Part 2:
@Josheb
Consider this by Calvin.
.....
since God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and of faith, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in Baptism - unless men choose to rage openly at God's institution.
Christ ushered in a new and better covenant, with two sacraments, the Lord's Supper and Baptism. Neither saves. Baptism replaced circumcision, circumcision did not save, and neither does baptism. Calvin did not teach baptismal regeneration.
Not a word of that is correct.
- God did not communicate circumcision as a sacrament.
- God did not communicate circumcision of infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith.
- No one here is raging openly at God's institution.
- Christ did not usher in a new and better covenant with two sacrament; he ushered in a new and better covenant with his death and resurrection.
- The Lord's Supper is not a "sacrament" in the New Testament, and nowhere therein is it assigned salvific merit. The Lord's supper was a meal, a full meal, shared by and administrated by and administered among the entire congregation, NOT a thimble and wafer.
- Water baptism did NOT replace circumcision. Circumcision was discarded wholly. In Judaism, when a person was converted to Judaism, to the covenant initiated by God with Abraham and Jesus they were both circumcised and baptized. They went through both rituals, a ceremonial cleansing and a ritual scarification signifying their inclusion in the covenant. One did not replace the other. In the New Testament baptism persisted and circumcision was discarded.
- Neither saves. Neither saves but Calvin explicitly stated, "For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament." The knowledge and certainty are perceived in the gifts. That is what he stated. Calvin does not know an infant's ablution and salvation are certain. He most certainly does not know an infant's ablution and salvation are certain relevant, correlatively (not causally), to water baptism. Calvin does not know purification, regeneration, and renewing are certain consequent to an infant's baptism. The infant is not certain of these gifts. The parents of the infant of these gifts. The certainty of salvation is dependent upon and correlated to one thing: the will and work of God alone. Nowhere does scripture ever state the certainty of salvation is perceived in infant baptism.
Every word of Post 25 is incorrect.
Calvin did not teach baptismal regeneration.
Let's see...
In Article 4 Calvin refutes those who say the then commonly-held belief, "...
forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys." He refutes that "fiction" on the basis the belief baptism can be separated from the ministry of the Church, preaching the gospel wherein "
we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ," and the sign of that evidence is baptism.
"And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism?"
When baptism occurs at the time of conversion the baptism is a sign of what has already occurred = regeneration, washing, repentance, the preaching of the gospel, the washing away of sins, and the ministry of the Church. Most of us here would agree: baptism cannot be separated from that list. Baptism has no salvific merit in and of itself AND it has no merit apart from the blood of Christ. None of that has happened with an infant. What Calvin is saying is that the infant's baptism is evidence of a later perfected faith. To justify his defense he resorts to an ad hominem...
"There is no wonder if men who, from the grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external things, have here also betrayed the defect, — if not contented with the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance."
Only those with gross minds believe otherwise
. And if John Calvin were here right now I would tell him to his face the attack on the person has no logical merit. It should be left out of your defense of Calvin, infant and otherwise.
Calvin most definitely asserts a retroactive assurance to baptism.
"Wherefore, there can be no doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins, recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have in the blood of Christ."
An infant does not and cannot remember his/her own baptism. An older child or an adult person can and may recall that episode, but not an infant. An infant can rely on second and third-hand reports they were baptized (like the testimony of a parent or the written documentation of the event), but s/he has no recollection in and of themselves by which s/he might remember. Calvin pinned assurance on memory, not faith n God.
In the very next Article Calvin states,
"Another benefit of baptism is, that it shows us our mortification in Christ and new life in him. “Know ye not,” says the apostle, “that as many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death,” that we “should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3, 4)."
And he concludes,
"On this he founds his exhortation, that if we are Christians we should be dead unto sin, and alive unto righteousness. He elsewhere uses the same argument—viz. that we are circumcised, and put off the old man, after we are buried in Christ by baptism (Col. 2:12). And in this sense, in the passage which we formerly quoted, he calls it “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. 3:5). We are promised, first, the free pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly, the grace of the Holy Spirit, to form us again to newness of life."
This all makes sense when applied to a person old enough to make a conscious profession of faith and act in accordance with all that was just asserted. Little if any of it applies to an infant. The repeated protest is Calvin never taught baptism is regenerative, but Calvin just said baptism renders a person dead unto sin and alive unto righteousness. The regeneration is necessarily implicit. How can ANYONE be alive to righteousness apart from regeneration? They cannot! Calvin would agree! So, without coming right out and saying it, Calvin implicitly argued baptism (when later applied with the ministry of the Church, belief in the gospel, or the working of the Spirit in regeneration) was regenerative. His argument simultaneously begs the question and contradicts assertions made elsewhere.
According to Calvin, there is a
certain promise of pardon and the imputation of righteousness when baptized.
In the next Article (6), he states,
"Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection only, when sanctified by his Spirit we are imbued with a new and spiritual nature. Wherefore we obtain, and in a manner distinctly perceive, in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect of our purification and regeneration. Thus first John baptised, and thus afterwards the apostles by the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, understanding by the term repentance, regeneration, and by the remission of sins, ablution."
The manner, cause, and effect of the Trinity is perceived in baptism for the remission of sins, understanding repentance, regeneration, and ablution (cleansing) inherent to that baptism. That makes sense when baptism occurs consequent to a conversion experience, but the infant hasn't had a conversion experience. Calvin is arguing regeneration
will be obtained only from the death and resurrection of Christ, but Calvin has
also argued that is a certainty. When applied to the infant, pedobaptism comes with a certain promised, a promised certainty of regeneration found in Christ's death and resurrection.
It is retroactive
.
.
