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. 13
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
The
Second Coming
The Fullness
of Israel
Should
People be Rebaptized?
We said in the previous article that the coming of Christ has many different aspects, including His birth, His coming through the gift of the Spirit, through the preaching of the gospel, and through death. All these, we showed, are but different aspects of the one coming of Christ for judgment and for salvation.
That is not to say, however, that we cannot speak in a special sense of Christ's coming at the end of the world and refer to it as His second coming. This final coming will be one of the great events of history, like his birth and crucifixion, because it brings about the end of history and of all things as we now know them.
In several ways this coming is unique and the focus of all our hopes:
(1) Christ's final coming will be personal (Matt. 24:30; I Thess. 4:16). Instead of through His Spirit, or through preachers as His representatives, He will come Himself. Every eye shall see Him (Rev. 1:7). This is important because in Him all the fullness of the Godhead is revealed bodily (Col. 2:9), and it is as the revelation of God Himself that He will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31), and receive His people into eternal glory. It is also the focus of our hope, for it is HIM we long to see.
(2) His final coming will also be visible (Acts 1:11). Indeed, at His final coming every eye shall see Him, even those who pierced Him (Rev. 1:7 - implying that His appearance follows the general resurrection of the dead, both righteous and wicked). Thus, Scripture refers to His final coming as an appearance or revelation of Christ (II Thess. 1:7; I Tim. 6:14; I Pet. 1:7). And this, too, is necessary, for He in our flesh, as the crucified and risen One, must be our visible representative in the judgment and the One who condemns the world which rejected the revelation God in Him by crucifying and slaying Him. In this light Scripture refers to this final coming as His second coming (Heb. 9:28) - not because there are not other aspects to His coming, but because it is only in Bethlehem as a babe and at the end of the world the He comes personally and visibly.
(3) Finally, Christ's coming at the end of all things will be with power and glory (Matt. 24:30; 25:31). In this respect it is different from His first coming, for then He came in the form of a servant and in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7). His power and glory at the end of all things will be the terror of the ungodly (Rev. 1:7; 6:15-17), and the delight and salvation of His own (Rev. 1:12-20).
The day and hour of this coming (and the month and year, also) are unknown to us. Nor would it be good for us to know, for then we would either become careless and worldly or would lose hope. Not knowing, we watch and pray, are sober, and continue in holiness and godliness (Matt. 24:42-51; I Thess. 5:1-8; II Pet. 3:10-12). Yet we believe that He shall come, for He has promised! and we expect that even if He does not come personally and visibly in our lifetimes, yet we shall hear His voice in the gospel and follow Him (Jn. 10:27), and we believe that He will come to us by His Spirit, the Comforter, and that when we die, will come and receive us unto Himself (Jn. 14:3).
Rev. Ronald Hanko
Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? Rom. 11:12.
One of our readers submitted the following question: "My wife, who is a pre-millennialist, would like to know your opinion of Rom. 11:12 ('how much more their fulness')."
I am somewhat reluctant to offer an interpretation of this expression in Rom. 11:12, because it involves the question of the place of Israel in the purpose and plan of God. That question has been often debated and hundreds of books have been written on it. The disagreements between a-mils and pre-mils are many more than the interpretation of this one passage.
I shall, however, offer a brief explanation, not so much in the hopes that any pre-mil reading this will be converted from his or her erroneous position, but more as a matter of information so that any pre-mil may at least know how historic a-mils have interpreted this Word of God.
The expression in vs. 12, "the fullness of the Jews," is the same in meaning as the expression "And so all Israel shall be saved" in vs. 26. The question, in its narrowest form, is: Does "all Israel" mean "every Jew"? or does it mean "every elect Jew?" If the latter is true, as I believe it is, then God continues to save a remnant from the nation of Israel throughout all history. When that last elect Jew is saved, that is the "fullness of Israel;" then "all Israel is saved."
That, in short is the historic a-mil interpretation of this expression. I cannot go into the proof from Scripture and from this chapter itself why this interpretation is the correct one. The RFPA has a publication, God's Eternal Good Pleasure, which deals with this passage (and with all of Romans 11) in detail. If any of our readers are interested in the proof for the historic a-mil interpretation which I have summarized, they can purchase the book or write for a photocopy of the chapter on Romans 11:12.
In the remainder of this article, I want to make a few general remarks about the thought of the apostle in this chapter.
First of all, it is well to remind ourselves that Rom. 11 is a part of a section in Paul's epistle to the Romans which begins in chap. 9, and which deals with the so-called "Jewish Problem." What is God's purpose with the Jews?
That problem is highlighted in chap. 9 by the apostle's remarks about Israel's apostasy and God's judgment upon the nation. Israel was rejected because the nation crucified Christ. Does that rejection of Israel mean that God has forsaken His people and that His Word is of none effect?
Paul spends this entire section explaining his answer that it is not true that God's Word has failed, for a remnant of Israel is saved.
In Rom. 11, using the figure of an olive tree, Paul points to the fact that the natural branches have been cut off the tree (11:17, 21). He explains, however, that the natural branches were cut off in order to make room for branches from the wild olive tree to be grafted in (17, 19).
In fact this is precisely what the apostle means by various expressions used, also in vs. 12: "The fall of them (Israel) is the riches of the world (Gentiles)"; "the diminishing of them (Israel) the riches of the Gentiles." The casting away of them (Israel) is the reconciling of the world (Gentiles) (15).
And so the rejection of the nation of Israel was to make room for the Gentiles. Or, to put it a bit differently: While the church of Christ was saved from the nation of Israel in the old dispensation, God's purpose is to save a catholic church, i.e., a church gathered from every nation and tribe and tongue. With Pentecost the work of God broke through the national boundaries of the nation of Israel in order to encompass every nation.
Nevertheless, the nation of Israel occupies that unique position in the purpose of God that from it alone an elect remnant is saved throughout the entire new dispensation. The apostle talks about this in 11:1-5, and literally states this in vs. 24: "For if thou (a Gentile) wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches (Jews) be grafted into their own olive tree?"
One more point must be remembered. Never in the old dispensation did God save all of the natural Jews. Not only does the OT record demonstrate this, but Paul says the same in 9:6-13, when he explains that election and reprobation cut through the nation in all its history. Only the seed of the promise was saved. So also in the new dispensation God saves a remnant according to the election of grace. And when that remnant is saved, the fullness of Israel comes, and so all Israel is saved. Prof. H. Hanko
One of our readers asks: "If, as a child, you were baptized, but your parents are unbelievers, should you get baptized again when you are converted?"
Very simply, our answer is, "No." We do not believe in rebaptism, not even of converts from Romanism, though we know there are many who would differ from us at this point.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, there were those who believed in rebaptism not only of converts from Rome, but also of those who had been baptized as infants, whether in Romish churches or Protestant churches. Because they believed in rebaptism, they were called "Anabaptists."
Generally speaking, the Protestant Reformers did not believe in rebaptism, and we agree with them. There is good reason, we think, for their disinclination to rebaptise anyone.
We would add, however, that when people come from apostate Protestant churches and especially when they come from Rome, the temptation to rebaptise them is very great in light of Rome's gross errors and the equally great errors of apostate Protestantism. Nevertheless, we still think it better not to rebaptise, and would ordinarily rebaptise no one.
Why not?
First, and most importantly, we must remember that baptism is a sign of entering the covenant of God and so also of entering salvation by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. Baptism pictures how this happens through the washing away of our sins.
Those who believe in salvation by grace alone, i.e., the Protestant Reformers and those who follow their teaching, believe on the basis of Scripture that a person can only be saved once. Only once, and that by God's sovereign grace, can anyone enter salvation and the covenant of God, and that salvation can never again be lost (Jn. 10:28, 29; I Pet. 1:3-5). For this reason especially we would not want to see the sign of salvation applied to a person more than once, even if it had previously been applied by a godless apostate.
That brings us to the second point, that the profit of being baptised, insofar as it is of any profit to the person baptised, does not depend on the person who administers the baptism. No matter who he is or may have been, the application of the water pictures the washing away of sins by Christ's precious blood and remains such a testimony to the person baptised.
Indeed, it is not at all unfitting, in light of God's sovereign purpose and the atoning work of Christ, for someone who has been baptised many years before his actual conversion and that by means of unbelieving parents and ministers, now to remember that already then the blood of Christ, pictured in the water of baptism had been shed for him. Nor, it seems to us, is there any need to be rebaptised if that is true.
What is more, and finally, we are convinced that the insistence on rebaptism puts far too much emphasis on what is, after all, only an outward sign and seal of salvation. The strong emphasis on rebaptism suggests that baptism is after all viewed by some (though very superstitiously) as having some saving power in itself. For this reason, too, we would, all other things being equal, not want Christians to be rebaptised no matter when and how they had previously been baptised. Rev. Ronald Hanko