Monday, April 25, 2016

Calvin on Infant baptism – SPOILER ALERT: he’s for it!

Calvin makes a compelling leap as he compares infant baptism to circumcision in 4.16.3.  For Calvin, baptism is analogous to receiving God’s covenantal relationship once associated with circumcision in the Jewish faith.  So, as he explains in 4.16.2, Calvin lifts up infant baptism as an outward sign of that promise.  Initially, this move let’s Calvin replace Abrahamic circumcision with baptism as our covenantal ceremony before God and community.

Calvin’s next move is to argue for baptism as a tool of inclusiveness.  In 4.16.3, Calvin quotes Ephesians to demonstrate how baptism allows covenantal relationship – even to the uncircumcised.  He then reaches back to Deuteronomy for support; he quotes Moses and being “circumcised of heart”.  In this way, Calvin downplays the importance of physical circumcision in favor of the representative value the act carries. I cannot find any evidence of Calvin extending this covenantal relationship to women, or others who could not be physically circumcised in the traditional, Jewish sense.  For whatever reason, it was not important to argue that case at the time.

Calvin spends some time dealing with the ability of infants to participate in baptism through faith and understanding of scripture.  In 4.19-20, he emphasizes the agency of God in relationships with children.  Lane summarizes, “Infants cannot hear the Word, repent, or believe, but this does not prevent God from working in them,” (Lane, 162).  Again, Calvin raises the notion that baptism, being analogous to circumcision, is appropriate going back to the Abrahamic traditions. 


Question to ponder:  we hear what Calvin is saying about infant baptism.  What might be some reasons to consider adult (or at least decision-making-age) baptism?  Is one approach more meaningful than the other?  What does that response say about agency in the sacraments?

18 comments:

  1. Calvin's theology of sealing the promise in baptism for infants is, I believe an expression of the Lord's work in and through the Sacrament... I am having a difficult time with the statements made by Calvin that baptism is analogous with circumcision ... but leaving that alone as I have not thought it through completely... My personal belief is more along the lines of a 'Blessing' for infants and Baptism at decision-making-age. I was baptized as an adult, we waited until after my daughter finished her Confirmation Classes for her Baptism and this was at her request... I think there is something special in adult/decision making baptisms, but also regard infant baptisms as a very special and meaningful Blessing. I suppose what this says about the agency of Sacrament for me, is similar to Calvin... That the sealing is an outward sign of what is to be (acknowledgement of the promise made) and also an outward sign and confirmation of what is happening inwardly... Thank you for your post, the photo is adorable and the comments made are clear and concise!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Claire! I appreciate your use of the word "blessing" in describing this sacrament. I like (and I think Calvin might even agree) that treating this act as a public blessing of the child is in the right spirit (pun intended). Calvin seems to lift up the public nature of the act – the introduction to the community – as an important, integral facet of baptism.

      Delete
    2. Community involvement is paramount, and I often leave this out in my comments (both written and uttered), I need to make a point of speaking out in the strength and presence of community in Christ.. It is almost as if it is an assumption, but clearly I will need to pay attention to my obvious lack of mentioning this as an integral and important aspect of our lives within the Christian Community.

      Delete
    3. Claire - I too like the idea of blessing, but I would be careful not to undermine infant baptism making it seem less than adult baptism. I don't think this is what you meant, but in not seeing infant and adult baptism as the same, you are indeed calling these two different practices. While our experience may be different, God's working within us is the same, the ceremonies represent "promise" and "spiritual mysteries" of God. 4.16.2.

      Delete
  2. One of the biggest reasons that I can see for adult or decision age baptism is that people are publically professing their choice to follow Christ. However if we think of Calvin's earlier discussions of election and predestination, I wonder are we actually making the decision or has God already chosen us. One of the biggest reasons for infant baptism that I can think of is that the parents are professing their faith and the reliance upon God as they raise their child. To nurture this child in the faith. Since we live in a time when so many are not connected with the church, what do people think about infant baptism and the parents making those promises? For so many people baptism is seen as a symbol something that "we should do." rather than the sign and seal of the promises of God. As parents make this commitment, it is truly an opportunity to affirm the connectional nature of the church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard, Calvin's comments of predestination have placed a wrinkle in infant baptism for me as well... it is as if we are making the decision (in infant baptism) before an individual shares publicly the experience noticed within.. Possibly, by sealing all who are born into the church by their parent's faith Calvin is adopting the thought or reaffirming his deeply seeded belief of, "by Faith Alone" do we come to the Lord in the Sacrament of infant baptism... Since we (as mere mortals) cannot know who has and who has not truly received revelation through Christ... the Sacrament of infant baptism solidifies the sealing of all within the church as a community-of-Christ anointing...

      Delete
  3. So, that’s a great point Rich – if we are predestined to our particular cosmic fates, infant baptism may be a strictly symbolic ritual; taken a step further, is infant baptism perhaps just a way to “claim” a child for the church? That takes me back to the question of agency. Calvin argues that whatever is special about baptism is based on what God contributes, but if our fates are already known to God, is God even interested in the process? Is it still a meaningful act if it is by the church and for the church (as opposed to some kind of benefit to God)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matt, your question "if our fates are already known to God, is God even interested in the process?" reminds me of the ordination question I wrote the last paper on: "If God knows the outcome, should we even bother to pray?” I say YES to both. I believe activities like prayer and baptism are important tools in cultivating our relationship with God. Both connect us to God in a profound way. I especially like the way infant baptism knits together the entire family with the faith community. I imagine that baby dedications or blessings play a similar role. With baptism, however, Calvin writes, “infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.” (XVI, 20 p. 1343) We then provide Confirmation for young people to claim their faith as their own.

      Delete
  4. Matt, great points to ponder concerning infant baptism! I understand Calvin's likening circumcision to baptism, but it does put us up against the male/female problem. I was more persuaded by the clear representation of Christ commending the children to come to him in the NT. Calvin essentially says that baptism is our sign of communion with Christ and we are unjust to exclude children from this circle of grace (4.16.7). In fact, I found Calvin to be delightfully expansive in his kingdom inclusion in this section compared with other sections, such as predestination.

    The question I have concerning believer's baptism is defining an age or level of belief as acceptable. Personally, I can't remember an age when I didn't feel connected with Christ. I really liked Calvin's analogies with infants receiving a small part of faith that they will enjoy fully later. "Why may the Lord not shine with a tiny spark at the present time on those whom he will illumine in the future with the full splendor of his light." (4.16.19) I do not mean to say that I am against adult baptism, but that I am definitely for infant baptism. I think that no matter the age of baptism, it is important to remember what Calvin said about baptism being for now and forever forward (as mentioned in Laurie's post). God is the agent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharon - yes! I agree with you!

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Sharon, & Christine! I thought it was interesting - though probably not surprising, given the times - that Calvin wasn't more inclusive in his baptism stance. Especially across gender lines, Calvin had an opportunity to include about half of all people - yet held back either because of the perceived worth of women as an audience, or the perceived judgement from his community and the authorities of the time.

      Delete
  5. I am also for infant and adult baptism. The key factor is the connectional nature for the church. When infants are baptized, the parents and the congregation are not only professing their faith, but also their commitment to help raise and nurture the child in the faith of Jesus Christ. I think that God does in fact use these promises, not only for the child's benefit but also for the benefit of the entire community and the parents.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree Richard. Infant baptism is all about community and the church's involvement in the life of a child. Unfortunately, I don't remember which study I got this from, but I think it addresses infant baptism in a way that I understand. "Some believe that baptism is an act of commitment to God. If this is the case, then it is never any stronger than our efforts to please God. As soon as dedication wavers, as soon as we stumble, the basis of our baptism would be undermined. I must confess that when I received the mark of baptism in those cold Pacific waters, I thought I was dedicating myself to God. I was fourteen years old, I knew well what was going on, and unlike the infant being circumcised, I was doing this because I had taken the initiative. Or so I thought. It was only later that I realized that my baptism was the sign of God’s claim on me, rather than my act of dedication to God."

    ReplyDelete
  7. What beats my imagination is that we claim confirmation as "personal decision-making" time in the life of a person baptized as an infant. At this point just as the parents may have accepted and publicly pronounced that they would nurture the child in a Christian ways, is it the case that at confirmation, the decision is made based on ones maturity in the faith, or teachings they have gone through, or one is just of age.
    The Book of Confessions and many other resources are out there for teaching and instruction but we are consumed by the activities of the world that we are not able to catechize the confirmants before confirmation.
    If we are not able to teach these young adults/adults the principle of our faith, then what is the difference between infant and adult baptism?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Adult baptism was done time and time again in scripture. There are situations where entire households were baptized as a response to the head of the household's faith. Adult baptism comes at a time in a person's life when their faith has become important to them. Making that decision on their own is extremely important, too many times children need to ask their parents if they have ever been baptized before or not. I have been a part of a couple child baptism, where the student has been still in elementary school. These moments are special because it's still the innocence of youth but the grown up decision in their faith. I believe the amount of water isn't as significant as the response of the one being baptized.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scripture simply is not clear about infant baptism. I watch a 45 min. debate between John McArthur and R.C. Sproul and still did not see a clear answer. I see nothing wrong with an adult wanting to do a reaffirmation of faith in the sacrament. When an adult comes to a saving faith that is late in life I think their is a desire to express that faith and as long as it is clearly being stated as a reaffirmation I'm for it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that scripture is not clear about infant baptism, and also that infant baptism is more about the church's participation in the life of faith. I think it's also important to note the participation of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and this participation can precipitate a lifelong faith journey. Thanks, Matt for this great post.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is a great summary and discussion Matt. I do lean towards whole house holds being Baptized as a Scripture reference to infant Baptism. That being said, I also celebrate confirmation as the age of decision. I do appreciate the many different explanations and beliefs on this subject. I don’t see Calvin’s thoughts on predestination as a wrinkle in infant Baptism. I smiled when I read the, “why bother” explanation. Including the Holy Spirit in the conversation and relying on Grace seems like the best way for me to move forward.

    ReplyDelete