Salvation By Grace » Uncategorized

Collin Hansen on Social Media

Harry — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 20:35:00 +0000

We walk on a foundation of individualism and suck in the air of postmodernism, thick with the heavy dew of multiculturalism. Absent today are the ties that bind. Never before has a generation so desperately needed the local church, the communion of saints, to help them follow Jesus. God has been faithful to preserve this place of authentic community in our culture. The Word says we have a duty, responsibility, and obligation to our neighbors, especially those in the household of faith (Luke 10:29–37; 1 Tim. 5:8). We may yearn for the freedom to express ourselves with the aid of social media, but we’re not truly free unless we’re responsible to a community. That’s what the apostle Paul taught in Galatians 5:13. Freed from sin by Christ through His death and resurrection, we’re free to love one another. The church affords us the opportunity to love and serve in a way social media never will.

I respect church leaders who abstain from social media. Yet I see no reason we should neglect the remarkable possibilities for teaching and leadership offered by instant, unrestricted communication to willing audiences. Still, I expect over the long term that tweets, status updates, and blog posts will pale in influence compared to our everyday, tangible pursuit of holiness and love with the support of our local church.

“The favor of the people may be won by some brilliant action,” de Tocqueville wrote, “but the love and respect of your neighbors must be gained by a long series of small services, hidden deeds of goodness, a persistent habit of kindness, and an established reputation of selflessness.”

Church leaders today find themselves caught between two equally valid but competing realities. Social media have become valuable, even necessary, tools for teaching and exercising leadership. Yet Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and blogs cannot substitute for the local church, which is a living testimony to Jesus Christ. Striking the right balance requires wisdom and discernment to prioritize the local church while learning the strengths and weaknesses of social media.

Awkwardly co-existing, the real and virtual worlds undoubtedly shape one another. Look no further than the recent resurgence of Calvinism among younger evangelicals. Whereas Calvinists outside the confessional denominations once found fellowship by attending occasional conferences and swapping sermon cassettes, they now have unfettered access to a supportive and boisterous community online, enjoying a large virtual network of like-minded thinkers.

Yet this network has evident limitations. Prominent bloggers may wield tremendous influence online with gifts for writing and promotion. But unless they develop a robust ecclesiology and solicit help from church leadership, they may employ these gifts outside the God-given accountability structure in the body of Christ. Already isolated by virtue of spending hours each day in front of computers, bloggers lose any hedge against common web temptations. They may become incurably skeptical toward the church or incessantly critical of other writers. Influencers disconnected from the seasoned wisdom of friends and mentors risk damaging the church. Though it may seem counterintuitive, social media foster and encourage lone rangers.

If individualism runs rampant in American society, it runs roughshod over the internet. Facebook is a helpful communication tool, but it also plays into our penchant for carefully crafting profiles for public consumption. We can make of ourselves whatever we want in the virtual world. The self-made man is a staple of American culture. Writing about the middle class in antebellum America in his famous book Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville said, “They are used to considering themselves in isolation and quite willingly imagine their destiny as entirely in their own hands.” He might not have been surprised to learn about the path to influence and affluence in the internet age.

Social media are the natural spawn of democracy and meritocracy. Ancestry, tradition, and location matter little, if at all. You can accomplish whatever your work ethic and talents allow. On the one hand, this can be a real boon to the Christian cause. Christian missions can flourish in this atmosphere. The free marketplace of ideas online allows opportunities for Christians to proclaim the gospel message in innovative ways for the benefit of those who have no personal contact with believers. Campus ministers can hardly imagine a time before Facebook, when they couldn’t so easily contact new students.

Yet on the other hand, social media may detract from basic discipleship. Unfettered American freedom that shuns community and tradition eventually devolves into “self-centeredness, loneliness, superficiality, and harried consumerism,” Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon wrote in Resident Aliens even before internet access became widely available. This culture doesn’t exactly reinforce Jesus’ command to pick up our crosses, deny ourselves, and follow Him (Matt. 16:24).

A Sinless Life by Nicholas Batzig

Harry — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 00:12:07 +0000

“And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:8)*

I have long wished that, in Heaven, I might get to see the entire history of Christ’s earthly life, from His birth to His ascension—viewing each and every act of obedience. The reason is simple. Jesus lived a representative life. Jesus lived a sinless life. Christ’s life was, therefore, a life of representative sinlessness. Our Lord’s obedience stands in the place of His people’s sin. His law keeping is counted as the law keeping of those who have faith in Him.

Christ’s sinless life is set against the background of the scriptural testimony to the sinfulness of man. Job declared that man is “abominable and filthy,” one who “drinks iniquity like water” (Job 15:16). Solomon acknowledged, “there is no one who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46). The Apostle John warned, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves” and “make Him a liar” (1 John 1:8; 10). The Apostle Paul summed it all up when he said, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” Yet, when the Son of God took to Himself a human nature, a sinless Man entered into time and space.

In a life that spanned three decades, our Lord never entertained a thought, never uttered a word, and never carried out an action that was defiled by impure motives. He always honored His Father in Heaven, always honored His earthly father and mother, never lusted, never uttered a word in sinful anger, never gossiped about or slandered His neighbor. He never stole, never lied, and never coveted. In short, He submitted to every commandment of the law of God without wavering. He loved the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind and strength, and loved His neighbor as Himself. The Scriptures bear manifold witness to this truth, and it is one of the most profitable truths upon which we ought to meditate.

The Bible expressly declares that Jesus was sinless. The writer of Hebrews tells us that He was “without sin” (Heb. 4:16)—that He was “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” The apostle Paul boldly asserts that He “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). At the announcement of His birth, an Angel called Him, “that Holy One who is to be born.” Pilate’s wife told her husband, “Have nothing to do with that just man.” Pilate himself said “I find no fault in Him.” The dying thief acknowledged the innocence of Jesus when he said, “this Man had done nothing wrong.” The centurion, at the foot of the cross, said, “Certainly this was a righteous man “ (Luke 23:47). Even the demons recognized that Jesus was “the Holy One of God” (Luke 4:34).

If external testimony was not enough, Christ bore witness to His own sinlessness when He said, “He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him” (John 7:18). Add to this the fact that He had said almost a thousand years prior, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God, and Your law is within my heart” (Ps. 40:7-8; Heb. 10:5)). Jesus’ life was a life of perfect conformity to the will of God. The extent of Christ’s obedience is summed up in the words of Philippians 2:8: “He became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” In regard to the commands that God gave to the covenant people, we find that Christ began to fulfill them when He was circumcised on the eighth day. He was the only one who did not need what circumcision signified. At the beginning of His public ministry He underwent a baptism “of repentance,” though he needed no repentance. When John tried to stop Him from being baptized, He said, “permit it to be so now, for thus is it fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus was obeying as the representative of His people.

When we speak of Christ’s obedience, we can sometimes mistakenly reduce it to His obedience to the moral law. While it is certainly true that He obeyed all those commands that are binding on all men for all time, He also fulfilled the ceremonial laws given to the Jews. There is, however, another dimension of the obedience of Christ. Jonathan Edwards observed that Jesus obeyed the mediatorial commands that the Father specifically gave to Him—commands that were more difficult than any given to us. Besides those moral and ceremonial laws, Jesus was commanded to “lay down His life willingly, and take it again.” “This command,” He said, “I have received from My Father” (John 10:17).

Our redemption rests upon Christ’s sinless life and substitutionary death. When we see the corruption of our minds, hearts and wills, we must look at the One who knew no sin and yet was made sin for us. When we long to know Christ in a deeper and more intimate way, it is good for us to meditate on the Scripture’s teaching concerning His representative perfection. Are you laboring under the weight of your sin before the presence of God? We must remember the One who was obedience to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

This devotional was published in the April 2011 edition of Tabletalk Magazine.
Can also be found at Feeding on Christ

Christ is All

Harry — Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:57:28 +0000

O lover to the uttermost,
May I read the meltings of thy heart to me
in the manger of thy birth,
in the garden of thy agony,
in the cross of thy suffering,
in the tomb of thy resurrection,
in the heaven of thy intercession.
Bold in this thought I defy my adversary,
tread down his temptations,
resist his schemings,
renounce the world,
am valiant for truth.
Deepen in me a sense of my holy relationship to thee,
as spiritual bridegroom,
as Jehovah’s fellow,
as sinners’ friend.
I think of thy glory and my vileness,
thy majesty and my meanness,
thy beauty and my deformity,
thy purity and my filth,
thy righteousness and my iniquity.
Thou hast loved me everlastingly, unchangeably,
may I love thee as I am loved;
Thou hast given thyself for me,
may I give myself to thee;
Thou hast died for me,
may I live to thee,
in every moment of my time,
in every movement of my mind,
in every pulse of my heart.
May I never dally with the world and its allurements,
but walk by thy side,
listen to thy voice,
be clothed with thy graces,
and adorned with thy righteousness.

From “The Valley of Vision, A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions”

Humility

Harry — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 07:07:39 +0000

“Whoever is truly humbled — will not be easily angry, nor harsh or critical of others. He will be compassionate and tender to the infirmities of his fellow-sinners, knowing that if there is a difference — it is grace alone which has made it! He knows that he has the seeds of every evil in his own heart. And under all trials and afflictions — he will look to the hand of the Lord, and lay his mouth in the dust, acknowledging that he suffers much less than his iniquities have deserved.”

- John Newton (writer of Amazing Grace)

Have you ever been alone with God? by Oswald Chambers

Harry — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:44:09 +0000

“When He was alone, the twelve … asked of Him … “Mark 4:10.

His Solitude with us. When God gets us alone by affliction, heartbreak, or temptation, by disappointment, sickness, or by thwarted affection, by a broken friendship, or by a new friendship—when He gets us absolutely alone, and we are dumbfounded and cannot ask one question, then He begins to expound. Watch Jesus Christ’s training of the twelve. It was the disciples, not the crowd outside, who were perplexed. They constantly asked Him questions, and He constantly expounded things to them; but they only understood after they had received the Holy Spirit (see John 14:26).If you are going on with God, the only thing that is clear to you, and the only thing God intends to be clear, is the way He deals with your own soul. Your brother’s sorrows and perplexities are an absolute confusion to you. We imagine we understand where the other person is, until God gives us a dose of the plague of our own hearts. There are whole tracts of stubbornness and ignorance to be revealed by the Holy Spirit in each one of us, and it can only be done when Jesus gets us alone. Are we alone with Him now, or are we taken up with little fussy notions, fussy comradeships in God’s service, fussy ideas about our bodies? Jesus can expound nothing until we get through all the noisy questions of the head and are alone with Him.

Chambers, O. (1993). My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year (NIV edition.). Westwood, NJ: Barbour and Co.

What About Repentance? by Tom Ascol

Harry — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 09:04:06 +0000

After four hundred years of prophetic silence, John the Baptist appeared on the scene of redemptive history as the forerunner of Jesus Christ. He came in fulfillment of prophecy and with the spirit of Elijah to be a voice ”crying in the wilderness” calling people to “prepare the way of the Lord” (Matt. 3:3;11:14;17:11-12).

John preached a very simple and clear message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (3:2). That message was no more popular in-his day than it is in ours, yet our need of it is as urgent now as it was then.

Repentance has fallen on hard times in many sectors of Christianity in the West. Between Rome’s mischaracterization of it as penance and some Dispensationalists’ denial of its place in Gospel preaching, it is possible to attend church regularly and never hear a biblical message on repentance.

That certainly was not the case for those who gathered to hear John preach in the wilderness. Neither was that the experience of those who heard Jesus (Matt. 4:17; Luke 5:32). From the very dawn of the New Testament age, repentance has been an integral part of the Gospel message.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism summarizes what the Bible means by repentance: “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, cloth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience” (Q. 87).

When John preached repentance he was calling his hearers to turn away from sin and to turn toward God in Jesus Christ. With the coming of Christ into the world, He could proclaim with confidence that God’s kingdom is present. In fact, the presence of that kingdom on earth is the reason that John gives for calling people to repent.

The kingdom cannot be entered apart from repentance. For while it is correct to speak of salvation through faith alone we must never forget that the faith that saves is, as John Murray put it, “a penitent faith.”

Before he ascended into heaven, Jesus declared that his death and resurrection were necessary so that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations” (Luke 24:47). The apostles took this to heart and incorporated a call to repent into their preaching. This was the heart of Peter’s admonition at Pentecost (Acts 2:38) as well as when he spoke at Solomon’s porch (Acts 3:19).

The evidence that true salvation had come to the Gentiles was that God had granted them “repentance that leads to life” (Acts 11:18). Paul explained his commission as an apostle to the Gentiles in these very terms. He told Agrippa that, in response to the heavenly vision given to him on the Damascus Road, he began to preach that people should “repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance” (Acts 26:20). At Athens, we find him doing exactly that to the intellectual elites of his day, declaring that God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Any evangelism that does not include a clear call to repent is not biblical evangelism. Jesus Christ is, a great Savior for great sinners, but His salvation is granted only to those who renounce their sins and “turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins” (Acts 26:18).

It is cruel to misrepresent the terms of salvation to people. Yet that is exactly what happens when sinners are encouraged to “accept” Christ without due consideration of the necessity of repentance. That kind of false evangelism results in false conversion, and those who are thus victimized are deceived into thinking that they can have Christ while continuing to live at peace with their sin.

John would have no part in such spiritual abuse. He loved his Savior too much to edit the message of His salvation. And he loved people too much to trifle with their souls when eternity was at stake. So he not only preached repentance, he insisted on it. When religious leaders came to him to be baptized, John spoke very plainly to them, exposing their hypocrisy. “You brood of vipers,” he said, “Bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8). True repentance always bears fruit. (Paul gives us a helpful summary of what such fruit looks like in 2 Corinthians 7:11 — making right the wrong.)

That is what repentance is — turning from sin to God with a commitment to pursue a life of obedience to His will. What convinces a sinner to repent? Not only a sense of the sinfulness of his sin, but also the recognition that, because of Christ, God is full of mercy to repentant sinners.The Gospel not only calls us to repent, it sets us free to live in repentance.

+Dr. Tom Ascol is pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, and executive director of Founders Ministries.
From January 2008 Talbetalk Magazine

The Final Exile by Ken Jones

Harry — Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:31:10 +0000

I have often preached that in heaven there will be only the continuation and consummation of what has begun in time. What I mean by this is that in heaven there is no new love and fellowship to be sparked. There will be only the consummation of the love and fellowship of the redeemed and the triune Redeemer that was begun in time. In the same vein, hell is also a place of consummation, but what will be consummated in hell is the wrath of God against evildoers. Revelation 22:11 captures the essence of both of these sentiments: “Let the evildoers still do evil and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right.”

In this article, I would like to stress two things about hell. First, it is the final exile for those who remain in rebellion against God and refuse to repent. Second, what will be consummated in hell has its origins in time.

Admittedly, to speak of hell as an exile can be a little confusing, because to be exiled means to be banished. We tend to think of hell as being banished from the presence of God. This has been reinforced in the language that depicts sinners as “going to the Devil.” From this we have the further depiction of heaven as the place for God and the saints, and hell as the place for Satan and sinners. In our twisted folklore, we even have Satan in charge ofhell makinglife miserable for condemned sinners. The problem with that scenario -(apart from the fact that it is unbiblical) is that it fails to take into consideration that God is omnipresent, which means there is no place where He is not. As David expresses in Psalm 139:7-12, God’s presence is inescapable.

Furthermore, if Satan were the tormentor in hell, it would seem to be a reward for him because he delights in making men miserable. On the contrary, all who are banished to hell will suffer eternal torment. Satan will be in hell for sure. Matthew 25:41 says that “the eternal fire” of hell was “prepared for the devil and his angels.” It is therefore clear that this fire was prepared for torment and not for their enjoyment.

Somewhat ironically, the definition offered for the word exile inWebster’s New World Dictionary ismore consistent with the biblical concept of hell: “a prolonged living away from one’s country.” To flesh this out, we must go to the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. There we have record of God’s creation of the world. In chapter 3, a seminal passage in the progressive unfolding of redemptive history, Eve was tempted by Satan. Subsequently, she and Adam ate from the forbidden tree and were plunged into a state of sin. In verses 16-17 we see the manifold effects of their rebellion, which is now shared by all of their progeny.

In this grim and dismal scene, two bright spots stand out. First, the protevangelium (“first gospel”) declared in verse 15 casts a shadowy forecast of the person and work of a coming Messiah who would be the solution to man’s fallen condition. And then, in verse 21, the Lord makes a deposit on that promise of verse 15 by covering Adam and Eve in the skins of an animal, thereby initiating the concept of substitutionary sacrifice that will by systematized in the Mosaic law and realized in the coming Messiah. However, in verses 23-24 we read of man’s initial exile — which is culminated and consummated in hell. In the wearing of skins provided by God, Adam is given tangible proof of a promise that his broken fellowship with God and the created order will be restored and that he will be returned to the garden from which he was evicted. But in the meantime, he will labor outside the garden. Because of his sin, his children therefore will be born in a state of alienation from their Creator, subservient to His sovereign rule but alienated from intimate continual fellowship with Him save for the means of mediation He supplies.

Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:12 to Gentile Christians captures this sense of exile that is the fruit of our fallen condition. He says, “remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.” This is the present state of every unbeliever, and it is for this reason that the New Testament speaks of God’s wrath presently upon unbelievers (John 3:18; Eph. 2:1-3; Rom. 1:18). The point is this — all unbelievers are presently exiled from the place of proper fellowship with God. We often speak of the tension between the already and the not yet in terms of the grace of God in Christ and all of the promises that are fulfilled in Him. But there is also a tension between the already and the not yet of God’s judgment and condemnation. Unbelievers are in exile and are therefore under condemnation. Their lives reflect their status, as they fail to glorify, worship, and serve God. Hell is the consummation of the wrath they are presently under; it is the culmination of the rebel status that made them exiles in the first place. They have no desire to live for Him, and in hell they will live without His peace, joy, and love.

We therefore preach the reality of hell to sinners so that the reality of grace in the cross of Christ will be clearly seen as their only hope. Therefore, knowingthe terror of God, we seek to persuade men.

+Rev. Ken Jones is pastor of Glendale Missionary Baptist Church in Miami, Florida, and a contributor to Experiencing the Truth: Bringing the Reformation to the African -American Church.
Article is from December 2010 Tabletalk Magazine

Baptism by Francis A. Schaeffer

Harry — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:41:07 +0000

In introduction, there are several things to emphasize as we begin this study.

1. We do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Let me remind you that it was over the question of the sacraments that Calvin and Luther differed during the Reformation Period. To Calvin, and those who have followed him, the important thing is the individual’s coming directly to Christ for salvation. In regard to baptism, we who are Presbyterians, are interested primarily not in the water baptism but in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which takes place when the individual accepts Christ as his personal Saviour.

Our Confession of Faith, Chapter 28, Section 5, makes it very clear that our subordinate standards do not teach Baptismal Regeneration: “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.” Let us again say then, once for all, we do not believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

2. Further, in introduction, let us remind you that no one has to accept our view of baptism to join our churches. The door to membership in these local visible churches rests upon the individual’s credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Saviour.

3. Historically, Presbyterians have not made an issue over baptism. However, if we never teach or preach it, people forget the Biblical facts upon which our view of baptism rests. We should not ride our view of baptism as a hobby any more than any other teaching, it is not the center of our theology, but neither should we fail to teach it in its proper place.

4. At times people say that they believe in our view of baptism but do not practice it because of the abuse of the Roman Catholic Church. If this is good reasoning, then let us give up all use of the Lord’s Supper, for the heart of classical Roman Catholic error has been its teaching concerning the Mass.

Further, let me remind you that the Cambellites, “the Christian Church” who practice immersion and adult baptism, are as in error concerning the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration as is the Roman Catholic Church. Hence, on this reasoning, those who are Baptistic should give up immersion and adult baptism. Further again, there are many outstanding modernists who are Baptists. Thus it is that the abuse of baptism by various parties proves nothing either way.

5. Finally, in introduction, let me remind you that we have good fellowship with our Baptistic brethren. We all realize that a Christian’s view of baptism should not be the determining factor of such fellowship. Even further, those who are Baptistic are welcome to the Lord’s Table in our church, and I praise God that we are welcome at the Lord’s Table in many of the churches of our Baptistic brethren, This is as it should be. However, this does not mean that we are lukewarm in our view of baptism. We believe that our view is Biblical, and that the position of baptism by immersion only, or for adults only, is a mistake.

IMMERSIONFirst, in regard to immersion, let me say that, personally, I will ‘Immerse If the individual desires this mode of baptism. Second, it is well to remember that the Greek Catholic Church and certain groups of Brethren have immersed babies as well as adults, and hence there is no necessary link between the mode of baptism used and the question of the baptism of infants. I have never immersed an infant, but I would not refuse to do so.

As a matter of fact, from evidence from the Catacombs before 200, it would seem probable that effusion, pouring, could have been the most common mode of baptism in the early church. That is, they stood in water and then had water poured on their head. Our position as to the mode of baptism is that immersion is not the only mode.

The words baptizo and bapto in the classical Greek are used with great latitude. Neither of these words can be said always to mean immerse. In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the word “baptize” is used in such a way that it could not possibly always mean immersion. For example. in Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew. In the New Testament use of the word, it is equally true that the word ‘baptize” cannot always mean immersion. For example, in Hebrews 9:10, we read:

“Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” The King James Version uses “washings” instead of “baptizings”, but the Greek says “baptizings.” This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage:

“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

Mark 7:4 is also clear: “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” Again in the King James Version, the word “washings” is used, but the Greek again is “baptizing”. If baptize always means immerse, it means that the Jews, each time they came from the market place, had to fill a tub with water and go under, head and all. This is impossible, for most of them had no such accommodation in their homes. Further, this passage would also say that they constantly immersed their tables. This is again obviously impossible. Many of the ancient versions add “and couches” to this passage. To say that they regularly immersed their beds, even if they did use bed rolls, is foolish.

At least three of the baptisms mentioned in the New Testament are difficult to imagine as immersion. The eunuch was baptized by a desert road. The jailer was baptized in the middle of the night. Three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. It is easy to see how these took place if sprinkling or pouring were used, it is difficult if immersion is taken as the only mode.

Baptistic Arguments
The Baptistic argument that “Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water” means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. one of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every’ day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan.As to Romans 6:3,4b: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death”. This passage cannot be used to prove immersion. In the first place, if it is taken to mean water baptism, many of us believe that it proves too much, and that we would then logically have to believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Surely, it is not the water baptism which baptizes us into Christ’s death, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Secondly, however, even if it is taken to mean water baptism, this passage means more than the totally inadequate picture of burial that going under the water can give. What these verses teach is. the great and marvelous reality that, when we accept Christ as our Saviour, we actually have died with Him.

These things are enough to show that the Word of God does not teach that baptism must be by immersion only.

Lastly, concerning this matter of immersion only, we would remind you that it immersion is the only mode, then the catholicity of the sacraments is destroyed. The Lord’s Supper obviously can be given anywhere. Sprinkling can be performed anywhere, but if baptism is by immersion only, there are many parts of the world in which Christians must be denied this sacrament. Those in the desert, those in the land of unending cold, and those on beds of sickness cannot be baptized by immersion, even if they want to.

The fact is that the position that baptism is by immersion only is not tenable.

INFANT BAPTISMWe do not believe that those who are Baptistic have any more Biblical grounds for teaching adult baptism only than they have for teaching immersion only.

As we begin our thinking on this subject, let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking.

Salvation by Faith Alone
First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realize that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4:1-a makes this abundantly clear: “What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory’; but not before God. For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Galatians 3-6 is just as definite: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

The fact is that the Bible carefully emphasizes that Abraham was justified by faith and that only, lust as we are. It is a serious mistake to believe that anyone in any dispensation, has been or can be saved in any other manner than by faith plus nothing. Religious or moral obedience has no place as far as personal salvation is concerned in any dispensation. Notice that it is Paul’s writings that stress this fact so clearly.

The Covenant Is Immutable or-the Unity Of the Covenant
Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realize that the Covenant made with Abraham is Immutable, that is, unchangeable.Hebrews 6:13-18: “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could sware by no greater, he sware by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily sware by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”

This passage is very’ definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable, and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation.

Covenant Is Primarily Spiritual
This Jew would also remember that the Covenant made with Abraham was primarily spiritual. For those of us who are Gentiles saved in this era the national promises made to the Jews do not apply, but the spiritual promises do apply. Romans 4:16 is clear concerning this. The 13th verse tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham, and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfillment of that promise. “Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.” Therefore, the promise could not be primarily national, but spiritual. Galatians 3:7,8,13,14 and 25 tell us exactly this same thing. We, the Gentile Christians, are the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham; therefore, (though there is a natural, national portion of the Abrahamic covenant) the promise is not primarily national but spiritual. These passages also show that there is a spiritual unity in all dispensations.

Galatians 3:17 makes it abundantly plain that the spiritual promise made to Abraham was not set aside by the giving of the Mosaic Law four- hundred and thirty years afterward. The spiritual unity was not broken by the giving of the law on Sinai.

This Jew of ours, therefore, would have in his mind that Abraham was saved in the same manner as we are saved; and that the promise made to Abraham is Immutable and primarily spiritual; and further, that we who are saved in this dispensation are included in that promise. He would have in mind the Unity of the Covenant.

The Outward Sign
This Christian Jew would also remember that the spiritual promise in the Old Testament days was sealed with a physical sign. Romans 4:10, 1la: “How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised.” This passage says that Abraham was justified by faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness which was his by faith before he was circumcised.

The Old Testament and the New Testament alike also remind us that the circumcision of the flesh was to be an outward sign of the true circumcision of the heart. In other words, that true circumcision was a spiritual thing. Deuteronomy 10:16 reads: “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” Romans 2:28, 29 says the same thing; “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Circumcision, therefore, was primarily spiritual.

Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham’s faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father. The case of the proselyte and his child proves this. Exodus 12:48; “And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall he as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.” In other words, when a Gentile became a true believer in the living God and wanted to have a part in the religious observances of the Passover, first of all he had to be circumcised, but all his children had to be circumcised too. Thus, circumcision was the sign of personal faith and not just the faith of Abraham.

Therefore, this Jew, saved in the early Christian era, would remember that not only was the promise made to Abraham primarily spiritual, but the outward seal, that was given to show the individual’s faith, was also primarily to be of spiritual meaning.

This, of course, is exactly what baptism in the New Testament is; and, therefore, circumcision in the Old Testament was in that dispensation what baptism is in this, Colossians 2:11, 12 is the final proof of this. The King James Version is not as clear as it might be. The American Revised is more accurate and we quote from it. By omitting that which should be in parentheses, this is when we have: “In whom ye were also circumcised in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism.” This being so, the Bible declares that Old Testament circumcision was what baptism is in the New Testament.

Sign Applied to Infants
Now, however, realizing that baptism in the New was what circumcision was in the Old, the Jew of whom we are speaking, saved in the early days of the Christian era, would also know that, in the Old Testament, circumcision as a sign of personal faith was applied not only to the believer himself, but also to all the boy babies in the home.

In applying this sign to the boy babies in the Old Testament, circumcision was still primarily spiritual and not just national. The sign was applied not only to Isaac who was the sole representative of the racial blessing, but to Ishmael as well. Deuteronomy 30:6 makes it plain that the circumcision of the child was primarily spiritual just as was the circumcision of the adult. “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.”

The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances the Passover and Circumcision. I Corinthians 5:7, 8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord’s Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians 2:11, 12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision.

These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer’s child, so also the sign of his faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?

New Testament Practice
These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, 39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.

With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.

The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews’ minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.

In the light of the teaching of the whole Bible, for w not to baptize babies there would have to be a clear command in Scripture not to do so. Instead of that, the emphasis is all the other way. Of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three were of families. Someone may say, “But it does not say that them were infants involved.” I would point out to you that in the light of the natural expectancy of the saved Jew, if babies were not baptized, the Scripture would have made it clear that such was the case. God deals with families in the 0. T. and in the N. T. too. The promise made to the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31b, “And thou shalt be saved, and thy house,” adequately shows this. No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.

Let us never forget, God’s use of signs is found in every era. He gave Noah the rainbow He gave circumcision and the Passover to the Old Testament Jew. He has given the visible church in this age the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The dispensational change from Circumcision to Baptism is no more than that of the change from the seventh day to the first as the day of worship.

Church History
Church history continues with the same lesson concerning infant baptism. Origen was born about 180 A.D. and he was baptized as an infant, Remember, this was eighty years or less after the death of the Apostle John. There are still earlier references which seem to speak of infant baptism, but there is no question in the case of Origen.* The first ones who argued against infant baptism, for example Tertullian, did not do so as though it were a new practice being brought in, but did so because they had come to the un-Biblical position that one should wait until just before death to be baptized.* Their arguments are therefore an incidental proof that the Church baptized infants from the beginning, for, if it were an innovation, these men who were against it because of their un-Biblical views would have delighted to have pointed out that infant baptism was not an Apostolic practice. Saint Augustine, writing concerning infant baptism, said, “This doctrine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained.” Those who would teach that the practice of the early Church was not infant baptism should be able to show in Church History when it started. There is no such break recorded.

In the light of this, the claim that infant baptism is a product of the Roman Catholic Church is totally mistaken.

Therefore, for now almost four thousand years, since the day of Abraham, those who have been saved by faith have been marked at the command of God by an external sign, and this external sign has, without a break, been applied not only to them but to their children.

We believe in Infant Baptism because of the unity of the spiritual promises in all dispensations. The national promises are for the Jews alone, but there is a unity of the spiritual promises throughout the whole Word of God. The basis of this unity is the great central fact of Scripture that all men of all eras are saved on the basis of the finished work of Christ through faith in Him, plus nothing, or they are not saved at all. This spiritual unity does not disturb the fact of the differences between the different eras, nor does it disturb our peculiar privileges as those saved and living in this age.

Baptistic Arguments
Let us look at the usual Baptistic arguments against infant baptism.
a) “Believe and be baptized.” Notice that the same thing was said in effect to Abraham concerning circumcision, “Believe and afterward be circumcised,” but that it is altogether clear that the sign of his personal faith was to be applied also to his child.

Further, in the case of the first days of the Christian era, everyone who believed was of necessity baptized an adult, because, the new Testament teaching being new, no one would have been previously baptized as an infant. The same thing is true on any new mission field of any day. There are no baptized infants until there are some Christian parents.

b) Often those who are Baptistic ask why we baptize both boys and girls, when only males were circumcised in the Old Testament. Galatians 3:28 gives the answer: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye all are one in Jesus Christ.” In this era, there is no difference between the man and the woman before the Lord in worship.

c) The question is sometimes asked, “If baptism took the place of circumcision, why did baptism and circumcision exist side by side for a time among the Jewish Christians?” Many Jewish believers in the early Christian Church kept various Old Testament practices at least until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. As long as these were not thought of as adding something to Christ’s finished work for personal salvation, they were allowed. Notice in this regard Paul’s circumcision of Timothy, Acts 16:3, and also his partaking in the Temple worship, Acts 21:20, 26. The Bible says that Paul did these things for the sake of the believing Jews who still kept these practices. The answer, therefore, as to why baptism and circumcision existed together for a time is that this was part of the gradual clarifying of the dispensational changes.

d) Perhaps the most used Baptistic argument is that there is no definite command in Scripture in baptizing babies. There is also no command in Scripture to change the day of worship from the seventh day to the first. In certain parts of the United States, there is a small group known as the Seventh Day Baptists. I feel that they are mistaken on both of these counts, but at least they have the virtue of consistency. To be consistent, everyone who ii Baptistic should worship on the seventh day.

CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, as we have our babies baptized, let us realize that it is not a matter of magic. As parents, what we do is to covenant with God to be faithful toward the child. It is the parents’ work to train the child. It is the parents’ privilege in many cases to lead the child to Christ. Christian parents should not depend upon the church’s evangelistic services when the child becomes an adolescent, or even a full-grown adult, to lead him to Christ. The little child should learn of Jesus Christ from his parents from his earliest childhood, and in many cases when he is yet a child he should be led to a personal acceptance of the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior by his father or his mother.

Take advantage of this God-given privilege of infant baptism. The Christian parent’s heart, moved and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit, has a natural urge to bring his child to God. This is so strong that even those who are Baptistic have come to the place of dedication of their children. There is no command for the dedication of children in the New Testament, but the saved parent feels such an urge to this that most Baptistic churches of necessity have dedication services for the children. They are not wrong in this – their only mistake is that they do not go far enough.

Let us not stop short of all that God means us to do and to have as Christian parents. If you are a Christian, your child is a child of the Covenant, and God means him to have the engagement sign of the Covenant. As a born-again parent, it is your privilege to apply it to him.

In the Old Testament, God disciplined those who did not circumcise their children. Moses and Zipporah found this out to their sorrow. God does not deal with His people in this age in this way. We are not killed for picking up sticks on the Lord’s Day, but we keep the Lord’s Day nevertheless because we love our Lord. We are not killed in this age for not baptizing our children, but we should do it nevertheless because God wants us to. The Baptism of your infants is a part of your privilege as a Christian. Take it with thanksgiving along with the other good things God gives you.

Questions Asked Publicly of Parents Before Infant is Baptized
1. Do you yourselves know that you are saved through faith in Christ, not through anything you have done or ever will do, but simply through your faith in Christ’s finished work on Calvary’s cross – as He died in space and time, in history?

2. Do you realize that this is not a saving ordinance and that this child will have to accept Christ as his own Saviour when he comes to the age of accountability?

3. Have you covenanted with God to give back this child to Him, so that, if He sees fit in His providence to call this child home to Himself, you will not complain against Him, or if the child grows to adulthood and is called to some form of special Christian service, you will not stand in his way but rather encourage him?

4. Do you realize that this sacrament is not a matter of magic, but that in it you covenant with God to raise this child in the fear and admonition of the Lord, to pray for and with him, to keep him in the house of God and with God’s people, to be faithful in your home life for Christ as you live it before him, and to do your utmost personally to lead him to a saving knowledge of Christ at an early age?

*Baptism of Infants, Philip Schaff, Vol. 1, p. 209. Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.

Special note: As far as I know this is not copyrighted and is out of print. If however, you know that it is indeed copyrighted I’d appreciate you letting me know. Thank you.

An Age of Lesser Glory by R.C. Sproul

Harry — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:18:57 +0000

NUMBERS 27:12-23 “So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshuathe son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit,and lay your hand on him”‘ (v. 18).

Theologians sometimes refer to the new covenant as the age of the Spirit, and rightly so, for the Holy Spirit has been poured out abundantly on the people of God in this administration of the Lord’s covenant of grace (Acts 2:1-41). That we live in the age of the Spirit, however, does not mean that the third person of the Trinity did not work among the people of God under the old covenant. Indeed, He was active, though not in precisely the same way as He is today.

Clearly, the Holy Spirit has always been the agent who regenerates people. Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand this truth, as he was a teacher of old covenant Israel (John 3:1-15). God’s Spirit gave old covenant believers the faith they needed to trust in His promises, just as He gives new covenant believers faith today to entrust themselves to the fulfillment of these promises in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:8).

At the same time, even though all old covenant believers experienced the Spirit’s work of regeneration, it also appears that not all old covenant believers enjoyed the same kind of gifting and power evident in the new covenant. In today’s passage, for example, Joshua is said to be a man “in whom is the Spirit” (Num. 27:18). This designation is given to a select few in the Old Testament, usually the leaders of Israel (see, for example, Gen. 41:38; 1 Sam. 16:13). But now, on the other hand, even believers without a leadership role in the church have the Spirit in His fullness (Rom. 5:5). Messiah Jesus baptizes all of His people “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11).

It is difficult to describe precisely how our richer experience of the Spirit today compares to how old covenant believers enjoyed Him, especially since we all get discouraged and sometimes feel as if the Holy Spirit is far from us. Still, there is plenty of evidence that shows the Spirit is working more powerfully in the present age than He did during the old covenant. Perhaps the greatest proof for this is the ingathering of the Gentile nations. For all the problems the church has faced throughout the ages and even now endures, it is indeed serving as a light to the nations in a way that old covenant Israel never did. By the drawing of the Spirit through the witness of the church, even the non-Israelite nations are coming to faith in the God of Israel (Acts 15:1-11).

+The church of Jesus Christ is not without its blemishes, and there is much for which we all need to be in repentance. Yet it is also plain that God has granted to the new covenant church a measure of the Spirit that the old covenant church never enjoyed, for the church is being filled with people from every background. Let us thank the Lord for this work of His Spirit and pray that He would use us to extend His kingdom.

From October 2010 Tabletalk Magazine

Mystery in Paul’s Writings

Harry — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:38:00 +0000

A mystery in Paul’s writings is not normally something “mysterious,” still less a whodunit. It is a truth or a doctrine which in some measure has been kept hidden in previous generations, and now with the coming of the Gospel has been disclosed and made public. Sometimes the Gospel itself is treated as a mystery; more commonly, some element of the Gospel is labeled a mystery.

In Ephesians 3:2–13, Paul insists that, along with other “apostles and prophets” (3:5), he enjoys deep insight into “the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit” (3:4–5). Then he tells us the content of this mystery: “that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (3:6).

We should reflect on the ways in which this mystery was hidden. Certainly the Old Testament Scriptures sometimes anticipate the extension of the grace of God to men and women of all races. The Abrahamic covenant foresaw that in Abraham’s seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen. 12:3; see meditation for January 11). What is hidden about that? Yet the fact remains that the space devoted in the Bible to the Law of Moses, coupled more importantly with the rising body of interpretation that made Mosaic Law the interpretive grid that controlled the reading of much of the Old Testament, ensured that this broader emphasis was often lost to view. So on the one hand, this hiddenness can be viewed as a careful plan of God to hide the glory of “his eternal purpose” (3:11) until the time was ripe for it to be unfolded; on the other, this hiddenness owes something to human perversity, reading the Old Testament Scriptures in a way that domesticates and dwarfs the true dimensions of Old Testament promises.

With the coming of Christ Jesus, the ways in which the Old Testament books pointed forward were made incalculably clearer. Jesus’ Great Commission stamped the mission of his disciples with an internationalism that shames all parochialism. Above all, Jesus’ understanding of the Old Testament established some new paradigms. Read properly, in its linear, historical sequence, the Old Testament storyline does not lay as much emphasis on the Law of Moses as some thought. Indeed, the Mosaic Covenant turns out to be a failure, in terms of how well it changed people. Its brightest success is in providing the models that predict what the ultimate Savior, the ultimate priest, the ultimate temple, the ultimate sacrifice, would look like. And Paul is the apostle who not only preaches this mystery, but does so to the Gentiles, the people most affected by its content.

Carson, D. A. (1998). For the love of God : A daily companion for discovering the riches of God’s Word. Volume 1. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.