Theonomy and Antinomianism

Sometimes, we use big words—as in the last post. Don’t be intimidated by them. “Theonomy” is a movement that alleges a love for the law of God. Many theonomists wish to take over the civil government, and to create a society based on their own understanding of Old Testament law. (These people are sometimes called, “Reconstructionists.”)

“Antinomianism” is a term that means “Against the law.” These folks don’t want anyone telling them what to do—be it God, or man.

Ironically, though theonomy and antinomianism would appear to be diametrically opposed to one another, (theonomy liking law [supposedly]; and antinomianism hating it)—they both meet together, and have very similar characteristics.

Theonomists, for the most part, despise authority, unless it is their own, or a brand they approve of. Antinomians just plain loathe authority altogether (unless it fits their lusts).

Both of these movements tend to be at odds with Puritan Christianity, because the Puritans insisted on the power of grace to change lives (and not the law); and the Puritans, following Paul and the rest of the Bible, were big on submission to *all* legitimate authority—even if it was not too nice, or too good.

So, just as communism (leftist) and fascism (rightist) seemed to be at polar extremes; but both employed the same tactics, to the same ends—so is it the case with theonomy and antinomianism.

A better alternative than either of these is Biblical (Puritan) Christianity.

Puritanism: Alive and Well

Sometimes, in ignorance, people mistakenly think that the Puritans failed, or that their movement has ceased. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Puritans are alive and well in the world today—and they always will be, by the grace of God.

Do you need proof? Have you ever heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith? If so, did you know that this was the Puritans’ greatest doctrinal bequeathment to the world?

Everything that is enjoyed in the western world (at least), has a direct connection to the influence of the Puritans. (This includes everything from good beer, to republican democracy.)

The Puritans are largely disparaged, not by those who know what they are talking about, as much as by those who wish to replace their influence with something else. The extremes of both theonomy and antinomianism are sad and unworthy substitutes. The better history books will never mention them in the same breath with the esteemed Puritans.

Did Jesus fail, because He died on a cross? No. Did the Puritans fail, because they were ejected from their pulpits (in 1662)? No.

As Christ is alive and well today—so are the Puritans, who love their Savior, and are willing to suffer and celebrate with Him.

The faithful church a “Cult”?

Some professing Christians believe that any church that has the audacity to discipline them, is a “cult.” “How dare they think they have the right to deal with my sin and rebellion!,” they would protest.

But, the truth is, better churches have always sought to honor their Master Jesus by exercising church discipline. As a matter of fact, it is (today) a little-known fact that one of the three marks of a “true” church *is* its loving discipline of its members. (The other two are the faithful preaching of the word; and the proper administration of the sacraments.)

We do not deny that real cults actually exist. The proper definition of a cult, is the imposition on members of its organization rules and regulations not insisted on by God Himself.

Therefore, you are closer to a cult, when you are part of a church that prohibits its congregation from drinking alcoholic beverages (to use an obvious example). But, you are *not* involved in a cult, if the leadership of the church insists, based upon the teaching of the word of God itself, that its covenanted members worship God, as a church, on the Lord’s Day.

So, do not be fooled by self-righteous, legalistic, and Pharisaic religionists who would assail the true church with all kinds of nasty labels, (such as “cult”)—when they themselves are ensnared in their own sin—with no way out—since they reject God’s only provision of His holy church. These people ought to be pitied, by God’s true saints.

The Primary Covenantal Unit

Sometimes we may hear claims that the family is the most basic, or foundational, or fundamental covenantal unit.

We have shown, in many prior posts on this site, that this is not the case.

Actually, THE most basic “covenantal unit” is Jesus Christ Himself. Consider the words of Paul, as they are taken from Gal. 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”

So, Jesus Himself, the God-Man, is the essential covenantal entity.

From Christ, and through Him, then, come the “seeds,” the children of Abraham, who also exercise faith in Jesus, just like Abraham did. These people become the Body of Christ, the church.

Families *within* the church, (viz., baptized, covenanted members of the local church), then constitute a subset of the church—and they are, indeed, a legitimate “covenantal unit.”

But, this special status is not due to their being a family. The earth is full of families who have no love for Christ, His gospel, or His church. Their standing as a redeemed sub-community is based on their being in the Redeemer; and this is demonstrated in their faithfulness to His church.

A Defense of the Ministry

The Christian church’s pastoral ministry has always been abhorred and scorned by all unregenerate people—both from within and without the church—ever since the Fall of Adam, in the Garden of Eden.

The devil is evil, but he is not stupid. He has always known that a weak ministry is the key to the wholesale destruction of all mankind. This is why he is diligent at setting up his own “pastors,” as much as he can.

God, on the other hand, has always designed His world’s (and particularly, His church’s) welfare to be directly proportioned to the extent and the effectiveness of the ministers He calls to their pulpits.

Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why the pastorate is such a difficult, and yet critically-important position.

Pray that God would continue to raise up His brand of pastors, so that they might serve His church well.

Your own spiritual well-being, and that of all future generations of Christians, depends on it.

Dumping Sacred Cows

It is hard to give up something that you thought was true, and that you basically put your trust in. God Himself knows that this is not easy for any of us.

I am a minister of the gospel. One of my responsibilities is to do whatever I can to forward the glory of God, the good of His church, and the overall happiness and welfare of all other human beings.

I am fully aware that much content of this ecclesiocentricity blog site has been difficult for some people to digest, and take to heart. I know that it challenges many fully-embraced presuppositions; and that it tends to “rock” the world of those who thought they had a safe haven, either in their homes, or in their government officials.

But, believe me when I say that my intention is for the good of the readers of this site. I know that love dictates that I seek to release you from what binds you, and keeps you from a joyful and satisfying Christian life. My desires are for your good.

If you have been able, by grace, to trash some old “sacred cows”—then bid them “adieu”; and rejoice that God has something better for you, in Jesus, as He expresses Himself to you first and foremost in His church.

Churches overstepping their bounds

Often, we hear professing Christian people complain about all the ways the government is intruding on their lives. There is some validity to much of this concern.

But it is also helpful for us to turn as wary an eye to our own faults, especially in this general area of keeping within the proper spheres of our responsibilities.

Some churches, both individual congregations and (in some cases) entire denominations, overstep their proper bounds, and call on behavior (and even beliefs) in their people that are not required by God in His word.

Take, for instance, the always hot-button issue of education. We have dealt with this topic in prior posts on this blog site. Is it proper for a church to dictate that officers (and maybe even members) must either homeschool their child(ren), or send them to covenant (private Christian) schools? I argue, “No; it is not their legitimate sphere to do this.”

Someone might object, and urge on us passages such as Deuteronomy, chapter 6; and assert that God’s teaching there demands the essence of home- or private Christian education. But, if you were to go to that chapter and read it, you would find yourself arriving at an entirely different conclusion. God is not speaking of formal education in these verses. Instead, He is insisting on something much more profound yet—namely, covenant life, fully and joyfully lived in and through the hearts of fathers, which then is communicated down to their child(ren). All of the contents of this chapter have to do with redemption (with the Exodus from Egypt being the template), and walking in atonement (with the Old Covenant church being the focus).

How many fathers who insist on homeschooling, or private Christian schooling do you know, who actually keep the spirit (or even the letter) of Deut., ch. 6? If you know a lot, you know more than I do. Could it be that their practices are in reality just their convenient excuse for not fulfilling what God actually intended there?

Again, the point of this post is this: it is dangerous to demand of people what God Himself does not require. We would naturally object to the state overstepping its bounds, if it insisted on behavior in churchmen that the Bible prohibits. On the same token, however, we should balk at the notion of churches foisting on people what God Himself does not insist on.

Compassionate Ecclesiocentricity

You have heard of President Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism.” Now, you have heard of “Compassionate Ecclesiocentricity.”

Those of us who embrace the Bible’s doctrine of the primacy of the church need to be sensitive to, and patient with those who have not yet come to this conclusion. It may take weeks, months, years, or even decades for some people to come around to this gracious and comforting theological tenet. (Some folks may never come to this deduction.)

Let us all remember that it is not perfect theology that will usher us into glory, on the last day. Instead, it is faith in, and a love for Christ; and an apprehension of His grace in the gospel’s promise of the forgiveness of sins that will do that.

Some truths are just plain hard to see, or imagine. Even our best efforts at taking some doctrines by faith sometimes just doesn’t seem to work.

The only reasons any theological points should be insisted on are for the glory of God, the extension of the church, and the good of human beings.

But some verities (truths) may be missed, without the consequence of forfeiting redemption, or glory. The Bible’s teaching of ecclesiocentricity, like many of its other dogmas, may be under-appreciated or misconstrued by those who are still legitimate heirs of heaven.

Therefore, let us be gracious, and long-suffering. God is good. He does all things well, and right. We may defend His ways and teachings, and insist on them—but it is He alone who will be the Judge of how they are handled.

The church as the Kingdom of God

The Word of God teaches that the church is the reality and essence of the Kingdom of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith—that wonderful and time-honored Puritan theological document—concurs with God, and His Scripture (with its “ecclesiocentricity”), when it says this, in WCF, Chapter 25, Article 2:

“The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: AND IS THE KINGDOM OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” [emphasis mine]

Nothing exists on earth, or in heaven, that has anything of the reality of God, or the redemption of Christ, that is not directly (or indirectly) related to Christ’s church. (The reason for this, is that Jesus Himself cannot be properly conceived of, in terms of His work, apart from His body [His church].)

So, if the family is to have any part in the Kingdom of God, it will need to come under the covenant and the blessings of the church, (initially through baptism). If the state is to have any part in the Kingdom of God, it will need to accord itself with the teachings of the ministers of the church, who bring the Word of God to bear, with regard to it (the state). And, if anything else in the world is to have any of the benefits of the Kingdom of God, it will also need, in whatever appropriate way, to align itself with the church—so that the Word of God benefits it, too.

True Christians, corporately (as the church), and individually (as citizens of the Kingdom of heaven), have the wonderful privilege of representing the King (Jesus), and spreading His gospel of grace all around the world, wherever the extent of their influence reaches.

Which comes first: the pastor, or the father?

You have heard of the age-old question: Which comes first: the chicken, or the egg?

When it comes to the restoration of godliness and order in society, culture, the church, and the family—the question is, Which comes first: the pastor, or the father?

Family-, or home-based philosophies argue from the grassroots, up. They claim that the father comes first; and that, through his resurgence as a leader, servant, and role model in the home, the rest of culture (at all levels) will be transformed.

The church-based model, adhered to here on this blog site, argues quite differently. We say that the pastor comes first. We are sure that the father has no hope of rising from the ashes, without the primary influence of the ministers (and ruling elders) in the church.

The reasons for this latter position are largely elucidated throughout prior posts on this site—(including the fact that God's blessings always come down from above first; and not from below). But suffice it here to say, that this church-based approach has always been God’s program, from the very beginning of creation, all the way to the end of the world.

A classic biblical expression of God’s ways is found in Titus, chapter 2—where the apostle starts off with the minister, called by God, teaching the various people, differentiated by gender and age, the ways of God.

One might wonder: “What difference does it make? You’re both hoping to achieve the same goal, viz. the establishment of God’s glory on the earth—so why make an issue of the distinction?”

The reason: because unless God’s model is ultimately followed—every other alternative will undoubtedly fail. No amount of passion, energy, or desire will make up for the want of God’s design.

So, what is the practical answer to all of this? Let us raise up good and godly pastors and elders. They will then teach and train, disciple and be models for the fathers who are faithful in the church.

Ecclesiocentricity’s Debt to Error

Heresy has served the church and the world very well. God has used it, to goad believers into searching into, and formulating good and orthodox doctrine. One classic example of this is Arianism. Had it not been for this error, would we ever have come to the solid conclusion that Jesus Christ really is both God and Man?

The doctrine that the church is God's ultimate community on earth, (and His only community in heaven), might have been largely ignored and uninvestigated, had it not been for the recent emergence of the cult of the home. Radical patriarchalism, and its ancillaries, the exclusivity of the homeschool, and the abhorrence of ecclesiastical and magisterial authority, has propelled the movement we here refer to as "ecclesiocentricity."

Let us find reason to marvel at God's goodness, wisdom, and love. Let us also remember that everything that happens, even in the sovereignly-controlled universe the Lord God governs, is brought about by means, or precedents. Sometimes God allows very negative realities to exist, so as to later foster something much better--through the exposing of error, and the forwarding of a much more biblical alternative.

The Generic Fallacy

The Generic Fallacy, the ascribing to the whole what may be the case with some of the part (or parts), is one that all Christians ought to strive to avoid, by the grace of God.

Take anything good, and you can practically destroy it, by citing some foolish abuse of it, by someone who (allegedly, at least) holds to that good thing.

Ecclesiocentricity, the simple doctrine that Christ has chosen to exalt Himself, first and foremost, in His church, can be slandered, by the supposition that there may be some wayward souls who wish to have “church” without Jesus.

We’ve talked about schooling a bit in these various posts. One might wrongly condemn public education, because some who avail themselves of it are atheists, or proponents of Darwinian evolution.

On the other hand, someone might wrongly besmear homeschooling, on the basis that some homeschoolers despise Christ and stand aloof from His church.

But, are any of these reasons to condemn the whole, based on the naughtiness of some of the parts? Certainly not.

Let us continue to seek to be fair-minded and level-headed, all for the glory of God.

Ecclesiocentricity’s Universal Appeal

I am grateful for the kind and appreciative comments I have received, concerning the contents of this Ecclesiocentricity blog site. Folks from near and far, both of the clergy and the laity, have been educated and influenced through these posts—and, for this, I am thankful to God, and give Him all the glory.

Some people have expressed initial concern about what they perceived to be areas of disagreement about some of the blog entries. But, when these things have actually been discussed and talked-about, it was clear that there was no real substantial difference between our positions after all.

With this in mind, I will lay-out some of the basic tenets of Ecclesiocentricity; and let us all glory in God’s goodness, in that we all agree on them.

1) That Jesus Christ is our only hope—the only redemptive Mediator between God and man.

2) That the church is important to God. He values it as the highest object of His love. God established the church first; and it is His only permanent society.

3) That the church has priority over the other good, God-given institutions, (namely, the family and the state)—and that the church is to serve them, by bringing Christ’s virtue into their realms.

4) That there are clear boundaries for these three institutions, (church, state, and family)—and that these borders are not to be trespassed. None of these three entities are to be “united,” organically.

5) That an example of “4” above would be education. This is a family’s prerogative. No church (or state) court has authority to dictate how education is to be done. No system: public, private, or homeschool, is to be set up as absolute.

6) That the Lord’s Day is important, and that the church’s officers are to call the people of God to worship, in corporate covenant community, on that day.

7) That discipleship begins in the church, and is to be taken everywhere else—wherever believers live and work.

8) That the church officers are to bring to the people of God His “ordinances,” or means of grace, viz. preaching, the sacraments, and discipline. These cannot be administered, except through the church.

There are certainly many other areas of agreement—but this is a good start.

Let us all learn to make our life-decisions, not on the basis of emotion, fear, or man-pleasing—but on the God-honoring ground of faith and love, as we all mature more and more into the image of Christ.

Saving Children from God

Sometimes professing Christians make decisions, that would make it appear that they are seeking to protect their children from God. For instance, when one withholds a child from the church’s preaching and teaching ministry—for fear that it conflicts with one’s own positions—this is an example, in my opinion, of “saving children from God.”

Having said this, I do not deny that much of what is passed off as “clergy” in the world today, is not worthy of the name, nor of the high office and privileges (that pertain to it). Parents must be careful about their choice of a church family.

But, too often, parents believe that they themselves are stronger than God’s true ministers (and elders), and that they are less likely to cause their children grief, abuse, and trouble than the church officers (would). But this position, though understandable, is highly unwise. What guarantee is there, that a parent will be more noble toward their children, than God’s legitimate church officers would be?

Given the state of the world (and much of the church) today, it is perfectly comprehensible why parents would be leery of everyone—family, neighbor, friend, clergy, police, teacher, et. al. But it is not prudent to imagine oneself to be better than others. In the final analysis, we are all required to trust God, or to go through life “playing God”—with absolutely no hopes of being able to do the job.

Believers are wisest, when they give their children to God. And there is no way to do this outside of the vital ministry of the local church. To withhold a child from the church, is to practically guarantee his or her failure and apostasy.

Women's Head Coverings in church

In 1 Corinthians 11, we read of women covering their heads, in church. They did this to disguise the fact that they were women. In the era before the completion of the canon of Scripture, prophecy was yet forthcoming, to be codified (finally) in what would later become the completed New Testament.

Women were to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:35b)—in the sense that they were not to be “praying and prophesying,” a technical term used in 1 Corinthians, for tongues and interpretation of (tongues).

If a woman absolutely felt compelled to “pray or prophesy,” (viz. pray in tongues in church, [or interpret tongues])—then she was to do so with her head covered.

This was to be done, “Because of the angels,” (1 Cor. 11:10). Many good interpreters of this verse understand the “angels” not to be celestial beings, but the pastors (and perhaps also ruling elders) in the churches.

At any rate, the requirement for head coverings of women “praying or prophesying” ended, when the canon of Scripture was closed.

For a fuller account of this 1 Cor. 11 passage, go to: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm This is the best handling of this text that I have ever come across.

Sunday as "Family Day"?

Over lunch with a fellow minister, he stated that there is a movement afoot today that wishes to conceive of Sunday as "Family Day," (viz. as a special day for families to do things together, as a family). This pastor rightly bemoaned the fact that this perspective loses sight of the reality of Sunday as The Lord's Day.

My minister friend is exactly right. God never suspended His day, so that it may be used for any other purposes.

Still, let us look at this issue in a little bit more detail. *Where* is the problem with the "Sunday-as-Family-Day"-approach? The error presents itself when the Sabbath worship of God is spurned, in favor of doing something together, as a family, at home (or wherever), *instead* of attending to God's ordinances, in His church. One may *properly* conceive of Sunday as a "Family Day," if one looks to the church family first; and then at the nuclear family second. As Thomas Watson says, it is sin to sit at home and read your bible, while the word is being broken in church.

The great irony of all this, is that those who best love their families are careful to give God His due, especially on Sunday. When this is done, the family prospers and flourishes, (at least in the long run). When families are robbed of God, it doesn't much matter what else you give them, (time, or otherwise)--you've deprived them of their life source.

Does someone want a "Family Day"? Fine. You've got six days to choose from. But don't pretend you're doing your family any favors by depriving them of Christ, His church, His ordinances, or His Sabbath Day.

The church's mediatorial work

Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between a holy God, and sinful man. Here are the words of 1 Tim. 2:5: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

No individual Christian has access to God in and through anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Because of this, there is now, in the New Covenant church era, no such thing as mediatorial priests (who, by their actions, can expunge sin). This role has forever been assumed by the incarnate and risen Christ.

There *is* a continuing priesthood on earth, however. But it is one made up of all the redeemed, and it is to offer—not sacrifices for sin (which would never avail)—but sacrifices of praise, (cf. Heb. 13:15). This is the basis of the Reformation ideal of the “Priesthood of all believers.”

So, in light of all this, is there *any* mediatorial role or function for any body of humans on earth, since the resurrection of Jesus? For instance, does the husband have a mediatorial function for his wife, in terms of her relationship with God? The answer to this question is, “No.” (This, by the way, is why all individuals admitted to communicant status in the church are to take their own vows.)

How about the church? Does it have any “mediatorial” role at all, in the lives of believers? The answer to this question is, “Yes.” God has deigned (condescended) to delegate and disperse on earth His means of grace through His ministers and elders (and deacons) in the church. This is why He gives these people to His body—so as to build them up in their holy faith, (cf. Eph. 4:11 ff.).

This is why they (alone) are to preach the word to the faithful flock, why they (alone) are to administer the sacraments, and why they (alone) are to handle church discipline. The church officers’ mediatorial work is not redemptive, but it is very much ministerial.

It is not ordinarily possible for any human being to be saved aside from this ministerial assistance—in that this is the way the Redeemer has chosen to distribute His enabling and persevering graces and blessings.

Should the church dictate education?

Here’s another question for you: “Is it ever right for a church elder board to dictate (or insist upon) how a family is to educate their child(ren)?”

The answer to this query is, “No.” Issues of this sort are to be left up to the family. This is why it is wrong for some sessions to limit the membership of an elder board to those (only) who refuse to send their children to public schools. The elders have no right to do this.

It is intriguing to me personally, that many people who fear that the government, or the church will come in and take their children away from them, and will insist in educating them in some other form than the family has chosen—are the very ones, on the other hand, who are quick to draw the conclusion that state (and sometimes even private school education) is unacceptable, (and that responsible Christians would never do this).

You cannot have it both ways. Fierceness of conviction, (which sometimes leads to idolatry), cannot be translated into uniformity of practice among others. You are not permitted to do to others, what you fear others will do to you, (cf. Matt. 7:12).

So, elder boards are wise to leave issues of these sorts to the discretion of the families under their spiritual jurisdiction.

Why Not “Christocentricity”?

Someone might inquire: “Why not talk about ‘Christocentricity,’ (Christ-centeredness), rather than ‘Ecclesiocentricity’?”

This is a good question. Of course, we are aiming here, on this blogsite, to fully promote the glory, cause, and Kingship of Jesus. All of life is to be “Christocentric.”

But the problem with this term (“Christocentricity”), when the rubber meets the road (in the Christian life), is that it loses its meaning, and pungency. The reason for this, is that everyone who would even remotely consider himself “Christian,” in terms of his religious passion and involvement, would also employ it. Virtually every Christian church and para-church ministry would immediately claim to be “Christocentric.” This would be true of everyone, from snake-handlers, to the highest forms of Roman Catholicism.

The issue, really, is that of *authority*. Where will Christ seat His rule, *primarily*, with regard to the issues of faith and life, here on earth? That query, is truly the crux of the matter.

The Reformed faith has always, traditionally, followed the old path here—even that traversed by the Roman Catholics—in seating the authority of Jesus, on earth, first and foremost, in the church. (And it has used the Bible to come to this conclusion.)

Historically, the alternate locus of Christ’s rule has (sometimes) been the state, as exemplified by the king, for instance, of England, (as King Henry VIII, for example, made himself the head of the church there).

In recent memory, some have sought to place the reign of Christ on earth, in the home, or family—with the father being, in actual fact, the final arbiter of the Messiah’s dealings in this life.

One might ask: “Well, isn’t the solution to the authority question to be answered by, ‘It’s to be finally found in the Bible’?” Our response to this question, is undeniably, “Yes,” (but with a caveat). The Bible itself *delegates* authority. Its own specific mandates spell out that the home, the state, and the church are all to have authority. But among these three, the *greatest* is the church. This is the primary argument and emphasis of this entire blogsite. (The reasons for this may be found throughout, especially in some of the earlier postings.)

It is interesting to consider that the alternatives to church-centeredness, (which are, when its all said and done, either the state, or the home), often appeal to the Scripture for the justification of the primacy of the king, or the father. And though no responsible Christian would deny that Jesus is concerned about the earthly king (and his domain), and the family’s father (and his realm)—one would be much misled to believe that these two spheres are the *principal* seat of Jesus’ reign on earth. Clearly, and without any doubt, the Scripture itself teaches the primacy of the church, even over the state and the home.

But this supremacy is never to be abused, or to be used to disrupt either the state or the family. Instead, it is to instruct, serve, and bless them, in the ways they should go.

Puritan Christianity

Puritan Christianity is the best expression of the true faith. It is a masculine creed—one that the world cannot help but take notice of. It is not a harmless, innocuous, limp-wristed religion. Instead, it is a hearty, full-bodied, and “dangerous” manifestation of genuine belief in the existence of God, and of the power of the gospel.

Puritan Christianity is not afraid to enjoy beer, nor baseball, (nor guns). It says, “Thank-you” to God, for ALL of His tender mercies—no matter what they might be.

Puritan Christianity is also the best means of evangelizing the world. When people see the saints living like those who enjoy themselves, basking in the love of God—others are attracted to this.

The Puritans’ appreciation for the truth also has the savory effect of exposing and discouraging all phony forms of Christianity, and the absurdities that flow from them.

Hey, life down here is short. If you are a believer, you may as well live in the fullness of what God has provided you, in Jesus. The Puritan Westminster divines, who penned the great Confession and the Catechisms, understood this. So should we.