Question for Calvinists

[Josheb]

Here's a question for Calvinists only: Was Calvin always correct and, if not, what is a specific example of an error he made?

For example: One particular, specific place where I find Calvin to be incorrect is his belief, expressed in his "Institutes...", that the sacrament of infant baptism was salvific (attributing his own salvation to his baptism as a child). (Most?) Calvinists have since moved away from that position, but it was one that Calvin believed and taught. Calvin's views can be attributed to his (still) being Roman Catholic at the time, but it is an example of Calvin being in error, the kind of example for which I am looking in this thread. I know non-Calvinists will say Calvin made a lot of mistakes, but I'm not interested in non-Cal views, so if you're not Calvinist then please resist the impulse to post outside views and enjoy the insights and offerings Calvinists have regarding their own theology. Cals, baptism is taken . Aside from pedobaptism, was Calvin impeccable, perfect in every way with all his teachings? Or are there any other specific points, statements, or teachings Calvin made that you, being a Calvinist, find incorrect? If so, please cite them. If you think there were many, then please limit your initial contribution to a maximum of three errors.

Thx









PS: It is likely non-Cals will ignore the fact this is the Reformed/Presbyterian board, and ignore the stated request to lurk, learn and enjoy, so please do not engage their posts, particularly those in which the content indicates a willful intent to be disruptive, or to provoke. Simply put, don't take the bait. Don't feed trolls.
.

 

[Arial]

Just a note. There are slight differences between Calvinist and Reformed. There can be Reformed Calvinist, such as the Reformed Baptists, and there can be Calvinists that are identifying themselves strictly according to the Doctrines of Grace, which both R and C hold. Non Reformed Calvinist are dispensationalists and Reformed are covenant. They differ on infant baptism.

Reformed Presbyterians have their roots in the Scottish Reformation which followed on the heels of Luther and then Calvin, and John Knox was the fire beneath that movement.

That being said, the distinctions do not affect the OP or the question asked in it. Just a clarification should the question ever arise in a game of trivia. And by all means, check my info. I did not gain it first hand. It is just the answer I was given when I went searching for the answer, but it was not an isolated source.

I have read the Institutes, but it was a long time ago. Other than that I have not read that much of Calvin to have an answer to the OP off the top of my head. I do disagree with infant baptism being salvific. I also agree that it was probably residue of his Catholicism and may have changed over time as he grew in his understanding just like all the rest of us do. It is hard to believe he wouldn't as it is in opposition to faith alone.

 

[Carbon]

Here's a question for Calvinists only: Was Calvin always correct and, if not, what is a specific example of an error he made?

Was Calvin always correct?

Is this a serious question?

Of course not, he was only human.

 

[fastfredy0]

I have read the Institutes, but it was a long time ago. Other than that I have not read that much of Calvin to have an answer to the OP off the top of my head.

ditto

ChatAPT: Where does john Calvin's "Institutes of Religion" in conflict with Reformed Theology?

Answer:
John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is foundational to Reformed theology, and most of its content aligns closely with the principles of Reformed theology. However, there are a few areas where interpretations or emphases have diverged over time within various Reformed traditions. Here are some areas of potential conflict or divergence:

1. Predestination and Election: While Calvin's views on predestination and election are central to Reformed theology, there are varying interpretations within the Reformed tradition. Some theologians emphasize a more deterministic understanding, while others incorporate more nuance regarding human responsibility.
2. Sacraments: Calvin's views on the sacraments, particularly the Lord's Supper, differ from some other Reformed perspectives. Calvin taught a "real spiritual presence" in the Eucharist, whereas some later Reformed traditions have adopted a more symbolic or memorialist view.
3. Church Government: Calvin's model of church government, which includes a system of church offices (pastors, elders, deacons), has been adapted and modified by different Reformed denominations. For example, Presbyterian polity closely follows Calvin's model, but other Reformed traditions might have variations.
4. Covenant Theology: While Calvin laid the groundwork for covenant theology, later Reformed theologians have developed this doctrine further, sometimes introducing distinctions and emphases that Calvin did not explicitly articulate.
5. Political and Social Views: Calvin's views on the role of the church in society and his concept of theocracy in Geneva have been interpreted and applied differently in various Reformed traditions. Some modern Reformed theologians advocate for a separation of church and state, which contrasts with Calvin's integrated approach.

Overall, while Calvin's "Institutes" remains a central text in Reformed theology, the evolution of thought within the tradition has led to various interpretations and emphases that can sometimes diverge from Calvin's original formulations.

 

[Josheb]

Was Calvin always correct?

Is this a serious question?

Of course not, he was only human.

Would you please cite one specific place he was incorrect?

 

[Josheb]

ditto

ChatAPT: Where does john Calvin's "Institutes of Religion" in conflict with Reformed Theology?

Answer:
John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" is foundational to Reformed theology, and most of its content aligns closely with the principles of Reformed theology. However, there are a few areas where interpretations or emphases have diverged over time within various Reformed traditions. Here are some areas of potential conflict or divergence:

1. Predestination and Election: While Calvin's views on predestination and election are central to Reformed theology, there are varying interpretations within the Reformed tradition. Some theologians emphasize a more deterministic understanding, while others incorporate more nuance regarding human responsibility.
2. Sacraments: Calvin's views on the sacraments, particularly the Lord's Supper, differ from some other Reformed perspectives. Calvin taught a "real spiritual presence" in the Eucharist, whereas some later Reformed traditions have adopted a more symbolic or memorialist view.
3. Church Government: Calvin's model of church government, which includes a system of church offices (pastors, elders, deacons), has been adapted and modified by different Reformed denominations. For example, Presbyterian polity closely follows Calvin's model, but other Reformed traditions might have variations.
4. Covenant Theology: While Calvin laid the groundwork for covenant theology, later Reformed theologians have developed this doctrine further, sometimes introducing distinctions and emphases that Calvin did not explicitly articulate.
5. Political and Social Views: Calvin's views on the role of the church in society and his concept of theocracy in Geneva have been interpreted and applied differently in various Reformed traditions. Some modern Reformed theologians advocate for a separation of church and state, which contrasts with Calvin's integrated approach.

Overall, while Calvin's "Institutes" remains a central text in Reformed theology, the evolution of thought within the tradition has led to various interpretations and emphases that can sometimes diverge from Calvin's original formulations.

Thank you. I am looking for specificity, not generalizations or broad areas. For example, I don't have access to my "Institutes...." right this minute but I could quote the statements Calvin made to demonstrate what he believed. It does not have to be in "Institutes..." His commentaries are also valid sources. Anything specific you can point to where Calvin was incorrect?

 

[Josheb]

Just a note. There are slight differences between Calvinist and Reformed. There can be Reformed Calvinist, such as the Reformed Baptists, and there can be Calvinists that are identifying themselves strictly according to the Doctrines of Grace, which both R and C hold. Non Reformed Calvinist are dispensationalists and Reformed are covenant. They differ on infant baptism.

Reformed Presbyterians have their roots in the Scottish Reformation which followed on the heels of Luther and then Calvin, and John Knox was the fire beneath that movement.

That being said, the distinctions do not affect the OP or the question asked in it. Just a clarification should the question ever arise in a game of trivia. And by all means, check my info. I did not gain it first hand. It is just the answer I was given when I went searching for the answer, but it was not an isolated source.

I have read the Institutes, but it was a long time ago. Other than that I have not read that much of Calvin to have an answer to the OP off the top of my head. I do disagree with infant baptism being salvific. I also agree that it was probably residue of his Catholicism and may have changed over time as he grew in his understanding just like all the rest of us do. It is hard to believe he wouldn't as it is in opposition to faith alone.

Anything specific you can point to where Calvin was incorrect?

 

[fastfredy0]

John Calvin is generally considered a compatibilist.

"In his "Institutes of the Christian Religion," Calvin writes about the relationship between divine providence and human will. He argues that God's providence does not negate human will but rather operates through it. Human choices are real and significant, yet they unfold according to God's sovereign plan. This perspective upholds the compatibilist notion that divine determination and human freedom are not mutually exclusive but can coexist harmoniously."

Since I believe in "hard determinism" I find Calvin wrong in this area. That being said, the majority of Calvinist's would disagree with me.

 

[Carbon]

Would you please cite one specific place he was incorrect?

I haven’t found anything yet. Not saying there ain’t, just haven’t seen any yet.
I’m going to look into this baptism thing you mentioned do you have the book, chapter and verse please? Thank you

 

[Arial]

Anything specific you can point to where Calvin was incorrect?

I have read the Institutes, but it was a long time ago. Other than that I have not read that much of Calvin to have an answer to the OP off the top of my head

 

[Josheb]

I haven’t found anything yet. Not saying there ain’t, just haven’t seen any yet.

This is one of the reasons why this op was posted.

I’m going to look into this baptism thing you mentioned do you have the book, chapter and verse please? Thank you

Sure.

Calvin's "Institutes..." has an entire chapter on baptism. See HERE (Book 4, Chap. 15). Among the things stated in "The "Institutes is...

"The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).​

Baptism remits sins. It cancels their debt. Baptism is not merely an affiliation (a "badge or a mark") or a profession of religion; it is received with the promise of salvation. The "seal" of baptism is not a seal in the sense of an insignia like a soldier might have on his uniform. It is a guarantee.

"...by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed."​

However, it is not the water itself that has any power. That is not what Calvin thought.

"For he (Peter) 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."​

Of "mortification" and "ablution," Calvin said,

"Although the mystery was then obscure, and known to few, yet as there is no other method of obtaining salvation than in those two graces, God was pleased that the ancient fathers, whom he had adopted as heirs, should be furnished with both badges."​

Baptism is a sacrament, and a grace, and it is one of the two ways of obtaining salvation. It's important to remember the overarching context in which Calvin was writing. He was a Catholic writing "The Institutes..." in hopes of reforming the Roman Catholic thinking, doctrines, and practices. He was NOT suggesting a non-Christian could sprinkle a Hindi with water and then speak of the Hindi's salvation in Christ. That's not what Calvin taught, and that is not what I am suggesting Calvin taught.

The next chapter is specifically on infant baptism.

"It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious 2535breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children."​

Od the Anabaptists and those who reject infant baptism he said,

"Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death."​

Most theologians think he was alluding to infants who died in infancy, which was very common in Calvin's day.

In Book 1, in which the Trinity is discussed, Calvin wrote,

"But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism, and reasons from the one to the other—viz. because there is one faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited........"​

Today, we (the theologically Reformation-minded) assert the baptism of the infant as a profession of faith by the parents on behalf of their child, the child the offer to God with a (com)mission to faithfully empowered by Christ and the Spirit to raise the child in the Church without the baptism guaranteeing the child's current or later salvation. The "seal" of baptism is considered comparable to circumcision by many Reform-minded believers, an inclusion into the covenant without actually providing salvation. Some among our ilk will re-baptize a person who makes a conscious, conscientious, deliberate profession of faith in Christ, but most consider the infant baptism "retroactive." (I had a pastor in the Episcopal Church actually use that word with me when I inquired about getting baptized as an adult after coming to Christ).

 

[Josheb]

Anything specific you can point to where Calvin was incorrect?

I have read the Institutes, but it was a long time ago. Other than that I have not read that much of Calvin to have an answer to the OP off the top of my head.

(just checking)

 

[Carbon]

This is one of the reasons why this op was posted.

Sure.

Calvin's "Institutes..." has an entire chapter on baptism. See HERE (Book 4, Chap. 15). Among the things stated in "The "Institutes is...

"The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptised for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).​

Baptism remits sins. It cancels their debt. Baptism is not merely an affiliation (a "badge or a mark") or a profession of religion; it is received with the promise of salvation. The "seal" of baptism is not a seal in the sense of an insignia like a soldier might have on his uniform. It is a guarantee.

"...by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed."​

However, it is not the water itself that has any power. That is not what Calvin thought.

"For he (Peter) 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."​

Of "mortification" and "ablution," Calvin said,

"Although the mystery was then obscure, and known to few, yet as there is no other method of obtaining salvation than in those two graces, God was pleased that the ancient fathers, whom he had adopted as heirs, should be furnished with both badges."​

Baptism is a sacrament, and a grace, and it is one of the two ways of obtaining salvation. It's important to remember the overarching context in which Calvin was writing. He was a Catholic writing "The Institutes..." in hopes of reforming the Roman Catholic thinking, doctrines, and practices. He was NOT suggesting a non-Christian could sprinkle a Hindi with water and then speak of the Hindi's salvation in Christ. That's not what Calvin taught, and that is not what I am suggesting Calvin taught.

The next chapter is specifically on infant baptism.

"It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious 2535breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children."​

Od the Anabaptists and those who reject infant baptism he said,

"Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death."​

Most theologians think he was alluding to infants who died in infancy, which was very common in Calvin's day.

In Book 1, in which the Trinity is discussed, Calvin wrote,

"But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism, and reasons from the one to the other—viz. because there is one faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited........"​

Today, we (the theologically Reformation-minded) assert the baptism of the infant as a profession of faith by the parents on behalf of their child, the child the offer to God with a (com)mission to faithfully empowered by Christ and the Spirit to raise the child in the Church without the baptism guaranteeing the child's current or later salvation. The "seal" of baptism is considered comparable to circumcision by many Reform-minded believers, an inclusion into the covenant without actually providing salvation. Some among our ilk will re-baptize a person who makes a conscious, conscientious, deliberate profession of faith in Christ, but most consider the infant baptism "retroactive." (I had a pastor in the Episcopal Church actually use that word with me when I inquired about getting baptized as an adult after coming to Christ).

book 4, ch15. 2

Its virtue not in water without the word

In this sense, we are to understand what Paul has written: that the church has been "sanctified" by Christ, the bridegroom, and cleansed by the washing of water in the word of life. [Eph 5:26p.]. and another passage: he saved us. . . in virtue of his mercy, through the washing of regeneration and of renewal in the Holy Spirit [Titus 3:5]. and by Peter: baptism saves us [1 Peter 3:21p.].

For Paul 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. This the words themselves explain clearly enough.
For Paul joins together the word and life and the baptism of water, as if he had said: "Through the gospel a message of our cleansing and sanctification is brought to us; through such baptism the message is sealed."

John Calvin.


Josheb, after reading this and more, I have to say I disagree with you, and believe you may be misunderstanding Calvin. It's pretty clear Calvin does not teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb, after reading this and more, I have to say I disagree with you, and believe you may be misunderstanding Calvin. It's pretty clear Calvin does not teach baptismal regeneration.

It's okay to disagree with me, but the words state what the words state. Calvin is clearly applying salvific conditions to infant baptism. If those same comments were limited to an older person (even someone in their youth, who was making a conscious and informed profession of faith those same words have an entirely different meaning than when applied to an infant who can do none of it. Furthermore, the precedent firmly established in scripture is baptism occurring at the time of conversion, not years, or even decades, prior. The dissent begs a question: why then have the Reformed sects/denominations/congregations changed their teaching and practice if Calvin is correct? One or the other is mistaken, else reform of the Reformer's views would be unnecessary (or the later reforms are the mistake).

More germanely, this op is not specifically about pedobaptism. It's about whether or not Calvin's teachings were impeccable and if not then where are the mistakes? If I understand your posts correctly (and other seem to agree to one degree or another), you're confident there are mistakes because no one is perfect, but knowledge of any specific mistake does not exist. Have I understood that correctly?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Assuming that Calvin was not inerrant], what is a specific example of an error [you believe] he made?

The first thing off the top of my head is his belief that humans consist of an immaterial, immortal soul that survives consciously the death of the body. His first published work of theology was Psychopannychia (i.e., On the Sleep of the Soul), which took him almost a decade to write against Anabaptists who believed the soul is deprived of consciousness after death. That view shared similarities with Martin Luther's view on soul sleep, but Calvin never did mention Luther's view. On this question, I think Luther was right and Calvin was wrong.

 

[Carbon]

It's okay to disagree with me, but the words state what the words state. Calvin is clearly applying salvific conditions to infant baptism. If those same comments were limited to an older person (even someone in their youth, who was making a conscious and informed profession of faith those same words have an entirely different meaning than when applied to an infant who can do none of it. Furthermore, the precedent firmly established in scripture is baptism occurring at the time of conversion, not years, or even decades, prior. The dissent begs a question: why then have the Reformed sects/denominations/congregations changed their teaching and practice if Calvin is correct? One or the other is mistaken, else reform of the Reformer's views would be unnecessary (or the later reforms are the mistake).

More germanely, this op is not specifically about pedobaptism. It's about whether or not Calvin's teachings were impeccable and if not then where are the mistakes? If I understand your posts correctly (and other seem to agree to one degree or another), you're confident there are mistakes because no one is perfect, but knowledge of any specific mistake does not exist. Have I understood that correctly?

The surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds on Christ alone.


Calvin

 

[Carbon]

The surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds on Christ alone.


Calvin

@Josheb Hey brother, you may find it interesting to read this also, if you haven't already.

book 4, ch 15, vs 17.
Baptism not individualized by the delay of repentance*

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb Hey brother, you may find it interesting to read this also, if you haven't already.

book 4, ch 15, vs 17.
Baptism not individualized by the delay of repentance*

?????

I've read the entire "Institutes....". Many times. I quoted the salient portion of v. 17 above! Here it is in its entirety.

"17. Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true (Rom. 3:3, 4); though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore, when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted and extinguished."​

The word "individualized" does not occur anywhere in that passage. Logically, if God promised the remission of sins and it is undoubtedly performed to all believers and belief is a monergistic gift from God (and not something dependent upon the will of the unregenerate) then the infant has been promised remission of sins.

I did not mention this, but there's also no scripture making baptism equal with or parallel to circumcision. This is another mistake on Calvin's part.

Josheb, after reading this and more, I have to say I disagree with you, and believe you may be misunderstanding Calvin. It's pretty clear Calvin does not teach baptismal regeneration.

Well, with respect, I'm not the one adding "not individualized by the delay of repentance."

In section 6 Calvin wrote,

"And yet he who baptises into Christ cannot but at the same time invoke the name of the Father and the Spirit. For we are cleansed by his blood, just because our gracious Father, of his incomparable mercy, willing to receive us into favour, appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation with himself. 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."​

An infant who is baptised cannot lay claim to the effect of purification and regeneration absent the Spirit, but because water baptism is a baptism of repentance it is also regenerative and washed clean the infant from his sin (ablution).

Can an infant repent?

The surest argument to refute the self-deception of those who attribute everything to the power of the water can be sought in the meaning of baptism itself, which draws us away, not only from the visible element which meets our eyes but from all other means, that it may fasten our minds on Christ alone.


Calvin

Which is exactly what I said in Post 11.

However, it is not the water itself that has any power. That is not what Calvin thought.

"For he (Peter) 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."​

So I must ask why what I previously posted is repeated as if it wasn't already posted and addressed.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

book 4, ch15. 2

Its virtue not in water without the word

In this sense, we are to understand what Paul has written: that the church has been "sanctified" by Christ, the bridegroom, and cleansed by the washing of water in the word of life. [Eph 5:26p.]. and another passage: he saved us. . . in virtue of his mercy, through the washing of regeneration and of renewal in the Holy Spirit [Titus 3:5]. and by Peter: baptism saves us [1 Peter 3:21p.].

For Paul 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. This the words themselves explain clearly enough.
For Paul joins together the word and life and the baptism of water, as if he had said: "Through the gospel a message of our cleansing and sanctification is brought to us; through such baptism the message is sealed."

John Calvin.

Again, this is repetitious. What's not being said is that both Peter and Calvin were writing to the already saved about the already saved condition. The "us" in Book 4 Chapter 15 is Christians. We have remission of sins in baptism. Because it is a baptism of repentance it is regenerative and because it is an ablution the baptized is washed clean. Peter was writing to those saved by the New Testament precedent in which baptism was typically performed at the time of confession/conversion, NOT the Roman Catholic version in which baptism was/is performed in infancy whether or not the infant can and does make any profession of faith, whether or not the infant believes. Consider 2 Peter 1:3-9, not just 1 Peter 3. There Peter was writing about people who had been converted to Christ and washed clean of their sins such that they had everything they needed to live a godly life and participate in the divine nature. Those people had faith and they were to add to their faith..... remembering they had been washed clean of all prior sin! Are you now claiming an infant has everything the infant needs to live a godly life and can participate in the divine nature? Are you now applying the premise infants have faith and can add to that faith, or that they can, do, and will remember they have been washed clean?

I hope not.

The only time the word "individual" or "individualized" is found in Chapter 15 is when Calvin argues against non-apostles and non-clerics performing the sacrament. It is a ritual the RCC considered a sacrament. In the RCC the sacrament of baptism is salvific! You and I do not hold that pov (I hope) but the Roman Catholic John Calvin did.

Note also that Section 20 is also incorrect. Calvin claims only the apostles baptized but John 3:22ff proves otherwise. Calvin's argument is that because only the apostles were directed to baptize then only the clergy has authority to do so. No (Christian) individual may baptize a new convert, especially not women. The laity did so in extreme occasions (like when a person was dying and there was no clergy around), but that practice was always an unsure one. John's disciples baptized. So too did Jesus' disciples. Their doing so prompted a debate with the Jews on this very matter! How can the disciples, who were otherwise ordinary men (and perhaps women) perform baptism when that was solely the domain of the Jewish priests? The is undeniable proof non-clerics did perform baptism! Furthermore, 1) Calvin specifically argues only the apostles could baptized but 2) Priscilla and Junias were apostles. If apostles can baptize then Priscilla dn Junias could baptized. If Priscilla and Junias can baptize then women can baptize. Calvin was wrong one way or another. The RCC created a clerical institution in Christianity that was not found in the NT-era Church. Theirs was a carry-over from Judaism, not the example set by Christ or the NT-era Church. There were not special individuals wearing their collars backward designated as the party responsible for the spiritual health of an entire congregation (and their infants). That is an Old Testament practice not repeated in the NT era Church, a post-NT-era invention of the RCC.

The "Institutes..." was originally written as a set of recommendations for the RCC. When it came to infant baptism, Calvin taught RCCism, not scripture. He did so in overt criticism of the Protestant rivals, the Anabaptists and in direct defense of RCCism.

 

[Josheb]

The first thing off the top of my head is his belief that humans consist of an immaterial, immortal soul that survives consciously the death of the body. His first published work of theology was Psychopannychia (i.e., On the Sleep of the Soul), which took him almost a decade to write against Anabaptists who believed the soul is deprived of consciousness after death. That view shared similarities with Martin Luther's view on soul sleep, but Calvin never did mention Luther's view. On this question, I think Luther was right and Calvin was wrong.

Thank you! Thank you for citing something specific and thank you for citing the source. This is what the op requests. To all future respondents I will ask you to provide a link to the source wherever possible so that readers may verify what is posted here in the thread.

The "Psychopannychia" can be found HERE.

First, it is worth noting "soul sleep" is not a 19th century invention. Psychopannychia proves this point of view was held many centuries earlier (SDAism, JWism. and Christdelphianism are all sects holding to soul sleep, sects founded in the 19th century). Soul sleep was a significant controversy during the 16th century, so much that Calvin wrote, "Long ago, when certain pious persons invited, and even urged me, to publish something for the purpose of repressing the extravagance of those who, alike ignorantly and tumultuously, maintain that THE SOUL DIES OR SLEEPS, I could not be induced by all their urgency, so averse did I feel to engage in that kind of dispute. At that time, indeed, I was not without excuse, partly because I hoped that that absurd dogma would soon vanish of its own accord, or at least be confined to a few triflers...."

Calvin repudiated the premise the Pope was head over the afterlife and depriving the Pope of that domain was one of the reasons to deny soul sleep.

"One is puzzled to understand why it should have been received with so much favor; for the idea which it suggests, so far from being attractive, is naturally revolting. It was probably welcomed, not so much for its own sake, as for the great assistance which it was supposed capable of giving in THE POPISH CONTROVERSY. Were it once established that the soul falls asleep at death, and will not awake to consciousness till again united to the body at the resurrection, THE POPE would forthwith be excluded from the larger half of his domain, and deprived of the most lucrative branches of his trade! There would neither be SAINTS to whom divine honors could be paid, nor PURGATORY out of which poor souls might be delivered with more or less expedition, according to the number of well-paid masses that were said for them!"​

This is one of the reasons Calvin departed from the RCC pov (even though he defended the RCC doctrines and practices against the Anabaptists on other matters (like water baptism).

As far as Calvin holding "humans consist of an immaterial, immortal soul that survives consciously the death of the body," I wish you @DialecticSkeptic, had supported that statement with words from Calvin and more importantly provided us with an orthodox alternative. Please do so now, if you have the inclination.

I will venture one from my own pov. The problem with Psychpanniychia is that it appears to subscribe to the classic tripartite view of humanity in which a human has a body, a soul, and a spirit and the three can be separate and/or separated from one another and the human still exist. This is not found in the Bible. There are no bodiless souls or bodiless spirits in the Bible. This is presuppositionally foundational. If the distinctions assumed in Psychopannychia have no precedent in scripture, then both sides of the debate have no justification! Another base error is the premise there is time between death and whatever else happens on the other side of the grave. This assumes time on the other side of the grave, time in heaven, is the same as it is here on earth. This is going to cause problems with a host of scripture, including but not limited to the repentant thief's being with Jesus in paradise that day and Paul's teaching to be out of the body is to be with the Lord. As far as the supposed "immaterial" nature of the soul goes, logic tells us if a soul can be seen with the human eye then it is reflecting light and, therefore, has some kind of mass. That means it is not "immaterial." We in modernity now know that matter and energy are simply variations on a common theme.

There is no separation of the body, soul, and spirit, a one-to-one correlation between the body buried and the body raised, the soul is material, and there's no delay between death and resurrection.