Mercy Shown-Justice Satisfied: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 4

Q: 9. Does not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his law, that which he cannot perform?

A: Not at all, for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation of the devil,  and his own willful disobedience, deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.

Q: 10. Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

A: By no means, but is terribly displeased  with our original as well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally,  as he has declared, "Cursed is every one that continues not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them."

Q: 11. Is not God then also merciful?

A: God is indeed merciful,  but also just;  therefore his justice requires, that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.

It is tempting to believe that at the cross mercy triumphed over justice. We all stood condemned. God because he was such a nice God and did not want men to go to Hell, pulled a fast one and sent Jesus to earth so men could be let off the hook. And poof, mercy trumps judgment. Like a magic eraser, God takes away ours sins. But if that occurred, if God allowed the debt of sin to pass unpaid for, then God is not just. He is a trickster, who says sin is really, really bad, but I can just wipe it away without payment being made.

The Heidelberg Catechism Lord's Day 4 gets at a problem that most of us do not consider. What about the justice of God? We often think on God's grace shown to us at the cross. We know we are miserable, wretched sinners separated from God. We also know at the cross that Jesus dealt with our sins.  We focus on the mercy of God. You can see that assumption woven into Question 11. Questions 9 and 10 focus on judgement and wrath and the loss of divine gifts. But we say, "Is not God then also merciful?" In other words, "Doesn't God's mercy do away with all that punishment and wrath?"  Or we could say, "Doesn't mercy triumph over justice?"

The Heidelberg's answer is no. Mercy does not triumph over justice. God does not say, "Well mercy wins. Therefore now your sins are gone." He does not magically remove our sins. As the next question states:

Q: 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 favor?

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

God's justice must be satisfied. At the cross, Jesus fully satisfied the demands of God's justice. Why is it mercy? Because the Innocent stood in for the guilty. It is not mercy because God decided to make our sins magically disappear or decided to overlook how bad we were. They were really and truly paid for.

Why does this matter?

First, it matters for the character of God. This is part of Paul's argument in Romans 3. How can a righteous God allow unrighteous men into his presence and not compromise his righteous? Here is Paul's answer:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).

Paul says that God sent Jesus as a propitiation so God might be just (righteous) and the justifier, that is the one who makes men righteous. If God let sin slide with a wink, wink then he is unrighteous and wicked. His holiness demands that sin be paid for. Jesus did that. Therefore God is righteous and can make us righteous.

Second, it clarifies what happened to Christ at the cross. He did not die just as an example to us or to be a pipeline for God's mercy. He did not just die to overcome death. He hung on the cross so our sins might be laid upon him. He took our sins. Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. This is why we love Jesus. He did what we could not. He took God's justice so we might be ushered back into God's presence.

Finally, it matters for our understanding of our salvation. We can be confident that we are saved because our sins are actually paid for by Christ. They are not sitting out there, hidden away somewhere.  They have been actually taken away, actually paid for. Imagine you owed a huge debt, millions of dollars. Someone comes to you and says, "I took care of that." Oh you mean you paid it off. No. I just took care of it. Would that make you comfortable? Would you sleep easier knowing it was "taken care of" but not paid off? My guess is no. What you need to know is that the debt is gone never to be heard from again. That is what Christ did. Jesus our substitute took our sins upon himself and fully satisfied the justice of God. All of our sins are taken away in Christ.

We think often about the mercy of God and the kindness shown to us at the cross.  But the justice of God is just as important. If God is not just then our salvation unravels. How can we trust a God who does not righteously deal with sin? How can we trust that we are truly saved if our sins have not been paid for? The cross is not a place where mercy and justice fought and mercy won. At the cross God showed us mercy by sending his Son to fully to satisfy his justice. Mercy shown. Justice satisfied. Salvation accomplished.

Bavinck on Sola Scriptura

The following paragraphs from Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics: Volume I come after a discussion of how the theologian must function within his local church and use his confession. Here is a sentence explaining Bavinck's point. "Dogmatics [theology] is possible only for one who lives in the fellowship of the faith with one Christian church or another." He goes on to say that theologians/dogmaticians must stand on the shoulders of previous generations and not just those in their particular line of theology, but other lines as well. Lutherans begin within their own confession, but then move on to study and learn from other branches of the church, such as Presbyterian and Baptist. He also argues that none of us begin without presuppositions. We all have been taught something and from that deposit we then do theology. But there is a logical question that follows: Doesn't this build our theology on the foundation of our confessions and our church instead of God's Word? If we cannot do theology outside of a church and must have human teachers does that make our church and those teachers the source of our theology? If theology must be done in the church does that make the authority of our theology the church and her teaching? Here is Bavinck's answer to that question. Whenever you see dogmatics, etc. just substitute theology or theologian. I have removed a few Latin phrases.

This is not to elevate the history of dogma and the confession of the church to a position of infallible authority. There is a difference between the way in which a dogmatician is shaped and the primary principle from which dogmatics receives its material. In every branch of learning, the practitioner begins by living from the tradition. He always gains his first acquaintance with the field from an authority. He must first absorb the history of his discipline and attain a knowledge of the present state of the field; then he can go to work independently and acquire his own insights into the object of his research. But no one in his right mind will, for that reason, view the tradition, which was pedagogically [it taught him] so important to him, as the source of his discipline. It is no different for the dogmatician. Pedagogically the church is prior to Scripture. But in the logical order Scripture is the sole foundation of church and theology. In case of conflict between them, the possibility of which can never be denied on a Reformational view, church and confession must yield to Scripture.

Not the church but the Scripture is self-authenticating, the judge of controversies, and its own interpreter. Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. Church, confession, tradition-all must be ordered and adjusted by it and submit themselves to it...The Reformed, though deeming a confession a necessity in this dispensation of the church in order to explain the Word of God, to turn aside heresies, and to maintain the unity of the faith, denied with the utmost emphasis that the confession had any authority apart from Scripture. Scripture alone is the norm and rule of faith and life. 

Book Review: From the Pen of Pastor Paul

From the Pen of Pastor Paul by Daniel R. Hyde
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A wonderful book by Pastor Danny Hyde. This is not a commentary in the strict sense of the word. You will not find chapters on Pauline authorship or the textual issues in these letters. Also this is not a slow, careful verse by verse examination of the text. These are sermons put to paper. Here are several things I enjoyed about the book.

First, it is warm and pastoral. You feel like you are sitting in the pew listening to a pastor bring you the Word of God chapter after chapter. He speaks with passion and directly to the reader. It reminds me of older commentaries, which were basically extended exhortations based on the text. Pastor Hyde is interested in our souls and it shows. This is not as easy to do as it sounds. I have read many sermons put to paper and they does not always work.

Second, several chapters read like mini-pastoral theologies, especially early in the book. I have never read Thessalonians the way it was presented in this book, as Paul pouring out his pastoral soul to the church there. If you are a pastor and find your love for your people growing cold read this book. While I was reading this book I visited one of the families at church. The book changed the way I approached that visit.

Third, Pastor Hyde is straightforward. His goal is to teach and give his congregation meat. Therefore he is clear. The longer I am in the ministry the more I see the need for this. There is a place for in-depth writing or speaking that gets into all the nuances of the text, the Greek, its connections to Roman world, etc. But that place is not in the pulpit. In the pulpit people need a clear Word from God. They need to know what the text says, what it meant for the people who read it, and what it means for them. If they leave impressed, but unchanged then the pastor has wasted his time. Pastor Hyde's chapters are well organized and clear with exhortations to holiness as well as calls to follow Christ. You read them and find yourself examining your walk with Christ.

Finally, I appreciated all the quotes from other men, including Chrysostom, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon, Stott, Bruce, etc. By doing this he introduces his readers to these great men and also adds depth to the writing.

I had a few complaints here and there. But this book is well worth your time whether you are studying Thessalonians or not, especially if you are a pastor.

I was given this book freely in exchange for an unbiased review.

View all my reviews

The First Prayer: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 47

What is our first priority in prayer? When we pray what is the main goal? Jesus helps us answer this question by placing "Hallowed be your name" at the beginning of the Lord's Prayer. Here, at the very beginning of our fundamental prayer, our Lord tells us that the main concern in our prayers should be that God's name would be hallowed. That God would be worshiped and glorified and praised by our thoughts, words, and lives, as well as all peoples and nations around the world is our first prayer. Jesus will go on to tell us to pray for his kingdom to come and his will to be done. One author noted that this works backward. As God's will is done, his kingdom is made manifest, and then his name is hallowed.

I pray for many things. I pray for my children, my church, my physical needs, my leaders, my parents, and my in-laws. But only rarely do I focus those prayers towards hallowing God's name. Usually these prayers are about what God provides us, not what we are supposed to give to God. How would our prayer lives change if our primary concern, our first prayer, was that God's name, that is his character and works, would be glorified?

Which bring us to this week's Heidelberg Catechism reading says:

Q: 122. Which is the first petition?

A: "Hallowed be thy name"; that is, grant us, first, rightly to know you, and to sanctify, glorify and praise you, in all thy works, in which thy power, wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy and truth, are clearly displayed; and further also, that we may so order and direct our whole lives, our thoughts, words and actions, that thy name may never be blasphemed, but rather honored and praised on our account. 

If we were to break this down here is what that first petition is asking.

First, that we might rightly know God. We should study God. Theology is a Christian duty.  Knowing God is our great aim.

Second that we might sanctify, glorify and praise God for all his wonderful works and how those works show forth His character.  What God does tells us who God is.  When we read about his wonderful deeds it should direct us back to his wonderful character, which in turn should lead to unceasing praise. 

Third, that we should live in such a way that God's name is honored on our account and not blasphemed. We can curse God with our lives as well as our tongues. Look at how it is phrased. "Order and direct our whole lives..." Those words mean we are intentional and deliberate about what we do. We think about how God can be glorified by our actions. It does not just happen.

How would our prayer lives change if the glory of God's name was our priority?  Would our requests change? Yes, I think they would.  Would our attitude change? Yes, that would change as well. Would our lives and the lives of those around us change? Certainly.  In short when we seek God's glory above all else in prayer we become consumed by the one thing that ultimately matters; that our Father, who has redeemed us and in that redemption shown his goodness, should be praised and glorified by all men everywhere. 

Kevin DeYoung summarizes it this way:

Our Father in heaven, the concern nearest to my heart and the one that shapes all other requests is that Your name would be regarded as holy, that Your fame would be heralded in the earth, that You would be honored among the nations, that Your glory would be magnified for all to see. O Lord, be pleased to cause men everywhere to take pleasure in You, that you might be praised now and forever.

Calvin says this about the first petition:

To summarize: we should wish God to have the honor He deserves; men should never speak or think of him without the highest reverence...His sternness no less than his leniency should lead us to  praise him, seeing that he has engraved marks of his glory upon a manifold diversity of works, and this rightly calls forth praises from every tongue... But the petition is directed also to this end: that all impiety which has besmirched this holy name may perish and be wiped out; that all detractions and mockeries  which dim this hallowing or diminish may be banished; and that in silencing all sacrileges, God may shine forth more and more in his majesty.

How do your prayers need to change so that hallowing God's name is the priority when you kneel?

Prayer from the Heart: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 45

All Christian catechisms work through three key parts of the Christian faith: the Apostles' Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. These three teaching tools were used for generations to ground Christians in the basics of what it means to be a Christian. The Heidelberg Catechism is no different. The Apostles' Creed it taught from questions 20-58. The Ten Commandments are taught from questions 92-115. The Lord's Prayer is taught from questions 116-129. Lord's Day 45 begins the teaching on the Lord's Prayer:

Q 116. Why do Christians need to pray? 

A. Because prayer is the most important part of the thankfulness God requires of us. And also because God gives his grace and Holy Spirit only to those who pray continually and groan inwardly, asking God for these gifts and thanking God for them.

Q 117. What is the kind of prayer that pleases God and that he listens to? 

A. First, we must pray from the heart to no other than the one true God, revealed to us in his Word, asking for everything God has commanded us to ask for. Second, we must fully recognize our need and misery, so that we humble ourselves in God's majestic presence. Third, we must rest on this unshakable foundation: even though we do not deserve it, God will surely listen to our prayer because of Christ our Lord. That is what God promised us in his Word.

Q 118. What did God command us to pray for? 

A. Everything we need, spiritually and physically, as embraced in the prayer Christ our Lord himself taught us.

Q. What is this prayer? 

A. Our Father who art in Heaven....

The Heidelberg Catechism is one of the warmest, most pastoral catechisms out there. This section on the Lord's Prayer is no exception.  Let me draw out a few points for you. 

Prayer is the single most important way we express gratitude to God. Without a healthy, vibrant prayer life you can be sure you are living an ungrateful life. Kevin DeYoung says, "We pray out of gratitude."  The Heidelberg says that the Christian life is one of "expressing our gratitude to God for our deliverance" (Question 2). A life of prayer is a life of thanksgiving to the Lord for his many big and small gifts. 

Look at question 117.  What a rich theology of prayer in such a short paragraph!  It tells us that prayer must be sincere, from the heart. Remember the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).  He prayed, but not from the heart. When we enter God's presence we should ask him to help us approach him with sincerity of heart. 

Prayer also must be to the true God "revealed to us in his Word." That means we cannot pray to some vague deity or god. True prayer is directed solely at the God of Scripture. Many men pray. And God will hear those prayers from time to time. But only those who pray to the God of Scripture can be assured of having his ear. 

We pray when we recognize we are miserable sinners deserving nothing and when we see that God is majestic.  Seeing our blindness, nakedness, poverty, and sinfulness leads us to prayer. If believe we are really fine without God then why pray (Revelation 3:17-18). Proud men do not truly pray because they do not bend the knee to God. They do not need God. They may pretend to pray. Their mouths may utter prayers that sound wonderful. But they are not humble in God's presence and therefore they are not really praying. 

We know we will be heard. But this is not because we deserve to be heard. God is not in debt to us to provide us with something or to listen. However, the work of Jesus Christ and the promises attached to His work in the Scriptures provide us with an "unshakable foundation." Our Lord Jesus Christ left heaven, was born under the law, suffered at the hands of wicked men, was crucified, died and was buried. He rose again on the third day. All of this was done so we could "come boldly to the throne of grace" (Hebrews 4:16). Christ's work attached to the promises given in the Scriptures guarantee that our Father will hear our prayers. 

Finally, we are to ask for everything we need for body and soul. My children are rarely afraid to ask me for anything. They will ask for second helping of dessert, a third bowl of cereal, or more money. They do not always get these things, but they ask for them.  But I am glad they feel the freedom to ask for anything.  That should be our attitude toward our Father in heaven. What do you need? Do you need money? Ask him. Do you need a friend? Ask him. Do you need peace? Ask him. Do you need a husband or wife? Ask him. Do you need to overcome a persistent sin? Ask him. He will not always answer us in the way we want. But he will always hear.  And he is always delighted when his children come to him with their needs. 

I close with a few quotes from John Calvin (Institutes III:XX) on prayer. 

It is, therefore, by the benefit of prayer that we reach those riches which are laid up for us with the Heavenly Father.

We dig up by prayer the treasure that were pointed out by the Lord's gospel, and which our faith gazed upon.

Since no man is worthy to present himself to God an come into his sight, the Heavenly Father himself, to free us at once from free and shame, which might well have thrown our hearts into despair, has given us his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to be our advocate and mediator with him, by whose guidance we may confidently come to him, and with such an intercessor, trusting nothing we ask in his name will be denied us, as nothing can be denied him by the Father.

Calvin's Reason for the Reformation: Worship

Sunday is Reformation Sunday and also All Saints Day.  Throughout this week I will be posting quotes from various reformers in honor of the day.

The Reformation was one of the great events in Western history. It began long before Luther and Calvin with men like Huss and Wycliffe. But it culminated in a large group of Christians leaving the Roman Catholic church because it had left the teaching of Scripture. It is always good to go back to primary sources and get their reasons for doing what they did. What led these men to break with Roman Catholic church?

Calvin in his excellent book The Necessity of Reforming the Church, lists two main reasons for the why the reformation was necessary:

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence among us, and maintains it truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshiped; and secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. 

At the center of the Christian faith is proper worship of God and proper understanding of justification by faith in Christ alone. Calvin felt reformation was necessary because these two foundations of the faith had been compromised.

Council of Trent

Calvin then goes on to briefly explain how these two areas have been corrupted by the church (Roman Catholics). Regarding worship he touches on public prayers, which he says are "stained with numberless impurities," adoration of and praying to the saints, numerous rites and ceremonies not found in Scripture, and people who "devote their whole attention to abstinences, vigils, and other things, which Paul terms 'beggarly elements' of the world."

He ends with this:

Having observed that the word of God is the test which discriminates between true worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded or to what he approves, in order that they  may serve him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a license of devising modes of worship, and afterwards obtruding [imposing] them upon him as a substitute for obedience. 

If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own brain...God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness, how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colors; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom; but God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God. 

For Calvin the first reason for the Reformation was that God's people had drifted far from the true worship of God as prescribed in the Scriptures.

Later we will look at the other reason Calvin gives for the Reformation: the obscuring of salvation through Christ alone.

The Supreme and Infallible Judge

Francis Turretin's section on Scripture, his 2nd topic, is marvelous, wonderful, invigorating, and Biblical. I recommend it for all who are interested in the Protestant view of Scripture. The 20th question in the Topic is:

Whether the Scriptures (or God speaking in them) are the supreme and infallible judge of controversies and the interpreter of the Scriptures. Or whether the church or the Roman Pontiff is. We affirm the former and deny the latter against the papists. 

He then says:

This is a primary question and almost the only one on account of which all the other controversies about the Scriptures started. From no other cause is either that authority of Scriptures called in question by the papists or their integrity and purity attacked or their perspicuity and perfection argued against, than to prove the Scriptures cannot be the judge of controversies and the necessity of having recourse to the tribunal of the church. 

He then gives seven reasons why Scripture is the supreme and infallible judge.

First, "God in the Old and New Testaments absolutely and unconditionally sends us to this judge."

Second, "The practice of Christ and his apostles confirms this for in controversies of faith they appeal to the Scriptures."

Third:

A supreme and infallible judge is one who never errs in judgment, nor is he able to err; is uninfluenced by prejudice and from whom is no appeal. Now these requisites can be found neither in the church, nor councils, nor pope, for they can both err and often have erred most egregiously.

Fourth:

Man cannot be the infallible interpreter of the Scriptures and judge of controversies because he liable to error. Our faith cannot be placed in him, but upon God alone from whom depends the sense and meaning of the Scriptures and who is the best interpreter of his own words. 

Fifth:

If there was such a judge as the papists maintain: (a)  it is a wonder that the Lord never mentions this interpreter who is so essential; (b) that Paul in his epistles...does not inform them even by a single word of so great a privilege; (c) that Peter in his catholic epistles did not arrogate this as about to be transmitted to his successors, much less exercise it; (d) that the popes were neither able nor willing by that infallible authority to settle the various most important controversies which the Romish church cherished in her own bosom (i.e., between the Thomists and the Scotists, the Dominicans and the Jesuits, the Jesuits and Jansenists, etc.). 

Sixth:

The church cannot be regarded as the judge of controversies because she would be a judge in her own cause and the rule of herself.  For the chief controversy is about the power and infallibility of the church, when the very question is whether the church is the judge, or whether the church can err. 

Seventh, "the ancients here agree with us." Turretin then goes on to quote church fathers who agree that the Scriptures are the final judge.

Here are a couple of other quotes from this section and the next, which is on what authority the church fathers should have in the church. All parentheses are his.

When we say that the Scriptures are the judge of controversies, we mean it in no other sense than that they are the source of divine right, and the most absolute rule of faith by which all controversies of faith can and should be certainly and perspicuously settled. 

The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matter of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they with them. 

Therefore we gather that the fathers neither can nor ought to be regarded as judges in our controversies, but as witnesses who (by their wonderful consent) give testimony to the truth of Christianity and prove (by their silence or even by weighty reasons) the falsity of the doctrines introduced by the papists beyond and contrary to the Scriptures. Their writings must be respectfully received and read with profit. Yet at the same time they cannot have any other than our ecclesiastical and human authority (i.e., subordinate and dependent on the Scriptures. 

Every Blade Declares His Glory: Turretin Takes on Evolution

I am slowly working my way through Francis Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Turretin was a professor in Geneva in the mid-1600s. He died in 1687.  His Institutes are divided up into twenty topics, which he then works through by asking and answering various questions. I am currently on his third topic, which is "The One and Triune God."  The first question in this third topic is:

Can the existence of God be irrefutably demonstrated against the atheists? We affirm

Turretin then gives four demonstrations that God exists.
1. The voice of universal nature
2. The contemplation of man himself
3. The testimony of conscience
4. The consent of all mankind.

In the midst of arguing his first point about the "voice of universal nature" he has a wonderful section about how the order of universe proves God. All the bold and brackets are mine.

The wonderful beauty and order of the universe is another proof. For if order requires wisdom and intelligence, the most perfect supposes the most perfectly necessary and infinite wisdom which we call God. Now he is blind who does not see the most beautiful order everywhere and most wicked who does not acknowledge it. There is so suitable disposition of parts, so constant a concord of things so discordant, so harmonious an agreement and consent of creatures the most diverse, so swift and at the same time equable motion of the heavenly bodies and so immutable a stability and constancy of the order once established. So not only do the heavens declare the glory of God, but every blade of grass and every flower of the field, every pebble on the shore and every shell in the ocean proclaim not only his power and goodness, but also his manifold wisdom, so near each one that even by feeling, God can be found. Augustine says, "The prophetic voices excepted, the world itself by its own most regular mutability and mobility and the exquisitely beautiful appearance of all visible things, silently as it were proclaims both that it was made and could be made only by a God unspeakably and invisibly great, and unspeakably and invisibly beautiful."  

But what about chance? Could chance plus time plus matter bring this all into existence?  This may sound like a 21st century question, but Turretin answers it almost four hundred years ago.

You may say perhaps that these things were so arranged by chance and by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. But I know not whether such an impious and absurd opinion is worthy of refutation, since these things denote not chance, but the highest art.  For things which come by chance are uncertain and ill-arranged and have nothing constant and similar; but nothing can be conceived more regular and composed  than this universal frame. To say, then, that this beautiful and highly decorated universe was produced by a fortuitous concourse of atoms is the same as to say that, "if innumerable forms of the one and twenty letters were thrown together, the annals of Ennius [An epic Roman poem] could be produced from them when shaken upon the earth and could afterwards be read" [Cicero]. 

In the same place he [Cicero] quotes from Aristotle: "If there were persons who had always lived under the earth in good and splendid habitation and yet had never come out upon its surface, but had heard that there was a deity and a power of the gods; then upon some occasion the jaws of the earth being opened they could come out and walk abroad in these places where we now live; when suddenly they would see the earth, and the sea and the heavens, and behold the sun, and know both its admirable magnitude and virtue, and contemplate the whole sky bespangled with stars, their rising and setting, their regulated and immutable eternal motion; when they saw these things they would assuredly think both that there were gods, and that these so magnificent works were theirs. 

Finally, Turretin turns to the human body as proof of God's existence.

Man himself has in his own breast a familiar teacher of this very truth. If he would withdraw his attention from all things and reflect upon himself, he would recognize no less wisdom in the little world [the human body] than in the great, and admire in his body a visible (and in his mind scintillating) divinity. For whence is the body constructed with such wonderful and stupendous skill? Whence so many different members created together by a mutual interweaving and so fitly disposed to their peculiar offices, unless from an immense spirit? When the mind, a particle of the divine breath, possessed of so many faculties, furnished with so many gifts, unless from a supreme intelligence? This image clearly bespeaks its prototype, and everyone who pays attention will not only hear and see God present in himself, but also in a manner touch and feel him. 

The questions we often hear about chance, matter, the existence of God, etc. are not new ones. The context might be different, but the questions are the same. And the answers have not changed either. Heaven declares God's glory (Psalm 19:1). Man is fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). All men have God's image stamped on them (James 3:9) All men have a conscience that reflects God's law (Romans 1:18-21, 2:14-15).  Man knows that God is and that this world was created by his power and wisdom. He always has.

Love of Money and the Eighth Commandment:Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 42

Is there any of the Ten Commandments that gets less publicity than the eighth?  We know about breaking the Sabbath, taking God's name in vain, not honoring authorities, murder, adultery, coveting, and even bearing false witness has gotten some press lately. But theft? Who worries about stealing these days? Isn't it odd that an age preoccupied with money and possessions worries so little about the eighth commandment? 

The Heidelberg Catechism reading for this Sunday is on the eighth commandment. 

Q. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?

A. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery, punishable by law. But in God's sight theft also includes all scheming and swindling in order to get our neighbor's goods for ourselves, whether by force or means that appear legitimate, such as inaccurate measurements of weight, size, or volume; fraudulent merchandising; counterfeit money; excessive interest; or any other means forbidden by God. In addition God forbids all greed and pointless squandering of his gifts.

 Q. What does God require of you in this commandment?

A. That I do whatever I can for my neighbor's good, that I treat others as I would like them to treat me, and that I work faithfully so that I may share with those in need.

G.I. Williamson begins where we should: What are the lawful ways to get money? He lists three ways. 

1. Inheritance-Money and possessions can be passed down to us from our parents. 

2. Gifts-Someone can freely give us money or possessions. 

3. Earning-We can get money through a lawful vocation. 

Money earned any other way is not lawful according to Williamson. I am not sure he covers everything (what about interest on savings), but it is a good start. Theft is anything that does not fit one of these three categories. 

Stating the Obvious

The eight commandment along with the rest of the teaching in Scripture is clear that we can actually own things. Private property is Biblical. The idea of communal goods is not taught in the Scripture. Nor is the idea that one person should be forced to give to another. Giving and generosity is a Biblical idea. But forced giving, whether by the government or someone else. is just a fancy way of stealing. 

What is Forbidden?

This commandment forbids all injustice or even the desire to do an injustice to another human as regards their possessions. Straight theft is of course forbidden. When I go and steal a car, a candy bar from the store, or my sister's doll then I am stealing. But many of us are sneakier than this. We swindle and scheme as the catechism says. We cheat our employer by spending our days on Youtube. We fudge on expense reports. We leave an hour early, but claim we worked the whole day. We take a small amount of money that isn't ours and think nothing of it because it was just a little bit. We sell a low quality product for a high quality price. We promise our children money and forget to pay up or make excuses for not doing so.  We charge excessive interest to people who are desperate for a loan. We claim we are giving a "gift" of money but in reality we are giving a loan that we will collect interest on later. We shade our resume a certain direction to get a higher wage.  On and on it goes. The human heart has no boundaries on the ways we can come up with to get more than we have earned or to cheat someone else out of what is rightfully their's. 

Then you have means of theft that are "legitimate." Here we find employers who promise employees a certain wage, but through technicalities refuse to pay. We have older employees fired or let go before they reach retirement so the company does not have to pay out as much. We have the government's constant printing of more money thus reducing the value of the money we currently have. We have changes in laws that make us poorer. Welfare and all government programs like it , despite being legal, are a form of theft. Many times theft is accomplished with the full consent of the law. All the "ts" are crossed and all the "is" are dotted. But it is still theft. 

Why Do We Steal? 

Theft is usually motivated by two things that often interlock; greed and laziness. We want what we do not have and are not willing to lawfully work to get it.  A third leg might be jealousy. This is what drives many of the policies of theft that the government uses. The rich in the government stir up jealousy among the poor (it isn't fair) in order to take from the rich in the private sector. In the end the rich in the government get richer, while the private sector rich get poorer and the poor stay poor. There is more than that going on.  But that is certainly part of it. The Bible calls this the love of money, the love of our stuff. We steal or want to steal because we love our stuff more than we love God and our neighbor. 

Kevin DeYoung rightly says, "It is impossible to give a one-sentence summary of the Bible's perspective on money. But it is possible to give a one sentence summary on what God thinks about loving money. The love of money is a very, very bad thing." 

One sign that we are greedy and lazy is we are always looking for a quick fix financially. 

Squandering God's Gifts

The catechism tells us that this commandment does not just forbid theft, but also the squandering of God's good gifts. We are stewards of what God has given to us. He wants us to use our possessions wisely. Good stewardship is not easy in our day, mainly because we have so much. If we were scraping for food we would not be as tempted to throw food away. If I had no easy way of getting a winter coat, I would save and scrap until I knew I would be warm come January. But few, if any of us, are in this scenario. We can waste and still pay the bills, have warm clothes, eat nice meals, etc.

How can we be good stewards? Here are a couple of quick pointers. 

First, tithe to the church. Money given to the Lord is good stewardship. 

Second, pay your bills and provide for your family. There is balance between luxury and being too stingy. Provide well for your family. This does not mean they need a BMW and a 5,000 square foot home. But is also doesn't mean eating rice five nights a week. 

Third, be generous. Most of us have money left over after we do the two things above. Our temptation is usually to pour that money back into ourselves through things like savings and home improvements. I would encourage generosity before that. Can you give 20%? Does someone at church need a little extra? Is there a missionary you know who could use a nice care package? 

Fourth, save for the future. A wise man saves money because he knows things go wrong. Cars break down. Water heaters burn out. Jobs are lost. Why do I put saving behind generosity? This is the priority the Scriptures set. As long as generosity is not equated with the throwing money away with little thought or wisdom you can be generous and still save. But remember generosity should hurt, at least some to the time. If your giving never hurts then you are probably saving too much,. 

Frugal and Still Loving Money

Frugality has reached epic proportions in our age.  From clipping coupons, points on our credit cards, reward programs, garage sales, and reselling our used items we are all looking for ways to save money.  Does frugality equal holiness though? It can be a good use of our resources.  But there is a danger here as well. Frugality can be a cover for our love of money.  We put our frugality in "righteous" terms. We are being "good stewards." We are "wisely" using our money. We quote Bible verses about how important it is to be prudent with our money. And all this is true. But our hearts are easily deceived. Too many folks claim to be prudent with their money when the truth is that they are greedy and rarely sacrifice for others. They carefully manage their money not to give more (Eph. 4:28), but to protect themselves from harm. 

Then End of the Matter

Work hard. Be completely honest in all your business dealings whether formal or informal. Keep your financial promises no matter how small. Never excuse theft, lying, cheating, deceit, or swindling of any kind. Tithe. Provide for those in your care. Give generously to those around you. Save. But above all fight the greed in your own heart. Guard your heart against the love of money (Prov. 27:20, I Timothy 6:10). 

Other Blog Posts on the Heidelberg Catechism

Lord's Day 41-Adultery

Lord's Day 35-Carved Images

Lord's Day 26-Baptism & the Forgiveness of Sins

Sexual Purity & the Seventh Commandment: Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 41

This Sunday is the 41st Lord's Day in 2015. The Heidelberg Catechism reading for this Sunday is:

Q. What does the seventh commandment teach us?

A. That God condemns all unchastity, and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it and live decent and chaste lives, within or outside of the holy state of marriage.

 Q. Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such scandalous sins as adultery?

A. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why God forbids all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires, and whatever may incite someone to them.

Kevin DeYoung sets the stage by saying:

Is there any command more ridiculed in our culture than the Seventh Commandment? Adultery is a joke; homosexuality is a right; sex before marriage is the norm; no fault divorce and remarriage is assumed; bestiality is increasingly considered avant gard. This is the world we live in. Sex has always been a leading vote-getter in the most popular sin contest, but never before in this country has sexual deviance been made to look so normal and God's standard make to look so obscene...The Seventh Commandment is not just broken in this country; it's being smashed to pieces.

In our world, our bodies are rarely pure, much less our thoughts and desires. We are so at home with sexual immorality in our TV shows and music, but perhaps more deadly in our churches. Notice that the Heidelberg uses the word "detest" for our attitude towards "unchastity." Notice is says also that we should "thoroughly detest" it. We are not encouraged to a mild disdain for sexual immorality. But to a deep, abiding hatred of lust. We are not encouraged to a casual approach to sexual purity, but to a whole-hearted pursuit of it. Is that our attitude towards sexual immorality? How many of us detest the idea of getting caught looking porn, but do not detest the porn itself? How many of us hate that a friend or spouse might see us lusting after that girl in yoga pants or that guy in a tight jeans, but do not hate the fact that we want to lust after her/him? For most of us, the consequences of sexual sin are what we hate, not the sin itself. Until we learn to hate the sin and the desires that give birth to those sins we will never gain the victory.

The Heidelberg rightly points to our redemption by Christ and the filling of the Holy Spirit as the reason for holiness in this area. God does not just own our souls. He owns and fills our bodies as well. Therefore our entire self, body, soul, imaginations, thoughts, desires, emotions, and words are to be brought in submission to Christ.

What are some things we can do to fight against the pervasive sexual immorality in our lives?

-Learn what sins lead to sexual sins. Here is a good post to help you with that. Sins come in clusters. Sexual sin is rarely the engine driving the train. Usually it is the middle car in a train of sins.

-Don't be afraid to be radical in cutting off that sin. Put filters on your computer. Don't go to that section of the bookstore. Block that website. Stop "innocently" flirting at work or stopping by her desk to chat. If the job situation it too hard maybe you should leave. Don't kiss before marriage. Yes these are rules and do not get to the heart of your problem. But they might keep you from making a huge mistake while you deal with your lust.

-Worship weekly in a good Christian church where the Word is preached, the Psalms are sung, the saints fellowship with each other, and there is real accountability to elders. If an elder never visits you at home or has lunch with you and asks you about your sexual sins then there is not real accountability.

-Memorize Scripture. DeYoung gives 12 passages that we can use to fight sexual sin: Lamentations 3:25-27, Proverbs 5:18-19, James 1:14-15, Romans 14:21, Matthew 5:27-30, Galatians 6:7, I Cor. 6:15-20, II Corinthians 5:17, Hebrews 10:24-25, James 4:6, Matthew 5:8, and Ephesians 1:18-21. You can probably think of others.  Hide God's Word in your hearts.

-Check your desires. What do you want most? Not what do you tell people you want most. But what does your mind dwell on? What brings you comfort? What makes you happy? Do you regularly set aside lesser goods, such as watching TV, for greater goods, such as spending time with your children? Do you approach God's Word with same delight as you approach that newest show or movie? Love Jesus. Love the Scriptures. Love the folks at your church. Love your spouse and your children. Our desires drive us. And rarely are they as pure as we think they are. What do you love?

-Pray when tempted. Pray before you go into tempting situations. Pray when you leave. Proverbs 7:26 says that many strong men have fallen to the seductress. Or as the ESV says all those who have fallen to her are a "mighty throng." Either way her lures are not easy to resist. Do we really think we can fight her without prayer?

-Enjoy your spouse sexually. Here is a quote from G.I. Williamson's book on the Heidelberg Catechism:

The antidote to adultery is, or should be-for most of us- a good marriage. This means a marriage in which there is the right kind of sexual fulfillment. Sex is not evil. How could it be, when God himself designed it? And because it is one of the good gifts of God, it must not be neglected. What do we mean by this statement? Well, we mean this: in every other aspect of life we have to apply some real effort in order to achieve something. This is true for the farmer in his work, or an amateur musician in his hobby, or a Saturday golfer in his sport. We invest time and effort in these things, in order to do them well and to keep them interesting and exciting. Well, a good sexual relationship requires some of the same...There is no legitimate place for prudery in Christian marriage. 

Victory over sexual sin is hard to achieve in our age. Most of us have scars from sexual sins, those we have done and those committed against us. The good news is we serve a risen Lord who conquered death, which means he freely covers all our sins, heals us from sins committed against us, and he can give us power to conquer our sins. Sinful sexual desires and actions do not have to hold us in bondage.

Book Review: What Is a Reformed Church?

What Is a Reformed Church? by Stephen Smallman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A short (28 pages) introduction to the key aspects of a reformed church. Smallman lists six distinct themes in reformed churches: Submission to Scripture, God's sovereignty, the Covenant, the law of God, the Church (government and sacraments), and the Kingdom of God. Not all these were equally well stated. Also I felt his church government section was too narrow. But he is clear overall and thus the book would be helpful for a new convert or someone just coming into a reformed church. In particular the emphasis on God's Word as the foundation for all was helpful.

View all my reviews

Book Review: What is Baptism

What Is Baptism? by R.C. Sproul
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A solid, but brief introduction to baptism with short sections on the covenant, the meaning of baptism, the mode, and infant baptism. Typical Sproul, clear without being too specific, gets his point across without being mean to those who disagree. A good little booklet to hand out to new believers.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Why Do We Baptize Infants?

Why Do We Baptize Infants? by Bryan Chapell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A short, but clear introduction to infant baptism that shows the covenant background to the sacrament and why the New Testament does not deviate from that the Old Testament as regards children and their status. A good little pamphlet to hand out to new Christians or to those new to Reformed theology.

View all my reviews

Images & the 2nd Commandment: Heidelberg Catechism~ Lord's Day 35

Our church started reciting the Heidelberg Catechism in worship this year. It has been a great way to introduce reformed theology to our congregation. Doing this year after year will give our folks good foundation of basic Biblical teaching. This Sunday in our worship we will recite Lord's Day 35 from the Heidelberg Catechism, which addresses the 2nd Commandment. Here is the 2nd Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments (Exodus 20:4-6).

Here are the three questions from the Heidelberg Catechism on the 2nd Commandment:

Q 96. What is God's will for us in the second commandment.

A. That we in no way make any image of God nor worship him in any other way than has been commanded in God's Word.

Q 97. May we then not make any image at all?

A. God cannot and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one's intention is to worship them or to serve God through them.

Q 98. But may not images be permitted in churches in place of books for the unlearned?

A. No, we should not try to be wiser than God. God wants the Christian community instructed by the living preaching of his Word—not by idols that cannot even talk. 

There several things to note from these questions and answers.

First, this is not just about images though images of God are forbidden. It is also about worshiping according to God's Word. There is a lot of debate about what the Word teaches concerning the particulars of worship especially how to apply the Regulative Principle of Worship. However, at the very least, Question 96 says our worship practices must be rooted in Scripture and not the tradition or imaginations of men.

Second, images of creatures are not forbidden. Some extreme Christian traditions have rejected all art. The Heidelberg Catechism leaves room for art of all kinds, as long as it does not become worship of any kind.

Third, the Heidelberg Catechism rightly says that images set up to worship are dumb idols. God's people cannot be taught by dead images. They are to be taught by the lively preaching of the word. One of the  key recoveries of the Reformation was the priority of the preached word in worship.

Are pictures of Jesus forbidden? This is often debated. G.I. Williamson says that pictures of Christ are forbidden because Jesus is God. I believe this was the majority report in the Reformed tradition, but is currently in the minority. Kevin DeYoung says pictures of Jesus are fine, but he urges caution, which would probably be my stance. I did not watch The Passion of the Christ because I did not want the movie running through my mind when I read the crucifixion accounts. Also there are so many bad pictures of Jesus it might be worthwhile to ban them just so Christians will stop embarrassing themselves. Pictures like the one below do not help our cause.

What specifically is forbidden by this commandment? Artwork of any kind that depicts the invisible God and yes that means the Sistine Chapel is a violation of the 2nd Commandment. Any images, statues, paintings, pictures, carvings and/or stained glass of any creatures, but especially Jesus, Bible scenes, Mary, the saints, and the cross, that are kissed, prayed to, bowed down to, meditated on, venerated, considered a pathway to God, considered sacred, or thought of as something that brings us into communion with God are forbidden.  This does not mean there can be no statues of Mary. But it does mean when people bow before it, kiss its feet, pray to it, expect to get closer to God because it is there, or surround the statue like a shrine it has become an idol. Also any other practices that are contrary to the Bible's teaching on how to worship God are forbidden.

Roman Catholic Teaching on the 2nd Commandment
Compare the Heidelberg with the statements made in the Roman Catholic Catechism sections 2129-2132. (By the way the Roman Catholics consider this part of the 1st Commandment.)

The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works." He is "the author of beauty."

So far so good.

Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.

Ah, but then comes that pesky "nevertheless."  Three points why this does not prove that we can make images in the New Covenant. First, God commanded these Old Testament images to be made. Where in the NT are we commanded to make images of any kind? If there is no command from God to make images of Mary, Jesus, or the cross as part of our worship then we should refrain. Second, the bronze serpent shows the danger of even God ordained images. It became an idol that was worshiped (II Kings 18:4) and had to be destroyed. If an image commanded by God can become an idol how much more is that the case with images that are not commanded by Him. Third, there is no indication that any of these images were objects of worship, veneration, prayer, etc. They were symbols of God's activity and presence. But even the ark of the covenant where God actually dwelt is not the object of worship. Were the cherubim woven into the Tabernacle curtains ever prayed to? Did they bow before the lamp stand?  Did God command them to kiss the show bread? Again if images and types commanded by God were not worshiped how much more should we avoid doing so with images that are not ordained by God.

Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

Not sure what a "new 'economy' of images is? Here is the text from the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787. It would be nice to see a NT text that proves this idea is Biblical. But hey, when you have tradition, who needs the Bible. Obviously the invisible God became visible through Jesus Christ. I am not sure how that gives us the freedom to make images of angels, Mary, saints, or even Jesus and use them in our worship or to try to get to God through them.  

The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Here is where the Reformers understood the human heart better than Roman Catholics. Is there really that much difference between adoration, worship, veneration, etc.? But even if you try to create different levels of worship in print, in real life men like to worship things even God ordained things like the bronze serpent. They want to walk by sight not by faith. Therefore this attempt is doomed from the start. People pray to/through these images, meditate on these images, find a spiritual connection in these images, kiss these images, ascend to heaven through these images, get to "God incarnate" through these images, and yet somehow they do not worship them? Somehow this looks like idol worship in every way and yet isn't? This distinction between the image and the thing the image represents and the various types of worship is splitting hairs and pastorally dangerous.

Summary 
Images of God are forbidden. Images of other creatures can be made,  perhaps even Christ, but they must not be worshiped in any way. Human hearts are prone to idol worship therefore worship should be carefully guarded to prevent even the appearance of worshiping an image. There are no Biblical commands or inferences that allow us to set up images in worship or to use them to aid our worship. The key way we get to know God and His Son Christ is when the Spirit works through the preached Word while in fellowship with other living saints.

"I Now Take Thee" Weddings in Calvin's Geneva

Here is my next to final post on Kingdon and Witte's book on marriage in Geneva. At the bottom of this post you can find the other articles.

Eloping or getting married without a public wedding ceremony has become a trend of late. As the value of our wedding vows have diminished through divorce and fornication so too have wedding themselves become passe. Weddings are still big business, but many couples are choosing to avoid ceremonies all together.  In Geneva there was no eloping. 

In Geneva "Marriages without weddings were invalid."  You could not be married without a public ceremony presided over by the pastor and witnessed by the congregation. "Marriages that had been secretly contracted or improperly celebrated elsewhere had to be announced and celebrated anew in a church wedding in Geneva." The couple, the church, and the magistrate all had to consent to the marriage before the wedding was performed. Here was the process:

Once the couple got engaged they had six weeks to get married. If they did not get married within six weeks they would be called in to give an account for the delay. 

They would take a set of "banns" to get signed by the magistrate. Banns were "written announcements of the pending wedding." This announced had to be approved by the city of Geneva. 

Assuming the magistrate signed the banns they would be read in church for three consecutive Sundays. This would give anyone who had an objection a chance to bring a halt to the wedding or at least post-pone it. 

The wedding could be celebrated any day the congregation gathered to hear the Word preached. Preaching happened several times a week. So the couple was not restricted to Sundays, though Sunday weddings were common. Weddings were performed prior to the worship service. 

On the day of the wedding, the bride if she was a virgin wore a veil. She could also wear a wreath of flowers unless she had committed fornication with the groom. The groom and groomsmen would go to the bride's house and collect the bride and the bridesmaids. The bride would have flowers as would the bridesmaids. They would march two by two to the church with the groomsmen in front, the bride and groom in between, and the bridesmaids last. The congregation would assemble at church with the wedding party waiting at the door. When the minister got up front the wedding party would enter. The wedding would then be performed followed by a worship service. Following worship the couple would then go to the groom's home for a celebration. 

"Public wedding ceremonies could be followed by private wedding parties, provided the parties were modest in size and moderate in decorum. Wedding hosts and guests found guilty of excessive dancing, drinking, and debauchery faced firm spiritual and civil sanctions." 

The authors say this, "A central point of Calvin's marriage theology [was] that marriages were at once public and private, spiritual and temporal, ecclesiastical and political in nature."

The Same

The similarities between this and modern weddings is striking. Engagement. Announcement. Wedding in a church presided over by a minister. Reception/Private party after the wedding. Approval before or after the wedding by church, state, and often the family. Even though wedding services are not attached to worship like they were in Calvin's time, they usually include a sermon. All in all the flow is similar to conventional weddings. 

Differences

However there are also some differences to note. 

First, engagements were very short. This was designed to prevent premarital sex. But it probably also curbed excessive spending. 

Second, it is interesting that the women wore different things based whether or not they were a virgin or had fornicated with the groom to be. In previous post I noted that if a couple slept together before marriage they had to confess that sin at their wedding. Only a virgin could wear a veil. Even a widow who was remarrying could not wear a veil. 

Third, I really like it that the groom goes and gets the bride. While our tradition has the groom not seeing the bride before she comes down the aisle, the symbolism of the groom getting the bride is more Biblical. I am not sure how that would work practically in our culture and time, but the idea is cool. 

Fourth, while in our times families, churches, and the government all have a say in marriage there is not the unity between these parties that there was in Geneva. We have no consensus on what marriage even is, much less who should enter into it. This means different groups are often pitted against one another. The state might say a marriage is fine while the parents and church say no. I want to look more carefully at this intersection of marriage, family, church, and government. 

I have one more post on Calvin's wedding liturgy. 

Previous Posts

General Overview of the Book
An Overview of Marriage Prior to Calvin
Calvin's Attack on Marriage as a Sacrament
Consent to Marriage in Geneva
The Desire for Reconciliation Instead of Divorce
The Power of the Consistory in Geneva
Courtship in Geneva
Coercion to and Conditions of Marriage in Geneva
Parental Consent to Marriage in Geneva
Impediments to Marriage in Geneva
Economics of Marriage in Geneva
Premarital Sex in Geneva
Desertion in Geneva

Bavinck on Scripture's Clarity

"The doctrine of the perspicuity [clarity] of Holy Scripture has frequently been misunderstood and misrepresented, both by Protestants and Catholics. It does not mean that matters and subjects with which Scripture deals are not mysteries that far exceed the reach of the human intellect. Nor does it assert that Scripture is clear in all its parts, so that no scientific exegesis is needed, or that, also in its doctrine of salvation, Scripture is plain and clear to every person without distinction. It means only that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such a simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation  of his or her own soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know the truth of Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church and the priest." 

(Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, p. 477)

Turretin on the Clarity of the Scriptures

One of the big issues plaguing the church is the failure to believe the Scriptures are sufficient and clear. Almost any debate today from evolution, to women's roles, to sodomy, to Protestants jumping to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism are at least in part arguments about Scripture's sufficiency (evolution) and/or Scripture's clarity (Roman Catholicism).  So in the spirit of keeping the debate going here are some of Francis Turretin's questions and answers under his Second Topic: The Holy Scriptures. The way Turretin has set up his Elentic Theology is that he asks a question then gives a quick answer to the question. That is then followed by several paragraphs defending and proving his answer.  Obviously, I have not included his defense of his answer in this blog post. There are 21 total questions on this topic. I have only included the ones that I thought were most pertinent to the clarity of the Scriptures.

Turretin's Questions

Are the Holy Scriptures truly authentic and divine? We affirm.

Do real contradictions occur in Scripture? Or are there any inexplicable passages which cannot be explained and made to harmonize? We deny. [Turretin spends several pages addressing various apparent contradictions.]

From what source does the divine authority of the Scriptures become known to us? Does it depend upon the testimony of the church as to itself or as to us? We deny against the papists.

Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists. [How many Christians would deny this today?]

Are the Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New the only authentic versions? We affirm against the papists.

Do the Scriptures so perfectly contain all things necessary to salvation that there is no need of unwritten traditions after it? We affirm against the papists. 

Are the Scriptures so perspicuous in things necessary to salvation that they can be understood by believers without the external help of oral tradition or ecclesiastical authority? We affirm against the papists. 

Can the Scriptures be profitably read by any believer, and ought he to read them without permission? We affirm against the papists. 

Whether the Scriptures are the supreme and infallible judge of controversies and the interpreter of the Scriptures. Or whether the church of the Roman Pontiff is. We affirm the former and deny the latter against the papists. 

Are the writings of the fathers the rule of truth in doctrines of faith and in the interpretation of the Scriptures? We deny against the papists. 

Observations
First, there is a lot of similarity between Roman Catholics (papists) and Pentecostals when it comes to the Bible. Both believe that you need something besides the Scriptures, tradition or special revelation, to help you know and obey God. For that matter, many Evangelicals do as well. Therefore the sufficiency of Scripture must be fought for on two fronts.

Second,  clarity on matters related to salvation is both implicitly and explicitly taught in Scriptures. Without this we are left with only a human authority to guide into truth and no way to check that human authority.

Third, reading this section in Turretin I realized that most questions have been asked and answered before. For example, Turretin address textual criticism, why we need various versions of the Bible, why pastors need to appeal to the original languages, the role the Septuagint, etc. Turretin is not the last word on these things. He is wrong in some areas. But too often we assume when we hear a question for the first that it is the first time it has been asked and answered

Finally, what I love here is that Turretin believes the Word is powerful, sufficient, and clear. It is all we need. He is not opposed to preachers, the ministry, reading the church fathers, or the creeds, but none of these are God's Word. God's Word must be held out above all in both theory and practice.

Gratitude is Fuel for Obedience

Here is the closing paragraph of Calvin's defense of infant baptism. (I split it into two paragraphs for easier reading.)  I love these two paragraphs. They breathe pastoral warmth and gratitude to God. They bring us to the objective grace of God shown to us in adopting our children via baptism. They glorify God as our Heavenly Father. Here also we see a theme which runs through Calvin's writings: Seeing our Father's kindness and grace leads to thankfulness which then leads to practical holiness/obedience. Therefore to obscure God's grace inevitably leads to ingratitude which will lead to either legalism (man's laws obeyed in the flesh) or antinomianism (rejection of obedience all together). The fire which burns underneath all our obedience is gratitude to God for his grace.  The fuel which burns in us to teach our children about God and his ways is the kindness our Father has shown by bringing them into the church.

Now I think no sober person will be in doubt how rashly they stir up Christ's church with their altercations and contentions over infant baptism. But it behooves us to note what Satan is attempting with this great subtlety of his. He is trying to take away from us the singular fruit of assurance and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from it, and also to diminish somewhat the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet it is to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight, that they obtain so much favor with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? For here we can see how he takes on toward us the role of a most provident Father, who even after our death maintains his care for us, providing for and looking after our children. Should we not, following David's example, rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness [Psalm 48:10]? 

It is precisely this which Satan is attempting in assailing infant baptism with such an army: that, once this testimony of God's grace is taken away from us, the promise which, through it, is put before our eyes may vanish little by little. From this would grow up not only impious ungratefulness toward God's mercy but a certain negligence about instructing our children in piety.  For when we consider that immediately from birth God takes and acknowledges them as his children, we feel a strong stimulus to instruct them in an earnest fear of God and observance of the law. Accordingly, unless we wish spitefully to obscure God's goodness, let us offer our infants to him for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church.