“God’s 8th Word — Thou Shalt Be Charitable

I hope you have noticed something as we have made our way through this series of God’s law. I hope you have noticed why it can be said that we are “post-Christian,” in our Culture. Our social order is no longer governed by God’s law. Our cultural Institutions and framework are structured by a law that is other than God’s law.

As a people group and culture, instead of having no other God’s before us, we believe as a people, whatever we might believe contrary-wise individually, that “in the State we live and move and have our being.”

Today, the graven images that we have is too often a love of country that outstrips love for God.

As a culture God’s name is regularly taken in vain. In a conversation w/ a Judge I learned that in court perjury is a regular occurrence.

As a people our culture no longer take the Sabbath seriously … as I witnessed 30 years ago when public commerce ceased on the Lord’s Day.

By any fair calculation the family (Honor thy Father & Mother) is disintegrating.

And who can argue that as a culture we take seriously the prohibitions against Murder, Adultery, and Theft?

This is not to suggest there are not Christians … In this very place and other places who don’t esteem God’s Law. It is merely to point out that as a culture we are “post-Christian.”

God’s law is intended to shape God’s people and structure them, as that Law comes to them as Redeemed in Christ, and yet we who are shaped by God’s law find, at every turn, another law structure next to us, cheek by jowl, that likewise seeks to shape and inform us according to the god who is the lawgiver of that law system.

And so Biblical Christians, in this post-Christian setting, invariably are the counter-culture. It should be said of us, as it was said of the early Christians when the pagan culture was threatened by their presence,

“These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also, (Acts 17:6)

As wicked Ahab accused righteous Elijah of being a “Troubler of Israel” because of Elijah’s stand for God, so we should be accused by our wicked culture as being “Troublers of our country,” because of our stand for the Lord Christ.

God’s law is health and vitality for those who are in Christ but those who are outside of Christ find God’s law to be accursed.

We are those who have been made righteous by Christ alone. The Scripture teaches that we were created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them (Eph. 2:10). It is God’s law that defines for us what good works are for us to walk in.

Christ gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14). Our zealousness for good deeds can only successfully be demonstrated if we have a standard to define the “good” about our deeds. That “standard,” is God’s law that we have been examining week by week in this series.

Last Week we talked about

I.) Stealing From God (Vertical)

A.) All abuse and waste of His gifts

II.) Stealing From Others (Horizontal)

This commandment demands just price and just wages.

III.) Stealing In The Public Square

Inflation, Usury, Ponzi Schemes

We examined how those are what the Heidelberg Catechism calls, “Wicked tricks or Devices.”

We could have also talked about

Price and wage controls, minimum wage laws, Corporate Welfare, Entitlement programs, public debt that we incur which the income of our children and grandchildren after us must pay, and other assorted wicked trick and devices whereby we design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbour.

The passage that is cited to support the necessity to avoid these wicked tricks and devices as theft is,

1 Thess.4:6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

They might have also cited Ephesians 4:28

Eph.4:28 Let him that stole steal no more …

There is another category of wicked tricks and devices whereby we we design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbor that I would like to brush up against briefly.

Scripture in Romans 13:6-7 requires us

6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

And so clearly there is a proper due that is owed to those who rule. Because of Scriptures like this Christians can pay proper taxes as a devotion unto God.

C.) Confiscatory Taxation

Here I want to just offer some of what Calvin said on this subject,

Calvin argued for prudent limits, writing that taxes should only support public necessity; for “to impose them (taxes) upon the common folk without cause is tyrannical extortion.”

Calvin offered that obedience was a Christian duty in this area; however, he cautioned Princes not in indulge in “waste and expensive luxury,” lest they earn God’s displeasure. Again he would write on this subject, “Others drain the common people of their money, and afterward lavish it on insane largess.”

Has our tax system become confiscatory? Well, at least one area small businessman that I know of has just this past week written on this very subject,

A few years ago I computed how much of the profits that our companies have generated that I got to keep. Since every dollar in taxes starts as a dollar of profit, I figured out all the taxes we had paid corporately and personally. This included income taxes, social security taxes, sales & use taxes, franchise taxes, real estate taxes, license fees, etc. etc. I was stunned that we had paid a whopping 96% of all the profits we had generated to various governmental entities in taxes, keeping a miserable 4% for reinvestment in the business and as a reward for my work.

This small businessman then goes on to talk about what I consider to be hidden taxes,

And it has not only been the tax burden that successful entrepreneurs have to overcome, it is the regulatory ones as well. We have been forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars on equipment and machinery that was totally unnecessary and has went unused for almost two decades merely because the Ruling Elites knew better than us what was good for us. We’ve been forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in compliance costs to just make sure that we haven’t missed jumping through one hoop or another of the over 13,000 pages of rules and regulations that we are supposed to obey, and on and on.

Calvin certainly would have understood that this kind of confiscatory taxation is a wicked trick and devices whereby what is designed is the appropriation by violators of the 8th commandment to themselves the goods which belong to their and our neighbor. If we are to take the 8th commandment seriously and our own Catechism seriously, we will not be supporters of those who do not advocate the repealing of this kind of confiscatory taxation root, branch and twig.

However the Catechism has a “Thou Shalt” for us that corresponds to the “Thou Shalt Not.”

Question 111. But what does God require in this commandment?

Answer: That I promote the advantage of my neighbour in every instance I can or may; and deal with him as I desire to be dealt with by others: (a) further also that I faithfully labour, so that I may be able to relieve the needy. (b)

(a) Matt.7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (b) Eph.4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

A.) Works of Charity

Here the Golden Rule is cited. In order to esteem the 8th commandment we should be a people who look not only to our needs but also to the needs of others.

In Reformed Church History this includes not only our personal giving to others as we see need but also our support for the Deacon’s fund in the Church.

Emperor Julian of Rome is quoted,

“Nothing has contributed more to the progress of the superstition of the Christians as their charity to strangers . . . . The impious Galileans provide not only for their own poor, but for ours as well.”

They fed the poor, nursed the sick, housed the homeless, and rescued those abandoned to die.

Calvin, envisioned the Church having this mercy ministry as well,

“When I first came to this Church,” he says, “there was as good as nothing here . . . . There was preaching, and that was all.” He would have found much the same state of things everywhere else in the Protestant world. The Church in the early Protestant conception was constituted by the preaching of the Word and the right administration of the sacraments: the correction of morals was the concern not of the Church but of the civil power…. Calvin could not take this view of the matter. “Whatever others may hold,” he observed, “we cannot think so narrowly of our office that when preaching is done our task is fulfilled, and we may take our rest.” In his view the mark of a true Church is not merely that the gospel is preached in it, but that it is “followed.” For him the Church is the “communion of saints,” and it is incumbent upon it to see to it that it is what it professes to be. From the first he therefore set himself strenuously to attain this end .

And so works of charity — mercy ministries — were hallmarks of the early Reformed Church in Geneva. Calvin himself died comparatively impoverished. Perhaps this was, in part, due to the fact that instead of soaking up the funds in his salary the funds were going to the Deacon’s fund?

B.) Protestant Work Ethic

In order to fulfill the 8th commandment we are required to labor (work) as we can. Many scholars have attributed this strong work ethic as being a major contributor to the success of Biblical Christianity. Christians understood that they were to work and give to the needy. We see here the clear call to be a blessing to others because of our work ethic. Of course that blessing is first to our family in providing for them but as God grants us abundance we are to be a blessing to others.

Let us close by asking what can be done in order to avoid stealing

What is to be done to avoid stealing?

(1) Live in a calling. ‘Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labour, working with his hands.’ Eph 4:28, &c. The devil hires such as stand idle, and puts them to the pilfering trade. An idle person tempts the devil to tempt him.

(2) Be content with the estate that God has given you. ‘Be content with such things as ye have.’ Heb 13:5. Theft is the offspring of avarice and envy. Study contentment. Believe that condition best which God has carved out to you. He can bless the little meal in the barrel. We shall not need these things long: we shall carry nothing out of the world with us but our winding sheet. If we have but enough to bear out our charges to heaven, it is sufficient.

(3) Stay out of debt. In Proverbs 22 Scripture teaches that the borrower is the slave of the lender. There is a natural tendency of those in slavery to get out of slavery at all costs, even if it means stealing to do so. Our whole economic system drives us towards debt. The temptation to theft will be far less upon those who are not in debt.

(4) Find ways to stewardship of what God is given you so that you can save against the day of need. When I lived in South Carolina a reasonably well to do Farmer told me that if “I took care of my pennies, my dollars would take care of themselves.”

(5) Entrust yourself to God’s providence. While it is true that we should

Go to the ant, O sluggard,
Observe her ways and be wise,
7 Which, having no chief,
Officer or ruler,
8 Prepares her food in the summer
And gathers her provision in the harvest.
9 How long will you lie down, O sluggard?
When will you arise from your sleep?
10 “ A little sleep, a little slumber,
A little folding of the hands to rest”—
11 Your poverty will come in like a vagabond
And your need like an armed man.

It is also true that we are

31 not to worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’ 32 For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. 33 But [s]seek first [t]His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be [u]added to you.

34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will [v]care for itself. [w]Each day has enough trouble of its own.

If we are a hard working people, and wise with our stewardship of God’s resources to us, then we must entrust ourselves to God’s providence, especially at those times when thieving, in one form or another, to relieve our distress might be tempting.

Heidelberg Catechism — Q. 110

Question 110. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?

Answer: God forbids not only those thefts, (a) and robberies, (b) which are punishable by the magistrate; but he comprehends under the name of theft all wicked tricks and devices, whereby we design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbour: (c) whether it be by force, or under the appearance of right, as by unjust weights, ells, measures, fraudulent merchandise, (d) false coins, usury, (e) or by any other way forbidden by God; as also all covetousness, (f) all abuse and waste of his gifts. (g)

(a) 1 Cor.6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (b) 1 Cor.5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. Isa.33:1 Woe to thee that spoilest, and thou wast not spoiled; and dealest treacherously, and they dealt not treacherously with thee! when thou shalt cease to spoil, thou shalt be spoiled; and when thou shalt make an end to deal treacherously, they shall deal treacherously with thee. (c) Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 1 Thess.4:6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. (d) Prov.11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight. Prov.16:11 A just weight and balance are the LORD’S: all the weights of the bag are his work. Ezek.45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD. Ezek.45:10 Ye shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. Ezek.45:11 The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer. Ezek.45:12 And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. Deut.25:13 Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small. Deut.25:14 Thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. Deut.25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Deut.25:16 For all that do such things, and all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. (e) Ps.15:5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved. Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. (f) 1 Cor.6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (g) Prov.23:20 Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: Prov.23:21 For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. Prov.21:20 There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up.

Question 111. But what does God require in this commandment?

Answer: That I promote the advantage of my neighbour in every instance I can or may; and deal with him as I desire to be dealt with by others: (a) further also that I faithfully labour, so that I may be able to relieve the needy. (b)

(a) Matt.7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (b) Eph.4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

I.) Stealing From God (Vertical)

A.) All abuse and waste of His gifts

God has entrusted each one of us with talents and giftedness. If we allow these gifts to go undeveloped or unused we are guilty of stealing from God. (Matthew 25:13-30).

Similarly, when we use God given gifts and abilities for our own glory and advance instead of with the purpose of glorifying and advancing God’s cause we are guilty of stealing from God.

When we are not obedient to God we are stealing from God. When we seek to dismiss His claims against us in terms of His law counsel we are stealing from God.

When we violate the first table

Worshiping false gods
Worshiping the true god in false ways
Taking God’s name in vain
Violating the Sabbath

We violate the 8th commandment for we steal from God’ reputation and steal His glory.

II.) Stealing From Others

This commandment demands just price and just wages.

When we seek to charge more than a product is worth we are stealing. When we do not give what a worker deserves OR if as a worker we demand more in wages than we are giving out in production we are stealing. When we are lazy at the workplace we are stealing. When we require too much from a worker in comparison to what we pay them we are stealing.

False coins — Counterfeiting

Usury

Zacharias Ursi­nus in his Com­men­tary on the Catechism wrote, ‘Usury is the gain which is received in view of that which has been bor­rowed or loaned’

“Usury originally signified what is now called interest, or simply a compensation for the use of money. The Jews were not permitted to take interest from their brethren for the use of money loaned; and when the Levitical law forbids the taking of usury, the prohibition intended is that of any gain or compensation for the use of money or goods. Hence, usury in the scriptures is what we call interest. The change of signification in the word usury, which now denotes unlawful interest, renders it proper to substitute interest for usury.”

In the ancient world interest on loans (usury) was seen as violation of the 8th commandment. The Church would from time to time speak as if there were exceptions but on the whole it spoke with one voice against Usury.

“Once upon a time, certainly from at least 1150 to 1550, seeking, receiving, or hoping for anything beyond one’s principal – in other words, looking for profit – on a loan constituted the mortal sin of usury. The doctrine was enunciated by popes, expressed by three ecumenical councils, proclaimed by bishops, and taught unanimously by theologians. The doctrine was not some obscure, hole-in-the-corner affection, but stood astride the European credit markets, at least as much as the parallel Islamic ban of usury governs Muslim countries today…The great central moral fact was that usury, understood as profit on a loan, was forbidden as contrary to the natural law, as contrary to the law of the church, and as contrary to the law of the gospel.”

(John T. Noonan, Jr., “Development in Moral Doctrine’ in James F. Keenan S.J. & Thomas A. Shannon (eds), The Context of Casuistry (Georgetown University Press, 1995), p.188.)

Harold Berman in his book “Law & Revolution” insists that there were times that the Church would allow usury.

With the Reformation there was a slight alteration in the matter of usury was normed as Business interests came to the fore.

Calvin expressed himself on usury in a 1545 letter to a friend, Claude de Sachin,

“For if we should totally prohibit the practice of usury, we would restrain consciences more rigidly than God himself” Calvin went on to argue that “we ought not to judge usury according to a few passages of scripture, but in accordance with the principle of equity.”

He qualified his view, however, by saying that money should be lent to people in dire need without hope of interest, while a modest interest rate of 5% should be permitted in relation to other borrowers.

Some have read the Heidelberg as pronouncing a complete ban on interest. Some have read this as a ban on excessive interest thus begging the question of how we determine when interest becomes excessive. One thing is certain is that usury has become a means by which people are enslaved to their debt. Creditors understand this and so often it is the case that when they lend money they know well that in doing so they are creating debt slaves. This doesn’t remove the responsibility of people to avoid debt and usury, rather it merely acknowledges that those who purposely create money systems where the citizenry, in order to function, must become debt slaves will themselves likewise be held responsible for violation of the 8th commandment.

III.) Stealing As A Public Square Good

A.) Inflation

Inflation is when the Government artificially increases either the money supply or the availability of cheap credit. As money or credit increase producers can and do raise the prices for their goods because there is more money in circulation with which to purchase those goods. The theft in all of this is in the fact that when new money is injected into the economy, an increase in prices result. This increase in price does not hurt those who first spend the newly created money as the prices they pay for goods is based on the old money supply quotient. However, for those who are on fixed or stable incomes their dollars now have less purchasing power value as prices have increased in response to a greater amount of money being available. The increase of the money supply has stolen from these people real value. Thou Shalt not steal.

Inflation also is theft from the creditor in favor of the borrower. Inflation makes for cheap money. Creditors paid off with cheap money suddenly find that whatever it is they sold, they sold at less value then they thought they had. If I sell a good for $50.00 when a dollar was worth a dollar but because of inflation I am paid back $50.00 in dollars that are only worth .93 cents on the dollar due to purposeful inflationary practices I have had .07 cents on the dollar stolen from me. Thou Shalt not Steal.

Inflation also is theft from those who save in favor of those who spend. In point of fact Inflation discourages saving in favor of spending. If I place 50.00 in my savings account at 6 percent interest while the rate of inflation is 13% the 50.00 I saved will not be worth as much when I finally take the money out because inflation has done its thieving work.

So, this kind of theft not only does the damage that all theft does but it also does the damage of changing the mindset of a people so that they go from being thrifty to being wasteful. We go from “a penny saved is a penny earned,” to “a penny saved is half a penny lost.”

So, Inflation is what the Heidelberg Catechism calls a wicked trick and device, whereby we design to appropriate to ourselves the goods which belong to our neighbor. We are guilty of this kind of theft and of violating the 8th commandment when we vote for people who support inflationary economics. ”

B.) Ponzi Schemes

Though Charles Ponzi wasn’t the first to practice theft via Ponzi schemes his name because associated with these kind of wicked tricks and devices.

Ponzi convinced people to allow him to invest their money. Once given the money Ponzi simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. Along the way Ponzi feathered his own nest with the stolen monies. Ponzi then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn’t expand the number of new investors fast enough, to cover the expected return of his old investors and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

Ponzi was practicing a wicked trick and device designed to appropriate to himself the goods of his neighbor.

Interestingly enough the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes, like the money that Ponzi took in from his investors, is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

This is a classic Ponzi scheme and it remains a wicked trick and device designed to appropriate to those who established it the goods which belonged to their neighbor. The fact that it has become legal does not make it moral or in keeping with the 8th commandment.

Of course, Social Security and Ponzi schemes are not perfectly analogous.

Ponzi could only shake down willing volunteer investors. Once he failed in gaining new investors his scheme collapsed.

Social Security, on the other hand, can rely on governmental force to keep the scheme afloat. As the shrinking number of workers paying into the system makes it harder to continue to sustain benefits, the government can just force young people to pay even more into the system.

In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase. That increase as well as the program itself violates God’s word of “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

C.) Confiscatory Taxation

Here I want to just offer some of what Calvin said on this subject,

Calvin argued for prudent limits, writing that taxes should only support public necessity; for “to impose them (taxes) upon the common folk without cause is tyrannical extortion.”

Calvin offered that obedience was a Christian duty in this area; however, he cautioned Princes not in indulge in “waste and expensive luxury,” lest they earn God’s displeasure. Again he would write on this subject, “Others drain the common people of their money, and afterward lavish it on insane largess.”

Calvin certainly would have understood that confiscatory taxation is a wicked trick and device

Conclusion

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels stated that the Communist theory could be expressed in one single phrase-“abolition of private property.”

To the contrary God’s word supports and protects the reality of private property.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 14

Question 14. Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?

Answer: None; for, first, God will not punish any other creature for the sin which man has committed; and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin, so as to deliver others from it.

The idea of “satisfy for us,” is pointing towards the idea of someone who can take our punishment as a substitute for us, in our stead.

We have learned from the previous questions that we can not provide for our own satisfaction and that we must look to another in order to have peace with God. Question 14 thus begins to examine what kind of substitute we might need in order to for God’s justice to be satisfied in terms of the case that He has against us as sinners.

The emphasis in question 14 falls on the word “mere.” If we are to look for someone who can undertake the penalty of God’s condemnation against sin in our place that someone we must find must be more than a creature like ourselves. With this simple statement the Catechism shuts the door to any Savior candidate who is not more than human. Anyone who we turn to, in order to be our penalty bearer, must have credentials that include, “more than a mere creature.” Of course that rules out all humans that are not also Gods.

In answer #14 we are given two reasons why a “mere creature,” is not sufficient to bear our sins.

1.) Scripture teaches, “the soul that sinneth it shall die,” (Ezekiel 18:4) and so even if another mere creature could be found to bear satisfaction, if that “mere creature,” did not share in the manishness of man, it would be unjust of God to visit penalty of man upon a non-manish man. As man did the sinning, any creature that might be found to take the penalty, must have the soul of man. So, a mere creature that does not share in man manishness can not satisfy for man the sinner.

2.) The second reason that a mere creature can not satisfy God’s wrath in the place of sinners is that any creature who might conceivably be found, who was only a creature, could never endure the wrath of God against sin so that others might be delivered from God’s wrath. If the mere creature could not sustain the penalty of God for His justice wronged then those who might be being represented by that mere creature could not be saved.

No mere creature can stand before God’s indignation. No mere creature can abide in the fierceness of God’s anger (Nahum 1:6).

So, question 14 leaves us with the necessity to find a savior candidate who,

1.) Shares in our manishness so that as one who might conceivably satisfy for our sin with His death is connected with the “soul that sinneth” as man himself.

2.) Is more than man so that He might withstand the fury of God’s just penalty against sin.

The catechism teaches us that in order for someone to satisfy for our sins we need someone who is man and yet who is more than man. The Scripture points to that person,

Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb.2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Heb.2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

Question 15 teases out even more what we find in Hebrews 2. Jesus Christ was very God of very God (hence, more than a mere creature) and yet became a partaker of flesh and blood (hence, he shared in the “manishness of man”). Because of this Jesus Christ qualifies as one who can be one who can satisfy for sin.

So, no mere creature can be found who can satisfy God’s just penalty for our sin but there is one who is more than a mere creature who can relieve us of our sin and misery.

Liberals Continue To Give Back-Handed Support To The Belhar

Over here

What about the Belhar Confession?

There is a backhanded appeal to the support of the Belhar Confession. I normally wouldn’t comment on this but the blogger linked to my analysis of the Belhar and opinionated that I dismissed it “derisively.” Personally, I was hoping to have dismissed it “scornfully,” but I’ll take derisive.

Mr. Tuininga offered,

That said, is the problem really with the document itself? If DeYoung, Mouw, and others can agree with virtually everything the document says, is it possible that the misuses to which it is being put are the result of factors not pertaining to the confession itself? To be sure, in a liberal context the Belhar Confession is easily put to disastrous use. But if it is adopted in the context of strong confessional allegiances to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt, or the Westminster Confession, is it really so dangerous or is it more of a corrective?

Yes, the problem is with the document itself. The document, as I exhaustively exposed in my previous posts on the Belhar is a document that grows out of the soil of Marxist liberation theology. Second, anybody (and I do mean anybody) who can agree with virtually everything that document says is either a Marxist, a proto-Marxist, or a useful idiot. Thirdly, the reason that the Belhar, in a liberal context could be used to disastrous use is because the Belhar is a liberal document. If a Liberal context can put the Bible, which is a historically non progressive document, to a disastrous use how much more a progressive document such as the Belhar? Fourthly, just exactly what is it in the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg catechism, or the Westminster Confession that needs to have a corrective as young liberal Mr. Tuininga offers the Belhar as a solution? I’d really like to know what Mr. Tuininga believes the Belhar can do that these confessions don’t already do. Finally, yes, in point of fact it really is so dangerous Mr. Tuininga. To add the Belhar to the Westminster or the Three Forms of Unity is like adding the Communist Manifesto to the US Constitution as a “corrective.” The fact that Mr. Tuininga can’t see that says more about Mr. Tuininga then it does about the relative safety of the Belhar.

Second, I’m not sure Young and Mouw are really representative of “conservative voices,” on this issue. They might be “more conservative,” but that would only mean that they represent, perhaps, the right side of the left as opposed to representing the right.

Tuininga goes on,

DeYoung argues that the Belhar Confession’s statement that God is “in a special way the God of the poor, the destitute, and the wronged” cannot be supported from Scripture. He believes that this statement contradicts the Scriptural teaching regarding God’s covenant with his people. But I would argue that DeYoung is reading too much into that statement, and that he is underselling what Scripture says about God’s concern for the poor. It is Luke, after all, who records Jesus’ proclamation Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God, and woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation (Luke 6:20, 24). It was Jesus who described his calling as requiring him to proclaim good news to the poor (Luke 4:18). DeYoung has argued in his What is the Mission of the Church? that the material significance of these statements is exaggerated, but I find his insistence on downplaying the implications of the gospel regarding poverty quite troubling. It does not go beyond Scripture to say that God is in a special way the God of the poor and the oppressed.

Yes indeed it does go beyond Scripture to say that God is in a special way the God of the poor and oppressed. Was God more God to David when he was a shepherd boy then he was God to David when David was King? Was God more God to the oppressed Israelites in Egypt than he was to Rich Abraham? Was God more God outcast Moses than He was God to Moses the leader of the Israelite Nation? Was God more God to the woman with the blood issue who had spent all her money on many Doctors than He was God to rich Zacchaeus? Was God more God to the woman caught in adultery than he was to Joseph of Arimathea? The Luke passage must be read in light of the Matthew passage which adds to “poor,” the idea of “in spirit,” in order to understand what Jesus was saying. When Scripture portrays God as hearing the cry of the poor and needy no one really believes that means that God hears the cry of the poor and needy who are wicked as well. It is past ridiculous for someone to suggest that God prioritizes the poor simply because they are poor, absent of any consideration of their relation to Christ. If Mr. Tuininga really believes that the poor qua poor are special to God I would look for him to impoverish himself instantly, take a vow of poverty, and become a mendicant monk. Now of course, God is not the God, in a special way, to the rich either. God is the God of those, rich or poor, who are united to Jesus Christ. Mr. Tuininga’s words belie his liberal leanings.

Mr. Tuininga offers,

In fact, if the Belhar Confession (or something like it) is worth adopting in our churches, I would argue that it is precisely for the reason that it challenges conservatives in their reactionary stance on matters of justice. Conservative Christians love to downplay (or ignore) the teachings of Scripture regarding the gospel’s implications for race or poverty. But they are in severe danger of allowing liberal extremes on these issues to curb their own fidelity to the biblical witness. For those who read older theologians like Calvin on these issues, the contrast is quite stark.

I wonder if Mr. Tuininga would terribly mind to much giving some examples of “conservative reactionary stances on matters of justice.” It would be good if he could provide names as well as examples. Secondly, just exactly what are the Scripture’s teaching on race and poverty that conservative Christians love to downplay? Names and examples please.

You see, I believe that it is liberal reactionary stances on matters of justice that create more poverty then what already exist. Liberals are full of good intentions that when implemented make matters worse then they were prior to their implementation. Perhaps Mr. Tuininga and I agree on the Churches and Christians role in relieving poverty.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism — Q. 13

Question 13. Can we ourselves then make this satisfaction?

Answer: By no means; but on the contrary we daily increase our debt. (a)

Now after having given a glimmer of hope in terms of returning to God’s favor in question and answer # 12

“God will have his justice satisfied: and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another.”

the catechism, methodologically speaking, begins to do the same thing it did in the first division when it shut all doors against man finding favor with God except the door through which one must walk through in order to find favor. The catechism hinting at another who can make satisfaction proceeds to shut the door to all potential providers of satisfaction except the only one who can provide satisfaction. If the one caught in sin and misery is to find his satisfaction in another he must move through the only door the catechism allows him to move through.

And so, the Heidelberg Catechism shuts the door to any idea that fallen man can make satisfaction to God’s righteous law. Notice again here though, the legal aspect of Christianity Caleb. Law broken. Law must be satisfied. Christianity is a faith founded on legal categories. If one doesn’t know that, one will struggle their whole Christian life.

Tis folly to think that we can provide satisfaction for our sin Caleb, and yet that is what mankind apart from Christ universally does. Man, apart from Christ, enters into all kinds of spurious satisfactions in order to ameliorate their inescapable sense of sin and misery. Fallen man has this guilt he can’t get rid of and so he does all kinds of contorted things in order to rid himself of his guilt, thus thinking he can satisfy the sense of God’s opposition.

Nah.1:6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Typically in order to satisfy his guilt before God fallen man will either turn to greater or lesser degrees of sado-masochism. Either he will seek to satisfy his guilt by rolling that guilt on another thus inflicting harm on others who are serving as providers of satisfaction (sadism) or he will seek to satisfy his guilt by rolling that guilt upon himself thus inflicting harm on himself thus punishing himself for his sin (masochism). This mad desire to find a false satisfaction as opposed to a true satisfaction that can only be found in Christ, as the one who provides satisfaction, explains a great deal of the psychological twisted-ness and the abnormality that we find in the human condition. If one will not look to Christ as the only one who can provide satisfaction unto God’s just justice against us, one will become psychologically bent in their seeking to unload and satisfy their guilt upon someone else.

Indeed, I would go as far to say that the greatest preponderance of the whole “psychological – psychiatry complex” that is so prevalent in our culture exists only as a means to provide men false satisfactions that can never satisfy. Men go to their counseling sessions to receive a temporary declaration of absolution from their Shrink as satisfaction for their sin. But, as the Catechism teaches, this Shrink absolution can never really satisfy, because we daily (minute by minute) increase our debt.

Job 15:16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

The greatest majority of the psychological – psychiatry complex was invented as a means to rationalize evil behavior and to provide a false satisfaction. True satisfaction can only be found in Christ as our satisfaction, but fallen man will not have Christ’s satisfaction because they will not surrender the authority of their fiat word to legislate reality. The psychological – psychiatry industry, in its majority report, is thus a sham science but it can exist and flourish because so many people want a satisfaction other than the satisfaction found in Christ.

So, fallen man plays this huge game of pretend in order to try and ease from himself this inescapable sense that God’s justice is not satisfied.

Ps.130:3 “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”

Fallen man will confess his sins to a Shrink or in public but his confession will be qualified. “I confess though I didn’t really do anything wrong.” Ever notice the explosion of talk shows Caleb? People go live on television or radio to confess their sins, while at the same time often defending themselves that their sins weren’t really sinful. What else is this but fallen man trying to make his own satisfaction? As a pool of guilt grows in any society, the need to seek to satisfy for that guilt through pseudo confessions, through sadism, through masochism will grow exponentially. People are bent by their lack of satisfaction and as long as they refuse to go to the only one who can make satisfaction for them their guilt will eat them up and make them do the oddest of things. This mockery of satisfaction finds the soul trifling with itself — trifling because it can not find the permanent satisfaction for its sins it so desperately needs.

So, the catechism teaches that we can not provide our own satisfaction.

Job 9:2 “I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? Job 9:3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”

Instead, the amount of satisfaction that fallen man needs grows daily because his debt grows daily. And experience teaches us the contortions fallen man will go to in order to evade the gnawing sense of guilt that he can not satisfy. Fallen man will damage his relationships, he will conspire against himself, he will make all manners of false confessions, and he will allow himself to be manipulated by those who hold out the brass ring of non-Christ satisfaction for his inescapable sense of guilt that he longs to be satisfied at any price except the price of permanent and eternal satisfaction.