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)
Vol. 6, No. 26 Pastor: Rev. Garry Eriks
Phone: (970) 667-9481
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
The Meaning of Baptism
God’s Sovereignty and Evil (3)
When Does Life End?
It has often been claimed that the NT word baptism ever
only means “to immerse” or “to submerse.” Without entering into the whole question of the
mode of baptism, a little word study will show that this is not the case.
Such study will show that there are a number of passages
in the NT in which the word cannot and does not have the meaning
“immerse/submerse.” We plead,
therefore, with those who believe otherwise, to hear our side of the matter and not just
blindly charge us with following human traditions in not practicing baptism by immersion.
(1) One passage is John 20:22, 23. To understand “baptism” as immersion in
this passage is meaningless. Jesus is
referring, of course, to his suffering and death in these verses (cf. Lk. 12:50). To say that He was to be immersed in suffering or
death means little.
(2) Then there are the verses that speak of baptism in
or with the Holy Spirit, none of which refer to an immersion, but to the
outpouring, shedding forth or sprinkling of the Spirit (we do not believe that the word
“baptism” means “to sprinkle” either - the word says nothing
about the mode of “baptism” whether it be water baptism or any other kind).
(3) Even more important is I Corinthians 10:2, which
speaks of the Israelites being “baptized” into Moses (note: they were not
baptized in the cloud or sea, but literally “into” Moses himself by the cloud
and sea). Can the verse possibly be saying
that they were immersed in Moses? The word
must mean something else.
(4) Paul uses the same language in I Corinthians 1:13
and Jesus Himself speaks similarly in Matthew 28:19.
What could it possibly mean to be immersed in the Name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit or in any other name?
(5) The same is true of I Corinthians 12:13. Can the Word of God be saying that we are immersed
in one body? It is difficult to see how that
could have any meaning. Indeed, the Word
itself there speaks not of immersion but of drinking!
What, then, does the word mean? It means to bring two things into the closest contact, so that the condition of the one is
changed by the other. The word says nothing
about how this contact comes about, sprinkling, pouring, immersion, or any other mode.
Thus, to be baptized into Moses meant that Israel was
brought into contact with him as the God appointed and typical mediator. In that way their condition was changed from
slavery to freedom.
That Christ was baptized with death does not mean He was
immersed in it, but that He was brought into the closest possible contact with it so that
His condition was changed from being accounted guilty before God for our sakes, to being
justified on our behalf.
When Scripture says,
therefore, that we are baptized into Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom. 6:1-6), it
is not saying that somehow we are immersed in those events (whatever that would mean). It refers to the fact that we through faith are
brought into contact with His death and resurrection, by which our condition is wholly
changed. That is the meaning of baptism and
the reality of baptism for us! Rev. Ron
Hanko
God’s
Sovereignty and Evil (3)
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. Ez. 14:9.
I have quoted only one verse referred to by the questioner. The entire question refers to various texts and reads as follows (the reader is asked to look up the other texts): "I Ki. 22:20-23 and verses teaching similar truths, such as Ez.14:9, Jer.4:10 and 20:7, II Thess. 2:11-12 -- these verses seem to indicate that God does not simply permit evil to exist, but in some way causes it. I believe this, but also believe that God cannot be the author of sin, since He is holy and there is no darkness in him (I Jn. 1:5), and he is too pure even to 'behold evil' (Hab. 1:13). Could you explain how these things fit together?"
In the last article on this subject which is posed by our correspondent I made especially two points: 1) The term "permission" does not seem adequate either to escape the charge that God is the author of sin and to describe sufficiently strongly the sovereignty of God in relation to sin. 2) We must maintain the strong Biblical emphasis which inescapably teaches us that God's sovereignty over sin is complete.
But, as the correspondent points out, God may never be said to be the author of sin; and we are also accountable to God for our sins and are justly punished in eternal hell because we sin. Scripture makes it clear that Jesus was delivered by the eternal counsel and foreknowledge of God, and was also crucified with wicked hands. Herod and Pontius Pilate along with the Jews did to Christ what God had determined before to be done.
This problem is certainly not new to our present time; it has been discussed times without number in the history of the church. Nor do I claim any original light on the problem or an ability to understand how both God's sovereignty and man's accountability can be maintained.
But there are four or five remarks which need to be made about this question.
The first is that the problem is abstract in a certain sense. Every single man in the universe, including ourselves, know that we are accountable before God for our sins. We know that, if we are punished in hell, we are punished justly. We deserve what we get. No man can question that.
In the second place, Scripture does not seem to recognize the problem, nor does Scripture say anything about it. God moved David to number Israel. David cried out, "I have sinned." God punished David for his sin and the punishment was absolutely just.
In the third place, the heart of the question is this: What is the relation between God's will and the will of man? I phrase it that way because God's will is sovereign, and everything man does is done willingly. The willing character of man's deeds always makes him accountable for them. God does not, so to speak, take a man by the scruff of the neck and force him to steal an automobile, while the man is saying, "I don't want to do it. I don't want to do it." Man sins willingly.
In the fourth place, the problem is that we cannot
understand just exactly how God's sovereign will touches our will; i.e., what is the
relationship between God's will and our will. But
this inability to understand does not bother me in the least. And it does not bother me, simply because I cannot
understand God's work in any single part of the creation.
I cannot understand how God makes a blade of grass to grow. I cannot understand how God forms a baby in the
womb of its mother. I cannot understand how
the God moves the planets in their orbits around the sun in our solar system. And, as a matter of fact, no scientist can fully
understand those things. All God's ways are
past finding out. Is it then strange that I
cannot understand the relation between God in His sovereign work and man?
Fifthly, God's sovereignty and man's accountability are
not contradictory. We may not understand the
relationship, but they do not contradict each other.
They do not contradict each other any more than the growth of a rose bush
contradicts God's providential control of it. In
fact, I make bold to say that a true understanding of man's accountability must rest upon
the truth of God's absolute sovereignty.
Finally, the two fit together in this way. God's will is sovereignly executed in such a way
that at that point where God's will touches upon man's will, man's will is not violated. God does not bypass. coerce, force, override, or
destroy the will of man. God's purpose in His
will comes to pass. Man sins willingly and
deliberately. He is therefore responsible.
You say you cannot
understand that? Well, so what? Tell me one work of the great and glorious God
which you do understand. There is none. Let us bow in reverence and awe before Him Whose
ways are past finding out.
I cannot refrain from one last comment, originally made
by my pastor when I was a youth and my professor in Seminary, Herman Hoeksema. In a speech on the subject of God's sovereignty
and man's responsibility he said something to the effect: If I had to choose between God's
sovereignty and man's responsibility -- I do not have to choose, of course; but if I did
have to choose between the two, give me God's sovereignty.
I join my "yes" to that! Prof. H. Hanko
In connection with a number of questions about life support systems, one of our readers has asked where the soul of person on a life support systems is, and whether or not such a person is really still alive.
These are not an easy questions. With today's technology it is possible to keep the heart beating and lungs functioning when brain activity has ceased. For the doctor or scientist this is no problem since they now define death in terms of brain activity.
Yet Scripture, if it gives any clinical definition of death, defines it primarily in terms of ceasing to breathe. Breath is called "the breath of life" (Gen. 2:7; 6:17; 7:22; etc.). Breath is synonymous with life in a number of passages (Job 12:10; Ps. 146:4; Ps. 150:6). Most significant of all is the fact that the Biblical words translated "breath" are the same words that are translated either as "soul" or as "spirit."
This would seem to mean that the soul or spirit of man departs with his breath, not with the cessation of brain activity. Indeed, if brain activity defines life, does that mean that a "person" born without a brain (encephalic; with only a brain stem) is not really a person at all since he does not have a soul? Also, what about the newly conceived fetus? Is it, as some abortionists claim, no person because its brain is not fully developed.
Such ideas are, obviously, reprehensible to the Christian. Yet it is also difficult to see that a person whose bodily functions including his breathing are kept going only by artificial means, is really alive.
These questions, as we have already pointed out, are not just abstract matters. They are of enormous practical significance when we ourselves or a loved one are on life support systems with little or no evident possibility of recovery. Especially today and with the cost of such treatment, families are often pressed to make decisions about such matters and often without even time to consider them carefully.
For us as Christians, then, the question of withdrawing life support is not just a question of doing what is best for the person himself and for the family. Involved for us is the question of whether the person is really dead and the subsequent question (if there is any possibility that he is not in fact dead) whether we are taking a person's life which we have no right to take.
Here, too, without laying down hard and fast rules or judging the decisions that God's people have made in such circumstances, we would suggest several things in light of the Biblical evidence:
(1) That we not allow ourselves under the emotional strain and distress that is inevitably part of such decisions, to make these decisions as a result of pressure put upon us by doctors or others involved in health care.
(2) That if we are not convinced before God that the withdrawal of life support is right and good, then we not do consent to it against our own conscience, and especially not under pressure from others.
(3) That such decisions not be made without prayer and (if possible) consultation with the pastor or elders of the church or with other Christians in the medical profession.
(4)
That we take into account and take seriously what the Bible says about life and breath,
and even more what it says about these being God's gifts and possession. In these things, too, we must commit ourselves to
HIM (I Pet. 4:19). Rev. Ronald Hanko