In ‘Almost Dutch pt. I’ I reviewed the doctrinal standards of the Dutch reformed churches called the Three Forms of Unity. I noted that—doctrinally—I was almost Dutch because of my general approval of the Three Forms. However, there is one major difference and that is that I am an English Baptist.

Apart from a mild discrepancy with ministers vs. elders[1] my main critique of the Three Forms is infant baptism and correspondingly the nature of saving faith.

1.Baptism
For other blogs on baptism click here. For a worksheet on baptism click here.
It should come as no surprise that a convictional Baptist would take umbrage with infant baptism. This is address in Belgic Confession ch. 34 to which I take the following exceptions:

1. While the washing of water is a biblical symbol (1 Pet 3:21) it is not the predominant one, which is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (Ro 6:3–5); clearly not something infant baptism or affusion (pouring) can identify with.
2. Old Testament circumcision cannot be likened to the New Covenant sacrament of baptism because every covenant has unique signs. The New Covenant is kainos new (i.e. a new invention) and not neos new (a brand-new car). The new sign of baptism befits the New Covenant, which is not a mixed covenant (believers and unbelievers) like the Old Covenant but one of believers only.
3. It is not adult baptism but believer’s baptism by immersion; something a child can experience if they demonstrate saving faith.
4. Using the Old Testament metaphor, Paul does speak of the circumcision of the heart, however, this is not in reference to baptism

Baptism is also addressed in the Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74, to which I take the following exceptions:

1. The same inter-covenantal and child-adult confusion as in the above.
2. While the children of believers are part of the visible church community by association, to join the Church is to be believe and be baptized, something which infants cannot yet do.

              

1. Saving Faith.

While the Three Forms defines saving faith splendidly,[2] what is said on paper and done in practice can differ greatly. When a child that has been baptized—usually as a teenager—wishes to move from child membership to full communicant membership and the ability to take communion they must confirm the baptismal vows made at their infant baptism in public (called Confirmation or Public Profession of Faith). In other words, they must accept personal responsibility for their faith. This is done through learning the catechism, being interviewed by the elders, making their vows and then receiving communion. While under the hands of an evangelical and discerning minister/elders this can be a useful process, I have often witnessed this being done culturally or nominally with the end result being unregenerate church members who rest in their baptism, public profession and orthodoxy (head knowledge) vs. personal saving faith in Christ as expressed in believer’s baptism by immersion.  
​
I have great appreciation for Dutch culture and the Three Forms generally, however, as a Baptist I see these two points are great vulnerabilities.


[1] I see elders as being co-equal, and the man whom we may refer to as minister or pastor being a first among equals.

[2] Belgic ch. 22; Heidelberg, Q 21. 

I actually have no Dutch blood but this winter I read the Three Forms of Unity of the Dutch Reformed Church (accepted in 1619), and generally read them with great approval.[1] They stand as time tested expressions of biblical Reformed orthodoxy.

The Three Forms of Unity is made up of:

• The Belgic Confession (1561)
  • History: Rooted in a French confession it was drawn up to convince the Spanish King (who owned the Low Countries at the time) that the Reformed Christians there were not heretics. It follows a traditional sixfold order of: God, man, Christ, salvation, church and last things.
  • Impression: While theological, it is warm, experiential and devotional. It frequently speaks personably using ‘we.’
• The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
  • History: Elsewhere in Europe the prince of the German Palatinate province requested his university in Heidelberg to produce a catechism (teaching tool) to help young people, families and preachers. It contained 129 questions that followed the book of Romans: true comfort, faith in Christ (Apostle’s Creed and sacraments), true gratitude (10 Commandments and Lord’s Prayer).
  • Impression: Next to the Bible, Pilgrim’s Progress and Imitation of Christ, the Heidelberg Confession is said to be the next popular Christian text, available in numerous languages. It exudes a warm piety. My favourite is #27 & 28 on Providence.
• The Canons of Dort (1619)
  • History: These were written in response to the Remonstrants (Protestors) who were followers of Arminius and who rejected key aspects of Reformed soteriology (sovereign grace; salvation). It was produced by the international Synod of Dort held in the Netherlands. From this comes the Reformed acrostic TULIP. In each article the Synod affirmed biblical teaching and rejected key tenets of the Remonstrants.  
  • Impression: The responses were highly biblical, thoughtful, irenic and devoid of any negative caricatures. They bring clarity to confusion and are most edifying.  They truly are a life-giving and beautiful tulip.

Taking a high view of these historic Protestant Reformed confessions, continental companions of the British Westminster/2nd London Baptist Confession, makes me almost Dutch, but with one major difference, I’m an English Baptist!

​STAY TUNED FOR PART II


[1] I had read portions of them before but this was the first time I read them all. 

Theology is the knowledge of God, both factual and experiential (Ps 34:8- Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good…). It also includes everything He has revealed about faith and practice. Theology is not boring, it is the foundation of Christian life and inspires worship and holy living.

Sadly, however, many people get bored of God and plateau or ‘fall away’ after an initial interest. Such can be the case with some children raised in the Church. Such people inevitably grow out of theology. Why does this happen? This happens when people have not embraced true theology but rather manmade or partially true theology. You see, humans are finite—limited. Any theology based on man will invariably be able to be exhausted. Once we’ve reached its limit, we tire of it, stagnate or move on. How sad! We grow out of theology when we have a small view of God and a big view of man.

True theology is based upon what God has revealed about Himself and His ways in the Bible. Because He is infinite—limitless—we can never exhaust true theology. Seeing the big God of the Bible is key to never growing out of theology but always having more to grow into; more to discover, more to experience, more to learn! True theology provides us with an inexhaustible pursuit that we will enjoy, not only today, but for eternity. The believer has an eternity to get to know God! True theology inspires love and service and growth.

Bored with theology? Try switching to a theology that you can grow into, not out of! 

The atonement is the completed sacrificial work of Christ in His life and death to satisfy the Laws demands unto God the Father. The atonement deals with the problem of sin, so that in mercy, fallen mankind might be restored to a relationship with God. It literally means at-one-ment; what was done so we might be at one with God.
​
Why was this needed? In the Garden, Adam and Eve needed to obey the Law, or Covenant of Works (Gen 2:15), or face the consequence/wage. The Law demanded perfect obedience (righteousness) or the wage/consequence would be perfect justice (Ro 6:23a). In breaking the Covenant they died spiritually and began to die physically. They were cut off from God and under His wrath.

Grudem defines the atonement simply as, “The work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1236; c.f. 1689.8.4).

Since we were: a) disobedient, and b) are under just sentence, Jesus’ atoning work had a twofold nature to it: His active obedience and passive obedience.

• Active obedience: Jesus lived the perfect life, the life we should have lived (Phil 3:9; Mt 3:15; Ro 5:19; 2 Cor 5:21, etc). He was perfect as a child, perfect in temptation, perfect in ministry, perfect under the Law, perfect in suffering and death. In this He ‘fulfilled righteousness’ and the Father accepted His perfect life and fulfillment of the Law as righteous.
• Passive obedience: In His suffering and death, Jesus paid the punishment and final penalty for breaking the Law, for sin, which was suffering and ultimately death. Jesus suffered in leaving heaven, He suffered in living amongst sinners, He suffered when He was tempted, He suffered when His family wouldn’t believe in Him and when He was rejected, He suffered the loss of friends, He suffered betrayal. Finally, in Gathsemane as He sweat blood (not merely because of what He would face but what He received [the sentence of sin deserved]), He took the penalty of sin and bore it to Calvary through His Passion (suffering). He further suffered abandonment (God and friends), arrest, injustice, scourging, mockery, jeers and crucifixion, where the full wrath of God toward sin was poured out upon Jesus until complete payment/satisfaction was made to the Father, until He died (blood). He was a man of sorrows (Isa 53:3) who made atonement for sin (again 2 Cor 5:21, Ro 3:25, 1 Pe 2:24, etc).

The atonement, both Jesus’ active and passive obedience, fulfilled the Laws demands unto the Father such that in Christ, the Father would accept His substitute for the believer. Jesus did the work that was needed so that at-one-ment could be made. Faith is how we access these benefits. By faith, Christ’s active obedience (righteousness) is imputed/credited to our account. When the Father sees us, He now sees His Son’s perfect righteousness. By faith, our sin/unrighteousness is credited to Christ, such that because of His death/penalty, we can go free, forgiven, our account cleared. Both are needed to be at-one with God, otherwise we could be forgiven but not fit for heaven, etc.

Atonement is what Christ did. Justification by faith is how the sinner accesses Christ’s merits to be declared just, or righteous (both morally and legally).
 
Other blogs on the atonement.

As a Christian, I am a fundamentalist; I uphold the fundamentals of the faith.

Fundamentalism began in the late 1800s in response to theological/biblical liberalism that denied key tenants of the faith. Initially Fundamentalism was a thoughtful response to defend the faith (Jud 3) but by the 1920s was it was becoming increasing militant (i.e. an angry evangelical). At this time Fundamentalism emerged on the one hand and [classic] conservative evangelicalism/Baptists on the other. So today you’ll hear of Fundamentalist Baptists and other streams of Baptists. This is why I’m a fundamentalist Baptist but not a Fundamentalist Baptist.
​
*Not all Fundamentalists Baptist believe all of the following; nor is this meant to be a caricature. Rather, it is a thoughtful comparison. 

Rev. L.L. Langstroth, the father of modern beekeeping, was preaching in Dayton, OH on Oct 6, 1895. Because of his age he had to preach sitting down. He opened his sermon with these words, “Today I wish to speak to you about the love of God.” Then he died. As a preacher there would be no better way to go. Maybe the Lord was being merciful, sparing him from a difficult subject. While God’s love might seem simple enough, it is actually a difficult doctrine (not unlike the Trinity, providence or the atonement, etc). 

In our national statement of faith we affirm that “salvation is by the sovereign, electing grace of God.”[1] What is this?

It has a linguistic, biblical, theological and historical meaning.

Firstly, when handling the doctrine of election it must be remembered that it, like the Trinity and Creation, election is a “high mystery” of the Faith to be handled with “special prudence and care” (1689. 3.7).

Linguistic
Sovereign: Sovereign means to have complete claim and control (e.g. arctic sovereignty). The Lord is sovereign. He is a King who reigns. His sovereignty extends even to salvation. “Salvation belongs to the Lord.”
Electing: To elect means to choose (e.g. electing a new government). To sovereignly elect/choose in salvation means that salvation is rooted in God’s choice.
Grace: Is God’s unmerited favour toward sinners. Since we are totally depraved, dead (Eph 2) and not seekers of God (Ro 3), we could only be saved if God chose to sovereignly save us in accordance with His grace.

Biblical
Students of the Bible should be familiar with these words and concepts. Without accepting this doctrine there will be many things in the Bible that will remain closed and confusing to us. Election is a plain and unmistakable teaching of the Bible. There are numerous passages that speak of God’s free choice in salvation.

1. Deut 7:6–7: “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples.”
2. Ephesians 1:4–5: “even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us[a] for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
3. 2 Timothy 1:9: “who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began”
4. Rev 13:8 and 17:8: “names have not been written in the book of life before the foundation of the world.”

It is difficult to kick against the goads, or the plain meaning of Scripture.

Theological
In theological terms, what does this mean? How might we summarize what the Bible teaches about election?

Election means that God chose to save some, not based upon a foreknowledge of faith or merit, but sovereignly, freely and in accordance with His own good pleasure to the praise of His glorious grace; whereas He passes over others to the praise of His justice (1689.3.1).

Historical
The meaning of election must also be understood historically. Christians from Paul, Augustine and reformers like Luther and Calvin, and later Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Anglicans and Baptists all understood election in this biblical-theological way. In fact, if it wasn’t in the Bible it is such a doctrine that no one would believe it. Our 1953 Fellowship statements flows on from our spiritual heritage in the Convention of Ontario and Quebec which stated in 1925 their belief in, “The election and effectual calling of all God’s people.”

Just as the words “man” and “woman” have a meaning, we cannot reinvent the meaning of the phrase “sovereign, electing grace.” It’s meaning is rooted in its linguistic, biblical, theological and historical contexts.
​
FAQs
Election, while biblical, may be more easily accepted when some FAQs are addressed.

1. Pride and humility: It is often a matter of pride we reject this doctrine. Rather we are called to humbly believe all that Scripture teaches.
2. Human responsibility: Election is often seen as an offence to our human responsibility (and indeed our pride calls out, “but what of our free will!”). Surely we have free choice but not free will (Ro 6); as sinners enslaved to sin we can only chose to sin. We need God’s grace in order to believe.
3. God’s character:  God is good and wise and we must submit that His choices are best (Ro 9). Election does not make God out to be a monster but rather gracious, for without election no one would be saved.
4. Understood together: Election must be used properly for in its undiluted form it is a strong doctrine. John Newton, author of ‘Amazing Grace,’ once likened election to sugar. He said, “I use my Calvinism [election] in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar”— taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, “I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.”[2]
5. Election and the Gospel. We preach the Gospel universally, even as we teach that election is particular. We don’t know who the elect are and are called to preach the Gospel universally and indiscriminately trusting the Lord will save His own through this faithfulness. There was a door, which over it read, ‘Come whoever will.’ Upon entering it and looking back the other side of the door read, ‘Elect.’
6. Election is not the same as justification. While we are elected to be saved we are not saved until the moment the Spirit opens our eyes (e.g. Lydia) and we believe. In that moment we are justified and not before.
7. For Believer not Unbelievers. Election is never the focus with unbelievers. It is always brought in when dealing with believers to encourage humility and worship and assurance in difficulties.
8. Not Abstract. Election is not abstract but deeply personal, loving and purposeful (Eph 1:4).

 


[1] “Salvation,” in Affirmation of Faith. <https://www.fellowship.ca/WhatWeBelieve> (2023).

[2] G. Redford, and J.A. James, eds., The Autobiography of William Jay. (London: 1854; reprint, Edinburgh, 1974), 272.  

What did Jesus mean here? How did Christ fulfil the Law? What does that mean for the Law itself?

Christ Fulfilled the Law
The Law can mean: a) God’s decrees, b) Scripture, c) a Covenant, d) the Mosaic Covenant (or Covenant with Israel at Sinai), or e) God’s moral law. Given the context in the Sermon on the Mount it is almost certainly “d,” the Mosaic Law; yet with a twist.

To abolish means to unyoke, as in unyoking an animal from a cart. As such it means to break or destroy what was.

To fulfil means is to be full or to meet.

The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day feared He was a religious revolutionary who would upset their cherished possession, or rather their misinterpretations and additions (Mt 23:4; Mk 7:7), for Jesus, being perfect, never broke God’s Law. He would be much more radical and still more conservative than they thought.

Christ fulfilled the Law by doing what Adam, doing what the descendants of Abraham, and of Israel and the Kings could not do—be that perfect covenant partner. No human can by their works “fulfil the Laws demands” (“Rock of Ages”).

Christ could fulfil the Law, as Matthew is keen to point out, because He was the lawgiver greater than Moses.

The New Covenant
In fulfilling, or meeting, the demands of previous covenants, Jesus inaugurated the promised New Covenant (Jer 31:31; Ezk 36; Heb 8 et al).Jesus’ life and ministry marked a watershed or transition period between the covenants (it was inter-covenantal). When He died the veil was torn. After He ascended the Spirit was given. There is a newness in the New Covenant. New (kainos) means something new in kind, like a new invention; it isn’t new (neos) as in a new type of car but a new form of travel like a teleporter.  (The NC doesn’t abolish, replace or succeed the Old, it fulfils the promises of the Law and Prophets. It is the direct continuation of God’s plans).

According to Gal 3:15–29 the Law of Moses was temporary and served the purpose of exposing our sin and making the promise to Abraham essential. It also has a guiding quality.

As such certain aspects of the Law of Moses were no longer necessary. Since Christ was the sacrifice for sin and the Holy Spirit now made believers the living temple of His presence the Temple was obsolete and hence the ceremonial system. The dietary laws (an external sign of holiness) were no longer necessary for Christ taught that holiness flowed from Christ’s imputation and through a new heart cleansed from within by the Spirit. (Scripture emphatically declares this in Mk 7:19b, “Thus He declared all foods clean,” c.f. Acts 10). Circumcision as the covenant sign gave way to baptism, the Passover to the Lord’s Supper (Lk 22:20), and so the list could go on.

A Law Remains (The Law of Christ or Moral Law)
How then could Jesus say in Mt 5:18, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Likewise, how could he commend the “scribes and Pharisees” pursuit of righteousness, or holiness, (v. 19), and state this legal righteousness was needed to enter the Kingdom? (Truly, Christ is our righteousness and the Spirit enables us to live righteously, thus guaranteeing our place in the Kingdom, both present and eternal).
​
In saying that He would fulfil the Law of Moses and yet the law would never pass away Jesus is commending to us the Law of Christ, or the Moral Law (Gal 5:14, 6:2). While the Law of Moses as a whole has been fulfilled in Christ, a law remains which is the moral law found within it (see 2nd London Baptist Confession, ch. 19, for the classic Christian understanding of the threefold division of the Law). This is binding upon all believers to follow as our guide to holiness by the Spirit.

We can over and under shoot in sports, hunting and when driving. All of these can be detrimental. What is more detrimental is when we over or undershoot in the presentation of the Gospel. What I mean is when we diminish the Gospel by limiting it or when we embellish it and so enlarge it; when we bring the question of the extent of the atonement into its proclamation. The Gospel is neither "Christ died for you," nor "Christ may have died for you." The Gospel is the Gospel, it does not depend upon the extent of the atonement.

When this over/under happens, I confess, my neck twitches because of the biblical and theological imprecision involved, not to mention the unnecessary insensitivity it shows to Christians of differing beliefs (General and Particular)- can't we simply agree in the Gospel? 

Before we get the Gospel out, we must first get it right. Gospel agreement is foundational to salvation and Christian fellowship. 

Limiting It

I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who only preach the Gospel to God’s elect, or refrain from offering the Gospel or calling sinner’s to repent for fear of preaching to the unelect. (Yet we show we are among the elect by believing the Gospel!).

This paralyzes hearers from believing the Gospel because they are left wondering… It also reduces faith to a mere passive acceptance or realization that you are among the elect.

Though the Bible speaks about election, NO WHERE does it tie it to the Gospel's proclamation.

Enlarging It

I have met and heard (both historically and present day) of those who preach the Gospel and insist, even base it solely or rest it heavily upon, the claim that Christ died for everyone (in a specific sense) or that Christ died for you (in a specific sense), and that all you need to do to be saved is to realize this. (Certainly there is universal value in Christ’s death and the Gospel is to be published to everyone).

This often immunizes hearers from truly believing the Gospel because they think they’re ok because of Christ’s death or have an interest in Christ or passively "accept" Him vs actively trusting in the Gospel or think that belief is the same as mental assent (e.g. if you believe Christ died for you, you will be saved). 

Though the Bible speaks about the extent of the atonement, NO WHERE does it specifically tie it to the Gospel's proclamation. 
​
What then is the Gospel? 

Gospel (original god spell, or good news in old English) comes from the Greek word euaggelion. In the ancient world this was the announcement of a king’s victory. It was good news! Jesus is that King who through his life, death and resurrection won a spiritual victory over sin and death and hell. Trusting in His Gospel brings to the believer all of the benefits the King won.

Its proclamation doesn't depend on the extent of the atonement and may be described as: