Magyar Egyház, 1956 (35. évfolyam, 1-11. szám)

1956-05-01 / 5. szám

12

MAGYAR EGYHÁZ

THE HEIDELBERG CATECHISM

REV. CHARLES KRAHE

Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved.”

Heidelberg Catechism, Question 29. Why is the Son of God called Jesus, that is, a Savior? Answer. Because He saveth us, and deliverth us from our sins; and likewise, because we ought not to seek, neither can find salvation in any other.

Question 30. Do such, then, believe in Jesus the only Savior, who seek their salvation and happiness of saints, of themselves, or any where else? Answer. They do not; for though they boast of Him in words, yet in deeds they deny Jesus, the only Deliverer and Savior; for one of these two things must be true, that either Jesus is not a complete Savior, or that they who by a true faith receive this Savior must find all things in Him necessary to their salvation.

We pause now, in our study of the Apostolic Creed, at the NAME OF JESUS. In the ancient church it was customary for the people to bow their heads every time the name JESUS was mentioned. Like many customs which had a good intention, this one, too, was abused, and became merely a form without meaning. In the reverence for the holy name of our Savior has not disappeared: we, who love Him and acknowledge Him as our Lord, bow our hearts in sincere adoration at the sound of this, the best of all names, JESUS.

“How sweet the name of Jesus sounds In a believer’s ear!

It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds,

And drives away his fear.

It makes the wounded spirit whole,

And calms the troubled breast;

’Tis manna to the hungry soul,

And to the weary rest.”

John Newton, 1779.

The Heidelberg Catechism, in its treatment of the name Jesus, brings out a somewhat different idea than that of loving reverence alone, however. It emphasizes the MEANING of this name — JESUS means SAVIOR — and the fact that He is our ONLY Savior. “He SAVETH us,” it declares, and “we ought not to seek, neither can we find salvation in ANY OTHER.”

Now the name Jesus, the proper given name of Mary’s Son, is a Hebrew name. The angel Gabriel told Mary that this was to be her son’s name when he announced that she would bear a child of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:31), “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” Now Jesus is the Greek form (since the New Testament was originally written in Greek) of the well-known Hebrew name Joshua, which is, in turn, derived from the Hebrew verb ya-sha’, to save. So, literally, in Hebrew, the name Joshua or Jesus, which was given to the Son of Mary, means Savior, and suggested to all His mission as the Savior of the world.

This is all easy enough to understand. The hard part comes when our catechism, practically quoting the passage in Acts 4 which serves as our Scripture text, declares that this Jesus, the son of a woman, “whom,” Peter says to his audience in the context, “you crucified, whom God raised from the dead,” is the only Savior. “We ought not to seek, neither can we find salvation in any other.” This is the hard part of the story, because it implies a certain exclusiveness and narrowness which is quite contrary to our modern views, which call instead for inclusiveness and tolerance of all religious beliefs.

Christians must learn, and learn well, to distinguish between what is true and what is false in the modem, so-called “tolerant” view of religious beliefs. I fear that failure to so distinguish is one of the great faults of the revival of religious interest which is apparent in the western world today. Beneficial as this renewed interest in spiritual matters may be, it would be sad indeed if it should come to naught because of our inability, or rather our unwillingness to “try the spirits, whether they be of God” (1 John 4:1).

Do not misunderstand this! I am not advocating religious strife. Indeed, nothing could be LESS beneficial to the cause of Jesus, our only Savior, than this. History proves this abundantly. The religious wars of the past have never been a source of good to Christians. The dominion of Jesus cannot be extended by force, or by any worldly means. We cannot bring others to an acceptance of Jesus as their one Savior and Lord by pressure, hatred, or bitterness. We must renounce these means once and for all. Our attitude towards our fellow human beings must always be one love, no matter what they think of us or of our beliefs. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). “Live peaceable with all,” advises Paul (Romans 12:18). In this respect, the modem idea of toleration of all creeds and races is correct and in accordance with the best Christian teaching. We must hold to it, no matter how difficult it may prove to be.

BUT — and this is a big BUT — there is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between LOVING those who do not believe in Jesus as their only Savior and living peaceably with them, and APPROVING of their religious beliefs as “good enough” for them, if only they believe them and live by them. It is to this latter attitude that Christianity, at its truest, must say NO. “There is salvation in no one else” than in Jesus, the one Savior of men.

The question is frequently asked at this point in the discussion, Do you then condemn all who do not believe in Jesus as their only Savior to hell? There is but one way to answer this question. WE do not condemn anyone to hell. God has appointed Christ to be the Judge of all men, and we do not dare to usurp His office. We do not know what Christ, the righteous Judge, has in mind for those who do know Him as their Savior. He would be WITHIN HIS RIGHTS if He chose to condemn them, for no man anywhere is good enough to plead “not guilty” before Him. “If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?”