A couple of thoughts on the Calvin quotations I posted yesterday, inspired by a reader’s response.
1) Calvin appeals to his doctrine of “accommodation” to explain why the sign of baptism is necessary. God does speak in ways we can grasp; if that’s all accommodation is, fine. But it often carries the implication that signs are somehow a imprecise, second-best form of communication. That is a false step, and a devastating one, in that it suggests that we might hope to transcend signs and communicate with God in a direct, spiritual manner. God always employs signs in communicating Himself to us (words, as Augustine said, being signs), and that is not a “husk” that needs to be discarded in favor of some non-significant “kernel.” That’s just the way the Triune God communicates with human beings.
2) Calvin also seems to take away with one hand what he gives with another. Baptism is the “washing of the soul,” and yet the Spirit is free to wash souls or not through the sign of baptism. But then how is baptism a “seal” that increases our assurance of the promise? The Spirit washes the souls of the elect in baptism, so to know whether baptism has really been effective we need to have some independent confirmation of our election – some experience, some inward voice, some direct unaccommodated contact with God that bypasses the sign. I see this as a real tension in Calvin’s sacramental theology, and in all subsequent Reformed sacramental theology, and it’s the tension that has opened into a wound within contemporary Reformed discussions.
The resolution, it seems to me, has to be in a somewhat “Lutheran” direction. The sacrament is an enacted, visible promise of God. He is not pretending or deceiving us. He is true to His word. When He baptizes us, He’s saying He loves us and is drawing us into His family and into His fellowship. The sacrament is also an act: God doesn’t just promise to bring us into His family and fellowhip. That’s what’s actually happening in baptism. Through baptism, the baptized is brought into the family of God, and made a member of the body and bride of the Son of God. In response to God’s promise and His initiative of love, we are to trust Him, perseveringly to trust Him.
Those who are not elect will, of course, not trust Him at all or will not trust Him perseveringly. But we don’t need to know whether we’re in that category to respond with trust. We don’t need the “direct access” that bypasses the accommodated sign. The promise is given in the sign, the act is done by the sign. We believe that God has actually done for us what He says He does in baptism, and live out of that faith.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
