Sunda School - Orthodox Catechism Questions 57 - 68

Dear Heavenly Father, I pray that you will bless our time studying what your word says about the resurrection of Jesus.

Amen.

Before we get started, I'd like you to put your ears down a little bit.

We're going to be talking a little bit about Jesus.

It's going to be really loud.

Thank you.

It's in the office.

Alright.

So we were in the orthodox catechism.

Who remembers what the orthodox catechism is?

Or unorthodox catechism?

A -A -N -T, orthodox catechism.

Yes.

Who remembers what it is?

What it is?

Baptist version of the Heidelberg?

Yes, it's the Baptist version of the Heidelberg catechism.

So just continuing that for this week.

Question 57.

How does the resurrection of the body comfort you?

Not only my soul will be taken immediately after this life into Christ's head, but even

my very flesh, raised by the power of Christ, will be reunited with my soul and made like Christ's glorious body.

So, we have comfort both in knowing that we will be with Christ immediately, spiritually,

after death, but even in the end, the bodies themselves will be raised from the dead to be with him

physically.

Feel free to ask any more questions that you all have.

Alright, 58.

How does the article concerning everlasting life comfort you?

My article also goes going through the Apostle's Creed, so it's talking about these different parts of the Apostle's Creed.

Even as I already now experience in my heart the beginning of eternal joy, so after this life, I

will have perfect blessedness, such as no eye has seen, no ear has heard, no human heart has ever imagined,

a blessedness in which to praise God eternally.

And then additionally, it has a second answer.

Oh, excuse me.

No, wait, that's enough.

Moving on to question 59.

What good does it do you, however, to believe all this?

The answer is, in Christ, I am right with God, and a heir to everlasting life.

So, why is it important to not only for these things to be true, but to actually believe in them?

It's through believing them that you become in Christ, become a heir to Christ.

We are justified through faith, as it says in Ephesians 2.

Alright, so question 60.

How are you right with God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ, even though my conscience accuses me of having grievously sinned against

all God's commandments, and of never having kept any of them, even though I am still inclined toward all

evil.

Nevertheless, without my deserving it all, out of the sheer grace God grants and credits to me, the perfect

satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness, as if I have never sinned, nor been a sinner,

as if I am perfectly obedient, as Christ was obedient for me, all I need to do is accept this gift of God,

and believe in my heart.

So this is how we are right with God.

There are different ways of thinking about this, and by this I mean how are we right with God.

There are some that are false ideas, like for example Roman Catholicism, you have the infusion of righteousness in Christ.

So we're this mix of righteousness and unrighteousness, and Christ gives us his righteousness and infuses us

more and more until we become sufficiently pure in the righteousness.

However, the biblical understanding, which is an awesome understanding, is the legal one, that we are counted

by Jesus Christ.

Just as Adam acted on behalf of all those who would come after him, Jesus acts on behalf of all his

children.

And so, that was interesting, I had a conversation recently about whether or not we call ourselves children

of Jesus.

There are several parts where it does.

Often it calls us brothers of Jesus, but a couple of times it calls us children of Jesus as well.

But Jesus, for his children, has died for them.

And so we have his righteousness created in us, and his

forgiveness.

Forgiveness of God, him having died in our place.

In what sense do you think we are children of Jesus?

In that head Jesus, it's parallel to Adam.

And so, to justify that, let me go ahead and show you a couple of

passages.

Isaiah...

There's another one in chapter 4 also.

But Isaiah page 6, For us a child is born that the Son is given, the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his

name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

So he's called Everlasting Father there.

And that's often used by the modalists.

For example, one of his Pentecostals to say that Jesus is the Father.

That there's a Father and a Son are the same person.

Which, having a title of Everlasting Father does not mean that Jesus is his own Father.

There's no reason to draw that conclusion.

Rather, he is our Father in the sense of being over us.

Yes?

Do you think there's any significance to the fact that Jesus, after his resurrection,

calls his disciples children?

Because before his resurrection, he never used that term.

But on the beach, at the end of John's prophecy, he says children to have in his soul.

And I'm always struck by that.

Because you don't see that elsewhere in the Gospel.

And after the resurrection, when you're talking about his children, it

seems very profound.

I'm not sure.

Yeah, that does seem relevant.

Especially considering that the apostles, the early, for example, Paul, called the different churches his

children because of their conversion to him and Jesus not being saved them.

That would make a lot of sense.

I need to go do a few searches just to double -check that.

Because I've never heard it before.

Just as a matter of something worth looking into, the resurrection is

key to that.

It's active research that uses that term.

Back to the righteousness we have, I'm always struck by 2 Corinthians 5, verse 21.

It's one of my favorite verses in the Gospel and in the New Testament.

For he made him who knew us and he sent for us that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

That's what the Catechism is getting at, right?

In what sense do we have that righteousness?

You were saying that we are righteous.

We're seen as it.

In what sense is this a literal righteousness?

What do you mean by literal?

It's not substantial.

It doesn't have a substance to it.

It's not like the Augustinian view that you've got sin, which is this spiritual pollution in

you, and righteousness, which is this other thing.

There are substantial implications.

By substantial, I mean affecting the very essence of what your soul is.

But they are primarily with substantial implications, not

substances themselves.

So it's the impurity of being seen as it.

I'm not as righteous as Christ, obviously.

But because I'm in Christ, I'm seen as it.

I have that righteousness.

Yeah, so this affects how you see original sin, too, because what

Augustine taught is that, yeah, you've got this sin, which is this

pollution of Adam.

Basically, in procreation, it passes on that pollution from child to child.

Now, I do think there's a sense in which that's true, given that the effects of sin are seen

as art.

Weakened and susceptible bodies, and that's passed on from generation to generation.

However, sin itself is not passed on.

Rather, we are counted as sinners in Adam, and we're counted as righteous in Christ.

So in the Reformation, you have a much more covenantal view of these things, where it's by federal kinship rather than

by some passing on substance.

A little longer, Mark.

In Ezekiel 18, it talks about the sins of all, and that being

counted towards the sins of the Son.

So that's that one.

It's more of a federal kinship, too, of the sin of righteousness.

Going back to are we children of Jesus, the other passage that I had in mind to

mention was Isaiah 18, which

says, Behold, I am the children whom the Lord has given me, or signs and portents of Israel, from the Lord of hosts who dwells on

Mount Zion.

And Hebrews 2 quotes that to say, that it's speaking of Jesus.

It says, that is why he is not ashamed to call the brothers to sin.

I will tell your name to my brothers' names in commemoration of the sin of grace.

Again, I will put my trust in them.

Again, behold, I am the children God has given me.

So he talks about himself both as brothers and then also as children.

Now, you could read this as the children that God has that he has given to him as brothers.

But in the context of Isaiah 8, Isaiah is speaking of his own children.

Either that or sometimes the prophet's students were referred to as sons.

But in context of Isaiah 8, he's had two different children.

So he's probably talking about his physical sons.

So anyway, there's another passage where Jesus talks about his people as his children.

Question 61.

Why do you say that by faith alone you are right with God?

It is not because of any value of my faith that God is pleased with me.

Only Christ's satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness may make me right with God.

And I can receive this righteousness and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone.

So there's several things to note there.

First is that it's not faith itself that is our righteousness.

The Bible does say of Abraham that his faith is counted as righteousness.

So many people take that as, oh, God looked at his faith and he considered that enough righteousness for Abraham.

No, it's through faith that the righteousness of Christ is credited to Abraham.

So faith is just the instrument.

It is not the righteousness itself.

It's just the instrument by which one is credited with righteousness.

The other thing is obviously this distinction between works and faith, which

I think it may be better to go through another question before I answer it, before I talk about that.

Why can't the good we do, make us right with God, or at least help make us right with Him?

That's what a lot of people think.

They think that the more good you do, the more you're in God's good graces, the more you're

right with Him, the more you do.

But why isn't that true?

The answer is because the righteousness which can pass God's scrutiny must be entirely perfect.

It must in every way measure up to the divine law.

Even the very best we do in this life isn't perfect.

It's a state of sin.

It's impossible to act perfectly before God.

First of all, Hebrews 11 says that without faith it is impossible to please God, but the one who comes to Him must believe

that He is and that He's rewarded those who seek Him.

First of all, an action, a good work that is done without faith is not a good work at all because

it's not done with the desire to honor God.

The idea that there are a lot of fairly good people in the world, while that's true in some kind of relative

sense, in God's sense, since He cares about the heart and the heart is to honor Him, no

work is good if it's not done with faith.

And then on top of that, even if the work is done with faith, none of us have a perfect hand, but we have a

perfect love of God and desire to honor Him when we act.

So, as such, whatever our actions are, even our good actions as Christians,

even those are against the sin.

And so, no good action can you do that actually would make you more right with God.

In fact, all of those, each one of those could in a sense be said to draw you farther away from God.

However, yes?

However, apart from the mediation of Jesus Christ, there would be no mediation of Jesus Christ without a

mechanism by which those are accepted.

So you're saying that non -believers can do things that are truly righteous?

That's right, yeah.

Yeah, so we can do good works, but we cannot do good works perfectly.

That's the way the...

What's that?

I guess I'm making sense that we can't do them perfectly.

Right.

I thought that being dead to sin changes a lot.

It does, so we're able to do good works right before we were.

Right, so in a true sense, they are truly good as opposed to the non -believer who

donates to the poor.

So, in chapter...

Look in here, on page 679 to 678,

it talks about this.

All the way at the bottom, chapter 16, paragraph 5, on page 678.

So this is the second part of this confession here.

We cannot, by our best works, merit part of sin or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great

disproportion that is between them and the Great One, and the infinite distance that is between us and God,

whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy the debt of our former sins.

But when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty and our profitable service.

And because they are good, they proceed from the Spirit.

So, these are good words, right?

Because they are good, they proceed from the Spirit.

And as they are wrought by us, they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection that they cannot endure the severity of

God's judgment.

So you have both those statements.

They are indeed good.

They proceed from the Spirit.

The Spirit is good.

However, even our good actions are so sinful that they couldn't withstand God's judgment.

And then, the next paragraph explains why they are accepted.

Why would God accept our good works?

That notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works are also accepted in Him,

not as though they were in this life wholly unbelievable and unreprovable on God's side,

but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although

accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

So, our good works are imperfect.

They, if on their own are to be expressed, will not be able to endure the severity of God's wrath.

However, just as our own selves are accepted through Christ, our new Savior.

I think Ephesians 2, 10, where His workership created Christ Jesus for good works,

which God's character foretells in the New Testament.

There's this idea that God has laid out these works for us, and as we do them,

yeah, they're good, but as you say, not in and of themselves, but because of Christ.

Does that explain in Matthew 7, where Jesus says, I never knew you, to those who did what

sound like good works.

If somebody prophesied for your name, you cast out a demon, that's great.

If somebody prophesies, speaks truth, or casts a demon out of somebody, that's good.

But Jesus says, to work, I never knew.

Is faith the key to that?

I'm not seeing why he would cast out a demon.

Are they truly doing this in Jesus' name?

The answer is no.

Even if they claim Jesus' name,.

They don't know him.

Yeah.

So as I read into this a little bit, the reason that there's no faith,

which would then imply that they're doing it for their own name's sake, is I don't want to be known as the great exorcist, and I cast

out a demon, as opposed to the glory of Christ.

Great.

I want to continue going on here.

Mike?

Excuse me.

Yeah, just some practical applications for that.

A lot of people feel like when they sin, we talked about this last time too, when they sin, they're

further away from God.

They don't have anybody anymore.

They make their relationship with God based on their level of obedience.

Now, it is true that God being our Father is displeased with our sin, so we can fall under his fatherly

displeasure, but the idea that it's up to you to maintain this

relationship with him is missing the point for Christ's mediation, which

that relationship is established in his perfection on your level of perfection, which is far from perfect.

Next, question 63.

How can you say that the good we do doesn't earn anything when God promises to reward it in this life and the next?

Okay.

Anybody have an answer to that?

I mean, that's a really good question.

How can you say that the good we do doesn't earn anything when God promises to reward it when he says it earns nothing?

So, why doesn't it earn anything?

How about you?

A really good question is that we do good works by virtue of

our union with Christ.

Great.

Okay.

So, the fact that we needed him in order to do something, is that what you're saying?

It's not only that we need him, but it's in him that those good works are good.

There's a distinction between works and good.

Yes.

Our good works are actually accomplished by Christ in us in a way.

So, it gets great works.

I don't want to get this wrong, because I can hear you.

No worries.

I was thinking that my work includes salvation.

I don't think that salvation is taught by good works.

And the good works are allowed by salvation.

Okay.

Josh, would you like to say something?

Yeah, I'm interested if you speak about the rewards in relation to this question.

Because if I'm doing good works in Christ, if Christ is the one working in me, or etc., as you're

explaining, then where are you going to get more in helping me, or vice versa?

But it would be, while we should definitely give that credit to God, it's not as

though we're just, but that our wills are kind of like these memory vessels.

You know, the stereotype of what Calvinists believe is true, where we're just robots doing what God's

making and forcing us to do, or something like that.

There is something real to it.

So, here's the way this answers it.

This reward is not earned.

It's a gift of grace.

I'll add more to that.

The point here is that there are different ways of thinking of the merit.

In Roman Catholic theology, you actually have a whole list of options.

You know, there's like, common unmerit, all kinds of things.

But, if you just think about it in terms of covenant merit, okay, does God owe us

anything for good works?

As we just read, I think it was in the confession, maybe also in here, the, um,

when we've done the best we can do, we're still unprofitable servants, right?

We're still only doing what God's required of us, like the verb of the Jesus gave about the master

who has to do something.

The servant does everything perfectly.

The master doesn't have to say thank you or anything.

The servant just did what he was supposed to do.

So, when we do what we're supposed to do, we actually aren't owed any kind of reward.

And so, that reward is not a reward that comes from some real merit of

those actions.

However, some inherent merit of those good works.

Rather, it is by covenant merit, right?

Covenant merit being that God, having committed himself to reward good works, that even though

those works themselves aren't owed anything, because God has bound himself to

give such good works, that they are owed.

Does that make sense?

So, it's like this secondary inherent that God would owe this thing, but he has bound himself to it.

Look at Josh.

He's got a face.

You have so much for the explanation of the.

Rewards, because there's.

Rewards that some of you earned that others didn't.

And the way you're saying it, it sounds to me like the AT &T question.

God has bound himself to rewards,.

But what makes one quality better than the other?

The good works, right?

Good works do receive a reward in.

Heaven.

Those who have...

What scripture says about investing in eternal things, about laying up your treasures for yourself in

Heaven, that is something that one can do more than the next, and that will have

repercussions in the world to come.

I think we talked about that last week, too.

We talked about how that parallels what will happen in Hell this month.

So, is it quantity or quality?

This is all by faith.

So, faith is the, quote -unquote,.

Quality of the good works.

Yeah, it's the amplitude of faithfulness.

Is that it?

I don't know.

You have different parables that Jesus gives.

One where everyone's given the same amount and they invest it at different levels.

Others where people are given different amounts and they invest it at the same level, and so the ones who had more start off.

So, that kind of tells you two different things.

One is that yes, you're at the level of faithfulness with what you're given if you're given equal things is one thing, but

it may also be the case that God entrusts someone with more and they have more opportunity to reap reward.

So, neither of those are, those aren't usually exclusive to one another.

There's both a level of faithfulness, and it could simply be the case that God has staged some people to be more,

to be recipients of greater rewards, and that is his prerogative to do.

I appreciate that parable, because in that parable, the one who was given five and returned five and then got two and

returned two, and it wasn't the quantity, because they all got the well done good faithful,

except for the one who faithlessly stowed it away.

I think of the workers who came at different times also.

Some of them worked a greater quote -unquote quantity because they worked all day.

The pay was the same.

Right, and I think that's primarily talking about salvation.

It is.

It also explains other verses like, for example, 1 John 1 -9 says he's faithful and just to forgive us our

sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Why would it say that God is faithful and just?

Wouldn't he be just as just, just as righteous in his actions if he did not

cleanse us from all unrighteousness?

That would be just if he didn't forgive anyone.

There would be no violation of his justice if he didn't forgive anyone, except in the light of the promises

he's made.

Except in the light of the commitments he's made.

So that in order to be just, he must forgive those who come to him and repent.

So once again, these things that look owed but we know are not inherently owed,

they become owed in light of this covenant God has made, or various covenants God has made.

Yes?

Don't you think that kind of puts him in the position where he.

Didn't know what he was getting into?

I think he knew exactly who he was getting into.

God?

Yes.

So why would that be an issue?

I mean, I just think that what you said.

Comes off that way.

Comes off as he owes something even though he's not.

No, because he made the commitments.

When he made the commitments he knew what he was doing.

It wasn't an accident that he made.

Those commitments.

It's not like he entered into them not knowing who he was.

Right, yes.

I think there's something I'm missing here because are you saying this would be some cause for embarrassment?

No, no.

I don't know.

It just came off that way to me.

What you said just came off that way to me.

Like, he only has to do it because he made the commitments.

It would only be unjust because he made these commitments.

No.

He knew it was just before he did it.

It was just before I was ever created.

I mean, given the nature of God and his unchangeableness

just in light of what creatures inherently are going to create, that

relationship changes because God

condescends to make such commitments with us.

Condescending meaning he doesn't have to come and make such arrangements with us.

But he has chosen to out of his mercy.

Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

Because when I see God, he always does everything for the greatest good.

The greatest good that can be done is his glory.

His glorification.

The greatest good that can be done.

So he did what he did.

He entered into those covenants to bring himself glory.

And therefore, that's what makes it just in life.

That it brings.

Him glory.

Right.

So I think by just, you are saying of maximal good or right in that sense.

When I say just, I'm just talking about not unjust.

Basically not violating notions of justice

about what is inherently good.

Right?

It is unjust to make a ruling that says this person should be

forgiven when they shouldn't be forgiven.

Unless you have some reason to do that.

Like you have a substitute who's taking the punishment for example.

Okay.

Hopefully I can make it more clear as we go on.

Alright.

But doesn't this teaching make people indifferent and wicked?

So if you basically, if you teach people that your good

works don't actually make you closer to God.

Wouldn't that just teach people to live however they want?

This is an accusation Christians often get.

You typically Calvinists often get teaching that you don't lose your salvation and things like that.

Wouldn't that just lead people to live just whatever kind of life they want without any regard for others?

Isn't that what Paul addressed when he said, shall we sin all the more if we break the hand down?

Exactly. Exactly.

That's what Paul taught us.

The answer is no.

It is impossible for those grafted into Christ by true faith not to produce fruits of gratitude.

So the way this chooses to answer the question in multiple ways is the fact that being grafted into Christ produces the fruit.

So believing this believing this doesn't make someone wicked because

what happens in granting that righteousness is an actual transformation of the person.

Now, the other thing I would add to this is that this teaching rightly understood includes those things

about the reward of good works.

It includes a right understanding that the assurance of salvation is not something that is

guaranteed to remain constant your whole life.

And so you are to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

So there are other teachings that contextualize this teaching so that it wouldn't lead to such

indifference.

Now, one more question there.

What is it that distinguishes faith and works?

You know, when someone when someone has works

someone has faith did God decide to save us through faith and not through works?

Because with works you're doing something and with faith you're not doing something.

And he receives more work that way.

There's a better way to ask this question.

But what I'm getting at is, for a long time I thought that was the reason, right?

God's saving us through faith not works because with faith you're not doing anything.

With works you are.

And so he receives more work.

And there's some truth to that because works are more external and visible.

However, the problem with this is that that would make our faith not really our

faith at all.

Yes, God grants us faith but I am believing.

That is an action of my own brain, my own soul to believe.

And so how is that not in itself some kind of work?

Right?

And so the difference between works and faith is not so much that you're doing something with one and you're not doing something with the other

because both involve the will.

Both are volitional.

And there are people who have said it's not volitional and that the only thing you need for real faith is just a bare assent

of the truth.

But faith is more than that.

There's all kinds of people that have assent to the truth of what Jesus did in order to save.

Faith is really a trusting in that.

What distinguishes the two is that the essence of faith is to acknowledge that it is only through Christ that you can

have righteousness.

Yeah, that's the primary distinction between these two.

It's not that you're doing something with one and you're not with the other because both of them are involving your own will, your own

action in a sense.

But it is through faith that God receives all the glory.

Not primarily because it is less visible but primarily because it is an acknowledgement

that the salvation is totally through Jesus Christ.

We're continuing on to the next section which is sacraments.

Interesting thing here is a lot of people look at the London Baptist Confession and they see that the

section on the sacraments from the Westminster Confession was renamed to ordinances.

And so a lot of people have interpreted that to mean Baptists don't like the term sacrament.

A lot of Baptists today don't like the word sacrament so it seems to fit.

But the early Baptists were not opposed to the word sacrament they just liked the word ordinance for

particular reasons.

I'm forgetting what some of the contextual reasons were.

But sacrament is a totally fine word.

The word sacrament implies that there's some grace that is being delivered to someone.

The concern that a lot of people have about this word is sacerdotalism.

Basically the idea that it is only through the right administration of this

thing that someone receives grace.

Nothing having to do with their own faith.

So you go to the Lord's Supper and if you've got a priest.

Who's go to the Eucharist and you've got a priest who is descended from Peter.

Through all the mechanisms they need to transfer the priesthood

well then that Eucharist has power because of the way it was

administered.

And then there's all kinds of questions people have had, well what if it turned out that somewhere up that chain of you know, of

ordaining priests that guy didn't have some of the qualifications, then does that invalidate all the

other priests that came after him?

There's all kinds of problems you run into with sacerdotalism.

The idea that you can just derive some benefit from these ordinances without

actually believing in them, without any kind of mental involvement in what's going on with

that kind of faith.

But that's not the idea.

They do look like faith alone, that

we

share in Christ and all.

Where then does that faith come from?

I have no idea why you would call it that.

For example marriage is considered a sacrament.

Marriage is something that was not especially instituted by Christ.

It's just something that was created with the foundation of the world.

Just some made up stuff.

Okay, so Ephesians 2 talks

about, see the Philippians

speaks of it being granted to us to believe.

Something that is given to us.

The Holy Spirit produces in our hearts through hearing His word,

that faith, and then He confirms it through our use of the Holy Sacraments.

So faith is confirmed that way.

A lot of people think they have sufficient faith just by believing from hearing the word.

Yes, that is real faith, but it remains unconfirmed part of the baptism, part of the Lord's Supper.

And if it's unconfirmed that means that in the community of Christianity

should we recognize those who have not had such things as being fellow Christians?

You can't really do that until there's some confirmation.

Now by confirmation I'm not talking about a Roman Catholic process of confirmation or anything, but

as it says the sacraments confirm this.

Someone who is participating in these things the Holy Spirit confirms them that they truly

exist.

What

are sacraments?

Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see.

They were instituted by God so that by our use of them He might make us understand more clearly the promises

of the Gospel and might put a seal on that promise.

And this is God's Gospel promise to forgive our sins and to give us eternal

life by grace alone because of Christ's one

sacrifice finished on the cross.

So these are signs and seals.

How does marriage not fit into that?

We didn't know why.

In that definition, I don't know.

100%.

Institute by God so that by our use of them He might make us understand more clearly the promise of the Gospel.

People even outside of knowing what the Gospel is have been given marriage.

Now there is a way that marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and the church.

What do you think?

It's written on our hearts.

So should everything be a sacrament?

No, definitely not.

I'm just saying when you.

Read that definition, I was trying to figure out where does marriage fit in

that.

Right, so.

That He might make us understand more clearly the promise of the Gospel.

The fact that the Lord's Supper and baptism are given specifically to people who know the Gospel, to illustrate the Gospel.

But marriage is something given to all people all over the world, even those who don't know the Gospel.

That's a pretty big distinction.

I would argue they do know the Gospel.

What do you think the Gospel is?

I mean, I believe that I knew that Christ was true before I admitted to

myself.

Long before I admitted to myself.

Many people don't know who Christ is at all, though.

So Romans 1 says that everyone knows God.

But it's written on the stars.

I'm sorry, but I don't I don't.

Romans says that we'll be very happy at Christmas.

Yes, so.

That's not the Gospel, that would be God's law.

Right, so Romans 1 says, and it'd be worth it to go there.

So Romans 1, 18, I'll just start from the beginning there.

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all godliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

For His invisible attributes namely His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived.

So this is so what do people perceive about God?

What does everyone know?

It's just written on their hearts.

His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature and the things that happen to Him.

So they are without excuse.

And then later on it talks about this all being written on their hearts.

You take somebody like King David or Isaiah and and I'm

amazed at what they knew because they understood the problem.

Right?

They understood the problem and Isaiah took that and

described crucifixion thousands of years before it was ever invented.

Right?

David did things similar.

I don't know if I can go there either.

That's all I'm saying.

So there's still people subject to special revelation who God is speaking to them

when He's not speaking to the rest of the world.

And then also I think it's worth considering the question of whether or not Isaiah and David did really

I agree with that but Romans 3 .10 says that no one seeks for God.

Right?

So there's a distinction between those who have had faith and planted it among those who have not.

1 Peter 1 .10 Who would plant it?

The Holy Spirit.

I've never run into it.

I've never run into it.

I've never run into somebody who understood the gospel because they were looking at things.

But I don't believe that it's not possible.

I have seen God do things.

That.

So I think there's still a significant difference here.

Maybe here's the problem.

Here's my problem.

The church had nothing to do with me coming to Christ.

Okay?

The church has always been a source of confusion and heartache for me.

Okay?

The only people who have ever answered my questions have been radio programs.

You understand what I'm saying?

I don't believe I've ever sat under the gospel except for on the internet.

Right?

I believe in what God did to me.

I don't know how he did it.

I don't know how he made me this.

Thirsty because I anything else I would have

run.

It involves some hearing of the gospel.

Yeah.

How beautiful are the feet of those who break good news.

I read.

So that's the thing.

You read it so you now have the gospel.

Whereas before you didn't.

The gospel's not written on the heart.

But I was seeking.

Right?

Yes, in a sense, but there's some people who seek their whole life and it's right in front of them.

They keep rejecting it.

I did that too.

I did that dance too.

Heck yeah.

Just like you said, nobody has an excuse.

Especially when they encounter God's word.

But as it says in Romans 10 -14, how then will they call on him and whom they have not believed?

How are they to believe of him of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

And how are they to preach unless they are sent?

As it is written, how beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news.

So yeah, the gospel is not something that everyone has access to.

Nobody has any excuse because everyone knows God is good and they have that law written in their heart and so they die in their sins

apart from Jesus.

However, there are some to whom God has revealed the gospel through the preaching of his word.

But like I said, I don't.

Know if I put God in that box.

That's all I'm saying.

Like I said, there's nothing too big for that guy.

But he has let us know how he operates.

He doesn't have to but he has told us how he operates

and part of that is the need for people to hear the gospel before they can know the gospel in ordinary circumstances.

So yeah, the idea that what were we talking about

originally?

Yes, that everyone who engages in marriage actually knows the gospel.

I'm not saying they do.

I'm not saying that at all.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm just saying that I don't understand how it doesn't fit into the definition of a sacrament.

Whether or not they participate.

People participate in the

table too that don't understand it either.

There's a warning about it in the Bible.

Just because people that don't have faith participate in it doesn't make it not a sacrament.

But it's been given in the context of the saints.

So it's the bread and the table.

We should probably move on.

But I understand what you're saying.

I'd be happy to answer more questions.

I just want to make sure

that we're doing something useful for everybody.

Maybe you can have a chance to talk with Ryan.

I'm engaging with people, but I know that after a while I'm

going to hear about signing the seal.

That's something that there's also a disagreement among Baptists whether or not the word seal should be used for the

sacraments.

Specifically for baptism.

Because, and you see in our confession once again, the word seal is left out whereas it exists

in the Westminster Confession.

Because the idea for Presbyterians is that you have

baptisms for an infant, even though they are God's

gospel promise

to

forgive our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because of Christ's

sacrifice finished on the cross.

67.

Let's see, let's do two more questions before I end up there.

Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only ground of

our salvation?

The answer is right.

In the gospel, the Holy Spirit teaches us that through the holy sacraments, he assures us that our entire

salvation rests on Christ's one sacrifice for us on the cross.

So yes, both the word and the sacraments are to focus our attention on Christ as the only ground for our salvation.

And then the last question, how many sacraments did Christ institute in the New Testament?

So yeah, that's the other thing is this definition of sacraments is speaking

of, it's talking about some aspects of sacraments, but the other thing is it's something that Christ institutes.

And it's interesting, I think I've told some of you all some time ago, I went through

Roman Catholic initiation courses for adults.

Now this is usually what you're doing if you're going to convert, but basically I told them, you know, I have no interest in conversion I just have a lot of

conversations with your own Catholics and I feel like they don't go anywhere because they don't understand what is important to the

average Roman Catholic.

They sort of like to hear what you all are teaching.

And when they define sacraments, they even said that it's something instituted by Christ.

So how does marriage fit into that?

You know, not that not that, you know, I even believe that Jesus was

walking.

So

they didn't have too many answers when

I said it.

Marriage is

not a

biblical

system, I

mean

sacraments.

Metaphysically they're like...

I don't know the definition of metaphysics well enough to answer that question, but there's something being spiritually accomplished, but there's

not necessarily something spiritually present, you know, in the waters of baptism or in the Lord's Supper.

But yes, something is being spiritually accomplished through each piece.

It's not accomplished in other ways that we might remember Christ.

If we decided to replace the Lord's Supper with our own little ceremony, it would not have the same

spiritual effect for us.

We really do spiritually veto Christ and the Lord's Supper.

It seems like we do believe that marriage is a means

by which God accomplishes sanctification, even grace in a way, right, in the life of a believer,

but that doesn't automatically put it in the same bucket as the Lord's

Supper or baptism in the sense of like, because otherwise you're saying like a single believer that is not able to

receive is missing out on some benefit, right, even though Paul says I wish all

that could remain as I am.

So it's not to say marriage isn't good, but it's in terms of the sacraments, the two sacraments, those

are for all believers and they are sufficient, right?

Yeah, it's interesting.

I hadn't thought that priests don't even get to enjoy all seven sacraments.

Yes?

Well, I think it's important to understand that's why we have a profession, and the profession makes it clear,

you know, these are the things that we believe and why.

Just like the Catholics would have their reasoning behind what they believe and why, but scripturally speaking,

you know, without a profession, without defining, you know, they don't use

the word sacrament in the second line of God's confession, but they do define the things that they observe, which is the Lord's

Supper and baptism.

And it'll include marriage, but that doesn't make marriage any less significant as being, you know,

God created marriage.

Marriage is to be an example of a husband and wife, like Christ did with the Church.

It doesn't make it of any less significance in that aspect, but it wouldn't, marriage would not be seen

as an ordinance, just like you define the other sacraments Christ instituted.

So, I think maybe there's a little bit of semantics that people are having here, you know, of like,

also marriage is not good, or it's not of God, or it's not what we're saying, and that's

why the confession calls it out specifically.

Very cool.

Well, let's go ahead and close our time with prayer.

Let's see.

Miguel, did you get our friend's name there?

Bill, yeah.

Bill?

Okay.

Alright, well, yeah, let's pray.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for the word and the clarity it gives us.

We thank you for

God.

We thank you for the faith that you've given us by your Spirit.

We thank you for the sacraments that you've given us by which we can have them.

And I want to pray especially for our friend Bill, who

showed up today, that you, his

answers and.