What do you think?
Rate this book
I Belong to God: A Catechism for Covenant Children
The real heart of catechesis is to form in our children a covenantal identity, a sense of belonging to God and to the church. Our children need to be taught who they are in Christ so they can live faithfully in the church, family, and world. We must train our children in such a way that their whole lives will be a grand Amen to their baptisms.
This handy little book is a great resource for the home, Sunday School, or Christian School.
This handy little book is a great resource for the home, Sunday School, or Christian School.
- GenresChristianityTheology
Unknown Binding
2 people are currently reading
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 30, 2020
I thought this was a very good catechism. It's coming from the perspective that the child is baptized and considered a covenant member and that assumption is very integrated into the questions and answers. You probably couldn't use this unless you're paedobaptist. You also probably wouldn't use it if you're not in the CREC since he affirms paedocommunion. The feel of the Catechism is great. It's deeply personal as it is written for the covenant member to learn more about the covenant. It's also rather theological, which surprised and delighted me. It doesn't go so far that kids wouldn't understand it, though some of the later answers get longer. Since Lusk is also tied up in the FV controversy and he leans toward Baptismal Regeneration, I wanted to read this in comparison to another children's catechism. The only one I have is from Terry Johnson's Family Worship book which is written by Joseph Engles and based it off of the WSC.
First off, Johnson's catechism is better for younger children. All the answers are short and snappy and easy to remember. Lusk's gets longer in spots but I think they're better as they get deeper and use actual scriptural language, Johnson's is as simplified as possible.
Lusk's is shorter question-wise, coming is at 119 questions while Johnson's was 145. Even though this is the case, Lusk deals with more topics. One of the reasons for this is because Lusk condenses what Johnson has as several questions into just one or two. For example, Johnson takes 8 questions to describe Christ's offices while Lusk only takes 1. Lusk also condenses the 10 commandments into a few questions. Johnson uses 32 questions on the 10 commandments. This is mostly to keep them short while Lusk has longer answers. I also think that Lusk did better here. Using the 10th commandment as an example (don't covet), Johnson's only says "to be content with what you have" while Lusk adds "and rejoice in their prosperity". Lusk also didn't develop the Lord's Prayer like most catechisms do. He only hand one question on it and another on prayer itself. Because Lusk condensed a lot of things(I don't think this is necessarily for the worst), he was able to add other questions that Johnson's didn't include. The biggest inclusion was Liturgy, where he described biblical principles of worship and a proper order of worship based off of the Levitical sacrifices. He also spent more time on developing the OT covenant and NT covenant.
An interesting difference between the two came in the choice of the version of the 10 commandments to use. Johnson used the Exodus version which ties the Sabbath to Creation. Whereas Lusk uses the Deuteronomy version which ties the Sabbath to their deliverance from Egypt. This, I think, makes a big difference when later explaining the change of the Lord's Day to Sunday, that this is the day Christ rose and delivered us out of the Old (Egypt) and brought us into the New (Sinai/Promised Land). It is also more closely tied to a covenantal perspective, which is the heart of this catechism. You can't escape the message that "you are in this covenant".
Lusk, hands down, did better on the sacraments. The Johnson answers were too simplistic and lost a lot of meaning. For example, "Why are infants baptized?"
J: Because they have a sinful nature and need a Savior.
L: Because God chooses to love the children of his people and includes them in his Covenant.
He also did better on the Lord's supper. I'm honestly rather disappointed in the Johnson version here. He didn't have "being baptized" as a requirement to taking the Lord's Supper. That's bad theology friend.
I also liked that Lusk included a caution to covenant breakers. I think it's a good inclusion, though some might think it's a "scare tactic", it's good to have a strong warning of apostasy.
My biggest concern with Lusk was on his views of baptism and assurance, but I was glad to see that they were quite solid. I would recommend this catechism. I think it would be more difficult for younger children initially, but I think they'll catch on faster than you'd think and you can always use the larger ones as teaching lessons. I didn't mind that he didn't spend as much time breaking down the 10 commandments or the Lord's prayer, I think those are better left as a separate exposition in family worship. Overall, very good. I look forward to teaching it to my children.
First off, Johnson's catechism is better for younger children. All the answers are short and snappy and easy to remember. Lusk's gets longer in spots but I think they're better as they get deeper and use actual scriptural language, Johnson's is as simplified as possible.
Lusk's is shorter question-wise, coming is at 119 questions while Johnson's was 145. Even though this is the case, Lusk deals with more topics. One of the reasons for this is because Lusk condenses what Johnson has as several questions into just one or two. For example, Johnson takes 8 questions to describe Christ's offices while Lusk only takes 1. Lusk also condenses the 10 commandments into a few questions. Johnson uses 32 questions on the 10 commandments. This is mostly to keep them short while Lusk has longer answers. I also think that Lusk did better here. Using the 10th commandment as an example (don't covet), Johnson's only says "to be content with what you have" while Lusk adds "and rejoice in their prosperity". Lusk also didn't develop the Lord's Prayer like most catechisms do. He only hand one question on it and another on prayer itself. Because Lusk condensed a lot of things(I don't think this is necessarily for the worst), he was able to add other questions that Johnson's didn't include. The biggest inclusion was Liturgy, where he described biblical principles of worship and a proper order of worship based off of the Levitical sacrifices. He also spent more time on developing the OT covenant and NT covenant.
An interesting difference between the two came in the choice of the version of the 10 commandments to use. Johnson used the Exodus version which ties the Sabbath to Creation. Whereas Lusk uses the Deuteronomy version which ties the Sabbath to their deliverance from Egypt. This, I think, makes a big difference when later explaining the change of the Lord's Day to Sunday, that this is the day Christ rose and delivered us out of the Old (Egypt) and brought us into the New (Sinai/Promised Land). It is also more closely tied to a covenantal perspective, which is the heart of this catechism. You can't escape the message that "you are in this covenant".
Lusk, hands down, did better on the sacraments. The Johnson answers were too simplistic and lost a lot of meaning. For example, "Why are infants baptized?"
J: Because they have a sinful nature and need a Savior.
L: Because God chooses to love the children of his people and includes them in his Covenant.
He also did better on the Lord's supper. I'm honestly rather disappointed in the Johnson version here. He didn't have "being baptized" as a requirement to taking the Lord's Supper. That's bad theology friend.
I also liked that Lusk included a caution to covenant breakers. I think it's a good inclusion, though some might think it's a "scare tactic", it's good to have a strong warning of apostasy.
My biggest concern with Lusk was on his views of baptism and assurance, but I was glad to see that they were quite solid. I would recommend this catechism. I think it would be more difficult for younger children initially, but I think they'll catch on faster than you'd think and you can always use the larger ones as teaching lessons. I didn't mind that he didn't spend as much time breaking down the 10 commandments or the Lord's prayer, I think those are better left as a separate exposition in family worship. Overall, very good. I look forward to teaching it to my children.
April 18, 2021
Muito bom!
January 1, 2024
Makes a mockery of the New Testament (and the Old, come to think of it).
“We are not to try to convert our baptized children; rather, we teach them to persevere in the faith that they have already received in baptism . . . Let us treat our baptized children as the Christians that they are, as elect, as forgiven, as Spirit-indwelt.”
Speaking of infant baptism: “In baptism they were incorporated into Christ’s body, inducted into the royal priesthood of the church, and initiated into the new creation.”
Speaking of the structure of the catechism: “The child’s present standing in the kingdom is never called into question. Its message is clear: God has saved you; now be loyal to him.”
“God made me his child in baptism.”
“We are not to try to convert our baptized children; rather, we teach them to persevere in the faith that they have already received in baptism . . . Let us treat our baptized children as the Christians that they are, as elect, as forgiven, as Spirit-indwelt.”
Speaking of infant baptism: “In baptism they were incorporated into Christ’s body, inducted into the royal priesthood of the church, and initiated into the new creation.”
Speaking of the structure of the catechism: “The child’s present standing in the kingdom is never called into question. Its message is clear: God has saved you; now be loyal to him.”
“God made me his child in baptism.”
June 29, 2021
I read this having just gone through the Westminster Shorter Cathechism and was thoroughly surprised at the answers to the questions. In many respects it has a similar structure to that of the Westminster approach, but in other ways it models the Heidelburgh Cathechism. Scripture proofs would have been appreciated but overall, not bad. I try to read the cathechisms at least once a month and doing so helps me to get an understanding of Christian doctrine. I think this is a helpful tool that differs in approach to the classic cathechisms.
March 20, 2023
This is one of the best catechisms I've come across. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews