The Aaron Papers  www.the-aaron-papers.net 

QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, AND MORE QUESTIONS

ADDENDUM with Questions

COMMENTS:
      IT would appear that the Reformed /Presbyterian Christian Church is very close to a complete departure from their claim to the Abrahamic Covenant and Covenant Theology. This is primarily the result of the shift in their understanding of God’s reconciliation to only the evangelistic perspective. That is, they see the New Testament Church as an end within itself, exclusive of any other dispensational efficacy.
      Now a good example of this problem can be observed in the differing understandings that are held by the Baptist and the Reformed. That the principal theological difference between these two denomination, rests in whether the New Testament Church is a part of the Abrahamic Covenant or not. The Reformed tenets held that the New Testament Church is a continuing part of the Abrahamic Covenant, which is also demonstrated by their visible attempt to emulate some of the Old Testament instructions that God gave to His first peoples Israel. The Baptist however, because of the faulted eschatological conclusions they hold, believe that the Abrahamic Covenant is only for God’s original peoples—visible Israel.
The most immediate problem is in the fact that the philosophy of the Reformed Church has moved nearly all the way over into the Baptist camp. The Reformed denomination, because of the indecisiveness in their theological understandings, is almost at a point of abandoning the Abrahamic Covenant altogether.
      The Reformed Church, in making this doctrinal shift, is quickly loosing their grip on the foundational truths that they have promoted since the Protestant Reformation. They, like the Baptist, have lost sight of the absoluteness of God’s grace in the recovery of a totally depraved creation.
       One might conclude that the majority of the Christian Church is presently in the grasp of a works doctrine, where, from their own pious perspective, they give the impression that almost every other person’s salvation status could be in question. So the answer to this dilemma is only determined by whom is covenantally correct.

      It is of the utmost importance that we understand the exact definitions of the complex identification of the peoples of God: By realizing that these passages from Rom.2:28-29 are key to achieving this understanding.
      To begin, we must understand that the identification of God’s peoples has a complex definition. That is, God’s identified peoples can have a visible characteristic in their identification as well as an invisible characteristic in their identification. Although the invisible elect are all participants in the visible, having been chosen out by God from the corporate body, nevertheless, all of the called members of the visible corporate are not necessarily a part of the invisible elect. The identification of God's invisible elect priests has always been determined by the internal regeneration of God Himself. That is, the true identity of the invisible elect priests of God has always been determined by the internal mark of God: the circumcised heart. This invisible principle that we are discussing here, even though it is being fully manifested and explained during this present dispensation of grace, must be fully applied throughout the entire Old Testament dispensation: both the visible and the invisible had an active presence there as well.
      The failure on the part of the Christian Church to understand this exact principle has created a great deal of confusion. The New Testament Church, because they have been Spiritually blessed with the manifested understanding of God’s invisible dispositions, has come to the mistaken conclusion that the whole body of the Christian Church is made up of only the invisible elect peoples of God; the invisible elect priests of God. Consequently, it is only when we observe God’s peoples through the true pattern that God has set down for us in His original peoples—visible Israel, that we can properly ascertain the complete understanding concerning the complex identity of His peoples.
      We must see, by this example that God has given us in His first peoples Israel, that God’s peoples have always had both a visible characteristic and an invisible characteristic that are always coexistent within God’s whole reconciliation. The visible character of God’s peoples was given to us, so that we could properly understand the invisible character of God’s peoples that has always been hidden in God. The unfortunate situation that we now have within the Christian Church is that nearly all denominations mistakenly see the New Testament Church as the collective invisible priesthood of God. Even though there are a considerable number of Christians who have been regenerated and are within God’s invisible priesthood, this all-inclusive conclusion that the entire Christian Church is a part of God’s invisible priesthood is still Scripturally in error!
////

EXPLANATIONS:
****Q.8
      This statement here in question—eight is made under the assumption that each and every member of the Church must be born again. This understanding is derived from observing the Church only in her evangelical light. That is, seeing the Church as being an end within itself: And that within the whole Church there is but one class of peoples—God’s holy priesthood. This is very confusing because this conclusion is correct with respect to just God’s invisible dispositions. But at the very same time, this conclusion is not correct with respect to God’s visible dispositions—God’s whole corporate peoples. Once again, the complex identification of God’s peoples can be properly understood only by our close observation of God’s first peoples Israel. This understanding is necessary for the future eschatological fulfillment of both visible Israel and invisible Israel—the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.


****Q.30
      It is here in question thirty that we can see their works doctrine supplanting God’s free and unmerited grace. The work that we have in view here is reflected in “those who in true faith accept this savior”. The word “accept” that is used here has the connotation of a positive action on the part of the recipient. This is the exact reason why the Baptist Church does not baptize infants. They believe that only adults are capable of performing this act of acceptance. The confusing problem that we have here is in the fact that this Baptist understanding has some truth with respect to the Churches evangelical role: but would wholly exclude the efficacy that we find in the visible characteristic of the Abrahamic Covenant: God’s complex covenant with Abraham that is best defined in Gen.17:1-27.


****Q.31 and Q.32
      Questions thirty-one and thirty-two are prime examples of the catechism’s slant towards God’s invisible dispositions. These two questions are defining God’s peoples as just His invisible priestly line. This is the exact problem that we are trying to explain. And the real difficulty continues to be in the fact, that the manifestation of God’s invisible dispositions is a present reality within the New Testament Church. This present difficulty for the Christian Church has been in their failure to keep God’s visible dispositions in an active state as well. That is, understanding that the visible characteristics of God’s peoples and the invisible characteristics of God’s peoples are always coexistent within God’s whole reconciliation.


****Q.67
      Question sixty-seven confirms that God’s free and unmerited grace flows out unimpeded through the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross. So we must never allow ourselves to loose sight of God’s wonderful justifying grace. Is it possible that Christ’s propitiatory work has a more liberal application than many within the Christian Church might suppose? We tend to see Christ’s atonement from just the Christian perspective, with an efficacy that is functional only within the Christian Church. Even though Christ is a Jew, the Christian Church has more or less made Him a Christian.


****Q.71
Consider this question and answer:
      BUT DOES THIS OUTWARD WASHING WITH WATER BAPTISM ITSELF WASH AWAY SINS? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! ONLY JESUS CHRIST'S BLOOD AND THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN CLEANSE US FROM ALL SIN. Jn.3:16
When we say that “water baptism” does not wash away sins, just what do we mean? What we mean is this—Only the shed blood of Christ cleanses us from all our sins. Because even to ask the question—“BUT DOES THIS OUTWARD WASHING WITH WATER BAPTISM ITSELF WASH AWAY SINS?” only reflects a measure of ignorance on the part of the questioner. Consequently, this ignorant question that has arisen within the Christian Church has surely diminished the efficacy of the sacrament of water baptism. This is especially true now when you consider the justification for infant baptism: where the sacrament, through the use of “common sense”, has become completely meaningless. Even though there are a number of denominations that continue to baptize infants, most, because of the pressure that is coming from the New Covenant Theology direction, would now give the sacrament little or no efficacy towards salvation.


****Q.74
      Question seventy-four is the question and answer that states the Reformed Church standard for infant baptism. This question simply states the belief that they are a Covenant Church. But the real problem for the Reformed Church is in the fact that they presently lack any in-depth understanding of what they believe concerning the Covenant. That is, a full understanding of Covenant Theology that is completely compatible with their long held theology /eschatology.


****Q.90 and Q.91
      We keep running into this term “true faith”. The catechism has properly defined “true faith” in Q.21. But now I have contextually interpreted true faith as God’s justifying faith. Because I believe that that interpretation would best fit its general application within the Christian Church.
      Yet now, the majority of the Christian Church has mistakenly combined God’s justifying faith with God’s sanctifying faith: which, in the case of many, has naturally resulted in their restricted and distorted understanding of salvation itself.
                                   ————————————

SUMMARY:
      The catechism is designed to bring a higher level of spirituality into the life and walk of every individual Christian. But the central problem that has arisen within many of today’s churches is that the previously desired level of spirituality has become an expected or demanded level of spirituality. That is, many denominations have determined that the whole legitimate Church consists of only God’s invisible elect priestly line: Which naturally results in a complete depletion of the “sheep” that need to be fed—as Jesus reminded Peter in Jn.21:15-17. That every individual within the Church must be born again is desirable, but is it necessary. It is true that there is a born again segment of God’s peoples that is invisible, and that all of these invisible peoples are a part of God’s invisible priestly line—God’s invisible Messianic Covenant line—God’s Covenant of Promise. But is that invisible body, as many Christians now suppose, the totality of God’s peoples? And the answer to that question, when we properly consider it in the light of the Abrahamic Covenant and God’s example relationship with visible Israel, is absolutely NO!
      The Christian Church, because of their pious zeal towards a more spiritual Church, has come to this faulted conclusion that the whole body is comprised of only the invisible elect. As any careful reading of the catechism will quickly confirm that stated conclusion. Now there is absolutely nothing wrong with the early Church father’s desire for a higher level of spirituality. But once again, their problem actually began when their desire became a demand. They declared that, for a Christian to become a “true Christian”, they must meet or exceed the criterion that they themselves had set down. (1) They must exercise a true faith: That is, they must accept this or that with a true faith. (2) They must make a true confession of that faith. Now all of these things have a ring of truth within the narrow scope of God’s reconciliation, but they all tend to displace or supplant God’s free and unmerited gift of grace that is corporately received through the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross. What we are really talking about here, is that God’s justification and God’s sanctification are being improperly combined. Here is what the early Church fathers have done. They, through their zeal to become better Christians, have wrongly amalgamated these two attributes of God’s dispositions. They have wrongly displaced the simple monergistic justifying grace by which all of God’s called peoples enter into the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace, with the more complex synergistic regenerative grace by which all of God’s chosen peoples enter into God’s Covenant of Promise. And this is the very thing that has caused us to call into question the salvation of many of the sheep. Nearly everyone in the Reformed Church has had the opportunity to observe various Reformed preachers as they also struggle over this conflict involving justification and sanctification. We, like our early Church fathers, all want Christians to act more like Christians and less like the world. But there really is a simple answer to this dilemma that we can consider. It is in keeping God’s justification in its proper first place in the Christian experience, and completely separated from God’s regeneration that is in its proper second placed in the Christian experience. This is just as I have said before, regeneration must be understood as a second work of God’s Holy Spirit.
Amen.


      Once again, I would pray for God’s Holy Spirit to enlighten all who have read these writings.
Amen.


      Since this manuscript was formulated around the 1562 Heidelbergh Catechism, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the original authors — Caspar Olevianus and Zacharias Ursinus.