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. 8
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
Faith and Baptism
Wise Chastisement
Should Elders and Deacons be Married?
We wish to say something here about the
length of this series of articles on baptism. There
are two reasons for so many articles: (1) we wish to be as clear and careful as possible
in what we say; and (2) we most earnestly desire unity on this issue with those who
disagree, and therefore want our position to be clearly set out for their consideration.
In this article we wish to deal with
the important Baptist argument that faith must necessarily precede baptism - often
referred to as "believer's baptism."
The first thing that must be said here
is that the Baptist position is an impossibility. As
we pointed out in the last article, they can, at best, only baptize those who make a profession
of faith. Because we cannot know the heart,
there is no way of ensuring that all baptized persons are indeed believers.
The usual Baptist response is that they
baptize far fewer unbelievers than do those who practice family baptism. This, of course, is beyond proof, but the fact of
the matter is that if a Baptist church baptizes even one hypocrite or unbeliever, they are
no longer practicing "believer's baptism."
That, however, is not the main point. The words of Jesus in Mark 16:16 also need to be
explained, especially as they are the command and warrant for the NT church to be
baptizing. There are several things that need
to be said about this passage.
First, the passage does not say (though
every Baptist reads it that way), "He that believeth and then is baptised
shall be saved." It only says that both
faith and baptism are necessary for salvation.
Second, just because faith and baptism
are listed in that order does not mean that they must necessarily happen in that order. II Peter 1:10 lists calling before election, but
calling does not come before election, as every Calvinist knows.
The order in Mark 16:16 is simply the
order of importance. Faith is listed before
baptism because it is far more important. We
see this in the last part of the verse where baptism is not even mentioned again, though
faith is.
Indeed, if the order in Mark 16:16 is
the temporal order, i.e., the order in which things must actually take place, then the
order is faith, baptism, salvation: "He that believeth, and is baptised shall
be saved!" No Baptists, certainly
not those who are Calvinists, want that order!
Not only that, but there are passages
in the NT that suggest that at least in some cases faith did not precede baptism. Acts 19:4 speaks of John's baptism and says that
he told the people when he baptized them, "that they should believe on him who should
come after him." He did not
baptize them because they had already believed on Christ!
With respect to such a verse, the
Baptist has two options. He can say that
John's baptism was not true NT baptism, though over half of the references in the NT are
to his baptism (and then no conclusions at all can be drawn from it for NT practice) or to
admit that faith need not always precede baptism. Rev.
Ronald Hanko
For he doth not afflict willingly nor
grieve the children of men.
Lamentations 3:33.
We have an interesting question to
answer in this issue, although to a certain extent it involves a question of translation. The question reads: "How can we reconcile
Lam. 3:33 in the light of God's disciplining His children and passing judgments on men,
e.g., plagues, disease or death?"
The person who sent this question in
for consideration is correct on a very important point.
God sends His judgments upon this wicked world.
And, while these judgments are expressions of God's wrath against the wicked, and
while the righteous share in these judgments, they are, for God's people, what the
questioner calls, "disciplining," and what the Scriptures call,
"chastisement" (See, e.g., Heb. 12:5-13, in what is probably the most detailed
instruction of chastisement anywhere in Scripture).
The book of Lamentations speaks of this
judgment upon the wicked nation of Judah, which judgment was, of course, the destruction
of Jerusalem and the captivity of the nation. But
the prophet Jeremiah speaks in these verses of the fact that that captivity was also
chastisement for the elect remnant in the nation.
Judgment is always God's fury against
the wicked. It is rooted in God's hatred. Chastisement is always God's love for His elect
people, and has as its purpose correction and salvation.
It is this latter which is Jeremiah's
concern in these verses. He writes in the
context: "For the Lord will not cast off for ever: but though he cause grief, yet
will he have compassion according to the multitude of his mercies." 3:33 follows upon these two vss.
The translation of the AV will do, but
the word "willingly" could be misinterpreted and may, therefore, leave the wrong
impression. The Hebrew (as the margin of my
Bible makes clear) is literally, "from His heart." That is, "He doth not afflict from his
heart."
The commentators suggest two possible
interpretations of the expression, "from His heart." Some say that the expression means,
"arbitrarily." God does not afflict
arbitrarily. Others say that the expression
can better be interpreted as meaning, "as if it gave Him joy." This latter interpretation is probably the one
which the AV adopted when it translated "from His heart" with the word,
"willingly." That God does not
willingly afflict His people means that God is most reluctant to afflict them. He does so, so to speak, only as a last resort. He takes no pleasure in chastising them.
Whatever may be the correct meaning of
the expression "from the heart," both ideas which the commentators suggest are
true of chastisement.
We ought to insert here that the text
is speaking emphatically of the chastisement of the elect people of God; and that,
therefore, the expression, "children of men" refers also to God's elect. The text is only referring to the judgments upon
the wicked insofar as these judgments which came upon the wicked nation of Judah are
shared by God's people who are, by them, chastised.
God's chastisement is never arbitrary. That is certainly true. God is all-wise, and He knows exactly how to fit
the chastisement with the sin which brought about a need for correction. We do not always know how to do this when we
chastise our children. Sometimes also
teachers in school show a remarkable insensitivity to the need to make the chastisement
fit the sin. They invent strange punishments
which sometimes, I fear, do more harm than good. But
parents, who in the disciplining of their children are called to imitate, in as far as
they are able, God's discipline of His people, must use wisdom so that their chastisement
does not become arbitrary.
But God's chastisement is also without
joy for Him. If I may speak as a man, God has
no pleasure in chastising His children, but instead is grieved by it -- as He is grieved
by their sin. A parent will some-times say
to his child when he spanks the child, "This hurts me more than it hurts you." That can really be true. Parents do not enjoy punishing their children for
their sins. But they know that sometimes
punishment is necessary in order to teach their children the right ways. They punish reluctantly.
The same is true of God. Psalm 103:8 tells us that God is slow to anger. He is very merciful. He is not a cruel Father Who delights in seeing His children suffer; He is merciful beyond description. He loves His children dearly and He is sad when they are in need of chastisement.
The fact that the people of God are
called in the text, "children of men" means that God is patient with His people
in their infirmities and weaknesses, and remembers that they are weak and frail. A versification of Psalm 103 that has always meant
a great deal to me goes like this: "Mindful of our human frailty / is the God in Whom
we trust. He Whose years are everlasting, /
He remembers we are dust."
But sin grieves our Father also. And sin endangers our souls. So, when it becomes necessary, God chastises,
sometimes severely, that we may be corrected and saved.
He has no joy in seeing us hurt, but He has great joy in accomplishing His own
purpose in our salvation -- by whatever means it takes to accomplish that goal.
Thankful for the mercy of God, we must
submit to His chastisement, humble ourselves under His mighty hand, and turn from our evil
ways.
Prof. H. Hanko
Should
Elders and Deacons be Married?
Someone has inquired further in
connection with a previous article. He
writes: "Would it be possible to have your comments, following the above article
("Should Women Be Priests,"), on the qualifications of elders and deacons (I
Tim. 3:2, 12). Some denominations, while
excluding women from holding office appear to have no difficulty in the selection of
unmarried men. This is unscriptural, as a
man who, for whatever reason, does not take a wife and produce children, is not obeying
God's law (the only exception in Jewish law is for further study of the law. It follows from the OT into I Tim. 3 that only
married or widowed men with families should hold office in the church."
Our correspondent focuses on something
to which very little attention is paid today In
most churches, the matter of the qualification set out in Scripture for elders and
deacons. When elders and deacons are chosen,
all too often men who are not qualified are put into these offices to the detriment of
Christ's church.
We do not agree, however, that
Scripture, I Timothy 3:2 and 12 especially, requires elders and deacons to be married men
with families. We have the following reasons
for differing from the person who has written:
(1) The emphasis in I Timothy 3 is not
on the word "husband," but on the word "one." The Holy Spirit is forbidding bigamists and those
who are unbiblically remarried from holding office in the church, and this in harmony with
Leviticus 21:13, 14 and Malachi 2:11-16. It
does not require them to be husbands. But
that, of course, is exactly what must be proved.
(2) As proof, we would point out that
the OT did not require a priest (or prophet or king) to be married in order to be a leader
of the Israelites. There is no command in
Scripture to that effect, and while Jewish law may have required it, Jewish law is not
necessarily Biblical law. Indeed, Jewish law
was often contrary to Scripture (Matt. 15:1-9). Jeremiah,
who was not only a prophet, but also a priest (Jer. 1:1), was forbidden to take a wife or
have children (Jer. 16:1, 2).
(3) However, even if OT Biblical law
did require the spiritual leaders of God's people to be married men with families (and
there is no Biblical evidence that this is so), there is no clear evidence that the NT
also requires it. If Paul were requiring
elders to be married men, he would have been disqualifying himself, for (a) the apostles
were also elders (I Pet. 5:1); and (b) the evidence shows that Paul himself was unmarried
(I Cor. 7:7, 8; 9:5).
(4) Finally, though this not in itself
proof, to forbid unmarried men opportunity to serve as elders and deacons would exclude
them from one of the most important areas of service in the church, and that in spite of
what Paul says in I Corinthians 7 about unmarried persons.
Unmarried persons, Paul says, are to devote themselves to the service of God in the
church (I Cor. 7:32). There are other areas
of service, of course, also for women who are forbidden to hold office; but for men, these
offices of elder and deacon are one of the principle areas of service.
For all these reasons, then, we do not
believe that an unmarried person is automatically disqualified from serving as an elder or
deacon in the church. Indeed, we can think of
areas where (according to I Cor. 7:32) it would be an advantage to an officebearer to be
unmarried. The mission fields are the best
example. Ronald Hanko