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.
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.
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.
...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”.
Chuckles and insight -- who could ask for more? 8~)
IMVHO, we are obligated to demonstrate that this knowlege was immediate, and it seems that the case can be argued either way.
Thoughts?
We just seem to keep finding new topics.
The age of accountability is a concept that i believe has been pushed beyond its' intended limits by those who cannot accept the simple fact of God's soverignity. It is analogous to the biblical sanction of excommunication, in that its' consequences have been expanded by men to entail matters that it originally did not address.There is an age of accountability, were this not so, nobody would have lived to adulthood. The Law sentences disobedient children to stoning, yet we know experientially that a 2-year-old's favorite word is..."NO!"It seems to me that God allowed the "age of accountability as a social construct in order to facilitate the functioning of the society.
In a like manner, excommunication is used for the unrepentant (at the time). One of the complaints against Christianity is that "some sins are more equal than others" to paraphrase Eric Blair (George Orwell to the uninformed). This is both true and false at the same time, (ah! but not in the same relationship!) All sin has equal effect in respect to God, but unequal effect in respect to man. Hence, sins that are more "public" merit more strident correction, thus church discipline. Not because they are more grevious to God, but because they have a greater effect on the assembly of believers.
If I pretend that you have a Scottish accent while reading your words, then it makes it all the more of a good read!
Thanks!
Jean
I think this is a very dangerous presumption.