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)
Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks                 Phone: (970) 667-9481

Vol. 7, No. 7       

Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org

Contents:
Unbelievers in the Covenant
Christ’s Death for the World
Should Ministers be Called “Reverend?”

Unbelievers in the Covenant

One Baptist objection to infant baptism, is that some are baptized who are not saved and never will be saved, i.e., in baptizing infants, we baptize those who have not repented and professed faith.  To Baptists this seems wholly arbitrary and meaningless.

In answer to this objection, we would point out, first of all, that it is plainly impossible either in Baptist or Reformed churches to baptize only saved persons.  Because the secrets of the heart are unknown to us, we can, even in Baptist churches, baptize those only who make a profession of faith and repentance.

In pointing this out to various Baptist friends and acquaintances, the response has always been: "But we baptize fewer unsaved persons than you do."  The fact is, that if a Baptist baptizes even one unsaved person, he is no longer practicing "believer's baptism," but only something that might be called "professor's baptism."

More to the point, however, is the fact that in Scripture both baptism and circumcision are deliberately applied to unbelievers.  That this is the case with circumcision is clear from Abraham's circumcising of Ishmael (after being told that Ishmael had no part in the covenant (Gen. 17:18-19), and of Isaac's circumcising Esau after being told that Esau was reprobate (Gen. 25:23, 24).

The Baptist argues at this point that circumcision was only a mark of national identity, but that simply is not true in light of what Scripture says about circumcision.  It was always a sign of "the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision (death) of Christ" (Col. 2:11; cf. also Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4).

The same is true of baptism.  The baptism in the Red Sea (it is identified as a baptism, using the NT word, in I Cor. 10:1, 2), was applied by God to many "with whom He was not well pleased" and who subsequently were destroyed of Satan (I Cor. 10:5-10).  In the other OT type, Ham was "baptized" (II Pet. 3:21) with the rest of Noah's family.

The only question, then, or so it seems to us, is this: "Why is God pleased to have it so - that the sign of the covenant and of salvation, both in the OT and the NT be applied to unsaved as well as to saved persons?"  Whether they are adults or children really makes no difference now.  Even the Baptist must answer this question, though in answering it, he admits that he does not practice "believer's baptism."

The answer to this question lies in the eternal purpose of God.  Only someone who firmly believes that God has eternally ordained all things, including the salvation of some and not of others, can give a clear and unequivocal answer to this question.

The answer must be that baptism (circumcision in the OT), like the preaching of the gospel, is a power and a testimony both for salvation and for hardening and condemnation (cf. II Cor. 2:14-16), and this according to the purpose of God.   We baptize infants as well as adults, therefore, understanding that God will use it for the salvation of some, and for the condemnation of others, according to His own purpose, as in the case of Ishmael or of EsauRev. Ronald Hanko

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:2).

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16).

The question which I deal with in this article reads: "Regarding the doctrine of limited atonement, could you please tell me who the "whole world" is in I John 2:2, and why it is only "world" in John 3:16?  Could you please expound on "world" in John 3:16 and "whole world" in I John 2:2.  Also, who is John referring to in I John 2:2 when he says, "our sins?"

I think Spurgeon says somewhere that the word "world" in Scripture never once means every man head for head.

It is striking that both passages referred to by the questioner are to be found in John.  John's gospel message in the gospel narrative and in his letters is the message of a universal salvation.  This great and glorious truth is stressed again and again in John.

But a universal salvation through the death of Christ does not mean, in John's thinking, that Christ died for everyone, and that everyone is saved.  Not only John himself, but the whole of Scripture militates against that.

Let us take a rather quick look at the two passages which the questioner refers to.

I John 2:2 is one of those beautiful texts which emphasize so strongly that Christ is, in His death, a catholic Christ Who died for a catholic church.  By "our sins" John refers to the sins of himself and those to whom he writes.  In fact, we may even broaden this out a bit and say that John may very well refer to the sins of all the saints who were living at the time when this epistle was written.

But John looks beyond his own era and sees a church, redeemed in the blood of Christ, which is gathered from the whole world; i.e., from every nation and tribe and tongue.  And that is because Christ shed His blood for a church that will be gathered from the nations throughout the entire new dispensation.

This is a glorious thought.  The doctrine of the catholicity of the church is one of the most beautiful doctrines to be found in Scripture.  Write to me sometime, and we will spend a bit more time discussing it.

The passage in John 3:16 is very similar, but has a slightly different emphasis.  In the first place, it is obvious that the word "world" in this passage refers to the world of God's elect.  For the text says that Christ died for those who believe in Him.  And those who believe in Him are the elect.  And so Christ died for the elect, and for them only.

But the word "world" in John 3:16 refers to the whole creation.  The word "world" is "cosmos."  And here John teaches that the love of God extends to the whole cosmos besides the world of the elect.  God loves His world.  He created it.  Fallen man tries to steal it from God, and in the process wrecks God's world.  But God loves it and has also redeemed it in the blood of Christ.  So the whole cosmos will be saved when Christ comes again and makes this world into the new and heavenly creation.

These differences in meaning probably explain why John speaks of the "whole world" in his epistle, and of the "world" in his gospel

Two things yet.  If Christ died for every man head for head, then one of two things must be true: 1) every man is saved; or, 2) Christ's death does not actually save, but salvation rests upon the free will of man.  It has been well said, "A Christ for all is a Christ for no one."

The second remark is this.  The "world" of the elect people of God is the true world.  It is the world of eternal election.  It is the world of God's unchangeable purpose in Christ.  It is the world which is the object of God's love, for which Christ died, and which will be taken to glory to be with God forever.  The true world is saved.  Think of a beautiful temple.  The finished temple is the fulfillment of the plan and purpose of the architect.  The scaffolding is only for the building of the temple and is burned when the temple is finished.  The reprobate are the "scaffolding" in the erection of the temple of the elect.  When they have served their purpose, they are destroyed.  God loves His temple.

Calvin speaks eloquently on I John 2:2.  "Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?  I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate....  Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation.  They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect....  Though ... I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole church.  Then under the word "all" or "whole", he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.  For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."                                                           Prof. H. Hanko

Should Ministers be Called “Reverend?”

One of our readers makes reference to a booklet which condemns the use of the title, "Reverend," for ministers.  The author of the booklet states:

‘Reverend' means ‘worthy of reverence'.  It is a word found once only in the Word of God and it pertains to deity alone.  "Holy and reverend is His name" (Psalm 111:9).  It is an appellation never to be assumed by mortal man.

This is a title carried over from Romanism by the state church, accepted by the Presbyterians and later by many Non-conformists.  Today the title is used without embarrassment by those who are know as Reformed and evangelical.  Knowing what the term ‘Reformed' really means, perhaps we should not be too surprised, but for a true evangelical, one who claims to stand for all the teaching and practice of Holy Scripture, to take for himself such a title is to be deplored.

Our correspondent writes: "On the face of it without looking at the text in context, this seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the Scripture verse.  Without wishing to open a hornet's nest, I would be interested in (your) interpretation of this word."

Let us state, that while we have no love for the title, and prefer to be addressed in some other way, we find the objections to the use of this title groundless.  Indeed they betray an ignorance of Scripture and a lack of careful study.

First of all, if the word reverend may not be used of mortal man, then neither may the term "holy," for God's Name, according to Psalm 111:9, is also holy.  Yet Scripture often uses the term "holy" not only as a description of God's people, but even as a title or name.  The many passages which call God's people "saints" are a case in point.  Our readers will know that word "holy" and the word "saint" are really the same word, as any good concordance will show (cf. II Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2).

Second, it is misleading to say, without qualification, that the word "reverend" is found only once in Scripture.  In that form of the English word it is found only once in the Authorised Version.  Nevertheless, the word is a common word in Scripture, though usually found in different forms or translated differently.  It is, in fact, found almost 350 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, most often translated "fear" or "feared" (Ps. 111:9 could be translated: "Holy and feared is His Name").

While that Hebrew word is applied almost exclusively to God, there are passages where it is applied also to man (again, this can be checked with a good concordance).  Prov.  24:21 is a good example: "My son, fear thou the Lord and the king," where the word translated "fear" is the same word as in Psalm 111:9.

Third, as far as the English word "reverend" is concerned, it also is applied to men, though in a slightly different form.  We "reverence" our parents (Heb. 12:9); also rulers (II Sam. 9:6; I Kings 1:31).  These passages certainly show that the honor, fear, and obedience which are implied in the title, "reverend" are due to them as well as to God.

 

Special limited offer: Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church has produced a CD containing 54 sermons preached at Hudsonville Church.  This CD can be played on a computer  CD or on an MP3 player (not on the standard CD player within the home).  A limited number of copies are available for $15.00 (US).  Send your order to: Rev. Barry Gritters, 5101 Beechtree, Hudsonville, MI 49426.