TheologySense

Reference:  Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960. pp. 1276-1429.

Prolegomena

The portion of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion utilized for this response paper include his prolegomena on the sacraments in general, and his treatises on baptism and the Lord’s supper. Calvin’s definition of the term “sacrament” closely parallels that of Augustine. A sacrament is an outward sign of grace, or, as Calvin explains (quoting Augustine), “a visible form of an invisible grace” (1277).
Calvin insists upon conjoining the sacrament with the word. The word should explain the sign and instill belief. Sacraments do not work ex opere operato; they do not of themselves impart grace. According to Calvin, sacraments cannot fulfill their purpose without the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, the word with the sacrament confirm our faith through the effectiveness of the Holy Spirit. He states further that sacraments do not ensure salvation or bring justification to the one partaking of them. Sacraments only effect grace to the elect.
The primary purpose of sacraments is their role in pointing to Christ. Calvin goes to great lengths to explain how what he terms the “Old Testament sacraments” pointed to Christ (i.e., circumcision, purifications, and the sacrificial system). The primary Christian sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s supper (Calvin indicates that the laying on of hands may also be considered a valid sacrament), both point to the work of Christ. Baptism is a sign of cleansing and washing, signifying the spiritual purification of sins. The Lord’s
supper points to the redemption we have through Christ. Calvin, again quoting Augustine, explains that on the cross, the water and blood which flowed from Christ’s side was the “the fountain of our sacraments” (1298).

Baptism
Baptism, for Calvin, is the sign of our initiation into the church. It is the token and proof of our cleansing. Baptism is not a repeated phenomenon in the life of the believer. Once a person is baptized, sins are forgiven; even future sins are absolved by the one act. Because of the importance of the sacrament of baptism, Calvin sees no need for future absolution, thus he denounces the Roman church for their “sacrament” of Penance.
Calvin attacks the Roman doctrine concerning the removal of “original sin” in baptism. He is adamant about his estimation of the depravity of man: the corruption extends to “all parts of our nature” (1311). The sin of Adam remains in us until death, and cannot be washed away in baptism. However, through baptism believers are assured that the condemnation of sin has been removed and righteousness has been imputed by God. Calvin insists that we will always sin, but sin shall not dominate the believer; sanctification is a life-long process.
Calvin writes a total of thirty-six pages of text on the topic of paedobaptism. His efforts are aimed at refuting the Anabaptist arguments against infant baptism. The first and foundational argument for paedobaptism is the supposition that baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision. Just as circumcision was a spiritual promise given to Abraham, and it represented the forgiveness of sins, so is baptism for the Christian. Calvin cites quite a few early church fathers in support of paedobaptism (i.e., Irenaeus, Origen, and Cyprian).
Several benefits are made available to those opting for infant baptism. First, the children are engrafted into the body of the church. Second, they are “greatly spurred” (1332) to a zeal for worshiping God (since the seal of adoption is received early in life). Third, the parents avoid the vengeance of God, who desires that all children bear the mark of the covenant (similar to circumcision).

The Lord’s Supper

Calvin likens the signs of the bread and wine to food by which God sustains and preserves believers. The visible signs of bread and wine have been adapted by God to suit our small capacities, thus, they represent the mystery of Christ’s union with believers. Calvin states, “In this sacrament we have such a full witness of all these things that we must certainly consider them as if Christ here present were himself set before our eyes and touched by our hands” (1362).
The cup is of utmost importance to Calvin, especially in light of the common practice of withdrawing the cup from laity. Calvin says it is a “sacrilege to separate what had been joined by the Lord” (1427). The wine, pointing to the blood of Christ, “spiritually imparts” the benefits of nourishment, refreshing, strengthening, and gladdening to the believer.
Calvin assails the concept of Christ’s ubiquity in the Lord’s supper (thus, he attacks the transubstantiationists). Christ’s body is not present everywhere, and especially not in the elements. He writes, “Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such a great distance, penetrates to us” (1370). This penetration comes to the believer through the efficacious power of the Holy Spirit to unite “things separated in space” (1370). He does not assent to Zwingli’s interpretation of the Lord’s supper as merely signs, but goes to lengths to promote the concept of the efficacious power of the Holy Spirit present with the elements. The mystery of the Lord’s supper is understood, then, as containing two things: physical signs, which represent invisible things, and spiritual truths, which are represented in the symbols.
Calvin saw great benefits in the Lord’s supper. Partaking of “this sacred feast is medicine for the sick, solace for sinners, alms to the poor” (1419). When the believer comes to the table, he comes to a physician (if sick), a giver (if poor), a righteous author (if a sinner), and the giver of life (if dying). Many in Calvin’s day held that the Lord’s supper could be poison to the unworthy. He writes, “When they [Roman Catholics] would prepare men to eat worthily, they have tortured and harassed pitiable consciences in dire ways (1418). Apparently, “unworthy” individuals had to acquire worthiness by examining themselves, account for all deeds, and expiate themselves by confession and satisfaction. Only after such soul searching could they participate in the sacrament. Calvin debunks this process by declaring, “Who is worthy?” No one! Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, refers to those estranged, discordant, and unsaved people as those who are “unworthy;” those who are separated from their brothers by hatred or similar ill will. He points out that the Lord’s supper is “a sacrament ordained not for the perfect, but for the weak and feeble, to awaken, arouse, stimulate, and exercise the feeling of faith and love, indeed, to correct the defect of both” (1420). Thus, he was amongst the earliest Christian writers to urge a weekly observance of the Lord’s supper (the custom of the day was a once-a-year observance). He even urges correction for “disturbers” of the church who leave the worship service prior to receiving the Lord’s supper!

Reflection

Calvin’s theology of the sacraments characterizes his position as a magisterial reformer. He departs from the Roman church in key areas, especially with regard to the operation of the sacraments (anti-ex opere operato). His arguments are aimed specifically at the Roman views and another group of dissenters, the Anabaptists (esp. Servetus and Balthasar Hubmaier, an apparently prolific Anabaptist theologian). Calvin’s view also run counter to his fellow reformers, especially Luther and Zwingli. He apparently had tried to find a middle ground between the two, but he ended up leaning more toward Luther’s concept of “real presence” rather than empty signs.
Calvin’s view of the operation of the sacraments is reform-oriented. He emphasizes the importance of both the sacrament and the word for helping the believer’s faith. The sacrament alone does not suffice for the impartation of God’s grace. Sacraments do not work magically, as many at that time believed, but work on the basis of the believer’s faith in Christ himself. The sacraments, in fact, cannot impart grace to anyone who is outside of a covenant relationship with the Lord. Thus, Calvin’s emphasis on certain covenantal aspects of the faith (i.e., the relationship between circumcision and baptism) become key elements in his theology.
Calvin’s theology of baptism leans on the forensic nature of justification. Here, again, he departs from the Roman belief that “original sin” can be removed in any way. When a person becomes a Christian and is baptized, the sins of that person are done away with once and for all; no further cleansing is required, ever. Thus, Calvin sees baptism as a major turning point in a believer’s thinking. Believers do not need the so-called “sacrament” of Penance, because their sins are counted as absolved, even though the person may continue to sin (due to the depravity of human nature). Calvin states concerning baptism, “The Lord leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what [baptism] symbolizes” (1314). Baptism is an assurance, a security that sins are forgiven once and for all.
Calvin’s theology of paedobaptism is presented polemically in the Institutes. He employs a veritable tour de force in his discussion, but the key element is his association of baptism in the new covenant with the act of circumcision in the old. Calvin states that Christian baptism has replaced circumcision as a sign of covenant relationship (cf. 1327), which would seem to mean that Israel as well is not part of the new covenant. Yet Calvin insists that Israel is still in its original covenant relationship with the Lord, and the promises given to Abraham will be literally fulfilled in his physical descendants (cf. 1337). How can one covenant be done away with only for Christians, and not for Jews as well? The ramifications of Calvin’s arguments are beyond the scope of this paper and the conception of this writer!
Although Calvin admits that baptism is not necessary for salvation (1321), he insists upon its observance, even for infants, in light of it’s “sign” character. Baptism is somehow related to the new birth and the act of justification and a very important part of it all, but Calvin does not really provide details as to just how the relationship is worked out. He pleads that often-frustrating cry of “mystery.”
Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s supper is tinged with his polemics against what he calls the “monstrous notion” (1401) of ubiquity and the doctrine of transubstantiation. Concerning the presence of Christ in the elements, his theology is more like Luther than Zwingli. On one hand he states, “we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that [the benefits of Christ’s atonement] are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands” (1362). On the other hand, he emphasizes the “great distance” (1370) which separates Christ’s flesh and the believer. Calvin employs the Holy Spirit as the great “uniter,” who joins those things which are separated in space, but we have to wonder, just how far is Calvin from Luther?
Calvin’s contention against Peter Lombard and the transubstantiationists centers on the notion of the ubiquity of Christ’s human body. The transubstantiationists insist upon the local presence of Christ, but according to Calvin, this local presence invalidates the corporeality of Christ and tends toward gnosticism! If Jesus performed the last supper while still in his body, the words of institution must have been a metonymy. Calvin is adamant in his insistence that Christ not be circumscribed in any way, for if he is, he cannot logically have a true human nature. Calvin’s arguments on this issue do make sense!
Calvin’s theology of the Lord’s supper would be unique in many modern Christian assemblies. He demonstrates that the Lord’s supper represents the benefits of the Lord’s atonement to believers. The partaking of the elements cannot become a source of judgment, or “poison” to a believer; but instead, the partaking is a help. The Lord’s supper should not be a source of torture or harassment through some sort of feeble means of becoming “worthy” in the few moments prior to the giving of the sacrament; this attempt at worthiness is a superstitious invention and a misrepresentation of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul did not have in mind united, loving believers when he wrote, “whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (verse 27). Those who are “unworthy” are those who are divisive, separated by “hatred and ill will from their brothers” (1417). Calvin explains that “examining oneself” is simply the process of acknowledging that the believer’s salvation is purchased by Christ.
Calvin’s explanation of the benefits provided to the believer through the Lord’s supper are wonderful and positive; how can the Lord’s supper be anything but medicine, solace, and alms (as Calvin puts it). Since we are not worthy, and Christ alone is worthy, he is our sustainer and helper; our physician, provider, justifier, and life! All these wonderful benefits come to us by grace, through faith, in the Lord’s supper. Those who are week and poor need to come to the table, not to suddenly try to get holy through recounting known sin and asking pardon, but by accepting what Christ has done for the sinner, and believing. The Lord’s supper is a time of joyous celebration, not a time of doom and misery, and too many modern fellowships are missing the true meaning of the sacrament.

Share on Facebook