Iron Ink

Caleb’s Baptism (Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 3 – Q. 6-8)

jetbrane — Fri, 11 May 2012 15:45:03 +0000

Caleb,

You will remember that in our last entry we left off with the fact that man is required to keep God’s law perfectly and yet man is by nature prone to hate God and neighbor, thus revealing that man can not accomplish what God requires. Because of this deficiency in man — this proneness to hate God and neighbor — God’s disposition towards man is the disposition of a just Judge about to pass sentence on the guilty criminal.

At this point the Catechism pauses to query whose fault this wicked proneness, found in men, to hate God and neighbor is. Whose fault is it that man has this wicked sin nature? Is this sin nature that is prone to hate God and neighbor God’s fault?

Question 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?

In fallen man there is always the tendency to want to blame something besides themselves. Fallen man will always try and play the victim in order to excuse, rationalize, or justify his behavior. Even in Adam’s fall we find this tendency to want to play the victim and blame someone else. Eve blamed the serpent. Adam blamed both God and Eve. This predilection to not shoulder responsibility for our behavior is found everywhere yet today. We blame our parents. We blame our teachers. We blame our environment. We seldom hold ourselves responsible for our behavior.

And so the Catechism asks, in light of our proneness to hate God and neighbor if it is God’s fault that man is as wicked and perverse as he is. Before we charge on from here, pause just a moment to realize that what the Catechism has taught here is that man, outside of Christ, is duly characterized as “wicked and perverse.” Every person you meet, outside of Christ, is wicked and perverse. Now, not all men will be wicked in perverse in the same way or to the same degree but all men outside of Christ are prone to hate God and neighbor and so are wicked and perverse.

The Catechism answers this question that has been posed of whether God created men so wicked and perverse,

By no means; but God created man good, (a) and after his own image, (b) in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love him and live with him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise him. (c)

Only after God had completed His creation with the creation of man did he pronounce all that He had made as “very good (Gen. 1:31).” Man was the crown of God’s creation and the man that God created was not created wicked and perverse nor with a sin nature prone to hate God and neighbor. The fact that there was no proneness to hate God, as man was originally created, is seen in the fact that Adam had intimate fellowship with God prior to his expulsion from God’s temple garden sanctuary due to his sin. The fact that there was no proneness to hate neighbor, as man was originally created, is seen in Adam’s delight in the presence of Eve.

Indeed, Adam was the very opposite of wicked and perverse upon creation. Adam was so excellent that he was the very image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and revealed that image when, like God, he exercised dominion. Adam’s presence in the garden, having dominion by tending and keeping the garden put under his charge, was a small scale model of God having dominion over the universe through His tending and keeping of the cosmos.

However, the image of God that God created man as, was found not only in man’s dominion activity, but it is also found in the reality God created man as truly righteous (legally innocent of any condemnation resulting from sin) and holy (set apart as unto God). Man was created not wicked and perverse but as legally innocent before God (in righteousness) and as set apart for God’s service (in Holiness) (Ephesians 4:24).

This man who was the image of God was not made to hate God but to know and love Him (Colossians 3:9-10).

So, this begs the obvious question, “If God did not create man so wicked and perverse, prone to hate God and neighbor, where does this sin nature of man come from?” or as the Catechism puts it,

Question 7. Whence then proceeds this depravity of human nature?

First of all a word on “nature.” When Christianity speaks on man having a nature that is depraved it is saying that the substance or essence of man in his spiritual dimension is to be inclined towards evil. Because of the nature of birds they fly. Because of the nature of fish they swim. Because of the nature of dogs they bark. Because of the nature of man, they sin.

So, what is being emphasized here is that man has a depraved human nature. This belief is contrary to most people you bump into. I challenge you Caleb, to do a informal survey by asking your non Christian friends, “Do you think that you’re basically a good person,” and I am willing to bet that they would overwhelmingly say “yes.”

Indeed in some quarters it is believed that man does not have a nature at all. Man has no inclination towards anything and the individual man himself creates and recreates whenever he desires his own temporary nature. As a philosophy this is called “existentialism.” It is quite popular today though most people who are functional existentialists have no idea what the word means.

Back to the matter at hand. If God is not responsible for man’s depraved nature then who is responsible? The Catechism answers that question,

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents, Adam and Eve, in Paradise; (a) hence our nature is become so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin. (b)

Man’s depraved nature is the consequence of man’s fall.

Note what is being presented here is the organic unity of the human race. All of mankind was contained in Adam and so when Adam sinned Adam despoiled his nature and that despoiled nature became the definitive identifying trait for all humans who would follow Adam (Romans 5:12). All men are conceived and born in sin (Psalm 51:5) and all men commit sin because of that sinful nature. Because this is true, any solution we must look for, must be a solution that addresses not merely our individual acts of sin but must provide something of an answer for the sin nature out of which our sinful acts make themselves known.

This idea that mankind is organically one is an important truth grasp that we will return to in later posts. As Americans we tend to think of people as individuals only without relation to other people. There is some truth in that, however there is also truth in the idea that mankind must be considered in its organic unity one with another. The Gospel makes no sense without its teaching on both original sin (that is the teaching we find here) and its teaching on Adam being man’s Federal Head (a teaching that we will find elsewhere in the Catechism and a teaching that reinforces the idea of man as considered in his organic unity from another angle).

The important matter to note here is that man cannot blame God for his depravity and is responsible for his own sin nature. Now someone might object, “Its not fair that I have a sin nature just because Adam blew it.” However, to object this way is only to 1.) indict God for His failure in creating a good enough representative of mankind, and 2.) To wail about the nature of reality as God has created it. Because of the organic unity of mankind, ma has a sin nature regardless of whether or not he thinks it fair.

The catechism then turns to the implication of this human depravity.

Question 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

Answer: Indeed we are; (a) except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. (b)

This answer is known as the doctrine of total depravity. Allow me to explain.

The Bible teaches that man’s nature is fallen and so depraved. Let’s consider just a few of the scriptures that clearly teach that truth,

Gen.8:21 The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth;

Romans 8:7 — The carnal mind is at warfare with God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so…

Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.

Isa.53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Spiritually man is dead in his sins and trespasses. All man outside of Christ can do is sin all the time. Total depravity teaches that every inclination of a man’s heart is bent away from pleasing God. Total depravity teaches that because of man’s fall all man can do is increase God’s hostility and animosity towards him. Conversely total depravity does not teach that all men are equally excellent in the expression of their depravity. Nor does it teach that all depravity among men will express itself the same way. Nor does it teach that when compared among themselves men cannot do relative good. The depravity of a man who funds a Children’s burn hospital is of a nobler quality then the depravity of a man who molests children. However, the actions of neither men, if outside of Christ, make no difference upon God one whit in terms of their standing before God. Both are condemned as sinners and both have the anger of God set against them. So a totally depraved person might do what we call “civil good” but that “civil good” avails nothing in terms of salvation.

This belief in the Scripture’s teaching on man’s total depravity sets off Reformed Christians as Biblical vs. other denominational expressions of Christianity. Because we believe that man’s total depravity is total we do not believe that man cooperates with God in any way in his being regenerated (born again). This sets us off from Lutherans, Wesleyans, Many Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentecostals, etc. if only because each of these believes, in one form or another, that God’s regenerating power can be resisted and as such they all teach, to one degree or another, that man is not totally depraved. In point of fact, anyone who accepts the premise that Jesus died for all individual men who have ever lived and who ever will live must deny total depravity.

Anyone who honestly believes in total depravity, as the Scripture defines it above, will be paedo-Reformed. All deviations from the Reformed faith are deviations at some point from the doctrine of total depravity. As such, belief in it and a right understanding of it is paramount because a great deal necessarily follows from the embrace of this truth. As such you won’t mind too terribly much if I drone on a bit.

In order to make fine distinctions let us continue to press on. The belief in total depravity is not the same thing as believing in Utter depravity. Utter depravity teaches that unbelieving man never gets anything right. Total depravity teaches that pagan man gets things right sometimes but when he does get things right in is in spite of his hatred toward God. Utter depravity teaches that we are all as wicked as we possibly could be. Total depravity teaches that there is always room for improvement in how depraved man can show himself. As Reformed Christians because we do not believe in Utter depravity we do believe, for example, that a pagan employer could treat his pagan employees in a manner that wasn’t abusive. The thing to note about total depravity is that Reformed Christians, following passages like Ephesians 4:17-19,

17 So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, [a] excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality [b]for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.

believe that men outside of Christ are corrupt at their core and that in all their thinking, acting, willing, and emoting, there is a bent towards sin. This is why they must be born again in order to no longer hate God and neighbor. Because man is totally depraved he is totally unable, apart from the regenerating work of the Spirit of God to do anything that pleases God.

The catechism, allows in a beam of hope when it introduces the idea of being regenerated by the Spirit of God. We are dead in our trespasses and sin, totally depraved and shot through with corruption. However, though our state is sad it is not hopeless. There is the hope that we might be regenerated by the Spirit of God. To be regenerated (born again) is to be given spiritual life so that we have a new nature which alters and counteracts our inclination to hate God and our neighbor. This regeneration is completely gracious (it is a reality that we are given that we do not deserve) and comes to us apart from our own will and decision (John 1:13, 3:3, 5). Being regenerated is something that must happen to us and is not something we can do to or for ourselves and is not something we can successfully resist or decline. Without being born again we cannot be part of God’s battalions nor enjoy His blessings.

Regeneration is a bringing to life and occurs when the Spirit of God is poured out on those who are His. It is a reality that gives us new inclinations and desires. This interior renewal happens within us so to speak and when coupled with what happens outside of us in the reality of imputation, (more on that later) and what will happen in the consummation (more on that later also) the consequence is salvation. A salvation for which we were set apart from eternity past.

So, in summary, God is not responsible for man’s sinful nature. In point of fact God created man as His image, which is to say having dominion, and in being righteous and holy. Because of the organic unity of mankind Adam’s fall in the garden means that all men now have a sin nature. This sin nature is so thorough that unless we are born again we are unable to do any good and are inclined to all wickedness.

Ask The Pastor — Are Christians Who Oppose Sodomy Inconsistent Since They Don’t Oppose Shellfish?

jetbrane — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:08:39 +0000

Dear Pastor,

I find your criticism of gays to be mean, homophobic, and cruel. You fundamentalist Christians are so inconsistent in as much as you don’t take your own bible seriously. You tell those of us who are gay that God finds sodomy to be an abomination and yet you seem not to care about the other things in Scripture that God finds to be an abomination. Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are supposed abominations before the Lord, just as gays are a supposed abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage?

Bring all of God’s law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver’s and Red Lobster. (LOL). Yup, even Popeye’s shall be cleansed (LOL). We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants. (LOL)

I’m not going to analyze the bible for you I believe what I believe. I do not listen to what a man has to tell me on Sunday. I also do not believe everything in the bible.

Habib,

Already this objection raised by sodomites is becoming a worn out old canard. I’ve heard it raised as a “insightful and devastating protest” on talk shows. I’ve seen it put into scripts for television and movie dramas. I think among the sodomite crowd it is beginning to be seen as some kind of silver bullet that instantly kills the werewolf that is Christianity.

But you’ll excuse this werewolf if he just laughs at your silver bullet fired.

It is easy for those without knowledge on the Scriptures to knee-jerk when it comes to the issue of how the Scriptures are read. We don’t read the Scriptures without hermeneutical pre-understandings that help us to see how God’s revelation as a whole is to be understood Habib.

However, among those with a little background in the reading of Scripture we understand that there are distinctions that have to be made for them when we present God’s word on different subjects. One of those distinctions is that whatever God says remains in force for man unless in later revelation God alters what He said earlier on a matter.

The classic example of this is the Sacrificial system you find in the Old Testament. This is a system that God required by His Old Testament revelation. However, with the coming of Jesus Christ, who was the sacrifice about whom the Sacrificial system was proclaiming, the sacrificial system is no longer practiced by Christians. Jesus Christ was God’s fulfillment of all sacrificial offerings therefore Christians no longer offer bloody sacrifices of animals, even though you find the requirement for it in the Old Testament.

Another example of God altering earlier revelation is regarding foods consumed. Now, you will be interested in knowing that some Christians do still follow the OT dietary Law believing that the law regarding foods that you cited is still in force.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:

9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

So, for these Christians your criticism that Christians are inconsistent in their application of God’s Word is completely absurd.

However, your criticism remains absurd for those Christians who do eat what is forbidden in those Scriptures you cited because they can turn to Acts 10 and find that what God once called “Unclean,” has been lifted so that He now, in the New Covenant calls it clean. So, just as Christians no longer preform sacrifice because God’s requirement for sacrifice has been met, so Christians eat shellfish because God lifted His prohibition against it in later revelation.

However, what God has not lifted is His abomination of Sodomy. In point of fact, in the New Testament, God says again what He says in the Old Testament that Sodomy is an abomination, thus reinforcing those passages that were cited earlier to you. Here are the New Testament passages that agree with the Old Testament passages,

I Corinthians 6:9-10 — Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Obviously God has not altered His stance on the abomination that is sodomy.

Now, I understand that it is unlikely that this explanation will probably make little difference to your continued embrace of Sodomy but I wanted you to see that there is no contradiction in the Christian position on this matter. Christians can consistently refer to Scripture regarding the vileness of sodomy without being inconsistent because they don’t hold shellfish to be vile as well.

Now, would you like to talk about this more over a dinner on Red Lobster? I love crab-meet and I would love to explain you how it is you can give up your sodomite lifestyle and embrace life abundant.

Caleb’s Baptism (Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Day 2 — Questions 3-5)

jetbrane — Thu, 03 May 2012 13:45:42 +0000

Caleb,

Part of the purpose for the Heidelberg Catechism, when it was written, was so that God’s people, in the geographic area where the Reformed faith had been chosen, could not only know their faith but also know their faith vis-a-vis the Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, and Ana-Baptist strains of Christianity with which the Reformed people would come in contact. In the 16th century, unlike today, it made a significant difference that Reformed people knew what they believed and why they believed it in contradistinction to other less accurate expressions of Christianity. Because this is true there will be points along the way in the Catechism where a certain emphasis is brought out in order to alert people that the Bible teaches X and not Y like Lutherans, or Roman Catholics or Ana-Baptists believe. We will note those times as we move through future discussions.

Today, we turn to the first section of the Catechism proper; “Man’s Misery.” Keep in mind that for the next few entries the subject matter is going to be pretty dark. The intent of this section of the catechism is to close all avenues of answers to our sin problem so that we are forced to look in the only place where we can find the answer. Because that is the intent, the catechism repeatedly rams home the danger in which we find ourselves in this first section. People who are new to Christianity can get pretty depressed (miserable) in the teaching of this section of the catechism. Keep in mind that they are painting a dark picture so that when the light breaks forth that light will look all the more glorious.

It is significant to point out that the truths of the Catechism in their major divisions (in this case Man’s Sin) is accompanied by an emotion (in this case Man’s misery). When we come to know our sin the inevitable result will be a feeling of misery. Just as when we come to know our Deliverance their will be the inevitable result of a feeling of gratitude. Both of the truths and the accompany emotions are to drive behavior. The knowledge of our sin and misery is to drive the behavior of seeking for a Deliverer. The knowledge of being delivered is to drive the behavior of living our gratitude.

The catechism has told us that in order to live and die in God’s comfort we must know our sins and miseries. Now it asks,

Question 3. Whence knowest thou thy misery?

Answer: Out of the law of God.

The law of God has several uses. I’ve heard preachers give as many as six uses of the law but for our brief explanation here we will stick with the standard “three uses of the law.” The first use of the law that Reformed people talk about is what the catechism is speaking of here and through question 11. That first use of the law is referred to as the pedagogical use (And knowing how you love Latin — usus elenchticus sive paedagogicus). In this use of the the law, the law shows people their sin and points them to mercy and grace outside of themselves once they become exhausted with trying to keep the law in their own power. This use of the law has the purpose of exposing and rubbing people’s nose in their sin until they realize that they cannot get their nose out of the stink of their sin without help from a deliverer. I don’t know if your familiar with Pilgrim’s Progress, but in that book the main Character meets the law and cries out for mercy after being beaten about by the law, but the law keeps right on beating “Pilgrim,” because, in its first use, it does not know mercy, though it’s purpose is to point us to the merciful one.

John Calvin put the function of the first use of the law this way,

“(By) exhibiting the righteousness of God, — in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, — it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him.”

The second use of the law is commonly referred to as the the civil use (usus politicus sive civilis). That is, the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin. You were in Church last week and in the introduction to the Sermon we glanced against that idea a little bit when I spoke of how much of God’s law, because of Alfred the Great’s work had been woven into English Common Law. The fact that we have still have laws that forbid marrying our sisters (as one example) is because the second use of the law is still taken seriously (though admittedly few people would understand or agree with that).

The third use of the law is the normative use (usus didacticus sive normativus). This use of the law is for those who trust in Christ and have been saved through faith apart from works. This use of the law serves as the norm that norms all norms in terms of Christian behavior. It answers the questions, “How shall then we live.” This use of the law is found in the Heidelberg Catechism Lord’s Days 32-52.

So, the first use of the law is to show us and convict us of our sin, and that is what the Scriptures teach.

Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

In question #4 the Catechism then looks for precision.

Question 4. What does the law of God require of us?

Answer: Christ teaches us that briefly, Matt. 22:37-40, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first and the great commandment; and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

This requirement of the law is not good news for those outside of Christ, for those outside of Christ hate God and are lovers of self. The whole life of the pagan is to de-god God and en-god themselves. In the en-godding of themselves their only use for their neighbor is to serve them in their god-ness (i.e. — to use them). As those outside of Christ have themselves at the center of all reality, so they are convicted of violating God’s law requiring love to God and neighbor.

However, a word here regarding the Christian who hears these words. Remember, the call is to love God and neighbor perfectly. Who of us, who are in Christ, can ever say we love God and neighbor perfectly? None of us. And so as Christians when we hear this summary of the law we once again are reminded that our hope for meeting God’s law requirement is only met fully and completely in Christ. Yes, those of us in Christ, seek to love God and neighbor perfectly, and though we may make a good beginning in loving God and neighbor, and though we might make advance in loving God and neighbor, we must admit that if it were not for Christ’s love for the Father being put to our account we would not meet God’s just requirement to fulfill God’s law and so would be without hope.

The catechism cites a few other Scriptures that make it clear that man’s first and foremost responsibility is to love God and neighbor.

Deut.6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Lev.19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Mark 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

Love to God is the purpose for which man was made. When man refuses to render up love to God and neighbor he may hurt his neighbor but he does not hurt to God. Man reaches out to strike God by his refusal to render up the love that God requires and the result is that he always strikes and injures himself.

When man refuses to love neighbor he creates a culture of conflict of interests instead of the harmony of interests that God created men unto. In the creation God created man to work in harmony with one another but what happens when man turns on God man creates a hell hole culture where everyone is seeking to take advantage of everyone else in order to get ahead. This is what man creates when he refuses to love neighbor.

The catechism ends this Lord’s day by asking,

“Question 5. Canst thou keep all these things perfectly?

Answer: In no wise; (a) for I am prone by nature to hate God and my neighbour.(b)

That we can not live up to God’s law perfectly is repeatedly taught in Scripture.

Rom.3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom.3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom.3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

The catechism reminds us in answer #5

1.) That the requirement is to keep God’s law perfectly. No failings allowed.

2.) That sinful man not only does not love God but is prone by nature to hate God and neighbor.

When it comes to what God requires in terms of obedience is absolute perfection. 99.99% compliance is not acceptable and will result in eternal separation from God’s peace, bliss, and blessing. Remember, God is a perfectly Holy and just beings and were God to allow even small sinners into his presence, apart from Christ’s perfection, His Holiness and Justice would be rightly called into question. God has said, “The soul that sinneth shall surely die,” and that allows for no exceptions or God is a liar, and so not God.

All of this is complicated by the fact that human beings, by nature, are inclined to hate God and neighbor. This is called the doctrine of original sin. Because of man’s union with Adam (more on that later) man is born with a bent towards selfish self love that precludes love to God and neighbor and includes outright hatred of God and neighbor. Not all men express this inborn nature with the same intensity (thank God) but all men are prone, by nature, to hate God and neighbor. Unless God does something men are born to hate God and neighbor and cannot not hate God and neighbor and furthermore love to hate God and neighbor. Such is the ruin of man unto what God requires of him in His just law.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that we are not sinners because we sin but rather we sin because we are sinners. In order that love of God and neighbor might blossom in the breast of fallen man there must be a change (more on that later), but until that change comes, men outside of Christ spend their entire existence plotting and planning on how to express their hatred toward God and neighbor, all the while, insisting to themselves and others that they are the very wellspring of love and affection to “God” and neighbor.

Of course the Scriptures support what the catechism is teaching us here. In the catechism, we are not being given men’s opinions, but Gods truth.

(b) Rom.8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Eph.2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Tit.3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Gen.6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen.8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Jer.17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Rom.7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Caleb’s Baptism (2C)

jetbrane — Tue, 01 May 2012 21:42:50 +0000

How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

Answer: Three; (a) the first, how great my sins and miseries are; (b) the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; (c) the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance. (d)

Caleb,

We have made the point that the Catechism teaches us that Christianity is the life of the mind. This is not the same as saying that Christianity is reducible to a series of ratiocination exercises. Christianity believes that knowing the truths about God leads to knowing and loving God. Christianity is never less then knowing God but it is always much more than knowing God. Remember, James teaches that the Demons believe in God but their knowledge of God is hardly salvific.

We have talked about the necessity of knowing our sin. Sin is any want of conformity to or violation of God’s law. Sin is rebellion against God’s character. Sin is defiance against God’s revealed way. Sin is the attempt to de-god God and en-god ourselves. The catechism insists that in order to have the Christian comfort that we belong to God we must be conversant (familiar) with our sin.

The catechism also insist that in order to enjoy the comfort (strength) that comes from belonging to God we must know how we may be delivered from all our sins and miseries. You see the knowing of our sins and miseries is not an end in and of itself but such a knowing of our sins and miseries is intended to pole-vault you into the more important understanding of how it is that you are delivered from those sins and miseries.

Notice that the catechism does not say, “the second, that I am delivered from my sins and miseries.” No, the catechism insists that in order for you to know Christian comfort you must know how you are delivered from your sins and misery. The catechism cites these passages in order to legitimate the statement that we must come to know how it is we are delivered,

(c) John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 10:43 To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

The second part of the catechism will, with precision, explain how it is that we are delivered. In the current contemporary setting in which we find ourselves this is quite important. Increasingly, we have churches that are filled with Christians who are absolutely clueless as to how it is that they are delivered. They will insist that they are delivered. They will praise up and down the name of “Jesus.” They may even make mention of the Cross. But in the end they stare at you with the dumb cow look if you start talking about the mechanics of salvation, or, “how it is we are delivered.” It is akin to a seamstress insisting that she likes dresses but is clueless on how to make a dress. Caleb, all Christians should have some fundamental understanding of “how it is we are delivered,” that goes beyond cant Christian sloganeering and trite magical Christian phrases. The catechism will give you those fundamentals on “how it is we are delivered from all of our sins.”

Quetion #2 ends with the third reality that we must know in order to find comfort in the fact that we are owned by God. The catechism has a expectation that Christians will know, “how they shall express their gratitude to God for such deliverance.” This will form the third division of the catechism.

So as we break down the Heidelberg catechism, it goes like this

I.) Our Sins and Miseries (Questions 3-11)
II.) Man’s Deliverance (Questions 12-85)
III.) Man’s Gratitude (Questions 86-129)

The expectation of the catechism (following Scripture) is that once man knows how it is he is delivered there will be the natural desire to want to display gratitude. The third part of the catechism, following God’s law as a guide to life, answers how it is that we may show gratitude for the great deliverance that we’ve been freely given.

We should note that section #1 and section #2 are entirely God’s work. If we are to know our sins and miseries, and if we are to know how it is we are delivered it is entirely the favor of God that reveals these truths to us. Section #3 however concentrates on our response to God’s graciously giving to us what we do not deserve. Now, it remains true that even our response to God’s grace is all of grace and yet there is a concursive work in sanctification where, after God has worked in us conformity to Christ, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, part of which is showing gratitude.

Christians have been delivered for the purpose of the glorifying of God that is driven by the motive of gratitude. Gratitude for a completely free deliverance from sin then becomes the foundation for a purpose driven life, the purpose of which is obey God’s law-word and so glorify God. We see thus, that our salvation that we are freely given does not find its end purpose in us. No, the purpose of our deliverance is that we might be a people who are in a mad pursuit to give glory to God through Holy Spirit led obedience to God’s revelation in gratitude for all that God has done for us by sending Jesus Christ to redeem us.

Scripture has the expectation that we will live differently (by a different code) from those not yet delivered,

Eph.5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: Eph.5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Eph.5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. Eph.5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

1 Pet.2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 1 Pet.2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Rom.6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom.6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Rom.6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Rom.6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

Christians who do not live in gratitude are testifying that they have not yet either become conversant with their sin, nor familiar with their deliverance. Any man or woman who begins to realize both the sin they have been rescued from and the character of the God who has rescued us will exhaust themselves in being creative in manifesting gratitude for so great a salvation.

A Quick Critique Of Movement Libertarianism

jetbrane — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:39:07 +0000

“Why is an alliance between conservatives and libertarians inconceivable? Why, indeed, would such articles of confederation undo whatever gains conservatives have made in this United States? Because genuine libertarians are mad — metaphysically mad. Lunacy repels, and political lunacy especially. I do not mean that they are dangerous; they are repellent merely, like certain unfortunate inmates of ‘mental homes.’

– Russell Kirk,
Author of The Conservative Mind

Often there is confusion in the Christian community that Christianity is Libertarian. Now, certainly it is understandable why people might think this since for the past 150 years in this country the Church has had to contend against a State that is increasingly intent on becoming god walking on the earth. As such, the Church has had to make arguments insisting that the 1st commandment should be taken seriously by God’s people and in doing so it has made some of the same kind of negative arguments against the all encompassing desired omnipotence of the State that Movement Libertarians make. However, Biblical Christianity has no more in common with movement Libertarianism then it has with Movement Marxism.

Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that no institution is absolutized in it sovereignty. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church insists that absolute sovereignty belongs to God and not to the individual man. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church inveighs against a State that has forgotten its place. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church believes that the State has a place in God’s order. That place in God’s order is to bring God’s justice upon those who, because of their sin nature, can not restrain themselves. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that insists that the individual as individual must be respected and that the individual is not merely some kind of cog to fit in a machine crafted by the State. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message that insists that men find their identity not in their abstracted individuality, but rather men find their identity it terms of distinct covenantal corporate relationships — relationships defined by God — that include family, Church, Community, Guilds, and yes, even the Magistrate. Like the Movement Libertarian the Church articulates a message of Liberty for the individual. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church insists that Liberty is not absolutized and only finds it meaning in the context of a God ordained Transcendent Moral order. Like the Movement Libertarians the Church articulates a message of love of self. Unlike the Movement Libertarians the Church also articulates a message of self denial for a greater good ordained by God.

Likewise Christianity teaches, unlike Movement Libertarianism, that man is fallen. Most versions of Movement Libertarianism, like most versions of Marxism, believes in the inherent goodness of man. Christianity teaches that what God’s people on earth are to seek to live out has some connectivity, and ought to be something of a reflection of the Transcendent Moral Order that exists independently of man’s existence. Movement Libertarianism, with its atomized and absolutized self is concerned very little with the idea of a Transcendent Moral Order that has men praying, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Christianity teaches that social order analysis must begin, where all other analysis must begin and that is from above — with God and His scriptural revelation. Libertarianism does its social order analysis from below — from the needs of the sovereign individual, from the concern of the immanent. Christianity teaches the inescapable reality that all social orders are organized Theocratically. Even Democratic social order is a social order where “vox populi vox dei rules from on high. Movement Libertarianism seems to believe that it is possible to have a social order that is religiously neutral and is not shaped by the God(s). Christianity teaches that in every social order one God is preeminent. Libertarianism seems to teach that social orders can be had where all the gods are preeminent or, alternately, where no gods are preeminent, and they hold this quite without realizing that this view requires a preeminent god to insure that no gods are preeminent.

As an aside, it is interesting to note, that as looked at through Christian lenses, it sometimes seems that some Movement Libertarians are as desirous of putting off Christian morality as Marxists are. How many Libertarians can be counted among the the dopers? How many Libertarians embrace the “non-aggression principle” right up to the point of legalizing Prostitution, Sodomy, and any number of other perversions? For many Libertarians, morality, not being absolute or transcendent, is person variable and as such social orders should be pursued that allow for morality to be person variable.

Ironically, what Movement Libertarianism creates is the Totalitarian State just as what the Totalitarian State creates is the press towards Anarchism. Only Biblical Christianity with its doctrine of the Eternal One and the Many, as that reverberates through the Created One and the Many, provides answers that eclipse the “push me, pull you,” found in the dysfunctional but real relationship between Marxism and Libertarianism. Christians can learn from Libertarians and especially so when most Christians seemingly are completely blithe to the 1st commandment. As such, reading men like Henry Lewis Mencken, Albert J. Nock, Lysander Spooner, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises can be profitable but those who dine with the devil are always well advised to dine with a long spoon. So, we can dine in order to plunder the Egyptians but let us dine in such a way that we don’t become ensnared by the Egyptians.

At the end of the conversation, Libertarianism as a social order motif can only work as any given people share the propensity of self-government consistent with a common worldview. It is hard to envision how Movement Libertarianism could exist in a genuinely multi-cultural, multi-faith, multi-ethnic setting where notions of ethics are as diverse as the balkanized worldviews represented by the varied and sundry multi-meanings that occur as a result of all the multi-dynamics.

Fifth Commandment

jetbrane — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:23:47 +0000

Introduction — Background On God’s Law For Social Order Organization

God’s law is the connecting link between the earliest and latest legal systems and has proved itself one of the most influential forces in the evolution of the world’s law.” Law Review Article (1931)

The Scriptures embody fundamental principles that have attained legal effectiveness among nearly all peoples and in remote parts of the earth — principles w/o which human societies can scarcely continue to exist — and it is not unreasonable to suppose that in many instances these principles were borrowed from the Scriptures or were obtained through contact w/ those who observed Biblical law.

For example, much of the common law of England was founded upon Mosaic law. The primitive Saxon codes re-enacted certain precepts taken from the Holy Scriptures, and King Alfred in his Doom (Judgment) Book. Theologian Francis Nigel Lee details how Alfred incorporated the principles of the Mosaic law into his Law Code. Lee then examines how this Code of Alfred became the foundation for the English Common Law, which of course was in turn the foundation of our own legal order.

In his extensive Prologue, Alfred summarized the Mosaic and Christian codes. Another scholar, Michael Treschow, states that the last section of the Alfred’s Prologue not only describes “a tradition of Christian law from which the law code draws but also it grounds secular law upon Scripture, especially upon the principle of mercy”.

The Scriptures have thus been a potent influence upon American law. In the early colonial period, the Bible seems to have been commonly regarded among the people as law. Several of the early colonies even went so far as to formally adopt provisions of the Mosaic law. For example Plymouth Colony in 1636 adopted what was called then, “A Small Body of Laws,” largely based upon the laws of Israel. Likewise, the New Haven colony in 1639 resolved that “the word of God shall be the only rule to be attended to in ordering the affairs of the Government in this plantation,” and then in 1655 adopted a code in which 47 out of 79 topical statues were based on Biblical law.

Appx. 150 years later, in what had recently become These united States of America one could hear a Judge say to a Grand Jury,

“The laws of the Christian system, as embraced in the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts. And it cannot be though improper for the officers of our government to acknowledge their obligation to be governed by its rules.”

~ Judge Nathaniel Freeman’s Charge to the Grand Jury at the Court of General Sessions of the Peace
Held at Barnstable Mass., March Term, 1802

As late as 1931 one can find in the case United States vs. Macintosh

“It has been recognized in the courts that generally we acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.”

With all that said as prolegomena (a preliminary discussion) let us turn to the matter at hand.

** Recap of the Previous

We have repeatedly pointed out that the 10 words can be understood as having both vertical and horizontal dimensions. Though we can not absolutize that distinction it is helpful in ordering our thinking about God’s Law. We have noted that the first four commandments are especially though off as Vertical, having a direct relationship to how we are to esteem God.

1.) No other Gods before me 2.) No craven images 3.) Take not His name in vain 4.) Sabbath

** Fifth Commandment

Question 104 — Heidelberg Catechism

Q. What is God’s will for you
in the fifth commandment?

A. That I honor, love, and be loyal

to my father and mother and all those in authority over me; that I submit myself with proper obedience to all their good teaching and discipline;1 and also that I be patient with their failings—2 for through them God chooses to rule us.3

1 Ex. 21:17; Prov. 1:8; 4:1; Rom. 13:1-2; Eph. 5:21-22; 6:1-9; Col. 3:18-4:1
2 Prov. 20:20; 23:22; 1 Pet. 2:18
3 Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-8; Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18

When we come to the 5th commandment we come to a hinge commandment that has a foot both in the vertical orientation of the God’s 10 words and a foot in the horizontal orientation of God’s 10 words

The foot it has in the vertical orientation is found in the reality that those whom we are dealing with in this commandment, who are to be honored, are those who are God’s representatives … they stand in God’s stead. As representatives of God they one can see the vertical dimension of the commandment. The horizontal orientation of this commandment is found in the reality that we are dealing with human relationships … man’s relation to man. As such there is a horizontal dimension.

If you will allow me just a bit of allegory, it is altogether fitting that with the 5th commandment we have this intersection. Of course you know that when two perpendicular lines intersect the consequence is the formation of the Cross.

It could be easily argued that Jesus, by His work on the Cross, healed the breach that Adam had created by His disobedience to Father by dishonoring Him in his disobedience in the Garden. Jesus, quite in contrast to Adam, was obedient to His Father at every turn. In Hebrews 10 we find Jesus saying,

‘Behold, I have come—
In the volume of the book it is written of Me—
To do Your will, O God.’ ”

Elsewhere we read of the Son,

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do.

This is important to keep before us before we examine the import of this text as applied to ourselves. Our Lord Christ, offered up the law’s 5th commandment keeping requirement so that the children of Adam who had failed in “Honoring their Father and Mother,” might have the 5th commandment keeping requirement put to their account, and so be acceptable to God. For those who trust Christ, Jesus and His obedience to His Father is what is received as our obedience to our Father and Mother.

This is important to keep in mind because it could be the case that as the years unwind you may look back and cringe with embarrassment or shame at the way you may have dishonored your parents at points along the way of your minority. If and when those times come we must preach the Gospel to ourselves and remind ourselves that we are forgiven in Christ for our sin against our parents are those in authority over us. The fifth commandment preaches the Gospel.

It also would be pleasing to God, for you to ask forgiveness of your folks if God were to lay anything on your heart. Most parents are more ready to forgive then children are ready to ask for forgiveness.

** Fifth Commandment & Honor

As we come to the commandment we see that it calls for “Honor.” Let us consider first what “Honor” means in a Biblical setting.

Honor = heavy.

Honor is accorded thus to people who have significance, or gravitas. The opposite of honor, of course, is dishonor, and where something or someone weighty or having gravitas is treated as if they were inconsequential.

Honoring parents involves several things:

1. Taking to heart their instruction.

2. Show deference toward them, by language and forms of address.

Even the idea of addressing them as “Dad, & Mom” is showing them deference.

3. Loving them.

4. Being faithful, also providing for them (financially, spiritually) in their old age.

But if we were to get even more precise we might say that the idea of “Honor” includes,

1.) To acknowledge that our Parents are God’s appointment to us as His representatives to us and as our first officers as appointed by God. Accompanied then by the understanding that as we obey them in their lawful word to us so we are at that moment obeying God. This is to give “Honor.”

2.) More than one source I consulted included in the idea of “Honor” the necessity for children to look after parents in their dotage if needs be. The source that is cited for this is Matthew 15:5-6

3.) It includes the idea of speaking with respect to them, and with respect of them. Parents are not perfect people and aggravations can arise in family life between children and parents, but at no point should words be used outside the family that would rip and tear apart God’s ordained representatives to the children.

** Application

You can tell a great deal about a person in both the way they treat their parents and the way they speak of their parents. If a man will disrespect and dishonor his parents in deed or word he will disrespect and dishonor any one.

Young people, let me admonish you now, do not become entangled with those who dishonor their parents and above all do not enter into marriage with someone who dishonors their parents. A man or woman who will dishonor their parents is sure to be a man or woman who will readily dishonor their wife or husband.

** Fifth Commandment & Hierarchy

Obviously the requirement found in the 5th commandment speaks to us of God’s implementation of Hierarchy of relationships. Parents govern children, which implies then that there are other unequal relationships (HC = All in authority over me.)

This simple idea of parents having a hierarchical relationship over their children has been under attack,

A current UN “Children’s Rights” proposal, signed by all member UN Nations except Somalia and US would find,

Parents no longer being able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. (contra Proverbs 13:24)

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion. (Contra Dt. 32:46, Proverbs 22:6)

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.(Contra Dt. 6)

A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Of course all of this is out of accord with the Premise that Children are to honor, love, and obey uniquely their parents, and it is out of accord with God’s principle of hierarchy that we find in the fifth commandment.

** Children & Parents without the Fifth Commandment

It is interesting here that what this UN declaration is seeking for the State is what was in place in primitive pagan law where the Father was regarded not as the steward of the children but as the owner of the children.

In primitive law the Father had absolute control over the children even to the point of dictating life or death. In primitive law the Father could sell children as though they were cattle, or they might be seized and sold by his creditor to satisfy a debt.

So, we see what an improvement God’s law is upon any primitive law that would view Children as property to be owned as opposed to a trust over which we have stewardship for a season.

We have dealt with the idea of what Honor means and have begun to touch on the issue of how the Commandment introduces hierarchy. Of course the idea in the Heidelberg Catechism of “all authority over me,” is within the context of Biblical law. It is various authorities that God has ordained. Not any thing or anybody who merely claims “authority.”

** Examples of Proper Authority Structures That Emanate Out of the Fifth Commandment

These might include the authority of Employers over employees, Magistrates over Citizens, Husbands over wives, Elders over laymen, teachers over students, etc. In all these relationship there is the requirement to render up proper honor, love and fidelty.

However, once again we must note that this honoring is in the context of Biblical law. When those in proper authority over us, clearly, repeatedly, and unambiguously w/ malicious intent violate God’s Word we show proper honor to those authorities by yielding to God rather than man.

I say, “clearly, repeatedly, and unambiguously w/ malicious intent” in order to communicate the requirement that God’s word puts upon us to bear patiently with their weaknesses and shortcomings.

The Heidelberg & God’s Fifth Word

jetbrane — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 13:47:00 +0000

Q. What is God’s will for you
in the fifth commandment?

A. That I honor, love, and be loyal

to my father and mother and all those in authority over me; that I submit myself with proper obedience to all their good teaching and discipline;1 and also that I be patient with their failings—2 for through them God chooses to rule us.3

1 Ex. 21:17; Prov. 1:8; 4:1; Rom. 13:1-2; Eph. 5:21-22; 6:1-9; Col. 3:18-4:1
2 Prov. 20:20; 23:22; 1 Pet. 2:18
3 Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:1-8; Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18-21

In God’s fifth word He has set aside
Honor for our family line
Love for our own is His desire
Fidelity to kin, what He requires
God has ordained that we would find
His eternal order where we first abide

In God’s family structure I should learn
The introduction to a godly order
By my parents I’m taught to obey
And instructed to walk in God’s way
This teaching begins in my family borders
So, as years unfold, from God I will not turn

Parental weakness with love is covered
In Parental shortcomings I understand
That through their faults, God sanctifies
So teaching me, that I must mortify
The sin that requires that they meet my demands
And the selfishness in me yet uncovered

———————————

In His fifth Word God has set aside
Honor for our family line
Love for our own is His desire
Fidelity to kin, what He requires
God has ordained that we would find
His eternal order where we first abide

In God’s family structure I learn
The introduction to a godly order
By my parents I’m taught to obey
And instructed to walk in God’s way
My teaching is within my family border
So that from God I will never turn

Parental weakness with love is covered
In Parental shortcomings I understand
That through their faults, God sanctifies
So teaching me, that I must mortify
Sin that requires they meet my demands
And the selfishness in me yet uncovered

Caleb’s Baptism (2b)

jetbrane — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:35:30 +0000

Question 2. How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou, enjoying this comfort, mayest live and die happily?

Answer: Three; (a) the first, how great my sins and miseries are; (b) the second, how I may be delivered from all my sins and miseries; (c) the third, how I shall express my gratitude to God for such deliverance. (d)

Caleb,

We now look at the answer to question #2, which as I told you last time, serves as the threefold division of the Catechism.

When it comes to knowing how great our sins and miseries are we must first understand that the ability to know our sins and miseries is premised on understanding the Character of God. God is Holy (set apart). Indeed God is so Holy that we find that attribute (character of God) emphasized repeatedly in Scripture. Here are two examples,

Isaiah 6:3 And one (Heavenly Creature) cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is Jehovah of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Revelation 4:8 and the four living creatures, having each one of them six wings, are full of eyes round about and within: and they have no rest day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.

The fact that God’s “Holy” character is repeated three times in each of these passages is a Hebraism (Hebrew language technique) in order to emphasize the magnitude of God’s superlative Holiness.

So, when the Catechism teaches that in order to live and die in comfort we must know our sins and miseries we understand that we can not know our sins and miseries apart from knowing something of the Character of God’s Holiness. Another way of saying this is that our sin is seen as especially sinful only in light of seeing God’s Holiness and understanding that in order to have a relationship with God we must be Holy as He is Holy. It is only when we understand how big God is that we begin to have a correct estimate of how small we are.

The whole premise of Scripture is that men must know they are sinners or they will never turn to Christ for deliverance. Why would we petition for deliverance until we first realize that we need to be delivered? Knowing our sins and miseries is unto turning to Christ as the answer for those realities. They do not have the need of a Savior who do not know they need to be saved from their sin.

Matt.11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matt.11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. Matt.11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

This idea of knowing our sins and miseries also serves the purpose of keeping us lost in wonder, awe, and praise that God has so graciously redeemed us by the blood of Christ. Once we get a firm grip (understanding) on our sin we will more inclined to have a firm grip on God’s grace towards us in Christ. The Puritans used to have a maxim that should we desire to be amazed by God’s grace we needed to learn again our sin.

Another positive benefit of knowing our sins and miseries is that such knowledge can go a long away from delivering us from being impressed with ourselves or becoming self-righteous. Too often, when we forget our sins and miseries we begin to become pretty impressed with ourselves. There is nothing more repulsive then a Christian who has forgotten their sins and miseries and has become impressed with himself.

Now, having said all that about the necessity to know our sins and miseries there is a qualifier that must be extended. The purpose of knowing our sins and miseries is not so we might always be miserable about our sin. The purpose of knowing our sins and miseries is so that we can be amazed with God who would, despite our sins and miseries, still enthusiastically claim us for His own. I bring this forth because it does happen from time to time that people can wear it as a badge of honor and become proud in how sinful and miserable they are. Once we become familiar with our sins and miseries it is best to carry that self understanding without getting into contests with others about who is a bigger sinner.

We will always remain but sinners saved by grace. St. Paul reminds those to whom he writes from time to time of that very truth,

Cor.6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Tit.3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. Tit.3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Tit.3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Tit.3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; Tit.3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

However, that truth is not intended to make us beat ourselves as if the reminding of the fact of it was intended to make us always grovel. No, the truth of being conversant with our sins and miseries is intended to make us always thankful that God would send Christ to rescue and mold into a great people a sinful lot as ourselves. We are a great people because we have a great deliverer.

With the next installation we will look at how it is that we are delivered from all our sins and miseries.

Martin & McAtee On The Death Of The West

jetbrane — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:32:48 +0000

“Beginning and ending with man, there is pessimism. Why? Because man is fallen. He is in rebellion against God, refusing to bow to God and purporting to even be God. Thus, beginning and ending with man, there can only be a compounding of evil, and matters can only wax ever worse…. The bad new, however, gets worse. As a consequence of having abandoned the supernatural and, if only inadvertently, absolutizing this age, what we will witness is death on a whole sale basis as a way of so called, “life.” That is what we have witnessed during the past century. We are so immunized against death that we have come to accept it without comment though millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of people have been put to death in the name of applied social science.

That leads us, ultimately, to pessimism and despair. Ah, but the Biblical Christian is highly and eternally optimistic, in the best sense of that term. Why? Because the Biblical Christian has good news.”

Dr. Glenn R. Martin
Professor of History / Political Science
Prevailing Worldviews

Observations

1.) The failures of the 20th -21st centuries are theological failures. The deaths of the million Christian Armenians at the hand of the Muslim Turks, the death of hundreds of millions of Christians by the Communist Russians, the deaths of millions of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies by the National Socialist Germans, the deaths of hundreds of millions of Chinese under Communist Mao, the almost complete destruction of the Khmer people by the Communist in Cambodia, the untold slaughter of Cubans by Castro Communism, and the tens of millions of deaths at the hands of American Humanists in abortuaries throughout this country have all been torture, murder and death pursued because of faulty theology.

Bad theology kills people.

2.) Sound theology requires our first and last consideration to be the God of the Bible. Should we ever start with man as our first consideration then man becomes our ultimate principle and eventually man, over the course of time, will become absolutized, and so will begin to put other men to death in the name of applied social science and with the best of intentions. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs.

3.) Scripture says, speaking of Wisdom (and the Lord Christ is Wisdom incarnate), “All those who hate me love death.” As Dr. Martin notes, the West has embraced death as seen in,

a.) Our dwindling birthrates — to the point we no longer are at replacement levels
b.) Our habits of abortion and euthanasia,
c.) Our immigration rates, which are working to replace us as a definitive people

Now as if this were not bad enough, the West is doing this dance with death, and as Martin notes, is calling it the very essence of life.

Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.”

When we strike out at God (and that is what the West has been doing since the French Philosophes) the result is that we kill ourselves.

4.) The “absolutizing of this age” that Martin speaks of is key. What has happened is that this age is being driven by worldview assumptions that are not Biblical. Yet, what the Church has done, by absolutizing this age, is that it has reintepreted Biblical Christianity through the grid of this present age with the result that the tenets of Cultural Marxism (the Theology informing this age) are now identified as the tenets of Biblical Christianity. That is how “absolutizing this age” happens. The result of this is that now Christian ministers, usually quite unaware of what they are doing, are committed to “helping” their people fit into this present absolutized age when what they should be doing is aiding their people in seeing that this present absolutized age stands in defiance to and rebellion against the God of the Bible and His Biblical Christianity.

5.) Martin’s beef against “applied social science,” refers to how the West has been conquered by various strands of the humanist Social Sciences like “neo-orthodox theology,” “Boasian Cultural Anthropology,” “Marxist Economics,” “Freudian – Rogerian – Skinnerian, etc. Psychology,” “Spencerian – Durkheimian – Webberian, etc.” Sociology, the “Legal Positivism” of men like Christopher Columbus Langdell and Oliver Wendell Holmes, the “Educational Theory” of men like Dewey, Rugg, and others, The theories of Kinsey on human sexuality, and The Logical Positivism of the Vienna circle passing as Philosophy. More of the applied social sciences could be listed but you get the gist.

Martin’s problem with the applied social sciences, as exampled above, was that they all were products of differing humanist theologies that were at war with Biblical Christian theology. Martin understood that the humanist applied social sciences were killing us as a people precisely because the applied social sciences, though passing themselves as being the very definition of enlightenment, were in fact, but the dust of death. Martin understood and taught that these social sciences desperately needed reinterpreted through a Biblical grid and his reward for his brilliance was often the back of the hand from his colleagues.

6.) We should on the optimistic note that Martin ended on. The Biblical Christian can remain optimistic because he knows that God is Sovereign and he has good news for those who desire to be delivered from the humanist applied social science house of death. The Biblical Christian, armed with God’s truth, can stand against the humanist social sciences that are killing us, as a people, and can say “this is the way of the abundant life, walk ye in it.” The Biblical Christian, armed with God’s truth, can say to those weary of the culture of death as built by the practitioners of the applied social sciences, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.”

Cultural Mandate & Great Commission

jetbrane — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:42:56 +0000

After Adam’s sin, the commission to subdue and rule, first commanded before the fall (Gen. 1:26-28), would be expanded to include renewed humanity’s reign over unregenerate human forces against it. Hence, the language of ‘possessing the gate of their enemies,’ (Gen. 22:17) is included, which elsewhere is stated as ‘subduing the land.’ Thus we see a connection between the cultural mandate (rule and have dominion) and the Great Commission. The methodology of the Great Commission is the means by which the cultural Mandate is fulfilled. When the nations are made disciples and taught to observe all things that Jesus taught the gates of God’s former enemies are thus possessed and the dominion that Adam forfeited in the garden is taken up again under the one who has all dominion and authority and who rules all things for the sake of the Church.

The result of all this is that the whole planet is turned into God’s Sanctuary temple garden (Eden) and God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven. This is hinted at in Ephesians 6 where the promise of long life in the land the Lord thy God is giving no longer refers to the promised Sanctuary temple garden promise land of the OT but refers instead to the whole earth which is now God’s promised Sanctuary temple garden.