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.

Caleb’s Baptism — Heidelberg Catechism Q. 12

Question 12. Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favour?

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

As we come to question 12 we begin to consider the 2nd division of the Heidelberg Catechism which deals with the issue of God’s Redemption of man and so man’s deliverance. The 1st division dealt with man’s sin and misery. It’s intent was twofold. First, to convince us how majestic, holy, and transcendent God is. Second, to convince us that we can have no concourse with this God because of our sin and misery. The 2nd part of the catechism is committed to revealing that we may have concourse with this God because of God’s initiative in man’s redemption.

Question 12 serves as a basic summary of the 1st part of the Catechism. The question serves to remind us that all ways are blocked unto being in God’s favor. The effect of the first part of the catechism, psychologically speaking, is to leave the one instructed with both a sense of God’s opposition and a understanding of our peril.

As we consider the answer a glimmer of hope begins to shine through the prison of our sin and misery in the last three words, “or by another.” The Catechism has effectively shut off all other avenues for finding favor with God and with those three words begins to hint to God’s gospel deliverance for those who are convinced of their sin and misery.

Note the theme again in the answer. The theme is legal and personal. God’s honor has been injured (personal) and so the justice that justly rises up against the injured honor of a personal God must be satisfied (legal). This reminds us that God is a personal God and it reminds us that Christianity is a faith that concentrates heavily on legal (forensic) categories. This is important for us to remember Caleb as we continue to move through the Catechism. Contemporary Christianity heavily emphasizes the personal – relational aspect of the Christian faith (though this most commonly is the personal – relational as we envision that and not as Scripture portrays) but often forgets the legal aspect of the Christian faith which sets before us a God who is offended because His law has been violated and who, before He can have a favored relationship with lawbreakers again, must have His law (which is the embodiment of His character) satisfied.

Answer 12 reinforces once again that God’s offended justice will be satisfied. Now keep in mind here that God is not being petulant with this demand for satisfaction. God is the sovereign ruler of the universe and has said, “the soul that sinneth, shall surely die (Gen. 2:17).” Either God’s justice is done and someone makes satisfaction or God dies. The catechism gives a flurry of Scriptures that underscoring that God’s justice will be done,

Exod.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Exod.23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Ezek.18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Matt.5:26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

2 Thess.1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

Luke 16:2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward.

God will not be mocked and so will have His justice uphold His slighted honor.

The catechism teaches we must satisfy God’s justice either by ourselves or by another. Notice the beginning strains of good news here. First, clearly what is being hinted at here is that another can make our satisfaction. This begins to hint at Gospel truths we will look at later such as atonement, justification, reconciliation, substitution, imputation, reconciliation, propitiation, expiation, redemption, and others. Second, the point that we want to scream here is that the catechism, following Scripture, is opening up a window that we might escape the dungeon of our sin and misery. Someone else might bear the lashings of God’s justice in our place.

In the holding out of this possible substitute God’s law is still satisfied, (the soul that sinneth does die in His substitute) and so the legal requirements that we mentioned earlier are upheld, and we enter into a personal knowing of God who is for us at every turn.

The Scripture that the Catechism offers really should be memorized by all believers.

Romans 8:1 — There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Again Caleb, notice the legal themes here

1.) No condemnation (i.e. — no penalty after judgment)

The threat we were under was a legal threat (condemnation). Because of our substitute was condemned in our place the legal requirement for condemnation has been met in Christ Jesus.

2.) What the law could not do — The law, following God’s holy character, required moral perfection but because of man’s sin the moral law could not give what it required.

3.) Condemned sin in the flesh — Once again, legal categories. Breaking of the law occurred. Satisfaction of the law must be had.

4.) Righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us — The law requires moral perfection and because of Christ’s moral perfection in the life He lived that righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us.

More on this later but I wanted to end by emphasizing again that the Christian faith is not the Christian faith unless we understand that it moves in these legal – forensic terms.

Yes, Christianity is relational / personal but it is only relational personal if it is also legal / forensic. Many many modern Christians have forgotten this and their faith languishes because of their forgetfulness.

Sola Fide, Nuda Fide, Mortuis Fide & Rev. Wilson’s Comments On Mr. Stellman

“With regard to sola fide, he (Stellman) is quite right to see the very narrow position he was nurtured in as contrary to the teaching of the New Testament. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to sinners, and the instrument of a God-given faith is what receives that gracious gift. But the gift received is that of living faith, breathing faith, loving faith, the only kind of faith the living God bestows. It is sola fide, not nuda fide. Stellman was wrong to identify his previous narrow view of sola fide as the doctrine of sola fide itself.”

Doug Wilson

Stellman, like all the Reformers before him, held to Sola Fide, which is to say, “Faith Alone is the instrumental means by which a person is justified.” The faith that the Reformers held to and which they said “justified,” was always defined as a living, breathing, loving faith, but that living, breathing, loving, faith is alone the instrumental means by which men are justified. In other words, because faith, is by its very definition one that is living, breathing, and loving, it is the case that Sola Fide is the same thing as nuda fide when it comes to justification by faith alone. When Rev. Wilson tries to suggest that those who have held to the Historic doctrine of justification by faith alone are instead holding to the doctrine of justification by nuda fide he is inaccurate. As much as I dislike the theology of the R2K camp none of them hold to a doctrine of justification whereby one is justified by anything but a living faith, breathing faith, loving faith.

Is it the case that Rev. Wilson wants that living faith, breathing faith, loving faith to be a faith that justifies as it is no longer the alone faith, which by definition is living faith, breathing faith, loving faith? If so, then he is overturning the Reformational doctrine of “Justification by faith alone.” If faith is redefined to mean faithfulness then “faith alone,” becomes the oxymoronic, “faithfulness alone.” This yields a situation where I am justified by faith alone as my faith performs good works. So, in justification the proper living, breathing, loving faith by which one is subjectively justified is Nuda Fide. As a beggar, with nothing but living, loving, breathing, naked faith, I look to Christ alone who is my Faithfulness and eschew any good works clothing with which I might want to adorn my otherwise naked faith. If Sola Fide isn’t also at the same time Nuda Fide I am of all men to be pitied, for how much faithfulness adornment does my faith need to have in order to be justifying faith? In justification faith does its proper work when it, in the nude, rests in Christ alone and His righteousness.

Of course “nuda fide” could mean, for Rev. Wilson, that we are not justified by dead faith, but whoever taught that we are justified by “mortuis fide?” Does Rev. Wilson really believe that Stellman held and taught that we are justified by “mortuis fide?”