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. 6
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Contents:
Baptism and Circumcision
Jesus’ Prayer in Gethsemanae
Does God Offer Salvation to All?
One of the arguments for family or infant baptism is the correspondence between baptism and circumcision. This is not so easy to see, since the outward signs appear to be so entirely different from one another.
The point is, however, (1) that what we refer to as baptism and circumcision are only the signs; and (2) that as far as the meaning of these signs is concerned, they are exactly the same! The reality of circumcision is exactly the same as the reality of baptism.
Both circumcision and baptism are (we are now referring to the real circumcision and baptism, not the signs) pictures of salvation and especially of that which is most important in our salvation, the removal of sin by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. This is clear in the case of circumcision from Deuteronomy 30:6 and Colossians 2:11, and in the case of baptism from Romans 6:6 and I Peter 3:21.
Especially because both symbolize the heart of our salvation this is very important. To say that the two are different is to fall into the error of dispensationalism and to say that there are two different ways of salvation in the OT and the NT. Most Baptists try to avoid this by insisting, in spite of Deuteronomy 30:6, and Colossians 2:11, that circumcision in the OT was not a sign of salvation but some sort of mark to identify the members of the nation of Israel.
This Paul rejects in Romans 2:28, where he insists that the outward circumcision is not the real thing at all and that, therefore, to be a Jew outwardly is nothing - that the only circumcision is that of the heart and the only Jew he who is one inwardly. All those who wish to maintain that there is something special about being a natural descendant of Abraham ought to read this passage.
Why then the difference between the outward signs of circumcision and baptism? That is easy to see in light of the chief difference between the OT and the NT. In the OT all those things that pointed ahead to Christ involved the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22), but once the blood of Christ was shed there could be no more shedding of blood (Heb. 10:12).
That is the only difference between circumcision and baptism. In meaning and reality they are exactly the same. Thus, too, Scripture itself identifies them in Colossians 2:11, 12. Perhaps because this is one long sentence in two verses, we are inclined to miss the point Paul is making: to be circumcised is to be baptized!
This is in fact one of the main points of the chapter. Speaking to Gentile believers, he is saying to them that they have all things in Christ (v. 10), including circumcision! They lack nothing at all in Christ in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily (v. 9).
That circumcision and baptism not only have the same meaning, but are
the same as far as their spiritual realities are concerned is the reason, we
believe, that their outward signs must be administered (under the one everlasting covenant
of God) to the same people (including infants) in the OT and in the NT. Ron
Hanko
And [Jesus] went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. Mt. 26:39, 42
The specific question which we face in connection with this text
is: "Why did Jesus pray in the garden that the cup would pass from Him when that was
His reason for coming to this earth -- to die for the elect?"
I am sure that we are unable to answer this question in any kind
of satisfactory way. The mystery of this
prayer is so great, and the agony of our Lord which is expressed in the prayer is so
intense that one can hardly bear to watch the scene which unfolded in the garden on that
dreadful night. But the mystery of it is the
great mystery of the ages: God become flesh to dwell among us; Immanuel; God with us.
The problems are many. Our
Lord Who prayed this heart-breaking prayer was Himself "very God of very God." He was personally the second person of the holy
trinity, and He was, in His divine nature, fully and completely God. Yet He prayed to His "Father." And His Father was the triune God, not the first
person of the trinity.
Only in His human nature, as He united the human with the divine
in His own divine person could He pray this prayer. For
it was a prayer of suffering beyond human endurance.
And God cannot suffer as we do. Christ
is here totally and completely human, like us in all things, though without sin. Christ is the only One Who could really sing Psalm
40: "I come to do thy will, O God; in the volume of the book it is written of
me" (vss. 6, 7; see also Heb. 10:5-10). Here
too, in Gethsemanae Christ came to do the will of His Father: "Nevertheless, not as I
will, but as thou wilt."
Yet, at the same time, Christ prayed that the cup which He was
now called to drink might pass from Him. How
real the prayer was! How great the agony
expressed in it! Our Lord sweat drops of
blood in the agony of His soul! "I come
to do thy will . . . not my will."
The scene is so utterly beyond our comprehension that the
Scriptures themselves draw a veil over it and will not let us see that agony of the
Savior. But in Hebrews 5:7-9, the Scriptures
pull aside the veil just a little so that we may have some inkling of what happened:
"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with
strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in
that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he
suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them
that obey him."
"Though he were a Son!"
We should really leave the little word "a" out, for it is not in the
Greek. "Though he were Son!" Even though He was the eternal Son of God, "very God of very God," yet He had
to learn obedience by the things which He suffered! We
have to learn obedience -- sometimes in very difficult ways. He too had to learn obedience! I marvel.
So what shall we say? Whatever
may be the depths of the meaning of those words in Heb. 5, one thing is sure: our Lord
never wavered for even a moment from His determination to save His elect. Not even in the Garden.
What does seem to be true is that momentarily, caught up in the
horror of the suffering of the cross, the Lord conceived of some other way in which He
could save His elect, some other cup to drink, some other suffering that would redeem His
own precious people. The emphasis must, I
think, fall on the "this:" "Let
this cup pass from me." "Is
there not some other way, O my Father, to save my people than that awful way of the
cross?" The answer, however, was:
"No. No there is not. This is the only way." But angels came to strengthen Him!
It was not the terrible physical suffering of crucifixion that
frightened the Lord. It was the thought of
being forsaken by His heavenly Father. He had
said all His life: "The lovingkindness of my God is more than life to me"
(Ps. 63). God's favor was more than life! Had He not Himself said, "Now is my soul
troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I
unto this hour. Father, glorify thy
name" (Jn. 12:27, 28).
Forsaken of His Father. Even
an earthly son cannot bear to have his father angry with him. How much more Christ? And yet the cross meant exactly what our Lord
expressed on the cross: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
The horror of being forsaken of His Father Whom He loved was all but too much. "Father, if it be possible . . . ." But it is not possible. It is not possible for only one reason: the greatness of our sins. Our sins required this agony in order to be forgiven, this awfulness, this suffering, this abandonment. No wonder that, when we see our Lord again, with His blood-streaked face, but now composed and calm, ready to go to Calvary, at peace with Himself and with God, it is almost more than we can bear. Our hearts nearly break.
Let us read it again. It
is all there. "Though he were Son, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became
the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:8, 9) Prof. H. Hanko
In connection with our articles on hyper-Calvinism, one reader has responded as follows: "I found your articles on Hyper-Calvinism very good.... My reservation re the Hyper articles is your denial of the free offer of the gospel (see attached cutting from ‘Calvin's Wisdom' by Graham Miller) as by denying the free offer you are yourself a Hyper-Calvinist (but not as high as some)!"
It is indeed true that we reject the so-called "free offer of the gospel," or "well-meant offer," as we prefer to call it. We would emphasize, however, that our objection is not so much to the word "offer" as to the theology behind that word.
We have no difficulty, for example, with the statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that God "freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ" (VII, 3). This is, however, further defined there as God's: "requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe."
Here the "offer" of the gospel is understood to refer to (1) the gospel call to faith and repentance; and (2) the promise of God (to the elect only) that He will be gracious to them and give them what He requires. The word "offer" may not be the best word to describe this, but we are not going to quibble about the word itself.
What we object to is the theology that lies behind the common use of the word "offer" today. When today people speak of the offer of the gospel they mean something far different from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The word "offer" today is usually used to teach that God loves all men without exception, and in that love "holds out" salvation to them with the desire that every one of them receive it. God, it is said, wills the salvation of all men and expresses in the gospel the desire and intention that all without exception be saved. To this we object.
Some even go that step further and say that God actually has something to "offer" them. He sent Christ to die for all without exception, and therefore salvation is available to all and can be offered to all. To this also we object.
Such notions conflict with the Biblical doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. If God willed the salvation of some only in eternity, how can He will the salvation of all in the gospel? If Christ did not die for all, what does God have to offer to all? If God's grace is all-powerful and He desires the salvation of all without exception, why are all not saved?
That
theology was also rejected by Calvin, though he often used the word
"offer." To give just one quote,
Calvin says, "After this, Pighius, like a wild beast escaped from his cage, rushes
forth, bounding over all fences in his way, uttering such sentiments as these: ‘The
mercy of God is extended to every one, for God wishes all men to be saved; and for that
end He stands and knocks at the door of our heart, desiring to enter'" (Treatise
on Predestination, p. 152). Ronald Hanko
For
audio sermons, access: www.HudsonvillePRC.org
For words of comfort,
access: www.MyOnlyComfort.org