Regeneration, Baptism, Calvin

I know this is a bit off topic, but people here are all about the books, so I thought I would ask

Question for those more familiar with Calvin, did Calvin teach baptismal regeneration?

"For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word."

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Not sure if I am misunderstanding this

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

David Thomas

Just my opinion - is this paragraph speaking of "water baptism" or "baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ?"

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453233#Comment_453233

He speaks of sacraments, and he also speaks of infants in reference to regeneration. I found something similar in tracts

"1. And first, indeed, as it is necessary to man for salvation, that he be Regenerated into a new creature, seeing that otherwise he is by nature a child of wrath, Christ himself instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, to be the laver of that Regeneration, which is not less necessary to the new and spiritual life than carnal nativity is to the natural life. Nor can any one obtain salvation, unless he be born again of water and of the Spirit, as Christ himself declares. (John 3.)
2. This Sacrament, therefore, washes, sanctifies, justifies us: this Sacrament makes us obtain the remission of our sins, original and actual. In short, this Sacrament is altogether of such a nature, and so salutary, that he who is initiated by it puts on Christ, as Paul writes, (Gal. 3.)
3. This Sacrament consists of the word of God, and water. For as soon as the word is added to the element, it becomes a Sacrament, by the laver of which we are regenerated and cleansed from all sin. Wherefore, when we see the water washing the body outwardly, let us reflect that the Spirit, whom we see not, is doing more inwardly."

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1851). Tracts Relating to the Reformation, Volume 3 (209). Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society.

"M. How many are the sacraments of the Christian Church?
S. There are only two, whose use is common among all believers.
M. What are they?
S. Baptism and the Holy Supper.
M. What likeness or difference is there between them?
S. Baptism is a kind of entrance into the Church; for we have in it a testimony that we who are otherwise strangers and aliens, are received into the family of God, so as to be counted of his household; on the other hand, the Supper attests that God exhibits himself to us by nourishing our souls.
M. That the meaning of both may be more clear to us, let us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of Baptism?
S. It consists of two parts. For, first, Forgiveness of sins; and, secondly, Spiritual regeneration, is figured by it. (Eph. 5:26; Rom. 6:4.)
M. What resemblance has water with these things, so as to represent them?
S. Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as bodily stains are washed away by water.
M. What do you say of Regeneration?
S. Since the mortification of our nature is its beginning, and our becoming new creatures its end, a figure of death is set before us when the water is poured upon the head, and the figure of a new life when instead of remaining immersed under water, we only enter it for a moment as a kind of grave, out of which we instantly emerge.
M. Do you think that the water is a washing of the soul?
S. By no means; for it were impious to snatch away this honour from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to wipe away all our stains, and render us pure and unpolluted in the sight of God. (1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7.) And we receive the fruit of this cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a seal in the Sacrament.
M. But do you attribute nothing more to the water than that it is a figure of ablution?
S. I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the reality is annexed to it; for God does not disappoint us when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to us in baptism, and received by us.
M. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately?
S. Many precluding its entrance by their depravity, make it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers only, and yet the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature.
M. Whence is Regeneration derived?
S. From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken together. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a manner buried, so as no more to be in vigour in us. Our reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of God, is the result of the resurrection.
M. How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism?
S. If we do not render the promises there offered unfruitful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and presented with his Spirit."

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1849). Tracts Relating to the Reformation, Volume 2 (86–87). Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society.

He also references infants in regeneration which also deals with baptism

"But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27)."

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

If he is referencing sacraments, infants, baptism, and regeneration, then my conclusion is baptismal regeneration. I wanted to consult other who have been engulfed in his writings more than I. Not sure if I am missing something..

Doc B

did Calvin teach baptismal regeneration?

No, he did not. See book 4, chapter 15 of Institutes for some clearer teaching on what he believed.

Here is a pretty good article that addresses exactly this point: http://www.staffordcarson.com/2009/09/calvin-on-baptism/

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453265#Comment_453265

Thanks for the link Doc, i will check it out.. I just ran across these from the institutes also

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.

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Peter also says that “baptism also doth 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, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament. 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.

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

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. 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, having 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).

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453243#Comment_453243

Regarding baptismal regeneration Calvin says this (in Book 4 chapter 15):

Peter also says that “baptism also doth 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, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament.

John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, vol. 3, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 329.

And:

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. xix. 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.

John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, vol. 3, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 330.

Taken together with what you quoted, it seems to me that Calvin taught that baptism was a sacrament concerning forgiveness and regeneration, but that regeneration itself was not a product of baptism. Such an idea would have done violence to his understanding of the true vs. the false Church (of his day), since the Roman Catholic Church claimed a monopoly on baptism and taught it's absolute necessity for salvation.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453619#Comment_453619

It is a bit confusing when Calvin says first regeneration. So I typed it in my library this is all I could come up with:

On the threshold of the public life: the baptism; on the threshold of the Passover: the Transfiguration. Jesus’ baptism proclaimed “the mystery of the first regeneration,” namely, our Baptism; the Transfiguration “is the sacrament of the second regeneration”: our own Resurrection.300 From now on we share in the Lord’s Resurrection through the Spirit who acts in the sacraments of the Body of Christ. The Transfiguration gives us a foretaste of Christ’s glorious coming, when he “will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body.”301 But it also recalls that “it is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God”

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.) (143). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

c. In the Lutheran Church. Luther and his followers did not succeed in purging their Church from the leaven of Rome on this point. On the whole the Lutherans maintain, in opposition to Rome, the monergistic character of regeneration. They regard man as entirely passive in regeneration and incapable of contributing anything to it, though adults can resist it for a long time. At the same time some teach that baptism, working ex opere operato, is the usual means by which God effects regeneration. It is the usual, but not the only means, for the preaching of the Word may also produce it. They speak of two kinds of regeneration, namely, regeneratio prima, by which the new life is begotten, and the regeneratio secunda or renovatio, by which the new life is led in a God-ward direction. While children receive the regeneratio prima by means of baptism, adults, who receive the first regeneration by means of the Word, become partakers of the regeneratio secunda through baptism. According to the Lutherans regeneration is amissible. But through the grace of God it can be restored in the heart of the penitent sinner, and that without re-baptism. Baptism is a pledge of God’s continued readiness to renew the baptized and to pardon his sins. Moreover, regeneration is not always accomplished at once, but is often a gradual process in the life of adults.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (477). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453619#Comment_453619

since the Roman Catholic Church claimed a monopoly on baptism and taught it's absolute necessity for salvation.

Er ... a... is correcting an erroneous statement engaging in illicit theological discussion?

there is no "Roman" Catholic Church
there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.
physical baptism is not absolutely necessary - desire is sufficient. Learn your Aquinas.

Yes, answers above are not as nuanced as I would give in a discussion of theology. http://www.romancatholicism.org/trent-baptism.htm provides a more accurate/theological discussion. - as well as an example of why one needs to put such arguments in the broad context of Christian history.

George Somsel

I know this is a bit off topic, but people here are all about the books, so I thought I would ask

Question for those more familiar with Calvin, did Calvin teach baptismal regeneration?

"For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word."

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Not sure if I am misunderstanding this

Paste this into your command bar if you have Calvin's works.

logosres:jclflttrswrk;ref=Page.p_221;off=2447

Oh, well, here it is

We teach that the sacraments are instruments of the grace of God, and as they were instituted in view of a definite end, we refuse to allow that they have no proper use. We therefore say that what is exhibited in them is applied to the elect. Thus we say that he who receives baptism with true faith receives by it the pardon of his sins. But lest anyone should think that baptism is the cause, we at the same time subjoin the explanation that remission flows from the blood of Christ and that it is conferred by baptism only in so far as this is a testimony of the cleansing which the Son of God, by His blood shed on the cross, procured for us, which He offers for our enjoyment by faith in His Gospel, and which He brings to perfection by His Spirit.…

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453634#Comment_453634

Catechism of the Catholic Church seemed to coincide with what Calvin was saying:

" VII. THE GRACE OF BAPTISM

1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.65 (1234)

For the forgiveness of sins …

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God. (977; 1425)

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence “is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ.”67 Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”68 (975, 2514; 1426; 405)

“A new creature”

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,”69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71 (505; 460)

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification: (1992; 1812; 1831; 1810)

— enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;

— giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;

— allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues."

Catholic Church. (2000). Catechism of the Catholic Church (2nd Ed.) (321–322). Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference.

Matthew C Jones

I know this is a bit off topic, but people here are all about the books, so I thought I would ask

Starting a stroll in a minefield is always interesting. [:O]

I am not familiar with Calvin, so refer to Richard's answer (he is.)
I have Calvin 500 Collection but my L5 is presently indexing and I get no results from George's search string provided above.
I only chirped in to ask, "Did Calvin's theology on baptismal regeneration evolve over his lifetime or was it always static?" The only reason I ask is some other theologians developed different views as their theologies developed.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453653#Comment_453653

Catechism of the Catholic Church seemed to coincide with what Calvin was saying:

I am not going to get into a theological argument on the issue. You are making incorrect assumptions as to the meaning of the word "baptism" in this context. You also seem to misunderstand the purpose of the Catechism - it is a simple summary of the faith for catechesis not for a nuanced theology. If you were to read some of the other Catholic rites' catechetical materials you find considerable variation all pointing towards the same beliefs but presented for specific audiences. I provided sufficient hints in my original post for you to seek out more accurate and nuanced understanding if you desire.

For more hints on baptism of desire:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/evangelicals-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20111220_report-1993-2002_en.html

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453658#Comment_453658

Thanks Mj, I was not trying to be offensive in posting the catechism.Much like our studies of scriptures, background info is important. Calvin's background is Catholicism, so I was looking to that to help me further understand the point he was making, I believe it will also help see the difference between the two views.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453657#Comment_453657

"Did Calvin's theology on baptismal regeneration evolve over his lifetime or was it always static?"

That is indeed a good question

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453664#Comment_453664

Calvin's background is Catholicism, so I was looking to that to help me further understand the point he was making,

What you need to do is look at the Catholic theology of the 15th-16th century so you find the appropriate language and issues that would have been the active language/debates of his era. One can't understand Luther without understanding Erasmus. I don't know what is an appropriate parallel for Calvin ... but someone with an interest in church history may well know.

Edit: Looking at a bit of church history it appears as if Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo and Erasmus may be key to understanding both Luther and Calvin.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453658#Comment_453658

Do I detect a non-Logos-software-usage thread on the forum?? [8o|]

Do I detect a questionable discussion about doctirne???? [:@]

[:O] DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!! DANGER! DANGER! [:O]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453671#Comment_453671

Do I detect a non-Logos-software-usage thread on the forum??

No since we are using Logos resources.

Do I detect a questionable discussion about doctirne????

No, it's a discussion of history—history of doctrine to be sure, but history nevertheless.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453671#Comment_453671

I may have found a book in the calvin 500 collection that deals with this subject. To what extent I do not know

logosres:clvdoctwrd;ref=Page.p_133

https://www.logos.com/product/9519/calvins-doctrine-of-the-word-and-sacrament

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453673#Comment_453673

I may have found a book in the calvin 500 collection that deals with this subject. To what extent I do not know

logosres:clvdoctwrd;ref=Page.p_133

https://www.logos.com/product/9519/calvins-doctrine-of-the-word-and-sacrament

Yes, it does have a section on that, but this is a book ABOUT Calvin's views rather than Calvin himself stating his views.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453676#Comment_453676

Yes, it does have a section on that, but this is a book ABOUT Calvin's views rather than Calvin himself stating his views.

I am hoping that it will bring more exposition to Calvin's teaching. Coming from a non denomination protestant church, I am having a hard time grasping the teachings of Calvin concerning the sacraments. If I had a catholic background it may be easier for me to grasp, but that is not the case. So far the book seems ok, gotta love read outloud..

Not to mention R. Wallace continually quotes from the primary sources. He is attempting to bring together all of Calvin's teaching on the subject. For me I have a hard time thinking of another regeneration, other then the one we receive via union with Christ.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453679#Comment_453679

I wonder if reading Harnack's History of Dogma would be helpful - I think it's still pending in Logos but it is available in CCEL.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453679#Comment_453679

continually quotes from the primary sources.

[Y] You know revisionists hate access to primary sources.

I like to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453685#Comment_453685

I wonder if reading Harnack's History of Dogma would be helpful - I think it's still pending in Logos but it is available in CCEL.

I pulled it up on ccel, I cannot find which volume he deals with the sacraments.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453687#Comment_453687

Vol VI PART II Chapter II parts 4.b-c cover the scholastic and Augustinian sacraments ... that's my best guess as to the most appropriate place to start.

----- or Augustine's De spiritu et littera

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, worked out gradually by Luther over several years, is the basis of much Protestant theology and the most important point of contact between classical Protestantism and Augustine. This doctrine had different implications for different reformers. The ideas of inherent human depravity and divine omnipotence led Jean Calvin (d. 1564), the most influential reformer of the second generation, to work out a doctrine of predestination according to which God has, from eternity, irrevocably and through no merit of our own saved or damned each one of us. Nothing that we do can change this fate, which was for Calvin a logical consequence of God’s omnipotence and omniscience that no amount of Scholastic argument could mask. Augustine’s works, especially De spiritu et littera, helped Calvin to define sacrament and to formulate an understanding of the relationship between will and God’s grace in a way that supported his doctrine of predestination. Indeed, Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine became one key issue in his debates both with Catholics and with other reformers.

Carol Quillen, "Renaissance to the Enlightenment", in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald, 719 (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999).

------------- quick summary that seems useful

Sacrament

1.      Problem of Definition
2.      Historical Development
     2.1.      Biblical Aspects
     2.2.      Early Church
     2.3.      Early and High Middle Ages
     2.4.      Reformation Age
          2.4.1.      Lutheran Tradition
          2.4.2.      Reformed Tradition
          2.4.3.      Council of Trent
          2.4.4.      Eastern Orthodoxy

Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 4, The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 791 (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 2005).

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453634#Comment_453634

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

"Never" is a bit strong of a word. But Cyprian's views were rejected on this.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453632#Comment_453632

c. In the Lutheran Church. Luther and his followers did not succeed in purging their Church from the leaven of Rome on this point. On the whole the Lutherans maintain, in opposition to Rome, the monergistic character of regeneration. They regard man as entirely passive in regeneration and incapable of contributing anything to it, though adults can resist it for a long time. At the same time some teach that baptism, working ex opere operato, is the usual means by which God effects regeneration. It is the usual, but not the only means, for the preaching of the Word may also produce it. They speak of two kinds of regeneration, namely, regeneratio prima, by which the new life is begotten, and the regeneratio secunda or renovatio, by which the new life is led in a God-ward direction. While children receive the regeneratio prima by means of baptism, adults, who receive the first regeneration by means of the Word, become partakers of the regeneratio secunda through baptism. According to the Lutherans regeneration is amissible. But through the grace of God it can be restored in the heart of the penitent sinner, and that without re-baptism. Baptism is a pledge of God’s continued readiness to renew the baptized and to pardon his sins. Moreover, regeneration is not always accomplished at once, but is often a gradual process in the life of adults.

Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (477). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

This is a curious way of describing Lutheran teaching. We clearly condemn any mechanistic view of the sacraments ex opere operato, specifically in AC 13:

Concerning the use of sacraments it is taught that the sacraments are instituted not only to be signs by which people may recognize Christians outwardly, but also as signs and testimonies of God’s will toward us in order thereby to awaken and strengthen our faith. That is why they also require faith and are rightly used when received in faith for the strengthening of faith.
Rejected, therefore, are those who teach that the sacraments justify ex opere operato without faith and who do not teach that this faith should be added so that the forgiveness of sin (which is obtained through faith and not through work) may be offered there.

Kolb, R., Wengert, T. J., & Arand, C. P. (2000). The Book of Concord: The confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (46). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Yes, we insist that it is a Means of Grace and that God's Word, even in Baptism, accomplishes its purpose. And so it saves us as Titus 3 and 1 Pet 3 both say. Faith is not a "feeling" that we can produce. It is rather trusting that God will do and accomplish what he says. And so when years ago, God said that I was his and marked with the cross of Christ forever, as little as I often understand what all that means, who am I to question this?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453726#Comment_453726

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

"Never" is a bit strong of a word. But Cyprian's views were rejected on this.

"Never" must be understood as applying in orthodox (not Greek Orthodox) communions. This was part of the conflict with the Donatists who would rebaptize on the basis of their rejection of the performance of the sacraments by those whom they had considered traditores (those tainted by yielding the scriptures to the persecutors under Diocletian). The orthodox position was represented by Augustine.

Fahlbusch, Erwin and Geoffrey William Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, s.v. "Donatists". Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453726#Comment_453726

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

"Never" is a bit strong of a word. But Cyprian's views were rejected on this.

The qualifier in MJ's assertion is "valid baptisms" Where even a "non-Christian" baptism is acceptable, an "heretical" baptism (would that be Donatists? Ana-Baptists?) are not acceptable.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453764#Comment_453764

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

"Never" is a bit strong of a word. But Cyprian's views were rejected on this.

The qualifier in MJ's assertion is "valid baptisms" Where even a "non-Christian" baptism is acceptable, an "heretical" baptism (would that be Donatists? Ana-Baptists?) are not acceptable.

Whether a baptism is valid is not determined by whether it was performed by a heretic. We in the Episcopal Church accept all to the table who are validly baptised—even heretical Baptists. [;)] [:D] Whether a baptism is valid is determined by whether it was performed "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Addendum: Yes, I realize that "heretical Baptists" is an oxymoron. [6]

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453764#Comment_453764

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

"Never" is a bit strong of a word. But Cyprian's views were rejected on this.

The qualifier in MJ's assertion is "valid baptisms" Where even a "non-Christian" baptism is acceptable, an "heretical" baptism (would that be Donatists? Ana-Baptists?) are not acceptable.

You are correct at pointing out "Valid". Of course, of debate is what is "valid". St. Cyprian taught that all Baptisms outside the Church were invalid. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN REJECTED. (Sorry for "shouting" but it is something too many do not understand.) As George rightly pointed out, since the Donatist controversy it has been clear that the holiness (or lack thereof) of the minister or church body cannot stop the Holy Spirit from coming. As I understand Roman Catholic teaching, there are 3 primary requirements...

1) Water washing the baptized (The Catholic Encyclopedia attacks some sprinkling where there is the chance of no water contacting the "baptized")

2) The Triune formula of God, as Mt 28 says.

3) The intent to do what the Church does.

Where all three are obviously there, it is acknowledged as a valid baptism. As Ephesians says, there is "one Baptism", and so it is improper to cast doubt upon Baptism. But when there is doubt on any of these, it is proper to give a conditional baptism (If you are not already baptized, I Baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, - done with water, but not public ceremony).

As I understand it, it is a manner of debate among Roman Catholic circles about how close any of of Protestants come on those requirements. As a Lutheran, I would want to insist that we have all three, but some Roman Catholics would point out that sometimes we use so little water that there is the possibility that no water hits the person (although in every one I have seen enough water poured and a towel was used afterwards so that it looked like it was there), sometimes we use creative baptismal formulas (I have never witnessed this, but admit that I have heard of it), and by our allergy to "ex opere operato", it is not obvious that we intend to do what the church does (but while we reject the formula, we very much affirm most if not all of what they mean by the phrase - we rather say that the efficacy of Baptism is in God's promise attached to the water - a promise rightly received by faith alone).

And so Donatist's baptisms ARE acceptable. Ana-Baptists? They got the water part. Pretty sure they got the Baptismal formula, but it is really hard to generalize on their practice... The stickler would be "intent to do what the Church does."

SDG

Ken McGuire

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453771#Comment_453771

Whether a baptism is valid is determined by whether it was performed "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

So the heretical question is strictly over the Trinitarian wording of the baptism? Interesting.
What is the proper terminology for those who only say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus."?
Would that mean Reformed, Catholic, and Evangelicals are all in agreement on the wording?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453784#Comment_453784

Whether a baptism is valid is determined by whether it was performed "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

So the heretical question is strictly over the Trinitarian wording of the baptism? Interesting.
What is the proper terminology for those who only say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus."?
Would that mean Reformed, Catholic, and Evangelicals are all in agreement on the wording?

Generally, yes.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453778#Comment_453778

And so Donatist's baptisms ARE acceptable. Ana-Baptists? They got the water part. Pretty sure they got the Baptismal formula, but it is really hard to generalize on their practice... The stickler would be "intent to do what the Church does."

Yes, even the Anabaptists. Their problem is not in the performance of baptism but in the fact that by denying the validity of the baptism of the infants of Christian parents they are denying the covenant

　For the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him.

Ac 2.39

Rich DeRuiter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453634#Comment_453634

since the Roman Catholic Church claimed a monopoly on baptism and taught it's absolute necessity for salvation.

Er ... a... is correcting an erroneous statement engaging in illicit theological discussion?

there is no "Roman" Catholic Church

there has never been a rejection of valid baptisms - primary requirements Trinitarian formula and proper intent - even if done by non-Christians; think especially of the schismatics rather than the heretics.

physical baptism is not absolutely necessary - desire is sufficient. Learn your Aquinas.

Yes, answers above are not as nuanced as I would give in a discussion of theology. http://www.romancatholicism.org/trent-baptism.htm provides a more accurate/theological discussion. - as well as an example of why one needs to put such arguments in the broad context of Christian history.

MJ. You're right. I was wrong.

I made some assumptions based on snippets I read here and there in Calvin, that don't make the point I was making. Calvin was certainly very much opposed to much of Roman Catholicism (I'll stick with that modifier, since I consider myself a part of the catholic church, though not a member of the Catholic church whose headquarters are in Rome). More than Aquinas (whose acceptance as an 'official' theologian developed over time), Trent is significant in this regard (IMHO), and Calvin and Trent say the same thing about baptism, and there seems to be at least some evidence (I didn't thoroughly research this - it was mentioned in one paper I read) that at least some protestant baptisms were accepted in the Roman Catholic church at the time.

He did distance himself from ex opere operato, which, while not an official teaching, was apparently held by some Roman Catholics at the time. This is the point at which I stumbled in my assumptions by imputing to the whole the view of the exceptions.

As to whether this is theological discussion, I don't think so. We are discussing what some folks believed and when, to help answer a historical theological question: Did Calvin believe in baptismal regeneration? I think the answer to that is: "No, though he did see that both baptism and regeneration are 'taught' or 'figured' in baptism." For a thorough look at his views, his institutes are the best place to go and the particular section to look at is Book IV section XV.

On a side note, it's too bad we don't have the Battles' translation yet. It's so much easier to read than the one we currently have in Logos.

Sacrifice

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453842#Comment_453842

Already a lot of great answers. I was just add this.

http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/39794

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453726#Comment_453726

"Never" is a bit strong of a word.

True - my language was less than optimal. And I didn't describe the boundaries of the Church for which I was making this claim - which when discussing 2000 years of history it does make a difference.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/453842#Comment_453842

Trent is significant in this regard (IMHO),

I agree because Trent represents the thinking of the same time period - both as a precursor and a response to Luther, Calvin et. al.

while not an official teaching, was apparently held by some Roman Catholics at the time.

You make an important point here - the fact that something is (commonly) taught does not mean it is official teaching. It often means simply that it is the best answer theologians have provided up to this point. And different Catholics may have different opinions as to which is the "best answer." As you pointed out months ago - Catholics do not strive for the homogeneity of doctrine that is found in some other sectors of Christianity.