The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 3

Chapter 3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.

That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart.

Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature, - these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God.

It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of the people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of a God. I readily acknowledge, that designing men have introduced a vast number of fictions into religion, with the view of inspiring the populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and thereby rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued will that uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who, in the matter of religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder neighbours, were altogether devoid of a knowledge of God. For though in old times there were some, and in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.

All men of sound judgement will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God. Though Diagoras, and others of like stamps make themselves merry with whatever has been believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus scoffs at the judgement of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within. I do not say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion increases and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be shortly seen) labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so.

Moreover, if all are born and live for the express purpose of learning to know God, and if the knowledge of God, in so far as it fails to produce this effect, is fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who do not direct the whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfil the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of knowing him, she is wholly transformed into him. Thus Gryllus, also, in Plutarch, (lib. guod bruta anim. ratione utantur,) reasons most skilfully, when he affirms that, if once religion is banished from the lives of men, they not only in no respect excel, but are, in many respects, much more wretched than the brutes, since, being exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag on a troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore, which makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone they aspire to immortality.

i am still curious over whether or not Calvin endoursed the idea of immediate imputation, that is to say 'implanted' knowlege of God without virtue of a media, such as creation in Romans 1 and Psalm 19.

Ask OP if he has anything definitive on this. I am not sure when the question of immediate versus mediate imputation surfaced. The real problem arose in the New School Theology among Edwards' supposed spiritual descendants. They MISUNDERSTOOD Edwards. Alas, so did Charles Hodge, as Warfied proved.

I haven't anything "definitive" about Immediate Imputation off the top of my head, except for an observation about the progression of the Presbyterian understanding of Covenant Baptism.

Before I get into that, I think it is obvious that the Bible endorses the Fact of Immediate Imputation as the terms have been applied here -- "'implanted' knowlege of God without virtue of a media". That is to say, I don't think that the record of the Regeneration of John the Baptist is really in dispute.

I have heard Arminians argue that John the Baptist was not Regenerate in his mother's womb, that this was only the "force" of the Holy Spirit acting upon him, but I think it's pretty obvious that they are fighting a rear-guard battle on this point (for if even one not-dying-in-infancy Adult man is Regenerate from Birth unto Death without a prior "choice for God" at the so-called "age of accountability", then even that one Adult case overthrows their entire Theological system, as they well know)

But getting back to what I was saying about the progression of the Presbyterian understanding of Covenant Baptism...

The funny thing is, this was originally Luther's argument against the anaBaptist belief in "Believer's Baptism". Remember that Luther was a strict Augustinian in almost every point of his theology (a good way to understand Luther, I think, is the following formula: Start with a Strict reading of Augustine, Subtract the Papacy, and Keep everything else that is Augustinian. It's quick-and-dirty, but it is usually roughly accurate IMHO).

Luther, like Augustine, was a Baptismal Regenerationist. That is, he believed in Absolute Predestination, but he believed that "temporary converts" who had been Saved by Word (preaching) or by Sacrament (baptism) could be Lost if God had not Predestined to Keep them.

And against the anaBaptists, Luther (who believed that the "Believer's Baptist" arguments had some bit of Merit) essentially responded, "SO WHAT?! Baptism makes them Believers, so then Infant Baptism IS 'believer's baptism', and if God has PREDESTINED to Keep them in the Faith -- then Our God is in the Heavens, He accomplishes His pleasure, and He Will!!"

John the Baptist was Luther's favorite example of Infant Regeneration.

Now, John Calvin simplified this idea a great deal. Calvin earned the everlasting displeasure of the Strict Augustinians (with whom he is otherwise in almost-total agreement) with that which is called the Fifth Point of Calvinism, by saying that "God is never just kidding about Salvation. If the Father sends a Sinner the Jesus Christ, then the Son (who is Himself all-powerful) accepts the Father's gift and never lets him go."

On this basis (among others) Calvin rejected the idea of "Baptismal Regeneration" and "Falling from Grace". In John Calvin's view, a man may be "just kidding" about his Baptism and Profession of Faith (in which case he may not be Saved at all, and so is not "falling" from a Grace in which he was never resident)... but God is never kidding about Salvation (whether a man is baptized, or dies as a Thief upon a Roman cross having only truly repented to Christ once in his life, without water).

Covenant Presbyterianism, then, originally held to the "Circumcision of Christ" (Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:11-12) argument for Infant Baptism, for at least the first two hundred years after John Knox. In the Presbyterian/Dutch Reformed view, we have been grafted into the True Vine of Israel; Israel has been told that "the promise is for You and Your Children" (Gen. 22:18; Isaiah 44:3; Acts 2:39; I Cor. 7:14), and Baptism is the New Covenant symbol of Circumcision.

In recent years, (well, the last two centuries) however, Presbyterians have tended to accommodate Luther’s “believer’s baptism” argument. Why? Because we have come to realize that John the Baptist is a better example of the Presbyterian/Dutch-Reformed argument, than ever he was an example of the Lutheran argument in the first place!!

The Lutherans say, with Saint Martin the Reformer, that John the Baptist is an example of the fact that God can make a Believer even of an Infant, and therefore such an Infant is entitled to “Believer’s Baptism”. But against the Lutherans we would argue, Baptism did not make John a Believer; the Holy Spirit made John a Believer even in his mother’s womb! You do not Baptize someone to MAKE him into a Believer, you Baptize him BECAUSE he is a Believer already!!

And this, we Presbyterians/Dutch-Reformed confess of our children, if we have obeyed God’s Law for His People. For though we are ardent Calvinist Predestinarians, yet we believe that God is faithful to His Promises. He has ordained to bring Adults to Salvation by the faithfulness of Gospel Preachers, and He has ordained to bring Children to Salvation by the faithfulness of Gospel Parents.

Because we believe that God is faithful to Gospel Parents, we do not treat our children as little “baby Cains”. Because we believe that God is faithful to Gospel Parents, we treat our children as little “baby John the Baptists”.

And if anecdotal evidence counts for anything, I had never known a congregation where virtually all the children were home-schooled, where Obedience to Parents was cheerful and immediate, where Elders (even a young punk like me who is not a “formal” Elder) were uniformly respected by the children, and where Disobedience was uniformly silenced with a single Parental word -- until I joined an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation full of Covenant Children. Impossible? I certainly would have thought so. I was a much more rebellious, sin-loving little Son of Adam than this, myself.

But to those of us who are of little Faith, seeing is believing. I confess that it has certainly made an impression.

The Promise is to Us, and to our Children.

And so, for at least the last 200 years or so, Presbyterians have preached both the Covenantal argument – that we Covenant our Children because God commanded Abraham and His Law has not changed; and because we believe that God is faithful to Gospel Parents, we treat our children as little “baby John the Baptists” – entitled to Believer’s Baptism.

Now, I am saying all this for a couple of Freeper’s benefit.

I say all this for “the_doc”s benefit because, even though he knows the Presbyterian Argument very well, we discuss these matters privately and I think that “in the interests of full disclosure” it is important to identify BOTH Presbyterian Arguments – the traditional Presbyterian-Covenantal Argument of Law and the more-recent adoption of the Lutheran Argument of Spirit (because frankly, when you look at the example of John the Baptist, it suits the Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed better than the Lutherans anyway!!)
I say all this for Jean Chauvin’s benefit because, as an Heir of the Dutch Reformed tradition (so similar to Presbyterianism, though it is Continental in Origin), I think it is good to share with him the theological understandings (and likely, agreements) offered by his Scottish-derived brethren.
And, I offer this for Jael’s benefit, RnMomof7’s friend. It’s good to have you aboard, we welcome you. But you must understand, I can’t take your “Infant Baptism is Romanism!!” screeds very seriously. I am entirely uninterested in the heresy of some Roman-ist 1500 years who claimed that “Baptism saves, and that’s why why baptize infants!” Likewise, I would be uninterested in the heresy of some Israelite Ba’al-ist heresy 2500 years ago which claimed that “Circumcision saves, and that’s why we circumcise infants!” Both are False Doctrine, but neither invalidate the Family Covenant.

To the Presbyterian/Dutch-Reformed, the views of some 1500 year-old Romanist are entirely too recent for our taste. Our Doctrine of the Church goes back over 6,000 years to the Garden of Eden, not to what some Romanist newcomer was saying a mere 1500 years ago. You can call us “Romanists” if you like, but that’s like calling Elijah a Baal-worshipper because they both built Altars.

2000 years of Rome? Gee, how very recent and novel a Religion. The Pope may have baptized infants 1500 years ago, but so did the Presbyters of Iona – who told the Pope to go take a long walk off a short pier. Like Judah and Israel, they both circumcised their children – but one guarded the True Temple, and one just made up their own Religion. In our Presbyterian/Dutch-Reformed opinion, the Pope is just another New Kid on the Block.

We care about the Faith of Abraham, not the Roman Papacy.

If we are supposed to stop Covenanting our entire Family...
If God has changed the Covenantal Unit from the Family to the atomistic Individual...
If the uniform New Testament standard of Family Baptism is not a normative example of this Covenantal Continuance...

...then after millennia of Biblical Law since Abraham we would expect the New Law to say so -- TELL US that God has changed His Mandate ANYWHERE in the New Testament -- and it doesn't.

The New Law tells us that Baptism is the Circumcision of Christ. But the New Law NEVER tells us to stop Covenanting our Children. And Orthodox Presbyterians take this "grafted into the True Vine of Israel" stuff seriously. It is not "make-believe" feel-good words for us. We think that "grafted into Israel" means something and we care about the Law of God and we seek to obey it.

The way that God's Children have obeyed His Law for 4,000 years since Abraham....
Not the bloody newcomer "Pope", fer the luv of saint pete.

Now, I could be wrong. But if I wanna talk Infant Baptism, then I am prepared to listen to the Arguments of a Historic Calvinist Baptist like “the_doc”. He may – perhaps – be incorrect, but at least his antecedents went to the trouble of being burned at the stake by Rome for nearly 2000 years to get “the_doc” here long enough to make his point. I have to respect that.

I am a little less likely to respect the opinions of some “Independent Bible-Believer Non-Denominational Make-It-Up-As-You-Go” Parson whose own seminary was founded while I was still in the Third Grade.

The Bible is our sole rule of faith and practice, but I am a little more inclined to listen to Historic Calvinist Baptists who have been reading that Bible and arguing the Mode and Application of Baptism from that Bible for almost 2000 years, than I am inclined to listen to some yokel "non-denominational" Parson who just fell off the turnip truck.

Meaning no offense, does that make any sense to you?

Thus endeth the latest OP “book in digest form”.

Could you explain it to me ? I do not understand the issue?

i'll make an attempt at it mom, though if i fail, you are free to blame the inadequacy of my explanation rather than your comprehension.

OVERVIEW: i have spent most of my life in Christ working in the area of apologetics. In that time, the main emphasis has 'evolved' from Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses to aberrant groups within Cristendom (Word of Faith movement, heretical pelagian groups, psycho/socio heresies, etc.) to out and out skeptics and athiests. i suppose it is a natural progression, but i may be wrong about that.

In debating skeptics and atheists, one must face the choice of apologetic method. There are two majour ones that are currently in practice in Christianity. They are called Presuppositionalism, and Classicalism, (or, Evidentialism). The difference between the two is where they start.

Presuppositionalism starts with the presuppositions that God exists, that the bible is His special revelation to humanity. The school of thought was popularised by Dr. Cornelius Van Til in recent times. This method is quite good when dealing with persons who already believe the presuppositions. After all, why 're-invent the wheel'? It's weakness is that it is ill equipped to deal with the one who does not accept the presuppositions. It's view of General Revelation, which Calvin is speaking of above, is that it does exist, but that man, having an entire depravity,(i.e., all areas of man has been affected by sin, mind, emotions, physical attributes, will, etc.) is unable to gain an accurate knowledge of the content of General Revelation. Presuppositional apologetics relies heavily upon the power of the Holy Spirit to convince the hearer of the truth (as do all methods).

Classicalism is that which starts out with man as he is, and through reason is able to demonstrate the existence of God, and the inspiration of the bible. After reason has made that determination, it then takes a subordinate role to the special revelation of scripture. The classical theistic proofs are a product of classicalism. The method fell into disrepute after Kant. It has been revived recently by a student of Cornelius Van Till named John Gerstner. Gerstner and two of his former students, R.C. Sproul, and Arthur Lindsley. In their book Classical Apologetics, they have revived the use of General revelation, and the theistic proofs.

It is a much better method for dealing with skeptics, but let me caution you here, One still must rely on the convicting and convincing power of the Holy Spirit to convince anyone.. In a sense, it is still presuppositional, it simply has a different starting place for the presuppositions.

The debate is whether Romans 1 teaches that a General Revelation of God is given by virtue of the media of His Creation, or is it 'implanted directly' in the individual by a direct act of God, without virtue of a media, or secondary cause.

Roman Catholics have rejected the idea of 'immediate imputation', that is to say, God imputes knowlege of His existence into each individual with out the use of a secondary media, such as creation.

i am simply trying to acertain whether or not Calvin is argueing for an immediate imputation, or an imputation by virtue of the media of creation, or both.

Was that any help?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.