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. 25 Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks
Phone: (970) 667-9481
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
The Sign and Reality of Baptism
God’s Sovereignty and Evil (2)
What About Artificial Life Support?
The Sign and Reality of Baptism
It is of the utmost importance, when speaking of baptism, to realize that the NT uses the word in two different ways. A failure to recognize this often leads to misunderstanding and error.
Sometimes when the NT uses the word “baptism” it is referring to the sacrament or rite, what we might call water baptism (cf. Matt. 3:7; 28:19; Acts 2:38, 41; I Cor. 10:2). This is really not baptism, properly speaking, but the sign of baptism - a symbol pointing to an invisible spiritual reality.
In distinction from the symbol or sign, the reality of baptism is the washing away of sins by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. That is the reality of which water baptism is only a picture. Speaking of baptism in that sense it is entirely proper to say that baptism saves (I Pet. 3:21).
Many passages in the NT are speaking of this spiritual saving reality and not of the sign, that is, of water baptism. The most notable of these passages are I Corinthians 12:13, Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12, and all those passages which speak of being baptized in or with the Holy Spirit.
None of these passages is speaking of water baptism. Unless we realize this we will fall into all sorts of errors and come to very wrong conclusions, e.g., that water saves (I Pet. 3:21) or brings us into fellowship and communion with Christ (I Cor. 12:13).
The difference between sign and reality is clearly evident in the fact that not all who are baptized with water receive the reality of baptism. Nor do all who remain unbaptized with water thereby forfeit the spiritual reality of baptism by which we are saved.
Nevertheless, the two are related. The one is the sign or picture of the other, and that may not be forgotten. A sign that said “London” but pointed to Manchester, would only mislead and deceive. The sign must always point to the reality if it is to be of help to us. Thus the sign must match the reality, and the reality must match the sign.
For example, the question of the mode of water baptism can to some extent be answered by examining the mode of spiritual baptism. If we ask, how are we baptized by the blood and Spirit of Christ?, the answer of Scripture is “by sprinkling or pouring.” It would be strange, not to say misleading, if sign and reality did not match at that point.
By the same token, the reality must also “match” the sign. It would not do at all to have the eating of bread and wine, though they also represent the death of Christ, as symbols of the cleansing of sin by Christ’s sacrifice. The sign must be of cleansing.
Indeed, Christ has given us the sign to help us understand and believe the reality. If I say, “Can anything really wash away all my sin - wash it all away? That is too much to believe. My sins are too great and too many.” The sign of baptism says, “As really as water washes away the filth of the body, so really does the blood of Christ wash away sin” and so encourages my faith in Him and His sacrifice. Rev. Ron Hanko
God’s
Sovereignty and Evil (2)
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. Eze.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?"
In the last issue (which it would be good to re-read), I
mentioned that different answers have been given by Reformed people to the question of the
relation between God's sovereignty and sin. I
quoted from the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession to
demonstrate this point. Now we must continue
the discussion.
I could define the difference in this way: Those who speak of
God's permissive will with regard to sin are afraid of making God the author of sin --
something which the Canons of Dordt calls "blasphemy." The Westminster divines, in finding that the word
"permissive" is not adequate to describe the relation between God's will and sin
are afraid to do injustice to God's sovereignty. Both
are correct in their fears. It is indeed
wrong to suggest or imply in any way that God is the author of sin. And it is indeed wrong to teach in any form or
fashion that God is less than sovereign -- also in His relation to sin.
Scripture simply has too many texts which put the doctrine of the
absolute sovereignty of God before our very eyes for us to deny it. We ought to mention just a few here. These are in addition to the texts which the
questioner suggested. David confesses that
God told Shimei to curse David (II Sam. 16:10). God
moved David to number Israel, though David was punished for his sin (II Sam. 24:1). Isaiah compares God's relation to the wicked as
the relation of one who swings an ax to the ax itself, as one who pulls the saw to the saw
itself, as one who walks with a staff to the staff itself (10:15, 16). The most heinous crime of the ages, the
crucifixion of our Lord, was done according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God (Acts 2:23, 4:27, 28). There is almost
no end of these passages.
We might notice in passing that John Calvin was not afraid to
speak of God as the "cause" of sin, although he insisted that one must carefully
distinguish between primary causes and secondary causes, and that God always accomplished
His will through secondary causes. I think
that can be helpful also in this discussion. In
all sin, man's will is always a secondary cause. Never
does man do one thing without doing it as an act of his own will. Therein lies his accountability.
It has always seemed to me that the word "permission,"
when used to describe God's relation to sin, does not really solve any problems. I know that the motive for using the word is to
avoid any semblance of making God the author of sin.
And that must be farthest from our minds. But
does the teaching that God "permits" sin really help us? I doubt it. Supposing
that I am in a hardware store looking at hammers, and I see a man within two feet of me
putting a hammer under his coat and taking it out of the store without paying for it. I have "permitted" him to steal. Have I escaped culpability for that act of theft
by standing there doing nothing? when I was in a position to prevent him from stealing? This is not the case.
So, if God (and I speak as a man) stood by watching men sin, able
to prevent it, but doing nothing to stop the sin, but rather permitting it, this too,
apart from any other consideration, would not solve the problem. I do not see how an appeal to God's permissive
will will do anything that a direct appeal to God's sovereignty will not do.
We must maintain God's absolute sovereignty over all things,
including sin. This is the clear teaching of
Scripture; and, if we do anything less than Scripture requires of us, we create a power in
the universe outside of God's control. If
such a power exists, a power over which God has no control, then we have created a
dualism: a dualism of two powers, God and sin; a dualism of two eternal beings, God and
evil; a dualism of two independent powers, God and wickedness. Such a dualism is impossible and intolerable, for
it is a limitation on God which destroys God.
We must maintain that God determined sin in His eternal counsel,
that God controls and directs sin in His sovereign control and direction of all things,
and that God uses sin also to accomplish His purpose.
The first Paradise is the stage on which, under God's sovereign rule, the drama of
sin and grace is enacted. The fall serves
that purpose, the purpose of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Apparently we shall have to use another article to "explain
how these things fit together" -- as the questioner so graphically put it.
What About Artificial Life Support?
One reader has sent
a number of questions dealing with life support systems.
His letter is too lengthy to reproduce here, but it has to do with the question of
whether it is right to prolong life artificially on such systems, especially when there is
little or no discernible hope of recovery.
Such questions as
these are very difficult questions and usually cannot be answered generally. It is best, therefore, to say that each case has
to be dealt with individually by those who are involved (family members, etc.)
There are, however,
several principles that we must keep in mind in all such cases - things that every
Christian ought to remember when facing such difficult and heart-breaking decisions as
these. We mention especially two such
principles here.
The most important
principles is that our life is not our own, but belongs to God. That is true first of all because He is the
Creator. Every life belongs to Him as
Creator, and no one has the right to dispense with his own or another's life apart from
God.
That this is often forgotten is evident in the abortion debate. Abortionists usually argue that a woman's body is her own, but that is not true. It is not her own, but God's, and she has no right to do with it as she pleases, nor with the life that has been conceived in her.
There are, of
course, instances in which God gives the right to take another person's life to certain
people. The magistrate has not only the
right, but the obligation to punish certain crimes with death, as well as to conduct war
on behalf of the country over which God has placed him.
That, however, is not an exception, but only serves further to prove that all life
belongs to God. It is He and He alone who
gives that right to the magistrate. No man,
even if he is a magistrate or ruler, has the right of himself.
All this is doubly
true for the Christian. His life and the life
of his fellow Christians is not only God's by creation, but also because God has purchased
it with the blood of His Son (I Cor. 6:20).
Not only that, but
his "times" are not his own either. The
number of his days and the length of his life are in God's hand, not only in the sense
that God determines and rules them, but also in that they too belong to God (Ps. 31:15). As a result of modern technology it is very
difficult to answer the question of when life ends (our question in the next issue). Nevertheless, it remains true: our times are in
His hands.
Thus, the Christian
especially must be very careful with the life God has given Him. He has no right to waste his time and strength, to
abuse his body, to endanger his own life. He
must use the life God has given him and all that belongs to that life for God to whom he
and his life belong both by creation and by redemption.
For these same
reasons the Christian ought to be very careful about deciding to end someone else's
life or his own by having these life support systems turned off. If such a decision is made, those who make it must
be sure that they are not taking into their own hands the life that belongs to God and His
prerogative in determining the end of life.
He ought also to
consider carefully before making what is sometimes called a "living will,"
deciding ahead of time and under what circumstances he wishes such life support systems to
be turned off in his own case, should he be on them and unable to make a decision for
himself. To saddle others with such heavy
responsibilities by way of these "living wills" is also questionable. The life at stake belongs to no one but God. Rev. Ronald Hanko