Trial or Temptation?

 

Fact is that temptation and trial are closely related concepts. They are materially the same, but they differ with respect to their aim and motive. It is, perhaps, safe to say that for the people of God all temptation is also a trial, and all trial is at the same time temptation. Yet there is a good deal of difference between the two. First of all, we may note that one cannot speak of trial with respect to the wicked: for trial presupposes something good that is put to the test and that is improved by the testing process. Gold and silver are tried in order to purify them, to separate the foreign elements in them, and to enhance the beauty of their lustre. But one does not test a lump of clay or a piece of stone. So God's people are tried in as far as they are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, in order that the power and beauty of the work of God's grace may become manifest, and the trial of their faith may be to "praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 1:7) But the wicked cannot be tried, for the simple reason that there is no good in them. They are tempted: for while trial aims at the bringing to light of the beauty of the work of God's grace, temptation appeals to the sinful nature. However, it will be evident that the very same means whereby the people of God are tried also constitute for them temptations. What is a trial of their faith is at the same time a temptation for their sinful nature. When, for instance, a believer is threatened with the loss of a profitable position in the world unless he in some way becomes unfaithful and denies the his Lord, his faith is being tried. But the same situation is an appeal to his sinful nature to deny Christ and keep his position. It certainly was a fiery trial of their faith when in the early believers were sometimes confronted with the choice of confessing that Caesar was Lord or being thrown into a pot filled with boiling oil. But again, this horrible alternative also was a temptation for their flesh to bow the knee to Caesar and to deny the sole Lordship of Christ.

But there is more difference between trial and temptation. Trial always presents the truth; temptation is always a lie. Temptation always presents the way of sin and iniquity, of backsliding and unfaithfulness, of denying Christ and violating the covenant of God as something desirable, as a good that is worth striving for, in fact, as preferable to the way of obedience, righteousness, holiness, and faithfulness to Christ. When God places the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Paradise and gives man the so-called probationary command, He proves, He tries Adam. But He tells him the truth: "the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Thus it always is. It is never good, a thing to be desired, to walk in the way of iniquity, to pursue after evil, to violate the Word of God and serve Mammon. But when the devil tempts man in paradise, he presents the lie to him: "Ye shall not surely die; ye shall be like God." And thus all temptation makes use of the lie that there is a good apart from God, in the way of sin. Temptation is moral, ethical deception. Trial deals with the truth.

Moreover, there is a fundamental difference in motive and purpose between trial and temptation. Hatred of God, hatred of one another, hatred of that which is good and delight in sin and corruption-- these are the motives of all temptation. The purpose of the tempter is always God's dishonor and your destruction. It makes no difference who it is that assumes the role of tempter in regard to you. It may be your husband or wife, your brother of sister, your dearest friend; in the capacity of tempter he hates God and you and seeks your destruction. When your best friend tempts you to depart from the way of truth and righteousness and to follow after the lie and vanity, he is your enemy; and you should not hesitate to say to him, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" But trial is motivated by love, aims at the showing forth of the beauty of God's work of grace, and purpose your salvation. Temptation, then, is that lying appeal to our sinful nature that is motivated by enmity against God, His cause and His people, and aims at God's dishonor and our destruction.

Herman Hoeksema

In the Sanctuary, pp. 90-92

http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-herman-hoeksema/products/in-the-sanctuary 

Do Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 Teach that God is Gracious in the Preaching of the Gospel to the Reprobate Wicked?

Ezekiel 18:23: Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways and live?

Ezekiel 33:11: Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Q. But do not Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 teach that God is gracious in the preaching of the gospel to the reprobate wicked?

A. This is surely the interpretation of the synod of 1924, as well as of Prof. L. Berkhof in his booklet written in defense of the Three Points. But notice, with regard to these two texts, which are essentially the same in meaning:

a. That in neither of these passages is there any offer of grace or salvation to all, as far as the form of the texts is concerned. In both passages we have a direct statement by the Lord, the God of Israel, that He hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but therein that he turn and live. In the text from chapter 33 this statement stands in the form of an oath. It is, therefore, no offer, but a most emphatic divine assertion.

b. That in both the texts it is the house of Israel that is addressed. The Lord, therefore, through His prophet does not address the wicked in general, but the church, those who are called His people, those whom He chooses, but who have departed from the way of the covenant of the Lord. This certainly does not plead in favor of the interpretation that would apply this text to the reprobate wicked, or to elect and reprobate alike. It is His people whom the Lord assures of His forgiving mercy. 

c. This is corroborated by the context, especially of the text in chapter 33:11. There the assertion of forgiving grace by the Lord is an answer to the complaint of the people of God: "If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?" They were conscious of their sin. They felt that they were worthy of condemnation and death because of their transgressions. And they did not see a way out. They did not understand that the Lord is abundant in tender mercy and forgiving grace. They pined away in their sin, and they must surely die. To these people the Lord answers that there is abundant hope. For He hath no pleasure in the death of His ways. He will have mercy on them and forgive. Therefore, let them turn, and He will pardon, and they shall live.

d. Finally, notice that the Lord has no pleasure in the death of the wicked that turns and lives. Scripture elsewhere frequently testifies that the Lord does have a holy pleasure in the destruction of the wicked. For He hates all the workers of iniquity, and He shall laugh in their destruction and hold them in derision. But the Lord does have pleasure that the wicked turn from their wicked way and are wicked no more, He delights in their life, and gives it unto them abundantly by His grace.

From all these elements it ought to be very evident that the texts cannot be applied to the reprobate wicked; and, surely, that there is no general offer of grace in these passages from Ezekiel.

Herman Hoeksema 

Herman Hanko

Ready to Give an Answer, pp. 87-88

http://rfpa.org/
http://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/readytogiveananswer.htm#.VSRhL_CkzMx

A Return to the Old Paths (Brief History of the PRC)

The date was December 12, 1924.

The two other ministers and their consistories were also to experience the wrath of their classis. 

Rev. Henry Danhof was pastor of First CRC in Kalamazoo, Michigan. He had been a delegate at the synod of the CRC which had adopted the Three Points of common grace. At the synod he had raised his objections to the doctrine and had let it be clearly known that he would never support such erroneous views. He and his congregation were a part of Classis Grand Rapids West.

Rev. George Ophoff was pastor of the Riverbend CRC in what is now Walker, Michigan. While Ophoff had not been present at the synod of 1924, he had expressed his convictions with regard to the Three Points of common grace by joining the staff of the Standard Bearer.  This magazine had begun publication in October of 1924, partly because the pages of the official publication of the CRC, the Banner, were closed to Rev. Hoeksema, and partly because an organ was needed to inform the churches of the serious error the CRC had made at its synod. Rev. Ophoff did not only let his convictions be known by joining the staff of the Standard Bearer, but he had also clearly expressed himself on its pages in an early issue. Rev. Ophoff's congregation was also a part of Classis Grand Rapids West.

Classis Grand Rapids West was in no mood to dally. It wanted no discussion of the issues; it wanted no appeals to the next synod; it wanted no clarifications of the positions of Danhof and Ophoff. It simply required of these two men (and their consistories) that they submit without reservation to the decisions of the synod of 1924 with respect to common grace, or suffer deposition.

Those involved refused to submit. All were summarily deposed from office by official decision of the classis.

It was the beginning of the PRC.

True reformation in the church of Christ always involves a going back and a moving ahead. The going back is required because the denomination which needs reforming has become apostate and has moved away from what Jeremiah calls the "old paths." For this reason Jeremiah's admonition to Judah is always important in reformation: "Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (6:16). 

The old paths for the church of Christ in North America (as well as for Reformed churches throughout the world) were the paths of the Reformation of the 16th century with its sharp and unyielding emphasis on sovereign and particular grace. The old paths were the paths of the Synod of Dordt, which had emphatically repudiated the general grace of Arminianism, had charted the course of Reformed church polity, and had drawn up a confession which demonstrated beyond doubt that the teaching of God's grace for the elect only was the teaching of their history. 

This latter insistence of the Synod of Dordt (namely, that what it taught was the historic Reformed position) became evident in its statement that the Canons of Dordt were not to be construed as a new confession, but were a further explanation of some points of doctrine already contained in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Confession of Faith, both of which were official confessions of the Reformed churches of a half century earlier.

The activities of Classes Grand Rapids East and West showed that the church government of the denomination was also askew. Suspension and deposition of office-bearers is a part of ecclesiastical censure of sin and an exercise of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. This task, as well as the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, belongs to the local consistories and to broader ecclesiastical assemblies. For classes or synods to engage in discipline is the worst sort of hierarchy. Yet the CRC did not shrink from such hierarchy in order to rid itself of men who had been declared by the church itself to be Reformed, but who refused to agree to the false doctrine of common grace.

Faithful officebearers in the church of Christ, declared to be such by their own denomination, had been cruelly stripped of their offices, set naked on the street outside the doors of the church, and told to fend for themselves apart from the fellowship of the church.

And they were thus persecuted for no other reason than that they maintained the sovereignty and particularity of grace, a doctrine of the Reformed churches held since the days of John Calvin in Geneva.

A return to the "old paths," therefore, required also a return to the old true and tried Church Order of Dordrecht.

On March, 1925 the officebearers of the three congregations came together to form a new denomination. It was, in a sense, temporary, because all three congregations had appeals against the decisions of Classes Grand Rapids East and West pending with the synod of 1926. Because of the temporary nature of their federation, they called themselves, "The Protesting Christian Reformed Churches." But no one held out any hope of the synod of 1926 retracting the erroneous doctrines of common grace, and no one expected the hierarchical decisions of two classes to be repudiated by synod. And so it proved to be.

Already the temporary "Act of Agreement" which was signed by the officebearers of the three congregations spoke of a return to the three forms of unity and the Church Order of Dordrecht.

The reformation was complete. The doctrines of free, sovereign, and particular grace were once again given free course, unencumbered by the burden of heresy. The autonomy of the local congregations was once again established on the basis of the Church Order of Dordrecht.

But a true reformation of the church of Christ is not and can never be merely a return to the "old paths." Within the church one cannot live in the past. One cannot dwell on past injustices nor fight battles long over.

This is not to say that the past is unimportant. The confession, worship, and government of the church of Christ throughout the ages are given the church by the Spirit of truth whom Christ promised to His Church prior to His glorification (see John 14-16). The Spirit of truth guides the church into all truth. That means two things. It means, on the one hand, that the confession, worship, and government of the church of the past are the blessed fruit of the Spirit according to which the church must always live. But it also means that the work of the Spirit in the church is a continuing work, so that the Spirit, according to Scriptures which He Himself inspired, continues to reveal the truth in richer measure.

The church of Christ moves forward.

So it was with the PRC.

Some charged the PRC for existing only to inveigh against and do battle with the evils of common grace. It was said that the PRC rode an old hobby horse, lived to criticize others, found its joy in chiding other denominations, and would disappear if it could no longer fight against common grace. This is not true. 

Although indeed the PRC are compelled before God to show the evil of false doctrine, especially as it involves their own particular history, the churches have also moved forward by the guidance and direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Because the truth of sovereign and particular grace was the one great issue in the sad history of 1924, it was this truth which, emphasized in the churches, became the principle of further development of the truth within the churches.

Rev. Herman Hoeksema, rightly considered the spiritual father of the denomination, along with his colleague in the churches and in seminary, Rev. George Ophoff, made some distinctive contributions to what the church is called to believe.

It is not our purpose to go into these contributions in detail. But anyone acquainted with many writings which have come from the pens of Hoeksema and Ophoff will know of the contributions to an understanding of sovereign grace which both of these men made in the Standard Bearer and other writings; and they will know how Herman Hoeksema made a significant and important contribution to the knowledge of the Reformed faith in his Reformed Dogmatics.

But if there is one doctrine which is a distinguishing truth of the PRC, it is the doctrine of God's eternal and unconditional covenant of grace. Firmly committed to the truth of sovereign and particular grace, and applying that truth to the biblically defined doctrine of the covenant, Hoeksema has shown that Scripture teaches a unilateral and unconditional covenant in which God enters into friendship with His elect people in Jesus Christ. This was a major breakthrough in the Reformed understanding of God's covenant.

If one thing characterized Hoeksema's theology, it was its God-centered character. To begin with God and end with God - that was Hoeksema's purpose in all he did.

Beginning with God in the doctrine of the covenant, he demonstrated that God is in His own triune life a covenant God who lives in blessed and perfect fellowship with Himself. That covenant life which He eternally enjoys, God chooses to reveal in His own eternal Son, Jesus Christ, the Head of the covenant. He reveals it through Christ by taking Christ, through the way of Christ's cross, into the covenant life of the Trinity; and in taking Christ into that covenant life, He takes all His elect into the very life of the Trinity itself so that God and His people may have joyful fellowship together for ever. 

Such positive development of the truth is true church reformation.

And such God-centered theology takes all glory from man and gives it to God - where it belongs.

This is the history of the PRC.

READY TO GIVE AN ASWER, PP. 13-18

Herman Hanko

Herman Hoeksema

http://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/readytogiveananswer.htm#.VRN1W46kzMw

What is True Love?

True love-- wherever you find it, whatever form it assumes, whether you know it as the love of God to you, as your love to God, or as your love to the brethren,--always consists in God's love of us not in our love of God. This is clearly and indubitably revealed in the one great act of God's love: the sending of His Son to be a propitiation for our sins. Therein you taste and see not only that God loved us, but that His love is sovereign and free, self-existent and independent.

Love is the bond of perfectness. It is a spiritual bond that is established and functions only in the sphere of moral perfection. Not in darkness, but in the light; not in the sphere of the lie, but in the truth; not in iniquity, but in righteousness; not in corruption, but in holiness-- in a word, solely in the sphere of ethical perfection does the fire of love burn, does the light of love shine, does the bond of love knit being to being. The wicked do not love, whatever other bond there is between them. Love is the bond of perfection.

It is the attraction of person to person in the sphere of the light. It is the longing of spirit for spirit, a seeking and finding of each other, a living into each other's life, a giving wholly of each to the other, a complete passion for the other, a seeking of each other's good, the will to please each other, a perfect delight in each other-- all in the sphere of ethical perfection.

Herein is love...

Not that we loved God, but that He loved us.

Impossible it would be to make a statement of this kind to describe and characterize the bond of love between two human beings. Between them, love is and must be bilateral, two-sided, mutual. The love of the one is incapable of kindling love in the other. The bond of love can be established between them only when the love of each meets and mingles with the love of the other, and it can be maintained only as long as each constantly continues to meet the love of the other.

Not so with the love of God. It is strictly unilateral, not only in origin but also in its continued operation. It does not consist in our loving God and in His loving us because we love Him. Nor is the nature of love that God and we simultaneously bring our love to each other. It dare not even be said that love is established between God and us by Christ's position between God and us, so that Christ causes God to love us and kindles the flame of the love of God in us. Love is of God. Before we loved Him, He loved. Before Christ was sent into the world to be a propitiation for our sins, He loved us. To be sure, we love Him too; but even then love is of God. His love is the great, the eternal, the unquenchable fire that kindles all our love and that lights all the candles of our love. Even as in the firmament the light is of the sun, and this light of the sun is reflected in the moon, so love is of God, and our love is never more than the reflection of His love. Herein is love... Of Him, and through Him, and unto Him is love. Sovereign is the love of God.

Herman Hoeksema

All Glory To The Only Good God, 91-94

http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-herman-hoeksema/products/all-glory-to-the-only-good-god 

http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-herman-hoeksema/products/all-glory-to-the-only-good-god-ebook 

Transformation From Within

 

Practice and doctrine are inseparably connected. They cannot be divorced from each other. This is indicated in what the apostle writes in verse 1 of Romans 12: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The meaning is that we have understood these mercies of God of which the apostle has been speaking in the preceding chapters of Romans, and by faith we have received them. The implication is that if this is not the case- if he cannot address us as possessors of the mercies of God- he cannot even begin his practical admonition.

The mercies of God are a prerequisite for a Christian life from a twofold point of view. First, they are the ground, or possibility, for a true Christian life. Second, they are at the same time the ground of the obligation to walk in these mercies of God. If we are not in principle delivered from sin, if we are not children of God, it is impossible to hear and do the Word of God, as we have it in Romans 12-16. Some people always call for a practical sermon, but a practical sermon is not less difficult than a doctrinal sermon. While a doctrinal sermon brings to us the mercies of God, a practical sermon comes to us with the admonition, "Do!" In what follows in Romans, we must not expect something easy, but we must prepare ourselves for something to which we may have many objections. Many times when we are inclined to respond to the Word, doing it is impossible. Therefore, the apostle here addresses the church by the mercies of God. It is only by the mercies of God that we do, and can do, what the Word admonishes us to do.

The Meaning

In order to be understood clearly, the apostle first puts this admonition in a negative form, and then in a positive form. The negative form of the admonition is, "Be not conformed to this world." The word world in the original literally means "age." It has come to mean the world from the viewpoint of the development of the world in time. The world has had different ages or times or periods, the world fills itself with different ideas and things. For example, we speak of our present age as the machine age. The text admonishes us not to be conformed to the world as this world develops in the particular age in which the church lives.

We must not copy the world in our walk and conversation. This is a literal translation of the original Greek. One beautiful word in the original declares that the world of our own day has forms. The world has certain schemes. The world lives from the spiritual, ethical principle of sin. The deepest principle from which the world lives is enmity against God. It never lives from any other principle. There is nothing else in the world. Even when the world speaks piously, telling us, for example, that democracy is rooted in religion, the world actually hates God. There is no difference between a pious wickedness and downright wickedness. From this principle of enmity against God, the world creates forms. It creates a certain scheme of life. In its outward walk the world is characterized by this deepest principle of sin. Living from the principle of enmity against God, the world practices a form of life consisting of sinful works, sinful speech, sinful amusements, sinful pleasures, and sinful treasures. This is true of the world in every relation. The form of the home becomes carnal. You can see it before your very eyes. Why is the relation between man and wife being corrupted? It is corrupted in divorce. It is corrupted in the murder of the seed of children that is called birth control. You see it in the pleasures of the world: the dance, the movies, the theaters. You can see the world's sinful form of life in its attitude against all authority. You see it in the relation of employer and employee. Negatively, the admonition is this: let not your life be characterized by copying the form of this world. Do not copy his world. Be not conformed to this world.

Does anyone object that an admonition of this kind is not necessary? The fact is that no admonition is more urgent than this one. There is no admonition more timely. This is because there is oh so much world in the Christian. And there is oh such a small beginning of the new life. We must take this seriously. The Christian is almost all world and only a little Christian. It is easy to brag about a life to the glory of God and a life of sanctification as if we were almost in heaven, but in truth there is much world, much flesh, to the Christian. Our body is all world. And our soul, so intimately connected with our body, is also all world, apart from the new principle of the life of Christ instilled into the soul by the Holy Spirit. Besides, the Christian is surrounded by the forms of the world. When we open our eyes, we see nothing but the world. We see nothing of the kingdom of God. If we go the way of least resistance, therefore, and don't fight, we will do what the apostle says we must not do. We will always copy the world. We will copy the world in our dress, in our face, in our speech, in our pleasures, in everything.

We may compare life in the world to people drifting on a strong current in a rowboat. They are drifting just above the falls. On this current are three kinds of people. There are people who help the current along. They row with the current, laughing, singing, and having a good time. There are also people who row desperately upstream. And there are people who let the oars rest and drift downstream. The Word of God says to them, "Don't drift downstream! Row against them the stream!" This is the text. Are you going downstream? Don't copy the world! Don't be conformed in your life and walk to the forms of the world! If you do conform your life to this world's forms, you go to destruction.

Instead, be transformed! This is the opposite of copying the world. To be transformed is to be independent of forms. This is the meaning of the word in the original. To be transformed means that we must be changed, but in the changing we are independent of any forms. We row upstream. This is the admonition. This is practical.

The Possibility

How is it possible to row upstream against the current that is in the world? How is it possible in view of the fact that all that is in the world is inclined to copy the forms of this world? The apostle says that we have a motor. We have a motor power so that we can go against the stream. This motor power is the renewing of the mind. If this is not so, it is hopeless. But I beseech you by the mercies of God revealed in Christ Jesus- the mercies of transformation, forgiveness of sins, justification, and sanctification- be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

The mind in Scripture, and especially in the epistle to the Romans, is what we may call the highest faculty of man's spiritual existence. The highest, the noblest part of man's soul is the mind that makes it possible for man to know God and to determine his own relation to God, consciously and willingly. In this respect, it is man's mind that distinguishes him from other creatures. It is the mind that distinguishes him from the animal. The animal has many characteristics, but it has no mind.

The mind of man is by nature corrupt. It is darkened. Man has not lost his mind. It is not that he has no knowledge of God. But man's mind is darkened in a spiritual, moral sense, so that he cannot see God as one who is to be desired above all. This is who God is: the one to be desired above all. God is good, benevolent, merciful, and the fountain of all goodness, but the natural mind is so darkened that man looks upon God as the cause of all his evil. This is literally expressed by a certain society in Russia that calls itself the "Society of the Godless." They teach that God is the source of all the evil that befalls man. Therefore, they persecute the Christians. But this is only the expression of the darkened mind.

The apostle speaks of the renewing of the mind. This refers to God's calling of us. It refers to our regeneration, to the irresistible calling of God. The result is that we seek Him. The mind of the Christian has been renewed, but the renewing of his mind is but a renewing in principle. There is still the old man in the Christian. He has a renewed mind in principle, but he also has much of the world in him. To the Christian with a renewed mind, the apostle says, "Turn around! Let your new mind determine what should be your walk! Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Does someone respond, "How can I do this?" First let me ask what you said to the exhortation. Did you say, "Yes, but . . ."? There is no "but." It may be that you said, "Yes, but then I must practically go out of the world." My answer is, go out of the world then. Perhaps, you said, "Then I will lose my name, my position." My answer is, lose your name, then. Or you said, "They will laugh at me." I answer, let them laugh. Did you say, "Then will I provoke the wrath of the world to the extent that I may have to die?" My answer is, die then. There is no other biblical answer. "Whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for My sake shall find it" [Matt. 16:25]. But for God's sake, for the sake of His mercy, don't copy the world!

Did you say, "I have in my heart the desire to do that, but how can I? How can I obey this admonition?" There are only two ways by which you can do it. You can do it by using your Bible. If you want to row upstream, you can do so only by clinging to your Bible, studying your Bible! Then you will not be conformed to this world. The other means is prayer. You must be instant in prayer. Are we? Is it not true, as we are sliding back, that we have not been a praying people? Oh, we are a religious people. But I speak of a consciousness of wanting to do this Word of God that brings us to our knees in prayer. 

The Result

The result will be that we "prove what is that good, and acceptable. and perfect, will of God." God's will here is God's will concerning you and me. His will is good in that it is salutary. Sin is never good for us. Only the will of God is good for us. The will of God is also acceptable. It is well pleasing; that is, it is pleasing to Him that we do His will. It is also perfect, leading to perfection. It has a good end. 

But if we do not go upstream, we do not prove that good, acceptable, and perfect will of God. Proving the will of God is tasting or experiencing that the will of God is good. When we do the will of God, we experience that we lack nothing. To prove, to taste, to experience, what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God is a blessedness that if we know it once, even in part, we will not exchange it for all the world.

Therefore, I beseech you, by the mercies of God that have been bestowed on you, be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.

Herman Hoeksema 

Righteous By Faith Alone, pp. 576-582

http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-herman-hoeksema/products/righteous-by-faith-alone-ebook
http://rfpa.org/collections/books-by-herman-hoeksema/products/righteous-by-faith-alone

The Biblical Ground for the Baptism of Infants

When an undenominational pastor challenged Rev. Herman Hoeksema to prove infant baptism from Scripture this was his response.

The reader is reminded that the publication of this pamphlet was occasioned by the appearance and free distribution of a little treatise on the same subject by Dr. M. R. De Haan, pastor of the Calvary Undenominational Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The treatise was entirely negative with respect to purpose and contents and purported to be a conclusive and convincing refutation of the doctrine of infant baptism. In it the author made the bold statement, that those who believe in the truth of infant baptism have no argument whatsoever. The Word of God, he asserted, has nothing to say in favour of the practice to baptize children of believers.

Such bold statements can hardly go unchallenged.

Immediately upon the publication of the treatise of Dr. De Haan we devoted a short article to it in 'The Standard Bearer,' in which we claimed that the great confidence and boldness of speech of which the writer avails himself could only be explained from a profound ignorance on the part of the writer with respect to the subject he attempts to treat. At the same time, however, we promised that at a convenient time we would write a treatise on the same subject. This promise we now fulfilled. In this little pamphlet we offer to those that are interested in the truth of the word of God, the proposition and its proof, that baptism of children of believers is founded on the Scriptures. The treatise is positive in purpose, contents and form. I do not enter into a controversy. I make no attempt to refute the arguments of Dr. De Haan, for the simple reason that there is nothing to refute. My sole purpose, was to offer a single, simple, yet incontrovertible proof that infant baptism is a scriptural doctrine. This being my purpose, I did not enter into an explanation of various doctrines and questions that are closely connected with the subject we are discussing. I did not elaborate upon the idea of the covenant, on the question who are in the covenant, on the significance of baptism as such, etc. All this was strictly unnecessary for the single purpose I had in mind, namely, to show that Scripture sustains the doctrine of infant baptism. For the practical purpose I have in mind this treatise must rather be brief than comprehensive; it must be clear rather than profound. And, therefore, discarding all irrelevant material, however important it may be in itself, I confined myself to a single line of argumentation.

I offer to the readers three propositions, each of which I will prove from the Word of God:

1. There is only one people of God, throughout the ages, both in the old and in the new dispensation: the true Israel, the seed of Abraham.

2. Though differing in form, circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning.

3. It is the clearly revealed will of God that the generations of His people, whether they be among Jew or Gentile shall receive the sign of the covenant, circumcision as long as these generations of His people are among the Jews, baptism when these generations are among all nations, Jew and Gentile both.

I. One People: of the Old and New Dispensation

First of all, then, there is the proposition that there is only one people of God and that these are the true seed of Abraham, both in the old and in the new dispensation.

I make it no secret that I consider this truth fundamental and essential to the understanding of infant baptism.

All premillennialists deny it. It is for this very reason that a PRE must also be a Baptist. He separates God's people. According to him there are two peoples of God, two different seeds of Abraham, the Jews and the Church, natural Israel and spiritual Israel. The Jews are real and natural Israel with special privileges, a special promise, a separate covenant for them only, a special future. For them is the earthly Jerusalem, earthly mount Zion, the earthly throne of David, the earthly temple and the earthly land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. They will be the real and true Israel forever, the proper seed of Abraham. But believers of the new dispensation are called the seed of Abraham in a figurative, spiritual sense of the word. Of them the apostle speaks in his third chapter of the epistle to the Galatians.

I maintain that this entire view is erroneous, false, anti-Scriptural. Over against it I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham. It is correct to say, that for a time the seed of Abraham were found exclusively among Abraham's descendants, as they are found now among all nations. But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham. The latter, the children of the promise, are at all times only the believers. In the times of the Old Testament they are found in the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Israel. In the new dispensation they are among all nations, there being no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile. But wherever they are found the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God, the believers. These and these only are the seed of Abraham.

Such is my contention.

And now the proof from the Word of God.

First of all I call your attention to Rom. 9: 6-8: 'Not as though the word of God had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, 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.'

It is evident: (1) That the apostle is here speaking of the Jews of the old dispensation. (2) That he makes a distinction between those that are of Israel and those that are Israel indeed. The people as such, the nation, were all of Israel. But even in the old dispensation that nation was not Israel. They were all of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, yet they were not all the seed. (3) That only spiritual Israel, believers, they that were born not of the flesh, but of the promise, i.e., by the power of that promise, as Isaac was, are the seed. The children of the promise are counted for the seed. When the Lord, therefore, speaks of the seed of Abraham such is the whole argument of the apostle, you must not make a mistake and apply that word of God to the Jews. It does not mean the Jews, but only the true Israel, the children of the promise for they and they only are the seed of Abraham. Please notice, that my proposition is proved: The Jews were never the seed of Abraham, though the seed of Abraham, for a time were Jews.

Consider, next Rom. 4:11-16: 'And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be a father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. And the father of the circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. For the promise that he should he the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 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.'

A detailed explanation of this rich passage is neither possible in this short treatise, nor necessary. But with a view to my proposition I submit the following: (1) That Abraham is here pictured as the father of all them that believe, both of those that are of the circumcision (the Jews), and of those that are of the uncircumcision all nations). They that believe, therefore, are the seed of Abraham whether they are of the law or simply of faith. (2) That only in that sense is he the father of circumcision. Not all that are of the circumcision that is, that are circumcised in their flesh, are the seed of Abraham, but only those among them that also believe. For he is the father of circumcision, that is, to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, vs. 12. (3) That to this one seed there is one and the same promise, that with their father Abraham, they should be heir of the world. They which are merely of the law are not heirs of the promise at all; but only they which are of the faith of our father Abraham, and he is the father of us all. One father Abraham, one seed of Abraham, one promise, and one way to obtain the promise: the way of the righteousness which is by faith.

Further, I submit to your consideration Rom. 2:28-29: '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.'

This passage speaks for itself and needs no elucidation. A mere Jew never was the seed of Abraham, never was a real Jew. Only he was a real Israelite, in whose heart was present the spiritual reality corresponding to the sign of circumcision, that is, faith. Again: not the Jews are the seed of Abraham; they never were; believers only are.

Again I would call attention to a passage that is perhaps the clearest statement of the unity of the people of God in the old and new dispensation, Gal. 3:7-9, 16-19; 4:1-7. I will quote only the following, 'Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then, they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham . . . Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to thy seed as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed which is Christ . . . And if ye be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.'

Notice, please, (1) That essentially and centrally the seed of Abraham is Christ and He only. The apostle emphasizes this truth in vs. 16, even drawing an argument from the fact that the singular is used instead of the plural. (2) If Christ is the seed of Abraham in the central sense, it stands to reason, that they only can be seed with Him, that are in Him, whether they be of the old or of the new dispensation. That is, therefore, the believers and they only, are the seed of Abraham, vs. 7. (3) That again, they and they only are the heirs according to the promise; there is one promise for the one seed. (4) That (and pay special attention to this), the apostle compares the Church of all ages to a growing child. In the old dispensation it is the heir, that is still a child, and is, therefore, under the tutorship of the law. But now, in the new dispensation it has grown into an adult. It is a son and has received the inheritance. The point is here, that the Church of the old dispensation and that of the new are likened to one person. When the child grows into an adult does it become an altogether different person, or is it not rather the same individual only developed? It is, therefore, the clear teaching of the Word of God, that there is only one people of God, that this people of God is called the seed of Abraham in Christ, that, therefore, this seed of Abraham is not the Jews, neither the Gentiles, but the believers with faithful Abraham. The unity of the Church of all ages is incontrovertibly established.

Do not imagine that these are the only passages that establish this unity. Scripture never speaks any different language, except, perhaps, for those that refuse to compare Scripture with Scripture. I can call attention to many other passages. The more I study the Word of God, the more I become convinced that this is the only line Scripture ever draws.

But I must be brief.

I will just ask you, therefore, to take your Bible and compare Hosea 1:10-11 with Rom. 9:24-26. The former passage is a prophecy of ten tribes; the latter explains that these ten tribes are the Church of the new dispensation, gathered from Jew and Gentile, so that the prophecy of Hosea is now fulfilled. Compare, too, Jer. 31:31-34 with Hebrews 8:6-13. In the passage from Jeremiah the prophet is speaking very specifically to Israel and Judah; but the epistle to the Hebrews is quoting this passage and Israel and Judah have now become the Church of the new dispensation. Compare again Amos 9:11-15 with Acts 15:13-17. Amos speaks of the restoration of the tabernacle of David and of the possession of Israel of all the heathen, of the return of Israel to their land and of their everlasting Possession of it. But in Acts 15, James explains that this restoration of the tabernacle of David and the possession by Israel of the Gentiles, is now fulfilled now the Gentiles enter into the fellowship of Christ. Note, too, please, that the keys of the house of David are now in the possession of Christ, Cf. Isa. 22:22 and Rev. 3:7. That Jerusalem and Mt. Zion are not destroyed, but that they are now realized, while only the shadows of them are destroyed; see Isa. 28:16; Rom. 9:33; I Pet. 2:6; Heb. 12:22; Gal. 4:25, 26; Rev. 3:12; 21:2; 21:10. That the same is true of the temple, the altar, the holy place, the sacrifice, the high priest, see Heb. 9:1-12, 21-24; 10:19-21; I Cor. 3:16; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:18-22; Rev. 3:12. And the land of Canaan, which is promised to Abraham and his seed, and which certainly shall be their everlasting possession is not the earthly country near the Mediterranean Sea, but is the heavenly country that is to come, when the New Jerusalem shall come down upon the new earth. In short the whole of the Word of God teaches this unity of the people of God and of all that pertains to them. All the promises are in Christ, and through Him they are for the true seed of Abraham, of all ages, the believers.

II. Circumcision and Baptism essentially the same

My next observation is that circumcision and baptism, though differing in form, are essentially the same in meaning.

Also this proposition I consider important, a necessary link in the chain of this single argument for infant baptism. The objection baptists love to make against the baptism of infants is not a scriptural one, but rather one they draw from their own mind. It is, that baptism is a sign and seal of the forgiveness of sin, of regeneration; that, therefore it may be administered only to those, whom we know to be believers, that is to those that confess their faith; that it is an established fact that many of the infants that are baptized in later life prove to be no children of God at all and are lost; and that for this reason it is certainly wrong to administer the sign of baptism to the children of believers, before they have come to years of discretion.

Against this argument many objections may be brought. But I want to emphasize what is to my mind the chief objection of all: the baptist with this argument directly argues against the Lord. For what he here urges against infant baptism holds in its force against infant circumcision; yet the circumcision of infants is directly enjoined by the Lord upon the seed of Abraham in their generations.

Also circumcision was a sign of the righteousness which is by faith, of spiritual circumcision of the circumcision of the heart, of regeneration and sanctification, of the cutting away of the old man of sin, of the love of God in a new heart. In all these respects the significance of the old covenant sign is the same as that of baptism. The identity of the two signs, though they differ in form, I will now proceed to prove from the Word of God.

1) First of all from passages that refer to circumcision only: Lev. 26:40, 41: 'If they shall confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity.' It is evident here, that an uncircumcised heart is the same as a heart that will not confess sin and iniquity. Of such a heart, therefore, circumcision was a sign.

Deut. 10:16: 'Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart and he no more stiffnecked.' This is plain language. Circumcision was a sign of a circumcised, that is, of a sanctified heart.

Deut. 30:6: '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.' Again, this is plain in itself. Circumcision was a sign of the work of God's grace in the heart, whereby the heart is filled with the love of God.

Jer. 4:4: 'Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the foreskin of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem.' In the language of the N. T. this is the same as saying: put off the old man of sin and put on the new man, which is renewed after the image of God in true righteousness and holiness. Circumcision was a sign of the putting off of the old man of sin.

Rom. 4:11: 'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised.' Here circumcision seals the righteousness of faith; that is, God seals in the sign of circumcision, that He justifies the believers by faith and count his faith for righteousness.

2) Secondly, from passages that speak of the significance of baptism: Acts 2:38: '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.' Baptism is a sign of the remission of sins, that is, of the righteousness which is by faith.

Act 22:16: 'And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' Baptism is the sign of the washing away of sin, of the righteousness which is by faith, the same as circumcision.

Rom. 6:4: 'Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life.' Baptism, like circumcision, is the sign of renewal in Christ. In baptism we die with Christ and we rise with Him in newness of life and walk.

Gal. 3:28: 'For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' Baptism is the sign of putting on Christ, that is, of being renewed in Him.

These passages may be multiplied. But there is, of course, no difference of opinion with respect to the significance of baptism. These passages, therefore, may suffice.

3) Thirdly, from passages that simply identify the two, circumcision and baptism:

Col. 2:11-12: 'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, whereas also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.' Here the apostle plainly identifies the signs of baptism and circumcision with respect to their significance. He writes to the Church of the new dispensation, that believers are circumcised in the spiritual sense of the word; and that this spiritual circumcision took place when they were buried with Christ in baptism. A more direct proof that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning, the change from the old into the new dispensation, i.e., from the dispensation of shadows into that of the fulfillment could not be given.

Phil. 3 :3: 'For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.' Here the apostle does not mention baptism, neither does he refer to it, but he maintains that not the Jews, but the Church of the new dispensation in Christ Jesus are the circumcision. Even circumcision has not essentially been discarded, but is continued in the Church of the new dispensation!

My second proposition I regard as sufficiently established by proof from the Word of God.

The baptist often attempts to dispute the statement that also occurs in our Baptism Form, namely, that circumcision has been replaced by baptism in the new dispensation. Of this the baptist refuses to be convinced. Yet, nothing could be more evident from the Scriptures. It is simply a historic fact, that baptism forced circumcision out of the way. When baptism came, circumcision must be discarded. For a time they existed side by side especially in Jewish-Christian communities, and circumcision tried to maintain itself alongside of baptism. But this proved impossible and circumcision was forced to surrender its place in the Church. And why? Because the Word of God plainly teaches, as we have shown, that essentially baptism has the same significance as circumcision, that two signs with the same meaning could not exist side by side, that circumcision belongs to the time of the shadows, and, therefore, must make room for baptism as being the sign of fulfillment. Hence, if one would still insist that circumcision were necessary for the Christian Church, he could only do so because he attached significance to it as an element of the law, sought the righteousness which is by the law, so that Christ had become no effect to him. And surely, baptism as being the same sign essentially and having the form proper to the new dispensation. So true this is, that the apostle writes that we are circumcised when we are baptized, Col. 2:11, 12; and that we are the true circumcision, Phil. 3:3.

III. A Sign for the Generations

I come to my third proposition: it is the will of God, plainly revealed in the Word of God, that this seed of Abraham, which is the same throughout the ages, shall receive the sign of the righteousness which is by faith, in their generations.

It is the very plain truth, revealed in Scripture and verified in all the history of the Church of God in the world from the beginning, that God causes His people to develop in the line of generations. Always He establishes His covenant organically in the line of continued generations. This is already evident from the protevangel in Gen. 3:15: 'I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed.' This is clear from the establishment of the covenant with Noah. 'And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you.' Gen. 9:9. Again this truth is revealed in Gen. 17:7. 'And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.' This is evident from the entire historical line of development, for the line of God's covenant runs in the line of generations, from Seth to Noah, from Shem to Abraham, from Abraham to Israel, from Israel to Christ, and even in the new dispensation it is very plain, that God has His people in the line of continued generations. Hence, the apostle Peter can preach on the day of Pentecost: 'The promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call,' Acts 2:39. And when the Lord calls those that are afar off, it is equally true for them: the promise is unto you and to your children. Only in this light can it be understood that we read repeatedly in the Scriptures, that houses were baptized. I do not care one whit, whether you argue that there were little children in those houses or whether you maintain the very opposite. The fact is, that houses, families were baptized. It is the organic idea that is expressed. God deals with generations. It is only in this same light that everywhere children are considered as belonging to the Church, in the new dispensation as well as in the old. God establishes His Church in the line of continued generations.

Does that mean, that all the children according to the flesh in those generations are spiritual children of God, are the seed of Abraham? God forbid that we should teach this, or even maintain that we must suppose it! No, the children of the promise are counted for the seed, and they are not all Israel that are of Israel. But this true seed of Abraham is found in the generations of God's people.

Now it is the plainly revealed will of God, that these generations of the seed of Abraham shall receive the sign of the covenant, the seal of the righteousness which is by faith, the sign of regeneration, of the putting off of the old man of sin and the putting on of the new man in Christ, of repentance and the forgiveness of sin. This was God's ordinance for Abraham and his seed. 'And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And be that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed,' Gen. 17 :9-12. In the old dispensation, then, children, all children that were born in the generations of the seed of Abraham must receive the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness which is by faith, of a new heart, of conversion and sanctification.

And this was never abolished.

Identically the same seed of Abraham still exists, as we have plainly shown, the only difference being, that, instead of being among national Israel it is among all nations.

The same everlasting covenant stands still established with that seed of Abraham, that is mentioned in Gen. 17 :7. And vs. 8 does not make this interpretation void, as Dr. De Haan thinks erroneously, for to Abraham and his spiritual seed God will indeed give the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, only the land will then have its heavenly form. Hence, it still holds for that seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:7), that God establishes His covenant with them in the line of continued generations, (Gen. 17:7 and many other places).

Identically the same sign of that covenant still exists, the only difference being that, appropriate to the new dispensation it has changed its form from circumcision into baptism. The essence of the sign was never abolished, the form was. There is still the sign which is a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, of regeneration and sanctification, of repentance and the washing away of sins.

Hence: it still holds, according to the plain revelation of the Scriptures, that the same sign and seal must be administered to the same seed of Abraham in their generations as a sign of God's everlasting covenant with them.

And here I close my argument. It is simple; not at all involved; a child can understand it. It is entirely scriptural, not philosophical, neither based upon the traditions of the Church. And it is incontrovertible. Even Dr. De Haan will now understand the truth of infant baptism and retract his former statements, I feel perfectly confident.

When the Church entered into the new dispensation, when the seed of Abraham burst from its shell of national Israel to develop among all nations, the truth that this seed of Abraham is found in the generations of believers, was plainly revealed and had been brought into practice for centuries. Children were always regarded as belonging to the Church. And this is the sole reason why in the New Testament you have no special command: be sure and baptize. The Church naturally baptized infants. They could never have conceived of anything else. A special command to baptize houses, children included, would have been a strange phenomenon.

And the baptist must not approach us with the supercilious question: where do you read in the New Testament of a command to baptize infants?

The burden of proof is entirely with them.

They must prove where and when God ever retracted His promise to Abraham and his seed, that He would establish His covenant in the line of their continued generations; they must prove where and when God ever commanded the Church to discontinue the practice of administering the sign and seal of the righteousness which is by faith to the generations 0£ Abraham's seed, to the children of believers.

May the Lord bless this little treatise unto the hearts of many, keep us founded in the truth of His Word, and open the eyes of many more for the truth of His everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed!

Herman Hoeksema

http://limerickreformed.com/articles/by-topic/cults-other-religions/item/140-the-biblical-ground-for-the-baptism-of-infants

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_7.html