin is the severity of their attitude to, and treatment of, Anabaptists. In Calvin’s case this may seem all the more mysterious since he married the widow of a former Anabaptist! Our problem is partly–if only partly–due to the unspoken assumption that credobaptism involves, virtually by definition, personal faith and a commitment to evangelical fundamentals.
The post Calvin on the Sacraments appeared first on The Aquila Report.
