Lord's Day 6

The focus of Lord's Day 6 is the type of and identity of the mediator who can make satisfaction between God and sinful humans. Q.16 establishes that the mediator must be human, since it was a human who sinned, and also the promised Genesis 3:15 victor; Q.17 establishes that the mediator must be God in order to provide a ransom of sufficient value and in order to sustain the infinite wrath of God and punishment for sin. Q.18 blatantly asks who this mediator is, and Q.19 asks how we know this. While the answers are straightforward -- respectively, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel -- the discussion explores the role and office of mediator, covenant and testament, and finally the nature of the Gospel message.

An interesting Objection (typically there are sections throughout the commentary of objections that might be raised, with an accompanying answer - a catechism within the catechism's commentary) is raised that "the party offended cannot be the Mediator" - specifically that Christ cannot be God if he is also the mediator. The Answer is that this is only the case if one does not recognize the distinctions (i.e., persons) within the Godhead. The Exposition of Q.18 addresses similar issues, basically using an Athanasian Creed approach in exploring the persons of the Godhead to prove that Christ Jesus, God the Son, is the acceptable and chosen Mediator. Other roles of the Son include being an ambassador to reveal to the world the Father's will, and also to present the gifts that he bestows upon his people.

Mediator is also discussed as both a role and an office. The "office" of mediator is the official position and the duties that must be accomplished to effect reconciliation, whereas "role" has to do with the specific person who fills the office.

An interesting question raised is whether Adam would have had needed a mediator had he not sinned. The answer is in how we understand the office of mediator. If it is someone through whom God communicates and bestows his benefits, then Yes, Adam would also have required a mediator. If we understand mediator more narrowly, as a redeemer, then Adam would not have needed a mediator.

Ursinus' discussion of mediator covers most of the tasks and roles that one might expect: interceding, offering, making satisfaction, but an interesting task of a mediator that most Christians would not consider is being a surety (providing a guarantee) that the offending party will not repeat the offense! Surely this is dependent on our union-with-Christ status. Not only does Christ make full satisfaction to restore our relationship with God but, hidden in Christ and one with Christ, we receive all of his benefits - as though we had never sinned and as though we no longer sin.

Ursinus also notes that mediation requires the consent of the parties involved. While not referenced directly, this speaks to the ordo salutis (order of salvation), with regeneration and faith being the first steps in a taking hold of the riches of Christ's benefits to us.

Mediation may be the process that brings two parties together, but the substance of the mediation depends on the covenant, or agreement and expectations, between the parties. Ursinus states that the mediation that we are concerned with involves one covenant in two testaments. The Bible's story of redemption starts "in the beginning" and continues, albeit with numerous twists and turns, unbroken through to its final chapter in Revelation. The promises of the first Testament are fulfilled in the second Testament. People, whether in the Old or the New, become part of the kingdom and family of God in the same way - trusting and living in faith into the promises of God's covenant. While covenant and testament can be used interchangeably, in common usage "testament" refers to a change based on a death. Christ's incarnation and death signals the shift from the Old Testament to the New Testament. One might recall Jesus' words at the Last Supper - "this cup is the new testament in my blood" (Luke 22:20). The two testaments, or testamental periods, do differ in such things as temporal blessings, rites, clarity, duration, obligation and extent (to whom it is available).

Finally, the question is raised: how we know of the Covenant. It is communicated through God's special revelation to us, commonly know as the Gospel, in the Bible. The message has become more clear since it was first given in Genesis, expanded upon by the Old Testament prophets, and finally bursting on the scene at just the right time (Gal. 4:4), to be preached to us now in its Gospel fullness.

Lord's Day 5

 Lord's Day 5 is the first chapter in the Deliverance section of the Catechism. Therefore it is asking basic questions in order to set the stage for future discussion --

Q.12 - how and can we escape punishment? 

Q.13 - can we, ourselves, do anything to escape?

Q.14 - can we finagle escape through any other created being?

Q.15 - what sort of mediator is able to do it?

The progression of the questions lays out the direction of the argument - there is escape, but then negative answers to 13 and 14. Finally, 15 establishes what type of mediator is needed. The discussion, of course, is a little more indepth on each of these points. As we have come to expect, Ursinus is exceedingly thorough, and as a result we find that he frequently, even 500 years ago, has asked (and answered) the very questions that continue to confront us in the 21st century.

Q.12 establishes that God's justice, requiring temporal and eternal punishment, must be fully satisfied. There is anticipation that there can be relief based on the promise of Genesis 3:15, but no clear indication how it will be brought about. The prophets of the Old Testament (OT) were deeply interested in how this promise would be worked out. Reading their prophetic statements with 20/20 hindsight we can almost draw a straight line between all of the points, but OT believers lacked our vantage point - like today, they had to take the hidden things of God's promises on faith.

Q.13 states that "we daily increase our guilt" which pretty much puts the kibosh on thinking that we can get ourselves out of this mess. Sort of like a person with credit card debt that is so oppressive that there is no way that they can ever get free because their income cannot even cover the interest. We start out in a hole and every day it gets deeper.

That being the case, Q.14 asks whether there is any other creature we can call on for help? First of all, God will not impose upon any other member of his creation the debt that humans have incurred. OT sacrifices were a picture of the seriousness of the process, with the person offering the sacrifice intimately involved (Leviticus 1:4-6), but the OT sacrifices were not a propitiation for sin. Ursinus also notes that no finite creature can sustain infinite punishment:

A mere creature would be consumed and reduced to nothing, before satisfaction could be made to God in this way: “For God is a consuming fire.” (Deut.4:24)

He also defines a sufficient sacrifice as being measured both by quality (i.e., dignity) as well as quantity (magnitude and duration), and introduces the idea that a sufficient sacrifice must also have a renewing and sanctifying aspect.

Finally, in Q.15, having ruled out that satisfaction can be made on our own, and that we cannot substitute another creature, we come to the conclusion that what is needed is a pure and sinless human who can bear infinite punishment - a human with the strength and holiness of God.

Discussion Notes: Lord's Day 5 repeatedly focuses on the type of satisfaction that is needed to justify humans before God to the extent that one begins to wonder both about his persistence and his audience. In fact this might be one those sections of subtle polemics discussed in the Intro to this class. This led to some exploration of theories of atonement. While these can be clearly delineated on paper, in practice they may be more fluid (some theories may better nuance other theories). Reformed thinking lands squarely on Penal Substitutionary Atonement - penal referring to legal-like action. One is declared guilty or not guilty as a discrete act. One explanation of a Roman Catholic view argued that it would be inconceivable that God would punish an innocent person; therefore Christ's act, instead of punishment, is one of loving obedience earning merit with God the Father. This merit - saving grace - is then accessed through the ministrations of the church. A crucifix, therefore, for the Catholic is a symbol of Christ's love, whereas the Reformed view is more likely to focus on the punishment aspect of the cross. A major difference in application between the two views, is that the judicial view is once for all - It is finished! The believer is justified and adopted into God's family (and then spend the rest of their life learning to live as a child of God). The Catholic view as described in the article, never establishes complete atonement - instead, the grace that Christ merits is accessed through participation in the Church and its sacraments - justification is more-or-less based on a person's sanctification. This may not be a complete or definitive view, since in this podcast a Roman Catholic believer describes his understanding of atonement in agreement with the penal substitutionary view. 

Lord's Day 4

Finally, we come to the end of our misery – that is, the last Lord's Day in the Misery section of the Heidelberg Catechism. Next week we will move on to contemplate Redemption! I do not want to imply that Ursinus has not fed us richly to this point – and this week is no different. His clear and methodical style, thorough and yet not burdensome, help us negotiate the intersection of doctrine and life. His use of easily understood illustrations, answering questions and objections as relevant today as they were 500 years ago, and frequently giving new insights to new understanding and practical application.

Lord's Day 3 focused on the human inability to do God's will. Lord's Day 4 examines God's justice in regard to that inability. Given the circumstances, Q.9 asks whether it is at all just to have expectations of creatures who have no ability to meet them. Q.10 continues, asking whether God might allow sin to go unpunished. Out of options, Q.11, attempts an end run, asking whether God's mercy might be a way out of the dilemma.

Human reason protests against the idea that one can be held responsible for what one cannot do – unfair! The catechism's answer: humans had the ability and threw it away! Ursinus gives the example of a prince who grants a nobleman a benefit; should the nobleman rebel, both he and his posterity will lose this royal favor. Augustine's famous acknowledgement of the creature's dependence on God for obedience: “Lord, give what you command, and command what you wilt, and you shall not command in vain.” To the righteous, failure to meet the demands of the law is acknowledgement of our misery without a savior. For the unrepentant, failure is a call to repentance and, at last, a demonstration of God's justice.

Q.10 focuses on the punishment of sin - “God punishes sin most severely, justly, and certainly.” An objection is raised that the wicked often seem to prosper. Ursinus notes that prosperity is all the more reason for one to recognize the goodness of God and, in the end, such prosperity testifies against the unrepentant. He also notes that present punishment is “but the beginning of everlasting punishment.” Finally, Ursinus accedes that while sins may receive differing degrees of punishment commensurate with their severity, all punishment for sin is eternal.

Human reason, in a last ditch effort, asks whether God is merciful (Q.11)? The answser? God is merciful, but he is also just. A concept like “Divine simplicity” is helpful in understanding the catechism's answer – as well as in other issues where we seek to pit God's love and mercy against his law and justice. We may be able to get to an answer we like by ignoring the God that the Bible presents – but that must also be factored in when we evaluate the outcomes we seek. God shows mercy in the extreme to those who come to him in repentance, but this requires that his justice also be satisfied, accomplished through the active and passive work of Jesus Christ. It is also of note that, while Ursinus addressed this issue 500 years ago, like many issues thought to be settled, they are challenged whenever the church either forgets their value or when human reason finds them offensive. For example, Synod 2022 was faced with the need to defend the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. 

Ursinus goes through an intersting and helpful discussion of the types and purposes of the afflictions suffered by humankind. As mentioned earlier, this life is the beginning of eternity, and afflictions must be seen in the light of their purpose in that bigger picture. While afflictions are the beginning of punishment of sin for the unrepentant, at the same time they are a call to repentance, to seek God's mercy. In terms of the repentant, Ursinus uses a word that at first seems peculiar - “the cross”. It makes better sense if we see in it the idea that we are to take up our cross daily (Luke 9:23).  Afflictions, then, are interpreted as the discipline of a loving Father – “These chastisements are to them sermons, and call to repentence.” Afflictions also teach the believer to hate sin and the world attempt to entice us away from God – as Q.127 later describes these as “our sworn enemies - the devil, the world, and our own flesh”. Afflictions try the faith of the believer so that it may be strengthened, and deliverance from trials, both for individuals, as well as the church, bring joyous praise to God. Afflictions also conform believers to Christ, even in persecution and martyrdom, as a testimony to the Gospel.

Finally, Ursinus looks at comforts – or benefits – that affliction may provide to believers and the church. He bookends various points of comfort, starting with the remission of sin which he says

is the first in order and lies at the bottom of all the rest... if this comfort be well grounded and fixed, all the others will naturally follow; for if God be our father, we may rest assured that he will not only not send any thing that will be an injury to us, but he will also defend us against all the evils of this life.

He concludes with complete and final delieverence – he notes that while “The first is the chief comfort, and foundation of all the others; this is the perfection and consummation of all”:

For as there are degrees of punishment, so there are also degrees of deliverance. The first degree is in this life, where we have the beginning of eternal life. The second is in temporal death, when the soul is carried into Abraham’s bosom. The third will be in the resurrection of the dead, and their glorification, when we shall be perfectly happy, both in body and soul. “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” (Rev. 21:4)