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. Thank you.

It's in the office. 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?

Baptist version of the Heidelberg Catechism? Yes. 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 to 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. 58.

How does the article concerning everlasting life comfort you? My article also goes for 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 not what I meant. Moving on to question number 29.

What good does it do you, however, to believe all this? The answer is, in Christ I am right with God and the 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 the heir to Christ.

We are justified through faith. And that's not indigenous to us. All right, 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'm 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 before me, all

I need to do is accept this gift of God with a believing heart. So this is how I'm going to be right with God.

There are different ways of thinking about this. And by this I mean how are we correct 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 our righteousness.

However, the biblical 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 granted to us, and his forgiveness of God in that we die in our place.

In what sense do you think we are children of Jesus? In that Jesus is 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 26, For to 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 the Pentecostals to say that Jesus is the Father. But there's the

Father and the 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 the forefathers are, you can't really use that term, but out on the beach, at the end of the johnson, the johnson means there's children to have in the school.

And I'm always struck by that. If you don't see that as a whole story of the gospel, then after the resurrection, what you're talking about is children.

It seems very profound to me. I'm not sure... Yeah, that does seem relevant. I mean, especially considering that the apostles that are like, for example,

Paul, you know, called the different churches his children because of their conversion to Christ, 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 that's worth looking into, though, that the resurrection is key to that.

It's after the resurrection. Back to the righteousness we have.

I'm always struck by 2 Corinthians 5, 21. It's one of my favorite verses of the gospel in the

New Testament. It's where he made him who knew of sin, he sinned 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 become the righteousness.

We're seen as it, right? In what sense is it a literal righteousness? What do you mean by literal?

It's not substantial. It doesn't have substance to it. It's not like the Augustinian view that you've got sin, which is this kind of spiritual pollution in you, and righteousness, which is this other thing.

Now, there are substantial implications, and by substantial I mean, you know, affecting the very essence of what your soul is.

But they are primarily with substantial implications, not substances themselves.

So if you're being seen as it, and I'm not as righteous as Christ, obviously, but because I'm being

Christ, I'm seen as it, and I've got 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 in our 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, rather than by some passing on of substance.

A little louder, Mark. Going back to, are we children of Jesus?

The other passage that I had in mind to mention was Isaiah 8, 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 my brothers to sing.

I will tell your name to my brothers in the midst of procreation. I will sing your praise again, and I will put my trust in them again.

Behold, I am the children God has given me. And so he talks about himself both as brothers and also as children.

Now, you could read this as the children that God has that he has given to you as brothers, but in the context of Isaiah 8,

Isaiah is speaking of children. Either that or sometimes the prophet's students were referred to as sons.

But in the 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 which 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 with 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 the faith itself that is our righteousness.

The Bible does say of Abraham that his faith is counted as righteousness, and 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, including

Abraham. So the 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. 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.

Why is 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 is imperfect if it's deemed to sin.

So it's impossible to act perfectly before God. First of all, Hebrews 116 says that without faith it is impossible to please

God. The one who comes to Him must believe that He is and that He is reward of those who seek Him. So first of all, in 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 perfect faith, none of us have perfect love of God and desire to honor

Him when we act. So as such, whatever we act, our actions are, even our good actions as Christians, even those that are against the sin.

And so, no good action can you do if you don't actually believe you were right with God. In fact, all of those, each one of those, it could have just as be said that you're a little farther away from God.

However, apart from the mediation of Jesus Christ, there would be no mediation of Jesus Christ to have, and that gives us much of those that are accepted.

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

It does, so we're able to do good works, whereas before we weren't. Right, so, in a true sense, they are truly good, as opposed to, you know, a non -believer who, you know, gets the ball rolling over.

So, let's see. So if you look in here, in Hymnals, on page 679, 678, it talks about this.

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

Hymnal. And so this is the second Baptist 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 unprofitable 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 in the unrecruitable God's sight, 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. If on their own, our good works are imperfect, they will not be able to endure the severity of God's wrath.

However, just as our own selves are accepted through Christ, our good works are accepted through Him.

Yes? I was just talking about good works. I think Ephesians 2, 10, where we are just working should be, creating

Christ Jesus for good works, which God is prepared to perform as we walk with Him. So there's this idea that God has laid out these works for us, and as we do them, 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.

It's even prophesied in your name. When you cast out a demon, you'll look desperate. Somebody prophesies, speaks truth, or casts a demon out of somebody, that's good.

But Jesus says, to work, I never knew. Is his faith the key to that?

I'm just wondering why he would cast out. So as I read into this a little bit, the reason that there's no faith, would then imply that they're doing it for their own name's sake.

Because I don't want to be known as the great exorcist, and I can't cast out a demon, as opposed to a good one. Continuing on here,

Mike, excuse me, just some practical applications for that. A lot of people feel like when they sin, and we talked about this last time too, when they sin, they're further away from God, they don't have

Him anymore, they make a 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 call on Him as Father, but the idea that it's up to you to maintain this relationship with Him, is missing the point of Christ's mediation, in which that relationship is established in His perfection, on your level of perfection, which is far from good.

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 do you...

I think that makes sense. So, the fact that we needed

Him in order to do something, is that what you're saying? In order. It's not only that we need Him, but it's in Him, that we can make a distinction between.

Yes. So, I would say, the good works are actually accomplished by Christ in us.

Any other examples? Yes. I don't want to get this wrong, because I can hear you. No worries.

Well, I was thinking that that might work in towards salvation. Because I think that salvation is taught by good works, and the good works will allow that salvation.

Okay. Josh, would you like to say something? Yeah, I'm interested in you speaking about the rewards in relation to this question.

Because if I'm doing good works in Christ, and Christ is the one working in me, or, you know, it separates me, as you're explaining.

Yeah. And where you can get more in depth than me. Or vice versa. Yeah, that's worth it.

But it would be, while we should definitely give that credit to God, it's not as though we're just, that our wills are kind of like these vessels, you know, the stereotype of what

Calvinists believe is true, where we're just robots doing, you know, 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 that varies. 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 like a whole list of options. You know, there's like covenant merit, 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, 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 parable that Jesus gave about the master who asked his servant to do something, the servant does everything perfectly.

The master doesn't have to say thanks, right? The servant just did what he's 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, or however, some inherent merit of those good works.

Rather, it is by covenant merit, right? Covenant merit being God having committed himself to reward good works, that even though those works in themselves aren't owed anything, because God has bound himself to give such rewards, that they would be owed.

Does that make sense? So it's like the secondary, it's not inherent that God would owe this thing, but he has bound himself to it.

Josh, you've got a face. Now, so what's the explanation of the rewards?

Because if there's rewards, then some of them are earned and others didn't. Okay. The way you're saying it, it sounds to me like you didn't mean to be cheap, right?

God has committed 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, when we talked about how that parallels what will happen in hell this month.

So is it quantity or quality? This is all by faith, but faith is the, quote -unquote, quality of the reward.

Yes, the amplitude of faithfulness, to say that. 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, 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 with one another. There's both the 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 property 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 he wasn't the quantity, because they all got the well -done good and faithful, except for the one who faithlessly stowed it away.

I think of the workers who came at different times also. If someone worked a greater, quote -unquote, quantity because they worked all day, the pay was the same.

I think that's primarily talking about salvation. It is. So it explains other verses like, for example, 1

John 9 says he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to 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 light of the promises that he's made, except in light of the commitments that 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 that God has made, or various covenants that 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 what 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, yeah. Because he made the commitments. When he made the commitments, he knew what he was doing.

Right. It wasn't an accident that he made those commitments. It's not like he entered into them not knowing who he were.

Right. Right. Yes? Yeah, and I think there's something

I'm missing, because are you saying this would be like some cause for embarrassment? No, no,

I just, I don't know. It just came off that way to me. What you said just came off that way to me.

Like, oh, he only has to do it because he made the commitment. Right. It's only, it would only be unjust because he didn't, because he made these commitments.

No, he knew. He was, it was just before he did it. It was just before I was ever created.

I mean, given the nature of God, this unchangeableness, yeah, he intended to do what he intended to do from the beginning.

However, just in light of what creatures inherently are the creator, these things become, that relationship changes because God condescends to make such commitments with us.

You know, 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. And the greatest good that can be done is his glory.

Yes. His glorification. The greatest thing, the greatest good that can be done. Okay? So he did what he did.

He entered into those covenants to bring himself glory. Yes. And therefore, that's what makes it just in my view, that it brings him glory.

So I think by just your 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 owed.

Right? It is unjust to make a ruling that says, you know, this person should be forgiven when they shouldn't be forgiven, unless you have some reason unless you have some reason to do that.

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

Hopefully I can make it more clear this week. 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 the 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?

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 your question in multiple ways is the fact that being grafted into Christ produces a 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 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.

One more question there. What is it that distinguishes faith and works?

You know, when someone has works and 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.

Any of you ever see someone who worked that way? There's a better way to answer this or ask this question.

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

That God was saving us through faith not works because with faith you're not doing anything. With works you are and this way he receives more reward.

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, right?

And yes, God grants us faith but I am believing, you know. 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 in all are volitional and there are people who've 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.

So yeah, that's the primary distinction between these two is 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 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, totally through Jesus Christ.

Great, so we're continuing on to the next section, which is sacraments. Now, 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. And 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 ordinances 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 is some grace that is being delivered to someone.

And 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. Right, so you go to the Lord's Supper and if you've got a priest who is, you know, you go to the

Eucharist and you've got a priest who is descended from Peter, etc. 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 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 deliver grace. They are means of grace, but only to the one who, by faith, believes.

Alright, so question 65. So by faith alone, that we share in Christ and all his blessings, where then does that faith come from?

Okay, so now we're answering this question about faith being a gift. The Holy Spirit produces in our hearts by the preaching of the

Holy Gospel and confirms it through our use of the Holy Sacraments. So, this is talking about faith being confirmed through baptism of the

Lord's Lover. Those are the sacraments, by the way, people didn't know. But there's not... Roman Catholicism has seven sacraments for some reason.

There's all kinds of things that I have no idea why you would call them sacraments. For example, marriage is considered a sacrament.

Marriage is something that was not especially instituted by Christ. You know, it's just something that was created with the foundation of the world.

It's odd to constantly sing sacraments. Yeah, with the sacraments.

Right. Yeah, just some made up stuff too. Okay, so, Ephesians 2,

Ephesians 2, talks about faith being a gift. And then, see, the

Philippians I think it's Philippians 1, speaks of it being granted to us to believe.

Right, so that it's something that is given to us. So the Spirit, the Holy Spirit produces in our hearts through hearing

His word, that faith, and then He confirms it through our use of all the sacraments.

So, faith is constructed that way. A lot of people think they have sufficient faith just by believing or hearing the word.

And, yes, that is real faith, but it remains unconfirmed in the part of the baptism, the 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 like Roman Catholic process of confirmation or anything, but, yes, it says the sacraments confirm this.

You know, someone who's participating in these things, they're confirming, the Holy Spirit confirms them that they truly believe through this means of grace.

Question 66, 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 promise 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, one sacrifice finished on the cross. Alright, so, these are signs and seals.

Yes? How does marriage not fit into that definition? You just said you didn't know why.

Right. In that definition, I don't know. 100%.

Right. instituted by God so that by our use of them, he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel.

Uh, people even outside of, uh, even knowing what the gospel is have been given marriage.

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

What are you thinking? It's written on our hearts. So, should everything be a sacrament?

No, definitely not. But, I'm just saying, when you read that definition,

I was, I was trying to figure out where does the marriage fit? Where does the marriage fit in that? Right.

So, that he might make us understand more clearly the promise of the gospel. The fact that, the fact that the

Lord suffered baptism were given specifically to people who knew 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.

Um, that's a pretty big distinction. I would argue they do know the gospel.

Um, what do you think the gospel is? I mean, I, I believe that I knew that Christ was true before I admitted to myself, long before I admitted to myself.

Um, 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, it's written on the stars, it's written on the, right?

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

Romans says that would be very heavy of excuse. Yes, so, 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, um, 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, this is what later on it talks about, it's all being written on the cards. David, you take somebody like David, King David, or Isaiah, and, and I'm amazed at what they knew, because they understood the problem, right?

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,

I don't, I don't know if I can go there either, is all I'm saying. Yeah, so there's, there's still be people subject to special revelation who,

God is speaking to them when he's not speaking to the rest of the world. Not a single person, not a single person, not a single person, not a single person, not a single not a single person, not a person.

a single there's still a significant difference. Maybe, 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 mean, I have never, I don't believe I've ever sat under the gospel, except for on the internet, right?

I'm amazed at what God did to me, alright? I don't know how He did it. I don't know how

He made me this thirsty, right? Because I, anything else

I would have run. But I assume it involves some hearing of the gospel. Yeah.

How beautiful are the feet of those who break good news? I read. So, so right, so that's, that's the thing, is you read it, so you have, you now have the gospel, right?

Whereas before, you didn't, the gospel's not written on the heart. But I, but I was seeking, right?

So... 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. And it's not just...

I was following what you said too, I did that dance too. Heck yeah. Right? Just like you said, you know, nobody has an excuse, right?

When they, especially when they encounter, you know, God's word. But as it says in Romans 10, 14,

How then will they call on Him in 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, it's 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 I, but I, like I said,

I don't, I don't know what I'm saying. I don't, like I said, I don't, there's nothing too big for that guy.

Okay, but he has, he has let us know what his, how he operates, right?

He is, he is, 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, right, that everyone who engages in marriage actually knows the gospel.

It's kind of a... Yeah, yeah, 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, right? I mean, people, you go up, people, people participate in the table, too, that don't understand it either.

That's true. Right? There's a warning about it in the Bible. Right. Right? I'm not saying, 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.

So why the table? So why the table? Yes. 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 aren't held up too long on this for others.

I don't think I'm going to do well. Hey, we'd be happy to talk for lots of time after.

I just want to make sure that we're doing something peaceful for everybody. And maybe you can have a chance to talk with Ryan.

Sir? Yeah. Sorry about all that.

Yeah. I like engaging with people, but I know that after a while it can become less helpful for everyone else.

A little comment here about sign and 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. 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 if you have a baptism for an infant, even though they aren't believing anything, there's still something that's being accomplished.

And so you have the word seal used to describe what's happening there. This is

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.

Question 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. He's 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 Roman Catholics.

And I feel like they don't go anywhere because they don't understand what is important to the average Roman Catholic. And so I'd like to hear what, you know, 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, you know, I even believe that Jesus was walking in the garden of Adam, but not the incarnate son.

So, yeah, I don't know how they get all these other things when they're willing to use definitions like that.

When you asked them about it, what did they say? The person who was teaching the class was just a volunteer.

He wasn't like a priest or anything. He wasn't that knowledgeable. So they didn't have too many answers when I asked about it, nor were there questions on it.

So, yeah, I just said something like God instituted it.

So God instituted lots of things. Josh, did you agree with what

I said? No, the idea of sacraments that I did, I would say that Christ gave two sacraments to the church particularly.

And that's the way I understand it. That doesn't say that marriage is not a biblical institution that is properly administered in and through the church.

We do marriages in the church. But the two that we call sacraments or ordinances are those that Christ particularly gave to the church, that particularly in the most parabolic way demonstrate the gospel itself.

I thought you made a very good point.

Yes. Is there something like that? I don't know the definition of metaphysics.

I don't have to answer that question. There's something being spiritually accomplished, but there's not necessarily something spiritually present 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 know Christ in the Lord's Supper. It seems like it's an issue of categories.

We do believe that marriage is a means by which God accomplishes sanctification, even grace in a way, in the life of a believer.

But that doesn't automatically put it in the same bucket as the

Lord's Supper or baptism. Otherwise, you're saying a single believer is missing out on some benefit.

I'm not saying marriage isn't good, but in terms of the sacraments, the two sacraments, those are for all believers.

Yeah. It's interesting. I hadn't thought that priests don't even get to enjoy all seven sacraments. Right. Yes.

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 Catholic would have their reasoning behind what they believe. But spiritually speaking, you know, without a profession and without a defining, they don't use the word sacrament in the second line of God's confession.

But they do define the things that they observe in the Lord's Supper. It doesn't 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. It doesn't make it of any less significance in that aspect.

But it wouldn't, marriage would not be seen as ordinance. Just like you define the sacraments.

So, I think we needed a little bit of semantics that people are having here. 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 that out specifically. Very cool.

Let's go ahead and close our time with prayer. Let's see. Miguel, did you get our friend's name there?

Bill. Bill. Bill. Okay. Alright. Well, yeah, let's pray for Bill too.

I don't want to take advantage of my self -worth, so. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for the word and the clarity it gives us.

We thank you for all the prophecies of the Old Testament. And all the direct teaching of the New Testament.

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 that faith confirmed and strengthened.

God, I want to pray especially for our friend Bill who showed up today. That you would calm his spirit.

That his concern for getting answers and being treated with respect.

That he would not reason to malign your church.

But that you would, in the right circumstances, that he may see the truth in Jesus' name.