Vol. 80; No. 10; February 15, 2004
One-year's trial
subscription—1/2 price!!
EDITORIAL POLICY
Every editor is solely responsible for the contents
of his own articles. Contributions of general interest from our readers and questions for
"The Reader Asks" department are
welcome. Contributions will be limited to approximately 300 words and must be neatly
written or typewritten, and must be signed. Copy deadlines are the first and fifteenth of
the month. All communications relative to the contents should be sent to the editorial
office.
REPRINT POLICY
Permission
is hereby granted for the reprinting of articles in our magazine by other publications,
provided: a) that such reprinted articles are reproduced in full; b) that proper
acknowledgment is made; c) that a copy of the periodical in which such reprint appears is
sent to our editorial office.
SUBSCRIPTION POLICY
Subscription
price: $17.00 per year in the US., US $20.00 elsewhere. Unless a definite request for
discontinuance is received, it is assumed that the subscriber wishes the subscription to
continue, and he will be billed for renewal. If you have a change of address, please
notify the Business Office as early as possible in order to avoid the inconvenience of
interrupted delivery. Include your Zip or Postal Code.
BOUND VOLUMES
The
Business Office will accept standing orders for bound copies of the current volume. Such
orders are mailed as soon as possible after completion of a volume year.
l6mm microfilm, 35mm microfilm and 105mm
microfiche, and article copies are available through University Microfilms international.
For new subscribers in the United States to the Standard Bearer, there is
a special offer: a ½ price subscription for one year--$8.50. Those in other countries can
write for special rates as well to: The Standard Bearer, P.O. Box 603, Grandville,
MI 49468-0603 or e-mail Mr. Don Doezema.
Each issue of the Standard Bearer is available on cassette tape for those who
are blind, or who for some other reason would like to be able to listen to a reading of
the SB. This is an excellent ministry of the Evangelism Society of the Southeast
Protestant Reformed Church. The reader is Ken Rietema of Southeast Church. Anyone desiring
this service regularly should write:
Southeast PRC
1535 Cambridge Ave. S.E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506.
Meditation
– Rev. Rodney Miersma
· They
Preached Christ Everywhere
Editorial
– Prof. David J. Engelsma
Review
Article – Prof. David J. Engelsma
· A
Presbyterian Case for the Baptist Rejection of Infant Baptism
Letters
· A
“Pop Treatment” of Culture
· Needed: A Book on Reformed Worldview
· Response
Search
the Scriptures – Rev. Ronald Hanko
· Haggai: Rebuilding the Church
In
His Fear – Rev. Richard Smit
That
They May Teach Their Children – Prof. Russell Dykstra
· Two
Different Covenants, Two Different Schools
All
Thy Works Shall Praise Thee – Mr. Joel Minderhoud
· All
Creatures Created for the Service of Man
News
From Our Churches – Mr. Benjamin Wigger
· Varia
Meditation:
Rev. Rodney Miersma
Rev. Miersma is a missionary of the Protestant
Reformed Churches, currently serving in Ghana, West Africa.
They Preached Christ Everywhere
As
for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and
women committed them to prison. Therefore
they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
They preached Christ everywhere!
In these first four verses we are
told why this took place. A fierce
persecution against the Jews had arisen, with the result that the Jews were scattered. This was a fulfillment of what Jesus had said
before He ascended, “Ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).
This shows that the persecution
that followed upon the martyrdom of Stephen was futile on the part of the enemy. It did not destroy the church, nor did it thwart
the spread of the gospel. Rather, it was a
means in the Lord’s hand to fulfill His own word of Acts 1:8. In this way the text plainly forms an
integral part in the narrative of “the things which Jesus continued to do and to
teach” (Acts
1:1).
The intense persecution at this
time was led by Saul, who later was to be the apostle Paul.
He had just participated in Stephen’s stoning.
Although he took no active part in the prosecution, he no doubt concerned himself
vitally with the proceedings of the trial. He
undoubtedly came to some conclusions at this time that led to his open opposition against
the cause that Stephen represented. At the
stoning itself, even though he picked up not a stone, yet he participated in that he was
there and in that the witnesses laid their clothes at his feet. In Acts 7:58 we
read, “and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose
name was Saul.” We furthermore read that
he consented unto Stephen’s death. This
he confesses himself in Acts 22:20,
“And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and
consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.”
After that day when he stood by,
he became the leader of those persecuting the church.
Believing that he was doing this for God’s sake, he was very zealous in this
work. He was born a Jew, educated at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the
perfect manner of the law of the fathers (Acts 22:3). He even had the support and the backing of
the council.
He imprisoned many because of
their faith. “Haling men and women”
means that he went into the homes of the Christians, dragged them out, and brought them to
prison. This was of such a nature that Saul
“made havock of the church” in that he ravaged the church as a wild beast
pounces on his prey. Many of these who were
placed in prison also suffered death. “Which
thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of
the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and
when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them” (Acts 26:10). Later, as the apostle Paul, he grieved
deeply because of this involvement.
However, as a result of this
persecution many were forced to flee Jerusalem. And
rightly so. Many people who are fainthearted
flee at the slightest rumor of persecution. But
the saints at Jerusalem fled because they saw that the fury of the ungodly could not be
brought to an end in any other way. Their
flight brought them to all parts of the known world.
One sees the wonderful work of
the providence of God here. This was not out
of God’s control. As Jerusalem for the
Old Testament saints was a magnet to which they were drawn, so now in the New Testament
the saints are propelled from Jerusalem as if by some great centrifugal force. Nothing happens apart from the providential care
of our Father.
God uses even the activity of
sinful men to serve His purpose. An example
of this is Joseph and his brethren. Joseph
says in Genesis
50:20, “ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good.” The ultimate example is that of Christ Himself. Christ was crucified by sinful hands, but that was
the means of cleansing His own by His precious blood.
The middle wall of partition was broken down so that both Jews and Gentiles could
be incorporated into the kingdom of God. Then,
prior to His ascension, the Lord commanded His disciples, “Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations...” (Matt. 28:20).
However, up to the time of our
text, the apostles had no clear indication as to when they were to venture outside of
Jerusalem. But this persecution was the
Lord’s answer and direction at the same time. Thus,
we have an illustration of the providential law according to which what appears to be an
irretrievable calamity is not only overruled, but designed from the beginning to promote
the very cause that it seemed to have threatened with disaster and defeat.
Thus, they preached!
Just exactly what was involved
in their preaching? The word used here is not
the word that means “to herald.” To
herald is to preach officially. This can be
done only by those whom Christ officially calls through the church to be ministers of the
Word. It is this kind of preaching that is not open to everyone.
Rather, the reference is to the
speaking of the gospel to others. This is a
joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all
believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or not ordained. This is the ready answer of I Peter 3:15: “and be ready always to give an answer
to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and
fear.” This includes our whole life,
which must be a living testimony to all those about us that we belong to Jesus Christ. This we confess in the Heidelberg Catechism,
Lord’s Day 32, Q & A 86. “Since then we are delivered from our misery merely
of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works? Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us
by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may
testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings, and that He
may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the
fruits thereof; and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.”
We could ask ourselves a couple
of questions in this regard. How can I in my
life speak the gospel to others? Do I do this
when God gives me the opportunity? It
basically comes down to this, Am I living and manifesting the life of Christ in me in such
a way that I am a living witness of my risen Lord?
God uses means to bring to
others the knowledge of salvation. God has
the ability to save anyone directly, without the use of means. But He has chosen to use means, means that we,
therefore, must use. The first and primary
means is the official preaching of the Word by men ordained for this purpose. Of such the text is not speaking. The means spoken of in the text is the testimony
of God’s people, which gets its strength and power from the primary means. The testimony of God’s people will be in
direct proportion to the Word preached faithfully and purely from the pulpit. Where the Word is preached in all its fullness,
God’s people will be filled to overflowing with the good news of the gospel, which
they will not be able to keep to themselves.
Yes, they preached the Word!
The persecuted ones did not
complain about the abuse of “rights.” Today
when people are displaced, the last thing they think about proclaiming is the good news of
the gospel. Rather they complain how their
rights have been infringed upon and violated. Nor
did these scattered Jews complain about all the social ills that plagued them. No, they presented Christ crucified. In this way they would simply tell what they had
heard from the preacher. At the center of
every sermon there must be Jesus Christ crucified. There
simply is no other gospel. Just take note of
the sermons recorded in the Scriptures.
Having presented Christ they
would then present the wonder of grace whereby God has saved His people. A wonder because of sin. A wonder because of the incarnation, suffering,
death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. All
of salvation is indeed a wonder because it is purely of God’s sovereign grace and no
way attributable to us.
This Christ, this wonder of
God’s grace, they preached everywhere.
There was a mass migration to
many different places. They traveled to
various areas of the known world. In each place they spoke the Word of God. They were not first interested in establishing a
new home. Instead they took the opportunity
to speak to many people.
In
this way the gospel finally went over the whole earth.
Churches were established in many places. God’s
people were gathered from every place. Each
spoke the Word where they were.
We have that same calling today. Wherever the Lord places us by whatever means and
for whatever reason, He calls us to preach the Word both officially and by personal
testimony. God blesses this faithfulness in
the gathering and preservation of His church.
Editorial:
Prof. David Engelsma
Confessional Certainty
Assurance is certainty of
personal salvation.
As the loving Father of His human
family in Jesus Christ, God wills that all His children have assurance. It is not His will that only a very few of His
children, His “best and dearest friends,” as the Puritans and their followers
today call these favored few, ever attain to certainty of salvation.
The previous editorial
demonstrated from Scripture that God wills all His children to have and enjoy assurance.
Certainty
in Q. 1 of the Catechism
That God wills all His children
to have assurance of their salvation is the joyful—and binding—doctrine of the
“Three Forms of Unity, our Reformed confessions.”
Upon the lips of every one who believes the gospel of grace as set forth in the
Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism confidently places this confession:
[My
only comfort in life and death is] that I with body and soul, both in life and death, am
not my own, but belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ; who, with his precious blood,
hath fully satisfied for all my sins, and delivered me from all the power of the devil;
and so preserves me that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from
my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation, and therefore, by his
Holy Spirit, he also assures me of eternal life, and makes me sincerely willing and ready,
henceforth, to live unto him (Q. 1).
This is certainty. The one who confesses has no doubt about his
belonging to Jesus Christ, for his certainty is assurance worked by the Holy Spirit. This assurance is not a doubtful assurance, which
would be no assurance at all.
The assurance of Q. 1 of the
Catechism is certainty of one’s own personal salvation. It is not merely a certainty that Jesus is a
Savior. It is not merely a certainty that
Jesus has satisfied for some people’s sins. It
is not merely a certainty that Jesus would be adequate for my salvation, if some day I
should attain to assurance that He is my Savior. Such
a certainty is worthless. Satan has this
certainty.
The one who confesses the first
answer of the Catechism is certain that “I” myself personally belong to
Jesus Christ, that Jesus Christ is “my” Savior, that Christ died to
satisfy for all “my sins” and to deliver “me” from
Satan’s power, that everything must serve “my salvation,” and that
Christ “assures me of eternal life.”
Belonging to Jesus Christ is “my only comfort.”
This certainty is a reality in
the consciousness of the one who confesses Q. 1 of the Catechism. He does not express wistful hope of eventually
acquiring certainty. He is not voicing an
ideal that everyone should strive for, but that hardly anyone in the church—including
himself—ever attains. He is not promising to seek assurance, until (perhaps) he
obtains it.
To explain the first question
and answer of the Catechism this way (as they must who follow the Puritans in restricting
assurance to only a few special friends of God in the church) is violent wrenching of the
confession.
“What is thy
comfort?” is the question. “What is
the comfort that you personally do truly have and enjoy?” And the living member of the Reformed
congregation—every living member of the congregation—responds by
declaring what is true of him by the Spirit of Christ:
“I have comfort.” “I
belong unto my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.”
“I am certain that Christ ‘hath fully satisfied for all my
sins.’” “Jesus Christ
‘assures me of eternal life.’”
It is possible that a believing
child of God so comes under the power of sinful doubt for a time that he loses his
assurance of salvation and cannot make Q. 1 of the Catechism his own. The reasons for this spiritual disease, as well as
the cure, we consider later in this series of articles.
The Reformed church is compassionate to this member in the preaching. If the sad condition of this member comes to the
attention of the pastor and elders, as it should if it continues for any time, the pastor
and elders are to be pitiful and patient—very pitiful and very patient—with
this diseased soul.
But the presence in a Reformed
congregation of one or two sick sheep is not the same as a church full of members, many of
them adults who have grown up in the church from their birth, who, by their own admission,
do not have, and have never had, assurance of salvation.
These cannot confess Q. 1 of the Catechism.
If they repeat it, they merely recite significant words as they would recite any
other document of general interest, say, the Gettysburg Address, or they lie. Q. 1 is not their confession. They do not know that they belong to Christ. They do not trust that He died for them. Christ does not assure them of eternal life by His
Spirit. They lack the only comfort. If they are honest men and women, when the first
question of the Catechism is read out in church on a Sunday morning they reply in anguish
of soul, “I do not have the only comfort of belonging to Jesus, and therefore I have
no comfort at all—no comfort in living and no comfort in dying.”
Who he is who readily confesses
assurance in Q. 1 of the Catechism, the Catechism itself makes plain in following
Lord’s Days. It is the believer who is
speaking in Q. 1. It is the man, woman, or
child in whom God has worked true faith, so that he or she believes all things promised
him or her in the gospel and trusts in Jesus Christ for remission of sin (L. D. 7). It is every believer who speaks in Q. 1. The Catechism knows nothing of a restriction of
assurance to a few favored believers, mostly old and gray, after they have lived in doubt
for many years.
The one speaking confidently of
his assurance in Q. 1 is identified already in Q. 2:
the man, woman, or child who knows his or her sins and miseries, how he or she may
be delivered from those sins and miseries, and how he or she shall express gratitude to
God for such deliverance.
The certainty of salvation of Q.
1 of the Catechism belongs to every living member of the church. Since, as Q. 74 of the Catechism teaches, the
children of believers are included in the church, also the children and young people of
godly parents have assurance of their salvation and are able to confess the opening
question and answer of the Catechism. Indeed,
Ursinus and Olevianus wrote the Catechism especially for the benefit of the covenant
children and young people. On the lips of
covenant children and young people, as their own truthful confession, did these Reformed
ministers place the words of Q. 1.
Certainty
in the Rest of the Catechism
Q. 1 rules the rest of the
Heidelberg Catechism. Q. 54 has every
believer freely confessing that he is and ever shall remain a living member of the holy
catholic church of Christ. This is assurance
that he is saved: gathered, defended, and
preserved by the Son of God by His Spirit and Word and possessing “true faith.” This is assurance that he will persevere unto
everlasting life and glory: “ever shall
remain” a member of the church. This is
assurance of election by God in eternity: Because
the church is “chosen to everlasting life,” to be member of the church is to be
among the chosen. To know oneself as a member of the church is to know
oneself as one of the elect.
Every believer has this
assurance (such is the viewpoint of the Catechism), and he has it by virtue of faith.
That God wills the assurance of
all His children is expressly stated in Q. 86 of the Catechism. It is the gracious, Fatherly will of God that
“every one [of His elect children, whom Christ redeemed] may be assured in himself of
his faith, by the fruits thereof.” To
realize this gracious will, Christ renews every one of them, so that they do good works as
fruits of faith. The Spirit uses these good
works to assure every one of them of his faith: Where
the fruits of faith are found, there faith must be, which produces these fruits. Assured that he has a true and living faith, every
one of God’s redeemed and renewed children is certain of his salvation, for the
promise is that whoever believes is, and shall be, saved.
The previous editorial pointed
out that the address of the model prayer, “Our Father,” reveals the will of God
that all His children have the certainty of His Fatherly love to them, which is the
assurance of salvation. This certainty of
salvation, without which one cannot pray—and may not “try to
pray”—runs throughout the Catechism’s explanation of the model prayer in
Lord’s Days 45-52. Confidence that God
is become our Father in Christ, which is confidence of our salvation, is the very
“foundation of our prayer” (Q. 120).
Certainty
in the Belgic Confession and the Canons
The Belgic Confession and the
Canons of Dordt are one with the Catechism in teaching that God wills assurance for all
His people, and gives it to them. In these
Reformed creeds are any number of statements expressing that all believers have, and are
expected to have, assurance of salvation. Article
23 of the Belgic Confession affirms that justification, which every believer has by his
faith in Christ, gives “us confidence in approaching to God, freeing the conscience
of fear, terror, and dread.” Article 24
warns that if we found our salvation on our good works we “would always be in doubt,
tossed to and fro without any certainty.” The
implication is that when we found our salvation only on the work of Christ for us, as
faith does, we are not in doubt, but have certainty of our salvation. Article 33 teaches that by the sacraments God
works “inwardly in our hearts” that is, in the hearts of all believers who use
the sacraments in obedience to Christ’s command, “assuring and confirming in us
the salvation which He imparts to us.”
A main purpose of the Canons of
Dordt is to safeguard for Reformed believers the assurance that the Arminian heresy robs
them of. I/12, although recognizing with a
pastoral spirit that some struggle for a time with doubt and that the strength of
assurance, like the strength of faith itself, is not the same for all, declares that all
“the elect … attain the assurance of … their eternal and unchangeable
election.” All attain assurance of their
election in time. In Rejection of
Errors/7 of the first head, the Canons insist that this assurance of election is
“certainty,” repudiating as absurdity the notion of “an uncertain
certainty.”
Canons V/9 declares as glorious
gospel-truth and official Reformed doctrine that “true believers”—all
true believers—“may and do obtain assurance” both of their present
salvation in Christ and of their persevering in the faith unto eternal life. This assurance is “certain
persuasion.” True believers are certain
of the forgiveness of their sins, of being living members of the church, and of eternal
life.
The Canons reject as an error
any teaching that in any way denies or threatens this assurance by all true believers. Such teaching again introduces “the doubts of
the papist” into the Reformed church. This
is particularly true of the teaching that assurance is reserved for a few, favored saints
who enjoy it by a “special and extraordinary revelation.” “Special
revelation” includes mystical experiences, a direct voice from heaven, a strange
event in one’s everyday life, and opening the Bible at random to a supposedly
significant text (Canons V, Rejection of Errors/5).
Certainty,
Not a Problem
What stands out so prominently
concerning assurance in the “Three Forms of Unity,” and can for this reason be
overlooked, is that the certainty of believers is matter-of-factly taken for granted. (Lest any misunderstand, this taking of the
assurance of the believer for granted is faith’s undoubted conviction about faith.) Against the Arminian denial of any certainty of
salvation, the Canons must argue for assurance, but also the Canons regard the assurance
of salvation as the normal experience of all who believe the gospel of grace from the
heart.
Assurance is not a special
problem for the “Three Forms of Unity.” Lack
of assurance by many church members is not a major issue demanding careful attention by
the creeds and virtually controlling the preaching and teaching of the church. Widespread and deep-seated doubt in the church
does not demand all kinds of distinctions among church members, especially the distinction
between a few members who are God’s “best and dearest friends,” who have no
doubt, and the majority who doubt their salvation.
On the very surface of the
confessions, perfectly obvious to everyone, is the truth that the “I,”
“me,” “we,” and “us” who speak or are spoken of in the
confessions are people of certainty. They
are certain about everything. They are
certain about Scripture, about the Trinity, about creation, about angels and devils, about
the fall, about the incarnation, about justification, about the church, and about heaven
and hell. They are also certain about their
salvation: that God elected “us”;
that Christ made satisfaction “for us”; that “we” have faith; that
providence governs all things for “our benefit”; and countless other, similar
expressions, using the first person, personal pronouns.
These “I,”
“me,” “we,” and “us” are believers. They are simply believers. They are believers and nothing more—not old
believers, not believers with great faith, not believers who have struggled and worked
heroically for years in order finally to be able to speak of certainty as the confessions
do, and certainly not believers who presume on special experiences.
This undeniable feature of the
creeds regarding assurance is part and parcel of the fundamental gospel truth that God
saves His elect by faith only.
“Easy believism”
charge the Reformed doubters against the confession that all believers have, and have a
right to have, assurance—full assurance.
Works must be added: the work of
agonizing doubting; the work of ardently seeking assurance; all kinds of works making the
seeker worthy of assurance—worthy of becoming God’s “best and dearest
friend”; the works of doubting, seeking, and striving to be worthy for many years.
To which the Reformed
confessions respond with the testimony of the gospel of grace: by faith alone.
To be sure, assurance is rare
and precious.
It is as rare and precious as
the faith itself of which assurance is an essential element.
And this is the issue.
Review
Article:
Prof. David Engelsma
Prof. Engelsma is professor of Dogmatics and Old
Testament in the Protestant Reformed Seminary.
A Presbyterian Case for the Baptist Rejection of Infant Baptism
The Case for Covenantal Infant
Baptism,
ed. Gregg Strawbridge. Phillipsburg, New
Jersey: P&R, 2003. 330 pages. $16.99
(paper).
A number of prominent Reformed
and Presbyterian theologians, representing almost (but not quite) all the reputedly
conservative churches, argue for infant baptism on the basis of the covenant.
A
Ceremony of (Outward) Dedication
The majority report, again
representing almost (but not quite) all the conservative churches, is that infant baptism
signifies nothing more than formally setting apart the offspring of believing parents for
God. It is merely a ceremony of dedication. It signifies nothing as to God’s salvation of
the infants in their infancy. Most of the
Reformed and Presbyterian ministers who write this book regard the baptized children as
unregenerated members of the church. The
significance of infant baptism is that it puts the children in a privileged position in
the visible church. Through the evangelistic
work of their parents and others, they are more likely to fulfill the conditions upon
which their salvation is said to depend: repentance
and faith.
[Baptized
children] are different from children who are not from believing parents. They are covenant members, and as such are more
privileged (in view of their life inside the covenant), but they are not automatically
saved by their covenant membership (p. 107).
The baptism of a covenant child
is the parents’ declaration that their child belongs to God: “When a child is baptized, his parents
declare that their child belongs to God” (p. 40).
A
Universal, Conditional Promise of Grace
As for any Word of God in infant
baptism, His Word is a conditional promise to every child that is baptized. God promises that He will save the child on the
condition that the child one day will repent and believe.
The
seal [of circumcision in the Old Testament and of baptism in the New Testament] was simply
the visible pledge of God that when the conditions of his covenant were met, the
blessings he promised would apply (p. 15; the emphasis is the author’s).
Describing the Word of God in
infant baptism as a conditional promise of salvation enforces the view of the children as
unregen-erated. Salvation cannot be expected
for them until they are sufficiently mature to be able to fulfill the conditions of
covenant salvation. At baptism, God
“assures us that when such children as this one express faith in Christ, all the
promises of his covenant of grace will apply to them” (p. 28).
This now is the unhappy life of
the covenant in a Reformed or Presbyterian home: Godly
parents are thrust into closest contact, day and night, with spiritually dead children and
young people. The parents can neither worship
with the children, nor rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Worship and nurture require spiritual life. All the parents can do is evangelize the little
unregenerates, pleading with them to fulfill the conditions of salvation.
Since the authors of this study
profess Reformed Christianity, the reader may be excused for asking what has become of the
gospel of sovereign, particular grace in all this exposition of the covenant as it applies
to the children of believers. Does the truth
set forth in the Canons of Dordt not apply to the salvation worked in the covenant? Do professing Reformed theologians, all of whom
advertise impressive credentials of Reformed academic training and achievements in the
Reformed community, really suppose it satisfactory to explain infant baptism as a
universal gracious promise dependent for its fulfillment on the performance of conditions
by unregenerated children?
A
Case for the Baptist Position
The case in The Case is
not, in fact, a case for Reformed covenantal infant baptism at all, but a case for the
Baptist rejection of infant baptism, and an Arminian Baptist rejection at that. It is Baptist doctrine that all infants are, and
must be viewed as, unregenerated. It is
Baptist doctrine that salvation is exclusively a matter of a “conversion
experience.” It is Baptist doctrine that
the sacrament (or ordinance as the Baptist calls it) signifies a decision and act of man,
rather than a decision and act of God. And it
is Arminian Baptist doctrine that makes the salvation promised in the gospel and the
sacraments dependent on conditions that the sinner must fulfill.
If God does not save the infants
of godly parents, in their infancy, and if the sprinkling with water merely means
that the parents declare that they dedicate the child to God, and if God’s
involvement is nothing more than a gracious promise to every child that He will one day
save the child on the condition that that child believes and obeys, the Baptists are
right. Let us have a human ceremony of
dedication for our babies, set about to evangelize them, and, when they one day make plain
that they fulfill the conditions, baptize them as believers. The basis of baptism, in this case (and Case),
is not the covenant of God, but the faith and obedience of the baptized.
A
Mortal Dread of Election
The reason for these Reformed
men’s defending the Baptist view of infants and of dealing with infants is their
mortal dread of divine election. The word may
be mentioned occasionally, but election must not determine the covenant promise and
salvation or enter decisively, if at all, into the explanation of the baptism of the
children of believers (as, of course, it does in Paul’s explanation of circumcision,
the covenant promise, and covenant salvation in Romans 9).
After forty-odd years of
studying the treatment of the covenant by Reformed theologians, I am convinced that
nothing so frightens most Reformed theologians as election.
To scare little children, especially in the dark, one says “Boo!” loudly. If one wanted to terrify most Reformed and
Presbyterian theologians, especially at a conference on the covenant, he would utter a
moderately voiced “Election.”
Twisting
Scripture
Refusal to acknowledge
sovereign, particular grace in the covenant of God with the infants of believers results
in outrageous twisting of Scripture. One
writer in The Case is sorely troubled by Jeremiah
31:31-34, as well he might be. The writer
holds that all baptized children alike are in the covenant.
God at baptism makes His covenant with all of them alike by His covenant promise to
all. But the covenant with all of them is
conditional: God’s act of saving them
depends on their act of obeying Him. Therefore,
the covenant is eminently breakable, not in the sense that some who are in the sphere of
the covenant despise and transgress the covenant, but in the sense that God breaks, or
allows men to break, the covenant that He very really established with them, as much as He
established it with those who persevere.
Jeremiah
31:31-34 contradicts this doctrine of the covenant at every point. The covenant is unbreakable. Every one of those with whom God makes the new
covenant is saved in it and by it. So far is
it from being true that the covenant is dependent upon some act or other of those to whom
the covenant is promised that the covenant itself consists
of God’s putting His law in the inward parts and writing His law in the hearts of the
members of the covenant. That is, the new
covenant in Christ, for this is the grand subject of Jeremiah 31,
is not established by a divine promise conditioned on human obedience. But it is established by a divine promise of
human obedience. God does not promise to save
the members of the new covenant on the condition that they obey Him. But He promises them—all of
them—that He will make them obedient. “This
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my
people” (Jer.
31:33).
Jeremiah 31
poses a huge problem for our writer. He
admits his problem. How he views his problem
is significant: Jeremiah 31
seems to rule out infant baptism. Since, on
the covenant doctrine of the writer, infant baptism means that God establishes the
covenant with all the infants conditionally, that some children fail to fulfill the
conditions, and therefore that the covenant is broken with many, Jeremiah 31
seems to rule out infant baptism. Of course,
on this thinking it rules out adult baptism as well, for also many baptized as adults
prove unfaithful, and perish.
Apparently, it never crosses the
writer’s mind that Jeremiah 31
teaches that God makes the new covenant with Jesus Christ as head of the covenant of grace
and with the elect in Him, including the elect infants.
Jeremiah
31 does not rule out infant baptism. Jeremiah 31
rules out the writer’s false doctrine of the covenant.
Ignoring election and committed
to his doctrine of a conditional, breakable covenant, the writer goes to exegetical work
on Jeremiah
31:31-34. When he has finished, the
passage teaches the exact opposite of that inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by the
prophet. The new covenant is made with many
more than those who are saved in it, is in large part only external, is conditional, and
is breakable. “The new covenant …
continue(s) to include people who become covenant breakers, who benefit only from the
external aspects of the new covenant, and who have never been regenerated” (pp. 173,
174). Only in heaven will the new covenant be
what Jeremiah prophesied. Until then the
covenant is as described by the writer’s exegesis of Jeremiah, that is, completely
different from what it will be in heaven. Fatal
to the writer’s explanation is the teaching of Hebrews 8-10
that the new covenant prophesied by Jeremiah is a reality now.
An
Equal but Opposite Error
As though to balance one
grievous error with another, opposite error, the next-to-the-last chapter, “Baptism
and Children: Their Place in the Old and New
Testaments,” is written by an independent who proclaims that all baptized children
alike are united to Christ. All share in the salvation of the covenant. The implication is that many fall away from
Christ, the covenant, and salvation. A volume
advertising itself as a Presbyterian and Reformed defense of the covenant, particularly as
regards the inclusion of covenant children, denies the preservation of saints.
This denial of the preservation
of saints is startling, but not surprising. The
doctrine that all baptized children are united to Christ is essentially the same as the
doctrine that all baptized children are the objects of the gracious promise of God. Both doctrines teach that many children fall away
from grace. In fact, the current doctrine of
the perishing of children once covenantally united to Christ is the logical and inevitable
development of the older doctrine that God graciously, though conditionally, promises to
save all the children of believers.
In the course of his
contribution, the independent is permitted to advocate child-communion. He castigates Reformed churches that reject
child-communion for destroying the children. He
threatens those who admit children to the Table only in the way of confession of faith
with damnation (pp. 298-301).
A
Blessed Contrast
One chapter outlines the sound
Reformed doctrine of infant baptism. Significantly,
this is the chapter on “Infant Baptism in the Reformed Confessions.” On the basis of the creeds, Lyle D. Bierma
explains baptism as “God’s speaking to us, not our speaking to him.” He is not afraid to affirm, against Jewett’s
challenge to infant baptism, that “the regeneration of elect covenant infants that is
signified and sealed in baptism can take place before or after their baptism.” And in blessed contrast to the emphasis on
conditions and the avoidance of election elsewhere in the book, Bierma maintains that
“the baptism of infants is fully in keeping with this emphasis in the Reformed
confessions on the sovereignty of grace in salvation.”
He continues:
Divine
election, the ultimate ground of our salvation, is unconditional; that is, it is not
conditioned upon any merits or acts or claims of human beings. Likewise, it is only at God’s initiative that
the covenant community of the saved is called into being and continues to exist. It is fitting, then, that baptism—as a sign
and seal of God’s promises of salvation and of his placement of the baptized into the
arena where he brings these promises to fruition—be viewed first of all as something
that God does. Baptism is primarily
God’s speaking to us, not our speaking to him. It
is there that he signifies and seals an operation of grace that he performs
in the context of a community that he has established. How can this salvation sola gratia
(“by grace alone”) be any more graphically demonstrated than in the baptism of a
tiny covenant child—helpless, uncomprehending, and wholly incapable of any
meritorious work? Infant baptism sets before
the church in sacramental shorthand the entire doctrine of God’s sovereignty in the
salvation of the elect (pp. 230-245).
To this account of infant
baptism, every Reformed heart responds with an amen.
In view of the understanding of
infant baptism that prevails in The Case, it is not surprising that Reformed and
Presbyterian people increasingly turn Baptist. Herman
Hoeksema warned of this some seventy-five years ago in the first chapter of his classic
treatise on infant baptism, Believers and Their Seed:
Children in the Covenant:
There
are many in the Reformed churches who still walk about with the question in their souls: how are we to conceive of God’s covenant with
respect to our children? There are many who
remain in the Reformed churches but who by conviction are wholly Baptist. And there are not a few also who openly join with
the Baptists and break with the Reformed churches (Believers and Their Seed: Children in the Covenant, RFPA, repr. 1997, p.
5).
Reformed people ought to read The
Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism to learn the thinking on the covenant and covenant
children that prevails in the Reformed churches. But
they must baptize, receive, and rear their precious children—precious because they
are God’s children, already from conception and birth—on the basis of the
covenant as explained in Believers and Their Seed.
This is demanded by the Reformed “Form for the Administration of
Baptism,” particularly, the prayer of thanksgiving after the baptism of infants.
Almighty
God and merciful Father, we thank and praise thee, that Thou hast forgiven [“hast
forgiven,” not: “perhaps will
forgive”] us, and our children [“our children”—our just
baptized infant children], all our sins, through the blood of thy beloved Son Jesus
Christ, and received us [“received us,” that is, us and our children,
not: “will perhaps receive us, if we
fulfill conditions”] through thy Holy Spirit [whom the infant children have as well
as we their parents] as members of thine only begotten Son, and adopted us to be thy
children, and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism; we beseech thee,
through the same Son of thy love, that Thou wilt be pleased always to govern these
baptized children by thy Holy Spirit [whom they have as well as we their parents], that
they may be piously and religiously educated [“educated,” not: evangelized as though they were little
unregenerated heathens], increase [“increase,” not: some day by a dramatic “conversion
experience” finally make a beginning in spiritual life] and grow up in the Lord Jesus
Christ, etc. (The Psalter, Eerdmans,
1977, p. 56).
Letters
A “Pop Treatment” of Culture
I read your one-sentence review of the book, Redeeming Pop Culture: A Kingdom Approach, and the quotation from the book that followed (Standard Bearer, Jan. 15, 2004, p. 190). I wonder about your judgment of the attitude toward worldly culture shown in the quotation. It seems to me that the author goes along with the trash of the world. A worship service with guitars and praise songs does not seem like a God-honoring service to me, especially when the guitarist and minister are playing and singing “Love Me Two Times, Baby” right after the service, in the sanctuary.
Fred
Ondersma
Grandville,
MI
Response:
Your judgment, I expressed by
describing the book as a “pop treatment” of culture.
— Ed.
Needed:
A Book on Reformed Worldview
I just
finished reading your editorials on “Reformed World-view” from 1998 in the Standard
Bearer,
and I am almost through reading your book Reformed Education a second time. I first read that book after I had been thoroughly
confused about my own worldview and how I would conceptualize it because, to me, it could
never include common grace, but I was not sure what it positively could be.
To give you some background, I
am in my fourth year at Dordt College and actually recently read a book by a prominent
former Calvin College professor that appealed to common grace as the only reason she
studied sociology. Anyway, before I read your
book and that one, I had been struggling with the issue for over a month. I finally met with Pastor Key about it (I’m a
member of Hull PRC), and reading your book resolved most (I think all) of the issues for
me.
However, the chapter on
“Culture in Reformed Education” is the first time I’ve ever seen a positive
explanation of our worldview by anyone in our churches.
Add this to the fact that at Dordt, as a student (especially, but not exclusively
in my education classes), I have been immersed in worldview. Some professors mention
common grace; some do not. One professor
explained that we study psychology because of general revelation, which is a little more
accurate.
What I want to explain is that
in your book, in a few different places, you mention that there has not been enough
development in our churches about a positive worldview (or God’s covenant with
creation?). Sadly, I was nodding in
agreement. I tried to look for literature,
but I couldn’t find any; perhaps I was looking in the wrong places. I was also confused by references to common grace
in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I read for a class)
and by the quote from Herman Hoeksema you cited in your book — because the language
he uses, “redeeming” and “claim for Christ,” probably holds much
different connotations today than it did back then.
Really, the purpose of this
letter is to ask you or someone in our churches to write a book explaining our worldview. I would envision it as a very thorough book,
developing our churches’ biblical views of creation, providence, the covenant of God
with creation, and the fact that everything serves the salvation of the elect, including
the works and products of the ungodly. At
least that’s my understanding of the way in which we should view culture.
I know that I am not the only
person that would benefit from such a book. I
think even those who thoroughly support common grace would benefit from such a book. I read your debate with Dr. Mouw — he seemed
to want to know again and again what other choices there were if one did not believe in
common grace. I even wanted to debate with
him after I read it — I understood where he came to wrong conclusions. However, I don’t remember if you set out a
positive view or not. Still, I think that if
we present what’s wrong without presenting what’s right, it is almost (dare I
say it?) like presenting our sin without presenting salvation.
I think perhaps I am too harsh,
but I want to lay on your heart the need for such literature as described. Perhaps it is already available, then I would
gratefully ask that you could point me to it. If
it is not, I hope that you or another in our churches can write it.
Valerie
Westra
Hull,
IA
Response:
I
agree with your concerns and support your proposal that we produce a book setting forth
the right Reformed worldview. Such a book is
long overdue.
Perhaps a conference in
northwest Iowa on the subject could help fill the lack for the time being.
The Federation of Protestant
Reformed Christian Schools has a special course on worldview that all our aspiring and
younger teachers should take.
I am delighted to learn from a
subsequent letter that you aspire to teach in one of the Protestant Reformed Christian
schools. We must have teachers who, having
thoroughly understood the prevailing worldview of common grace, reject it, root and
branch. We must have teachers who, at the
same time, thoroughly understand, firmly take their stand in, and enthusiastically teach
the world view of Scripture and the Reformed confessions, as maintained — sometimes
more implicitly than explicitly — by the Protestant Reformed Churches.
—
Ed.
Search
the Scriptures:
Rev. Ronald Hanko
Rev. Hanko is minister in the Protestant Reformed
Church of Lynden, Washington.
(Preceding article in this series: February 1, 2004, p. 206.)
Haggai:
Rebuilding the Church
The
First Prophecy (cont.)
7. Thus saith the Lord of
hosts; Consider your ways.
8. Go up to the mountain
and bring wood, and build the house; and I will take pleasure in it, and I will be
glorified, saith the Lord.
As in verse 5, the Lord again
admonishes His people and calls them to self-examination and repentance with the words,
“Consider your ways.” All too often
because we are so sluggish the Word of God must come repeatedly before we are roused from
our sloth and begin to do what God requires. In
this also we are no different from Judah. That
God does continue to send His Word and its admonitions is itself an evidence of His
faithfulness and mercy. Instead of saying,
“Enough is enough,” He continues to call.
In this second call we see
another side of repentance and conversion, that it is not only a turning from sin, but a
returning to God’s ways and to God Himself. God
shows this here by calling the people back to the work of building His house and by
promising that He will bless them if they do turn.
We may never think, though, that
God’s call, this or any other, implies that we have in ourselves the ability or power
to do what God says. There are those who draw
that conclusion, but the biblical doctrine of total depravity, that we can of ourselves do
no good, and the words of Scripture in Galatians
6:17, prove that it is not so, not even with Christians. Of ourselves we can do nothing.
The power to obey is in the
command, and it is there because the command comes from Almighty God. Augustine showed that he understood this when he
said that the command was the grace. That is
an important truth for us all. It is
important for the preacher and elders, lest they begin to think that the power of their
preaching and admonitions lies in themselves, or the power to obey in his hearers. Then they will begin to preach unsound doctrine,
use unbiblical practices, and think themselves more than they are. It is important for those who hear the Word, that
they look to God for the grace and help they need.
Here God calls Judah both to
make the necessary preparation for their work by going into the mountains to gather
timber, and to do the work of building His temple. For
us, however, that house is not made of timber and stones, but it is a spiritual house. The work and the tools, therefore, that belong to
the building of that spiritual house are also spiritual.
Nevertheless, to think of the church as a building helps us to understand how it is
that we fulfill our calling to build.
When Scripture describes that spiritual house, the church, it tells us that the foundation is sound doctrine, the doctrine of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20-22).