John Calvin - Of Baptism - Institutes Book 4.15.1

Baptism does not PROCURE salvation but it accepts and confirms the promises of God.
15. OF BAPTISM.

There are two parts of this chapter,

I. Dissertation on the two ends of Baptism, sec. 1-13.

II. The second part may be reduced to four heads:

Of the use of Baptism, sec. 14, 15. Of the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister, sec. 16-18. Of the corruptions by which this sacrament was polluted, sec. 19. To whom reference is had in the dispensation, sec. 20-22.

Sections.

Baptism defined. Its primary object. This consists of three things.

1. To attest the forgiveness of sins.

Passages of Scripture proving the forgiveness of sins.

Forgiveness not only of past but also of future sins. This no encouragement to license in sin.

Refutation of those who share forgiveness between Baptism and Repentance.

Second thing in Baptism, viz., to teach that we are ingrafted into Christ for mortification and newness of life.

Third thing in Baptism, viz., to teach us that we are united to Christ so as to be partakers of all his blessings. Second and third things conspicuous in the baptism both of John and the apostles.

Identity of the baptism of John and the apostles.

An objection to this refuted.

The benefits of baptism typified to the Israelites by the passage of the Red Sea and the pillar of cloud.

Objection of those who imagine that there is some kind of perfect renovation after baptism. Original depravity remains after baptism. Its existence in infants. The elect after baptism are righteous in this life only by imputation.

Original corruption trying to the pious during the whole course of their lives. They do not, on this account, seek a license for sin. They rather walk more cautiously and safely in the ways of the Lord.

The trouble occasioned by corruption, shown by the example and testimony of the Apostle Paul.

Another end of baptism is to serve as our confession to men.

Second part of the chapter. Of baptism as a confirmation of our faith.

This illustrated by the examples of Cornelius and Paul. Of the use of baptism as a confessions of faith.

Baptism not affected by the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister. Hence no necessity to rebaptise those who were baptised under the Papacy.

Nothing in the argument that those so baptised remained some years blind and unbelieving. The promise of God remains firm. God, in inviting the Jews to repentance, does not enjoins them to be again circumcised.

No ground to allege that Paul rebaptised certain of John's disciples. The baptism of John. What it is to be baptised in the name of Christ.

The corruptions introduced into baptism. The form of pure Christian baptism. Immersion or sprinkling should be left free.

To whom the dispensation of baptism belongs. Not to private individuals or women, but to the ministers of the Church. Origin of the baptism of private individuals and women. An argument in favour of it refuted.

Exploded also by Tertullian and Epiphanies.

Objection founded on the case of Zipporah. Answer. Children dying before baptism not excluded from heaven, provided the want of it was not caused by negligence or contempt.

(Baptism a sign of our forgiveness, of our participation in Christ's death and resurrection and also in his blessings, 1-6)

The "church" is the body of Christ and not a local assembly. Therefore, baptism defines our relationship to Christ internally and serves as our confession to the watching world.

1. The meaning of baptism

Baptism is the initiatory sign

by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church,
that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God.
Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is,

first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him, and
secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men.

> Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:32
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33
> Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: Jn.12:42

For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jn 12:43

Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. Jn 12:44

And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. Jn 12:45
I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. Jn 12:46
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. Jn 12:47

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:
the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. Jn 12:48

> And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Lk 7:29

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against (for) themselves, being not baptized of him. Lk 7:30
Reject is more than failure to believe:
Atheteo (g114) ath-et-eh'-o; from a compound of 1 (as a neg. particle) and a der. of 5087; to set aside, i.e. (by impl.) to disesteem, neutralize or violate: - cast off, despise, disannul, frustrate, bring to nought, reject.

He that despised Moses law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Heb 10:28

Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29

Sanctified is:
Hagiazo (g37) hag-ee-ad'-zo; from 40; to make holy, i.e. (cer.) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate: - hallow, be holy, sanctify.

Hagios (g40) hag'-ee-os; from hagos, (an awful thing) [comp. 53, 2282]; sacred (phys. pure, mor. blameless or religious, cer. consecrated): - (most) holy (one, thing), saint

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the HOLY Ghost. Ac.2:38

The nature of both institutions we shall explain in order.

Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately.

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 (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).

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, have 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.)

2. Its virtue not in water without the Word

In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that "Christ loved the Church,
        and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse
        it with the washing of water by the word," (Eph. 5: 25, 26;)

and again, "not by works of righteousness which we have done,
        but according to his mercy he saved us,
        by the washing of regeneration
        and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3: 5.)

Peter also says that "baptism also does now save us," (1 Peter 3: 21.)
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,

[Calvin uses the word "procure" and water does not procure salvation]

but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
........ Christ for the remission of sins, and
........ ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38 or A holy spirit
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
........having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,
........and our bodies washed with pure water. Heb.10:22
And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--
........ not the removal of dirt from the flesh,
........ but an appeal to God for a good conscience--
........ ........ through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet 3:21

This the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said,

by the gospel the message of our

ablution and sanctification is announced;
by baptism this message is sealed.

[Again, the gospel announces the "promise." Calvin often refutes that our actions validate God's purpose or promise of salvation. Baptism seals the message or promise.]

And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
        but the answer [request for] of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith."

Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing.

Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?

So that we cannot have a better argument to refute the hallucination of those who ascribe the whole to the virtue of water than we derive from the very meaning of baptism,

which leads us away as well from the visible element which is presented to our eye, as from all other means, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.

From the passages in blue above, water baptism is the only time and place to request A holy spirit or A good conscience and it is the only ASSURANCE that we have that God is cleansing the heart or spirit.

3. Token of cleansing for the whole of life!
Nor is it to be supposed that baptism is bestowed only with reference to the past, so that, in regard to new lapses into which we fall after baptism, we must seek new remedies of expiation in other so-called sacraments, just as if the power of baptism had become obsolete.
To this error, in ancient times, it was owing that some refused to be initiated by baptism until their life was in extreme danger, and they were drawing their last breath, that they might thus obtain pardon for all the past.

Against this preposterous precaution ancient bishops frequently inveigh in their writings. We ought to consider that

at whatever time we are baptised,

we are washed and purified once for the whole of life.

Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins.

For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements.

Nor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the future, (there is certainly nothing in it to countenance such audacity;) but this doctrine is intended only for those who, when they have sinned,

groan under their sins burdened and oppressed, that they may have wherewith to support and console themselves, and not rush headlong into despair.
Thus Paul says that Christ was made a propitiation for us for the remission of sins that are past, (Rom. 3: 25.) By this he denies not that constant and perpetual forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death: he only intimates that it is designed by the Father

for those poor sinners who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To these the mercy of God is offered. Those who, from hopes of impunity, seek a license for sin, only provoke the wrath and justice of God.

4. True relationship of baptism and repentance

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone,

is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys, (see chap. 19 sec. 17.)

But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism that it ought not on any account to be separated from it.

The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words, not without the preaching of the gospel.
And of what nature is this preaching?
That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ.

And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism?
We see, then, that that forgiveness has reference to baptism.

[Water baptism is the only possible SEAL or MARK that we have submitted to internal cleansing. Washing is by the blood of Christ but that is invisible. Water baptism is the outward sign of an inward cleansing. Without the sign we might speculate but we have no evidence that we are forgiven except by our ready acceptance of baptism.]

This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said at the proper place. 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.

But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power of baptism ought to have the same extent. 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.

5. Baptism as token of mortification and renewal in Christ

[One might be totaly ashamed of past life. And one might "resolve" in the mind to change. However, there is probably no inwward repentance unless there is an outward sign such as ceasing to steal. Therefore, the only "token" or sign of a changed mind is a changed, outward life.]

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.)

By these words, he not only exhorts us to imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that we are admonished by baptism, in like manner as Christ died, to die to our lusts, and as he rose, to rise to righteousness;

but he traces the matter much higher, that Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, in grafting us into it (Rom. 6:5).

And as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the root to which it is attached,

so those who receive baptism with true faith truly feel the efficacy of Christ's death in the mortification of their flesh, and the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit (Rom. 6:8). On this he founds his exhortation, that if we are Christians we should be dead unto sin, and alive unto righteousness (Rom. 6:11).

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: 11-12.) 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.
[Baptism is the outward proof or sign of and request for that changed life.]

6. Baptism as token of our union with Christ
The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings.

For he consecrated and sanctified baptism in his own body (Matt. 3:13),
that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of union and fellowship which he deigned to form with us;

and hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism, (Gal. 3: 26-27.)
[Again, while we might be sons of God by His gracious act, one is not an inward son without the outward sign.]

Thus we see the fulfilment of our baptism in Christ, whom for this reason we call the proper object of baptism.
Hence it is not strange that the apostles are said to have baptised in the name of Christ, though they were enjoined to baptise in the name of the Father and Spirit also, (Acts 8: 16; 19: 5; Matth. 28: 19.)
For all the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. 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 (Matt. 3:6; 11; Luke 3:16; John 3:23; 4:1; Acts 2:38-41),

understanding by the term "repentance", regeneration, and by the "remission of sins", cleansing.

(The baptism of John not different from that of the apostles: its meaning symbolized to the Israelites in the exodus, 7-9)
7. John's baptism and Christian baptism

This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same.
John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine.

Both baptised unto repentance,
both for remission of sins,
both in the name of Christ,
from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed.

John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, (John 1: 29,) thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?

Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture.

For who would listen to Chrysostom denying that remission of sins was included in the baptism of John, (Hom. in Matth. 1: 14,)

rather than to Luke asserting, on the contrary, that John preached "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?" (Luke 3: 3.)

Nor can we admit Augustine's subtlety,

that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope,
but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality.

For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that
...... John in his baptism promised the remission of sins,
...... ...... why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it?

Should any one ask what difference the word of God makes, he will find

it to be nothing more than that John baptised in the name of him who was to come,
the apostles in the name of him who was already manifested, (Luke 3: 16; Acts 19: 4.)

8. Disparity in personality, not in baptism

This fact, that the gifts of the Spirit were more liberally poured out after the resurrection of Christ, does not go to establish a diversity of baptisms. For baptism, administered by the apostles while he was still on the earth, was called his baptism, and yet the Spirit was not poured out in larger abundance on it than on the baptism of John.

Nay, not even after the ascension did the Samaritans receive the Spirit above the ordinary measure of former believers, till Peter and John where sent to lay hands on them, (Acts 8: 14-17.)

I imagine that the thing which imposed on ancient writers, and made them say that the one baptism was only a preparative to the other, was, because they read that those who had received the baptism of John were again baptised by Paul, (Acts 19: 3-5; Matth. 3: 11.) How greatly they are mistaken in this will be most clearly explained in its own place.

Why, then, did John say that he baptised with water, but there was one coming who would baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire? This may be explained in a few words. He did not mean to distinguish the one baptism from the other,

but he contrasted his own person with the person of Christ, saying,
........ that while he was a minister of water,
........ Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit,
and would declare this virtue by a visible miracle on the day on which he would send the Holy Spirit on the apostles, under the form of tongues of fire.

What greater boast could the apostles make, and what greater those who baptise in the present day?

For they are only ministers of the external sign,
whereas Christ is the Author of internal grace,
as those same ancient writers uniformly teach, and, in particular, Augustine, who, in his refutation of the Donatists, founds chiefly on this axiom, Whoever it is that baptises Christ alone presides.

9. Prototype of baptism in the Old Covenant

The things which we have said, both of mortification and ablution, were adumbrated among the people of Israel, who, for that reason,

are described by the apostle as having been baptised in the cloud and in the sea, (1 Cor. 10: 2.)

Mortification was figured when the Lord, vindicating them from the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel bondage, paved a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself and their Egyptian foes, who were pressing close behind, and threatening them with destruction.

And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. Exod 14:13

The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your peace. Exod 14:14

God would save them but Moses believed a version of FAITH ONLY which Calvin calls fanaticism. On the other hand, when God has provided the MEANS and we reject His counsel then He will not give what we could never provide.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest thou unto me? speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward: Exod 14:15

But lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. Exod 14:16

And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. Exod 14:17

For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned;

in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us. But as that Egyptian was not plunged into the depth of the sea, but cast out upon the shore, still alarmed the Israelites by the terror of his look, though he could not hurt them,

so our enemy still threatens, shows his arms and is felt, but cannot conquer.

The cloud was a symbol of purification, (Num. 9: 18.) For as the Lord then covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun;

so in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ,
lest the wrath of God, which is truly an intolerable flame, should lie upon us.
The CLOUD literally covered them even though it was an OUTWARD SIGN of God Who gave it!

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.

(We are not by the rite of baptism set free from original sin, but by it we make confession of faith before men, 10-13)

[Baptism does not free one from the propensity to sin.]
10. Baptism, original sin, and new righteousness
It is now clear, how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin,

and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity,
and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created.

This class of teachers never understand what is meant by original sin, original righteousness, or the grace of baptism.

Now, it has been previously shown (Book 2: chap. 1: sec. 8,) that original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh, (Gal. 5: 19.)

The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed, viz., that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God,

to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness.

And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother's womb, for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God.

Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt.

They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life, viz., by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent.

11. We must strive to overcome persistent sin

Another point is, that this corruption never ceases in us, but constantly produces new fruits, viz., those works of the flesh which we previously described, just as a burning furnace perpetually sends forth flame and sparks, or a fountain is ever pouring out water. For concupiscence never wholly dies or is extinguished in men, until, freed by death from the body of death, they have altogether laid aside their own nature, (Book 3: chap. 3: sec. 10-13.)

Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no trouble, but only so as not to have dominion.

For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign.

But let no man deceive himself, let no man look complacently on his disease, when he hears that sin always dwells in us. When we say so,

it is not in order that those who are otherwise too prone to sin may sleep securely in their sins,
but only that those who are tried and stung by the flesh may not faint and despond.

Let them rather reflect that they are still on the way, and think that they have made great progress when they feel that their concupiscence is somewhat diminished from day to day, until they shall have reached the point at which they aim, viz., the final death of the flesh; a death which shall be completed at the termination of this mortal life.

Meanwhile, let them cease not to contend strenuously, and animate themselves to further progress, and press on to complete victory.
Their efforts should be stimulated by the consideration, that after a lengthened struggle much still remains to be done.

We ought to hold that we are baptised for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this life to go to the Lord.
That cannot mean that we are baptized BECAUSE of the mortification of the flesh.

12. Paul's inner struggle (Romans ch. 7)
Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He had discoursed of free justification,

but as some wicked men thence inferred that they were to live as they listed,
because their acceptance with God was not procured by the merit of works (Rom. 6:1,15),

he adds, that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and that we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism (Rom. 6:3f).

[But Calvin has just noted that the work begun at baptism does not cease until we are dead. The promise nor the forgiveness are procured by human merit.]

WHAT shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Rom 6:1
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Rom 6: 2

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into [eis] Jesus Christ were baptized into [eis] his death? Rom 6: 3
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Rom 6: 4

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Rom 6: 5

For he that is dead is freed from sin. Rom 6: 7

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Rom 6: 8

Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6: 9

For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Rom 6: 10

Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6: 11

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Rom 6: 12

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Rom 6: 13

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom 6: 14

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Rom 6: 15

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom 6: 16
But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6: 17

Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Rom 6: 18

Hence he exhorts believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (Rom. 6:12). And because he knew that there is always some infirmity in believers, lest they should be cast down on this account, he adds, for their consolation, that they are not under the law (Rom. 6:14).

Again, as there may seem a danger that Christians might grow presumptuous because they were not under the yoke of the law, he shows what the nature of the abrogation is (Rom. 7:1-6), and at the same time what the use of the law is (Rom. 7:7-13). This question he had already postponed a second time (Rom. 2:12-24).

The substance is, that we are freed from the rigour of the law in order that we may adhere to Christ, and that the office of the law is to convince us of our depravity, and make us confess our impotence and wretchedness.

Moreover, as this malignity of nature is not so easily apparent in a profane man who, without fear of God, indulges his passions,

he gives an example in the regenerate man, in other words, in himself.

He therefore says that he had a constant struggle with the remains of his flesh, and was kept in miserable bondage, so as to be unable to devote himself entirely to the obedience of the divine law (Rom. 7:18-23).
Hence he is forced to groan and exclaim, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 24.)

But if the children of God are kept captive in prison as long as they live, they must necessarily feel very anxious at the thought of their danger,

unless their fears are allayed. For this single purpose, then, he subjoins the consolation, that there is "now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 8: 1.)

Hence he teaches that those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism,

are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin, and thus bear sin about with them.

If this is the simple and genuine interpretation of Paul's meaning, we cannot think that there is any thing strange in the doctrine which he here delivers.

13. Baptism as token of confession
Baptism serves as our confession before men, in as much as it is a mark

by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God,
by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short,
we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God.

In this way, as is meet, every thing we have is made subservient to the glory of God, which ought everywhere to be displayed, and others are stimulated by our example to the same course.

To this Paul referred when he asked the Corinthians whether or not they had been baptised in the name of Christ, (1 Cor. 1: 13;)

intimating, that by the very circumstance of having been baptised in his name,
they had devoted themselves to him,
had sworn and bound themselves in allegiance to him before men,
so that they could no longer confess any other than Christ alone,
......unless they would abjure the confession which they had made in baptism.

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: John 12:37
That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? John 12:38
Therefore they could not believe that Esaias said again, John 12:39
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John 12:40
These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. John 12:41

Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him;

but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: John 12:42

And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. Luke 7:29

But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. Luke 7:30

(Baptism to be received with trust in the promise of which it is a sign, and not repeated, 14-18)

14. Sign and thing

Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it.

For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign;

that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God.

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,
........ not as a removal of dirt from the body
........ but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,
........ ........ through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet 3:21
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: Heb 9:13

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Heb 9:14
Katharizo (g2511) kath-ar-id'-zo; to cleanse (lit. or fig.): - (make) clean (-se), purge, purify.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.Heb.10:22

These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water.

For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz.,
........ that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual,

just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy,

but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us.
........ Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show;
........ he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.

15. Baptism as confirming faith

We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who,

after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit,
was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge.

It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism?

I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested.

All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.

I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism.

I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means.
But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith.
 
[Baptism works but not without faith. Baptism does no procure and neither does faith. The blood of Christ procures and we are assured that we are included when we readily submit to baptism as Christ's evidence.]

If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

but he that believeth not shall be damned. Mark 16:16

Baptism has no value except as a confession of faith. Without faith the water will not save.

In so far as it is a sign of our confession,

we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us;
that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers.
This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)

16. Baptism does not depend upon the merit of him who administers it

Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded,

we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was;

so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may.

This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister.

Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism.

Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered.

Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God's, nor did they baptise into any other name.
But if baptism was of God,

it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin,
mortification of the flesh, quickening of the spirit, and communion with Christ.
Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it.

It was enough to return to its genuine origin.

The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective.

When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.

17. Baptism not invalidated by the delay of repentance

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.

[No one grasps the true meaning of baptism until long after they have simpley "accepted the counsel of God for their lives" and obeyed out of faith. Calvin notes that sins are forgiven at baptism but not the urge to sin when tempted. Therefore, temptation looks back to the promise signed at baptism]

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.

Don't lose the fact that while Calvin sees baptism as a SIGN it is more than a singe. Assuredly we do not believe that baptism or dipping in water saves us, but that Baptism is the end product of faith in the blood and promises of Christ.

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.

18. Paul did not rebaptize

But they seem to think the weapon which they brandish irresistible, when they allege that Paul rebaptised those who had been baptised with the baptism of John, (Acts 19: 3, 5.) For if, by our confession, the baptism of John was the same as ours, 

then, in like manner as those who had been improperly trained, 
when they learned the true faith were rebaptised into it,
ought that baptism which was without true doctrine to be accounted as nothing,
and hence we ought to be baptised anew into the true religion with which we are now, for the first time, imbued? 

It seems to some that it was a foolish imitator of John, who, by a former baptism, had initiated them into vain superstition. This, it is thought, may be conjectured from the fact, that they acknowledge their entire ignorance of the Holy Spirit, an ignorance in which John never would have left his disciples. But it is not probable that the Jews, even though they had not been baptised at all, would have been destitute of all knowledge of the Spirit, who is celebrated in so many passages of Scripture. Their answer, therefore, that they know not whether there was a Spirit, must be understood as if they had said, that they had not yet heard whether or not the gifts of the Spirit, as to which Paul questioned them, were given to the disciples of Christ. I grant that John's was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised, (see Calv. Instruct. adv. Anabapt.)

What then is meant by the words, "They were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus?" Some interpret that they were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the laying on of hands.

These are sometimes designated under the name of baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire (Acts 1:5). And Peter relates that the same words occurred to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his family and kindred (Acts 11:16).

There is nothing repugnant to this interpretation in its being afterwards added, "When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy ghost came on them," (Acts 19: 6.) For Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere context.

For he says, "When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them."
In this last sentence is described what the nature of the baptism was.

But if ignorance vitiates a former, and requires to be corrected by a second baptism, the apostles should first of all have been rebaptised, since for more than three full years after their baptism they had scarcely received any slender portion of purer doctrine. Then so numerous being the acts of ignorance which by the mercy of God are daily corrected in us, what rivers would suffice for so many repeated baptisms?
(Objections to ceremonial accretions and to baptism by women, 19-21)
19. Erroneous and correct baptismal usage
The force, dignity, utility and end of the sacrament must now, if I mistake not, be sufficiently clear.

In regard to the external symbol, I wish the genuine institution of Christ had been maintained as fit to repress the audacity of men.
As if to be baptised with water, according to the precept of Christ, had been a contemptible thing, a benediction, or rather incantation, was devised to pollute the true consecration of water.

There was afterwards added the taper and chrism, while exorcism was thought to open the door for baptism. Though I am not unaware how ancient the origin of this adventitious farrago is,

still it is lawful for me and all the godly to reject whatever men have presumed to add to the institution of Christ.

Chrism [in exorcism] is used in the administration of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders, in the consecration of churches, chalices, patens, altars, and altar-stones, and in the solemn blessing of bells and baptismal water. The head of the newly-baptized is anointed with chrism, the forehead of the person confirmed, the head and hands of a bishop at his consecration, and the hands of a priest at his ordination.

When Satan saw that by the foolish credulity of the world his impostures were received almost without objection at the commencement of the gospel, he proceeded to grosser mockery:

hence spittle and other follies, to the open disgrace of baptism, were introduced with unbridled license.
From our experience of them, let us learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to be contented with the authority of Christ alone.

How much better, therefore, is it to lay aside all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, and dulls their minds, and when any one is to be baptised to bring him forward and present him to God, the whole Church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him; to recite the Confession of Faith, in which the catechumen has been instructed, explain the promises which are given in baptism, then baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and conclude with prayer and thanksgiving. In this way, nothing which is appropriate would be omitted, and the one ceremony, which proceeded from its divine Author, would shine forth most brightly, not being buried or polluted by extraneous observances.

Here is where Calvin assumes the same liberties which he has just denounced:

Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates,

although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse,

and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.

Calvin has just said:
From our experience of them, let us learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to be contented with the authority of Christ alone.

20. Against "emergency" baptism

Baptism is for those who have been taught and believe. Therefore, baptism is not a requirement for those who are incapacited and cannot obey. Calvin argues from logic that God's promises are not invalidated for children or the untaught. Right or wrong, this should not be applied to those able to fulfill all of the benefits of baptism as a seal of committment.

It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper (Matt. 28:19), he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do, (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser,) he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example.

The practice which has been in use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the Church, for laics to baptise, in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds. Even the early Christians who observed or tolerated this practice were not clear whether it were rightly done. This doubt is expressed by Augustine when he says, "Although a laic have given baptism when compelled by necessity, I know not whether any one can piously say that it ought to be repeated. For if it is done without any necessity compelling it, it is usurpation of another's office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or a venial one," (August. Cont. Exist. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 13.) With regard to women, it was decreed, without exception, in the Council of Carthage, (cap. 100,) that they were not to presume to baptise at all.

But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means.
Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included.

None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise.

How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and, therefore, think caution the less necessary.

For when the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God's ancient people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law. In that case, Christ will be thought to have come not to fulfil, but to abolish the promises, since the promise, which was then effectual in itself to confer salvation before the eighth day, would not now be effectual without the help of a sign.

21. Women not permitted to baptize

What the custom was before Augustine's day is gathered, first, from Tertullian, who says, that a woman is not permitted to speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, or baptise, or offer,

that she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of the priest, (Tertull. Cont. Haeres. Lib. 1.) Of the same thing we have a sufficient Witness in Epiphanius, when he upbraids Martian with giving permission to women to baptise.

I am not unaware of the answer given by those who take an opposite view, viz., that common use is very different from an extraordinary remedy used under the pressure of extreme necessity; but since he declares it mockery to allow women to baptise, and makes no exception, it is sufficiently plain that the corruption is condemned as inexcusable on any pretext. In his Third Book, also, when he says that it was not even permitted to the holy mother of Christ, he makes no reservation.

22. Zipporah's circumcision of her son no precedent for baptism by women

The example of Zipporah (Exod. 4: 25) is irrelevantly quoted. Because the angel of God was appeased after she took a stone and circumcised her son, it is erroneously inferred that her act was approved by God. Were it so,

we must say that God was pleased with a worship which Gentiles brought from Assyria, and set up in Samaria (II Kings 17:32-33).

But other valid reasons prove, that what a foolish woman did is ignorantly drawn into a precedent. Were I to say that there was something special in the case, making it unfit for a precedent - and especially as we nowhere read that the command to circumcise was specially given to priests, the cases of baptism and circumcision are different - I should give a sufficient refutation. For the words of Christ are plain: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them," (Matth. 28: 19.) Since he appointed the same persons to be preachers of the Gospel, and dispensers of baptism - and in the Church, "no man taketh this honour unto himself," as the apostle declares, (Heb. 5: 4,) "but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" - any one who baptises without a lawful call usurps another's office (cf. I Peter 4:15).
Paul declares, that whatever we attempt with a dubious conscience, even in the minutes matters, as in meat and drink, is sin, (Rom. 14: 23.)

Therefore, in baptism by women, the sin is the greater, when it is plain that the rule delivered by Christ is violated, seeing we know it to be unlawful to put asunder what God has joined (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).

But all this I pass; only I would have my readers to observe, that the last thing intended by Zipporah was to perform a service to God. Seeing her son in danger, she frets and murmurs, and, not without indignation, throws down the foreskin on the ground; thus upbraiding her husband, and taking offence at God. In short, it is plain that her whole procedure is dictated by passion: she complains both against her husband and against God, because she is forced to spill the blood of her son. We may add, that however well she might have conducted herself in all other respects, yet her presumption is inexcusable in this, in circumcising her son while her husband is present, and that husband not a mere private individual, but Moses, the chief prophet of God, than whom no greater ever arose in Israel. This was no more allowable in her, than it would be for women in the present day under the eye of a bishop.

But this controversy will at once be disposed of when we maintain, that children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them in water,

are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

Now, it has been seen, that unless we admit this position, great injury is done to the covenant of God, as if in itself it were weak, whereas its effect depends not either on baptism, or on any accessaries.

The sacrament is afterwards added as a kind of seal,

not to give efficacy to the promise, as if in itself invalid,
but merely to confirm it to us.

God's promise does not depend upon our accepting Him in baptism. Rather, baptism is our request for that promise. However, Calvin ascribes many values to the external act of baptism as it relates to the spiritual promises and the procurement power of God. Baptism does not procure but accepts the procurement by faith and seals it in baptism.

Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ.

Hence if, in omitting the sign, there is neither sloth, nor contempt, nor negligence, we are safe from all danger. By far the better course, therefore is to pay such respect to the ordinance of God as not to seek the sacraments in any other quarter than where the Lord has deposited them. When we cannot receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so inseparably annexed to them that we cannot obtain it by faith, according to his word.
Resource
Reformation Index
Home Page
Counter added 1.29.06 5p Rev 4.11.07 658 8.07.09 3000