Capital Election Illustration

So I've been working through Romans 15, where Paul resumes his discussion about how the Jews and Gentiles are together members of the body of Christ, and how it was always God's plan to do this, and I realized it has a seriously blunted emotional impact on me.
As a modern Gentile I don't understand how profound this is, particularly when I compare my response to Acts 11. But then it came to me in the car yesterday that I do understand the emotional force.

To prove God had always intended to bring the Gentiles to salvation Paul quotes 2 Samuel 22:50, Deuteronomy 32:43(or Psalm 18:49), Psalm 117:1, and Isaiah 42:2
To this list I added 1 Chronicles 16:3, Psalm 138:4-5, Psalm 67:3-4a, 5, Isaiah 61:11b. Not a big list. Not a lot of verses.Why? Because I think there is a glory in keeping this concept hidden, there is a punch that comes when you find out the Gentiles get salvation too.

We are all familiar with how little the Jews liked the Gentiles, and how reluctant Jonah was to preach to Nineveh, we just need to go to the next step.

The Gentiles are not chosen. They were not chosen to receive the law, the patriarchs, the covenant, the promises, the sacrifices- nothing. They don't get anything. They are quite literally, the non-elect.
And then all the sudden they are loved by God.

Imagine how we would feel if we found out God was giving eternal life to the non-elect. It would be a very difficult thing to swallow, it would rip apart and ruin all of our categories and theology.We trumpet the TULIP and declare that salvation was procured for the elect only. Atonement for the elect! But take the case of the Gentiles and realize that God is in the habit of being bigger than we think He is, and He saves more than we thought He would. God saves the non-elect.

Yes I know, logically speaking non-elect can't be saved, they are non-elect, the analogy is ultimately broken, but it's still profound, and a very close. God saves the non-elect just because that's the kind of God He is, gracious and merciful, compassionate and loving, forgiving and faithful. Saving the Gentiles is about as close as we can come to that, that overwhelming, barrier shattering, expectation ruining love of God.

We don't worship Mary

Today I was listening to a Catholic sermon (they exist!) on EWTN from some 70 year old (or older) priest (I'm guessing) who is still full of life, as he is preaching on the person of Mary. He opened with the statement that Mary is very misunderstood by protestants, they are always saying we worship her, which is just wrong and dumb. We honor her. Jesus after all honored her, should we not emulate Him? Mary isn't God, she's a human.
So now I'm feeling pretty humbled. Man, I guess I've got it wrong. Maybe them Catholics don't worship her after all and all that Protestant stuff I've learned is just junk. I was on my heels.
Then his sermon went on.
Let's face it church, there has only been one perfect person, one masterpiece...(Here I'm thinking, I agree with this too, Jesus is the greatest of all, man this guy is on a roll) and that person is Mary.
(Nope. Didn't get it wrong.)
We as Christians are a family are we not? The Father, the Son is our brother, and of course every family needs a mother... Mary! Mary was married to the Holy Spirit, so that she could bear His child Jesus. Let me say that again, God plus Mary means Jesus. She was perfect, full of glory, without original sin for otherwise how would she be a fitting vessel for Jesus? (this is really coming off the wheels here.) Immaculately conceived! (Okay that's it off this goes, the blasphemy has gone on long enough.)

Mary was under no notion that she was without sin and perfect in all ways. Look at Luke 1:48 "For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant;" does not sound like "For I am a fitting vessel indeed."
Jesus called her 'woman' not 'mother' and there was no notion that Mary was anything but a devoted and ordinary, faithful teenage girl who was called by God to extraordinary things.
So the Protestants are right, although the Catholics use the language of "we don't worship her" what they do in practice is to assign her all the attributes due God alone: omniscience to hear all prayers, sinlessness, perfection, etc and insist that that's not diminishing God's glory.
You can call it 'honor' rather than 'worship' just as you can call 'black' as 'white.' But it doesn't change anything.

Matt 9: and 1 Chron 13

1 Chron 13:9-10 is a pretty well known story where Uzzah touches the holy vessel of God and dies, because he's an unclean sinful man.
In studying the account of the woman who bled in Matthew 9:20-22 I have become convinced that it is the counterbalance to this story in Chronicles. In the original vessel of God you touched it and you died, because it was there for judgment, as a testament of the power of the law. Indeed, it contained the tablets of condemnation, with the 10 commandments on them as a perpetual reminder of their sinfulness and need for a law. The law brought death.
But when Christ comes God's holy presence is no longer a thing to be feared, for God is the person to run to. In the new covenant Jesus is the vessel of God that brings healing and joy to the people, to everyone who builds their house on the rock. So when she touched Him, instead of dying, she is cleansed. Uzzah tried to help God and dies, but in the gospels God helps her and she lives.
It's marvelous how much greater the same idea is in the New Testament, how grace transforms the simple notion of touch from death to life.

Matthew's focus

Matthew seems to be different than the other gospels, it's divided into five teaching segments, which are followed by the historical narrative that augments this teaching.
And I've noticed something about this narrative- it's very matter of fact. These aren't stories like in Mark or Luke which gives you an insight into who the characters are, and how they feel, and why they act like they do, those small details that really enrich a story are completely absent from Matthews account. Like how the disciples took a fleet of boats when Jesus calmed the storm. Or how there were 2000 pigs. You know, the little things. It seems rather like Matthew just drops those elements to more fully expose the Mastery of Jesus over things. I can't think of a better word than mastery right now, so I'll use that to summarize the stories after the sermon on the mount.
Jesus demonstrates mastery over disease. Matt 8:1-4
Mastery over paralysis. Matt 8:5-13
Mastery over sickness. Matt 8:14-16
Mastery over elements. Matt 8:24-27
Mastery over demons. Matt 8:28-34
Mastery over sin. Matt 9:1-8
Mastery over men. Matt 9:9
Mastery over death Matt 9:23-26
Mastery over the eyes Matt 9:28-29
Mastery over the tongue Matt 9:32-33

Update 3/13. I'll do a 31st birthday update here. Awhile back I talked with a younger version of my dad, Scott the liberal Church of Christer, who held up Matt 9:18 as proof of the errancy of Scripture. I've a better answer to his problem in understanding why Matthew just says: she was dead and Luke and Mark have the full account.
Matthew isn't about stories, nor how it impacted people, nor how they thought about Him, nor any such thing. It's about showing the might, power, authority, of Jesus and necessity of faith in Him. Matthew doesn't need to tell us she's sick, then word comes she dies, nor about how her father feels about her. All he's interested in is telling us that Jesus raised her from the dead because He's God. That doesn't make the accounts set against each other, it just means Matthew has a purpose and he's sticking to it. Looking at the rest of the stories and how they have been stripped of trappings I see it more clearly now than ever.

Assurance is the inverse of Scripture

I'm preparing to speak at the junior high AWANA club this Wednesday night on the given topic of:

1. Can a born again Christian lose their salvation?
2. How do I know if I'm born again?

Goodness, with so many verses that speak to this where do I start? Probably where I normally do, with the confessions, they are a good place usually. And lo, look at question one:

Q. What is your only comfort in life and in death?

 
A. That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.
He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.

Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life
and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Now the bolded part of the answer comes out of Romans 14:7-8 - "For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's."
In context Paul is talking about how we should not judge one another, because we are owned by Christ. Our life is not ours, therefore since we are lowly, we have no position to judge. But the Heidelberg Catechism takes it and turns it 180 degrees from the thrust of the text. You are not yours, you therefore have no claim, nor power, you are captive. Heidelberg says, you are not your own, you have every claim, all the power, and all the life.
The logical implication of 'you are not you own' is that you are secure in Him.
It seems like no matter which piece of text you pick up there is that doctrine staring at you. Even when it looks like the opposite meaning.