Introduction:
Rarely in theological conversations is the doctrine of the sacraments considered alone. We are usually ready to race ahead to debates on baptism and the supper. Likewise, rarely is Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments discussed by itself; rather, it’s his teachings on baptism and the supper in view. And it’s true that Calvin’s doctrine of each individual sacrament is worth examining. After all, Calvin most strongly articulated baptism as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision (not just its analogue), and he rebuffed both the errors of Zwinglian memorialism and Lutheran consubstantiation in favor of the proper understanding of Christ’s real but spiritual presence in the supper. However, we want to examine his sacramentology alone from a Reformed Baptist perspective.
Calvin’s Definition:
Chapter XIV of Book IV in Calvin’s Institutes is entirely dedicated to the sacraments, and so we’ll examine a few selections from it. He begins with a clear definition:1
First, we must consider what a sacrament is. It seems to me that a simple definition would be to say that it is:
An outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith; and we in turn attest our piety toward him in the presence of the Lord and of his angels and before men.
Here is another briefer definition:
One may call it a testimony of divine grace toward us, confirmed by an outward sign, with mutual attestation of our piety toward him.
Whichever of these definitions you may choose, it does not differ in meaning from that of Augustine, who teaches that a sacrament is “a visible sign of a sacred thing,” or “a visible form of an invisible grace.”
His definition of “sacrament” is excellent. Of particular interest to us Reformed Baptists is Calvin’s inclusion of the element of our attestation of piety towards God in the sacrament. And since a core element of what it means to partake of the sacrament means to attest one’s piety to God, we desire to ensure, to the best of the local elders’ abilities, that such attestation occurs. This definition fits well with 1 Peter 3:21:
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…
The baptism which saves is a baptism which is an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ on our behalf. This appeal is, in our book, if not synonymous then closely related to, Calvin’s “attestation of piety.”2 He goes on to explain how the nature of the sacraments relates to God’s purpose in giving them.3
Now, from the definition that I have set forth we understand that a sacrament is never without a preceding promise but is joined to it as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing the promise itself, and of making it more evident to us and in a sense ratifying it. By this means God provides first for our ignorance and dullness, then for our weakness. Yet, properly speaking, it is not so much needed to confirm his Sacred Word as to establish us in faith in it…. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep on the ground, cleave to the flesh, and do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and to set before us in the flesh a mirror of spiritual blessings. For if we were incorporeal (as Chrysostom notes), he would give us these very things naked and incorporeal. Now, because we have souls engrafted in bodies, he imparts spiritual things under visible ones. Not that the gifts set before us in the sacraments are bestowed with the natures of the things, but that they have been marked with this signification by God.
Everything Calvin says about the purpose of the sacraments we would agree with totally. And we do agree that the sacraments are appendices to previous promises, but what exactly are those promises? When reformed paedo-baptists articulate this promise, it sounds virtually identical to the free offer of the gospel: “When this child believes in Christ, he will be saved….” But since this same promise can be offered to adult unbelievers, surely it is not the promise to which baptism is affixed, otherwise they could just as well be baptized. To put it succinctly, credo-baptists view baptism as the confirmation of a promise already fulfilled and being worked out whereas paedo-baptists view baptism as the extension of a promise not yet fulfilled. I would simply ask, “Which view do you think better corresponds to the paragraph from Calvin above?”
The Efficacy of the Sacraments
Calvin explains that the sacraments are seals, signs, and tokens of God’s covenants and instruments of God’s grace. Interestingly, Calvin almost never uses the word “symbol” of the sacraments, and this is probably to communicate that something real is certainly occurring in the sacraments. Later in the chapter, Calvin says,4
We must be reminded that, as these men weaken the force of the sacraments and completely overthrow their use, so, on the opposite side, there are those who attach to the sacraments some sort of secret powers with which one nowhere reads that God has endowed them.
And similarly,
What is a sacrament received apart from faith but the most certain ruin of the church? For nothing ought to be expected from it apart from the promise, but the promise no less threatens wrath to unbelievers than offers grace to believers. Hence, any man is deceived who thinks anything more is conferred upon him through the sacraments than what is offered by God’s word and received by him in true faith.
From this something else follows: Assurance of salvation does not depend upon participation in the sacrament, as if justification consisted in it. For we know that justification is lodged in Christ alone, and that it is communicated to us no less by the preaching of the gospel than by the seal of the sacrament, and without the latter can stand unimpaired. Augustine’s statement is just as true: There can be invisible sanctification without a visible sign, and on the other hand a visible sign without true sanctification.
In other words, both word and sacrament communicate God’s promises, one audibly, one visibly, but both spiritually.5 Calvin’s recognition of the twin errors of devaluing the sacraments (thereby voiding God’s promises) and overvaluing the sacraments (thereby voiding Christ’s efficacious sacrifice) is a brilliant formulation. We Reformed Baptists agree with Calvin that sacraments received apart from faith destroy the church, which is why we only give baptism to those with faith. We’d also agree that God threatens wrath to unbelievers in the sacraments, which is precisely why we fence the baptistry in the same manner as we do the table. This is an area where we’d charge both Calvin and our paedo-baptist brethren with inconsistency.
Why Literalizing the Sacraments Fails
People who are theologically conservative are often accustomed to pressing the literal meaning of the text on liberals. When they want to deny some section of Scripture, a common tactic is to interpret the text non-literally and thereby evade the force of the words. And it can sometimes seem, especially as Reformed Baptists, that, relative to other theological traditions, we are the ones engaged in non-literal interpretation in an attempt to escape the text. How often have we heard some variation of, “The Bible says ‘baptism now saves you’ and ‘this is my body.’ Why can’t you just accept that?”
Aside from being a rather simplistic argument and more of a rhetorical device than anything, a consideration of our sacramentology should result in a paradigm shift here: We’re not the ones spiritualizing the sacraments; they’re the ones literalizing them. A sacrament is a sign, a seal, a token, and not the thing itself. And so our initial assumption should be that the thing itself is spiritual. Thus, the “plain meaning” appeal made by the literalists is actually somewhat silly. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that the passages in question ought to be taken literally since sacramental language is by definition figurative. Again, Calvin helps us grasp this point:6
Hence, that distinction (if it be duly understood), often noted by the same Augustine, between a sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For the distinction signifies not only that the figure and the truth are contained in the sacrament, but that they are not so linked that they cannot be separated; and that even in the union itself the matter must always be distinguished from the sign, that we may not transfer to the one what belongs to the other.
He then proceeds to quote Augustine at length to this effect, but he’s given us the basic idea. Our literalist opponents are guilty of blurring this distinction, and in some cases omitting it altogether. If there is always a 1:1 relationship between the outward sacrament and the inward grace, the sacrament is no longer a sign, seal, or token, and thus there becomes no way to distinguish the sign from the thing signified. This is why we are comfortable with Scriptural language like, “baptism now saves you,” “[we were] buried with Him in baptism,” and, “this is my body.”
It’s also worth noting that this distinction would help memorialists get their sacramentology straight as well. They really do avoid the force of the text to preserve their theology. They forget that a sign actually signifies something real. We Reformed Baptists are reformed not just in our soteriology but in our sacramentology as well. And Calvin’s clarity on the matter/sacrament distinction is actually central in our understanding.7
Conclusion
As Reformed folks, we highly esteem what Calvin has to say, especially on the sacraments. He demonstrates a high, balanced, and biblical view of the sacraments with an attempt to guard against every sort of error, and this is admirable. And while every reformed person owes a debt to Calvin, we Reformed Baptists would respectfully submit that a careful consideration of Calvin’s sacramentology does not contradict our own; in fact, it supports us, even in those areas where we might differ from Calvin himself. It is in part because we share Calvin’s doctrine of the sacraments that we differ on his doctrine of baptism.
From Section 1.
In his commentary on the passage, Calvin said, “We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation…” and so he seems to articulate the same concept.
From Section 3.
From Section 14.
As the Heidelberg Catechism put it: “67: Q. Are both these, then, the Word and the Sacraments, designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? A. Yes truly; for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.”
From Section 15.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession, 30.5, reads, “The outward elements in this ordinance, duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.”
Article by A.C.