Loveland Protestant Reformed Church
709 East 57th Street;
Loveland, CO 80538
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. June through August)
Vol. 6, No. 24 Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks
Phone: (970) 667-9481
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
The Symbolism
of Baptism
God’s
Sovereignty and Evil
What is the Final Condition of the
Earth?
In this article we begin a study of
baptism. We do so with some trepidation,
knowing the differences that exist over this important matter. Nevertheless, though we have no wish to offend
those who are of a Baptist persuasion, we believe the testimony of Scripture is clear. We ask only that they hear what we have to say.
The first matter, then, is the
symbolism of baptism. We do not believe that
the water of baptism itself has any efficacy or power, as Romanism, Anglicanism and
Lutheranism teach. Its value lies in the fact
that it is a symbol.
All would agree, we are sure, that the
water of baptism symbolises the blood of Christ, and that the application of the water (we
leave aside for the moment the matter of how
it is applied) represents the washing away of sins by Christ’s precious blood.
In other words, baptism represents the
application of salvation in justification (the removal of the guilt of our sins) and
sanctification (the removal of the filth and pollution of our sins). It represents the forgiveness of our sins as we
receive that forgiveness in our justification and through faith. It also represents the work of God by which we are
made holy in regeneration (the new birth) and sanctification.
Insofar, however, as the application of
the water represents the washing away of our sins in justification and sanctification, the
water of baptism not only represents the blood of Christ, but also the Spirit of
Christ. He is the One in whom we are actually
washed (baptised) both for the remission and cleansing of sin.
This is reason why Scripture describes
the gift of the Spirit as a baptism (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5; 11:16; I Cor. 12:13). It is a baptism, not for any other reason than
that the Spirit has an important function in the cleansing of sin. He is the one who applies to us the blood of
Christ both for our justification and our sanctification, and since He does this by giving
Himself to us, we can be said to be baptised not only in the blood but also in
(or with) the Spirit when we are saved.
This has many important consequences. For one thing, it is the answer to the error of
Pentecostalism which teaches that the baptism in the Spirit is something additional and
subsequent to salvation. That the baptism in
or with the Spirit is nothing other than salvation is clear from Scripture (Acts 2:38, 39;
Rom. 5:1-5; 8:9; I Cor. 12:13 - comp. John 7:37-39; Gal. 3:2; Eph. 1:13, 14).
All this has consequences also for the
mode of baptism. If the water of baptism
represents both the blood and the Spirit of Christ (only alternative is
Pentecostalism) then it must be noted that Scripture invariably describes the application
of both in terms of pouring or sprinkling. But
that is another point we will deal with later.
The point here is that baptism
beautifully symbolises the washing away of sins by both the blood and Spirit of
Jesus Christ. Thus it shows us how we
enter God’s covenant, that is, by grace alone and by Christ alone. Rev. Ron Hanko
God’s
Sovereignty and Evil (1)
And if a prophet be deceived when he
hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand
upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ezekiel 14:9.
I have quoted only one verse referred
to by the questioner. The entire question
refers to various texts and reads as follows (the reader is asked to look up the other
texts): "I Ki. 22:20-23 and verses teaching similar truths, such as Ez.14:9, Jer.4:10
and 20:7, II Thess. 2:11-12 -- these verses seem to indicate that God does not simply
permit evil to exist, but in some way causes it. I
believe this, but also believe that God cannot be the author of sin, since He is holy and
there is no darkness in him (I Jn. 1:5), and he is too pure even to 'behold evil' (Hab.
1:13). Could you explain how these things fit
together?"
This question, while a crucially
important one, is also one that has been discussed in the church for many centuries. One can find in the church those who have defended
both positions outlined in the questioner's comments.
The question is basically this: What is the relation between God's sovereign
execution of His own will and the sin of which man is guilty?
The two answers which have been given
to the question of God's sovereignty and sin are: 1) God causes sin, or, 2) God permits
sin. Both answers are suggested in the
question quoted above: "... God does not simply permit evil, but in some way causes
it...."
It is important to note that these two
answers have been given by people who are genuinely Reformed and Biblical in their
theology, who want nothing to do with Arminian error, and who believe with all their
hearts that God is absolutely sovereign in the entire work of salvation. We must be careful, therefore, that we do not
accuse the one or the other of "heresy." Such
is not the case. What puzzles us is the right
word to describe the relation between a sovereign God and the sin of man -- sin for which
man is responsible.
While the texts referred to in the
question have to do especially with the sin of deception on the part of false prophets, a
deception which God Himself claims to have done in these prophets, the broader question is
all sin. Sin is man's fault. Man goes justly to hell for his sin -- unless his
sin is paid for in the cross of Christ. God
is sovereign. God remains sovereign. God is sovereign over sin.
That disagreement over this question
has been present in Reformed and Presbyterian circles is evident from the fact that the
Reformed confessions differ slightly on this matter from the Westminster Confession. Let us briefly look at this difference.
While, so far as I know (someone may
correct me on this) the Reformed confessions do not use the word "permission" to
define God's relation to sin, these confessions nevertheless imply that
"permission" would be an acceptable term. This
assertion is proved by the use of the confessions' definition of reprobation. Both the Canons of Dordt and the Confession
of Faith, in defining reprobation, speak of God "leaving" man in his sin.
The Canons use this expression
in I:15, for example: ". . . but leaving them in his just judgment to follow their
own ways ...." The Confession of
Faith says (Art. 16): "... in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein
they have involved themselves." The idea
is that God permits sin to come into the world, and once there, He "leaves"
certain people in that sin without rescuing them as He does His elect.
Those who prepared the Canons and the
Confession of Faith used this language because (as our questioner also suggests): they
were afraid of making God the author of sin. The
Synod of Dordt, strongly affirming the doctrine of reprobation, but defining it as a
"leaving" of people in sin, goes on to say, "And this is the decree of
reprobation which by no means makes God the author of sin (the very though of which is
blasphemy)...."
The Westminster Confession, on the
other hand, says that the word "permission" is inadequate: "The almighty
power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in His
providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels
and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise
and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them ..." (V, 4). The Westminster divines were of the conviction
that the word "permission" is not satisfactory to describe God's relation to
sin; not because "permission" is heretical, but because it is too weak.
But our space is full for this time,
and we shall have to wait to complete this discussion till the next issue of the
"Newsletter."
Prof. H. Hanko
What is the Final Condition of the Earth?
One of our readers asks: “Please
could you explain to me the Scriptural teaching on the final condition of the earth? Is it really totally destroyed by fire, or is it
only “renovated” by fire?” He
asks in this especially in connection with II Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 21:1-4.
We
believe that Scripture teaches that the earth will be cleansed and renewed by fire and
that it will not be annihilated and recreated. We
offer the following arguments:
(1)
The earth that was destroyed by the flood was not annihilated. Rather it was cleansed and renewed by
water. And since the flood is a picture of
the end of all things (Matt. 24:37; II Pet. 3:5-7), it would follow that the
“destruction” of the world at the end is of the same sort as in the days of the
flood.
(2)
Scripture teaches that God does not “discard” this present creation and start
all over again, but rescues it and redeems it (Rom. 8:19-22; Col. 1:20). In this respect, His dealings with the
physical creation are on the same order as his dealings with mankind. He redeems and rescues what He has made (though
not every individual creature).
The
reasons why He does not start over again are two. First,
He does not need to begin again - He is sovereign and is not thwarted and frustrated by
the coming of sin into the world. Indeed, He
decreed and determined it. Second, the world
is His creation and belongs to Him. To give
it up or cast it away would be an admission of defeat and a loss on God’s part of
what belongs to Him.
II
Peter 3:10-13 and Revelation 21:1-3 do not contradict this, though they speak of a new
heavens and earth, of the old being destroyed by fire and passing away.
Indeed,
II Peter 3:5-7 actually supports what we are saying.
There Scripture talks about the world that existed before the flood being
“destroyed.” But we know from
Scripture that the old world was not annihilated. It
was only cleansed by water.
Along
the same lines these verses speak of the world after the flood as a different world and
the earth as a different earth (“the heavens and earth which are now” in
contrast to “the world that then was”). Yet
it was not a different world in the sense that it was entirely new - it was not a replacement
for what existed before the flood.
That
earth was different, not because the previous earth had ceased to exist as result of the
flood, but because things were greatly changed by the flood as they shall be also in the
end of all things. Those changes are
described in II Peter 3:5-7.
All
this is important for several different reasons. For
one thing, it reminds us that we look not only for a new heavens, but also for a new earth. In fact, Scripture seems to suggest in Revelation
21:1-3 that the two shall become one and be united. The
New Jerusalem shall come down from God out of heaven.
Even
more, this promise of a new (renewed and cleansed) earth is the answer to those who seek
to establish the kingdom of God in this present world and on the earth as we now know it. When they read Old Testament prophecies which
concern the earth they seem to be able to think only in terms of this present world and do
not seem to know that the earth itself shall be changed and glorified as part of the
inheritance of God’s people in the life to come.
Perhaps if they understood what Scripture teaches about a new earth they would
abandon their false hopes.
Rev. Ronald Hanko