Inviting the Curse of God

Have you heard about St. Thomas United Presbyterian in Detroit?  They made headlines recently due to their political and religious activities.  You see the church had the temerity to take out an ad critical of homosexual marriage.  The ad was printed in the Detroit Register at a great cost to the church.   The Rev. Thomas Blinders said that though it cost the church their mission’s budget, that such a message was necessary to, “protect the American dream for our children”.  The church is now in danger of losing its tax exempt status.  The church was also criticized by the local interfaith community due to their teaching that Jesus is only way of salvation.  The accusation of bigotry and intolerance has caused St. Thomas United Presbyterian in Detroit to face this opposition head on.  “We will not be bullied,” Dr. Blinders stated to reporters.  “We have recently enacted a political action committee to meet these threats in kind.”   The church’s normally sparsely attended prayer service was given over to a standing room only political strategy session to regain its good name in the community.   The church has hired a Washington based PR firm to aid them in this quest.  The morning service was given over to a sermon in which the Rev. Blinders laid out the course of action.  Billboard space has been purchased along I-75 and commercials are slated to begin running on local radio and television.  “Our free speech is being threatened and we will not stand idly by and let this happen,” one parishioner told reporters.  “These issues have become the focal point of our attention.  If we do not fight, who will?  It’s ultimately about our children and what it means to be an American!”   The church has vowed to use every source available to them to wage this fight.

Now before you start googling this particular church and wonder why you have never heard of St. Thomas United Presbyterian in Detroit (or STUPID), I will confess that I have made it up.  The scenario which I have laid out may one day happen in our country.  Preaching against homosexuality or continuing to proclaim Jesus as the one way God has appointed for sinners to be saved will become increasingly troublesome.  But the question before us is this:  what will we do when the tide turns?  Who will we turn to for help and protection?  Will we remember that then, as now, that our fight is not against flesh and blood?  We will remember then, as we must remember now that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal?   One of my purposes in the parable above is to demonstrate that the S.T.U.P.I.D. church was prayerless.  They cancelled their prayer meeting.  They called upon men to aid them.  Jeremiah spoke to this issue over 2,500 years ago in words that are very relevant to the prayerless churches of modern America.  

Jeremiah 17:5-8 ⁵ Thus says the LORD:  “Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD.  ⁶ For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited.  ⁷ “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, And whose hope is the LORD.  ⁸ For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit.”

When our churches cancel their prayer meetings due to lack of attendance and lack of interest, what are we saying?   When the prayer meeting is the least attended of all the meetings of the church what are we saying?  Are we not telling God, thanks, we got this one!    We can do this on our own?   I realize that payer meetings often come in the middle of the week (they don’t need to), and that there are many demands upon our time and our families   But I am also aware that  calling down the blessing of God upon our churches and our nations will not take place in beds of ease and without sacrifice.  Will we be prove to be cursed and withered shrubs or flourishing trees rooted by the river?

James Savastio

Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville

Ligon Duncan – How Do I Celebrate The Sabbath As A Busy Pastor?

Big Hearts Don’t Sulk

“My way or the highway!”  This was the attitude of Achilles, the champion Greek warrior, in the Battle for Troy.  General Agamemnon had slighted the superstar’s feelings, so he sulked in his tent, refusing to participate in the battle, resulting in the death of Patroclus, Achilles’ best friend.

In 1 Samuel 8:5-6, Israel rejected Samuel as their leader, asking for a king instead.  The snubbed Samuel counseled Israel that they would regret taking on a king, but the people, “refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and said, ‘No, there shall be a king over us’” (8:19).  But instead of going home and sulking in his tent, big-hearted Samuel took an active role in choosing his successor: “Then Samuel took the flask of oil, poured it on Saul’s head, kissed him and said, ‘Has not the Lord anointed you a ruler?’” (9:1).

W. G. Blaikie writes: “How many a good man (or woman) takes offense when slighted by some committee in connection with a cause which he’s tried to help!  He says: ‘If they won’t have me, let them do without me!  If they won’t allow me to carry out the course I’ve proposed, I’ll have nothing to do with them!”

David Calhoun tells of a big-hearted Samuel-like man who was slighted by his church in a debatable issue: “In 1836 Judge William Gould led a movement at First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Georgia, to buy their first organ.  It was a break with tradition.  In a congregational meeting, one member rose and demanded chapter and verse where the Bible authorizes ‘the worship of God with machinery.’  Nevertheless, the members voted for the organ, and Judge Gould was appointed to raise the money.  Soon after, the Judge ran into Robert Campbell, a member who had opposed the organ.  Mr. Campbell asked the Judge why he had not asked him for a donation.  Gould replied, ‘I knew you did not wish to have the organ.’  ‘That makes no difference,’ said Campbell.  ‘When the majority of the members of the church have decided the matter, it is my duty to put aside personal feelings and assist as well as I may.’” (Cloud of Witnesses, pp 40-41)

Blaikie adds: “You perhaps feel you’ve not been treated by your church (or small group) with sufficient consideration.  You fret, you complain, you stay away from the gathering, you pour your grievances into every open ear.  Would Samuel have done so?  Side by side with his, is not your conduct poor and petty?”

Samuel’s big-hearted refusal to sulk in his tent can be applied in many ways.  A loving wife feels emotionally hurt or offended by her husband’s unkind words or deeds.  Instead of pouting in her silent treatment tent, she keeps selflessly and pleasantly serving him as a Christ-like helpmeet.  Teens as well often struggle with sulking.

Remember: “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; . . . it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered . . . bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8).

Mark Chanski

Reformed Baptist Church of Holland, MI

So Many Books, So Little Profit

Ecclesiastes 12:12 — …Of making of books there is no end, and, much study is weariness to the flesh.

This past week I was in two different bookstores.  The first was at a large outlet mall, and it apparently specialized in getting rid of books that no one wanted to read.  With hardbacks priced from $1-$3 and piled on tables in an all almost overwhelming array, I moved from table to table to table hoping to find a hidden jewel.  After a half an hour of fruitless searching, I thought again of this verse in Ecclesiastes.  Who were these authors that had expended so much time and energy in making this seemingly endless variety of books?  Who were these publishers who somehow thought these books would be a good idea?

The next day I visited our local Christian Bookstore.  I spent a great deal of time browsing among the many books they had to offer.  Thankfully, I did come across some volumes that would be worthy additions to any library.  But again, this proverb came to mind as again and again I found myself thinking, “This is the stuff that Christians are reading?  The Shack is the number one best seller?  These are the things that people are buying?”  It seemed to be a silent and sad commentary on the state of Christianity in America, especially in regards to the feminizing and de-theologizing of the church.

While I was getting help with my order, a lady nearby was studying the shelves intently.  I overheard brief conversations as various clerks came up to help her and eventually I interacted with her myself.  I found she was part of a small group Bible study.  She was taking this study very seriously, and she wanted to be well prepared as they were going to go through a book of the Bible together.

She finally landed on a tome which the store clerk assured would give her exactly what she needed.   The author is a very good and sound expositor of the Word.  However, the study this woman’s group is embarking upon is the Book of Revelation.  The author she had picked is excellent, on almost every subject except for the Book of Revelation.  I wanted to say, “Please, put that down and buy Beale!”  But, Beale’s commentary was nowhere to be found in the store, and neither was Hendriksen’s “More than Conquerors”.  In the end, I said nothing as decorum overruled impulse.  I am sure she bought that Study Bible, and her group will study the book of Revelation, but most likely they will miss the most important and timeless aspects of what Revelation has to say to the church.  John’s Revelation is relevant for today, but not if one reads it with a newspaper in the other hand.

Still, God is sovereign.  No doubt she will read the other more accurate and profitable parts of the Study Bible.  Who knows what God will do?  God may even use a comment to open her eyes to the truths of His sovereign grace.  As I write this, I am sitting in my own library, looking at all the volumes I am blessed to own, more than I will ever be able to thoroughly read.  When people come in to my office they sometimes ask, “Have you read all these books?”  I like to joke, “Some of them twice!”  What’s left unsaid is, “Some of them hardly at all!”

The proverb is true.  The world is full of books (and blogs).  We should rejoice that there is no shortage in the English speaking world of good, sound Christian literature.  More is available now than there was thirty years ago and probably more than there ever has been in history.  But, since life is short, let’s spend our time reading the best things to the glory of God and the profit of our souls!

Steve Marquedant

Sovereign Grace Reformed Baptist Church

Ontario, California

www.sgbc-ontario.us

We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them

First, then, we ought to believe that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth; for what wisdom can we have without the wisdom of God? – John Calvin (Calvin’s Commentaries; John 5:39)

On the Pleasures of Preaching to the Choir

I imagine you’ve all heard the critical phrase, preaching to the choir.  The idea is that you are preaching to people who already agree with you.  Some years ago I began to have a slightly different and liberating take on that phrase.  I learned to preach exclusively to my church, to the people of God under my care, to the people who were sitting under my ministry.    I realized that there were times in my ministry when I would be critical of other churches and other ministries who had no representatives in my congregation.  They did not hear me and most likely never would hear my criticisms and suggestions at how they needed to change.  The end result was not so much faithfulness in exposing false teaching, but rather making ourselves look good.  At some point or other I had a bit of an epiphany that I needed to stop preaching to people who weren’t there and start addressing those who were.   It probably struck me one day when I was preaching about people who are not committed to the life of the church, when the only people who were there were those who were committed to the life of the church!  Those who are not under our ministries are easy targets.  They do not listen to me.  They’ll probably never hear a word I say.  Hence, they do not get offended.  I can be seen as faithful and bold in my denunciations of sins which are not prevalent in my congregation (I rarely have homosexuals or pro-abortionists in my congregation).  It is not that sins brought up in the text ought not to be addressed; it is that they ought to be addressed with special application to “the choir.”   It is this “choir” for whom I will give an account.  It is this “choir” who need my encouragements and my exhortations and, when needed, my rebukes.   For pastors to preach effectively, we must not only seek to know our culture and the world out there, but those who are actually hearing our voices.  Our congregation is made up of a mixture of white collar and blue-collar types.   We range from PhD’s to high school dropouts.  I preach to a lot of home-schooling moms and children who are generally obedient and well behaved.    To rail against feminism and MTV may seem brave, but it is not ministering my particular flock.  I preach to people who, in the main, strive to please God and are faithful to Him. I must not address them otherwise.  Where are they hurting, where are they struggling, what hope, or prodding to they most need?   How do I apply this week’s text to them in their setting at this time?   The answers to those questions are most apt to be found as we love the people of God and are among them.  It is more likely to be found over lunch with a brother or by having a family over for a meal on the Lord’s Day than by reading the trendiest blogs or following the newest theological sensation.  It may seem strange to say that our preaching will improve by getting out of the study, but I believe it will be prove to be the case.  So to my pastor friends-let’s preach to that choir!

James Savastio

Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville

What seemed to be defeat was actually victory

Imagine, for a moment, the reaction of Hell to the death of Christ.  Jesus was bound with the bands of death.  What celebration and joy!  God was defeated!  Vengeance was the Devil’s.  But they reckoned without the wisdom of God.  For Christ could not be held down by the bands of death.  In fact through death He was paralyzing the one who had the power of death, and He was setting His people free (Heb. 2:14-15).  What seemed to be defeat was actually victory.  The Resurrection morning was Hell’s gloomiest day.  Satan saw the wisdom of God and tasted defeat. -Sinclair Ferguson

Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?

We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. —Charles Haddon Spurgeon

There was a time when I called myself a “four-point Calvinist.” There are a lot of people who use that term, and, almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the terrible, horrible, “L”. Limited atonement. There is just something about the term that doesn’t sound right. How can Christ’s atonement be limited? And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself. The “break” in my thinking came from reading Edwin Palmer’s book, The Five Points of Calvinism. [Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 41-55.] In doing a radio program on the truth of God’s electing grace, I was challenged by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. “Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?” I looked at my co-host, and he looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study into that particular question. I grabbed Palmer’s book as soon as I returned home, and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.

I became a full “five-pointer” upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn’t He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn’t He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

I was faced with a decision. If I maintained a “universal” atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then I was forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works. I knew that I was not willing to believe that Christ’s death could not save outside of human actions. So I had to understand that Christ’s death was made in behalf of God’s elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save those for whom it is made. At this point I realized that I had “limited” the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in the Reformed doctrine of “limited atonement,” you believe in a limited atonement anyway! How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is, unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect. You believe that Christ can die in someone’s place and yet that person may still be lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the atonement. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and effect is unlimited! One writer expressed it well when he said,

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons…while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932) p. 153.)

Therefore, we are not talking about presenting some terrible limitation on the work of Christ when we speak of “limited atonement.” In fact, we are actually presenting a far greater view of the work of Christ on Calvary when we say that Christ’s death actually accomplishes something in reality rather than only in theory. The atonement, we believe, was a real, actual, substitutionary one, not a possible, theoretical one that is dependent for its efficacy upon the actions of man. And, as one who often shares the gospel with people involved in false religious systems, I will say that the biblical doctrine of the atonement of Christ is a powerful truth that is the only message that has real impact in dealing with the many heretical teachings about Christ that are present in our world today. Jesus Christ died in behalf of those that the Father had, from eternity, decreed to save. There is absolute unity between the Father and the Son in saving God’s people. The Father decrees their salvation, the Son dies in their place, and the Spirit sanctifies them and conforms them to the image of Christ. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture.

The Intention of the Atonement

Why did Christ come to die? Did He come simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)? Let’s consider some passages from Scripture in answer to this question.

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).

Here the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the reason for His coming. He came to seek and to save the lost. Few have a problem with His seeking; many have a problem with the idea that He actually accomplished all of His mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that He came to actually save the lost. He did this by His death.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15).

Paul asserts that the purpose of Christ’s coming into the world was to actually save sinners. Nothing in Paul’s words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today—that Christ’s death simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came to save. So, did He? And how did He? Was it not by His death? Most certainly. The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom it is made. That is why Christ came.

Christ’s Intercessory Work

But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:24-26).

The New Testament closely connects the work of Christ as our High Priest and intercessor with His death upon the cross. In this passage from Hebrews, we are told that the Lord Jesus, since He lives forever, has an unchangeable or permanent priesthood. He is not like the old priests who passed away, but is a perfect priest, because He remains forever. Because of this He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him. Why? Because He always lives to make intercession for them.

Now, before considering the relationship of the death of Christ to His intercession, I wish to emphasize the fact that the Bible says that Christ is able to save men completely. He is not limited simply to a secondary role as the great Assistor who makes it possible for man to save himself. Those who draw near to God through Christ will find full and complete salvation in Him. Furthermore, we must remember that Christ intercedes for those who draw near to God. I feel that it is obvious that Christ is not interceding for those who are not approaching God through Him. Christ’s intercession is in behalf of the people of God. We shall see how important this is in a moment.

Upon what ground does Christ intercede before the Father? Does He stand before the Father and ask Him to forget His holiness, forget His justice, and simply pass over the sins of men? Of course not. The Son intercedes before the Father on the basis of His death. Christ’s intercession is based upon the fact that He has died as the substitute for God’s people, and, since He has borne their sins in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), He can present His offering before the Father in their place, and intercede for them on this basis. The Son does not ask the Father to compromise His holiness, or to simply pass over sin. Christ took care of sin at Calvary. As we read in Hebrews 9:11-12:

When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

When Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, He did so “by his own blood.” When He did this, we are told that He had “obtained eternal redemption.” This again is not a theoretical statement, but a statement of fact. Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies to attempt to gain redemption for His people! He entered in having already accomplished that. So what is He doing? Is His work of intercession another work alongside His sacrificial death? Is His death ineffective without this “other” work? Christ’s intercession is not a second work outside of His death. Rather, Christ is presenting before the Father His perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our High Priest, and the sacrifice He offers in our place is the sacrifice of Himself. He is our Advocate, as John said:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2. [This passage is often used to deny the specific atonement of Christ; yet, when the parallel passage in John 11:51-52 is consulted, it is clear that John means the "world" to be taken in the same sense that is explained for us in Revelation 5:9-11, where Christ's death purchases for God men "from every tribe and language and people and nation," that is, from all the world.]

Christ’s atoning death is clearly connected with His advocacy before the Father. Therefore, we can see the following truths:

1) It is impossible that the Son would not intercede for everyone for whom He died. If Christ dies as their Substitute, how could He not present His sacrifice in their stead before the Father? Can we really believe that Christ would die for someone that He did not intend to save?

2) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son did not die could receive Christ’s intercession. If Christ did not die in behalf of a certain individual, how could Christ intercede for that individual, since He would have no grounds upon which to seek the Father’s mercy?

3) It is impossible that anyone for whom the Son intercedes could be lost. Can we imagine the Son pleading before the Father, presenting His perfect atonement in behalf of an individual that He wishes to save, and the Father rejecting the Son’s intercession? The Father always hears the Son (John 11:42). Would He not hear the Son’s pleas in behalf of all that the Son desires to save? Furthermore, if we believe that Christ can intercede for someone that the Father will not save, then we must believe either 1) that there is dissension in the Godhead, the Father desiring one thing, the Son another, or 2) that the Father is incapable of doing what the Son desires Him to do. Both positions are utterly impossible.

That Christ does not act as High Priest for all men is clearly seen in His “High Priestly Prayer” in John 17. The Lord clearly distinguishes between the “world” and those who are His throughout the prayer, and verse 9 makes our point very strongly:

I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

When Christ prays to the Father, He does not pray for the “world” but for those that have been given to Him by the Father (John 6:37).

For Whom Did Christ Die?

There are a number of Scriptures that teach us that the scope of Christ’s death was limited to the elect. Here are a few of them:

Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).

The “many” for whom Christ died are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before,

By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)

The Lord Jesus made it clear that His death was for His people when He spoke of the Shepherd and the sheep:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep….just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15).

The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not, for most men do not know Christ, and Christ says that His sheep know Him (John 10:14). Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in Him, “but you do not believe because you are not my sheep” (John 10:26). Note that in contrast with the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ’s sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep! Whether one is of Christ’s sheep is the Father’s decision (John 6:37, 8:47), not the sheep’s!

…just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God….husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:2, 25-27).

Christ gave Himself in behalf of His Church, His Body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If this was His intention for the Church, why would He give Himself for those who are not of the Church? Would He not wish to make these “others” holy as well? Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. Was Christ’s death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not. Did He have a different goal in mind in dying for them? [I am not here denying that the death of Christ had effects for all men, indeed, for all of creation. I believe that His death is indeed part of the "summing up of all things" in Christ. But, we are speaking here solely with the salvific effect of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. One might say that Christ's death has an effect upon those for whom it was not intended as an atoning sacrifice.] No, His sacrificial death in behalf of His Church results in her purification, and this is what He intended for all for whom He died.

He who did not spare His own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us (Romans 8:32-34).

The Father gave the Son in our place. Who is the “our” of this passage? The text says that it is “those whom God has chosen,” that is, the elect of God. Again, the intercessory work of Christ at the right hand of the Father is presented in perfect harmony with the death of Christ—those for whom Christ died are those for whom He intercedes. And, as this passage shows, if Christ intercedes for someone, who can possibly bring a charge against that person and hope to see them condemned? So we see what we have seen before: Christ dies in someone’s place, He intercedes for them, and they are infallibly saved. Christ’s work is complete and perfect. He is the powerful Savior, and He never fails to accomplish His purpose.

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).

Are all the friends of Christ? Do all own His name? Do all bow before Him and accept Him as Lord? Do all do His commandments (John 15:14)? Then not all are His friends.

While we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good (Titus 2:13-14).

Both the substitutionary element of the cross (gave himself for us) and the purpose thereof (to redeem us…to purify) are forcefully presented to Titus. If it was the purpose of Christ to redeem and purify those for whom He died, can this possibly not take place?

She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).

Christ will save His people from their sins. I ask what Edwin Palmer asked me before: Well, did He? Did He save His people, or did He not?

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

This is the common confession of every true believer in Christ. We died with Him, our Substitute, the one who loved us and gave Himself in our behalf.

We have seen, then, that the Word teaches that Christ died for many, for His sheep, for the Church, for the elect of God, for His friends, for a people zealous for good works, for His people, for each and every Christian.

Perfected and Sanctified

One could quite obviously fill entire volumes with a study of the atonement of Christ. [The reader is strongly encouraged to make the effort to read completely a work that stands as a classic in the field: John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ from Banner of Truth, for a full discussion of the issues surrounding the atonement of Christ.] It is not our purpose to do so here. Instead, we shall close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

While we have seen many logical reasons for believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ’s death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does verse 10 tell us? “We have been made holy,” or, another translation would be, “We have been sanctified.” The Greek language uses the perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it possible for them to become holy? Again, these are questions that cannot be easily dismissed. The writer goes on to describe how this priest, Jesus, sat down at the right hand of God, unlike the old priests who had to keep performing sacrifices over and over and over again. His work, on the contrary, is perfect and complete. He can rest, for by His one sacrifice He has made perfect those who are experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in their lives. He made them perfect, complete. The term refers to a completion, a finishing. Again, do we believe that Christ’s death does this? And, if we see the plain teaching of Scripture, are we willing to alter our beliefs, and our methods of proclaiming the gospel, to fit the truth?

What of Faith?

One common belief needs to be addressed in passing. Many who believe in a “universal” or non-specific atonement, assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:

To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:—God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 3….If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp. 61-62.)

Conclusion

Some object to the doctrine of limited atonement on very pragmatic grounds. “The doctrine destroys evangelism, because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don’t know!” Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His Spirit: one that is tailored to seek “success,” or one that is bound to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they did not say, “Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to make His work effective.” They taught that Christ died for sinners, and that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only God’s grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient, and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is not just theoretical, but is real?

The Church needs to challenge the world again with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive—offensive because it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a sovereign Savior who redeems His people.

James White

Derek Thomas interviews Geoff Thomas

Sound Doctrine for Reformed Baptists

The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple, David VanDrunen, ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2004).

This is a book that Reformed Baptists need to read. It addresses a series of issues relevant to our own struggles and identity over the last fifty years, through the lens of the lives and ideas of men universally esteemed in our churches. We are deeply indebted to the faculty of Westminster Seminary. Their lectures, literary productions and personal friendships have helped to mold us into what we are today, and in this volume, even though Reformed Baptists play no part, we can see many things about ourselves.

Robert B. Strimple is the distinguished emeritus professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary California, and this volume is dedicated to him. It was edited by his successor, David VanDrunen. I feel strangely placed to review the book: my office on the Westminster campus is directly between Dr. Strimple and Dr. VanDrunen!

The vehicle of a festschrift is sometimes difficult, since it is the product of diverse authors. At times, contributions are exceptionally useful, while others may be less so, and this volume is no different. Two or three of the essays are perhaps reminiscences rather than academic productions, but their presence does not in any way lower the benefit derived from the whole. The contributors generally sustain a high level of thought-provoking scholarship and analysis, making the time spent in reading the volume worthwhile.

Thirteen articles are included, divided under four heads: Historical Studies; Systematic Theology Among Other Disciplines; Particular Issues in Westminster Systematics; and Westminster Systematic Theology and the Life of the Church. All of the contributors are current or former faculty at one of the Westminster campuses-Philadelphia and Escondido-and thus are colleagues and/or former students of Dr. Strimple.

Seven of the essays are especially good, those by D. G. Hart, Michael Horton, Dennis Johnson, W. Robert Godfrey, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, and John Muether. Dr. Godfrey’s contribution, ‘Westminster Seminary, the Doctrine of Justification, and the Reformed Confessions’ is, as one might expect from a first-rate scholar of the Reformation, a tour de force of enormous contemporary relevance. His conclusion is a clarion call to stand faithfully for this doctrine: “the glory of Christ, the well-being of the churches, and the peace of Christian consciences demand it” (page 148). Amen!

Scott Clark contributes an article on a topic familiar to those who heard him address the 2001 Convocation of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies-the Well-meant Offer of the Gospel. Drawing on the important distinction between archetypal and ectypal theology, Dr. Clark demonstrates that historic Calvinism has always recognized the importance of an unfettered proclamation of the Gospel to the lost. David VanDrunen’s contribution, in which he argues for the centrality of covenant in systematic theology, echoes a presentation he gave to the IRBS Convocation in 2002.

Of great interest is the chapter contributed by John R. Muether, ‘The Whole Counsel of God: Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.’ Muether describes some of the struggles resident among the founders of the OPC, and the role played by Westminster faculty in giving direction to the new church. In essence, he argues that two competing identities were present in the early days of the OPC, described by the participants as American and Non-American Presbyterianism. The American brand was more fundamentalist, with tendencies towards Arminianism and Dispensational premillennialism  while the Non-American brand was more narrowly focused on the historical Reformed confessions. In the eyes of the nativistic group, men like John Murray and Cornelius Van Til (both of whom were non-Americans) were leading the church down a path towards a too narrow and restricted confessional identity. Muether documents how these perceptions led to the founding of the Bible Presbyterian Church. Soon after, another conflict arose, ensuing in the founding of Fuller Theological Seminary. This battle centered on identity: would the OPC reflect an evangelical or reformed ethos? The evangelicals “sought to establish the church’s priorities in fighting modernism and promoting evangelism” (page 233), Ned Stonehouse and Paul Woolley replied that the priority must be a “system of truth” (p. 235-36), i.e. precise theological formulation was central. One sees the difference in the subsequent history of Fuller Seminary!

This is an important book. Dr. Strimple’s career has been distinguished in many ways, and this is an appropriate tribute to a well-loved servant of Christ. I urge all to purchase, read, and consider the things written in it.

James M. Renihan, Dean

The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org

The End of Christian America (Newsweek Magazine)

The columnist Cal Thomas was an early figure in the Moral Majority who came to see the Christian American movement as fatally flawed in theological terms. “No country can be truly ‘Christian’,” Thomas says. “Only people can. God is above all nations, and, in fact, Isaiah says that ‘All nations are to him a drop in the bucket and less than nothing’.” Thinking back across the decades, Thomas recalls the hope-and the failure. “We were going through organizing like-minded people to ‘return’ America to a time of greater morality. Of course, this was to be done through politicians who had a difficult time imposing morality on themselves!”

Read it here

Baptism and Covenant Theology

No Baptist begins to seek an answer to the question “Who should be baptized?” by studying the Bible’s doctrine of the covenants. Rather, he begins with New Testament texts which deal directly with the term “baptize.” In a later study of Covenant Theology, he finds confirmation and undergirding of his conclusions.

1. In the New Testament, we discover the nature of baptism defined. In the definition, something must be said about the person baptized. Its central significance is that the one baptized is said to be savingly joined to Christ. We agree that the definition in the Westminster Confession of Faith is essentially biblical: “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life . . .” (Chapter XXVIII)

2. In every clear New Testament example, the person baptized made a credible confession of faith in Jesus Christ prior to receiving the sacrament. This has been called the Baptist’s argument from silence. But that is an unfair charge. To refrain from a practice on which the Bible is silent is not wrong. But to build a positive practice on supposed but unwritten premises is to build on silence.

Every New Testament text cited to support infant baptism appears empty apart from a strong predisposition to find such texts and presuppositions to impose upon them.

A) Amazingly, Matthew 19:13: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,” has been used frequently by serious theologians to support infant baptism. We share the indignation of B.B.Warfield who said, “What has this [verse] to do with infant baptism?” Some point has been made of the related passage in Mark where Jesus is said to bless the children, and note has been taken of his placing his hands upon them. But, again, we find no solemn ceremony in this passage indicating that the children were acknowledged to be in the covenant of grace. Prayerful calling of God’s blessing upon any child would be most natural apart from such restricted significance.

B) Acts 2:39 has also been pressed into service to support infant baptism. “For the promise is unto you and to your children . . .” Usually the sentence is not completed. But the Scripture goes on, “and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The context has in view specifically spiritual promises, namely remission of sins and filling with the Holy Spirit. These promises cannot be said to attach themselves to all the crowd before Peter (the “you ” of the text), but only to “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” They could not be said to belong to “all that are afar off”, but only to “as many as the Lord our God shall call.” If that phrase qualifies the first and third parties mentioned, it must also qualify “your children”. The promises do not belong unto the children of believers apart from effectual calling. Only those children who receive this saving grace of God may be conceived of as being heirs of the spiritual promises.

C) Household baptisms are called upon, by paedobaptists, as evidence of infant baptism in the New Testament. There are four references: Cornelius (Acts 10), Lydia (Acts 16), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16), Stephanas (I Corinthians 1). None of the references say that infants were in these houses. Finding infant baptism here is built upon the dual assumption that there were infants in the houses and that household must have meant every individual in the household without exception. The last of these is a road we Calvinists have been down with the term “world ” in Scripture. The first is very untenable. But the two together cannot be held; for we find in the Bible itself, the pattern of these household baptisms. All Cornelius’ house gathered to hear Peter’s preaching. The Holy Ghost fell upon all–they all received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. Then, all were baptized. Paul first preached to the jailor’s household. Then, all were baptized. After the baptism, all rejoiced believing in God. Hearing the Word and believing upon that preaching can scarcely be attributed to infants. No doubt, the same pattern adhered to other cases of household baptisms. In Lydia? case, there is the most doubt that a woman in business would be nursing an infant. The Bible does not tell us she had a husband, let alone children. Infant baptism can be found here only by those most anxious to do so.

D) I Corinthians 7:14 is another favorite verse. There we are told that children are “holy”. The text does not have even vague reference to church membership or baptism. It is talking about mixed marriages in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not. The question is whether such a relationship is proper, moral, or holy for those who were converted after marriage to the unbeliever. Paul reasons from the obvious to the doubtful. It is obvious that your children are not bastards. They were born in wedlock. They are holy. Therefore, it ought to be clear to you that your marriage relationship is holy. Don’t feel guilty about it or wish to be free from your obligations. If the word ?oly?suggests a covenant relationship or cultic purity, making the children proper objects for baptism, then the unbelieving spouse is also a valid candidate for the sacrament. The verb “sanctify” has precisely the same root and signification as the adjective “holy.” And it is the holiness of the spouse that the passage belabors.

With such appalling lack of New Testament evidence for infant baptism, those who support such a practice have rapidly retreated to Old Testament texts and an argument from the unity of the covenants. The practice of baptizing infants of believers is founded on Old Testament Scripture, or upon texts of the New Testament where suitability for baptizing infants is read into them with a predisposition and presupposition drawn from the Old Testament.

I. HISTORIC COVENANT THEOLOGY AND INFANT BAPTISM

The argument has hung upon a syllogism that goes something like this: There is a unity between the Old and New Covenants. Circumcision in the Old is parallel to baptism in the New. Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New. Many tell us that this syllogism is so strong that New Testament silence is a major argument in favor of their position. The New Covenant is so like the Old, and baptism so parallel to circumcision, that unless the New Testament absolutely forbids the baptism of infants, it must be practiced.

As B.B. Warfield said, “It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants and no passage so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage, we would have to leave it completely unjustified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament where the church was instituted and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now.”

1. Immediately we Baptists raise our first objection. There is here a serious hermeneutical flaw. How can a distinctively New Testament ordinance have its fullest–nay, its only foundation–in Old Testament Scripture? This is contrary to any just sense of Biblical Theology and against all sound rules of interpretation. To quote Patrick Fairbairn in The Interpretation of Prophecy, “There cannot be a surer canon of interpretation, than that everything which affects the constitution and destiny of the New Testament church has its clearest determination in New Testament Scripture. This canon strikes at the root of many false conclusions and on the principle which has its grand embodiment in popery, which would send the world back to the age of comparative darkness and imperfection for the type of its normal and perfected condition.” If you allow Old Testament examples to alter New Testament principles regarding the church, you have hermeneutically opened the door to Rome’s atrocities. It is upon such rules of interpretation that the priest and the mass have been justified. We find the clearest expression, of that which is normative for the New Covenant’s ordinances, in the New Covenant relation.

2. Beyond this, there is a theological flaw. It is nothing new for Baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology. They have done so since the Seventeenth Century. We conceive of God’s dealings with man in a covenantal structure. We believe that every covenant made with man since the Fall is unified in its essence. In all ages there has been one rule of life–God’s moral law. God’s standard of righteousness was the same before Moses received the Ten Commandments, and it is the same today. There has been but one way to salvation in all historic covenants since the Fall. The Gospel by which Adam was saved is the same as that by which we are saved. Genesis 3:15 declares a salvation that is wholly of grace through faith in Christ. The basic differences between the covenants of history in these essential matters are those of Biblical Theology. The promises of the Gospel have become more clear with each succeeding age of revelation, though the promises have been identically the same. The moral law has been more fully expounded, though never changed. So we agree about the unity of the covenants recorded in the Bible. But paedobaptists have been negligent in defining the diversity in the administrations of the Covenant of Grace. As dispensationalism has erred when it has failed to see the essential unity of the covenants since the Fall, many serious errors have arisen from a failure to acknowledge diversity in these historic covenants. An example may be seen in the Reformers?failure to distinguish church and state. In the administration under Moses, the church was coextensive with the state. In the administration of Christ, the extent of church and state are not to be thought identical. In the Mosaic economy, magistrates administered the church and prophets made their authority felt in government. In the Christian administration of Grace, a strict sense of the church separate from the state must be maintained. We must define the diversity as well as the unity.

Paedobaptists have unconsciously recognized a difference between the Old Testament and New with respect to the constitution of the church and subjects of their ordinances. In the Old Covenant, adult sons and servants were circumcised, and thus incorporated into the visible church. Now, only the infants of believers are baptized. In the Old, children came to the Passover at a very young age. Now small children are not admitted to the Lord’s Table. Whence this change? When the principle of diversity is formulated, it will exclude infants from the sacrament of baptism. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is pivotal to expressing the diversity of covenant administrations. It is quoted in Hebrews 8 and again in 10 to prove that “Christ is mediator of a better covenant.” There is an emphatic contrast made in verses 31 and 32. The differences are so striking and dramatic that one covenant is called “new” and it is implied that the other is old. The Jews under the Old Covenant were warned that revolutionary changes would be made. The covenant in force was inadequate except to prepare for the New. So surpassing is the glory of the New, that it should lead them to look for the demolition of the Old. The passage suggests two vital distinctions ushered in by the effusion of the Spirit. This effusion made a change in administration possible.

The first difference is found in verse 33 of Jeremiah 31. The Old Covenant was characterized by outward formalism. The New would be marked by inward spiritual life. This is not an absolute distinction but it is a marked contrast. Of course, there was spiritual religion and heart commitment to God in the Old Testament. Abraham’s faith would put ours to shame. We must wonder if any but Christ Himself ever equaled the prayer life of David addressed in the Psalms. Moses spoke to God as face to face. Yet, these are refreshing streams in the midst of Old Testament attention to outward, formal, national religion. There is a mass of outward rules, a history of formal religion, a ponderous identification of church and nation. Relatively little attention is given to inward life. If a man is circumcised, he is counted a Jew. If he is conformed to outward practices, he is called clean and welcome at the ceremonies of worship. Paul tells us that this system of religion was like the strict tutor who tells a child what to do at every turn.

But the New Testament church is come of age. It is, by way of contrast, inward, spiritual and personal. Certainly there is outward formality in the New Covenant, but it is minimal; and the most formal ceremony calls attention to the inward. The New Testament presses personal self-examination everywhere and constantly makes spiritual application of its truths. There is a notable shift to questioning experience of grace at every point.

Verse 34 of Jeremiah 31 suggests the second distinction. There will be a marked contrast in the knowledge of those in the New Covenant. As the coming of the Spirit will add a new dimension of life to the church, so He will add a new dimension of light. “From the least to the greatest” in the New Covenant will know the Lord. The subject matter of their knowledge will not be shadows but the living reality of Christ. The mysteries hidden in the Old will be made known to them. The manner of instruction will shift from repetitious ceremonies, for they will all know the Lord. So then, we will expect the New Covenant to stand in contrast with the Old in that its members have greater life and light.

This diversity is nowhere more evident than in the ceremonies of worship. New Testament worship presents us with a most striking contrast with Old Testament ordinances. This can be illustrated by looking at the Lord’s Supper, which finds a counterpart in the Old Testament Passover. The great spiritual truth of redemption by blood is figured in the Passover, but it is somewhat obscured beneath an outward and formal atmosphere. Then, too, the ceremony mixes the figures of personal redemption and national deliverance. Even those who had no acquaintance with spiritual redemption observed it. This they should have done; for their national life arose from the historic event remembered. Very young children came to the Passover as participants that, by it, they might ask the significance and as they grew older, come to understand the redemption figures. (cf. Exodus 12:24-27, etc.)

In the New Testament, things are quite different. I Corinthians 11:23-30 gives instruction for the most formal ceremony of the New Covenant. Here very young children must not come. Only the “worthy” with “discernment” are welcome at the feast remembering our redemption. It is not marked by any of the nationalism of the Old Covenant. Each person is charged to “examine himself” before daring to partake. He must find himself “worthy”–a personal recipient of grace. He must have “discernment”–that inward, spiritual light that peculiarly marks this covenant. Light and life are prerequisites of joining this most outward and formal act of worship.

The same is true of the waters of baptism. This ceremony does not desert the New Covenant’s pattern to revert to the Old. It belongs to those who are “worthy” and have “discernment”. Repentance and faith are everywhere demanded as prior conditions for baptism.

To summarize: IN THE OLD COVENANT, ALL THAT WAS SPIRITUAL WAS IDENTIFIED WITH AN OUTWARD NATION. IN THE NEW COVENANT, ALL THAT IS OUTWARD IS IDENTIFIED WITH A SPIRITUAL NATION.

3. Then, there are a number of exegetical flaws in the paedobaptist theology.

A) Many have reasoned thus: “Infants of believers were circumcised in the Old Covenant. Therefore, infants of believers should be baptized in the New.” Though in Abraham’s case faith preceded circumcision of his children, this cannot be said to be the rule of the Old Covenant rite. There were times when faith in the subjects of circumcision or in their parents was all but ignored. In the time of Joshua, an entire nation was circumcised in a day. There was no concern for personal election or personal faith. It was clearly administered as a sign of the outward privileges in belonging to the elect nation. Circumcision was never withheld because a parent had no faith. Even when the prophets denounced the Jews for being uncircumcised in heart, they did not suggest that the sons of these unconverted Jews be excluded from the rite of circumcision. To attempt to find a warrant for seeking faith in the fathers of those who are baptized in these Old Testament texts is wholly unsatisfactory.

B) It is also said that just as baptism is a sign of heirship to the spiritual promises of grace in the New Covenant, circumcision was a sign of heirship to the same spiritual promises in the Old. This is only partially true. Baptism is a sign of spiritual blessing in Christ and only that. Circumcision, too, depicted unity with Christ in His death and heirship to spiritual blessings (cf. Colossians 2:11-13). But there was more to its significance. The distinctive aspects of the covenants cling to their signs just as surely as the common elements of the covenants do. In the Lord’s Supper and the Passover, redemption by blood is signified. Yet, they differ in this: The Old ceremony suggested the outward and national aspect of that administration. The New ceremony stresses the inward and personal aspect in its administration. So circumcision could be given to 13-year-old Ishmael, who, Abraham was assured, would not be a partaker of the spiritual blessings. But for him and other non-elect Jews, it was proper by circumcision to be identified with the outward aspects of blessing and administration. It was proper to be circumcised as the literal seed and heir of the literal land and as one by whom, according to the flesh, the Messiah would come, while not being of the spiritual seed and heir of heaven. Baptism has no merely earthly significance. There are no blessings figured in it that can be conceived of apart from an experience of grace.

C) Much weight has been placed on the formula “Thee and thy seed” in Genesis 17. Paedobaptists insist upon an outward, literal significance of the term “seed.” In their scheme, the New Covenant counterpart to Abraham’s seed is the physical offspring of believers. This is done while totally ignoring the fact that the New Testament says a great deal about the Covenant with Abraham, for it is central to New Testament religion. Romans 4, Romans 9, and Galatians 3 and 4, especially Galatians 3:7, belabor the point that believers, and believers alone, are the seed of Abraham. These texts further insist that the promises which are spiritual and eternal belong to no physical seed.

Romans 9 discusses Abraham’s immediate, physical offspring. Some were of the flesh; some of the spirit. There was a personal election within the family election. Abraham could not look upon his own immediate seed as heirs of the promises. “They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (v.8) How can believers today lean upon the promise to Abraham which is clearly interpreted in the New Testament and find for themselves a greater expectation for their children than Abraham had a right to? The New Testament is not silent about this seed. It tells us they are believers alone!

4. Lastly, there are practical flaws in the paedobaptist theology. Those who sprinkle infants are on the horns of a dilemma. Either they must tamper with the definition of baptism to make it signify something less than personal spiritual union with Christ as the Bible clearly teaches; or they will be driven to teach infant salvation or presumptive regeneration. If the first course is chosen, one must also corrupt the New Testament view of the church and its discipline. If some who are less than saved are properly to be considered as members of Christ’s body, there is a great deal of stress with the New Testament’s view of membership and fellowship. If the second course is chosen, one’s pedagogy will be affected. How are parents and pastors to address the children if they are viewed as joined to Christ? Unfortunately, much paedobaptist literature written for children reflects a tendency to address them as believers, not as in need of evangelism. Note the interesting historic dispute on this subject by paedobaptist theologians J.H.Thornwell and R.L.Dabney on one hand, and Charles Hodge on the other.

II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

I can sympathize with students who are wrestling with the problem of baptism. I can remember when I wished to be convinced of the paedobaptist position. There would be many practical advantages. Another forceful factor is the great history of godly men who were paedobaptists, especially the Reformers and Puritans. But as history gave me the problem, so it has suggested a solution. Paedobaptism is clearly tied to sacralism in church history. After Constantine and his associates succeeded in getting across the idea that church and state are coextensive, baptism identified a person not only as a member of Christ? church but also as a citizen of the state. The Anabaptists in the Middle Ages were not so concerned about the subjects and mode of baptism as they were about the purity of the church. Believer’s baptism has always naturally followed the concept of a believer’s church. When Zwingli worked closely with Anabaptists (whom he later helped to condemn to death), he had a rather different view of the church from that which he adopted later. Consequently, he had a believer’s baptism view. But when he moved to the concept of a state church, he vigorously defended infant baptism.

So, too, in England. So long as the concept of a state church reigned, there was very little interest in a baptism position. But as soon as the separatist movement arose, the Baptists emerged naturally from the paedobaptist midst. Just as the sacralist principles were drawn from the Old Testament improperly, so the retreat from national religion to family religion has rested upon Old Testament practices. Once the constitution and discipline of the New Testament church has been rightly conceived, the hangover of infant baptism must fall way.

These are issues over which we do not wish to lose fellowship with paedobaptist brethren. Yet, they are principles which we will not jettison for the sake of fellowship.

Walter Chantry

Spanking Evangelism

My kids are past the age of spankings.  When they reminisce at the dinner table, they narrate their often embellished accounts of their childhood discipline.  They remember things that I’ve forgotten (that’s not unusual these days).  But I rejoice to tell you that they remember the love expressed in the discipline.  Now, I did not enact every exercise of discipline in the manner that I am about to describe, but I attempted to implement an evangelistic strategy in the discipline of our children.  Today my children acknowledge my evangelistic efforts when they recount their respective criminal histories and recall the judicial proceedings that ensued.  I use forensic terminology intentionally.  In our home, disobedience was a crime against domestic law which required a visit to Daddy’s court.

When I called court into session, the criminals would come and stand before the Judge.  They would give their testimonies, level their charges, accuse and protest.  Judge Dad would quell the tumult to ascertain what happened.  Through a series of questions, I would arraign the defendants and we would all settle on a statement of facts.  Yes, this one provoked that one by doing or saying that, and that one, in turn, responded by doing or saying that.  Those are the facts.  Everyone agreed on what had happened.

The Judge would then identify the crime and press the defendant to take responsibility for his behavior and to confess his guilt.  With guilt now confessed, I would then pronounce the sentence. Usually the punishment was one swat for each infraction.  I tried to own the conscience of the child and get the child to agree that the punishment fit the crime.  There were times when the punishment was either waived or unexpectedly diminished (“Wow Dad, I hardly even felt that!”).  But the norm was one swat per violation.  When the time for execution came, all in the courtroom agreed that justice was being upheld.

The Executioner (me) would compel the criminal to assume the correct posture to insure that the impact of the belt landed on the buttocks where the momentary sting would be safely absorbed.  After the impact, the sting would resonate for a moment and usually trigger tears, both from the physical discomfort and the emotional resolution of finally having the crime paid for.

Then it was time to receive the chastened child back into the domestic society.  Those were tender times.  The little one would climb onto my lap as I consoled him in my embrace until his tears subsided.  I’d ask “What have you learned?”  I would hear fresh acknowledgment of having done wrong, expressions of repentance, and renewed determination not to be disobedient again.  Then it was time for “spanking evangelism.”

I would remind the child that in Daddy’s court, I am required by God to execute justice and righteously punish domestic crimes.  In my court, criminals must bear their guilt and assume their punishment.  The child innately understood that it was right and good that criminals should be punished.  Then I would remind them that their disobedience, however, was also a crime in God’s court.  “Son, when you hit your brother, which of God’s Ten Commandments did you break?”  If he didn’t know, I would tell him and if he knew, I would bring him to acknowledge that he had broken the sixth commandment.  “Son, what punishment do you deserve in God’s court?  What does God do to those who break His Law?”  I can remember seeing my children awaken to gospel realities.  They were taught and understood that God righteously sends lawbreakers to hell.  There, exposed and guilty of their sin, they experienced the realization that they deserved God’s wrath for their sin.  Yes, the awareness of deserving to go to hell is frightening.  As unnerving as it is, it is still necessary that even a young sinner come to terms with the righteous proceedings of the Holy God.  Indeed, the sooner the better.  It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God at any age!

Over the course of the years of corporeal punishment, I repeatedly told my kids that God’s court has something no other court in the world has: the cross of Jesus.  Guilty sinners can either be punished for their sins themselves in an eternal hell, or they can join themselves to Jesus by faith, and receive the benefit of His death and resurrection.  God is just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:26)  God’s wrath is satisfied by Jesus’ death for all who trust in Him.  God forgives the believing sinner and credits Jesus’ own obedience to him.  In union with Jesus, the believing sinner is justified, accepted, and made legally right with God.  We all enter God’s court as guilty sinners.  There are only two places were God’s holy wrath is vented against us in our sin: either in hell or in the cross of Jesus.  I tried to explain those sober gospel truths simply to my children and then I’d ask, “Do you want God to punish you for your sin, or do you want Jesus to take your punishment for you?”  Of course, the best option is to have Jesus assume the punishment!

At that point I would have him pray and express his trust in Jesus.  I’d tell him to speak to Jesus and confess the sin that he committed and specify the law that he had violated.  I’d have him recount the essential facts of Jesus’ substitutionary death and resurrection.  I’d put Scripture promises into his mouth and urge him to ask Jesus to forgive him.  I’d encourage him to thank Jesus for His mercy and to request the Holy Spirit to enable him to stay away from that sin and to teach him to be obedient.  I recall after one such evangelistic effort asking my young son after he had prayed if the Lord had forgiven him.  He said that He did.  I asked “Why?”  My son said, “Because I am very sorry and I don’t want to be bad again.”  I took that opportunity to tell him that we are forgiven, not because we feel bad enough, but because of the full sufficiency of the work of Jesus.  God forgives us because of what Jesus has done for us, not because of our repentance or resolve.  We must believe in Jesus, not in our own repentance.

Once forgiven by the Lord, I would then direct the restored criminal to reconcile with me, his Mom and his siblings.  I would insist that he acknowledge his sin and that he request forgiveness.  He was to offer his repentance and we were to bestow forgiveness.  For him simply to say, “I’m sorry,” was insufficient.  Repentance requires more than making an observation about one’s feelings.  “Do you forgive me for hitting you?”  “Yes, I forgive you.”  I insisted upon a gospel transaction in which the offender offered his repentance and the offended bestowed his forgiveness.  Hugs would bring the matter to a happy resolution and off they’d go, to get into more mischief and inevitably require more “spanking evangelism.”

Yes, “spanking evangelism” takes time and is seldom convenient.  Discipline your son while there is hope, and do not desire his death. (Prov 19:18)  Corporeal discipline should be employed early on in the life of the child.  As their capacity to reason and their conscience matures, you should incrementally diminish the use of the rod and increase your appeals to their judgment.  Help them to think through and internalize the principles of biblical obedience, motivated by a love for Jesus.  Pray, instruct, exemplify and discipline in gospel love.  Water the seeds of the gospel that you have planted in your kids through the course of their childhood.  May the Spirit use your parenting to transform your physical children into your spiritual siblings.

Alan Dunn, Pastor

Grace Covenant Baptist Church

Flemington, NJ