May 2011
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
Authors
- Paul H. Treick (49)
- Eric Kayayan (6)
- Maynard Koerner (6)
- Jon Blair (2)
- Tracy Gruggett (3)
- Lloyd Gross (3)
- Lee Johnson (5)
- Wesley Brice (3)
- Hank Bowen (5)
- Scott Henry (15)
- Vernon Pollema (12)
- Robert Grossmann (13)
- Dr. Louis Praamsma (1)
- Eric Bristley (3)
- Kyle Sorensen (2)
- David Fagrey (2)
- James I. Good (1)
- Michael Voytek (3)
- Frank Walker (1)
- Jim West (5)
- Jerry DeYoung (1)
- Sam Powell (4)
- George Syms (3)
- Jonathan Merica (6)
- Matthew Powell (7)
- Thomas Mayville (5)
- Gil Baloy (3)
- Jay Nelken (2)
- L. Dale Clark (1)
- Howard E. Hart (2)
- Henry Beets (1)
- Otto Thelemann (1)
- Paul Henderson (5)
- Joe Vusich (2)
- Ron Morris (6)
- Michael McGee (4)
- Randall Klynsma (1)
- Jim Sawtelle (3)
- Phillip Poe (1)
- Ron Potter (2)
- Steven Richert (2)
- James Snyder (2)
- Dale Clark (1)
- Warren Embree (2)
- Harvey Opp (1)
- Dan Rogers (2)
- Emil Buehrer (2)
- Ewald Ochsner (1)
- Gary Mancilas (1)
- Jeff DeBoer (2)
- David Dawn (2)
- Steve Altman (1)
- Ryan Kron (2)
Mar. 2008 (4)
Part of our form for the baptism of infants states: "In the new dispensation no less than the old, the seed of the faithful, born within the church, have, by virtue of their birth, interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. For the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both dispensations."
As Reformed, covenantal believers, we believe that our children, including infants, must be baptized because they are included in the covenant of God, established already with Abraham, and therefore, are also heirs of all the promises of salvation.
The question naturally arises: Why are children included in the covenant of God? The answer to this question must be: Because God establishes His covenant in the line of continued generations. There is only one people of God throughout the ages, both in the Old and New Testaments, which is the true seed of Abraham. It is imperative that we see and understand this.
One Covenant People
The main reason why so many people reject the baptism of infants is that they fail to recognize the scriptural truth that the people of God are one and the same throughout all ages. That same grace is given and the same covenant is established with them and with their children throughout their generations, both in the Old and New Testaments. All are saved in and through the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross; those in the Old Testament as they looked forward to it and as all their sacrifices and ceremonies foreshadowed it; those in the New Testament as they look back and celebrate the now completed sacrifice and atonement of Christ.
Those who reject infant baptism fail to see this truth. According to them there are two peoples of God, two different seeds of Abraham: the Jews and the church, or natural Israel and spiritual Israel. The Jews, they say, are the real and natural Israel, with special privileges, a special promise, a separate covenant for them only, and a special future. For them is meant earthly Jerusalem, earthly Mount Zion, the earthly throne of David, the earthly temple, the earthly land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. It is for this reason that we see so much religious support for modern day Israel. They are and will be the real and true Israel forever, the proper seed of Abraham. But believers in the New Testament are called the seed of Abraham in a different sense, i.e., a figurative or spiritual sense, and have no covenantal connection with Old Testament Israel. The church of the New Testament is a temporary interruption, a parenthesis, if you will, with different laws and a different way of salvation. When this period is finished, God will resume with His Old Testament people.
One Seed of Abraham
The Word of God knows of only one seed of Abraham: the spiritual seed, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments. It is wrong to say that, in the Old Testament the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the New Testament, believers are this seed. The Jews, per se, never were the seed of Abraham! For a time the seed of Abraham was found among the line of his descendants as they are now found among all nations. Scripture never states that Abraham's blood descendants are the same as Abraham's seed. Rather, the seed of Abraham or children of the promise are first, at all times, only the believers! In Old Testament times they were found among the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Israel). In the New Testament they are found among all nations, there no longer being any difference between Jew and Gentile. Wherever they are found, the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God. Believers, and believers only, are the seed of Abraham. Scriptural proof is abundant, and that from one who was himself a Jew, though a converted one, and one who wished himself accursed if only his fellow Jews would become believers. I am referring to the apostle Paul who writes the following:
". . . I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath 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" (Rom. 9:2-8).
From the above passage, three things are clear: 1) The apostle Paul is speaking of the Jews in the Old Testament. 2) Paul 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 Testament that was not true Israel. They were indeed all of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh; yet they were not all the true, spiritual seed. 3) Only spiritual Israel or believers, that were born not of the flesh, but of the promise as Isaac was (a special creation and choice of God), are counted for the seed.
Therefore, when the Lord speaks of the seed of Abraham, one must not make the mistake of applying the Word of God to the Jews as such. It does not mean the Jews, but only true Israel-the children of the promise. They only are the seed of Abraham. Thus, all the Jews never were the seed the Abraham, although, for a time, the seed of Abraham were Jews, but only secondarily. Primarily, the seed were always believers. Again, hear the apostle Paul:
"And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of 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 be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. . . . Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not 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" (Rom. 4:11-13, 16).
In the above passage, Abraham is pictured as the father of all them that believe, both those that are of the circumcision, which would mean the Jews, and of those that are of the uncircumcision, which would mean those of all nations. Thus, once again, believers are the seed of Abraham.
Note, too, that not all those of the circumcision are the true seed of Abraham, but only those among them that also believe. For he is "the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being uncircumcised" (vs 12). In other words, just the mere act of circumcision didn't guarantee you were the true seed. There had to be true faith like that of Abraham.
One Inheritance
And, finally, note that to this one seed there is one and the same promise: that, with their father Abraham, they should be heirs of the world. There is one father, Abraham, one seed of Abraham, one promise, and one way to obtain the promise, i.e., the way of righteousness which is by faith in Christ Jesus.
Continuing with the apostle Paul:
"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" (Rom. 2:28, 29).
This passage speaks for itself. It teaches plainly that the mere Jew was never the seed of Abraham and was never a real Jew. Only he was a real Israelite in whose heart faith was present. The Jews, as such, are not the seed of Abraham. They never were. Only believers, those of faith, are the true seed of Abraham.
The apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians provides further proof:
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, forseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached 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 seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. . . . For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:7-9, 16, 26-29).
Here is, I believe, the clearest statement of the unity of the people of God in both the Old and New Testaments. The apostle teaches that, essentially and centrally, the seed of Abraham is Christ. This becomes especially clear in verse 16 where the singular seed is used: "He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The seed of Abraham finds its focal point; its unity in Christ. And if Christ is the seed of Abraham in the central sense, it stands to reason that they only can be seed with Christ that are in Christ, whether they be of the Old or New Testament. "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (vs 7). Once again, only believers are the seed of Abraham.
The entire passage emphasizes that there is only one promise for the one seed of Abraham, and that therefore believers are the only heirs of the one promise: "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (vs 29).
Christ, himself, declared, "Before Abraham was, I am" (Jn. 8:58). Believers, Abraham's seed, were chosen "in him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4).
The Word of God teaches that there is only one people of God; that this seed is called the seed of Abraham in Christ; that the seed of Abraham is neither the Jews as such, nor the Gentiles as such, but believers, those of faith. And thus, the unity of the church of all ages is firmly and surely established. The people of God have always been one in both the Old and New Testaments.
One Covenantal Sign
Now, finally, we must take the next step, i.e., the defense of infant baptism, by showing that there is also essentially only one sign of the covenant made with Abraham, but that it merely changed in form. In the Old Testament it was circumcision; in the New Testament it is baptism; the meaning of both is the same.
Circumcision was the cutting away of the foreskin of all male children. Under representative headship, the female children were included in the male. Figuratively and spiritually, circumcision was a sign of the righteousness which is by faith, a circumcision of the heart, of the cutting away of the old man of sin, of love for God out of a new heart, of being separated or set apart unto God. The spiritual meaning of this sign is clearly stated in 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 mayst live."
Thus we see that circumcision is a sign of the same grace that is designated in baptism. Both have the same meaning, though they differ in form. Concerning baptism we read: "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 Spirit. 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" (Acts 2:38, 39). Baptism, too, is the sign for the "cutting away" or the washing away of sin and of the righteousness which is by faith.
Circumcision belonged to the times of types and shadows when blood had to be shed to signify the great, once-for-all shedding of the blood of Christ. The foreskin was cut and blood was shed. But now, since the great, once-for-all sacrifice has been made and the final blood shed for sins, circumcision had to make room for the unbloody sign, baptism, as the sign of fulfillment. Instead of blood, water, an unbloody sign, is used to point back to the shed blood of Christ which alone cleanses from sin. Thus, baptism has come in the place of circumcision, although both signs have essentially the same meaning and signify the same cleansing, i.e., through the blood of Christ. Thus we read in Colossians 2:11, 12, where both are brought together:
"In whom [Christ] 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 (His shed blood): Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."
Now those opposed to infant baptism also believe that baptism is a sign and seal of the righteousness by faith, of forgiveness of sin, and of regenerating grace. However, it may be administered only to those whom we know to be believers, i.e., to those who confess faith, who have come to the years of discretion and understanding (Thus, the designation: "Believer's Baptism). But this contradicts the Scriptures, for what is argued against infant baptism must then also be argued against infant circumcision. Yet the circumcision of infants is directly commanded by the Lord upon the seed of Abraham in their generations: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in thy house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed" (Gen. 17:12). Today, the seed of the faithful, born within the church, are also the seed of Abraham. As infants in the Old Testament were included in the covenant and circumcised, so today infants are baptized because God establishes that covenant in the line of continued generations for an everlasting covenant. "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" (Gen. 17:7). "For the promise is to you, and to your children (the believers, the church), and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). Lydia and the Philippian jailor were among those "afar off" whom the Lord called. He establishes His covenant with them and the sign of the covenant, baptism, is administered to them and their households (seed): "And when she [Lydia] was baptized, and her household, she besought us saying . . . And he [jailor] took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway" (Acts 16:15, 33). And thus a new line of continued generations has begun, and now, in time, their children would baptize their children!
One in Christ
There always has and always will be but one people of God: those with whom He establishes His everlasting covenant of grace in Christ: "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and in you all" (Eph. 4:4-6).
In conclusion, infant baptism is not an absolute guarantee that every infant will actually receive the blessings of the covenant, There are children and parents that never really receive the blessing of the promise and, who trample under foot the covenant of God. They are covenant breakers, and they have caused many to react against the covenant and inclusion of children in that covenant by baptism. However, the abuse of the covenant and its sign does not invalidate the covenant and its sign. This was so in the Old Testament and within the nation of Israel. All Israel experienced the deliverance of God and His provisions in the wilderness; they all received the law and message of the prophets; they all offered sacrifices at the altar; yet, with many God was not well-pleased. There were the true children and the false who despised God's covenant and trampled under foot the holy things of God. Yet, it was the will of God that ALL receive the sign of circumcision.
It is no different in the New Testament. Many people in the church today have received baptism in their infancy as the sign of the covenant. They hear the Word of God preached. They celebrate the death of Christ at the Lord's table. Yet, in their hearts, they despise the things of God. They are hypocrites, the whited sepulchers, just as the Scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day (cf. Matt. 23:27, 28). They said: "We have Abraham to our Father" (Matt. 3:9). But, as we have already seen, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." Neither are they children of God because they are of Abraham's natural seed. Only true believers are the true seed of Abraham, and to them and to their seed is the promise (covenant) of grace and that will never fail.
I believe that the question of origins is an important question. For example, from where did the world come? Did it just happen? Most rational people believe that the world had to have had a beginning, but how did that come about? Was there nothing and then there was something?
The Creative Power of God
The Bible says that God created the world. It says that he spoke the world into existence by His Word. He spoke the sky and the seas, the land and the trees, the birds and the bees into existence by his mighty word. Now, for you or me, this would be an impossibility. No man can simply speak a fish into existence, for example. (Although I know of some fishermen that sure wish they could!). But God can because God is not subject to natural laws like we are. God is All-Powerful. Therefore, God can speak the entire cosmos into existence.
I believe this is an important thing to remember when it comes to the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus. How did the Lord Jesus come into this world? It was a miracle, just like the creation of the world was a miracle.
The Bible says that Jesus was born to a virgin named Mary. In Luke's account we read of an encounter between Mary and the angel Gabriel:
"Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end." Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:30-35).
A Miracle of God
This passage clearly states that the birth of Jesus would not be of the conventional type. When the angel tells Mary that she is going to have a baby, Mary asks how this can be since she was a virgin. Some liberal critics at this point say that the term "virgin" simply means "young woman." And it does mean that. But it also implies a young woman who has not had marital relations. This is clearly the way Mary is using this term. She knows who she is and what she's been doing. And because she knows what she's been doing, she knows that she should not be included in the category of expectant mothers. This is why the angel's words were so shocking to her and why she asked for an explanation. The angel answers that it will be a work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, a miracle! Before Mary and Joseph would consummate their marriage, Mary would have a baby growing in her belly. And not just any child, but the very Son of God.
The conception of the Lord Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit is not a bit of Bible trivia. It is of vital importance to who Jesus is and what Jesus did. This is why the Apostle's Creed has this critical theological concept in its reading.
One of the finest expositions of the Apostle's Creed ever written is contained in the Heidelberg Catechism. What does the Catechism say in regard to this article of the Apostle's Creed? Questions 35 and 36 address this important concept.
Question 35 of the Catechism asks, "What is the meaning of ‘conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary?'" The answer is, "That the eternal Son of God, who is and continues true and eternal God, took upon Himself the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit; so that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, except sin." Let's look at the answer to question 35.
First of all, note that it is the eternal (emphasis mine) Son of God who is conceived in the virgin's womb. This means that the Son of God did not come into existence at this time. He already existed. In fact, he has always existed, co-eternally, with the Father and the Spirit. The Bible teaches that God is one in his essence but three in person. The three persons of the Holy Trinity are known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God has always been Father, Son and Holy Spirit and always will be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The three members of the Godhead exist eternally in perfect union and communion. So when the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive, the Spirit was not creating the Son of God.
The Significance of the Virgin Birth
But why did Jesus come into the world in this fashion? If he already existed as the Son of God from all eternity, why not just appear? God has been known to show up on the earth from time to time and manifest himself in physical form. Recall the story of Jacob wrestling with God in Genesis 32. In that passage, Jacob is on his way to meet his brother Esau. But before their meeting, Jacob was accosted by a "Man" who wrestled with him until daybreak. The "Man" touched Jacob's hip, putting it out of joint. Without going into the details of this story, we see at it's conclusion that Jacob deduced, "I have seen God face to face" (v. 30). So if God can be manifested in such a way that he could actually wrestle with a man for several hours, why not come that way instead of through the virgin's womb?
The issue here is not of Christ's deity. Rather, it is an issue of humanity. The reason Jesus came was to "save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). God did not sin. Neither did the animals. It was humanity that sinned. And for humanity to be redeemed, humanity needed a human redeemer. This is why the Catechism says that he "took upon himself the very nature of man."
When God created the world, he created a man in his very own image and after his own likeness. This man was called Adam. Adam was a literal, historical figure. He was as real and as historical as Moses, David, Paul, Peter, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy or George W. Bush. As the first man created, Adam was the federal head of the human race. As such, the actions of Adam would affect all of humanity. According to the Bible, God placed a forbidden tree in the Garden in which Adam lived. He also gave the law which was that Adam was not to eat of the forbidden tree. It's not as though there was anything physically or chemically wrong with the fruit of the forbidden tree; it wasn't poisonous. Rather, the law was a test of fidelity to God and to God's Word. By refraining from eating of the forbidden tree, Adam would be demonstrating belief in and subjection to God's Word. By eating, he would be rebelling against God, becoming a law unto himself.
As the story goes, Adam disobeyed God and ate. This evil act plunged not only himself but all of humanity into a sinful rebellion against God. God had warned Adam that if he sinned, death would be the penalty. Adam sinned, and humanity died that day. This death is both physical and spiritual. Because of this death we see all around us manifestations of this death. We see war, disease, suffering, pain, even natural disasters and, yes, physical death. Death, hell, and the grave gained power over humanity on that dreadful day.
We have no one to blame for all of this sin and misery but ourselves. We, as a race of people, rebelled against God and have been reaping the consequences of that rebellion. God is innocent in all of this. He is only being just by allowing the product of our rebellion to bear fruit. And if we left it at that, we would have a just and holy God.
But God is not only just. He is not only holy. God is also abounding in grace and mercy. And because he is so full of love, he has acted in history to bring about so great a redemption that not only will he save and deliver a people in such a way as to bring joy and happiness to them, but he would also do it in a way that brings glory and honor to his name. This great redemption all began in the womb of a virgin named Mary.
The Second Adam
Just as Adam went to a tree and rebelled against God, a Second Adam, Jesus, would go to a tree (the cross) and redeem a people for God. But there are certain requirements for this Second Adam. He must be true God so that he can contain the full wrath of God against sin. But he must also be a true and righteous man so that he can be a true substitute for man. A sheep can't be a right substitute for a man. We need a man to be a substitute for a man. This is why Jesus came through the virgin's womb; to take upon himself a human nature, "like unto his brethren in all things, except sin." Jesus, the sinless Son of God, free from any taint of human sin, came into the world with a human nature to save us from our sin.
Question 36 of the Catechism asks, "What benefit do you receive from the holy conception and birth of Christ?" The answer is, "That He is our Mediator, and with His innocence and perfect holiness covers, in the sight of God, my sin, wherein I was conceived." That's a classic gospel statement in a nutshell.
The Father so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. And this Son was given, conceived by the Holy Spirit, to take on a human nature in the womb of the virgin Mary. In so doing, the God-Man redeemed a people for the glory of God. And for this, all of God's people should rejoice!
Man, Creation and the Modern Environmentalist Movement
Written by Matthew PowellThen God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." - Genesis 1:26-28
In any discussion of man's proper relationship to the earth, these verses ought to be at the forefront of our minds. Here we see God's "vision statement" for man. This is what man is supposed to be in relation to the creation that he was put into.
In God's creative act, we see an important application of the idea that some of God's attributes are communicable (meaning that we share in some sense in those attributes) and some are incommunicable. God's attributes of love, knowledge, justice, and others are ones that we share in some sense, though we never equal God in any of those attributes. Other attributes such as God's omnipotence and infinity are not attributes we share in any sense. So too in creation, we see two basic activities undertaken by God. One is the creation ex nihilo, creation from nothing, the bringing into existence of something which did not exist before. This act is something which man cannot do in any sense. The other aspect, though, of what God did in the creation is to bring order to chaos. Before the creation, the earth (everything that was) was, according to verse 2, without form and void. That means it was empty (void), and chaotic. God brought substance into that void, and then he ordered it. He made distinctions, separating the day from the night and the water from the land. He set the stars and planets in their course to distinguish between different seasons and times, and He gave names to what He had created.
Man in God's Image
His final act of creation was to create man. And man was created after His own image. One would think that the creation of one after God's own image would include engaging in the very same acts in which God Himself engaged, in some fashion, and one would be right. God's very first command to Adam is that Adam continue and finish the work of creation. Adam was to go into the world and subdue it. To subdue something is to rule it, to bring it under one's control. And just like God, part of this work was naming. Adam was given the work of naming the animals.
What we see in Genesis 1-2 is that God, in His creative act, deliberately left His creation unfinished. He created man, in His image, to finish it. This is no diminishing of His glory, rather, it amplifies it. Not satisfied with simply creating rocks and birds and trees and stars, as if that were not enough, He also created a being that was like God, a representative of God, to finish the work of ordering the chaotic creation.
All useful work that man does is essentially bringing order out of chaos. A farmer orders a field, tills it, fertilizes it, works it, to bring it out of its natural chaotic state and into a state where it can be more useful. A construction worker shapes chaotic natural materials into ordered structures that are more useful for man. A lawyer or a policeman works with the chaotic materials of human relationships and shapes them into something that can fit more usefully into a properly ordered human society. In all of this work, man bears testimony to the image of God within him, and glorifies God who made him.
But fallen man hates God and therefore hates the image of God. He rebels against that image in a million different ways. We are seeing one particular instance of that rebellion in the modern environmentalist movement.
The Earth is the Lord's, Not Man's
Of course, nobody needs to tell a Christian to take care of the earth. We know it's a fundamental principle that the earth is the Lord's, and anything that the Lord has given us we are to use to His glory, not for our own selfish purposes. God told the ancient Israelites to let even their land rest one year in seven, which we know serves an important purpose for the health of the land. But the modern environmentalist movement goes much farther than that. To see how far this bias has shaped us, just think of the automatic assumption that something that is natural must be better. "All-natural" food must be healthier for you, we think. Yet, why should that necessarily be so? The world is under a curse, and we have to do a great many things to overcome the effects of sin on creation. And indeed, even in the garden of Eden, creation in its untouched state was not in its ideal state. Man was given the job of "subduing" nature, which means that nature needed order and rule. If that was true even before the curse, how much more so after?
The oft-stated aims of the modern environmentalist movement is to reduce as much as possible the "footprint" or "environmental impact" that man has on nature. If a particular species of plant or animal is harmed by the activity of man, that is automatically assumed to be evil, with any possible benefit to man being simply irrelevant. The word "evil" is appropriate, since if it were simply a practical negative, one might think of practical positives that could outweigh it. But we all know examples of cases where the survival of one tiny variant of mouse, snail or owl has been weighed to be more important than the livelihoods of thousands of people. That's not a weighing of practical benefits. That's the application of a religious principle. And the religious principle that drives the modern environmentalist movement is that nature is perfect, and any alteration of nature is therefore evil. No evidence is produced or needed to support this idea. No cataloging of statistics showing how industry and economic development has improved the lives of millions, and even improved the health of the environment, will ever change this principle in the minds of those who hold it. It is a matter of faith.
The idea that nature is perfect and must be altered as little as possible might not sound so terrible. But what makes this religious principle so pernicious is that it directly attacks the image of God. The idea that man's job is to rule and subdue the earth is an absolute heresy to the mind of the modern environmentalist.
Modern Environmentalism
How else does one explain the irrational hatred of power plants, strip malls, commercial farming and the like that permeate this movement? These things are all absolutely necessary for the modern environmentalist to live the way he does. None of them actually practice what they preach. If they did, they would kill themselves, or at least go live in a cave and eat roots and berries. We are told that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, leading to the warming of the earth. Yet carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of every single human activity. The only way for you to truly become carbon neutral is for you to die. But God commanded man to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." The idea that we must reduce our carbon footprint is tantamount to saying that God made a mistake.
Genesis 8:21-22 fundamentally contradicts the tenets of the modern environmentalist movement: "...Then the LORD said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease."
It is fashionable these days for Christians to jump on this bandwagon, with many in the evangelical world echoing the same kinds of things we hear from very godless elements in our society. There is a great deal of contrary science disproving the theory of man-made global warming, but the Scriptures ought to be all we need to recognize its pagan roots. Just as with the question of the earth's origins, science must always support our understanding of Scripture. Science never determines our understanding of Scripture. The well-grounded Christian ought not put away his Bible when wondering about a question like this, and the Bible clearly defines man's role in the earth. He is to fill and subdue it. He is to finish God's work of creation by continuing to bring order out of chaos. He is to be a good steward of that with which God has entrusted him. The creative, organizing, industrial, economic impulse in man is not an evil impingement on pure and perfect nature, but is in fact the fulfillment of just what God created man to be. The belief that any industrial or economic activity of man is an evil to be suppressed as much as possible is driven by the hatred of God and the hatred of the image of God within man.
As my father has frequently pointed out to me, the story of God's redemption begins in a garden, but it ends in a city. Let us remember always to worship the creator, and not the creature. Let us worship Jehovah rather than the world which Jehovah made.
How often when we begin to discuss differences in theology, does someone end it by saying, "Well, this is not a salvation issue?" implying that if it does not affect our salvation, it doesn't matter.
I certainly understand that there are matters that fall under the heading of adiaphora-things indifferent. These are the extra-biblical practices or traditions that find their way into the church. Admittedly, some people have made "things indifferent" into salvation issues, saying, "you can't be a real Christian if you don't do that!" This brand of modern hypocrisy is a stain on the church and her doctrine. On the other hand, liberal theology has found a comfort zone when they deviate from biblical teachings, by categorizing these as non-salvation issues.
What is or is not a salvation issue is a matter that can be debated another time, but I am concerned with the premise. Is our salvation the main criteria by which we interpret the Bible. There certainly are proper salvation issues. Some would say that all that is required is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved...." (Acts 16:31) Yet, that too needs to be defined and our Heidelberg Catechism does an excellent job in this.
What is disturbing is that the ‘non-salvation issue' argument is supposed to settle any discussion. However, if the question of what we as Christians believe or practice is simply a matter of how it affects our salvation, that is a pretty selfish attitude. Often the question becomes, "How low can we set the bar, and still be orthodox?" For many in the Christian community, a generic Christianity is actually the ideal-with a minimum of doctrines, creeds, or definitions.
This fickle attitude is substantiated by a 2008 survey from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://religions.pewforum.org), which stated that more than a quarter of U. S. adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion. Forty-four percent said they had moved from one Protestant denomination to another in their lifetime. That survey also found that 25 percent of adults aged 18-29 claim no affiliation with any religious institution (a bleak future). Mainline Protestant churches are declining and non-denominational Protestant churches are taking up the slack (traditional Reformed and Presbyterian membership stands a slightly over one percent.
In many cases people have not left the faith, but the church has left the faith and forced people to seek an alternative, often with different doctrinal fundamentals. Others have simply left their historical, doctrinal moorings, judging them to be antiquated and non-essential. The comfort zone in changing churches is that whatever the differences, they are not salvation issues. Some differences obviously do involve matters of orthodoxy, and some do not. Many people could not even name the three marks of a true church, or they don't care since they deem them non-salvational issues.
Questions and issues are inevitable. But the, ‘This won't affect my salvation' argument is a poor starting point. We need a principle outside of ourselves to make good judgments. There is a better criteria for Christians to employ-one that is less man-centered and more God-centered. The principle that should take priority in our thinking is God's glory. Ask yourself, "How will what I do impact God's glory? Will it in any way dishonor Him?"
More must be involved than simply, "If I do this or believe this, can I still be saved?" That amounts to, "How close can I get to the edge without falling off?" This presumption flows right out of post-modern thought in which everything centers on man, his feelings, and his definitions. Pragmatic modern man defines the salvation issues in accord with his desires or with his ignorance of God revealed in the Scriptures.
A better criteria to determine every course of action would be, "will this bring greater glory and praise to God?" This too, must be defined, not by man, but by God who has revealed Himself and His will in the Scriptures. If some practice in the church or in our faith cannot pass that test, we have no business going there.
Many things in life will require some careful thought as to whether they are right or wrong. The first question may not be, "How will this affect me?" but, "How will this affect a holy God?" The Apostle Paul contemplated this and concluded, "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (I Cor. 10:31) Whether or not, in all things, we seek to bring God the glory for the gift of salvation is a real salvation issue.
