“W. S.”-1. Why does God require a person to act so as to gain possession of that which the person needs to possess first, so as to enable him so to act? See John 5:40, Isa. 42:18. 2. In what sense is “hearing” by the word of God? See Rom. 10:17, &c.
A.-Because of the twofold or duplex condition of the Christian at the present time. If you look on high he is seated in the heavenly places in Christ. If you look at him as on earth still, he has to run to obtain all, and has nothing as yet in actual possession which he has, of course, by faith. Thus he possesses everlasting life in Christ, as a present thing, by faith. Yet he is so to walk that he may have present “fruit unto holiness, and in the end everlasting life,” if he looked onward. Paul exhorts Timothy to “lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called.” He has to lay hold on what he possessed already. Many passages of Scripture speak thus. Whenever the responsibility of a Christian is treated of, such exhortations are given. When grace is the subject, it shows that it flows from God.
So with sinners. God’s sovereign power in quickening a dead soul to life must never be set over against the sinner’s responsibility to receive the grace of God and obey His voice. Men often try to set the one against the other, in order to evade or reason away the responsibility. But you will generally find that they attach responsibility to power, or the want of it in man, not to that to which God attaches it—to man’s will. The Lord, addressing sinners, says “Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;” not, ye cannot. Yet, speaking abstractedly, He also says— “No one can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Ask a man who speaks of having no power to come to Christ, if he has the will—the desire—and you will soon test where he is.
This applies in such passages as, “Hear ye deaf, and look ye blind that ye may see.” Isa. 42:18. Besides, the prophet is speaking in figurative language of moral blindness and deafness, not physical.
Hearing is by the word of God. God carries it into the conscience thus; as also He does by the channel of the sight of the eye in reading, and the like. I heard once of a deaf person blessing God that hearing was by the Word, of God, who could only hear it, so to speak, by reading it. But God found an inlet for it into his conscience, which is the only door of entrance for the word of God into the soul in its quickening power.
“F.D.”-How was it that neither Jews nor Gentiles were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—the formulary in Matt. 28:19? Compare Acts 2:38;10. 48; and 19:5, &c,
A.-When the commission of Matt. 28 was given, the Lord Jesus Christ was present on earth. (He is not seen as ascended in Matthew). And the commission to baptize is founded on resurrection only, not ascension; which brings in the body of Christ, formed by the Holy Ghost, sent down from heaven.
In Acts He was absent in heaven; and some, in finding the formulary of Matt. 28 not given in Acts, have supposed that the formulary was then changed to the name of Jesus. This I believe to be a mistake. First, because Acts being, generally speaking, historical, and not doctrinal scripture (though equally inspired), doctrines could not be founded on it; while at the same time it confirms doctrines given elsewhere. Next, the formulary once given is not changed, nor intended to be changed, and is to the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—the Trinity of the Persons in the Godhead, as we know the one true God in Christianity. For Christianity is the revelation of not only the unity of the Godhead, as in the Old Testament, but also the Trinity of the Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
The point in Acts is the recognition of Jesus as Lord when absent; and hence this reference to His name where the cases are recorded—the persons baptized owning Him, being presented to Him thus.
It is striking, however, to notice how that in nearly every case recorded, the Holy Ghost has seen fit to change the words, and even the prepositions-I have no doubt to prevent (with other reasons) its being taken up as a formulary. In Acts 2:38, it is, “In (ἐπὶ) the name of Jesus Christ.” In chap. 8:16, it is, “In (ἐις) the name of the Lord Jesus.” In chap. 10:43, it is, “In (ἐν) the name of the Lord.” In chap. 19:5, it is, “In (ἐις) the name of the Lord Jesus.”
I believe the formulary of Matt. 28:19 to be the correct and only true one which should be used; and when used, I should in addition recognize the Lordship of Christ, presenting the person to Him as such.