Reading through the institututes.

[Josheb]

No, not at all. And, I don’t believe scripture teaches baptismal regeneration

Just making sure @JesusFan understands Post 37 correctly . Wouldn't want him thinking Calvinism teaches baptizing an infant in water saves the child from sin, or that salvation can be obtained by works.

 

[JesusFan]

I hold to infant baptism.

Which is fine, as I do not tend to get "heated" on to what would be to me a secondary issue, as though while I hold to believers Baptism, know reasoning behind other view

 

[JesusFan]

Hmmm... I'm curious.

Do you realize that this op is specifically, and exclusively, about Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion"? Do you the thread is not about Calvin's theology as a whole, Beeke, MacArthur, Sproul, or Non-Baptist Reformed? Do you realize that in the space of five single-statement posts the original topic has been ignored.



Calvin's "Insititutes..." is not representative of his larger theology. This is a common misconception regarding Calvin and Calvinism. Calvin set out writing The Institutes in an effort to reform Catholicism, not establish a systematic theology. The Institutes was originally only six chapters in length. It grew in length and diversity of content as Calvin aged, left the RCC, and began addressing other religious/theological matters. Even in its final edition, at 80 chapters, it does not express Calvin's theology anywhere near as well as his commentaries (which cover at least 50 of the Bible's 66 books). Calvin was a prolific writers and substantive exegete. His "Institutes...." is important primarily for its historical value as both a seminal work in religious writing, and as a turning point in Christian thought. For those reasons, it stands on its own. It does not stand on its own as an exposition of Calvin's larger theology.

Good points, as many times we tend to see that as his main exposition on theology proper, yet he seemed to be writing it almost as a primer to pastors on how to teach and live the scriptures out, and would indeed also group in his commentaries a to what he really thought on the scriptures. Think also many confuse what he held with to hat we call as Calvinism today, as that was built upon and enlarged on His theology, from beza and others afterwards, as he provide the skeleton and they fleshed it out

 

[JesusFan]

Just making sure @JesusFan understands Post 37 correctly . Wouldn't want him thinking Calvinism teaches baptizing an infant in water saves the child from sin, or that salvation can be obtained by works.

I have questions on that, as some times reading some such as a NT Wright who would hold that water baptism is indeed the entry point way into the Kingdom, to others who would identify it as being what circumcision was in the OT, as means to identify those of the Covenant . I tend to see infant baptism as what we Baptist hold as infant dedication, pledging to god to raise up the child in the community of faith and teaching them, with hope that will one dy get saved by the Lord

 

[Josheb]

I tend to see infant baptism as what we Baptist hold as infant dedication, pledging to god to raise up the child in the community of faith and teaching them, with hope that will one day get saved by the Lord

That is very much consistent with the formal position asserted by the Presbyterian sects and all of the Reformed Associated congregations of which I have been a part. We dedicate our child* within the existing covenant relationship of which God has monergistically chosen, called, and dragged us into, relying on His promises relevant to that covenant - the covenant which is inherently Christologically salvific.












* I emphasize "our" child because 1) s/he is not really our child. S/he is God's and we are simply stewards for what remains of out life, and 2) those who are not saved, not members of God's Christologically salvific covenant are just going through the motions of a ritual that for them lacks substance. Intellectual assent is not salvific and those who do not possess and sincere belief are just posing. They might even be mocking God unwittingly.
.

 

[Josheb]

Good points, as many times we tend to see that as his main exposition on theology proper, yet he seemed to be writing it almost as a primer to pastors on how to teach and live the scriptures out, and would indeed also group in his commentaries a to what he really thought on the scriptures. Think also many confuse what he held with to hat we call as Calvinism today, as that was built upon and enlarged on His theology, from beza and others afterwards, as he provide the skeleton and they fleshed it out

Yep. Calvin started out attempting to correct the RCC and make known to his readers real and perceived problems existing therein. Since this op began I've been re-reading The Institutes. I'm about halfway through and just gone through his refutation of Osiander. It's a curious section because Osiander is now consider a Lutheran theologian. That makes Calvin's commentary an early split within the early Reformation and most of that is lost on the average reader. Who's Osiander? Who's Beza? Much of Institutes is not new or controversial to modern Christians, even among the non-Reformed, but in its day it was considered worthy of persecution. Despite the division just point of debarking just mentioned, The Institutes is very much a product of the 95 Theses and yet the angel in the details of Calvinism are best found in his commentaries. That is where the strawmen against Calvinism are most easily refuted.

 

[JesusFan]

Yep. Calvin started out attempting to correct the RCC and make known to his readers real and perceived problems existing therein. Since this op began I've been re-reading The Institutes. I'm about halfway through and just gone through his refutation of Osiander. It's a curious section because Osiander is now consider a Lutheran theologian. That makes Calvin's commentary an early split within the early Reformation and most of that is lost on the average reader. Who's Osiander? Who's Beza? Much of Institutes is not new or controversial to modern Christians, even among the non-Reformed, but in its day it was considered worthy of persecution. Despite the division just point of debarking just mentioned, The Institutes is very much a product of the 95 Theses and yet the angel in the details of Calvinism are best found in his commentaries. That is where the strawmen against Calvinism are most easily refuted.

Was Revelation one of the few books that he never wrote a commentary on?

 

[JesusFan]

That is very much consistent with the formal position asserted by the Presbyterian sects and all of the Reformed Associated congregations of which I have been a part. We dedicate our child* within the existing covenant relationship of which God has monergistically chosen, called, and dragged us into, relying on His promises relevant to that covenant - the covenant which is inherently Christologically salvific.












* I emphasize "our" child because 1) s/he is not really our child. S/he is God's and we are simply stewards for what remains of out life, and 2) those who are not saved, not members of God's Christologically salvific covenant are just going through the motions of a ritual that for them lacks substance. Intellectual assent is not salvific and those who do not possess and sincere belief are just posing. They might even be mocking God unwittingly.
.

So you would see that the child must still at some point in there life make a profession/confession of Jesus is their Savior?

 

[Josheb]

Was Revelation one of the few books that he never wrote a commentary on?

Yes, he did not write a commentary on Revelation. Didn't do 2nd or 3rd John, either.

So you would see that the child must still at some point in there life make a profession/confession of Jesus is their Savior?

Yes, but that's not how I would word it. As a monergist, I'd say God must still choose the child and gift him/her faith that professes Christ. I think the sinner's will is irrelevant to the individual's salvation until after s/he is saved. I think the debate over volitional agency is a red herring.

 

[Carbon]

So you would see that the child must still at some point in there life make a profession/confession of Jesus is their Savior?

Romans 1
16 for I am not ashamed of the good news of the Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one who is believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point? What do you mean they must?

 

[JesusFan]

Romans 1
16 for I am not ashamed of the good news of the Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to every one who is believing, both to Jew first, and to Greek.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point? What do you mean they must?

Just being water baptized did not make them auto saved

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, he did not write a commentary on Revelation. Didn't do 2nd or 3rd John, either.

Yes, but that's not how I would word it. As a monergist, I'd say God must still choose the child and gift him/her faith that professes Christ. I think the sinner's will is irrelevant to the individual's salvation until after s/he is saved. I think the debate over volitional agency is a red herring.

I am also a Calvinist, so was using that phrasing in the sense that the person who had been water baptized as a baby still would need to profess Jesus aa their savior some time, as was not auto saved in the water

 

[Carbon]

Just being water baptized did not make them auto saved

Agreed. But that still don’t answer the question.

 

[Carbon]

I am also a Calvinist, so was using that phrasing in the sense that the person who had been water baptized as a baby still would need to profess Jesus aa their savior some time, as was not auto saved in the water

Well if the baby is regenerate, eventually he or she will. Scripture teaches such.

 

[Rella]

I am also a Calvinist, so was using that phrasing in the sense that the person who had been water baptized as a baby still would need to profess Jesus aa their savior some time, as was not auto saved in the water

Question. If water baptized as a baby did not auto save the baby, and would need to profess Jesus as their savior in the future... would that mean that when they were old enough to do so, they would need a second baptism?

 

[JesusFan]

Question. If water baptized as a baby did not auto save the baby, and would need to profess Jesus as their savior in the future... would that mean that when they were old enough to do so, they would need a second baptism?

Would be charitable on that question, for if was saved and attending a Baptist church would say yes, but if a reformed one would say no

 

[Josheb]

Question. If water baptized as a baby did not auto save the baby, and would need to profess Jesus as their savior in the future... would that mean that when they were old enough to do so, they would need a second baptism?

Most Reformed denominations don't/won't "re-baptize." Some emphasize the consideration it unnecessary, attributed to a promise fulfilled, some emphasize adult baptism as inappropriate since salvation isn't by works and the sacrament 's substance is (simply) an expression of grace). The PCA congregation I currently attend will baptize adults who've never been baptized but not those who have. Those wanting to be rebaptized may do so in a different congregation and still find a "home" here, but I know of PCA, LCMS, and Episcopal congregation leaders that won't support such a collaboration. There's an ultra-liberal PCUSA congregation just up the road from my house (they have a "green" committee) and I'm pretty sure they won't re-baptize.

 

[JesusFan]

Well if the baby is regenerate, eventually he or she will. Scripture teaches such.

their regeneration would have nothing to do with their water baptism though

 

[JesusFan]

Most Reformed denominations don't/won't "re-baptize." Some emphasize the consideration it unnecessary, attributed to a promise fulfilled, some emphasize adult baptism as inappropriate since salvation isn't by works and the sacrament 's substance is (simply) an expression of grace). The PCA congregation I currently attend will baptize adults who've never been baptized but not those who have. Those wanting to be rebaptized may do so in a different congregation and still find a "home" here, but I know of PCA, LCMS, and Episcopal congregation leaders that won't support such a collaboration. There's an ultra-liberal PCUSA congregation just up the road from my house (they have a "green" committee) and I'm pretty sure they won't re-baptize.

yet we baptists would require to have the person to get water baptized now, not in order to get saved, but that would not regard infant baptism as having been a legit one, and that would mainly be in order to be in membership required

 

[Rella]

yet we baptists would require to have the person to get water baptized now, not in order to get saved, but that would not regard infant baptism as having been a legit one, and that would mainly be in order to be in membership required

I understand what you are saying and not wanting to get into it.... and not deliberately switching subjects away from your discussion... I always wonder what ever did they do with the babies in the new Testament times when the whole families were baptized such as the Jailer, and Lydia, and Crispus, Stephanus and not to forget Cornelius.

Maybe when the mom was being baptized someone else held the babe? This has bothered me for decades.

Some reformed churches did follow John Calvin pretty close. The Westminster Confession of Faith certainly did.

Interesting to wonder if Calvin actually started the whole infant baptism thing to begin with because he said
Here is a short summary statement of John Calvin’s argument for applying the sign of baptism to the children of Believers:

John Calvin on “Infant Baptism”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

“Reason would tell us that baptism is rightly administered to babies. The Lord did not give circumcision long ago without making them (infants) partakers of everything represented by circumcision. He would have been deceiving his people with a sham, if he had reassured them with false signs. The idea is very shocking. He distinctly states that the circumcision of the infant is the seal of covenant promise. If the covenant remains firm and unmoved, this is just as relevant to the children of Christians today as it was to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament…The truth of baptism applies to infants, so why do we deny them the sign? The Lord himself formally admitted infants to his covenant, so what more do we need?”

John Calvin, Institutes of the christian religion, 4:16:5 (Beveridge Edition)