DO I BELIEVE IN BAPTISMAL REGENERATION?

By Rich Lusk

Introduction

I appreciate Andy Webb’s recent entry into the current discussion over baptismal efficacy.[1] This is an issue which has consumed a great deal of time and energy in the Reformed world in recent years. It is not likely to subside soon. As a contributing party to the discussion, I read Webb’s article with great interest.[2]

I commend Webb for his zeal in defending his convictions. He understands that a great deal is at stake in our differing baptismal theologies. I also appreciate his moderated rhetoric. His work was entirely devoid of name calling and mud slinging. In that respect, it represents a great leap forward in the debate, and many of Webb’s elder counterparts would do well to emulate his tone. Frankly, in reading Webb’s piece, I was surprised (and gratified) at how much ground he was willing to concede to those he opposes in this intramural Reformed discussion. He understands, better than many, that there have been a variety of positions on baptismal efficacy under the umbrella of Reformed Christianity. I am responding to Webb because I think he has misunderstood my position and this is an opportunity to provide clarification. In some ways, I hope to show that Webb and I are not as far apart as he supposes; in other ways, I hope to show that his arrows have simply missed their target because he does not understand what I (and others) have written. I also hope to show that my views on baptism are well within the mainstream of the Reformed confessional tradition.

What is Baptismal Regeneration?

To cut to the chase, let me begin by asking: Have I espoused a form of baptismal regeneration? Is baptismal regeneration being taught in the Reformed community? Webb begins and ends his essay arguing that baptismal regeneration simply isn’t Reformed. Webb quotes John “Rabbi” Duncan, to the effect that “baptismal regeneration” is simply incompatible with the principles of Calvinism:

In a letter to Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great 19th century
Scottish Presbyterian Pastor and Theologian John “Rabbi” Duncan wrote,
regarding the concept of baptismal regeneration, “Horrible as the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, it would be still more so if
combined with those scriptural principles which are usually called
Calvinism.”

What exactly is the doctrine in question? What do baptismal regenerationists teach? What is the essence of their error? Webb relies on Charles Hodge for his definition:

The doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that is, the doctrine that
inward spiritual renovation always attends baptism rightly administered
to the unresisting, and that regeneration is never effected without it,
is contrary to Scripture, subversive of evangelical religion, and
opposed to universal experience. It is, moreover, utterly
irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Reformed churches. For that
doctrine teaches that all the regenerated are saved. “Whom God calls
them he also glorifies,” Romans 8:30. It is, however, plain from
Scripture, and in accordance with the faith of the universal church,
that multitudes of the baptized perish. The baptized, therefore, as
such, are not the regenerated.

Hodge’s definition includes three basic components that need careful analysis:

[1] Inward spiritual renovation always accompanies the right administration of baptism.

[2] Regeneration is never effected without baptism (with the implication that all the unbaptized, including infants, perish).

[3] Many of the baptized obviously perish, meaning that not all who are regenerated persevere into final glorification.

Actually, I do not hold any of these three tenets. In my writings on baptism, I have attempted to steer clear of these errors (and, with Webb, I do in fact consider them to be serious errors). I should also add that I have only rarely used “baptismal regeneration” language, and generally when it shows up in my writings, it is in a quotation from an early Reformer (like Calvin or Bucer) who used the terminology quite differently from nineteenth century Reformed theologians, as we shall see. I have no desire to insist on “baptismal regeneration” language, and I understand the confusion that attends it. With those caveats in view, let us look at each one of Hodge’s tenets in turn.

[1] I do not believe that everyone who is baptized has a “permanently transformed heart” or “a new principle of life communicated to the soul.” In fact, while affirming what Hodge’s doctrine of regeneration intends to protect (divine monergism and the gift-nature of faith), I would suggest a somewhat different understanding of “regeneration” is possible. The term “regeneration” has some flexibility, both in the Bible and in church history (including Reformed theology). Before accepting or condemning any particular version of “baptismal regeneration” as orthodox or heretical, we need to make clear just what “regeneration” means in a given context.

What is “regeneration”? In terms of biblical theology, the term seems to refer to the nexus of three eschatological lines of development within the biblical story. Regeneration is [1] the new state of affairs inaugurated by Christ, otherwise known as the kingdom of God; [2] the new age on the redemptive-historical timeline, sometimes referred to as the messianic age or the new covenant epoch; and [3] the new community or new humanity that belongs to this new kingdom and age, called the church. The term “regeneration” partakes of the already/not yet dynamic of New Testament biblical theology in general: the regeneration is already present, but not yet consummated. The term “regeneration” can be used both objectively and subjectively, though the biblical emphasis falls on the objective. Objectively considered, we can affirm a doctrine of “baptismal regeneration” without getting into the problems Hodge identifies; subjectively, “baptismal regeneration” can only be affirmed in an extremely attenuated sense, if at all (we’ll see that subjectively, the term has been used in different ways as well, to refer to new life in the church, the beginning of life-long sanctification, or, in Hodge’s sense of a secret, irreversible work of God in the soul of an elect person).

First, consider “baptismal regeneration” in an objective sense. If I were going to speak of “baptismal regeneration,” I would define “regeneration” as the new life situation entered into in baptism. This new life, in this carefully specified sense, is not so much a matter of ontology or subjectivity (Hodge’s focus), as it a matter of new relationships, privileges, and responsibilities. It means one has a new family and a new story, a new citizenship and a new status. It means something objective has been changed, though subjectively one must still respond in faith, of course. Life in the regeneration, in this sense, is not strictly limited to the elect.

A good biblical case can be made for this objective understanding of regeneration. The “regeneration” of Mt. 19:28 (and Tit. 3:5, I would suggest) is clearly not an “inward spiritual renovation” but the new state of affairs brought about in the kingdom of God. This is especially evident in the Matthean text: the regeneration is something the disciples will enter into, not something that will enter into them. It seems Jesus’ language is eschatological: he’s referring to the messianic age, in which his disciples will begin ruling with him (cf. Dan. 7). The “regeneration” in this sense is simply the new creation of the church.[3] To be baptized is to enter into the church (WCF 28.1), which is “kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2). This new standing in the kingdom, house, and family constitutes “regeneration.”[4]

This does not exclude a subjective regeneration in the ontological sense Hodge used the term. And if subjective regeneration is in view, I would not affirm “baptismal regeneration.” Indeed such an inner transformation is a secret of the heart and God’s decree and can not be known with absolutely certainty by us. But “baptismal regeneration” in an objective sense amounts to what has sometimes been called “ecclesial regeneration,” and this seems to steer clear of the problems commonly associated with the terminology.

Ecclesial regeneration is really a claim about the church as much as it is a claim about baptism. It focuses on the nature of the community one enters in baptism. The church is the “new thing” God has done, the new creation, the new society, the one new man in which Jew and Gentile have been brought together in Christ.  Baptism, as the Westminster Standards teach, makes one a member of the church – of this new community.  That is quite a different claim than asserting that each and every person baptized has a “permanent, irreversible principle of life communicated to the soul” or something of that nature. 

Thus, in this alternative theological lexicon, “baptismal regeneration” does not necessarily mean what Hodge and Webb take it to mean. The language can be used in more than one way, objectively and subjectively, ecclesially or individually. This makes discussion difficult, but we must understand each speaker on his own terms. In general, I have avoided “baptismal regeneration” language for just this reason.

The term “regeneration” has been very fluid in church history, and this accounts for some of the problems. In the early church, it was simply synonymous with baptism. Baptism was regarded as the beginning of one’s “new life” in Christ. For the early Reformers, like Calvin, regeneration was not an instantaneous event, but the entire life long process of renewal, commencing in baptism and reaching completion in glorification.

Calvin defines regeneration in the Institutes:

I interpret repentance as regeneration, whose sole end is to restore in us the image of God . . . we are restored by this regeneration through the benefit of Christ into the righteousness of God . . . And indeed this restoration does not take place in one moment or one day or one year; but through continual and sometimes even slow advances God wipes out in his elect the corruptions of the flesh, cleanses them of guilt, consecrates them to himsef as temples, renewing all their minds to true purity that they may practice repentance throughout their lives and know that this warfare will only end at death" (3.3.9).

For Calvin, regeneration is the beginning of sanctification. Regeneration is not prior to faith; it is by faith: “Now both repentance and forgiveness of sins--that is, newness of life and free reconciliation--are conferred on us by Christ, and both are attained by us through faith” (3.3.1; cf. Belgic Confession 24 and Col. 2:12: “raised with Him through faith . . . “).

Calvin then ties regeneration and baptism together:

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 (4.17.1).

But surely this Calvinian form of “baptismal regeneration” would not fall under the condemnation of Duncan and Hodge. Calvin has in view something objectively presented in baptism and subjectively received by faith. But this isn’t to be identified with Hodge’s irreversible inward renewal or new life-principle communicated to the soul. Elsewhere, in his Antidote to the Counsel of Trent, Calvin wrote,

That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life (1.5).

Calvin believed baptism was an objective, effectual means of salvation, but it did not guarantee salvation. In fact, baptism only blessed those who received it (subjectively) in faith. Again, the “regeneration” Calvin has in view is not identical to Hodge’s definition of the same term. Baptism is a good faith offer of new life, but the grace of baptism isn’t necessarily irresistible.

Calvin also wrote in reply to Westphal, “We hold, then, that baptism being a spiritual washing and a sign of our regeneration, serves as an evidence that God introduces us into his Church to make us, as it were, his children and heirs.” He writes that the “ordinary method in which God accomplishes our salvation is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it gradually forward during the course of life.” He says in his Geneva Catechism that in baptism, we find, “First, forgiveness of sins; and secondly, spiritual regeneration is figured by it.” Baptism is a sign or figure or symbol of regeneration; but God’s signs are not empty: “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.” In other words, regeneration is not only symbolized in baptism; it is held out, to be received by faith.

In explaining just what at stake in his debate over baptism, he writes, “Let the readers therefore remember, that we are not here disputing whether it is necessary to baptize infants, nor calling in question whether by baptism they are ingrafted into the body of Christ, nor whether it is to them a laver of regeneration, nor whether it seals the pardon of their sins. The only question is the absolute necessity of Baptism” (see pages 87, 153-5, 320 in the 2002 Christian Focus edition of his Treatises). In other words, Calvin is in agreement with those who teach baptism is the means by which one is united to Christ, regenerated, and pardoned.

For later Reformed scholastics after Dordt (1618-19), the meaning of the term “regeneration” narrowed to the moment of God’s initiating grace in a person’s life, resulting in life-long faith and repentance. It became almost exclusively subjective and individual, rather than corporate and cosmic. Whereas Calvin and the Belgic Confesion could tie together the objective and subjective, and speak of regeneration by faith (with the understanding that faith itself was a divine gift and the means by which one entered into a new life in the covenant community), now regeneration came to be seen as the very source of faith. Such a shift in terminology was necessitated by the Arminian controversy. But of course, this also meant that the Reformed scholastics of the day had to jettison the earlier “baptismal regeneration” language of the Reformers. It no longer made good theological sense to speak of “baptismal regeneration” since no one wanted to suggest that baptism guaranteed perseverance or final salvation. The close connection between baptism and regeneration in Calvin’s soteriology was severed and any notion of “objective regeneration” was lost. Of course, Hodge’s understanding and use of the term “regeneration” stems more from Dordt than from Calvin.

In more recent biblical theology, “regeneration” has regained its full redemptive-historical overtones. Texts such as Mt. 19:28 and Tit. 3:5 have been read with their pregnant eschatological dimensions, in a more objective sense. Reformed writers such as Norm Shepherd, Peter Leithart, and Joel Garver have used “baptismal regeneration” language in this broader sense to describe entry into the “new creation” or the “new humanity.”[5] But, again, it is understood that baptism does not secure final glorification; rather it marks someone’s initiation into the church, with all its attendant privileges and responsibilities. It is an objective offer of “new life” and “new status” that must be received by faith in order to culminate in final salvation.

So “baptismal regeneration” has been a moving target in Reformed history. The terminology hasn’t been standing still. Of course, different meanings of the term can be used with great profit and truth in a given context. But it would be improper to insist that we freeze the meaning of the term to just one time period or branch of the historical church.[6] “Baptismal regeneration” may be orthodox or heretical; we must ask precisely what the speaker means when he employs the terms. To see this, all one has to do is compare Calvin and Hodge.

The priority of God’s grace is not in question here. Salvation is a gift, from beginning to end, inclusive of all the means (even faith!) needed to reach that end. I am quite comfortable with using “regeneration” terminology in a variety of ways (e.g., to refer to a person’s new nature), some compatible with “baptismal regeneration” and others not. But I have been careful to spell out that “baptismal regeneration” in the sense I have been using is the term (which, again, is rare anyway) is not the same as “regeneration” in later Reformed scholastics such as Hodge. By the definition of “baptismal regeneration” that Webb seems to have in view, I am most certainly not a baptismal regenerationist.

[2] In my writing on baptism, I have been careful that to state that baptism is God’s ordinary means of bringing people into the new creation/regeneration, understood objectively in terms of WCF 25.2’s description of the church as kingdom/house/family. But baptism is not absolutely necessary to salvation. There may be, and in fact are, various exceptions to WCF 25.2’s claim that no salvation is found outside the community of the baptized. For example, a child of the covenant who dies before receiving baptism dies under the provisions of the promise. We know that God’s covenantal intention was to publicly and formally adopt that child as his own in the waters of baptism. In the providence of God, that possibility was precluded. But we dare not pit God’s promises against God’s providence. In a case such as this, the promise simply comes to fulfillment in a different way. I am not advocating a cookie-cutter ordo salutis that makes baptism indispensable in any and every situation.

Of course, our Confession wisely takes note of just these sorts of circumstances. While the confession is silent regarding the death of covenant infants,[7] it does make provision for the extraordinary possibility of salvation outside of the “new creation” of the visible church (note the use of “ordinarily” in 25.2). Baptism is the door to the church. It is the way into the kingdom and family of God. But we should not apply this rigidly or mechanically. There can be exceptions, ordered by God’s own providence. The same Word of God that warranted baptism warrants us to believe that God has taken the child to be with him in glory.[8] In other cases, adult believers may die unbaptized due to extenuating circumstances; and again, we need not fear that the Judge of all the earth will fail to do what is right.

Calvin understood precisely this point in regard to the ordinary necessity of baptism for salvation, and the extraordinary possibility of salvation apart from baptism. In his Antidote, he says,

We, too, acknowledge that the use of Baptism is necessary--that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free [that is, optional]. And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for Baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient (7.5).

To put it another way, while God may not be bound by his external ordinances, for all practical purposes, we are so bound. But there is certainly not a one-to-one relationship between regeneration (at least in Hodge’s sense) and baptism. We must take into account the situational perspective.

[3] Because “regeneration” may have other definitions than just the “inward spiritual renovation” of an individual’s heart, it does not have to function in an ordo salutis in the way Hodge envisions. While Hodge’s emphasis on God’s sovereign grace is entirely correct, many in the Reformed tradition have wanted to keep a link between baptism and regeneration. But even then, no one asserts that baptism is a complete and entire salvation all by itself, apart from the faithful response of the one baptized. Baptism is not a “get out of hell free” card, come what may. Baptism does not belong to an unbreakable “golden chain of salvation.” In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, I know of no recognizably orthodox theologian in the history of the church in any of its branches who has argued that baptism saved a person no matter how he lived subsequent to baptism. Thus, I am not at all clear who Hodge is seeking to refute.[9] Certain definitions of “regeneration” may necessitate the view that “all the regenerated are saved,” and will therefore exclude any version of baptismal regeneration. But those definitions should not be privileged over other Reformed definitions which leave open the possibility of apostasy or view regeneration as an extended process (e.g., Calvin’s definition of “regeneration” as life-long renewal beginning at baptism rather than Hodge’s secret inception of permanent new life).

For example, in the Old Covenant, Saul received a “new heart” and became a “new man” (1 Sam 10). In some sense, surely we can say he was regenerate. And yet he apostatized and will not be glorified at the last day. In the New Covenant, Paul tells the Corinthians they are temples of God. The Spirit indwells them. In some sense, surely we can refer to them as regenerate. And yet Paul holds forth the very real possibility that some of them may apostatize (1 Cor. 10). In the parable of the soils, Jesus speaks of those who received the word with joy and sprang to new life, but later withered away under the heat of persecution. Surely, there was regeneration is some general sense.

To summarize, then, the version of “baptismal regeneration” I have advocated (and, to repeat myself, by no means would I insist on that terminology) is not the one that Hodge refutes. Or to put it another way, if we use theological dictionary of Hodge and Webb, I most certainly do not believe in regeneration! I would gladly join with Hodge and Webb in refuting “baptismal regeneration” as Hodge defines it. If I taught what Webb assumes that I teach, I would gladly join him in condemning me. I agree with Hodge that it is absurd to even remotely suggest that every last person baptized will be saved in the end.

Will the Real Reformers Please Stand Up?

All that being said, it must be noted that I can say everything I want to say about baptism by simply quoting the Reformers and the Standards. I don’t go beyond anything that can be found in their writings or in the confessions they produced.

Consider again John Calvin, from his Institutes:

We must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life. Therefore, as often as we fall away, we ought to recall the memory of our baptism and fortify our mind with it, that we may always be sure and confident of the forgiveness of sins (4.15.3).

In 4.15.4, he writes further on the comfort of baptism:

Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ’s blood.

In other words, baptism is the instrument of forgiveness, and therefore of the assurance of forgiveness as well. In baptism, cleansing from sin is made available, to be received by faith. Calvin views absolution as a renewal of the baptismal covenant:

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. 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. This error had its origin in
the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched
(4.15.4).

Penance is not necessary because our one baptism covers us for our entire lives.

Calvin affirms that regeneration – new life in Christ – commences in baptism:

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, 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. Hence he exhorts
believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (4.15.12).

Calvin views baptism as playing a critical role in assuring believers. Calvin viewed the sacraments as props, or supports for faith.

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, 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. 3:27]. 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 baptized in the name of Christ, though they were enjoined to baptize in
the name of the Father and Spirit also [Acts 8:16; 19:5; Mt. 28:19]. For all
the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet he
who baptizes 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
favor, 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 baptized, and thus afterwards the apostles by
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, understanding by the
term repentance, regeneration, and by the remission of sins, ablution
(4.15.6).

Calvin makes the same points in commentary on Eph. 5. Here he notes that baptism works as instrument in Christ’s hands:

But there is no absurdity in saying that God uses the sign as an
instrument . . .  Some are offended at this, thinking that it takes from
the Holy Spirit what is peculiar to Him. But they are mistaken . .
. Nothing is attributed to the sign than to be an inferior instrument,
useless in itself, except so far as it derives its power from elsewhere.

Baptism’s power comes from elsewhere, namely from Christ. But it does in fact have power! It is a true and efficacious instrument through which the Spirit acts. It takes nothing away from the glory of the Spirit to say that he uses means; it’s not as though credit for salvation is divided between the Spirit and the sacrament. All that is at stake here is the manner in which the Spirit applies salvation. Does he do so with or without means? And if by means, what are those means? Preaching of the word is a means, but are the sacraments also means? Calvin clearly answered “Yes.” By the power of the Spirit, baptism is an effectual means of redemption for believers. Calvin is careful to keep baptism subordinated to the Spirit’s work and to faith, to be sure, but it is still regarded as an instrument in granting forgiveness and cleansing.

Preaching on Gal. 3, he says,

Again Saint Paul means not that baptism, that is to say the water hath the power to change us in such wise, that we should be clothed with out Lord Jesus Christ: for by that means God should be robbed of the praise that is due to himself alone. But he shows here the means whereby we may be certified that we are members of our Lord
Jesus Christ's body . . . Therefore let us learn, that it is only God that knits us to our Lord Jesus Christ, of his own mere goodness, and that he doth it by the secret power of his Holy Spirit, and yet notwithstanding ceases not to work by baptism as by an inferior instrument . . .

Once more, baptism is the instrument of the Holt Spirit to unite us to Christ. This is no confusion of the sign with the thing signified. But there is an affirmation that God sovereignly and graciously redeems us when we pass through the waters. The Spirit and the water are not opposed but conjoined in a sacramental union. And all this is for our assurance, that our faith might have “certification” that we do in fact belong to Christ.

We have already quoted this portion from Calvin’s Antidote to Trent, but here is one of Calvin’s more robust declarations about the efficacy of baptism in fuller context:

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so
that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may
be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold
grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration
are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that
regeneration is only begun and goes on making progress during the
whole of life. Accordingly, sin truly remains in us, and is not
instantly in one day extinguished by baptism, but as the guilt is
effaced it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than
this doctrine (1.5)

Later in the Antidote, he writes just as forcefully:
For in the Sacraments God alone properly acts; men bring nothing of
their own, but approach to receive the grace offered to them.  Thus,
in Baptism, God washed us by the blood of his Son and regenerated us
by his Spirit; in the Supper he feeds us with the flesh and blood of
Christ.  What part of the work can man claim, without blasphemy,
since the whole appears to be of grace?  The fact of the
administration being committed to men, derogates no more from the
operation of God than the hand does from the artificer, since God
alone acts by them, and does the whole . . .
For we ought to turn our thoughts not only to the sprinkling of
water, but also to the spiritual reality which begets the confidence
of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ . . . Such
remembrance [of baptism], I say, not only makes sins venial, but altogether
obliterates them. Whenever there is any question of forgiveness of
sins, we must flee to Baptism and from it seek a confirmation of
forgiveness. For as God reconciles us to himself by the daily
promises of the Gospel, so the belief and certainty of this
reconciliation, which is daily repeated even to the end of life, he
seals to us by Baptism . . . (see 7.5, 7, 10).

Commenting on Tit. 3:5, he writes,

Besides, baptism - being the entrance into the Church and the symbol of our ingrafting into Christ - is here appropriately introduced by Paul, when he intends to show in what manner the grace of God appeared to us; so that the strain of the passage runs thus: “God hath saved us by his mercy, the symbol and pledge of which he gave in baptism, by admitting us into his Church, and ingrafting us into the body of his Son.” Now the Apostles are wont to draw an argument from the Sacraments, to prove that which is there exhibited under a figure, because it ought to be held by
believers as a settled principle, that God does not sport with us by unmeaning figures, but inwardly accomplishes by his power what he exhibits by the outward sign; and therefore, baptism is fitly and truly said to be “the washing of regeneration.” The efficacy and use of the sacraments will be properly understood by him who shall connect the sign and the thing signified, in such a manner as not to make the sign unmeaning and inefficacious, and who nevertheless shall not, for the sake of adorning the sign, take away from the Holy Spirit what belongs to him.

Obviously, then, Calvin believed in an efficacious baptism. To deny this is to suggest that God makes “sport” of us, mocking us with empty symbols that do not fulfill their promises. But Calvin spells out what this efficacy means with a fair degree of precision. He properly distinguishes the outward sign itself from the thing signified, and insists on the necessity of faith for the reception of the thing signified. The objective and subjective are carefully delineated. The sacraments maintain their objective efficacy and force, even if by hardness of heart, men reject the blessing of the sacrament. To be sure, “The power of the mystery [the sacrament] remains in tact, no matter how much wicked men try to their utmost to nullify it . . . [M]en bear away from this Sacrament no more than they gather with the vessel of faith.” He says, “Yet, it is one thing to be offered, and another to be received . . .the Sacrament is one thing, the power of the Sacrament another.” Calvin clearly distinguished the objective means (the sacrament) from the subjective receptor (faith). While discussing the Lord’s Supper, he uses a most appropriate illustration for baptism: “[T]here is here no reason to lose faith in the promises of God, who does not stop the rain from falling from heaven, although rocks and stones do not receive the moisture of rain.” (4.17.33-34). Calvin also wrote, commenting on 1 Cor. 11:27: “the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the worthiness of men . . . nothing is taken away from the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of men.” Baptism is objectively a means of salvation, but what God offers and gives in baptism must be received by faith in order for it to take effect. In other words, baptism functions analogously to the preaching of the gospel.

While Calvin’s catholicity allowed him to compromise for the sake of unity in the Consensus Tigurinus project, he knew the health of the church ultimately required maintaining a high view of sacramental efficacy. After Martin Bucer criticized the document for its low sacramentalism, Calvin replied:

You devoutly and prudently desire that the effect of the sacraments and what the Lord confers to us through them be explicated more clearly and more fully than many allow. Indeed it was not my fault that these items were not fuller. Let us therefore bear with a sigh that which cannot be corrected.

We should recall that Calvin also subscribed to the Augsburg Confession, a Lutheran document, with a more robust view of baptism. Calvin’s view of baptism was almost imperceptibly different from Luther’s.[10] Calvin was catholic in all the best senses: he wanted to maintain the church’s traditional high view of the sacraments, but also wanted to keep fellowship with evangelical believers who did not.

Bucer himself maintained a high view of baptismal efficacy. The trajectory of his career led to ever higher and higher conceptions of the sacraments. Consider these words from his Brief Summary of Christian Doctrine and Religion Taught at Strasbourg, a document which functioned as something of a personal theological testament:

We confess and teach that holy baptism, when given and received according to the Lord’s command, is in the case of adults and of young children truly a baptism of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, whereby those who are baptized have all their sins washed away, are buried into the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, are incorporated into him, and put on him for a new and godly life and the blessed resurrection, and through him become children and heirs of God.

Thus, even infants are capable of receiving regeneration – and in the rite of baptism, no less. Baptism is viewed not as a guarantee of final salvation, but as the inception point of new life in Christ and the church. This is virtually identical to Calvin’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Elsewhere Bucer spoke of “salvation” being “offered” and “conferred” in baptism. But Bucer always insists that only if faith is present is the thing given in baptism identical to the thing received.

Ursinus’ commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (363ff) views covenant children as having already entered the process of regeneration before baptism. Baptism is efficacious, though it would be a stretch to say Ursinus held to baptismal regeneration as such. His comments are still worth examining:

Those are not to be excluded from baptism, to whom the benefit of the remission of sins, and of regeneration belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. . .

Those unto whom the things signified belong, unto them the sign also belongs. . .

[B]ut that baptism ought to be administered to infants also; for they are holy; the promise is unto them; the kingdom of heaven is theirs; and God, who is certainly not the God of the wicked, declares that he will also be their God. Neither is there any condition in infants which would forbid the use of baptism. Who then can forbid water, or exclude them from baptism, seeing that they are partakers with the whole church of the same blessings?. . .

[I]nfants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him . . . If infants now have the Holy Ghost, he certainly works in them regeneration, good inclinations, new desires, and such other things as are necessary for their salvation . . . Again, regeneration by the Holy Ghost, and faith, or an inclination to faith and repentance are sufficient for baptism; . . .

[Infants] are baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, [for] the forgiveness of all their sins, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and ingrafting into the church and into his own body . . .

When baptism is, therefore, said to be the laver or washing of regeneration, to save us, or to wash away sins, it is meant that the external baptism is a sign of the internal, that is, of regeneration, salvation and of spiritual absolution; and this internal baptism is said to be joined with that which is external, in the right and proper use of it.. . .

All, and only those who are renewed or being renewed, receive baptism lawfully, being baptized for those ends for which Christ instituted this sacrament. . .

Since the infant children of Christians are also included in the church into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ . . .

Infants already possess adoption and the Spirit before baptism, according to Ursinus. But baptism completes and ratifies their possession of these things. Like Calvin, he seeks to hold together the pre-baptismal status of the covenant child, with a high view of sacramental efficacy (though I would say he does so with considerably less success than Calvin).

Francis Turretin’s Institutes are more scholastic in tone, but carry the same high view of baptism found in Calvin, Bucer, and many other early Reformers. Turretin understood that the issue of sacramental efficacy vis-à-vis Rome was complex. While the Reformers and Rome both agreed that the sacraments were efficacious, the mode and nature of that efficacy was a matter of dispute (19.8.6). For the Reformers, the sacraments acquired their efficacy not from any inner, “magical,” or physical power, but from the Word and Spirit. Baptism, for Turretin, covered post-baptismal sin, an important point to note since Turretin also stressed the indwelling corruption that remains in the baptized.

Turretin explains the meaning of baptism in 19.11.9: “[T]he first sacrament of the Christian church, by which upon the covenanted, having been received into the family of God by the external sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity, remission of sins and regeneration by the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit are bestowed and sealed.” Obviously, a word like “bestowed” should not be overlooked, though it could indicate Turretin has in view a more objective than subjective understanding of regeneration.

For Turretin, the sacraments are sure instruments of salvation in the hand of Christ. The sacraments function analogous to the preached Word: “God does not trifle by instituting bare and empty signs; but as by the vocal word he really performs what he promises, so in the sacrament (which is a palpable and visible word) he gives by the thing itself that which the signs represent” (19.1.12). In other words, the outward sign is the means through which the thing signified is conferred.

Further, according to Turretin, believers receive life-long benefit from baptism. The blessings of baptism persist “through the whole course of life even up to death” (19.20.25), for “by baptism is sealed to us the remission not only of past and present, but also future sins” (19.20.12). Baptism is the basis for post-baptismal absolution, just as in Calvin. The efficacy of baptism is not limited to the time of its administration.

Baptism is an efficacious means of grace in Turretin’s system. Baptism is therefore ordinarily necessary to salvation:

Our opinion, however, is that baptism is indeed necessary according to the divine institution as an external means of salvation (by which God is efficacious in its legitimate use), so that he who despises it is guilty of a heinous crime and incurs eternal punishment. But we believe it is not so absolutely necessary that he who is deprived of it by no fault of his own is to be forthwith excluded from the kingdom of heaven and that salvation cannot be obtained without it.

Even Charles Hodge could speak in high terms of baptism’s efficacy. Commenting on Eph. 5, he drew an analogy between the efficacy of preaching and baptism:

God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism . . .

Baptism, like the Word, is a means of salvation. The believing reception of baptism results in redemption, just like the believing reception of gospel preaching.

While many Reformed theologians have moved away from these sacramental views (often engaging in historical revisionism to keep their Reformed pedigree pure), others have maintained the tradition. For example, Herman Ridderbos’ now classic Paul (ch. 10) states, “Baptism . . . [is] the means by which the church participates in the redemptive event that took place once for all in Christ and receives a share in the gift of the Spirit.”

Baptism is viewed as both “the symbol and the means of salvation . . . both in the ethical and in the forensic sense.” In Tit. 3:5, baptism is “understood in the context of the saving eschatological activity of God (‘the appearing’ of his mercy, etc.) . . . which represents the total renewal of the life of man . . .” Baptism is both instrumental and transitional: “Baptism functions as the instrument [of cleansing] . . . [T]he baptized passes over to the ownership of him in whose name the baptismal act takes place.” Ridderbos claims baptism is the sacrament of union with Christ:

[B]aptism binds one to Christ and the order of life represented by him. It is this union with Christ by baptism that Paul intends when in Gal. 3:27 he describes baptism as ‘putting on Christ’. . . [B]aptism makes one participate in Christ as him who, as the one seed of Abraham and as the ‘second man,’ represents and contains within himself those belonging to him. In that same sense one can speak of being ‘baptized into his body.’

Ridderbos asks the question: “[W]hat happens in or by baptism?” And he answers:

[B]y baptism, the believer becomes a sharer in what has taken place with Christ . . . Because believers have been baptized they know, or at least they must and may know, that they have once died, been buried, and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:12). In that sense the later characterization of baptism as the seal of belonging to Christ – a qualification Paul uses for circumcision (Rom. 4:11) – is certainly not out of place.

On the other hand, the meaning of baptism is certainly not to be expressed exclusively in noetic categories. Baptism is also the means by which communion with the death and burial of Christ comes into being (Rom. 6:4), the place where union is effected (Col. 2:12), the means by which Christ cleanses his church (Eph. 5:26), and God has saved it (Tit. 3:5). All these formulations speak clearly of the significance of baptism in mediating redemption; they speak of what happens in and by baptism, and not merely of what happened before baptism and of which baptism would only be the confirmation . . . Baptism is the means in God’s hand, the place where he speaks and acts.

Of course, Ridderbos, like Calvin, insisted that what is offered and presented in baptism (namely Christ and the new creation) must be received by faith: “There can consequently be no suggestion that in Paul baptism can in any whatever be detached from faith . . . faith is the implicit presupposition in baptism.” This excludes any suggestion that baptism imparts salvation ex opere operato, as Ridderbos points out. And yet, we must guard against thinking that it is our faith that makes baptism effective:

It is God who gives baptism its power . . . Neither does this make the operation of baptism dependent on the condition of the recipient in the sense that only faith can make baptism effectual, but it says that baptism remains dependent on divine action, that God . . . maintains the correlation between faith and baptism . . . God is the person who acts in baptism . . . [W]hile faith according to its nature is an act of man, baptism according to its nature is an activity of God and on the part of God. That which the believer appropriates to himself on the proclamation of the gospel God promises and bestows upon him in baptism.

The connection Ridderbos detects between baptism and new creation may be regarded as a form of baptismal regeneration, albeit in the objective sense:

Baptism, however, according to its essence is once for all, because it marks the transition from the mode of existence of the old man to that of the new. Baptism is a rite of incorporation, and as such expresses the corporate communal character of the salvation given in Christ. For this reason, faith is not without baptism, just as baptism is not without faith . . . It is the washing of regeneration for everyone who with his mouth confesses Jesus as Lord, and in his heart believes that God has raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9; Tit. 3:5) . . . For it is in baptism that the believer has put on Christ (Gal. 3:27), and thus participates in the nullification in Christ of the old mode of existence and in the new creation of God revealed in him.

Ridderbos’ biblical-theological approach gives rise to a high conception of baptism’s eschatological efficacy. It is the sacrament of the new aeon, of initiation into the new creation.

Turning from the private writings of Reformed theologians[11] to public confessions, we find the same truths emphasized and the same structure of sacramental theology. Again, let us canvas the history of Reformational thought.

The Second Helvetic Confession (written by Heinrich Bullinger in 1561) gives one of the fullest explications of sacramental theology in all of the Reformed tradition. The document states early on, “By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ.” In other words, baptism is the objective means through which a change in our relationship to Christ is effected. Later, it expounds this by focusing on Christ’s work in the sacraments. Baptism is not a human act; God himself is the Baptizer. God himself guarantees the integrity and efficacy of the sacrament for his faithful people, even apart from the character of the minister:

CHRIST STILL WORKS IN SACRAMENTS. And as God is the author of the sacraments, so he continually works in the Church in which they are rightly carried out; so that the faithful, when they receive them from the ministers, know that God works in his own ordinance, and therefore they receive them as from the hand of God; and the minister's faults (even if they be very great) cannot affect them, since they acknowledge the integrity of the sacraments to depend upon the institution of the Lord.

Sacraments are not bare signs; they are signs joined to the thing signified:

IN WHAT THE SACRAMENTS CONSIST. And as formerly the sacraments consisted of the word, the sign, and the thing signified; so even now they are composed, as it were, of the same parts. For the Word of God makes them sacraments, which before they were not.

Thus, in baptism, the outward washing with water and the Word of God are joined to regeneration and forgiveness:

For in baptism the sign is the element of water, and that visible washing which is done by the minister; but the thing signified is regeneration and the cleansing from sins . . . For Christ’s first institution and consecration of the sacraments remains always effectual in the Church of God

The outward signs are so joined to the inner realities that their names are interchangeable. The outward sign is not the cause, but the instrument, of the sacrament’s efficacy. But this also means the outward sign is not dispensable since it is the vehicle through which the thing signified is offered and bestowed. Ordinarily we should not imagine ourselves as possessing the thing signified apart from participation in the sign itself:

THE SACRAMENTAL UNION. Therefore the signs acquire the names of things because they are mystical signs of sacred things, and because the signs and the things signified are sacramentally joined together; joined together, I say, or united by a mystical signification, and by the purpose or will of him who instituted the sacraments

Neither do we approve of the doctrine of those who speak of the sacraments just as common signs, not sanctified and effectual. Nor do we approve of those who despise the visible aspect of the sacraments because of the invisible, and so believe the signs to be superfluous because they think they already enjoy the things themselves, as the Messalians are said to have held.

The efficacy of the sacrament does not make it an automatic passport to heaven. What is offered in the sacrament must be received in faith in order for the recipient to be blessed. Once again, the objective and subjective are joined together. It has always been a staple of the Reformed tradition that salvific blessings are communicated through outward means and are received by faith, and Second Helvetic maintains that heritage. In other words, while God has joined together the sign and the thing signified, our unbelief can pry apart the sacramental union, the sign and the thing signified. The character of the recipient determines the subjective meaning of baptism.

THE THING SIGNIFIED IS NEITHER INCLUDED IN OR BOUND TO THE SACRAMENTS. We do not approve of the doctrine of those who teach that grace and the things signified are so bound to and included in the signs that whoever participate outwardly in the signs, no matter what sort of persons they be, also inwardly participate in the grace and things signified.

The efficacy of the sacrament is objective, yet conditional (with faith being the subjective condition). Thus, if the efficacy of the sacrament is abrogated, so that it loses its salvific power, the fault lies in hard heart of the recipient, not in God’s failure to keep his Word:

However, as we do not estimate the value of the sacraments by the worthiness or unworthiness of the ministers, so we do not estimate it by the condition of those who receive them. For we know that the value of the sacraments depends upon faith and upon the truthfulness and pure goodness of God. For as the Word of God remains the true Word of God, in which, when it is preached, not only bare words are repeated, but at the same time the things signified or announced in words are offered by God, even if the ungodly and unbelievers hear and understand the words yet do not enjoy the things signified, because they do not receive them by true faith; so the sacraments, which by the Word consist of signs and the things signified, remain true and inviolate sacraments, signifying not only sacred things, but, by God offering, the things signified, even if unbelievers do not receive the things offered. This is not the fault of God who gives and offers them, but the fault of men who receive them without faith and illegitimately; but whose unbelief does not invalidate the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3:3 f.).

The efficacy of baptism is not limited to the moment of administration, as if additional sacraments (e.g., re-baptism or penance) or good works would be needed to maintain the blessings conferred in baptism. Rather, one baptism suffices for all of life. Its efficacy extends to cover the whole of course of our existence: “For baptism once received continues for all of life, and is a perpetual sealing of our adoption.”

Then Confession turns to the meaning of baptism itself. The language is forceful, direct, and unmistakable. Indeed, it gives one of the most eloquent Reformed statements of the blessings of baptism:

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE BAPTIZED. Now to be baptized in the name of Christ is to be enrolled, entered, and received into the covenant and family, and so into the inheritance of the sons of God; yes, and in this life to be called after the name of God; that is to say, to be called a son of God; to be cleansed also from the filthiness of sins, and to be granted the manifold grace of God, in order to lead a new and innocent life. Baptism, therefore, calls to mind and renews the great favor God has shown to the race of mortal men. For we are all born in the pollution of sin and are the children of wrath. But God, who is rich in mercy, freely cleanses us from our sins by the blood of his Son, and in him adopts us to be his sons, and by a holy covenant joins us to himself, and enriches us with various gifts, that we might live a new life. All these things are assured by baptism. For inwardly we are regenerated, purified, and renewed by God through the Holy Spirit and outwardly we receive the assurance of the greatest gifts in the water, by which also those great benefits are represented, and, as it were, set before our eyes to be beheld.

Baptism has an assuring role. The outward sign is the surety that God has accomplished these things for us:

WE ARE BAPTIZED WITH WATER. And therefore we are baptized, that is, washed or sprinkled with visible water. For the water washes dirt away, and cools and refreshes hot and tired bodies. And the grace of God performs these things for souls, and does so invisibly or spiritually.

Nevertheless, baptismal efficacy does not produce formalism or ritualism, properly understood. Indeed, while baptism itself is a sign and seal of gospel blessings, it obligates us to live as members of God’s holy family and army. Our objective status imposes upon us certain responsibilities and duties:

THE OBLIGATION OF BAPTISM. Moreover, God also separates us from all strange religions and peoples by the symbol of baptism, and consecrates us to himself as his property. We, therefore, confess our faith when we are baptized, and obligate ourselves to God for obedience, mortification of the flesh, and newness of life. Hence, we are enlisted in the holy military service of Christ that all our life long we should fight against the world, Satan, and our own flesh. Moreover, we are baptized into one body of the Church, that with all members of the Church we might beautifully concur in the one religion and in mutual services.

Finally, we are reminded that baptism is of God and only his blessing makes it effectual unto salvation:

For we believe that one baptism of the Church has been sanctified in God's first institution, and that it is consecrated by the Word and is also effectual today in virtue of God's first blessing.

The same truths are found in the 1560 Scots Confession of John Knox (and five colleagues), albeit, much more compactly:

These sacraments, both of the Old Testament and of the New, were instituted by God not only to make a visible distinction between his people and those who were without the Covenant, but also to exercise the faith of his children and, by participation of these sacraments, to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union, and society, which the chosen have with their Head, Christ Jesus. And so we utterly condemn the vanity of those who affirm the sacraments to be nothing else than naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by Baptism we are engrafted into Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his righteousness, by which our sins are covered and remitted . . .

Note that this Confession focuses on the pastoral significance of the sacraments. The sacraments not only mark us out as God’s people (note the objectivity!), they assure us of his favor towards us. And yet this does not produce careless presumption, for once again, faith is called for (note the subjectivity!). Indeed, the sacraments can only perform their proper function if we “exercise” faith in them (that is to say, in their application and administration). Thus, by participating in the sacraments, believers have the promises of the gospel sealed unto their hearts. This is not trusting in a ritual to save; it is trusting Christ to be present where he has promised to be. In the strongest possible terms, this Confession denies that the sacraments can be regarded as empty signs of something that happens apart from the sacramental action. Rather, baptism is the agent through which we are engrafted into Christ, and therefore, the objective instrument of justification and regeneration.

We should also mention Calvin’s catechetical documents here. Calvin wrote several catechisms, all of which upheld the same high doctrine of baptism seen in his other writings. We will not give all the evidence here; a couple examples will have to suffice. His 1538 document “Instruction for Children in Christian Doctrine” begins with this sequence:

Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?

Child: Yes, my father.

Teacher: How is this known to you?

Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Later it connects baptism, ecclesiology, and salvation:

Teacher: What is the third part of this Christian confession?

Child: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Teacher: What do you confess in saying this?

Child: That the Holy Spirit is he by whom we are regenerated and are placed into the church wherein we acquire pardon of sins and improvement of life and after this life are consoled by the expectation of eternal life.

Teacher: Of what use to you is this faith and profession?

Child: So that I continually request from God the receiving of his Holy Spirit, that I go gladly into the Christian assembly in which I must seek and receive consolation and correction of life, so that therein, with greater certainty, I might await the resurrection and everlasting life.

Teacher: How did you come into this communion of the church?

Child: Through baptism.

Teacher: What is this baptism?

Child: It is the washing of regeneration and cleansing from sin.

Teacher: With what words is baptism administered?

Child: These: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Teacher: What is the meaning of these words?

Child: It is this: I wash you so that you would be made sons of God by the command and will of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Teacher: What fruit do you receive from this?

Child: Very great fruit, because it is no small thing if I obtain remission of my sins, if I acquire from Christ my savior a new and everlasting life, if I abstain from every vice, and also if I give myself more and more unto a new and heavenly life. [Thanks to Joel Garver for the translation; the entire document is available at http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/calcat.html.]

In the introduction to Calvin’s Geneva Catechism, he shows that the Romanists have actually devalued baptism by putting so much emphasis on confirmation:

That spurious Confirmation, which they have substituted in its stead, they deck out like a harlot, with great splendour of ceremonies, and gorgeous shows without number; nay, in their wish to adorn it, they speak of it in terms of execrable blasphemy, when they give out that it is a sacrament of greater dignity than baptism, and call those only half Christians who have not been besmeared with their oil. Meanwhile, the whole proceeding consists of nothing but theatrical gesticulations, or rather the wanton sporting of apes, without any skill in imitation.

The section on the sacraments and baptism runs thus, with my annotations in brackets:

Master. - Is there no other medium, as it is called, than the Word by which God may communicate himself to us?

Scholar. - To the preaching of the Word he has added the Sacraments. [Note the sacraments play a role analogous to the Word. Both are means by which God communicates himself and his gifts to us.]

Master. - What is a Sacrament?

Scholar. - An outward attestation of the divine benevolence towards us, which, by a visible sign, figures spiritual grace, to seal the promises of God on our hearts, and thereby better confirm their truth to us. [Here Calvin focuses on the assuring role of the sacraments, but more will be said about the efficacy further on.]

Master. - Is there such virtue in a visible sign that it can establish our consciences in a full assurance of salvation?

Scholar. - This virtue it has not of itself, but by the will of God, because it was instituted for this end. [God authorizes the sacraments; they have no virtue or power naturally or magically. Their efficacy derives from God’s institution.]

Master. - Seeing it is the proper office of the Holy Spirit to seal the promises of God on our minds, how do you attribute this to the sacraments?

Scholar. - There is a wide difference between him and them. To move and affect the heart, to enlighten the mind, to render the conscience sure and tranquil, truly belongs to the Spirit alone; so that it ought to be regarded as wholly his work, and be ascribed to him alone, that no other may have the praise; but this does not at all prevent God from employing the sacraments as secondary instruments, and applying them to what use he deems proper, without derogating in any respect from the agency of the Spirit. [The sacraments do not act on their own. God acts thr