PROTESTANT REFORMED THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL MARCH, 1981 VOLUME XIV, NO.2 t.I,I. ' : . ;';·.1 'I:' " .. '. i'l/"jr t?~.,: .~~~ -~~-• r., ; ~h • .". ~""' "tILT ~. " . ...... ~;;z;., • .--.... -_..:. -._- . - . -:=,~ -.-' ... ,. ~~:='-"---" -.... " THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL ) f OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMED CHURCHES GRANDVILLE, MICHIGAN PROTESTANT REFORMED THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL MARCH, 1981 VOLUME XIV, NO.2 This Journal is published and distributed in limited quantities, at no charge, by the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches. Interested persons desiring to have their names on the mailing list should address the Editor, Prof. H. Hanko, at the address of the school: 4949 Ivanrest Avenue Grandville, Michigan 49418 Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches Grandville, Michigan CONTENTS: Page The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism (8) Prof. Herman Hanko .................... .3 The Second Reformation in Scotland (2) Rev. Chris Coleborn 12 The Arian Controversy Rev. Ronald Hanko 45 The Pastor Prof. Robert D. Decker 61 Book Review (The Deacons Handbook) Reviewed by Prof. H. Hanko ............... 67 EDITORIAL COMMENTS Those of our readers who have been with us for some time are aware of the fact that. from time to time. we publish in our Journal papers which have been written for assignments in the Seminary. We have included in this issue another such paper. It will be published in two sections with the concluding section appearing. the Lord willing. in the Fall issue. The paper is written by Rev. R. Hanko. minister of the Word of God in the Wyckoff Protestant Re­ formed Church in Wyckoff, New Jersey. We welcome back to the pages of the Journal Prof. Decker who continues his series on pastoral work. We are sure that these articles will be of special help to the many of our readers who are pastors, for the pastoral work of the minis­ try is an important part of the minister's calling and is receiving increasing emphasis in our day. Pastor C. Colborn·s article on the Scottish Reformation is completed in this issue of the Journal. We are grateful to Pastor Coleborn for permission to publish this paper. You will recall, from our last issue where this essay was be­ gun. that Pastor Coleborn is minister of the Word in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia. We extend to our brothers in Australia and Tasmania the invitation to submit to us any other papers. which may have been written by them. for publication in our Journal. With this issue, the editor completes his series on infant baptism. Perhaps, the Lord willing, the Fall issue of the Journal will contain a further article on a critique of David Kingdon·s book written by Dr. J. Douma of the Liberated Churches in the Netherlands and entitled. "Infant Baptism and Regeneration." Copies of all the articles are available. ******* The Seminary still has a few copies of Turretin available, both in hard cover and in soft cover with plastic binding. If you would like to have a copy, please write soon. ******* With this issue of the Journal we conclude fourteen years of publishing. This is hard for us to believe; the time has gone very swiftly. Our beginning was very modest and somewhat hesitant because we did not know what reception our paper would have. But God has blessed our efforts beyond what we have asked or thought. Our subscription list has incteased over 500 % and we have been able to alter our format to make our publication look more professional. All these years we have sent the Journal out to our subscribers free of charge. For the moment we anticipate no change in this policy. We are willing and eager, insofar as possible. to bear the cost ourselves. Nevertheless, the costs continue to climb both in publishing the paper and in mailing it. If, therefore, any of our readers (many of whom have written us to express their appreciation for our work) desire to assist in paying these mounting costs. such assistance would be greatly appreciated. We are not asking for subscription prices, but we do believe you will want to know that our costs are great and that you may help us financially in this work. THE REFORMED DOCTRINE OF INFANT BAPTISM (8) Prof. Herman Hanko In bringing our series on the Refomled doctrine of infant baptism to a close. we are discussing a few issues which may in a sense be called peripheral. They do not deal with the heart of the debate between those who hold to infant baptism and those who maintain believers' baptism; but they are questions which repeatedly come up in the course of the discussion. And, by way of conclusion. a few words ought to be said about them. Two or three such matters we discussed in the last issue of the Journal; in this issue we conclude this discussion. MALE CIRCUMCISION An objection against infant baptism which is often raised by advocates of believers' baptism is the fact that in the Old Testament only males were cir­ cumcised, while in the New Testament both males and females are baptized. The argument goes something like this. If baptism has taken the place of cir­ cumcision, then there should be an analogy between the administration of the sign in the Old Testament and in the New as far as participants are concerned. Then in the Old Testament the sign of the covenant ought to have been adminis­ tered for boys and girls as baptism is i~ the New. Now it ought to be clear at the outset that this argument is not very weighty. It has, in fact. no weight at all among so-called Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists. generally, agree with us that circumcision was a sign of the covenant in the Old Testament and that baptism is a sign of the covenant in the New. Their disagreement lies elsewhere: they maintain that the two covenants are so different in content and administration that the fact that infants were circumcised in the Old Testament in no way proves that infants must be bap­ tized in the New. Thus, Reformed Baptists are open to the same charge: why were males baptized in the Old Testament and males and females baptized in the New? Only fully dispensational Baptists can really bring up this objection because they take the position that there is no identity nor analogy nor con­ nection (of any kind) between the Old Testament and the New. Hence, that males only were circumcised in the Old Testament while both males and females arc baptized is not an important or significant matter. It is probably because Reformed Baptists do want to speak of circumcision as a sign of the covenant 3 and of some connection (however tenuous) between the Old Testament covenant and the Ne\v that Kingdon docs not bring up this point in his book, "Children of Abraham." Nevertheless, we ought briefly to look at the objection. No doubt, in part, the difference in the sign has to do with the nature of the Old Dispensation. God chose circumcision as a sign of the covenant in the Old Testament. We are not told in Scripture why God chose this sign in dis­ tinction from other possible signs which He could have chosen, and any ans\\!er to the question will be somewhat speculative. But we suggest that there are two possible reasons. The first reason is that the sign of circumcision was a bluody sign. A great deal of blood was shed in the Old Dispensation because God \\lanted to remind His people all the time that without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22). A blood sign of the covenant would reinforce that general teaching. In the second placc, and in close con­ nection with this, the naturc of tbe sign (performed on the organ of generation) was a constant reminder to believing Israel that they were incapable of bringing forth the seed of the covenant by natural generation, conception, and birth. They \\tere able only to bring forth children of the flesh, children dead in sin. To bring forth the children of the promise, the true children of the covenant, re­ quired a wonder of grace, the miracle of grace which God performs in both the Old Dispensation and in the New. Now if this be correct that this is, at least in part, the reason why God chose circumcision as a sign of the covenant in the Old Testament, then it stands to reason that this sign could be given to males only. However, this must not be construed as being an unhappy corollary of the nature of the sign which God chose. The fact of the matter is that the line of the covenant was carried on through the males. The males occupied a position of special importance in the Old Testament, and it was sufficient for them [0 bear the sign of the covenant. If one reads the genealogies of Scripture in the Old Testament one cannot help but be struck by the fact that only males are mentioned. The exception to this is the geneology in ."v1atthew 1 where four women are mentioned. But these four women were unique in the covenant line. Tamar brought forth the seed of the promise by an act of adultery; Rahab and Ruth were foreigners and Rahab was a public harlot in the city of Jericho; Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah whom David stole from Uriah by adultery and murder. But the geneologies are limited, for the rest, to males. It is interesting to note that Refonned theologians generally have taken the position that the female was included in the male and thus participated in the sacrament.