Creeds & Confessions – Page 4

Heidelberg Catechism Q.) 26 — God the Father Almighty; Creator of Heaven & Earth

Question 26: What believest thou when thou sayest, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?”

Answer: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them;1 who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence)2 is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father; on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body;3 and further, that He will make whatever evils He sends upon me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage;4 for He is able to do it, being Almighty God,5 and willing, being a faithful Father.6
_______________

We recall as we come to question 26 that we are in section II of the Heidelberg Catechism which is titled “Our Deliverance.” This section is committed to explaining how great a salvation we have in Jesus Christ in delivering the Christian from their sin and misery (Section I). The methodology used to do so for the next 33 questions and answers is to break down the Apostles Creed as to what it precisely mean when one confesses the Apostles Creed.

We must say at the outset that this methodology foists precision on the mind. We learn, via this method, not only the greatness our our deliverance from our sin and misery but also what exactly the Apostle’s Creed means. This explanation of the Apostle’s Creed that is given in the HC separates Biblical Christians from those who are repeating the Creed with a foreign accent. Because of the precision of the explanation we will get in this section we no longer can accept a vanilla Christianity that has a “Kumbaya” feel. By the time the Catechizers are finished with this section certain expressions of Christianity are ruled as contrary to the intent of the Apostle’s Creed and the Scriptures. This is not accidental.

When the Creed was written it was written for a specific part of Europe that found people of different expressions of Christianity living cheek by jowl next to each other. One purpose of the Catechism was to educate those who would use the HC how it was that they were different from Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and Lutherans. There are questions and answers in the HC while not explicitly mentioning the differences between Calvinism and these other sub-expressions of Christianity are clearly attacking these other sub-expressions of Christianity as being inadequate.

The HC is interested in teaching its students to be Calvinists. It does not apologize for doing so. In the process once the HC is understood the confessor will inevitably want to see other sub-expressions of Christianity re-think their errant view.

One more thing here. Because of the precision of the HC we are no longer allowed to think that just because ten people affirm the Apostle’s Creed that therefore all ten affirm the Apostle’s Creed in its proper meaning. The catechizers are teaching here that reciting the words of the Creed is only significant inasmuch as those confessing the Creed are filling those words with the same meaning.

With that introduction we turn to the question;

Question 26: What believest thou when thou sayest, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?”

The Apostle’s Creed has three strophes that can be broken down according to each member of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This reminds us that to affirm the Christian faith is to affirm a set of doctrines as gathered from Scripture. Christianity is the life of the mind before it is the life of experience, feeling, or emotion. The HC teaches us that in order to claim Christianity we have to know our doctrine — know what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it.

The central basic truth about the Father that all Christians to be Christian must confess is that the Father is “almighty” (Sovereign, Omnipotent) and that this Almighty God is the creator of the cosmos. This one simple truth is denied by everyone in the Christian community except for the Reformed. The idea that God the Father is almighty, is the heart that beats in Calvinism. The Calvinist, following Scripture, believes that God,

^{Isaiah 46:10}Declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: ¹¹Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

For the Calvinist God is never envisioned as waiting upon man to react. God is always the actor and man is always the re-actor. The Calvinists believes that all depends upon the Sovereign God. The Calvinist believes that in God we live, and move, have our being.

The HC puts it this way in the answer;

1.) Note that by referring to the Father as “the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” chases off any notion of trinitarian subordinationism in the Godhead. From eternity past the Father has been the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There never was a time when the Lord Jesus Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father. Right out of the gate Arian doctrine (Jehovah Witnesses) is ruled out of bounds.

2.) Note next that this Almighty Father is only known to us in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father can be known only through the Son and the Father and Son can only be known as taught in the pages of the Bible. If anyone wants to know the Father they must know the Son.

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Mt. 12:27)

3.) Thirdly, note that the Almighty God is the Creator God. The HC will go on to teach that the Son is known for His work of Redemption and the Spirit is known for His work of Sanctification. The Father is known for the work of Creation. However, these realities should not be too woodenly construed since any work of any member of the Trinity finds all the members of the Trinity participating. (This is known as the Doctrine of perichoresis.)

4.) When the HC teaches of God that;

“He of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence”

They appeal to passages like, Gen. 1 and 2 as well as;

Ps. 33:6, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Here we find eliminated the possibility of what has come to be called “theistic evolution.” The HC does not allow anyone who confesses it to believe in this 19th century doctrine that teaches that God co-operated with or orchestrated the Big Bang so as to create, by means of evolution with its mechanism of natural selection considered in its macro sense, the cosmos. This would eliminate men like Tim Keller from being accepted as a member in a church that embraced the HC.

5.) The troika of creation, sustaining (upholds) and governing is found in this answer. God is the creator, sustainer, and governor of His cosmos. This teaches us, contra to Deism, that upon creation God did not wander away leaving His creation to itself. No, The Father Almighty, not only created the Cosmo by His divine fiat Word also sustains (upholds) and governs His cosmos. This teaches that that the Father Almighty, “Maker of heaven and earth” is personal. He continues to be involved with His creation via the means of sustaining the cosmos as well as directly governing the affairs of men.

Ps. 115:3, But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.

Matt. 10:29, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

6.) This answer also teaches us the distinction between God and His creation contra all expressions of pantheism. God is the creator God, distinct from His creation.

7.) Note in this question that those who confess the HC understand that God is only the God of anyone by means of their coming under the safety of Christ His Son.

“is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father;”

John 1:12, 16, But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Heb. 1:3, Who (Jesus Christ) being the brightness of His (God the Father Almighty) glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Only those in Christ can call Almighty God their “God and Father.” Those who are not in Christ only know the Almighty God as Judge and as a celestial terrorist as against them. For those outside of Christ the “Almightiness of the Father” is only unto them the reasons for night sweats and nightmares. There is only safety from the Almighty Father as in Jesus Christ who purged our sins.

8.) Note that once in Christ we boast of our dependent relationship;

on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body;3

Christians understand that the Almightiness of God the Father is a source of rest and a reason to put off panic. We understand the truth of the Apostle’s creed teaches us that God is the God who provides. Being confident of that how is it that those who affirm and embrace the Almightiness of God could ever fear of what man can do to us? Because of this truth, the Christians who can get this truth in their marrow will be characterized as fearless — never cowering before men or their threats.

The embrace of this Doctrine throughout history explains why Tyrants have hated having Calvinists living in their Kingdoms. Calvinists do not bend to the capricious will of Tyrants because they know that God will provide them with all things necessary for body and soul. Tyrants have no means to instill fear in the garden variety Calvinist.

Rom. 8:15–16, For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

9.) Note that the Catechizers affirm that God provides for us body and soul. This affirmation rules out any kind of Christianity that is characterized as being concerned only about our souls as if God is unconcerned with our physical existence. The God who provides for our souls provides for our bodily existence. God likes matter. He made it and so provides for it.

Matt. 6:26, Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

10.) God the Father’s Almightiness extends so broadly that it is understood that God, while not being the author of evil, is the one who controls everything that comes into the life of His sons and daughters. The evils that God, the Father, sends upon us, in this valley of tears are evils that turn to our advantage and so from the perspective of eternity are a blessing to us.

Ps. 55:22, Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee: He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.

This is strong medicine. The Calvinist believes so absolutely in the Almightiness of God the Father that he understands that nothing comes into His life except through the hands of a sovereign God who loves us for the sake of Christ. For the Calvinist this is not a time plus chance plus circumstance world.

“Though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”

For the Calvinist the Devil is God’s Devil on a long leash. For the Calvinist God’s Sovereignty is not some after-thought. Again, as mentioned earlier this turns the Calvinist into human steel. He knows the world is personal and that it is chock full of God’s intention. If this is true and if God is a Father to His people — the Church, then what fear does the Calvinist have of a world, a devil, a circumstance that each and all belong to God the Father Almighty?

11.) Note that the Catechizers refer to this life as “valley of tears.” The Calvinist, while optimistic because of God’s Almightiness, names the world for what it is. The world is often a “valley of tears.” This reminds us to be realistic about what this world is. However, even in the valley of tears, evil is turns out to our advantage. As such, among the tears, there is continuous reasons to rejoice.

12.) The Catechizers round out this question by reminding us of the character of the God we serve.

for He is able to do it (turn all things to our advantage), being Almighty God,5 and willing, being a faithful Father.6

Note again here that God’s Almightiness is only a treasure to us — His people — in light of His being a faithful Father and He is only a Faithful Father in light of the fact that we flee to Christ to discover that the Almighty God is our Defense and sure help in time of need only because we are the younger brethren to the magnificent and glorious Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 8:28, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.

Rom. 4:21, And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform.

Matt. 6:26, Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

HC question 26 has the effect of delivering us from effeminate non-Reformed views of the doctrine of God. The contemporary Christian world is awash is weak doctrines of God that deny, implicitly or explicitly, the reality that God is always angular and never will be made smooth. The God of the Bible is a ferocious God who can never be tamed, and yet this wild God is our God for the sake of Jesus Christ. This irrepressible, unpredictable, Almighty God is a God to His people whose intent is always to the end of glorifying Himself by pursuing His people’s good.

Is your understanding of God the Father Almighty, this understanding? If it is not search the Scriptures to see that these things are so.

Personally, I wouldn’t bother with worshipping any other explanation of God.

Heidelberg Catechism — Q. 25

Several years ago I began a project of providing a simple commentary of sorts on the Heidelberg catechism. I got up to question 24 before I tailed off. Recently, I have had one of the Father’s in the Church suggest that I should take this back up again. So, I have decided to do so for the benefit of the whole Church. I will try to do a question and answer daily. There may be days I do more. I figure if I can accomplish 5 questions a week I can finish this is less than 4 months (since I already have 24 questions finished.) Those previous entries on the Heidelberg catechism are listed under “Caleb’s Baptism” on Iron Ink for those who desire to peruse those.

I hope this can be of benefit to folks. Allow me to say that there are works out there on the Heidelberg Catechism. Herman Hokesema’s “Triple Knowledge” is excellent but in three volumes it will probably task most families. G. I. Williamson’s commentary is also solid. Current readers will want to keep before them that in the work that is being attempted here I have family devotions in mind. As such I am not going to be all Herman Hoeksema writing three volumes. (Though I highly recommend Hoeksema’s work for mature believers.)

With that let us turn to question 25 today;

Question 25: Since there is but one only divine essence,4 why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Answer: Because God hath so revealed Himself in His Word,5 that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.

We know that God in one divine essence from the Scripture’s themselves. In Deuteronomy 6:4, as one example, we have the famous Hebrew Shema. The Hebrew word “Shema” means “Hear” and it opens the passage cited;

4Deut. 6:4, Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD.

Every Hebrew child would have been taught this from the crib. The reason it was pounded into their head, besides being true, was because the Hebrews lived in and among polytheistic and henotheistic cultures. These cultures owned pantheons of gods and so it was easy for Israel to take up this pagan polytheism. In order to ward such destructive influence off the Hebrew people repeatedly recited the Shema.

In question #8 however, the query is to the Trinitarian character of God. We are taught here that the One God of Heaven and Earth is spoken of as “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” thus introducing plurality into the One God who is and who reigns forevermore. The question asks why we speak this way.

And the simple answer provided is that this is the way that God Himself speaks of Himself in Scripture. Here, Zacharius Ursinus, with assistance from Caspar Olevianus (Authors of the Heidelberg Catechism) teach us that we are to be dependent upon the Scripture for our understanding of God.

They appeal to Scripture as follows for finding plurality in the Godhead. As you read the Scripture here keep in mind that if we had only one verse in Scripture to this end the doctrine might be more difficult to grasp. However, with the cumulative impact of the varied Scriptures we see a constant theme develop in the unfolding of Redemption that there is plurality in the One only God.

5 Gen. 1:26, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Note the plural pronoun “us” and “our” above. God is singular but the pronouns are plural. Now there are those who will try to diminish the importance of these plural pronouns or who will try to explain them away but doing that becomes more and more difficult as the Scriptures begin to pile up in a Trinitarian direction.

They next cite

Isa. 61:1, The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.

Here the plurality is found in the combination of the utterance of the ideal Servant of Jehovah (“upon me” … “anointed me”) speaking. That this ideal Servant of Jehovah is God is seen when this very passage is taken up by Jesus who is the Messiah in Luke 4 at the beginning of His ministry and who is later anointed by God with the Holy Spirit in His Baptism to the end of accomplishing His Messianic assignment.

Here we find a harmony of interests among the members of the One God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, work without contradiction in achieving the same task. The Father anoints. The Spirit of the Lord is the anointing. The Son is the anointed one.

John 14:16–17, And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Here again we see plurality in the one only God. The Son, who Scripture teaches is very God of very God, prays the Father to the end of being provided another Comforter (a Comforter like Himself) to be with the Church forever. The Holy Spirit who is sent by the Father and and the Son dwells in the body of Christ to the end of glorifying the Son that the Father might be known. Once again we see the divine harmony of interest.

1 John 5:7, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Here we have a clear claim of unity in diversity. The Word was one of John’s ways of referring to God the Son. Here God’s plurality, as supported by the other passages, is undeniable.

^{John 14:26}But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you.

Again, note the plurality. Jesus the God-Man is speaking instructs His disciples that God the Spirit will come as sent by the Father in the name of the Son. Again, note the harmony of interests among the members of the Trinity. This is important to keep in mind because other lesser forms of Christianity will often times try to create a conflict of interest among the members of the Trinity.

Matt. 28:19, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Here again is plurality. Jesus the God-Man Messiah is speaking. Jesus uses the Greek singular for the word “name” and yet the singular name that is cited is plural –“Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”

2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

We will end here. There are many more passages from Scripture we could easily cite that declares the trinitarian nature of the one only God. Here the plurality of God is explicit.

The doctrine can be a confusing doctrine resulting in significant, even if unintended, errors. For children the best way to teach is by trying to be as simple but comprehensive as possible. As such we would do well to teach our children the summary of the great American Presbyterian Dr. B. B. Warfield:

(1) “there is but one God,”

(2) “the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God,” and

(3) “the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person.”

“When we have said these three things, we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness.”

Naturally, as the children grow there will be a need to explore this doctrine even more. We will want them to understand something of the personal properties of each member of the Trinity which distinguishes each member of the trinity from the other. We know from Scripture, for example, that the Father eternal begetting of the Son, the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, and the Spirit’s eternal procession from the Father and the Son. (Known as “paternity,” “filiation,” and “spiration.” We will want them to know about the fellowship they can have with each person of the Trinity (See John Owen’s work).

The doctrine of God as One and Many is a doctrine that one could spend a life in discovering and probing. There is no end to the depths that are found in this doctrine and frankly no exhausting of the errors that can arise from improper understandings.

In conclusion the doctrine of the plurality in the One only God is embraced because it is taught in God’s revelation of Himself in the redemption record of Scripture. In the plurality of the One only God we find God as both transcendent and God as immanent. We find God both High and lifted up and God who shared in our flesh and blood. We find a fuller understanding of the Cross and a deeper appreciation for our ongoing sanctification.

Indeed, without Plurality in the One only God, we would have a religion that is not Christianity and would therefore be some form of paganism.

“We thank thee magnificent God that thou hast revealed thyself as One and Many. We thank thee that a proper Trinitarian understanding colors and forms all of our thinking about all of reality. We beg of thee that you would enlighten those pagan religions which deny your Trinitarian reality. As such we pray for Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who each deny your Trinitarian character. We thank you that because of your Trinitarian character you are a personal God who has not and never will forsake His people. We bless you One only God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

In Christ’s name we pray,

AMEN

McAtee Contra a Detractor who is Contra the Athanasian Creed

Recently I stumbled upon the offerings of a recently retired pastor from a denomination that has historically Reformed roots. I thought I would interact somewhat with the the musings of this honored retiree. I have deleted portions that were descriptive of the gathering described. The context is a Episcopalian Church service the retired minister (RM) had attended.

Retired Minister (RM) wrote,

It being Trinity Sunday the priest in a strong and affirmative voice read the Athanasian Creed … I had never heard it read aloud in worship before. Frankly, I was appalled.

The Athanasian Creed is part of my tradition (Reformed), one of three ecumenical creeds (along with the Apostles’ and the Nicene)…. by now it is almost never recited or even referred to in worship, a ghost of the past, buried in the back of hymnals, hymnals that in many churches, if they have them at all, are never opened…

Bret responds,

We have hymnals. We open them weekly. As a congregation we together confess Christ weekly, in a responsive fashion from either the Confessions (3FU) or the ecumenical creeds as found in the back of the hymn books. A brief explanation is then given after the Congregational Confessional recitation. The old creeds are not everywhere forgotten and the back of some hymnbooks, where the saints who have gone before reside, are still visited. Though, on the whole, I’m sure the retired minister is probably correct. It is likely the case that not only is the laity unfamiliar with what lies buried in the back of those hymnals, but I would guess the Pastorate likewise is clueless. I would argue that therein is one reason why the contemporary Church is so inert.

RM wrote,

I will simply raise some questions that occurred to me when I heard the creed read aloud in worship and let you answer them.

Fair enough. RM provides the questions and Bret provides some answers.

RM wrote quoting the Athanasian Creed,

Here’s how the Athanasian Creed begins (in the Book of Common Prayer translation): “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.” My own denomination has given the creed a more modern translation, which reads better but seems also designed to take some of the edge off the language of the creed. It reads in the part I just quoted: “Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith. Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith: that we worship one God in trinity, and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence.” This seems to obscure the flow from the desire for salvation to the requirement for salvation, which is, according to the creed, adherence to the catholic faith; and which, strengthening the point, must be kept “whole and undamaged” (integram inviolatamque); which the creed defines as worship of the Trinity, “neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance (Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes). In other words, if you don’t have the right view of the Trinity, you will perish eternally.

Here’s my first question, one that came unbidden to me as I listened to the reading of the creed: isn’t this salvation by theology?

Bret Responds,

As personal belief is always inclusive of and is embracing some kind of theology we would have to ask, with more then a little incredulity, if what is being suggested by RM is that salvation has nothing to do with belief? (i.e. — Theology?)

If salvation doesn’t have some relation to proper belief (theology) then what are the parameters for membership in the covenant community?

If salvation does not bear relation to Trinitarian theology then why aren’t Mormons saved? Why aren’t JW’s saved? Why aren’t Socinians saved? Why aren’t Sabellian Modalists saved? Why aren’t Arians saved? (All Trinitarian Heresies.)

Now, of course we are not saved by perfect Theology, or by a perfect understanding of the Trinity. (Who then could be saved if perfect theology was required to be saved?) However even Jesus taught that there was correspondence between Salvation and Theology when He said, “And this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

Now, all the Athansisan creed requires is that our knowledge of God includes his Trinitarian reality. Surely, a retired minister of a storied Reformed denomination would not suggest that epistemologically self conscious Unitarians like Servetus could be saved or epistemologically self conscious polytheists can be saved?

RM continues to ask probing questions,

And, if so, just where is this taught in the Scriptures?

Bret responds,

I’m not sure what is being asked in terms of what is being sought.

I don’t think he is asking where in the Bible the Trinity is taught.

Maybe what is being asked is, “where is salvation by theology taught in Scripture?”

If that is what is being asked then I would offer passages like John 17:3 cited earlier. Jesus said that eternal life (salvation) is knowing God. Scripture teaches that God is Trinitarian. Hence, one can not know God if one does not know Him according to His Trinitarian reality.

Or maybe what is being asked is, “Where does the Scripture teach that the Trinity must be embraced in order for one to be saved.” The answer to that question, I think, would be, “which member of the Godhead would we delete the ascription of deity from all the while still believing that we could remain Christian?”

If we don’t embrace the Trinity, how is Christianity still Christianity? And if Christianity is no longer Christianity then how can we speak in terms of a salvation that is Christian?

To which the answer would be … “And this is eternal life that they may Know thee, the Only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

RM asks,

And, further, what kind of God would punish his creatures eternally for failing to get an abstruse theological point right? What sort of justice is that? What sense does it make?

Bret responds,

The Trinity is an abstruse theological point?

I’m sure the Sabellians, the Arians, the Modalists, the Socinians, and any number of assorted heretics throughout Church History will be glad to hear that the Trinity is not a theological point worthy of getting wrong or right.isn’t

One wonders what other abstruse theological points are not worthy of a creature being punished eternally for failing to get? Why aren’t the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection, or the Ascension, or Pentecost, the Deity of Christ, Justification by Faith alone, Original Sin, Imputation, or any number of other core Christian doctrines also abstruse theological points that can be dismissed as points over which a nice God would never punish His creatures eternally? One wonders, what theological points in Redemptive history aren’t abstruse so that they really aren’t necessary to believe since a nice God won’t throw body and soul into hell for failing to get abstruse theological points?

Question — What Kind of God would punish his creatures for failing to get an abstruse theological point right?

Answer — A Just God?

Maybe the only creatures who will be punished eternally are those people who think abstruse theological points have eternal implications.

RM continues citing more of the Athanasian creed,

But this is only the beginning of the creed. It has two parts, the first a sort of puzzle poem to the Trinity:

The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too three are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

And on it goes, ending the first part with, “Anyone then who desires to be saved should think thus about the trinity.” The creed then turns to the two natures of Christ… As it does it doubles down on the theme that salvation depends on having the right theology. Again I quote from the older translation: “Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation : that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess : that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds : and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man : of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.” Once again the argument is that salvation requires right thinking, and right thinking requires the right view of a certain theology. What of those Christians who lived in the four centuries before the time of the Council of Chalcedon? Were they saved like Abraham by a grace extended to those who lived before the revelation of the Trinity and the Two Natures? Is this what Jesus came to call us to: the right theology of the incarnation? Just asking.

Bret responds,

Are not those with greater light more accountable than those with lesser light? Doubtless those with lesser light will be held to a standard not inconsistent with God’s full revelation but still as those who had less light. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required. Those Christians who lived with lesser light and still threw themselves upon Christ’s mercy, trusting Christ alone for salvation, will doubtless be saved. But living in a time of less light is no excuse to us who live in a time of more light to suggest that doctrines like the Trinity are inconsequential and shouldn’t be taught as a core doctrine of the Christian belief paradigm.

I might ask if Jesus is calling us to a wrong theology of the Incarnation? Is Jesus calling us to ignore the doctrine of the Incarnation as inconsequential and abstruse? Since the work of Christ is related to the right doctrine of the Incarnation, I do think that Jesus is calling us to a right theology of the Incarnation.

Does our Retired Minister have doubts about the Trinity? The Two Natures of Christ? The doctrine of the Incarnation? Doubtless he is perfectly orthodox on these matters but just wonders if the Church is majoring on the minors when it teaches Christian doctrine.

Retired Minister,

The creed ends this second and last section with another warning in the case that the hearer has missed the first two: “This is the Catholick Faith: which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” … I wondered for a moment whether in that little church (where the Creed was read) at that moment I was witnessing the death of a creed. And I wondered if it mattered.

Bret responds,

The death of the Athanasian Creed may not matter, but when “Christians” quit confessing and believing the truth contained in the Athanasian Creed eventually, someday, one might find that it matters a great deal more than they thought.

Really, it is more than a passing strange Christianity for one to deny the necessity of affirming the Trinity, for one to deny the necessity of affirming the Virgin Birth, for one to deny the necessity of affirming the hypostatic union of Christ? Surely the Christian faith is more than that, but just as surely it is never less than that. Just as surely, not everyone in the pew is going to be as conversant with these doctrine as Doctors of the Church, but that fact doesn’t make these great theological truth any less important or necessary.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 22-24

Caleb,

In the last question the catechism instructed us as to the definition of “true faith.” In the following questions the Catechism sets the table for a detailed examination of our undoubted Catholic Christian Faith. Because these next few questions are basically table setting questions for the following questions we will be able to examine more than one question today.

As the catechizers have established what true faith is, they next turn to the issue of what it is necessary for a Christian to believe. They have given us a definition of faith and now they turn to the truths upon which our faith must be anchored.

A couple of things to note briefly here before we turn to question 22.

First, as we have mentioned before, this emphasis that we find in the catechism on the issue of the content of our faith reminds us again that Christianity is the life of the mind. Question 22 asks, “What is then necessary for a christian to believe,” not, “What is necessary for a Christian to feel,” or, “What is necessary for a Christian to experience.” As we have said feelings and experience have their place in the Christian life but it is what we believe — what we embrace as truth — that is the essence of the Christian faith.

Second, we should note that “Faith” is an inescapable category. What I mean by this is that all men live by faith in something or someone. It is not as if only Christians have faith, or only religious people have faith. Every living breathing person you meet has some kind of faith. The humanists have faith. They have faith that man, by the use of putatively autonomous right reason, can arrive at true truth quite apart from any religious considerations. (Of course thinking that one can arrive at truth apart from any religious consideration is a religious faith consideration.) The Materialists have faith that everything happened by time plus chance plus circumstance. Since they were not there, there is no way they can know that their materialism is true. Besides, for the materialists, can there even be discussion about “true,” since “true,” for the materialist, is only the firing of random chemicals in our purely material brains? If the brain secretes thought the way the liver secretes bile can the materialist really speak about “truth?”

When it comes to faith the difference for the Christian and the pagan is that the pagan’s faith reduces to “faith in faith,” while the Christian’s faith is faith anchored in divine revelation.

Very well then, with that as preliminary the Catechism asks,

Question 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe?

Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, (a) which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us.

As they ask what is “necessary” to believe, I understand the catechizers to be communicating that what they are about to give is the basics of Christianity. They intend to stick to the meat and potatoes of our undoubted Catholic Christian faith. The catechism is given as a basic Christianity 101. Now we might find that surprising given that it takes 129 questions in the catechism to give us the basics. We’re used to 30 second sound bites to get us up to speed on any given subject. We think that we can crash course almost any subject and get up to speed in almost no time. But the Catechism, in order to give us just the essentials gives us 129 questions and answers to digest, understand, and own. Of course what is discussed in the Catechism is just the bare essentials. A Christian, having this foundation will learn much much more throughout their whole Christian life and then when they are old and ready to depart they will readily admit that they are but a child in their understanding of their undoubted Catholic Christian faith.

It is interesting that what we are required to believe is all that is promised in the Gospel. This teaches us two truths.

1.) Our undoubted Catholic Christian faith is about grasping God’s promises. The Gospel is first and foremost about God’s promises to us. The Gospel is first and foremost what God has done for us. When we teach a Christian what is necessary to believe we are teaching them to rest in God’s promises. We are teaching them that God has done all the saving in Christ and that He promises to save all those who are weary and heavy laden if they will take God at His Word that “all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

2.) The “Gospel,” as we shall see, includes believing in doctrines that sometimes are, in our contemporary Church setting, not seen as being necessary to consider. For example, the catechism will be teaching us that it is necessary for us to believe in a robust supernaturalism. In order to believe the Gospel we are required to believe Divine creation, the virgin Birth, that our Lord Christ was resurrected from the grave and that He ascended into heaven. The authors of the catechism did not countenance a hermeneutic that allowed us to try to understand the Scripture apart from the Supernatural and where we find people in the Church who claim Christ but interpret the Bible in order to avoid the supernatural or who use semantic deception to diminish the supernatural there we find people who are out of step with the Catechism and Scripture.

That belief is necessary for the Christian is taught in John 20:31

“But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

In question 23 the catechism gives us the Apostles Creed as the statement that they will be breaking down in order to explain to us our undoubted Catholic Christian faith. This Creed comes to us from the life of the early Church and gives 12 affirmations regarding the nature and character of the catholic (universal) Christian faith. Often the Apostles Creed is used in Church services. In some of the branches of Christianity you might even find the Creed being chanted during the worship service. As you know we regularly recite the Apostles Creed whenever the Lord Christ invites us to His table (Eucharist).

Question 23. What are these articles?

Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.

Since we will be looking closely at each one of these 12 statements we allow the Creed to go uncommented on here.

Then in Question 24 they give a brief subdivision of the Apostles Creed.

8. Lord’s Day

Question 24. How are these articles divided?

Answer: Into three parts; the first is of God the Father, and our creation; the second of God the Son, and our redemption; the third of God the Holy Ghost, and our sanctification.

The whole statement of the Apostles Creed is broken down into three subdivisions. One subdivision for each member of the Trinity.

The work of God the Father is associated with Creation. Subsumed under His work of creation we will be looking into His work of sustaining, and governing. God’s Providence will be a matter we pay close attention to.

The work of God the Son is associated with our Redemption accomplished. The Son was set apart from Eternity to be the Representative and Savior for His people. As such we will be looking at matters like propitiation, reconciliation, atonement, and other doctrines associated with the Son’s work of Redemption.

The work of God the Spirit is associate with our Redemption applied. The Spirit, being sent by the Father and the Son, applies the work of Redemption to His people and possesses His people to the end that they go from Christ-likeness to Christ-likeness.

Even though we subdivide the Apostles Creed in these three parts we mustn’t be so wooden as to think that the particular work that is assigned to each member of the Trinity finds the other members of the Trinity uninvolved with that work. For example, even though we rightly ascribe Creation to the work of the Father, we can read in Scripture of the Son and Creation,

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Hebrews 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

And Genesis speaks of the work of the Spirit in creation,

Genesis 1:2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters.

Similar examples could be given for each of the works that are properly ascribed to the members of the Trinity. So, while it is not wrong to think of the Father in relation to his Creator work, or the Son in relation to His Redemption work, or the Spirit in relation to His Sanctifying work it would be wrong to not realize that because of the intimate relationship between each member of the Trinity that when one member is involved in a particular work each member is involved in that work. Each member of the Trinity cooperates in each work.

Heidelberg Questions 114b – 115

Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)

Re-cap — small beginning (Illustration — advance in an infinite ocean)

(b) Rom.7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

This teaching of the Catechism, following Scripture as it does, ought to put an end to all forms of antinomianism in the Church. Antinomianism is the teaching that the law has no role in the Christian’s life. The idea is that the believer has been saved by God from the law and so the law no longer has a role in their life and instead of the law as their standard for “how shall they then live,” the standard becomes the Holy Spirit, as abstracted or divorced from the law guiding them, or they will contend that it is love” that directs their behavior but again, it is a love that is more informed by their instinct then it is by God’s revelation.

The Catechism brings to the fore that, “that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God.” And they lodge this observation in the teaching of Scripture,

Ps.1:2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

You see some folks want to pit the NT against the OT and so they will go to passages like

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

And reading that they will then interpret it to mean that the law has ended for the Christian who trusts in Christ. But end in “R. 10:4″ means goal, purpose, or culmination and what it is teaching is not that the law no longer has a role in the Christian’s life but rather that Christ is the one who gives all that the law required.

So, our walking in the way of God’s law revelation is not a means to gaining something we do not already have (peace with God and God’s approval) but rather our walking in God’s law revelation is a manifestation that we are a people who are now, as Paul says in Ephesians, “light in the Lord.” Our walking in God’s law revelation is the placarding of the truth that Christ has redeemed us and made us a people unique unto Him. This is so true that if it is the case, by God’s grace that we make advance in this walking in God’s law revelation that announces that we are being conformed to Christ, that we glory in the Lord because we know it is the Spirit of Christ that causes us to go from Christ-likeness unto Christ-likeness.

And so because of that we pay attention to God’s Revelation as it teaches us how to walk as Disciples of Christ. We agree with the Apostle Paul,

2 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

So, we understand that the experience of the Grace of God in our lives that finds us redeemed and set apart as God’s Holy people, in no way detracts from the permanence and authority of God’s law.

There is a long record in our history of trying to squeeze out the role of God’s law in the believers life as a rule of conduct.

In the 17th century one Robert Towne could say

“To faith, or in the State or things of faith, there is no obligation, nor use of the law.”

John Saltmarsh disliked,

those who say “that duties are to be done because commanded,” and in his book, “Free-Grace” he reveals his contempt for those whose Gospel preaching is ‘over-much heated by the Law, and conditions and qualifications,’ and who hold the believer in the poverty of spirit by keeping him ‘both under Grace and Law at the same time.” Saltmarsh said that to urge believers to ‘Repent … and walk according to the Law of God’ is a legal way of bringing comfort to the soul, and that preachers who do this give ‘rather something of the Law than Gospel,’ for ‘nothing but the taking in of the law … can trouble the peace and quiet of any soul.’

Saltmarsh continued,

“The Gospel is … a perfect law of life and righteousness … and therefore I wonder at any that should contend for the ministry of the law or the Ten Commandments under Moses. The believer is under grace, and there is ‘no Moses now.”

Now as we continue to consider we say again, that as Christians our “sincere resolution to begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God,” is a resolution that is born of gratitude for the righteousness and peace with God that we have because Christ is our acceptability before the Father. “Our sincere resolution to begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God,” is a sincere resolution that starts from being forgiven and not from trying to earn forgiveness by our behavior.

Well, the Reformed of the day had an answer for those who even those many years ago wanted to deny the role to the law as a rule of conduct for the believer,

John Sedgwick considered,

“The antinomian war-cries of Free Grace, Christ’s Righteousness, and Gospel Liberty, to be “Baits and Snares … to cast down Obedience, to keep Christians from their dutie to God,” and Sedgwick deplored the “Law destroying, Dutie casting down course of the Antinomians.”

Another Puritan minister, James Durham affirmed that this rejection of the principle of obligation was itself a breach of the 1st commandment.

Thomas Gataker defended the principle of obligation by reference to the Greek word in I John 2:6 and the occurrence of the same verb in Romans 7:12. Gataker could say,

“To deny the Moral law to be of any more use to believers, or to be so much as a rule of conversation, or that they owe obedience unto it in point of duty and conscience; this strikes at the very root, and cuts in sunder the knot, not only of Christian Charity, but even of all civil society.”

Now the reason I’m giving these quotes and going over this issue is because we have needs to see that we are not the first generation to deal with antinomianism. And we have needs to see that the objections that we might see today have been seen before and have been dealt with before. We can be confident that the Catechism is correct when it teaches us, following Scripture, that we begin to live not only according to some but all the commandments of God. And the catechism is correct to enjoin upon us the law as a rule of conduct for the Christian’s life.

And for this section, to underscore this, we will finish with a quote from 17th century Reformed Minister Samuel Rutherford,

“The Law is yet to be preached, as tying us to personal obedience, whatever antinomians say on the contrary … Antinomians judge that by the Gospel, Christ hath done all for us, which is most true in the kind of meritorious and deserving cause, satisfying justice, but they do loose us from all personal duties, or doing ourselves, or in our own persons, so as we should be obliged to do, except we would sin. We think the same law obligation, but running in a Gospel-channel of Free-Grace, should act as now as if we were under a covenant of works, but not as if the one were Law-debt, and the other wages that we sweat for, and commeth by law debt; Antinomians make all duties a matter of courtesy.”

He then goes on to point out that Antinomians ‘contend for a Christian liberty wherewhith Christ hath made us free, and we contend for the same, but the question is, wherein the liberty consisteth, in concerns us much that we take not license for liberty.

Well, I could go on with many more quotes. But you get the sense. The problem that we have in the Church today of antinomianism, is a problem that has been in the Church in the past. And yet our Catechism solves that problem by insisting that.

That while no Christian can keep God’s law perfectly and though even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. ,

And we would close this question by observing that it is precisely at this point why we will be hated by men. It was Christ’s keeping of the law and his exposing of God’s enemies false treatment of the law that found Him crucified. If we seek to walk in God’s law revelation as a rule of life, out of gratitude for a forgiveness freely given, we will be walking convictions to those who insist that the only law is that there is no law, or to those who live by other autonomously created law orders that are inconsistent with God’s revelation.

Well, then this takes us to question 115 and with this we finish up our look at the law.

Question 115. Why will God then have the Ten Commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know (a) our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ;

(b) likewise, that we constantly endeavor and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come. (c)

Know our sinful nature

We preach the law the Catechism says so that we may know our sinful nature and find ourselves keep returning to Christ as our only righteousness.

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.

There are two dangers here.

1.) Knowing our sinful nature so thoroughly that we lament of God’s grace to us or we become so defeated because of our knowledge of our sinful nature that we become ineffective.

To those who fall into this trap we must remind them that God has forgiven them in Christ and that though they are sinners that ought not to stop them from attempting mighty things for God. They need to have impressed upon them and be reminded that even though they may be great sinners, Christ is a greater savior.

2.) The other danger here is that our sinful natures would lie to lightly upon us and so we would begin to think of ourselves more highly than we ought and in thinking of ourselves more highly than we ought we would fail to be impressed with Christ being our acceptability before the Father.

If the previous group of people need to be constantly taken back to God’s provision in Christ, this group of people need to be taken back to God’s absolute standard of righteousness. None of us have any reason to be impressed with ourselves. If we could for one second see our sin as it really is we would know in that one second why,

Our hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
We dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ name.

Paul understood how the law took men back to Christ,

Rom.7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? Rom.7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Now, as a minister, let me say that I far more often see contemporary Christians plagued with the second danger of having their sinful natures lie on them too lightly then I meet people who are plagued with the first danger of their sinful nature lying on them too heavily. I know my own danger is the former and not the latter.

The second reason they give for preaching of the law is that we “constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come.

Here they cite Paul from his letter to the Philippians on the importance of this pursuit of God

Philip.3:11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Philip.3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Philip.3:13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, Philip.3:14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

It is interesting that what the Catechizers are doing here with this answer is in the first reason they are emphasizing looking outside of ourselves to Christ who is our righteousness, while in the second reason they emphasize the aspect of increasingly becoming in our daily lives what we have freely been declared to be.

These always go together and in this order. The objective reality of who we are in Christ is the foundation from which we operate to increasingly become what we have been freely declared to be. The outward look creates and sustains our inward becoming. Much is wrong with the Church today in the West because we forget the necessity of both of these reasons for preaching the law or because we reverse the order of these reasons for preaching the law.

The Catechism, following Scripture, instructs that there is a connection between preaching the law and our conformity to the image of God. By putting it this way there is direct linkage made between the law and God’s image. The law is strictly preached that we may become increasingly conformable to God’s image. How is it that the strict preaching of God’s law could lead to our becoming increasingly conformable to God’s image unless it were the case that the law is God’s image?

Notice here though, that we are not thrown upon our own autonomous efforts. It is the case that we are looking to God for increasing conformity to His image. As the catechism teaches, we pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit that we might increasingly become more conformable to the image of God that is set forth by the strict preaching of God’s law. This is not “lift yourself up by your bootstraps and trust in your own efforts” sanctification. This is God’s grace from beginning to end.

Here we see a fantastic coming together of several themes. The strict preaching of God’s law, the reality that Christ is our righteousness, and the fact that our increasing conformity to the image of God is related to the strict preaching of God’s law, the reality that Christ is our righteousness and the place of the Holy Spirit and prevailing prayer in the life of the believer.

But that perfection we all desire … that being done with the sin that we are all too familiar with is not something that transpires in this life. Our perfection that is proposed to us is for the life to come. This keeps us humble and dependent upon Christ for our righteousness. This keeps us from being self satisfied. This keeps us always looking for the sin that needs to be put off in our own life, regardless of how far God has brought us in Christ. And finally, this makes heaven precious.

Sometimes disgust with myself makes me pine for heaven so I can be done with the sinful nature I carry around and see all too often. The thought of death scares me but the thought of heaven makes the thought of death tolerable because I know that once death is past, what lies in front of me is the perfection proposed. I will be done with the old man and the newness I already know as down payment and promise will be known in full.