709
East 57th Street;
Loveland, CO 80538
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (7:00 p.m. June through August)
Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks Phone: (970) 667-9481
Vol. 7, No. 1
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Content:
The
Mode of Baptism
Love and Hate of our Neighbor (1)
Did Christ Die for You?
In speaking of baptism we wish to emphasize once again that we do not wish to antagonize anyone or to create further division within the church of Christ. It is our deepest desire to see unity in these matters, especially between those who are otherwise agreed.
On the other hand we often hear that there is no Biblical basis for sprinkling infants and indeed that these are simply carry-overs from Roman Catholicism. Indeed, there are a number of anti-Calvinist books on the market that simply assume that if a church baptizes infants it must also be wrong on these other matters.
As far as the mode of baptism is concerned, therefore, we not only believe that there is a sound Biblical basis for the practice of sprinkling, but believe that it is the only mode of baptism recognized by Scripture! Let us look at the matter more closely.
As to the charge that sprinkling is simply a carry-over from Romanism, we would point out: (1) that this is no argument at all - if everything Rome teaches that is found in Protestantism must be discarded, then even the doctrine of the Trinity must go! (2) Not only that, but we have in front of us a Romish liturgy for baptism of children which says in its instructions for the person performing the baptism, "He immerses the child or pours water on it." That "argument" can be set aside, therefore.
As to the Biblical ground for sprinkling or pouring, the evidence, it seems to us, is unmistakable. We point out the following:
(1) All the ceremonial baptisms of the OT were by sprinkling or pouring. And that these are baptisms is clear from Hebrews 9:10 where the NT word "baptisms" is used (translated in the AV as "washings" --. Also vss. 13, 19, 21).
(2) The baptism of the Holy Spirit, symbolized by water baptism, is always described in Scripture in terms of sprinkling or pouring (Is. 44:3; Ezek. 26:35; Joel 3:28, 29; Mal. 3:10; Acts 8:16; 10:44, 45; 11:15).
(3) Likewise, the application to us of the blood of Christ, also symbolized by the water of baptism, is always described in Scripture as being sprinkled (Is. 52:15; Heb. 10:22; 12:24; I Pet. 1:2).
(4) The great typical baptism of the OT (and they are baptisms, according to the NT meaning of that word - I Cor. 10:2; I Pet. 3:18), were not by immersion. Indeed, the only ones who were ever unarguably immersed in Scripture were Pharaoh and his armies, the ungodly world of Noah's day and the wicked in the lake of fire! Immersion is a picture, we believe, of judgment, not of salvation.
(5) As we hope to show in the next issue, the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) actually says nothing about the mode of baptism.
(6) Finally and more importantly, the baptism of Jesus, when looked at in the light of Scripture cannot have been by immersion (this too, however, we will deal with next time.) Rev. Ron Hanko
Love and Hate of Our Neighbor (1)
Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them my enemies. Psalm 139: 21, 22.
An important question submitted by one of our readers reads as follows: "When asked what is the greatest commandment, the Lord said, 'Love the Lord your God . . . ,' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' This being the case, and neighbor meaning anyone who is in need and crosses our path, how can David say what he does in Psalm 139: 21, 22, and Jesus say that we are to hate even our family members?"
The reader understands correctly both the command to love God and our neighbor, and David's statement in Psalm 139. It is true that these two statements are not so easily harmonized. Some have even suggested that Psalm 139 must be understood in the light of its being written in Old Testament times when revenge, hatred of one's enemies, and fierce destruction of the foes of Israel were characteristic of the times; but our Lord gave us the commandment of love as the governing principle in the new dispensation.
But this will not do. Two objections at least can be raised against such an interpretation. 1) Such an interpretation violates the unity of God's Word, brings disharmony between the Old and the New Testaments, and destroys the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture. 2) The command to love God and our neighbor is found already in the Old Testament Scriptures as the rule for Israel's life (Deut. 6:5, Lev. 19:18).
Before I get into the question itself, let me quote a passage which explains the nature of love and will serve as a basis for my answer. The passage was written by Herman Hoeksema. It is part of an explanation of Mt. 5:44, 45, which passage was quoted in support of the doctrine of common grace. You may find the quote in Ready to Give An Answer, pp. 72, 73. The book is published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association and can be obtained from the address at the top of this pamphlet (there is a charge for the book).
Referring to Mt. 5:44, Hoeksema writes: "The Lord admonishes His people that they shall love their enemies. Now, love is not a sentimental feeling or emotion or affection. It is, according to Scripture, the bond of perfectness (Col. 3:14). It is therefore the bond between two parties or persons who are ethically perfect, who seek each other and find delight in each other because of their ethical perfection, and who, in the sphere of ethical perfection, seek each other's good. It is in this true sense that God is love.
"However, it stands to reason that, in the case of loving our enemies that despitefully use us, curse us, and persecute us, love must needs be one-sided. There cannot be a bond of fellowship between the wicked and the perfect in Christ. To love our enemy, therefore, is not to flatter him, to have fellowship with him, to play games with him, and to speak sweetly to him; but rather to rebuke him, to demand that he leave his wicked way, and thus to bless him and to pray for him. It is to bestow good things upon him with the demand of true love that he leave his wicked way, walk in the light, and thus have fellowship with us. If he heed our love, which will be the case if he be of God's elect and receive grace, he will turn from darkness into light, and our love will assume the nature of a bond of perfectness. If he despise our love, our very act of love will be to his greater damnation. But the cursing and persecution of the wicked may never tempt the child of God to live and act from the principle of hatred, to reward evil for evil, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
It is within that context of the meaning of love that we must explain Psalm 139:21, 22. There are, therefore, several points which we must notice.
1) Psalm 139 speaks of hating them that hate God and that rise up against Him. We hate God's enemies, not our enemies. We must, as Jesus points out, love our enemies and pray for them. Or, to put it a little differently, we must not hate anyone because of an attitude they assume towards us, or because of what they do to us. Our concern must be for God, the honor and glory of His name, and the righteousness of His cause.
It is well to remember this, for it is very difficult. We are, generally speaking, worried about ourselves: our name, our reputation, what happens to us personally, and how we can "get back at" those who do bad things to us.
2) The hatred which Psalm 139 requires of us is defined in the text itself in two expressions. The first is "Am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?" That is, our hatred of God's enemies is expressed in a deep sorrow over the blasphemies and calumnies raised against God. That sorrow is not hidden in our hearts while we are in our inner closets pondering these matters. That sorrow is expressed to those who are our neighbors.
The second expression which defines that hatred is this: "I count them my enemies." This is, quite obviously, the very thing that is implied in Herman Hoeksema's analysis of love. We cannot and may not enjoy fellowship with those who hate God. Even while we love them, we must count them our enemies. That is, we may not enjoy fellowship and communion with them.
This is completely in keeping with other parts of Scripture. I refer to James 4:4 as an example: "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
I must make one more remark about this passage in Psalm 139. But that must wait until our next issue. Prof. H. Hanko
This problem is also raised by hyper-Calvinists, those who deny that the Gospel call for faith and repentance should be preached indiscriminately to all. They do not want to preach the gospel call for faith because they believe that it denies the Biblical doctrine of limited atonement. They think that to say to unbelievers, "You must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ" implies that Christ died for these unbelievers. So they ask a similar question: "How can a man be called to believe in a Savior who did not die for him?"
Now, we believe that the Gospel must be preached indiscriminately, including the call for repentance and faith. There is no doubt that Scripture requires this in Acts 17:30 and gives us a clear example of it in the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt. 3:7, 8). Indeed, the only way the hyper-Calvinists can get around these verses is to say that Paul and John are not calling for true Gospel repentance and faith.
The answer to our questions, however, lies in the nature of saving faith. Scripture makes it clear that there are different acts or aspects to saving faith. Knowledge and trust are the two most important elements of saving faith. To believe is first of all to "hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word," and then the persuasion "that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits" (Heid. Cat., VII, 21).
There are, therefore, two sides to faith, believing that what the gospel says about Christ is true, and then also believing that it is true for me, the latter belonging more to the assurance of faith. These are not necessarily separated in time, though they can be (a person may be without assurance or struggle to find it). At least sometimes they come together, the "knowing for truth" and the personal assurance.
These different aspects of faith are mentioned in II Timothy 1:12; "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." They are also evident in the different ways that Scripture describes faith, i.e., believing Christ, that is taking Him at His word), as well as believing on Him (Acts 16:31; Rom. 9:23; 10:11), and believing in or into Him (Jn. 3:16, 18; Col. 2:5).
On that basis we suggest that what the Gospel calls for first of all is the belief that Christ is the Savior whom God has sent (Acts 2:22-36), that salvation is found in none other but Him (Acts 4:12), and that faith itself is the way of salvation. We must, in other words, first "take Him at His word." Only then do we even have the right to take the promises of the Gospel as our own (Acts 2:37-39).
Indeed, in those passages in which unsaved persons are called to faith, they are called first of all simply to believe Christ (take Him at His word) or to believe on Him, which is much the same thing (Matt. 21:25, 32; Jn. 8:24, 46; 9:35; 10:37, 38; Acts 16:31), without any false implication that Christ actually is theirs or even wishes to be theirs. To this they must be called (1) because the Gospel is the truth; (2) because Christ revealed in the Gospel is the revelation of the living God; and (3) that they may be without excuse under the Gospel. Rev. Ronald Hanko