The Incarnation & Meaning

John 1:14 — And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We looked upon His glory, the glory of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.


The incarnate Son of God fulfills what the Tabernacle/Temple always was meant to be; a place where infinite meets with the finite to give salvation to the faithful. Further the incarnate Son of God fulfills what the Tabernacle/Temple always promised and that is the place where the Transcendent Eternal dwells among and so gives meaning to the temporal Immanent.

Without the incarnation of Christ the ability to fill the temporal immanent with real Transcendent Eternal meaning would have remained tied to ephemeral shadows and hazy types. However with the coming of Christ, meaning becomes meaningful as all meaning is related to the Eternal Transcendent Christ.

Christ is our Great High Priest who dies for our Sins but He also is our Great High Prophet wherein meaning finally becomes dazzlingly meaningful. There is a reason that the incarnate Christ is known as the Word (logos) of God. This is why St. Paul said that in Christ is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

The Incarnation then becomes the bedrock of finding Truth as well as the cornerstone of being relieved of sin. If there had been no incarnation  meaning would have been as uncertain as relief from sin.

Impact of Immigration on National Cohesion & Identity

The main effect of the massive immigration that continues apace is to fracture the psychological bond of nationality leaving citizenship a hollowed out pseudo-legalism. That is because the diversity that massive immigration brings is associated with not only rising violence such as with terrorism or civil war but also the general loss of social cohesion. This general loss of social cohesion is sometimes referred to as “Balkanization.” It is the idea that, with the introduction of vast and sundry immigration, what occurs is a Hobbesian warfare of all people groups against all people groups. At this point there is no longer any “National Identity” left but only “People Group Identities” of the varied people who are part of the internal empire’s rule. This occurrence leads to intense civil stress as all policy pursued by any National Government is going to be measured according to the differing standards of each interest group.

Then when one adds the reality of a welfare state  one finds that these balkanized special interest groups quickly learn that if they can manipulate the government, they can use its power to enrich themselves at the expense of the other groups. The “intense civil stress” mentioned above thus includes intense economic warfare as each people group struggle for a larger and larger share of the welfare state pie.

Clearly, then, unlimited immigration is pursued with a view of deconstructing the country that existed prior to the wave of unlimited immigration.

Of course, all this also gives the lie to the idea that “Diversity is our strength.”

HC #30 — Jesus As Savior Means Satisfaction With Jesus As Savior

As we consider the HC we need to remember that it was written with the purpose of clearly delineating the Reformed faith vis-a-vis other expressions of Christianity that were present during this time. As such, the HC will often use questions and answers in order to make clear distinctions between Reformed doctrine and the doctrine of the Roman Catholics, or the doctrine of the Lutherans, or the doctrine of the Anabaptists. There are in the HC questions matters that really are serving as apologetics against wrong thinking of these other expressions of Christianity. Question 30 is just such a question. This question and answer is pointed at the doctrine of medieval Roman Catholicism with its theology that makes Jesus half a Savior. Today HC #30 is a landmine that cuts all Arminian theology in half as well.

Question 30: Do such then believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and welfare of saints, of themselves, or anywhere else?

Of course, in the context of Roman Catholicism this question is seeking to draw a bright red line between the Reformers understanding of who Jesus is and the Roman Catholic understanding of who Jesus is. Both have the name of Jesus on their lips but the respective Jesus’ they speak of share the same name but are different persons.

The Jesus of Rome is not the only Savior, but is a Jesus who requires aid and assistance in the matter of getting a man saved. The Jesus of Rome needs the aid and assistance of departed saints, human agency doing work of penance or enduring purgatory. Similarly, the Jesus of the Arminians needs the aid and assistance of adding their acquiescence as the work that makes the work of the atonement work. Similarly, the Jesus of the Baptists demonstrates that he is a different Jesus than the Jesus of the paedo-Reformed when the Baptist turns Baptism into being about the work of our promises to God as opposed to being about God’s work in making promises to us.

The same could be said of any Christianity that posits that Jesus provided a hypothetical universal atonement for all. In such an atonement the people who hold to that are seeking their salvation in themselves as the HC warns against since they must add something of their own to make the atonement effective.

The HC provides their answer;

Answer: They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus the only deliverer and Savior;3 for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

In the answer we see the warfare of the HC against contradiction. On one hand the catechizers understand that there are those who boast of Jesus being the alone Savior but who on the other hand contradict that boast by acting in such a way, via their deeds, to deny what they say with their lips. This reminds us of the old maxim regarding politicians; “Never listen to what they say, only watch what they do.”

Here the HC follows the clear teaching of Scripture;

31 Cor. 1:13, 31, Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Gal. 5:4, Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

The centrality of Christ in doing all the saving without any contribution on fallen man’s part is the central plank of the Christian faith. Take that plank away and all that is left, though going by the name of Christianity, is just another form of auto-soterism (self-salvation) — another form of cheap and unseemly humanism. This was and is the danger of Federal Vision (the denial of HC q. 30 in Reformed quarters) when it was closely examined.

In the tail end of the answer to HC 30 we find a restatement of all that has been said as tracing out the logical consequence in what has already been stated.

for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior or that they, who by a true faith receive this Savior, must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.4

Because Jesus the Christ is the alone savior the Biblical Christian is set free from all mechanisms and habits that might be thought to be aids in achieving an otherwise uncertain salvation that could not be gained apart from said mechanisms and habits.

4Col. 2:20, Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?

This idea of Jesus alone as our Savior reminds us once again of the reality that God is satisfied with Christ alone as a payment for sin. It is folly for us to try and pacify God in any way except by appealing to the name of Christ. This is what makes Christianity … Christianity – this simple fact that the just anger of God against us has been forever quenched in the propitiatory death of Jesus the Christ. This is why Jesus is the alone Savior of God’s people.

Col. 1:19–20, For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

HC #29 … Jesus the Christ As The Alone Savior

The Heidelberg catechism having explained the work of God the Father in creation as confessed by the Apostle’s creed now turns to look at the work of God the Son in Redemption. This idea of looking at God the Father in His work of creation, God the Son in His work of Redemption, and God the Spirit in His work of Sanctification is not uncommon in theology. However, we should not absolutize this remembering that the doctrine of perichoresis (also sometimes called circumincession) teaches the “interpenetration” of the three persons of the Trinity, so that the work of any one person of the Trinity is not absolutely isolated to that one person of the Trinity that it is normatively ascribed. There is a relational co-inherence between the members of the Trinity.

For example, when considering the work of the Father in Creation we have Scripture that teaches not only of the Father’s work in Creation but also of the Son’s work in Creation

“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;”  Hebrews 1:2

“Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.”  John 1:3

“He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him.”   John 1:10

And the Scripture attests to the Spirit’s work in Creation;

The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

Gen. 1:2

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And by the breath of His mouth all their host. — Psalm 33:6

So, with that brief rabbit trail we turn to the HC and question 29 which begins to speak of the work of the Son in redemption. The HC will spend quite a few questions and answers fleshing out all that the Apostle’s Creed means when it considers the work of the Son in Redemption.

The HC, following the Apostle’s creed starts with the basics;

Question 29: Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, a Savior?

Answer: Because He saveth us, and delivereth us from our sins;1 and likewise, because we ought not to seek, neither can find salvation in any other.2

The name Jesus is a name we have met before in Scripture as seen in its  Hebrew form, Joshua. Like the Joshua in the OT Jesus leads and delivers His people into the promised land and for that reason, as well as the literal meaning of the name Jesus (Jehovah is Salvation) Jesus is our Savior.

 Matt. 1:21, And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins.

The HC answers that Jesus saves us and delivers us from our sins. This is so simple and yet so profound at the same time. Simple because the only way that fallen man can be relieved from his sin and guilt is by the salvation that is found alone in Jesus the Christ. Profound because in Jesus being our Savior He alone does all the saving. Should we try to assist in the procuring of this salvation we will only damn ourselves.

Of course, this salvation is man’s chief need. Man has many felt needs that he thinks will satisfy his sin and guilt but man’s real need is Jesus as our alone Savior.

Needless to say, this is all premised on the first section of the HC (Man’s Sin & Misery). If man is not existentially aware of his sin and misery he will never search out a Savior as the answer to a sin and misery he does not recognize. However, countless are the numbers of people through the centuries who have come face to face with their sin and misery and have discovered the glad tidings of the Gospel that Jesus is the one who saves and delivers us from our sins, as well as saving and delivering us from the just wrath of God for those sins.

Our sins scream at us for our falling short of God’s required behavior and constantly accuse us of what we know is true about ourselves and that is that we are at war with God and so with every one else. The HC teaches that Jesus alone is our savior from sin, Satan, self, and God’s wrath to come. This is good news for those conversant with their sin and misery.

Rounding off question 29, the HC makes a pointed comment;

Jesus is called Savior, because we ought not to seek, neither can find salvation in any other.

This pointed comment was necessary to make repeatedly when the catechism was written because the Reformation had moved the needle back to Scripture on this question. Prior to the Reformation, the medieval church had been guilty of introducing all kinds of additional saviors between God and man besides Jesus the Christ as aids to salvation. The HC following Scripture and the Reformation here subtly points to the reality that neither priests, prescribed penance, purgatory, studied attendance to requisite reliquaries, or prayer to Saints, could aid in this matter of salvation. There is no salvation found in any other except Jesus the Christ.

2Acts 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

This truth that Jesus the Christ is the alone savior of God’s elect is a truth that is found without doctrinal contradiction only in Reformed churches and not even there in far to many cases. It is not found among the Reformed Baptists with their doctrine of adult Baptism that contravenes this truth. It is not found among the Lutherans with their doctrine that Jesus died for everybody. It is not found among the Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, and the assorted Arminians. If one desires this teaching from the Heidelberg catechism one must attend a paedo-Reformed Church and then earnestly pray that one finds it there.

Salvation can not be found in any other except Jesus the Christ.

Ever wonder why the Father gives away the Bride?

There the groom stands. There is no Father to give away the groom because in keeping with Scripture the groom has left father and mother. The bride, however, has not left the home and should not leave the home until given to another covenant head. The Father still rules over the bride as her covenant head. The groom is then presented a bride by the Father in acknowledgment that the Father is transferring authority over to the groom. This is a picture of the Heavenly Father giving the church as bride to Christ — the son.

One addition here. The modern habit in weddings now of answering the question, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man,” with “Her Mother and I,” or a joint parental response of “we do,” is a Lilithization (feminization) of the husband and father. The traditional habit of the father alone answering, “I do,” recognizes the father’s proper place as the covenant head of the family and of the bride being presented. Men, if you include your wives in answering that question you are communicating that covenant headship is equal in the husband and wife and are screaming Lilithism at the new bride and groom.

Also, on the subjection of marriage, anymore it is the case that scarcely would anyone believe that a marriage contract is between two men, a father and a husband, regarding a free man and free woman’s capacity to marry. Before there is a marriage covenant between man and wife there is a marriage contract between father and prospective husband.

Being “free” is important. Being free provides testimony and agreement whereby both parties are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. We aren’t helpless against Lilithism, Fathers have to get serious about this stuff. If fathers would get serious there would not be a need to try to artificially create “courtship” and all that kind of stuff that too often backfired in the homeschooling community. Should fathers of daughters step up and provide the protection of their daughters needed than artificial constructs like “courtships” would not be necessary.

Holy Matrimony is between the husband and wife – the actual covenant entered by vows, solemnized before witnesses, officiated by a minister of the Gospel, recorded in the family Bible and in the county court house after being published.

Done in such a way marriage is both under the jurisdiction of the family while the Church gives its imprimatur and all without the jurisdiction of the civil governments. That’s what self-governing Christians did from “time immemorial” of white Christian Anglo-Saxon people that lived in America and Europe. We have this rich, meaningful history and legal heritage of strong, bold, courageous people that didn’t live like lemmings.