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. 9
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
Repentance and Baptism
Compassion Only for the Elect
Are there Degrees of Reward?
Another argument for so-called
"believer's baptism" is the argument that Scripture shows that not only faith,
but also repentance, must precede baptism. To
some extent this argument has been answered in our previous article, but there are some
things that do need to be pointed out.
There is first of all Mark 1:4, which
speaks of the baptism of repentance: "John did baptize in the wilderness, and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Many conclude from this verse that repentance must
precede baptism.
This is, however, by no means evident. The word "of" could mean "the
baptism that has its source in repentance" and be suggesting that baptism ought to
follow repentance. The word "of" might also mean, however, that baptism and
repentance belong to one anther, without saying anything about the order in which they
occur.
We believe that the phrase says nothing
about the order in which the two occur, but rather means that repentance and baptism
always belong together - that baptism demands repentance (either prior or following or
both).
If there is any order suggested,
however, it is baptism followed by repentance!
Matthew 3:11, a parallel passage, makes this clear.
There we read of a baptism "unto" (literally, "into")
repentance, where word "unto" has the idea of "motion towards
something." The idea, then, is that
baptism is administered with a view to repentance following or even as a kind of call to
repentance.
In suggesting that baptism looks
forward and not back to repentance, Matthew 3:11 identifies an important difference
between the Baptist and Reformed views of baptism. The
Baptist view is that baptism is a sign or mark of what we have done in repenting
and believing. The Reformed position is that
baptism is sign or mark of what God has done in regenerating us. It does not mark our response to grace, but the
work of grace itself.
Baptism, in the very nature of the
rite, is a picture of the washing away of sins by the blood of Jesus. This is what God does in saving us, and He does it
first. He does it when we are yet
incapable of responding to His gracious work.
If we understand this, then infant
baptism will not seem something strange, but fitting.
After all, there is no one of us, saved as an adult or as an infant, that does not
enter the kingdom of heaven as an infant, that is, by a work of pure grace that
precedes all activity and response on our part. That
work of grace is what infant baptism marks and commemorates. Rev. Ronald Hanko
“But when he saw the
multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered
abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.” Matthew
9:36.
The question we consider this time is:
"Why did the Lord Jesus have compassion on the multitude if God has no compassion on
the reprobate wicked?" The text we have
just quoted is referred to specifically.
Let there be no doubt about it at all
that God has compassion only upon His people. Compassion
is the same as pity or mercy. And mercy is
that attribute of God according to which He sees the misery of His people because of their
sin, longs to deliver them from their misery, and purposes to make them eternally happy. God's mercy is, however, always sovereign. That is, God's mercy is not only a mere attitude
while God is unable to accomplish that for which He longs.
God's mercy actually saves.
There is no adequate figure that we can
appeal to as an illustration of this truth. But
we can come close with the act of saving a drowning man.
If a man is drowning in deep water and someone on shore sees the drowning man's
plight, he may be moved with compassion. But
true compassion is not to stand on the shore wringing his hands and hoping the man will
summon sufficient strength to swim to shore. Compassion
is not even throwing the man a lifeline when he knows ahead of time the man is too near
death to grab hold. (Although this is what
the teachers of the well-meant offer maintain.) No,
compassion is to brave the crashing waves, swim out to the man, take hold of him, and drag
him to shore.
This is Jesus' compassion as well as
God's. Jesus' compassion or mercy actually saves. That
is the power of His cross.
But why then does the text speak of
compassion on the multitudes?
We must understand, first of all, that
the reason for Jesus' compassion is given in the text: "they fainted, and were
scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd."
These words are a terrible indictment of the wicked scribes and Pharisees who
claimed to be the leaders of the people, but who were false shepherds who scattered the
flock and only sheared the sheep -- for their own profit.
But Jesus is the good Shepherd, Who
knows His own and is known by them. He has
compassion for those who are scattered abroad, and He purposes to lead them into the green
pastures of salvation.
But why the compassion on the
multitude? Does not this imply that Jesus has
compassion on every one in that multitude, head for head including the reprobate in the
multitude?
No, it does not mean that, and cannot
mean that. The answer lies in a great truth
of Scripture which, if people would once get a hold of, they would never be Arminian in
their thinking. That truth is that God always
deals "organically" with men.
I dislike introducing a word which
almost no one understands in our days of crass individualism; but it is a crucial term. I can only suggest the ideas here, and our readers
may ask more about it and give me opportunity to discuss it in other articles.
The text looks at the multitude from
the viewpoint of its organic unity. We do
this all the time in our own lives. We look
at families and nations from the viewpoint of their unity as an organism. We can say, e.g., that England has become
apostate. Does that mean that there are no
people of God in England? Of course not. But it does mean that the nation, taken as a
corporate or organic unity, is apostate.
We may say that in the days following
the first General Assembly in Scotland, the nation became Christian. Does that mean that everyone in the nation was
elect? Of course not. But it does mean that the nation, taken as a
whole, lived according to the Scriptures.
It is this organic idea which Scripture
uses when it compares the church with various creatures in God's world. The church is a vine (Psalm 80, Jn. 15) even
though branches are cut off and the vine nearly destroyed.
The church is a vineyard (Is. 5:1-7) even though it brought forth wild fruit. It is a vineyard because God has His elect there
and He looks at His church as a whole from the viewpoint of His purpose with the church,
i.e., to take it to glory.
Scripture calls the church in Corinth
(or Ephesus, or Colosse, or whatever) the church of Christ, saints, redeemed, etc. Does this mean there were no reprobate in Ephesus?
or Corinth? or Colosse? No, but it is the
church and it is called the church. The
Scriptures speak of the love of God to that church and the compassion of Christ. Does that mean that God loves the reprobate? Of course not.
I suppose that in a way one can speak
of the "compassion" a farmer has for his wheat field. He takes good care of it, does what is necessary
to see to it that the wheat grows, is deeply concerned that no pests or diseases or hail
destroy it, and delights in its well-being. Does
that mean that the farmer loves the weeds which are there? has compassion on the weeds?
takes good care of the weeds? Of course not. It is his field and he looks at it and deals with
it as his wheat field. So Jesus has
compassion on the multitude, for they were as sheep without a shepherd. But that compassion is for the purpose of saving
His elect. Prof.
H. Hanko
The question for this issue is one that
is often asked: "I would be pleased to learn your views re rewards - are there
degrees of these?" We suppose that the
difficulty is (1) that the idea of rewards seems foreign to salvation by grace alone; and
(2) that if we speak of degrees of reward, this seems to emphasize even more strongly that
somehow merit or works are after all involved in our salvation.
That Scripture speaks of rewards cannot
be doubted. Not only is the English word
"reward" used innumerable times, but it is often a translation of words that
mean "recompense," "wage," "repayment." Then, too, there are the many passages, that do
not use the word, but have the idea of reward in them, passages such as Romans 2:6-11 and
II Corinthians 5:10.
That there are degrees of reward seems
clear from Scripture. Whether we think of it
as reward or not, Scripture certainly speaks of different degrees of heavenly glory and
blessing. There are first and last (Matt.
19:30; 20:16; Mk. 9:35; Lk. 13:30), greatest and least (Matt. 5:19; 11:11; Lk. 7:28) in
the kingdom of heaven. The apostles will sit
on twelve thrones, judging Israel (Matt. 19:28). Even
in relation to the angels there are degrees, for the saints shall judge them (I Cor. 6:3)
and they themselves are and shall be servants, ministering spirits, to God's people (Heb.
1:14).
Not only that, but when Scripture says
that the "reward" shall be "according to works," it also implies
different degrees of reward, for no matter what we say about those works, it is evident
that not all have the same works. I
Corinthians 3:11-15 confirms this when it tells us that some men's work shall abide and
some shall be burned even though they themselves are saved.
All this seems to contradict the
teaching of Scripture concerning grace. How
can salvation be by grace alone without works, and there nevertheless be rewards? And, how can that reward be "according to
works?"
The answer to these questions lies in
the fact that the works which are rewarded, or which are the measurement according to
which the reward is given, are themselves a gift of God (Eph. 2:8-10). That those works are rewarded, then, still leaves
us with no merit or anything in which to glory before God.
Indeed, we cannot possibly merit anything with God, even if we do all that is
required of us! (Lk. 17:10).
The truth is really that God rewards His
own work in us! He is both the sovereign,
gracious Author of the works rewarded and of the reward itself. We cannot possibly receive any credit for those
works when it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil.
2:13).
The reward, therefore, is the reward
of grace. It is grace added to grace -
one gift added to another - and rather than bringing praise to us, it brings all praise
and glory to God. This is the reason, we
believe, why Scripture so carefully says that the reward is "according to"
works, and not "because of," works.
Our works, themselves a gracious gift of
God, every one of them foreordained by God (Eph. 2:10), purchased by Christ, and given by
the grace of the Holy Spirit, are only the measure of the reward, never the reason for it. And for that reason they are also a motive and
reason to continue in good works (Phil. 2:12, 13).
Rev. Ronald Hanko
We have available a CD with 56 audio
sermons from Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church.
The cost is $15 a CD. Send check or
money order for your CD to: Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church, 5101 Beechtree,
Hudsonville, MI 49426.