Preachers long for one Sunday in a thousand: the sermon seems as effective in the pulpit as it was in the study. The tongue doesn’t trip over the lips, illustrations are clear, and the Spirit seems to bless. But when that day comes, nothing happens. The post-church ritual of “Nice sermon, pastor,” is unchanged, and everyone wonders off to the parking lot, and the pastor returns to his routine.

A preacher may have a great burden for one lost sinner in the congregation. He wants that soul to reach heaven, and so he crafts his sermons to touch the precise points which that listener needs to hear. Again, nothing happens. The target audience smiles pleasantly on the way out of church, and the pastor’s heart sinks.

Then one day the preacher leaves the pulpit shame-faced. Such poor preaching must indicate inadequate preparation. The right word constantly eludes him, the illustrations miss he mark, and everything ends in an uncertain muddle. But on this day some timid soul comes quietly and says, “Pastor, I need to sit down and have a talk with you. I need to know the Lord.”

Why are men saved under mediocre preaching while extraordinary preaching so often accomplishes little? The answer is that there are two voices in every true sermon. One is the voice of the pastor, known in Scripture as “the ministry of the Word,” which on its own cannot touch the heart. The other is the voice of Christ, who speaks through preaching, or, to put it another way, “by his Word and Spirit; savingly enlightens their minds, renews and powerfully determines their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.”

Labels: Catechism Buzz, effectual calling, holy spirit, Sermon

It may be tempting to dismiss effectual calling as simply a systematic lugnut that keeps the wheels of Calvinism from falling off.  But when I can look back and see my own sin and the deadness of my heart of stone, I recognize that how far I was from God, and His enemy, not His friend, until He graciously and lovingly directed my path so that I was brought to the end of myself, and the beginning of life with him.

At the risk of turning this answer into “what does it mean to me,” I want to suggest that there’s a real need to understand what’s being said here, even if you’d never call yourself a Calvinist. We are the ones who are forgiven much; we are the ones who see the work of the Triune God to save us.

Effectual calling is that work in great detail, involving all three persons of the Trinity, and rightly understood, it should move us beyond scholastic doctrinal orthodoxy to true love, joy, and affection for our salvation and our Savior.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, effectual calling, grace, salvation

Our faithful friend JIBBS once asked a question which we'll cover here for the sake of the catechism:

Dumb question:

Does God intend to save the non-elect? If so, then why does Paul go to such lengths to teach the doctrine of election? Why did Jesus anger all the folks in the synagogue with his teaching on election recorded in Luke 4?

If not, then in what sense is the "offer/command" distinction to the non-elect germane to this discussion? Is God insincere? Schizophrenic? It can't be both ways.

I think the answer to this question comes in three parts:

[1] the Definition of the doctrine of election and what it means to the Christian.
[2] An examination of Luke 4 (briefly)
[3] A consideration of the “offer/command” to repent.

To answer [1], I would call “da bomb” on the subject of this doctrine, what J.C. Ryle wrote on this subject, linked here for your convenience.

That’s good reading on what election ought to mean and what it ought not to mean – meaning, how much and what kind of influence should the doctrine of election have on the way we think about theology. I’d give the HT for it here, but I can’t remember who steered me to that essay or where they did it.

Given Ryle’s extensive notes on what the doctrine of election is useful for, let’s look at Luke 4 briefly. Here’s what JIBBS is talking about:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
   because he has anointed me
      to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
   and recovering of sight to the blind,
      to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."


And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?" And he said to them, "Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, 'Physician, heal yourself.' What we have heard you did at Capernaum, do here in your hometown as well."

And he said, "Truly, I say to you, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian."

When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. But passing through their midst, he went away.

It’s that highlighted part which JIBBS is referencing, and JIBBS’ question is, “why did the Jews get all bent out of shape when Jesus preached to them about the doctrine of election here?”

I think the answer is, “because Jesus is telling them that God’s choice to save is not as small as their picture of what God’s choice looks like, but sadly God’s choice doesn’t include them.” See – in this passage, the people in Jesus’ home town demanded signs to substantiate His claim that He is here to fulfill the prophet Isaiah (sadly, He didn’t get the verse numbers in there), and Jesus’ reply is somewhat harsh. He says, in effect, that God saves those whom He will -- God is not at the beck and call of men.

That’s monergism, amen? God saves whom He will. He doesn’t save because of what family you belong to – Zarephath had no family, no pedigree. And He doesn’t save based on what you do – because Naaman was an enemy of Israel, and a keeper of Israelites as slaves. So the Jews in Nazareth couldn’t demand salvation from God – they had no basis to do so.

So what’s up with [3] then? If Jesus is here saying, “you cannot demand salvation from God,” how can we take the offer to forgive inherent in the command to repent seriously? Does it mean that God is somehow teasing men with His offer?

I think this forgets that the monergistic view is that salvation is God’s work alone. Solo Christo, sola gratia, sola fide. In that order.

If we asked JIBBS, “Hey JIBBSy: since man is T-TULIP Totally depraved, where does God get off handing us the Law? If we will not obey it, isn’t God just teasing us?” And JIBBS, being of a sound mind and body [sic], would say, “God gives us the Law for a two-fold reason: the first is to prove to us we are lawless men, and the second is to prove He is a Holy God.” And if JIBBS had had his coffee that morning, he might add: “And lest we forget, Ps 119 tells us that God’s word is also given to us for our own good as instruction, and Lev 19 underscores that by noting that the basis of lawful treatment of others is love – the way we know how to treat each other is by asking the question, ‘does this action demonstrate love?’”

JIBBS would “get it” about God and the Law – man can’t keep the Law, but that doesn’t mean God is a shyster or a bully for providing it. God is a provider -- El Shaddai, Yahovah Jirah. So why does JIBBS (though not only JIBBS) not get it when it comes to the repent/forgive aspect of what God does?

I think it is because JIBBS is concerned that God giving us things which we cannot do for ourselves is somehow stingy. If God makes an offer we cannot take up, isn’t that a tease?

Here’s the problem with that question: while it is ultimately true that we cannot take up the offer, it is not because we cannot see the choice or recognize its value: it is because we are not willing to take it up, and that’s a whole other ball of wax.

Let’s imagine me for a second – a guy of average height who is overweight. My choices to eat, because I live in America, are pretty wide open – I could eat a healthy diet which includes only 6 ounces of meat each day and less than 1800 calories (to maintain a decent weight; it’ll take less than 1200 to get down to 170 – that and a miracle) and like 50 servings of vegetables, but what I choose to do is eat Cheeseburgers, and Italian subs, and french-fries with extra salt, and KFC, and that wicked gravy on the biscuits, and sausage, and eggs, and … well, you get the idea: left to my own devices, eventually I’ll look like the Kingpin or (more likely) Homer Simpson.

So my doctor intervenes – he tells me, “cent: dude, if you don’t lose this weight, you’re going to die young and leave your family fatherless and husbandless. And dude – your kids are great and your wife [if you’ll forgive me] is hot. Don’t die young – eat right and lose the weight. Here’s a diet you could follow – and you just have to ballpark your calorie count each day. Do this because it is good for you.”

So I read the diet, and he’s right – I’ll bet that would be better for me. But after trying it for one day, I am insanely hungry. Just one McD 99-cent cheeseburger isn’t going to break the bank. But two weeks later, I’m up 2 lbs.

Now, listen: we have to ask ourselves: is it the Doctor’s fault that I will not follow the diet? His diet is good, and for those who follow it, it achieves the right end. But he gave it to me, and while I can agree that if the really, really fat guy over there followed it he wouldn’t have to wear a size “Goodyear” with a digital sign on the posterior, I think I’m not that fat and what’s a pound a week every week until I die at 53 and they have to cut a garage door into the living room to lift me out with a Bobcat?

It’s not the Doctor’s fault I will not follow the diet. I will not follow the diet – I choose based on what I like and who I really am. I may look like a slightly overweight middle-aged guy, but I am really a giant house of flubber in a 7-X sweat suit just waiting to arrive.

Man’s inability is not a prohibition: it is a choice. Man eats cheeseburgers rather than spinach salads because man likes cheeseburgers and doesn’t like spinach salads. That’s who man is.

And in exactly the same way, God’s offer to save men – that is, to forgive them, to accept repentance and return forgiveness for repentance – is a choice. But it is not man’s choice. It is God’s choice to give man something he lacks.

And that’s not the offer: That’s the salvation for men who refuse the offer. It’s the consequences of what God will do in spite of man’s bad, um, taste.

The consequences of the offer – that is, someone is actually and finally saved – is not the same as the act of offering. The reason is that all men, instinctively, refuse the offer at face value. And if God was only concerned about Justice and Holiness and Wrath, He could commence with the fireworks. But God is also concerned with Mercy and Love – and that means He’s not only concerned with offering forgiveness, but He is also committed to making salvation and actually forgiving. He is going to save – even those who, when they first hear about this salvation, would rather kill the messenger. You know: like Paul.

The offer is one thing: the actual saving is another. God is merciful and kind to offer forgiveness for repentance; God is loving and generous to save those who even refuse the offer because God seems like spinach salad to these cheeseburger eaters. And for those who are curious, I’m glad that God changed me from a guy who loves moral cheeseburgers to a guy who loves moral spinach salads instead. Because I recognize what I used to be as compared to what I am now.

Thanks for asking a reasonable question. I hope that’s a reasonable answer.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, election

Election according to the Bible is a very different thing from what [some] suppose it to be. It is most intimately connected with other truths of equal importance with itself, and from these truths it ought never to be separated. Truths which God has joined together no man should ever dare to put asunder.

(a) For one thing, the doctrine of Election was never meant to destroy man’s responsibility for the state of his own soul. The Bible everywhere addresses men as free-agents, as beings accountable to God, and not as mere logs, and bricks, and stones. It is false to say that it is useless to tell men to cease to do evil, to learn to do well, to repent, to believe, to turn to God, to pray. Everywhere in Scripture it is a leading principle that man can lose his own soul, that if he is lost at last it will be his own fault, and his blood will be on his own head. The same inspired Bible which reveals this doctrine of Election is the Bible which contains the words, “Why will ye die, O house of Israel?” — “Ye will not come unto Me that ye might have life.” — “This is the condemnation, that light is come into tire world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (Ezek. xviii. 31; John v. 40; iii. 19.) The Bible never says that sinners miss heaven because they are not Elect, but because they “neglect the great salvation,” and because they will not repent and believe. The last judgment will abundantly prove that it is not the want of God’s Election, so much as laziness, the love of sin, unbelief, and unwillingness to come to Christ, which ruins the souls that are lost.

(b) For another thing, the doctrine of Election was never meant to prevent the fullest, freest offer of salvation to every sinner. In preaching and trying to do good we are warranted and commanded to set an open door before every man, woman, and child, and to invite every one to come in. We know not who are God’s Elect, and whom he means to call and convert. Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception we ought to say, “God loves you, and Christ has died for you.” To everyone we ought to say, “Awake, — repent, — believe, — come to Christ, — be converted, — turn, — call upon God, — strive to enter in, — come, for all things are ready.” To tell us that none will hear and be saved except God’s Elect, is quite needless. We know it very well. But to tell us that on that account it is useless to offer salvation to any at all, is simply absurd. Who are we that we should pretend to know who will be found God’s Elect at last? No! indeed. Those who now seem first may prove last, and those who seem last may prove first in the judgment day. We will invite all, in the firm belief that the invitation will do good to some. We will prophesy to the dry bones, if God commands us. We will offer life to all, though many reject the offer. In so doing we believe that we walk in the steps of our Master and His Apostles.

(c) For another thing, Election can only be known by its fruits. The Elect of God can only be discerned from those who are not Elect by their faith and, life. We cannot climb up into the secret of God’s eternal counsels. We cannot read the book of life. The fruits of the Spirit, seen and manifested in a man’s conversation, are the only grounds on which we can ascertain that lie is one of God’s Elect. Where the marks of God’s Elect can be seen, there, and there only, have we any warrant for saying “this is one of the Elect.” — How do I know that yon distant ship on the horizon of the sea has any pilot or steersman `on board? I cannot with the best telescope discern anything but her masts and sails. Yet I see her steadily moving in one direction. That is enough for me. I know by this that there is a guiding hand on board, though I cannot see it. Just so it is with God’s Election. The eternal decree we cannot possibly see. But the result of that decree cannot be hid. It was when St. Paul remembered the faith and hope and love of the Thessalonians, that he cried, I “know your Election of God.” (1 Thess. i. 4.) For ever let us hold fast this principle in considering the subject before us. To talk of any one being Elect when he is living in sin, is nothing better than blasphemous folly. The Bible knows of no Election except through “sanctification,” — no eternal choosing except that we should be “holy,” — no predestination except to be “conformed to the image of God’s Son.” When these things are lacking, it is mere waste of time to talk of Election. (1 Pet. i. 2; Ephes. i. 4; Rom. viii. 29.)

(d) Last, but not least, Election was never intended to prevent men making a diligent use of all means of grace. On the contrary, the neglect of means is a most suspicious symptom, and should make us very doubtful about the state of a man’s soul. Those whom the Holy Ghost draws He always draws to the written Word of God and to prayer. When there is the real grace of God in a heart, there will always be love to the means of grace. What saith the Scripture? The very Christians at Rome to whom St. Paul wrote about foreknowledge and predestination, are the same to whom Ire says, “Continue instant in prayer.” (Rom. xii. 12.) The very Ephesians who were “chosen before the foundation of the world:’ are the same to whom it is said, “Put on the whole armour of God — take the sword of the Spirit — pray always with all prayer.” (Ephes. vi. 18.) The very Thessalonians whose Election Paul said he “knew,” are the Christians to whom he cries in the same Epistle, “Pray without ceasing.” (1 Thess. v. 17.) The very Christians whom Peter calls “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” are the same to whom lie says, “Desire the sincere milk of the Word — watch unto prayer.” (1 Pet. ii. 2; iv. 7.) The evidence of texts like these is simply unanswerable and overwhelming. I shall not waste time by making any comment on them. An Election to salvation which teaches men to dispense with the use of all means of grace, may please ignorant people, fanatics, and Antinomians. But I take leave to say that it is an Election of which I can find no mention in God’s Word.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, election, J.C. Ryle

As eager as our society is to make idols of our fellow man, we are equally ready to tear them down. Perhaps the famous have become too famous; we know too much about them to hold them in awe. Whatever the reason, we delight in seeing the mighty humbled.

This trend is particularly evident in conversation about our political leaders. Coarse jokes and rude insults are the currency not only of comedians, but of talk-show hosts, columnists, and (sadly) pastors. Who can be bothered with propriety when it seems that every politician has invited the slings and arrows of outrageous rhetoric?

Yet such irreverence is out of step with the Bible. We might have remembered the words of Solomon in Proverbs 16:14-15.

A king’s wrath is a messenger of death,
and a wise man will appease it.
In the light of a king’s face there is life,
and his favor is like the clouds that bring the spring rain

But then, we wouldn’t want to be accused of pandering!

Worse, though, is the temptation to employ the same coarse familiarity towards our true King, the Lord Jesus.

He is no king like those of the nations. Rather than exalt himself with pomp and ceremony, he seized a kingdom through humiliation. He allowed himself to be degraded - to be dragged through the muck of our common, evil existence - in order that he might win a perfect kingdom in a world to come.

But we should stand in awe of his humiliation, not find in it an excuse to speak lightly of him. Let us never forget, even as we express his humiliation, where He is now! “…as God-man he is advanced to the highest favor with God the Father, with all fullness of joy, glory, and power over all things in heaven and earth…” And would we, who confess him to be Lord and Christ, speak coarsely or familiarly of his former humiliation?

Here is a King whose wrath is a messenger of eternal death, but whose favor brings the spring rain of God’s blessing. Let us not, whenever we speak of his humiliation, allow ourselves to drift into forgetfulness of who he now is or of where he now sits enthroned.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, Christ, Exalted, King, Priest

When God created human beings, we had a single representative in Adam. Scripture records his failure, and the result for us all. As time goes by, God deals with other individuals, in various means and in various ways. Then, when the time is right, God does something extraordinary: He appoints Himself as our representative.

Paul talks about this in 1 Corinthians. After giving his wonderful Gospel summary in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, Paul goes on to expand his theme of the resurrection of the dead, and compares the “first Adam” who brought death upon humanity to the “second Adam” who brings life to all who believe (1 Cor. 15:21–23).
Just as Adam’s death sealed our physical fate, Christ’s resurrection is the bloom of the promised redeemer and the hope of the future reconciliation. In Paul’s words, just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will bear the image of the man of heaven. And all of this is made possible through God’s representative—the one and only mediator—the man Christ Jesus.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, God and Man, Jesus, mediator

Let us consider what a mediator is and why it is important to see that Jesus has two natures. A mediator is someone who gets between two parties in order to bring about reconciliation. The Lord Jesus Christ, as both God and man, is able to understand and represent men because he is himself a man. He is able to understand God because he himself is God. This is why Paul writes in Colossians, "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross" (Col. 1:19-20).

Jesus, as the God-man, is and can be the only mediator. The Father gave to Adam's race a simple and just command: Do Not Eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or You Will Surely Die! Adam broke that command and all his progeny with him, and we have been clamoring for forbidden fruit ever since. We love sin so much that we have come to think that erring is human. It isn't. Sin is not an essential part of what it means to be human; sin is an aberration. It is a subtraction from humanity, and it makes us all less than we should be.

Far from being a mediator who overlooks and downplays our sins, Jesus is a mediator who has "in every respect been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). Jesus was tempted, as a man like me, and he said, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve" (Matt. 4:10). Jesus, the son of man, never bowed to sin. He never rose to the bait; no matter how sorely his flesh vexed him, he remained sinless. His humanity does not excuse our sin in the least; it makes our sin appear utterly sinful. Jesus can say, "Your humanity, your frailty, is no excuse. I, too, am a man." Jesus will not abide any excuse for sin; he is not that kind of mediator.

Jesus as mediator wasn't working on a compromise at Calvary whereby wretched men would give up a bit of their wretchedness in exchange for the favor of a justly angry God. He came to mediate in an earth destroying, family splitting, heart rending manner. He came to deliver a final ultimatum: repent or perish. He doesn't have to say that as God only; he can say it as a man who has no need of repentance.

The terms, then, are simple and very gracious. Jesus, as the representative of Adam's sinful race, has sacrificed himself to the just wrath of God for the justification and sanctification of wicked men. God has declared that anyone who will believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, repent from their sin, and love his darling Son will be justly and immediately reconciled to himself. To refuse him means facing the righteous indignation of both the Mediator and the God who sent him. In the end, whether one is a saint or reprobate, all will be reconciled to the fact that Jesus is Lord of All.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, Christ, freedom, Jesus, mediator

I believe in the sacraments. At least, I believe that grace is offered to us through the sacraments. I believe that this grace is offered to us to be feasted on by faith: whether by preaching, by communion, or by baptism. I believe this because the grace of God is always offered to us by means of the gospel, and the sacraments proclaim the gospel to us for our joy and edification.

I know that Baptists get nervous about talking like this, or even using the word 'sacrament' to describe the Lord's Supper and Baptism. That's okay. Baptists get nervous about dancing and drinking beer, too. Especially when someone else finds out that they have been doing both. So don't let Baptist hang ups keep you from thinking about the matter of grace in the sacraments.

Here's the truth: God is always gracious. Grace comes to us from God in all manner of ways: in kisses, in children, in breath, in rebuke, and even on the internet. No matter what we do or experience, we ought to see enough grace in it to glorify God for it. Should the Lord's Supper be any different?

I want you to consider how you think preaching works. We believe that God uses the means of preaching the Word of God to justify us and sanctify us, right? Well, how does preaching do that, exactly? Isn't it because the Spirit of God uses the preacher's words to impact our hearts and change our lives by agency of the Holy Spirit who works through those words. He justifies us through preaching, and He sanctifies us through preaching.

We are once and for all justified by faith the moment we believe. But sanctification is a life-long process, and it too is part of salvation. When we eat the Lord's Supper by faith, and remember that Christ was broken for us and is still offering Himself to us, we are being saved by that, and humbled by that, and changed by that. We learn to love our brother better because we know we need Jesus to make us clean and him clean, and both of us are happy that the other is willing to admit it. It makes me love Jesus more to know that he gave Himself not just for me, but that He also gave Himself for my beloved brother. This is grace, and this is a feast that God prepares for us.

If you think that Jesus isn't present "in the meal", I wonder where you think He is during it? Is He walking amongst the lampstands or not? Does He only show up for the singing and preaching? Or is He at the table again? Not that He is suffering again or is being eternally crucified. God forbid! Rather, it is more akin to him saying to Thomas, "Come here, and take a look at my hands. Put your finger in my side. Stop disbelieving and believe!" I confess that I have taken up the cup many times, as a believer, with this thought in my heart, "Lord, I do believe. Help me in my unbelief!" And He does help me. One sermon at a time. One meal at a time. One witnessed baptism at a time. One hymn at a time. He gives me grace.

The other day, my three year old daughter Zoe invited me for tea. I sat at a table too small for me with her and a stuffed rabbit named Blossom. We drank tea out of pink plastic cups. Mine was an Earl Gray with a bit of lemon. Zoe had sweet tea, and Blossom only likes carrot tea. I drank mine pinky out, and I told Zoe how wonderful her tea was, and that she looked splendid in her dress.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, grace, sacraments

It's a bit of a mystery how folks were saved in the Old Testament. Oh, we know in part, and see in part, how God could have accomplished such a thing, but in light of all the revelation we have on this side of the cross, the other side at times seems a dim mirror. Those systematic theologians who want every question answered may wish for a bit more detail in regard to this, but they have an answer: the signs and symbols God provided for Israel in the Old Testament were "sufficient to build up the elect."

Now, the cynic in me might say that this phrase, "sufficient to build up the elect," is simply a Calvinist cop-out, playing the God-is-sovereign-over-all-things trump card with a shoulder-shrugging gesture of "I dunno, but He obviously did." But saying that God's provision in the Old Testament was sufficient for the elect is more than just a bunch of nice sounding weasel words; it is another verification of who is really in charge of salvation, and for those of us on the other side of the cross, it should provide great encouragement and hope.

God's active work in salvation is assumed throughout Scripture, and it is not my point here to write a lengthy treatise about it. For those interested, have a look at Ephesians 1, for example, and consider how each member of the Trinity works in harmony to bring about the fullness of salvation in the life of the believer.

The God who planned out salvation to the level of detail that Yahweh did--a God who can orchestrate all of history, including the sinful acts of men, in order to accomplish His purposes--a God like that can ensure that all the ingredients necessary for your salvation and my salvation are present.

The statement that the signs and symbols under the Old Testament administration of the covenant were "sufficient to build up the elect" doesn't tell us that God makes the rules so He can do what He wants; it declares to us that His revelation in all places and all times is adequate for those who are going to be saved. When combined with God being both just and the justifier (Rom. 3:26), the picture Scripture paints is one of a saving God who provides all we need for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3).

Labels: Catechism Buzz, covenants, God, grace, providence

I know a thing or two about golf. Literally. I mean, I took a college course to fulfill my PE requirement, so I learned the fundamentals. Head down, left arm straight, feet apart, knees bent. I know what a good swing looks like and feels like.

I've watched enough golf on TV to know how the pros make it look easy. If I watched you, I could probably even tell you what is wrong with your swing. And if you followed my advice, it just might actually help.

That said, I've golfed about three times in the past dozen years. If you asked me how my game is, I'd have to say that there really is no such thing. The last time I went out, I hit about three shots that felt good, a whole lot of mediocre ones, and an embarrassing amount of plain stinkers.

Because I don't really have the time, money, energy or desire to appropriate the means to becoming a better golfer myself, I'm considering starting up a blog where I analyze other people's golf games. I am sure someone will find it helpful.

Labels: Apologetics, Catechism Buzz, sacraments

If we are not cowed by the cogitations of the catechizers concerning the covenants (commonly called), we will be struck (like a right hook) by the gobstopping force of the answer: This promise is to Christ. The promise of the Father is to His Son.

Who can doubt the promise of this Father to this Son?

Labels: Catechism Buzz, covenants, salvation

We've hit a patch of catechism here where my friends and I get a little squeamish with our baby-baptizing truly-reformed fellow workmen -- the question of covenants as the whole framework of salvation.

Here's why I'm personally squeamish about these questions, and then a brief bit about why it's probably unwarranted.

I'm squeamish because it makes the issues here a little sterile. How many covenants? two covenants. What is God's mercy? An agreement. How does God love? with a promise. As categories, they are fine - perfectly serviceable and systematically puzzled and then machined to an accuracy +/- 0.01%.

As explanations of what the Bible says about the God who made us and holds us together and saves us because we are somehow envious that we ought to have Him instead of Everything Else, it seems to miss the point.

You know: Jesus chastises the Pharisees for being the brother who stays in the house in reward-minded obedience when they have a licentious brother who squanders the family fortune. There, the father doesn't check to see which covenant(s) are necessary to make right the return of his son to the family: he simply pays the price for his son's disobedience -- personally, relationally, socially, legally, emotionally, and with his own dignity -- and runs to him when the young man is seen coming home from a long way off. (Luke 15:11-32)

Talking about the covenants doesn't really uncover that sort of truth about God.

And then there's that fellow Jonah, whom God called to bring salvation to the evil city of Ninevah. I mean: the city was evil -- it was like Sodom except that instead of being sexually violent, they were bloody enemies of Israel, bent of warring with Israel and destroying them. And there the prophet was unwilling to save the city but God was intent to do it. The talk of the covenants -- two covenants -- doesn't even enter into it from God's perspective. He says instead this:

But God said to Jonah, "Do you do well to be angry for the plant?" And he said, "Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die." And the YHVH said, "You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"

No mention of a covenant there -- yet it is the most New Testamenty moment in the Old Testament as God deals not just with the disobedient, not just the errant or sinful, but with his enemies.

But if that's true, what good is it to frame up what we believe about God in two covenants? How about three good reasons, and then you can take it or leave it.

1. God's intention is explicit, and not merely implicit. That is to say, we can use a lot of experiential descriptions of God to sort of feel what God is doing, but God isn't accidentally or vaguely trying to make things better. He's not some kind of performance artist who wants to see if you can figure out what he may or may not mean. He's God, and he loves you, and he has a message which, frankly, he wants understood and acted upon.

2. Christ's work is, explicitly, the new covenant in his own blood. I mean: Jesus says that -- this isn't the invention of some seminarian with a clever interpretive schema which analogically redefines the relationships between the ineffable and the imperfect by analyzing the suzerain treaties of semitic people. Jesus said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."

3. We fallen, fragile people need something which can give us confidence. I am certain God could have made a perfectly-reliable systematic theology out of cups and saucers if he had conceived of it that way, but he didn't. God knew -- and this, for me, is pretty compelling from a credibility standpoint for Scripture -- how the minds of people work. He knew that we are prone to unbelief, prone to interpret things down and prone to be hopeless in spite of all manner of assurances. So rather than make his message to us especially "deep" by making it somewhat impenetrable, he makes it transparently simple and allows the depth to settle under it as we have confidence and faith and experience with that message. It sort of works like this: you are actually pretty bad; you need a solution; my solution is work that I am doing; you can have confidence in it because it is not just an offer, or a promise, but it is in fact my announcement and decree of salvation sealed with blood so that the commitment and conclusion cannot be broken. This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

So get comfortable with the idea of God's covenant. You might not like the way it tastes when someone makes up their denominational batch of eggs and hash with it, but it is what it is -- and it's for your good.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, covenants, Editorial Comments, salvation

Over the course of our last couple of years in this house, we've had the joyful opportunity to reclaim some significant portions of our yard away from their state of nature. Roses and birds of paradise, petunias and cosmos, and pumpkins and tomatoes and zucchini have all taken root where once there was just Bermuda grass, catchweed and thistle. We are a long, long way from finished, but from certain windows, the garden looks great.

Weeds are libertines, going wherever and doing whatever they please. They may even have their own particular beauty, but they spoil a garden by their recklessness. Their seeds waft indiscriminately, their tendrils tangle the grass, their roots strangle the flowers.

Every kind of plant in the garden was once wild, somewhere. In other words, a weed. Someone cultivated each one to be what it is, in a way that it once was not. But that which will not be cultivated is only fit to be burned.

On any given morning, there is a temptation to let it go, to let the weeds have their way; one plant is as good as another. But when the evening comes and the children scamper through soft grass with flowers in their hair, I am glad to have a garden.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, election, salvation

21:1 Then I saw an old heaven and an old earth, for they were still around, just older, and the sea was still there.

2 And I saw the very nice city, New Grand Rapids, coming over by the lake from WHWH*, prepared as a girl that has been through one too many rounds of speed-dating.

3 And I heard a weary voice from the podium saying, "Look, the dwelling place of Weh-weh is here, behind this podium. Keep yourselves off the dais, you're kind of gross. Weh-weh needs his space.

4 Cry yourselves a river, for he is tired of your whining. He's doing the best he can to keep you happy, get you decent health care, and that immortality diet thing he's been talking about, which has been just around the corner, like forever."


5 And he who was standing behind the podium said, "Look, it's always the same." Also he said, "But don't quote me on this."

6 And he said to me, "Really, I'm almost done! I am all over it, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. If you'll hang with me a little longer, I promise you, orange slices and Capri Sun® for everyone. If you paid your registration fee."

7 Everyone who plays the game gets a trophy, and I'll be the coach, and you'll be my team.

8 But for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, they get the trophy too, shortly after everybody else does. Just to make it sting a little."

9 Then came one of the seven assistant coaches who had the seven bowls full of the orange slices and spoke to me saying, "Thanks for playing, that was a great season, we'll see you at the pizza party, make sure you bring $15 for the coach's gift."

* In all probability pronounced Weh-weh, with a nasal whine like a fussy baby’s cry. Some scholars prefer Wha-wha, in descending tones, similar to the sad trombone sound.

Labels: Alpha and OMG, Catechism Buzz, judgment, New Heavens and New Earth

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?

A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Labels: born this way, Catechism Buzz, judgment, The Fall

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?


A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Labels: born this way, Catechism Buzz, judgment, The Fall

Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?

A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.

Labels: born this way, Catechism Buzz, judgment, The Fall

It's easy to focus solely on externals, however. In fact, as human beings, we are prone to do it by our very nature (1 Sam. 16:7). So I love the reminder here that not all of the effects of sin are external, or as easily perceived as the illustration above.

Some of the worst sins don't leave obvious outward evidence. Like the portrait of Dorian Gray, there's no mark on our faces, and our appearance seems unchanged. Meanwhile, our sins are having their effect, though hidden from plain sight.

But even the punishments and consequences of sin in this world can act as God's grace to us. Like nerve endings telling us the stove is hot, they point to the reality that something is broken. By them, we can know something is wrong, so that when the right comes, we might be ready to hear it.

Labels: born this way, Catechism Buzz, judgment, The Fall

We are a cursed people. The stench of death hangs upon this world. It stalks us all. It lurks, like a specter, in the back of our minds from the time we become aware that we are persons to the time we breathe our last. It casts a shadow over all we do. Everything here rots. Everything here dies. Everything here turns to dust.

Nature itself feels the weight of death's oppression. The creation sighs, and it does not willingly suffer the sons of men to trample her underfoot. The earth longs for restoration, for the wicked to be put down, for death to crushed underfoot. If creation were not bidden by her Master to hold us up, she would gladly cast us off and be rid of our cursed ilk. The sons of men are cruel stewards.

Man is cursed to separation. He is separated from his God, and he is separated from the creation he was made to tend. He spends his life in fear of dying, wondering if there is something beyond this world of thorns and thistles. He sees the withering flower that dies and leaves no trace, he sees the oak tumble and burn, he watches his crops die for lack of rain, he hears his babies cry with hunger, he sees time etch her marks on his skin, and he knows he is headed for his doom. All of this, whether he knows it or not, is just recompense for his own wickedness.

It is a testament to the horror of sin and the depth of man's cursedness that the heinous thing we call death, the blight that permeates the world, is a mercy. Death is a mercy, though she is cloaked in terrible garments. For the Lord God said upon man's fall, "Behold, the man has become like on of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and live forever..." (Gen. 3:22). God drove the man out of paradise and into the clutches of death in order to save him from a fate worse than dying, a fate worse than a thousand generations of cancer, murder, rape, starvation, and war. A fate worse than a stillborn upon the lap of an inconsolable mother.

This brings us to the greatest shame of the sons of men and the source of our greatest misery. We are blinded to glory and goodness. We are utterly unable to see holiness. For if we could see glory, and if we knew holiness, we would never have to wonder if death were a mercy, whether our suffering is just, and how it could be that starving is preferable to God's displeasure.

Man is a cursed brute, and the world is full of his stench. No one knows this like a man who has been set free by that alien thing called grace, who has caught the scent of heaven, who has seen the glory of eternity, and who has been enveloped by the love of God that invades this wretched place. Only this kind of man, a man freed from the misery of sin, can see that God must kill us to save us, and that all our sufferings here, all of our miseries, are nothing in comparison to knowing the glory of God in the risen King, Jesus Christ. The cursed world thinks this man is insane, thus adding to the misery and the longing for the sons of God to be revealed.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, The Fall

Adam was created as a righteous being. By that I mean that Adam was created in a state that was fit to stand in the presence of God. He was in this state from the very beginning, that is, it wasn't as though Adam started off neutral, and then became fit to stand in God's presence through subsequent obedience. He was righteous from the get go and his obedience was the natural adornment of that righteousness.

The moment Adam rebelled against God's command, however, he lost this state of righteousness falling into a state of corruption. Corruption (in this sense) is used to describe the lack of that righteousness from which all obedience flows.

Did you catch that? Think it through till you get it.

Christ was born (impeccably) righteous. He did not become righteous through obedience. Christ's obedience flowed from His pre-existing righteousness. His obedience did not bring that righteousness into being, rather His righteousness brought His obedience into being.

Do you see then what we have inherited through Adam? Each one of us is born into the same state of corruption that Adam brought into this world; we are born lacking righteousness (corrupt) and therefore have nothing within us from which obedience can flow.

This is the inheritance of all mankind. It is not something handed down from parent to child so much as it is something Adam brought into being that immediately affected all of mankind.

Labels: Catechism Buzz, The Fall