John Calvin’s Eisegetical Claim of "Means In Baptism" tagged: , , ,

John Calvin’s Eisegetical Claim of "Means In Baptism"

Posted by in Baptist Life, Bible & Theology, Church & Missions

One of my favorite theologians is John Calvin. He has made a clear and resounding defense to mark out a system of baptism that is consistently followed by many Christians. He has determined to accentuate the function of circumcision in the minds of the listener in order to shape a “means of access” where none is actually required. It is a somewhat popular system he has promulgated, and a system engaged by many orthodox adherents to the interpretation he advances; yet we will see that Calvin holds to a presentation of Matthew’s writing as an application of circumcision…. where the sum of Calvin’s teaching brings about an imaginary sign, not a Savior. The reason for the facade is born out of a desire for eisegetical endeavors destined to form a basis for mystery (popularly known as sacraments). A pattern common to any man that is passionate in their defense of a system intended to relocate the timing of a command.

Calvin’s “Means”

Calvin’s “means” begin with his hallmark foundational remark

“But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls…..that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it”….. (Institutes of Christian Religion (ICR), Chapter 14, Section 3 / translated by Henry Beveridge).

Calvin was concerned that a means of grace be given so as to be essentially applied as a component of grace along with the word. He reaches back to Augustine’s famous line…. “Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the apostle (Romans 10:8).”

“We conclude”, says Calvin, “therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good will which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.” (ICR 14.7)

It is at this point that the eisegetical foundation is set by Calvin wherein he forms a “negative path” (looking back into the dividing wall) determined to reveal baptism; a path not contextually known by any baptized in the New Testament record beyond Pentecost. Looking to His own, Christ commands forward a “positive path” from a circumcision made without hands by commanding the Spirit filled to make disciples and baptize. This positive path is clearly seen in the disciples who by a good confession and a good conscious, in affirmation of the new covenant, positively affirm the command of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19:1-5). Conversely, Calvin argues for an “increase in faith” to substantiate and “prop up” baptism; passionately arguing against a more accurate positive obedience where Jesus Christ leads His children in the light of the Holy Spirit.

It is also during the formation of his fundamentals that Calvin introduces a look back into Roman Catholic tradition. He explains

“ …I would remind the reader (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms), that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith” (ICR 14.9).

Although he is playing both sides of the road at this point, it is clear that a “means” is effectually a special grace, again, existing in a negative formula, which ultimately arranges the need to baptize as a concept of physically belonging to a people. There is no escape from the physical aspects of what baptism represents in his scheme, since Calvin actively binds to the infant (and the family) that which is unavoidably formed from this eisegetical position. He cements his neo-Roman position again as he insists…

“All we say is, that God uses the means and the instruments which he sees to be expedient, in order that all things may be subservient to his glory, he being the Lord and disposer of all. Therefore as by bread and other aliment he feeds our bodies, as by the sun he illumines, and by fire gives warmth to the world, and yet bread, sun , and fire are nothing, save inasmuch as they are instruments under which he dispenses his blessings to us; so in like manner he spiritually nourishes our faith by means of the sacraments……” (ICR 14.12).

Calvin’s “Baptism”

As Calvin ventures from his explanation of “means” into the specific “means of baptism”, he does so, once again, looking back. Not looking back into the circumcision made without hands of flesh, but to a circumcision made to represent a covenant in the flesh that is not new, nonetheless binding in his mind, mirroring the covenant maintained through the line of Abraham. It is this physical circumcision that brings spiritual purpose and meaning to Calvin’s eisegesis and invention of paedo-baptism. Were he to look at the new covenant of circumcision through the eyes of the Prophets, where circumcision is not made with human hands, he would have no other resolve than to follow a Spirit born path to the command of a positive confession of faith. He avoids the Prophets and seeks a new tradition as he surmises….

“But this controversy (the death of an infant) 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 accessories. The sacrament is afterward 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. Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, in order that through 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……..” (ICR 15.22)

It is the conflation of the covenants (Abraham or New) that lures Calvin to expound generously in error and with great disdain for his antagonists, all the while defending his means of baptism for those at birth. His defense is wrapped with a great deal of embellished inconsistency and one of the most egregious errors is the sign he defends now for infants (baptism) runs inadvertently back to a people, slipping regressively past the Savior and the coming of the Holy Spirit given to advance “and empower” His people. Which indicates an error of regression (negatively) from the Cross that ultimately rests in the wrong covenant…. instead of a Spirit imbued obedience to a positive command in the New Covenant. In other words, Calvin’s passion, at this point of eisegesis, argues more in the interest that infants be baptized, ….than the command to identify with Jesus Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin’s “Infants”

Calvin’s most famous mistake brings us to his use of the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 19; Calvin defends…..

“But let us attend to the act of our Savior, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterward testifies his good-will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom he spontaneously admits.” … (ICR 16.7)

By reaching into Matthew, Calvin knowingly ushers in other scripture to test his theory. Mark makes clear…. in 10:14-15 “But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (15) “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”…and Luke as well at 18:16-17 “But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. (17) “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

It appears the demons of eisegesis trapped an emotional Calvin into admitting infants in the same manner as traced to Abraham….as he explains

“For although infants, at the moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature — a mortification at which they afterward aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptized for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.”… (ICR 16.20)

“Future repentance and faith”, is a device used by Calvin to form an emotional void of expectation not found in the New Covenant (a regression theory). Yet on the other hand, the positive movement of New Covenant seen as identifying with Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit, affirms that rebirth is the exact message of Jesus Christ while he summoned the little children. That message became obvious to his disciples, and to us now as well… as we examine the tenor of these passages. Reasonable exegesis presents Calvin with two difficulties at this point. One …is that he deliberately changes children to infants,…and secondly, he draws out baptism where none is exhibited by our Lord. These two devices are a typical move of eisegesis, where Calvin has greatly devalued the positive meaning of baptism in the life of a disciple. This is realized in every instance where the command to baptize is clearly acted upon by the Christ follower recognizing the coming of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the command to baptize does not find its rest looking back into previous covenants.

Conclusion

It seems that we are all, like Calvin, prone to eisegetical adventures in our quest to rightly divide the counsel of God. Calvin remains one of the greatest minds in theology, and continues to be a favorite of mine,…yet he was, as we are, careless in emotional display ….easily forming wayward commands beyond those announced in the New Covenant. When someone assumes the position of ranting…as Calvin does in his emotional plea to defend the actions of paedo-baptism, we must be careful to look at the substance of the message. I do agree with Calvin on many things, especially that we are to bring our infants and children into the secure arms of the church,…who are those men and women called out in a faith once for all delivered to the Saints…..as such, to nurture and love them to no end. Yet there is no substitute in the life of those infants,…and infants that grow to become children,….and children that grow to become youth, …..that they be given the pure word of truth. The truth is…as baptism is taught and remains a positive look to the Savior and the giving of the Holy Spirit, God is glorified. “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4). May the Lord’s church express his command in baptism to the glory of God!

Blessings,
Chris