← Back to sermon library

Well, welcome to Ask Free Grace Baptist Church, or Ask FGBC as we call it. And so I'm Wim Kirchhoff from Free Grace Baptist Church here in Chilliwack, and I'm joined today by Pastor Jim Butler and Cam Porter from our church. So, welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah, so for those new to Ask Free Grace, this is where we answer questions submitted by you, our listeners, our church family, and others. We tackle questions around theology, practical Christian living, issues facing believers today, and all from a confessional Reformed Baptist perspective, rooted in Scripture and our 1689 London Baptist Confession.

So if you're not already subscribed on Surmoner or YouTube, I recommend that, so you can be notified when those come out. Also through the website or a link in this video, you'll see how to subscribe to our newsletter on the website, and we send those out as well. So it is to listen to what interests you, but also share it with other friends or family who might benefit.

So Dave, today we've got lots of great questions lined up, covering everything from baptism and reading the Bible for the first time, and deeper theology, theological matters like federal vision and Bacsterianism, order of salvation, faith. And before we get into that, we want to spend a few minutes talking about our upcoming conference in April. April 10 and 11 here in Chilliwack. It's called Confessing the Faith.

So Cam, let's just start with that. What's the purpose of the conference? Why did we start this?

Yeah, well, I think maybe speaking more largely and generally, the conference is designed, hopefully, to know our God and His truth better. We want to understand historic, doctrinal, biblical, confessional Christianity. So, you know, the vision of the conference is to do just that, to improve our understanding of historical orthodoxy, the understanding of our precious Christian truth, It puts pastors into context, elders, officers of churches into contact with each other, into contact with a deeper and richer understanding of historical Christianity, the doctrines of the Bible.

What we do, the format, which will be, I think, maybe even touched on in an upcoming question, but the format is such that we're following a confession of faith, so a progression through our confession of faith. And so, having already done Chapter 1 on the doctrine of the Scriptures, having completed Chapter 2 on the doctrine of God and of the Holy Trinity, we're coming up on the doctrine of God's decree. And so, with the purpose there, it would be to understand that doctrine better, the God of that doctrine better, placing it in its historical and biblical and confessional context, and providing not only pastors and officers in churches, but also members of churches, Christians, properly speaking, providing them with an understanding of what they believe and of the God that they believe in.

Anything to add?

Usually we get professionals in a particular subject, and this year we'll have Dr. Jim Renahan, who is the president of the International Reformed Baptist Seminary, and we'll have Dr. Richard Barcelos, who's a professor at the International Reformed Baptist Seminary and a pastor in Palmdale, California. And then Pastor David Charles from Toledo, Ohio. And again, professionals in their field on the decree of God. So, Drs. Renahan and Barcelos will deal with the nuts and bolts of the confession. And then Pastor Charles will do a pastoral reflection on the decree of God, how it's to be taught, how it's to be embraced, how it's to be preached. We're trying to add that dimension to the conference, have a pastor that's working regularly in the text and with the people of God to give some reflection on a particular chapter. So just to make it, you know, a bit more application or a bit more useful in terms of just putting the doctrine into practice.

Yeah, excellent. And maybe another thing to add that I didn't mention with regards to the purpose is we also want the conference to serve the end of unity amongst Christ's churches. You know, as much as sometimes division needs to obtain by virtue of the truth, if we look historically at church councils, you know, church creeds, church confessions, that sort of a thing. But the truth is intended by God to unite as well. And we want to rally around with like-minded churches and like-minded brethren, rally around the truths that are believed amongst us, the form of sound words that we hold strongly to. So, it's a collegial spirit that is intended to be engendered by the conference as well. And I think that's important to emphasize.

Yeah, there can be some differences. I'm focusing on what unites. There can be differences on baptism and church structure. There's still so much in common. Yeah, that's right. And I guess like the name, I love the name that we came up with for it is Confessing the Faith. That's the Jude 3 reference, right? This is nothing new. This is not 20th century, 19th century, 1600s. This is back to first century, right? Yeah, that's right. For sure. Very good.

And I guess why is the topic of God's degree important at this time or all times, right? Well, I think it's directly connected to the first two chapters. You know, we have of the Holy Scriptures in chapter one, which sets forth truth concerning who God is and what God has done. And then, of course, chapter two emphasizes of God and the Holy Trinity and by virtue of His perfections. and His relation to the world or the things that He has made, it is important for us to understand the decree of God that what we face or experience in this present world is not random, it's not haphazard, it's not fate. It's not impersonal forces kind of working behind the scenes, but it is the God described and defined and delineated in chapter 2 that governs all His creatures and all their actions, that has ordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that ultimately for His glory, for the good of His people. And if the people of God get a good understanding of that, it really does provide and afford a great degree of stability. peace, comfort, and hopefully take some of the guesswork out of life, knowing that whatever our God has ordained is good, and hopefully promotes in us a more worshipful and thankful approach to our God.

Obviously, both of you have taught on the chapter many times, so we'll put a link on the website or in this video to where you can find that teaching and from the sermon audio as we regularly go through our confession and study these chapters. It's a good overview, not required for the conference, but helpful to get an overview of the chapter. Yeah.

Okay. And then, yeah, Cam, just because real quick, what's the format in terms of sessions and the schedule for the conference? Yeah. So the conference takes place over Friday and Saturday, usually beginning Friday afternoon, continuing into the evening, and then reconvening Saturday morning and finishing in the afternoon on Saturday. And the format is, Jim had already mentioned that we bring in speakers to speak on a given topic each year.

So there are certain, usually 45 minute to one hour sessions slotted for each of the speakers where they will speak on the topic, intermingled amongst breaks and treats and coffees and dinners. But the idea is to have a good format that is conducive to to understanding, to participant attention, so that we can provide the giving of solid material about our confession of faith, about the truth of the Bible, in a format that's easily received and easily understood.

And some of the subject matter is going to be I don't know if the proper word to use is difficult, but it's going to be heavy in the sense that we're not dealing with, you know, the latest flavor of Skittles or potato chips. We're dealing with the truth of the living and true God. And so the content is intended to be rich. It's intended to be accurate, to be precise, to be faithful to the biblical witness and faithful to our confessional heritage that we believe accurately captures and represents that biblical witness.

I would say even if people are not in theology and doctrine on a regular basis, but anyone can benefit from it. You may not get 100%, maybe nobody does, but even 25% will be a huge blessing. Just feed your soul and your mind. Yeah, that's right. And I think, you know, we've been transformed by the renewing of our minds as Christians by virtue of God's amazing and victorious grace. And we're called to use our minds, to have our souls elevated, to apprehend and to understand our God better. And I think we ought to always receive that challenge with joyful Christian hearts. Not to roll our eyes at doctrine, but to have warm Christian hearts that openly embrace the receipt of doctrine, the receiving of doctrine, that we might better understand the Word and the God who has revealed himself therein.

Yeah. Amen. And then, yeah, opportunities for fellowship as well, right? With the breaks and dinner. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, you know, that's something we encourage, too. You know, we talked about unity that obviously we hope to obtain around a doctrinal reality for the content of the conference, but also you know, networking and unity among the brethren, fellowship amongst pastors, amongst deacons, amongst Christians, generally speaking, getting together, meeting one another, speaking to one another, talking about the content of the lectures and about their respective walks with Christ. So it's a wonderful environment for a number of things, one of those being the fellowship and the networking and meeting new people that you haven't met before.

Yeah, I definitely heard that from the pastors and people who have come. They feel very filled. It's like there's tears in your eyes. They're so grateful for it, right? Because it can be very lonely. Yeah, that's right. It is very lonely for most, yeah. And then, I guess, accommodations we do. We have families in our church that will host people from out of town, so providing meals and stuff. And that's been a great blessing to both parties as well, is for that to have an evening and break bread together and a weekend together. So we have a form on the website you can submit with your details and for being with children, what their ages are, et cetera, so we can do a good matchmaking to a home there. So recommend that. And if you're flying, I do recommend Abbotsford rather than Vancouver. It's a lot more convenient for rides and it's much closer to Chilliwack. Yeah. Okay. And then, yeah, tickets for the conference are free. It's just a ministry of our church. And we are, and then the dinner is optional. It's at $40 to cover the catering costs there. So, yeah, check out the website for details and to register.

All right, so with that said, we'll go continue with our questions. We've done 53 already, so this will be number 54. Great question that was submitted is, if I'm forgiven and my sins are cast into the deepest sea and remembered no more, then what sins do I have to give account for when I die? So really on Judgment Day, I guess we could interpret there. And so thinking of Psalm 103 or Micah 7. Yeah, that is a great question, and I think that it shows, you know, good contemplation of the age to come. It's a bit of a difficult answer, and I'm not going to confess or state that I have everything right, but that the Bible teaches a day of judgment for both the righteous and the unrighteous, everybody agrees. Now, obviously, there's some that don't agree. But for the most part, the Christian consensus has been there is a day of judgment coming, Christ will separate the sheep from the goats, the sheep will be received into glory, and the goats will be cast off into everlasting punishment. So that the Bible teaches that, nobody doubts that. But how that operates is a bit of a different story. What is it or what does it look like? in terms of the Day of Judgment? What does it look like in terms of us then being ushered into the presence of God?

So, as I reflected upon the question, I would just highlight that the questioner is right in the sense of the verses here, Psalm 103 and Micah 7. Of course, Psalm 103, the psalmist rejoices in the forgiveness of sins. Micah 7, the prophet talks about God casting our sins into the depths of the sea. So that we are forgiven, good question, what am I going to be judged for then on the Day of Judgment? Well, I want to establish first justification by faith alone, that in justification God does pardon all of our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. Justification by faith is a legal or forensic declaration Paul is able to say in Romans 8.1, there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Now, how that all plays out on the Day of Judgment, I would want to make a few observations. I would suggest first, we need to sort of separate what happens on the Day of Judgment versus what happens in earthly courtrooms today. In an earthly courtroom today, there is an examination of evidence. There is witness testimony. There is cross-examination to determine the guilt or the innocence or the not-guilt of the party that is under examination. It's not going to be that way on the day of judgment. God's not going to say, hey, Wim, on August 4th in 2025, did you commit this sin? It's not going to be like that. I think our confession deals with it well in chapter 32 at paragraph 2. It says, the end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy. So, with reference to the righteous, the Day of Judgment functions to manifest the glory of God's mercy. It's going to be the ultimate verdict rendered, and then, of course, the pathway opened, again, how that looks for us to be ushered into the presence of God Most High. But the bottom line, it's not an investigation to determine status, but a confirmation of what God has already done and a manifestation of the glory of God specifically directed to the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. 

So, you know, I've thought all your sins are going to be published and then it's going to be not guilty, not because of you having atoned for it, but by virtue of the work of the only begotten Son of God. So, yeah, great question, a difficulty in terms of the logistics and the how, but I think making that separation between what happens in earthly courts versus what happens on the Day of Judgment is helpful, and then keeping in mind the manifestation of the glory of His mercy. 

Yeah, we are guilty. Yeah, we did sin on August 4th, 2025, and every day that we lived. But the glory of the gospel is we have no condemnation presently, and we're going to have that sort of verdict rendered finally on the Day of Judgment. Not in terms of a second justification or a final justification, but a declaring what has been true by virtue of the work of the Son of God for that manifestation of the glory of His mercy. 

Excellent. You're not getting anything to add there, Kem? No. Excellent answer. I heartily agree. And it just emphasizes the glory of Christ in the salvation of sinners. It's not going to be about the believer's sin, but about the Savior's salvation. Praise God for that. Amen. 

Okay, so how many meanings to a passage are there? There can be a lot of interpretations out there. You read some of the parables or the sermons and there's like 15 different ways it's explained. So who to believe? Some people just throw up their hands and feel like it's not worth getting into because there's so many things. People can be confused around it. 

Yeah, that's another good question, a very good question. Perhaps the backdrop is chapter 1 in our confession. I don't see that referenced in the question itself, but chapter 1, paragraph 9 says, �The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture, which is not manifold but one, it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly.

� So, how many meanings to a passage are there? There's one meaning that the Spirit intended for us to get. Now, having said that, the idea of manifold means many and various. Manifold does not mean, or in this context, many or various. There's not many or various meanings, but that particular meaning can be full, more complex. There might be things going on that, you know, further study, further interpretation of Scripture will help you to see. It's not that there's a new meaning in that passage, but there's a fuller meaning that you perhaps didn't see the first time. 

And I think a good example might be, you know, the first time Bible reader opens his Bible to Genesis and he starts reading. And he reads, you know, that first day, he figures, I'm going to read for however many minutes, and he reads Genesis 1 to 3. Now, he's going to learn a lot about God, about creation, about man, and it's going to be a benefit to him. Now, he continues on in his reading and he gets eventually to Romans chapter 5. And there in Romans chapter 5, he learns that Adam was a type of Christ. Now, Adam doesn't become a type of Christ when that man reads Romans 5. Adam didn't become a type of Christ when Paul wrote Romans chapter 5. But Adam in the garden is functioning as a type of Christ. more going on than just a surface-level survey of the text. It's not a different meaning. It's not an altogether unconnected meaning. But there might be more going on in a passage than initially meets the eye. And that's the beauty of Bible study, right? That's the glory of our God as He has revealed Himself propositionally in the 66 books of the Bible. 

I mean, I hope that none of us ever get to the point where we read Genesis to Revelation and say, well, I'm done. No, you've only just begun. reading, you keep reading, and you're not discovering new meaning that has never been discovered before. You're not discovering new meaning that the Holy Spirit just inserted then, but you're discovering the various connections that Scripture has that you never saw before. 

So, there is one meaning, the meaning that the Holy Spirit intended. But the meaning that the Holy Spirit intended can be connected in a multitude of ways and shed light on a whole host of doctrines that you weren't familiar with previously. So, when our confession says, which is not manifold but one, it's absolutely correct, but that does not negate the fact that the full sense of any of those one texts can be connected and developed further or seen in other ways to shine the light upon various truths. 

The key is not bringing our interpretation, our meanings to it, but making sure it's coming out of the text. That's right. The difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is we lead out of the text the meaning that the Spirit intended for us. Eisegesis is when we bring the meaning to the text and we insert it. And, you know, unfortunately that happens a lot. It happens in preaching. It happens in personal Bible study. It happens in the kinds of Bible studies where, you know, you go around the table, what does this text mean to me? It doesn't matter what the text means to me unless it's right and that's what the Spirit intended for it. 

So we need to be careful that we don't bring preconceptions, we don't bring our pet doctrines, we don't bring, you know, what we'd like for the Bible to say to the Bible and then make it say that. Put it on the torture rack and, you know, crank it up and, you know, make it yield the interpretation that we're looking for. That's not the way to do good Bible study. 

Yeah. Yeah. I just, I've heard sermons where They can take a different text, but it's really the same three-point sermon attached to that text, which is, can be. But yeah, there can be, mentally, we can have a lot of layers in our mind over it. So, it can take a while to strip those layers away and get back to what is God saying here. 

That's right. And, you know, we never should dismiss, you know, this principle of interpretation that's given to us in the confession here. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself. And therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense, notice that language, full sense. Again, you get that Adam was made by God in Genesis 1 to 3. You get in Romans 5 that God made Adam to function typically with reference to the last Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ. So, the confession itself, highlighting it's not manifold but one, uses the terminology true and full sense. It's recognizing there's more going on at times than just the surface level meaning of the text. And then it says it must be searched by other places that speak more clearly. So the Scripture is its best interpreter. 

Now having said that, that does not mean that we can't read the creeds and the confessions of the ancient church. That does not mean that we don't read the books. or listen to the sermons that have been given that are consistent with the Word of God in accordance with Christ's purpose for the church. 

He ascended on high. He led captivity captive. He gave gifts to men. He gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, some to be pastors and teachers. Why? To equip the saints, to bring maturity in the church. 

So, you know, 1-9 does not exclude the study of outside the Bible resources. Christ gave gifts to educate people so that they might understand the Bible better. And if we don't want those gifts, then we've got a problem ultimately with the one who gave the gifts, this idea that, you know, me and my Bible alone. You know, that's a noble venture. It's a noble intention. But your Bible tells you that Jesus gave man to help you understand the Bible. So, it seems a bit disingenuous at some point. 

Yeah. I'm happy with all that. A simple question, but can be very nuanced, I guess. When should a believer be baptized? The sooner the better, you know, believe and be baptized. I don't know why persons wait. I don't know why persons don't jump into the water. You know, I remember, I think it was J. Adams, he was mentioning, you know, in the early church there were no altar calls. There were no raise your hand, every eye closed, every head bowed, raise your hand if you want to be a believer. What he points out is that after receiving the gospel message and believing on it, people were baptized. There wasn't this long span of time. 

I understand some churches have new member classes where they, you know, for a month or two or three or four or five or six will will take new believers through things. And I don't, you know, at a fundamental level have a problem with that. I think there needs to be a recognition of Christian faith and truth. But I don't know that that's required by Scripture either. 

And I think that when you survey the book of Acts, they didn't wait. They got baptized, believe and be baptized. And I think that while it's good to perhaps have those classes to make sure persons know what they're getting into, It seems to me that we want to do a lot of work on the front end to make sure that the church is kept pure, and I respect that. We should want to keep the church pure. However, God's given a tool to keep the church pure, and that's church discipline. 

So, you know, if we do baptize somebody and they turn out not to be the real deal, the issue isn't, at least as I reflect on Scripture, oh man, we shouldn't have baptized him. No, we should exercise discipline. You've got that case with Simon the magician in Acts chapter 8. Peter doesn't lament, wow, I shouldn't have baptized you. Your profession of faith was fake. No, he tells him, repent, believe, be saved. 

So, when we look at the book of Acts, which is, you know, descriptive, what's going on, but I think as well in certain instances, prescriptive, what should go on, the response to the gospel is baptism, well, belief, then baptism. So, in 238, repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, verse 41. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized, and that day about 3,000 souls were added to them.

You see it in chapter 8. I've already mentioned with reference to Simon the magician in Acts chapter 8, but in Acts chapter 8, 12, and 13, but when they believed, Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God in the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. You see it in 836 with the Ethiopian eunuch. And there, there is an examination. Philip asks him, you know, do you believe? So, the eunuch says, what hinders me from being baptized? Then Philip said, if you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So, he commanded the chariot to stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.

So, there wasn't you know, this long span of time, and it wasn't, hey, you know, I got to get out my confession and make sure you're good on the decree. Not that Philip wouldn't want the Ethiopian eunuch to be good on the decree and what the confession says, but, you know, the question is, if you believe with all your heart, you may. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I understand this is a variant reading, But this variant reading has ancient pedigree and church fathers very early, and I accept it as scriptural.

918, what happens with the apostle Paul or Saul of Tarsus? Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once, and he arose. and was baptized, the household of Cornelius in verses 10, 47, and 48. Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized. I think we sometimes gloss over that. For the person that's waiting or contemplating, you're not obeying a command. Peter didn't say, well, you know, if you think about it and feel like it and the mood is right. No, it was a command. Jesus says, go make disciples, baptize those disciples. So there is a responsibility on the part of the believer to be baptized, to publicly identify with the triune God of Holy Scripture. And incidentally, all of these texts indicate faith and baptism. It's not paedo-baptism. It's not infant baptism. They believed and were baptized.

We could continue on. Acts chapter 16, the Philippian jailer, what happens? They baptized him. So, on and on, over and over, both descriptively and prescriptively, I would argue, for the latter, the Book of Acts demonstrates not a long time between a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and baptism. So, if there are listeners, that there are questioners, that there are persons that are kind of, you know, on the fence, this isn't one of those things you should be on the fence about. It's a command by the exalted Christ, with reference to the Church, with reference to those who believe the gospel. So, you know, take the plunge.

Yeah. I think some people, I guess from my experience, right, in the background, people get hung up with, what is family going to think? Or, I was baptized as an infant, and that's enough. So, that has to get out of the way first. Yeah. And, you know, that's an unfortunate reality that what will family think? What will, you know, my co-workers think? What will the church that I grew up in think? But, you know, when you look at the history of the church, it cost people their lives in time past. It costs people their lives presently. So, I get not wanting to unnecessarily offend a family member. And what's the alternative? Not obeying Jesus? I think that trumps the not offending a family member. And if somebody's conscience is bound by the Word of God, you know, say with Luther, here I stand. Or in this case, here I jump and, you know, get plunged into the water. Yeah. Yeah, man.

Because, Cam, is there any other reasons you've seen that people hold back from it? Even not from a Paedo-Baptist or Catholic background, but just... Yeah, you know, I think the reasons are captured in what's been discussed already. I think just, you know, one thing to add going back to some of what Jim was discussing there is man One of man's many problems is that man seeks to heap requirements upon things where God, where if we could use the language of Jeremiah 7, it never entered into the mind of God. And I think very often, whether it is the party who should be baptized, or whether it is the party who will be doing the baptizing, the ordained officer of the church, I think there are too many things that get heaped upon the requirements for baptism that should never be heaped on any pile. Whether it's, you know, hey, you need to go through a six-month membership course and understand, you know, every jot and tittle of the church's tradition. You know, I need to, as Jim already said, I need to feel it. I need to be in the mood. I need to go through a particular period of whatever it might be.

The Scriptures are very gloriously simple in their presentation of believe and be baptized. And yet to put it off is to put off a blessed sacrament, a blessed ordinance that Christ has commanded where inward declaring and demonstrating our union with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection. And so what a glorious thing not to put off, but to do according to the command of Christ and to do soon.

Yeah, and it's interesting because typically most believers, I hope most believers, I'd like to say all believers, but I'm not quite that optimistic. Just kidding. When we're not obeying commands, if God commands us to do something, say not commit adultery, and we're committing adultery, we're not obeying a command, or God tells us, you know, positively, you should do this, and negatively, don't do this. Most Christians get convicted. Most Christians, you know, many Christians will say, ìBoy, Iíve been reading my Bible as I ought, and I know that God commands me to.î Okay, well, God commands you to be baptized as well. I donít know why that doesnít perplex the mind or bring conviction the way that disobedience to other commands do.

So, you know, it isnít just a religious right, or it's not just a religious practice without any basis, foundation, or divine imperative. It's from the risen Christ. This is what you do. You believe and are baptized. I don't understand why there's a delay. You know, I think back to when I was baptized, I was sprinkled as an infant, of course, in the Roman Catholic Church. But then when I got converted, born again, saved by God's grace, wanted to get baptized, it was wonderful. It didn't hurt. It wasn't, you know, ice cold water or scalding hot water, which either way, that's fine if that's what it needs to be. There's nothing in the ordinance or there's nothing in the experience or there's nothing that is contrary to, you know, joy, happiness, and thanksgiving. It's a public proclamation that, you know, I'm dead, I'm buried, I'm risen again with Christ Jesus. And Paul uses that in Romans 6 as an argument for us to pursue holiness and righteousness. Think back on your baptism. 

So, again, if anybody's out there puzzled or perplexed, read Acts and see what they did when they believed the gospel. Yeah. It's a means of grace. It's a strengthening of faith. I think some of these people are in doubt. Like, am I really saved or just lacking assurance? But this, ironically, would actually strengthen Their faith, right? Yeah, obedience to God is definitely a help in terms of confirmation. Disobedience never helps in terms of confirmation. Yeah. Excellent. 

Oh, I should, before we go on to the next question, is Pastor Cam did a four-part series on baptism. Was it last year? So it was up on Sermon Audio, and we answered a lot of questions in there as well. These different objections, concerns. So the theology, the practice, different things. So highly recommend those. I'll link those into the description or whatever. You can find them on Sermon Audio. 

Okay, next question is similar to, well, related to the last question. What are the requirements for church membership? Yeah, that's a good question. I want to first deal with church membership because there's some persons, groups, churches that don't believe that the Bible teaches formal membership. So the idea basically is I'm a blood-bought child of God, I've got the Holy Spirit, so therefore I'm a member at your church. 

Well, I took this from Dr. Barcelos. When we first started the church here in Chilliwack, I basically co-opted the Constitution from their church. And I thought these were very sound and valid observations from Scripture. So, as far as membership, the word membership can't be found in the New Testament. It's not the case that you have a Roman 17 that says, thou must find a good confessional Reformed Baptist church and join it by way of formal membership. We don't have that. And that's admitted and that's acknowledged. 

But the concept of membership is necessary for at least five reasons. First, the church at Jerusalem could be numbered. You see that in the book of Acts, Acts chapter 2. The church at Jerusalem could be joined. You see that in Acts 5 and in Acts 9. You've got the duties of the pastoral ministry. When a man becomes a pastor by God's grace, he's not got unlimited jurisdiction. In other words, if he flies over to Europe, and he visits churches there, he's not a pastor in those churches. He's a pastor in the church that has recognized his qualification, that has examined him for fitness, for service, has ordained him to function as their pastor. 

So that argues that there's a definable group of people that are accountable to a particular pastor or the pastoral ministry at that church. and then the duties of Christians toward their pastors. Same idea. If a member from our church goes over to Europe and he goes and visits church, he's not subject to the pastoral ministry in that church in the manner he is in his own church, his own local church. There's a relationship built into the local church between pastors and the people that facilitate camaraderie, fellowship, and accountability that And according to my read of the Scripture, can only be fostered in a local church context with a formal membership.

And the final observation or the final part of the concept is the discipline of the church. You know, Jesus speaks of the church universal in Matthew chapter 16, I will build my church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Again, people You know, there's disagreements about, is there a universal church? I don't want to get into all that. I assume that what he's talking about in Matthew 16 is the universal church, believers from all ages, believers from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, the people of God identified as the church of the living Christ. Matthew 18, I think he's dealing with local churches. And in Matthew 18, he's dealing with church discipline. So if your brother sins against you, go to him. If he hears you, you've won your brother. If he doesn't listen, take two or three witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, tell it to what? Tell it to the church, not the church universal. I don't send emails out, or if we're going to discipline somebody in our church, we don't email churches in Europe to tell them, hey, guess what's going on?

So, these particulars that you see in the New Testament argue strongly for a concept of church membership that's formal in nature, that's in a particular local church. Now, in terms of how churches receive members, Again, we don't have a Romans 18 on that one that tells us, okay, now that you've got all that settled and established, this is the way that you receive members. In our church, and I'm quoting from our Constitution, prerequisites for church membership, a credible profession of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and repentance toward God. Right? You need to be a believer. The Acts 18, or I'm sorry, Acts 8, if you believe in your heart, yes, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. So there needs to be, and we say credible. I mean, if it's obvious that there's scandalous sins involved in a potential member, we're going to hold off. We need to deal with these scandalous sins. You've got to clean those things up. Baptism by immersion in accordance with the command of Christ and the practice of the New Testament church. So, faith, baptism. And then we require a general understanding of the confession of faith, and I think that's protection, not only for the church, but for the would-be member.

I think it's disingenuous for persons to enter churches where the churches do not have a published statement of faith. In other words, if I'm a member shopping, and I don't like that language, but grant it for a moment, shopping for a church, I want to know what I'm getting into. I want to know that I'm going to get faithful exposition. I'm not going to get a woman in the pulpit. I'm not going to hear that sodomy is okay. I'm not going to see tongue speaking. I have a specific thing I'm looking for in terms of the local expression of the pillar in the ground of the truth. So confession of faith not only It protects a church, but it protects would-be members of a church from getting into something that's not what they're looking for. So these arguments that confessions, they're exclusive and bigoted and narrow, I'd argue just the opposite. it identifies for you right off the bat, this is what we believe. I think that's honest communication on the part of the church to would-be members necessary for those would-be members to make the decision then to join that church, because church membership, if we you know, take these pieces of data is necessary, but the church that you will join, God leaves that up to you. There's not a Romans 19 that says you must join a confessional reform Baptist church.

So it seems the better part of wisdom for churches to express, we use a confession of faith, what we believe, and we like to stress there's not going to be any surprises. There's not, you know, what we lack in the razzmatazz and the bells and the whistles and all that. We try to provide stability and, you know, biblical confessional orthodoxy to help weary pilgrims on the way to heaven.

So, a general understanding of the confession of faith along with a willingness to submit to the doctrine and government of the church to promote its unity and well-being. I do not find that outlandish. I think that that is a necessary requirement that even the light of nature teaches. In other words, any association of persons together, it ought to be a voluntary, joyful association. If somebody takes our confession and says, I disagree with all 32 chapters, you better receive me into the membership, I'm probably going to point out, you're not going to be happy here. And if you're not happy here, you're going to probably do your best to make us unhappy too. Find a church where there's 32 chapters that you agree with and go join there.

and a thorough understanding of the Constitution and bylaws. Again, light of nature, I think, teaches us that constitutions and bylaws aren't bad. They define parameters for membership. They speak to issues that the Confession doesn't and that the Bible doesn't. So we always present this way. The Bible is the absolute authority. It's the Word of God, infallible, inerrant, inspired, infallible, and inerrant. The Confession defines for us our doctrinal approach with reference to understanding the Scriptures, and the Constitution deals with things that the Bible and the Confession doesn't. And it just sets forth parameters for membership, and it's not that hard. It's just not. We're not asking, you know, for you to gash your arm and pour blood into a glass. It really isn't esoteric. It isn't mysterious. It's very basic. It's very much to promote order, to promote unity, and hopefully peace in the church and on the part of the member that is joining that church.

So, that's how we practice that. I guess the question around age then is if somebody's 14 years old, 15 years old, believes, gets baptized, but they haven't dug into the confession yet, would that be holding back? Because they've been under the preaching, they agree with the preaching.

Yeah, I think there's a question concerning children and baptism and membership. I would just head that off at the pass and say, you know, for our church, again, I can't speak for... you know, every Reformed Baptist Church does it, but we've settled on a case-by-case basis. I mean, children are wonderful, and we believe that children can be saved.

The argument, you know, I hear this in a largely paedo- paedo-baptist community, oh, you practice adult baptism. That's not accurate. We practice believer's baptism. And God has young believers, and we're not against young believers being members of churches. We think that's good. We think that's a blessing. We think that's, you know, evidence of the grace of Christ and the salvation of sinners. That's what we hope for. That's what we pray for.

The married couples in our churches, they're faithful, they raise their children, God saves their children. Yes, they can be baptized. Yes, they can be added to the church. Do they need to have the Apostle Paul's understanding of the Confession? No. I don't think any of us as adults have what would the Apostle Paul, and I'm speaking anachronistically. There was no 1689 for Paul. But, you know, we do the best we can with what we have and, you know, giving them those documents and running through it with them. I don't see any reason to keep a child or a young person out.

And I know you're just people who are simple-minded in a loving way, right? Oh, yeah. So the law of the Lord makes wise the simple. We're all simple-minded. We're all, you know, why do we need Christ as prophet? Because we're ignorant and we need to be taught. So there's no harm, no foul in admitting our simpleness and our ignorance and the fact that, you know what, like Cam mentioned earlier about chapter three of the decree, there's going to be tough stuff. When you deal with, you know, the question, the perennial question that has come up, if God is sovereign, then He must be the author of sin. That's going to come up when we study the decree of God.

And so, yeah, there's nothing, you know, prohibiting a child or a young person from membership in the church. Yeah, it's very good to be shepherded and rebuked. And we've seen, there's been some major public cases, right? Like Ravi Zacharias was not a member in the church, right? So go off the rails and hide our sin.

Yeah. I love this question. What's the best way for a beginner to start reading Scripture? And I think there's two parts to that. One is they're not a believer yet. to come aware of, hey, there is God and there's sin and such. They're hearing the gospel maybe, but not saved yet. And then they are believers. I'd say they run into a Ray Comfort on the street or a street preacher and like, wow, yeah, they believe, right? They respond to that, but they haven't read the Bible yet. So where do you start? Genesis, Matthew, John?

Well, for both, I'm believer and believer, and this is going to sound overly simplistic, but open it and start reading. I see this with believers sometimes, you know, I'm not reading my Bible like I should. Then open it and read it. You know, there comes a point in time in everybody's life where we got to get our act together. You know, somebody might put on extra weight and look at themselves in the mirror and say, you know what, I need to work out. I need to lose weight. I need to clean up my diet. I'll do that next year. No, do it right now. I've not been kind to my wife. I've not been submissive to my husband. You know, in six months when I get the vibe or the feeling, no, we need to do those things right now.

So for every time somebody says, I know I should read the Bible, but I don't, just open it and read it. I mean, I don't, you know, necessarily endorse just finding a spot and starting to read the chapter. In terms of content, I think for the unbeliever, you know, to run through the Ten Commandments is a good thing. You mentioned Ray Comfort. I'm not endorsing every jot and tittle of his practice, but the thing that I do appreciate about his practice is that through the law comes the knowledge of sin. And through the knowledge of sin, we recognize our need for the Savior. So, for an unbeliever to, you know, read the Ten Commandments, to understand the specifics that God speaks there at Sinai, and repeated again on the plains of Moab, if an unbeliever is committing adultery, or an unbeliever is committing theft, or an unbeliever is committing murder, How do you know your sin and misery? The law of God tells me so. And then I would say, go to the Gospels. Go to the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Learn who Jesus is and learn what Jesus did, because that's the answer to that condemnation that comes from reading the law of God. 

So how do I know my sin and misery? I know it because the law of God tells me so. How do I know grace and mercy? Because of what Christ has accomplished on the cross. 

So, for the unbeliever, I would suggest that. For a believer that's perhaps new to Bible reading, I know the typical response is, read the Gospel of John. We just finished going through the Gospel of John in our Sunday morning services, and it's glorious. It's wonderful. It is an amazing book. But, I don't want to say but like it's some big revelation, there's some tough stuff in there. There are some difficulties. I mean, I think we spent a lot of time talking about the, you know, Trinity. And I'm not suggesting a new believer doesn't need to hear that or know that, but just as, you know, reading through John's gospel, there'll be plenty for him to get. 

But I think Mark is good. Mark is 16 chapters. It's not super long. And it's very much carried by the Word immediately. basically immediately carries the narrative. And so what you're getting is here who Jesus is and here's what Jesus does. It's this great presentation of Jesus as this wonderful Messiah that's come to save his people from their sins. 

And then the final thing I would say You know, there's an old adage, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Sometimes people take on too much. They get too ambitious and then they burn out. You know, I'm going to read my Bible from Genesis to Revelation. They get to Leviticus and they're done. You know, be modest in your ambitions, take a piece, give yourself a time, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, you know, whatever it is, a chapter and read and realize you're not going to get everything. Realize that it's a lifelong transformation by the renewing of your mind. and that it's not going to happen overnight. 

I just think familiarity with the Scripture as well, knowing the structure, there's an Old Testament and a New Testament, knowing the focal point in the Old Covenant was the people of Israel, the focal point in the New Covenant is the true Israel, Jesus Christ. and the church in union with him. I think it's helpful to understand a basic timeline in the Old Testament, some major events, some of the kings, some of the prophets, the various things going on. Because while it's theology and while it's revelation, there's much historical and there's much going on that you're only benefited by knowing. 

So go, read, get a Bible and read. you know, the final exhortation. And pray as well, right? Spurgeon had a good observation on that. If I was, you know, reading a book that was written by my next-door neighbor, and I came across a confusing or a difficult part in that book, I'd walk next door, I'd knock on his front door, and I'd say, what do you mean here? Now, the answer doesn't always come the way my neighbor is going to say, oh, well, you know, that's what I mean. But prayerful study of Scripture. Prayerful study of Scripture is useful not only for illumination by the power of the Holy Spirit, but also to hopefully help us kill pride. Prayer-less study can result in proud, arrogant people that are puffed up. Paul says knowledge puffs up. And a prayerless study and a prayerless acquisition of Scripture and knowledge and doctrine and theology It can produce pride. Now, it can't even prayerful study of Scripture. We always have to be on guard. But prayer keeps us humble, it keeps us dependent, and it keeps us constantly, you know, imploring God, beseeching God to help us to understand, not so that we can best everybody on Facebook debates, but so that I can be faithful to you, God.

Ezra set his heart to study the law, to do the law, and then to teach the law in Israel, Ezra 7.10. Lois thought that's a great model. Study it to do it and then teach. I think pastors, you know, can fall into this error as well. Study to preach. No, study to do and then preach. I think Lloyd-Jones said it well. You're not searching Scripture first and foremost for sermons as pastors. You're searching Scripture first and foremost for food. Get your own nourishment. Get your own, you know, mind and heart and body and conformity to Scripture. Then you'll be positioned to teach.

So, to bypass that practical application in one's own life, which most often comes through prayerful study of Scripture, it's to short-circuit the whole process, and it is disingenuous then. Because if I'm preaching great theology and Bible exposition, and I'm living like the devil himself, you know, God can use that. I think the Helvetic Confession says that even if the minister be evil, insofar as he's teaching the truth, you need to listen. Jesus makes that observation in Matthew 23. They tell you these things, insofar as they tell you the truth that Moses said, do it, but don't follow their practice.

So, what we want are men that are not perfect, no man, no elder, no pastor is, but men that are faithful and they study to do and then to teach. Yeah, and I think one of the things too in answering the question, how to start reading the Bible, how are we to read the words of the Bible? When we approach the text, I think it's important for all of us, for all believers, for all Christians to understand that we're not attending to the nakedness of the words, but we're attending to the sense intended by the divine author.

And so I think it's important to understand that when we read the Scriptures and we come across passages such as Christ saying, the Father is greater than I, how do I read the Bible there? Am I to understand that in the nakedness of the words that I'm confronted with, that Jesus, the Son of God, is somehow less than the Father? Or, do I take the sense of the Scriptures as a whole, and as it's been understood by the church, and see that, okay, Christ assumed our humanity for our recovery and our redemption, so that he must there be speaking according to that assumed humanity, because God cannot be less than God.

So, I think not only how do we read, or what do we read, or what do we start reading, but also the manner in which we are to read the Bible. And it goes back to Jim's comment about the believer as an island unto himself with the Word and the Spirit. That's not how the Bible ought to be read. The Bible ought to be read, as Jim indicated, within the blessed and safe confines of the reality that Christ promised to build His church, that He promised to send His Spirit to equip the church, and that He, in His ascended glory, gave gifts to the church, the gifts of men for the preaching and the teaching of the Word, to provide the reader with that safe biblical context within which to read it. A practical thing that came to mind for me is, if you look at the last 10 years with social media, it's trashed most people's ability to read. And I found that myself, right? We're on our phones and we're scrolling, we're bombarded with information, and we just can't absorb or read. I just started like in the morning, no Bible, no phone. Time alone prayer meditate journal or whatever and then start looking at messages and stuff and that's been helpful Otherwise, we're filling in for a reminder rating. We can't get into the text like yeah, just bounces off. It's just No, that's good. And we're, it's almost as if we, you know, with these devices and with social media, we're conditioning ourselves to only have the attention span for 144 characters. 

And we, so we, what are we just going to open to a Psalm and stop after, you know, verses one to four, and then, okay, man, I got to scroll to something. Why isn't my page scrolling? I think, yeah, compartmentalizing our lives and staying away from, You know, lawful things whose unlawful use can deter us from a good understanding of the Word of God and taking it in with the preciousness of slowing down, reading it, and meditating upon it as well. 

Not only are we to read the Word, But we read in the Scriptures, David, for example, meditated upon that word, upon the law, upon the revelation of God. So, we're to read it, we're to hide it in our hearts, and we're to meditate upon its truths, and to draw out the glorious implications and the meaning that God intended by revealing Himself in it. Amen. 

Okay, Cam, what is faith? It's a very good question, and it's a three-word question, very simple, but good to open up. And I think the first thing to say is that there are two types of faith. in the Scriptures. For example, as we talked about our conference, confessing the faith, what is the faith in that context? In Jude 3, for example, where it speaks about contending for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints. Elsewhere, where the Apostle Paul uses the language of the faith of the gospel, That is speaking to the, you know, the objective content of the Christian faith, the propositions to be believed, the articles of the Christian religion, the triune God, the deity and the humanity of Christ, you know, the truths regarding the incarnation, regarding salvation, justification by faith alone. 

So, the faith in that context or according to that meaning is, again, the truths of the gospel, what is to be believed. And then the other understanding of the faith is the act of believing. So, if we ask the question, what is faith, according to that understanding, we could simply say that it's believing. It's the act of believing. When the disciples or when the apostles, for example, in the book of Acts are preaching the gospel to unbelievers, and for example, the Philippian jailer asks, sirs, what must I do to be saved? The answer is, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. That belief on the Lord Jesus Christ is faith. 

Our confession of faith defines faith as something like the grace of faith is that whereby sinners are enabled to believe unto the saving of their souls, and that it is a work of grace wrought in the heart by the Spirit of God. And by that, we rest and we receive and rest upon the Lord Jesus Christ as declared in the gospel. And I think it's an important thing to observe with regards to faith because it can be a term that is stripped of the objective content of what is being believed. You know, if this person just has sincere faith in something, then that's commendable, regardless of what the object of that faith is. The faith, the Christian faith or Christian believing, has its precious and glorious object as Christ Jesus, the Savior of men. And so our act of believing rests upon the precious and the glorious content of Christ, very God of very God, true God from true God, begotten, not made, who came into this lower world by the assumption of our humanity, taking upon himself all the properties of humanity and all the common infirmities, yet without sin, in order to live a perfect life, to die a perfect death, and to rise again in order that he might bring many sons and daughters to glory.

And so that act of believing rests upon that precious one, the Lord Jesus Christ. And that's the language that the Apostle Peter uses regarding those who have this faith, that to those who believe, Christ is precious. He is the object of our faith. He's the one who sovereignly gifts us with the faith. by which we believe unto the saving of our souls.

I think it's another important thing to emphasize that faith is not natural to man. Faith is not something that the sinner has in and of himself. It is a grace that is given by the Holy Spirit working upon the heart. It's a gift given. Regeneration precedes faith. Faith doesn't precede regeneration. God does that glorious work upon the heart where he takes out the stony heart, replaces it with that heart of believing flesh that lays hold of the Savior and lays hold of the promises of God. It's the instrument through which we receive the redemptive benefits of our Lord Jesus Christ. It's not salvation on account of our faith. As Cam points out, it's not that we have faith, bring it to the table, God rewards us and gives us salvation. No, He gives us the faith based on faith. You know, Ephesians 2, 8-10, Philippians 1, verse 29.

So, faith is the instrument, the empty hand by which we receive the benefits that were secured by our Lord Jesus Christ. And I love what our confession says in 14 too. It basically says, You know, by this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word of God. In other words, everything Scripture says, we believe. We believe the dimensions of the tabernacle and the temple. We believe that David was the king of Israel. We believe that Solomon was a king and that there was a division in his kingdom after his death. But the end of it says, but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of the covenant of grace.

So, we believe everything the Bible says, but the principal acts of saving faith is not the dimensions of the temple. It's not that David was the king of Israel. It's that Jesus is the one that Cam described, true God from true God, or light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, that one who took our humanity, lived, died, and rose again. Principal acts of saving faith are directed to Jesus as the object of saving faith.

So yeah, what ways have you seen faith or understanding of what faith is, what believing is, get distorted? A lot of ways. Well, I think one of the ways has already been mentioned where the assertion that the natural man can exercise faith outside of amazing and victorious grace. And it's not that God just partially acts by what's been called a prevenient grace where He acts along with man who is with God working unto the end that a faith is exercised, but that the Bible finds man as it describes man. God finds man, as the Bible describes man, and as God himself describes man, as dead in trespasses and sins, without hope, without strength, following after the allurements of the world, following after the temptations of the devil, and a slave to his own flesh.

And so God comes in amazing and victorious grace, and brings that sinner forth by that grace from the deadness and darkness of sin to life and light in Jesus Christ, and gives him that gift of faith whereby he is enabled to believe unto the saving of his soul.

I think another way that faith is distorted is by smuggling faithfulness into faith. So that our justification is then by our faith and our faithfulness. So that our evangelical obedience, a term that has historic roots, is therefore then the ground of our justification. And it steals away from the reality of what Jim had already mentioned, that faith is that instrument, that empty hand that lays hold of the redemptive benefits of the Lord Jesus Christ. It isn't our faith that saves us. We're saved by or through faith, that faith resting on Christ and receiving Christ and all the benefits of His glorious redemptive work.

Another, I think, diminishing of faith is the sentimentalizing of faith, where, you know, someone, you know, someone who is really, really sincere or really, really demonstrative or really, really emotional or, you know, sappy or whatever is, that's faith. It's this sort of subjective demonstration of feeling and that sort of a thing. So, I mean, but let's just say that we ought to have a blessed and warm Christian response to the truths that we are believing. We love the Christ who has brought us from out of the deadness of sin to life in Him.

And so there ought to be, perhaps we could say, a wholesome sentimentality, but faith itself is the act of believing, whereby God has enabled us by His Spirit, according to His Word, to rest upon the glorious champion of our salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Another way is, I think, smuggling in other things into a definition of faith, like smuggling love into faith. so that, you know, we're justified, you know, not by faith alone, but the amount by which we love the Savior. Are we to love the Savior? Absolutely. Are we to love the truth concerning Jesus Christ? Absolutely. Do we love God and ought we to love God? Absolutely. He's the one who has first loved us.

But to say that the intensity or the amount, you know, by which we express a love towards God has some sort of proportional relationship to the amount by which we're saved or by which we're, you know, a true Christian is to distort saving faith, and it's to heap obligations and meanings upon faith that God has never intended, nor has He revealed.

So I think it's important to also emphasize that it's not a, you might remember the quote that you've said a number of times, but it's not a strong faith that unites us to Christ. It can be a weak faith as well that unites us to Christ. And I think that's a glorious reality that we're not saved by the strength of our faith. We're saved by the strength of a Savior who gives us that faith by which by which we're saved, and maybe Jim's able to find that Machen quote, which is wonderful. Yeah, and I was thinking, you know, as Cam ran through that list, one of the obvious things I think I've seen is attaching feelings to faith.

I believed and nothing happened. Well, what do you think this is, a fireworks display? There's times, and you see it in the Psalms, why are you cast down, O my soul? You know, you ask David at that particular instance, do you have faith? Of course I have faith, but I'm cast down. Faith is not to be loaded up with feelings. It's not to be loaded up with Yeah, love. Of course, love is the chief fruit of saving faith, but we need to keep those things distinct.

I just fear that people judge faith, whether they have it or not, based on their feelings. You know, if you're going to live like that, you're going to be miserable. You know, I don't really feel like I'm believing today. I don't know that there's a feeling connected to any other act of believing. I believe the sun is in the sky. Does that promote a feeling? I mean, the heat from the sun, obviously.

And again, when we stress this, it's not a negation of any feelings in the Christian religion. Of course there are. You can't load faith up with that and suggest that, well, you don't seem to have those fiery feelings, so therefore there's no faith. That is to do great disservice to the Word of God and to the people of God.

That Machen quote is beautiful. Weak faith will not remove mountains, but there is one thing at least that it will do. It will bring a sinner into peace with God. Our salvation does not depend upon the strength of our faith. Saving faith is a channel, not a force. If you are once really committed to Christ, then despite your subsequent doubts and fears, you are His forever.

And I think that the more We live, move, and have our beings, we stress that reality. One of the most difficult things to see is somebody who, because they're having a bad day, or because they're having a bad season, or because they've had bad feelings, somehow talk themselves out of participation in the Kingdom of God. You may be excluded from the kingdom, but not because you're having a bad day, not because you're sorrowful and your heart is cast down. You're not cast out of the kingdom because you don't have these red-hot feelings for the Savior.

Do you believe what the Bible says concerning Jesus? Do you believe that He alone is the one that can bring forgiveness of sins and give you a righteousness by which you can stand before God? Now, again, hopefully the feelings catch up, but live in light of the reality of God's promises and lay hold of them by faith, and don't let go of that. And don't think that, you know, unless my faith is loaded up with feelings, that's just horrible doctrine. It's horrible doctrine. would that we could purge it from every pulpit.

Loading faith with feelings, loading faith with love. Again, it's the chief fruit of love, of faith, but to sort of mingle it together. Purge from our pulpits, faith plus faithfulness. We're Protestants, we're not papists. and any, you know, confounding of the blessed simplicity of that empty hand that God gives us. Again, it's not my reach. It's not any effort on my part. God gives me the empty hand, and we receive the benefits secured by our Lord Jesus Christ, with or without feelings, with or without, you know, the fireworks display. I still remember when I was coming to faith and meeting with you, and you grabbed a bracket from your shelf and read, I can't remember exactly what page it was. That section, yeah. A section on, some people have a Paul on the Way to Damascus experience, and some are like, people know what day, and it was 11.23 in the morning, and whatever, right? Now the people are like, they don't know the year or even the decade, but they know they are believing and they are in Christ. Amen. And that's what I always say. 

You know, I don't remember the day I was converted. And I always say, well, if you didn't have a birth certificate, you wouldn't know for me, September 16th, 1966. It was a cool autumn day. You wouldn't know that unless it was printed. The fact is though, I am alive. So I may not know the September 16th that I believe the gospel, but I know presently I'm believing the gospel. 

Yeah, and you know, if you think about what was discussed earlier in the context of baptism and Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch, the question that Philip poses isn't, were you knocked off your horse by the shining of the new night sun expressed in the visible manifestation of the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God? And yeah, believing then you have life in his name. 

We have a tendency to overcomplicate everything, you know, whether it's church membership we're talking about, whether it's baptism, whether it's Bible reading, whether it's faith. We always want to make it more difficult for whatever reason, and I think we ought to leave the simplicity of the gospel alone. mess up with complications, let them be elsewhere, but not on justification by faith, not on what is it that brings peace to a sinner. It is faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Yeah, I'm interacting with some people and they're reading good, cool authors and Puritans and Boston and stuff, but anybody we go to, they'll have some expression that just gives you doubts like, oh, you need to have this or that, but it's like, you gotta go back to the word, right? Like, and don't, it's not 100% of what any author has written. Spurgeon's really good though. Spurgeon's really good, yeah. 

And you've got, you know, if there weren't, solid examples in Scripture of believers struggling, right? I mean, David. Yeah. He did bad things. Peter denied the Master. Paul expresses the concept of remaining corruption in Romans 7 and Galatians 5. 

You know, I'd love to only ever have positive, great feelings. I'd only ever love to have more love for the one that's altogether lovely. I need to get better, need to pray more, need to read more, but in the final analysis, nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling. Foul I to the fountain fly, wash me, Savior, or I die. 

I think in the final analysis, going back to the question about the Day of Judgment, it's all going to be the glory of Christ, that we're standing there on the Day of Judgment, favorably received in the presence of God. It's all about Christ. The Christian life is always about Christ, His glory, His power, His efficacy in terms of our salvation. And yeah, you should have great warm feelings about that, but sometimes you don't. 

Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. So we're I'm 80 minutes into this, and I'm starting page three out of eight, so we're not going to... We're doing all right. Yeah, we're doing something. That's good. Okay. So, yeah, Jim, how necessary is seminary for pastors? Is there a difference for full-time versus vocational? Are there biblical qualifications? How much training? Has somebody just done good self-study, and they're apt to teach, and they've got the desire? Can they preach? Yeah, I know you've got lots of thoughts on this. Good question.

So, how necessary is seminary for pastors? I'm going to have to nuance this. I mean, if you look at the disciples of our Lord, the apostles of our Lord, they didn't go off to the master's seminary, they were with the master. They spent three years in that sort of informal seminary training.

You know, there's famous what's called autodidactics in the history of the church, self-taught people. you know, Spurgeon, John Gill, you know, brilliant towers of biblical and theological knowledge, but A Spurgeon or a Gill comes around, you know, very infrequently. I think most men aspiring for the Christian ministry need to embrace that they're probably not Spurgeon and they're probably not Gill.

So, is there a hard and fast rule in Romans 20 that says thou must go to seminary should you pursue the pastoral ministry? No. Now, having said that, the primary function of the church is the pillar and the ground of the truth, okay? So, you want your best man, and I don't mean best in terms of, you know, ontology. He's a better man than me at some fundamental level. You need your best man in terms of understanding Scripture and theology to function in that capacity that is proclaiming the pillar as the pillar and ground of the truth.

The qualifications for pastors or elders is very conspicuous in 1 Timothy chapter 3. The virtues, you know, he must be a one-woman man. He must not be a lover of money. Those things should be common among all God's people. I think Paul's point is there needs to be demonstrable faithfulness in those virtues. But there's a particular gift unique to the eldership. He must be apt to teach.

So by virtue of that, a man that's apt to teach And it's obvious that he's learned. He knows he has the ability to teach. Again, Ezra set his heart to study the law, to do it, and then to teach. He didn't just show up and teach. He studied so that he could teach. As well, the emphasis on sound doctrine in the pastoral epistles. Sound doctrine, not tongues, not prophesying, not coffee time with all the sheep in the church. It's on sound doctrine.

Having finished John's gospel in John 21 in the epilogue, the restoration of Simon Peter, do you love me? Yes. Then feed my sheep. Do you love me? Yes. Feed my sheep. Do you love me? Feed my sheep. What's the point? Well, church, you're supposed to feed the sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the primary function as the pillar and ground of the truth. So, do we want guys that don't know that much, or do we want guys that know a lot? I'd argue that we want to know guys that know a lot.

Now, some guys, again, there's autodidactics, there's guys that can teach themselves a lot. There's probably people that have a lot of skill on the body, you know, medical. They've read a lot of Google pages. They've read a lot of medical manuals. Well, if I'm going in for brain surgery, I want a guy that went to the best place, that has the steadiest hand and is the most accomplished and capable before he'll jump into my brain. I don't know why the church It's okay for anybody and everybody? Well, you know, he can read Mark, so therefore. I'm not convinced that overall is going to serve us well. And I would argue as well the command to give double honor to those who rule well in 1 Timothy 5.17. Honor in that passage has to do with payment. Again, I know there's churches, there's groups that say, well, pastors shouldn't be paid. I don't understand. How does a guy who sits in a cubicle for eight to ten hours a day, he should get paid, but a pastor who labors in the Word and doctrine shouldn't? And Paul even says that those who preach the Word should live by that. But pay those, give double honor to those who rule well, especially those who labor in the Word and doctrine. 

So, the overarching sort of assumption or presentation seems to be an educated ministry educating the people of God, men that are capable feeding the sheep of God. So, is seminary absolutely essential? No. But, I would definitely recommend it, and I would definitely recommend good ones, because what can happen is that theological conservatives can go to liberal colleges and come out liberal. liberals go to those liberal colleges and they come out apostate. And we need to be mindful of that. We need to make sure that the institutions that hopefully are working in conjunction with churches and have elders' influence and professors that have pastoral experience, you know, that to me would be the best thing. that they're competent to educate men for the task of laboring in the Word and doctrine. 

Now, in terms of full-time guys and part-time guys and all of that, yeah, if a guy's a vocational plumber, but he has the aptitude to teach, he has the aptitude to preach, and he's going to probably function in a support capacity. He's not going to be the primary Now, we believe in a two-office ministry, pastor-slash-elder-slash-bishop and deacon. But with the pastor-elder-bishop, some men labor more in the Word and doctrine. They do more of the preaching and the teaching ministry of the church. So, if a guy comes along, he's vocationally engaged in another job, but he has the aptness to teach, I'm not convinced he needs to go to IRBS. I'm convinced he needs to be proven. I'm convinced he needs to read the books that we recommend him to read to have a good and robust understanding of the system of doctrine in our confession of faith before we would utilize him. 

But if a guy's going to be doing it, you know, in a part-time capacity, and for him to uproot his family and go to seminary, you know, all that is involved with that. Yeah, I'm not convinced of that.

But a fellow that, you know, my life calling is to be a pastor. I want to do it well. I would put it in the category of the guy that his life calling is to be a doctor. Go learn how to do it the best you can.

But in addition to all of that, the seminary gets you into the ballpark. But I guess I just assume that all pastors always read good books. Probably not the best assumption, but I bless God. I had Dr. Richard Barcelos as my mentor, my longtime friend. I've known him probably 35 years now. He's been very influential in my life and crucial in terms of my understanding of pastoral ministry at the point of I need to keep reading, not only because, you know, I have to, but I want to. I want to read. I want to learn. I want to understand more so that I can be one who labors faithfully in the Word and doctrine, and for the good of my own soul and my own growth and the food and all that I need.

But pastors that have a seminary background, that doesn't get you off the Well, now I can, you know, golf every Tuesday or, you know, I don't have to read." No, you need to be keeping up. And I, you know, I'm not into every modern trend or every new thing in the life of the church. In fact, I pay little attention to any of it. But there are things that come on the radar that do need attention and they do deserve a response. And I think pastors do well to keep up with at least some of those trends.

Yeah, so basically for full-time pastor, definitely seminary. But if they're part-time, like supportive as in...could they be in the office of elder preaching three or four times a year to fill the pulpit when the primary pastor is gone? Yeah, I don't see anything precluding that.

The availability now. I mean, IRBS, for instance. I don't want to make this an IRBS plug, but I guess I'm duty-bound to do so. I believe in the faculty there. I think they have a first-rate, world-class faculty. I think they're excellent men. They're very skilled. And probably, if anybody hears this on Twitter, it's going to be, you know, this, whatever. But it is available. The brick-and-mortar school, as beneficial as that is, going, being around people, discussing, having access to your professors, it's kind of not the world we live in anymore. With the availability of an online approach and with the Zoom calls that are interactive, or not Zoom, whatever their platforms are, They are interactive, and you can raise your hand, and you can interact with the professors, and I think they're very... I mean, we can talk to any of those guys at any time. So, it's not like they're unaccessible or out of reach.

So, the modern approach to a good seminary education, it's available. And the final thing I'll say is that, you know... It's going to take self-discipline and self-government and self-denial. I always tell guys that want to study a lot, take the time away from yourself, not your wife and kids. Either get up earlier or stay up later. The wife is losing her mind with the 10 kids running around. Can I get some milk? Well, I'm studying, John Owen, honey. But get up early. Stay up late.

You know, part of the pastoral ministry, and I think this goes underappreciated. Now I'm getting into my victimism. No, I'm kidding. It's hard. It is a very difficult work. It is not the most difficult. I'm not up at 2 a.m. shoveling coal. I bless God that I don't have to do that. I would do that if it was necessary. But it is tough and it is demanding. And, you know, just as a doctor goes in and fiddles with somebody's brain and loosens the wrong wire and messes that person up, yeah, they could die. But a pastor giving bad counsel or bad doctrine or, you know, heretical stuff, they die and go to hell. Again, God is sovereign, but instrumentally, I don't want to be the guy that helps somebody find hell quicker.

There's a lot involved, and the most educated or the most experienced or the most we can get in terms of our own mental equipment and faculties so that we can then present and teach to others, to me, just seems like a no-brainer. Why would we want ignorant people in pulpits. We want smart people. You want smart people in operating rooms. You want smart people working on your car. You want smart people making your pizza. But when it comes to the church, He's got such a nice heart. He has coffee with us all the time. He's good at golf. He's so sweet. I'm sorry, but can the guy preach the Word? That's the job. Calling sinners to faith and repentance and feeding the sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ so they can deal with the issues of life. 

Perfect. Thank you. Should I just keep going or is there any specific ones that you really wanted to cover? Cam, pick one out that you want to cover. No, I'm okay with the progression here. This is good. Yep. You can go in order. In other words, you're next. No, I'm not. Conviction of sin. Oh, I'm next. I didn't write that down. 

Conviction of sin before or after faith. I'd say both. before faith in terms of conviction of sin. Jesus says in Matthew 9, I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. So, yeah, the Spirit of God convicts us of our sins to show us our need for Jesus. 

Now, of course, the question comes up, how much and how long? I don't think it's the two-year period. I've been convicted of my sin for two years. I think I've filled up the measure of my guilt, and therefore now I'm going to believe. That I'm a sinner and I need Jesus? Conviction of sin. How much depths of despair and misery do I need to get into? The Bible doesn't address that. It's the regeneration before the conviction or after? 

Well, conviction comes and then we look to the Lord Jesus. If you're asking, is conviction of sin a part of regeneration? I think that's really what's under the hood with this one. Conviction of sin before or after faith? I took it this way. Is there any conviction of sin before we believe the gospel? Yeah, or else we're not going to look to Christ as our Savior in the gospel. And then after faith, is there a conviction of sin? Yeah. Laws of Tudor, yeah. I feel it driving down Yale Road every single day. I mean, you know, I'm not the most patient man, and traffic seems to exacerbate that. And I'm convicted of my sin, and I need to confess it to God. That's how I understood the question. Is that how you took it? 

Yeah, yeah. I don't know that I'd locate conviction for sin as a part of regeneration. No. No. No. And I think just some churches do teach that, which is you're awakened, kind of regenerated, you got this conviction going on, time of period, or just you got the misery and you're feeling the burden, and then God gives you faith and you believe. And that's all part of that. So it gets kind of chronological when the order of salvation. 

No, I took it as, is there conviction before you believe? Yeah. Or else I wouldn't believe. Is there conviction after you believe? Yeah, because I feel it all the time. Yeah. I mean, going back to that comment, you know, that there's a period of time, a period of grief over sin, of misery, and reflection and contemplation on your sin before faith is given, that's not what the Bible presents as a reality. When you are regenerated, when you are, let's just say, if we speak of conversion itself, there's no period of misery in conversion prior to which the gift of faith is given. 

conversion is the divine bestowal of the graces of faith and repentance. And so God saves us. And this is another one of those things, to heap upon To heap upon a weak sinner the reality, to heap upon a believer the reality that they must experience a particular period of self-wallowing grief and misery before something can obtain in the blessed complex of salvation is to heap something that is unbiblical upon that person. Spurgeon says something like this, but he goes on to say something like, but let us not spend a lot of time there when we're convicted of sin. What's the call? What's the blessed command? It's flee to Christ. And that's where we go. We don't go with both eyes looking inwardly upon ourselves in misery, because what a terrible place to be. Conviction of sin drives us with both eyes of faith to look upon the risen and exalted Christ and to there find not our misery, but our joy.

Nor are we to look with one eye upon ourselves and another eye upon Christ. We're to look to Christ and that's His own command. Look to me, come to me, and you will find the blessed captain of your salvation. And David in the Psalms, you know, if you, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? I'm going to live in that state for two years. No, but there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared.

It seems like an ecclesiastical imposition on categories to provide an intended outcome. Keep people miserable. Why that's the endgame, I don't get it. I mean, we try to make people happy, not with juggling and buffoonery in our church, but joy is the default disposition, or supposed to be, of the people of God in terms of gratitude. And to try to quantify how much misery, how much sin, how much...it almost then becomes kind of a work. Well, I've got this much sin, so now I... No, you're convicted of sin. There is a conviction. If I don't know sin, I'm not going to see the need for the Savior. But how much?

And if you look at the conversions recorded for us in the New Testament, there's no period of time. Matthew is told, follow me. Well, Lord, I've got to be miserable about my sin for two years. No, he follows Him. The Philippian jailer, I mean, he's ready to do himself in, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. Okay. You know, so again, an ecclesiastical imposition put on people for some intended outcome that I'm not sure what. Probably driving it is, you know, we don't want presumption. We don't want fakes. As I mentioned earlier in the baptism question, God's given us a tool to keep, you know, the church pure. It's disciplined. It's Matthew 18. It's not, you know, keeping people from the peace that is in God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We're not going to encourage you to look to the Lord Jesus Christ because you might pollute our church down the road. No, look to the Lord Jesus Christ. If you do pollute the church down the road, know that there's going to be implications, Matthew 18. But why do we necessarily assume everybody's a fake? Why do we necessarily assume everybody's presumptuous? And how is it presumptuous to believe what God tells us to believe, to command according to John in his first epistle? How is it presumptuous? to receive what God has said I will give you.

I think the illness of proof or burden of proof is on them. Show us this ecclesiastical construct that keeps people in this position of disadvantage, that keeps people in this sorrowful state until such time as you're convinced that they've arrived at their misery, now you can give them the permission to believe the gospel. It really does short-circuit what we see in the book of Acts. Repent, be baptized for the remission of sins. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. You may, if you believe, be baptized. It's just in our attempt to keep the church pure, we're probably inadvertently bruising the souls of many.

Absolutely. It's very hazardous. It is. And if we think about the blessed words of the Scriptures that speak to the certainty of salvation and the assurance that we can have as believers, we're not Catholics. The doctrine of presumption is Catholic, it's not Protestant. Keeping people in slaves to... the papal system. We have the blessed promise of John that he wrote in his epistles so that those who believe might know that they have everlasting life in the Son. And so we have that blessed hope, we have that blessed assurance, we have that blessed certainty that if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved. 

That's right. Yeah, it's glorious. It's simple, yeah. Got so many, they're all good questions. They're very good. And it's hard to, I mean, you can, yeah, you can move to one if you're looking at them there. Yeah, just move to one. We don't have a whole lot more time. 15, maybe less, 12. How about we end with Cam and... Federal Vision and Baxterianism. Let's get that one done so that next time... Yeah, so that we don't have to do it next time. Do you want to do them together or do you prefer separate? We can do it separately, sure. Can you do it in 10 minutes? Yeah. Okay. 

Cam, what is Federal Vision? Federal Vision is, we could say it's a particular approach to Christianity within usually Reformed circles and largely Presbyterian circles that has an approach to the covenants that we could say conflates the covenant of works with the covenant of grace. So that's a particular, and it's not only the federal visionists that do that, it's others historically and contemporaneously that conflate those two covenants in sort of this mono-covenantalism. So now we have works and grace mingled so that those who are to remain in the covenant need to exercise a measure of covenantal faithfulness in order to maintain their covenantal status and their covenant blessings. 

And so with that, obviously, and with the federal vision, there is not simply a subtle revision of the doctrine of justification by faith, but an utter rejection of the historical doctrine of justification by faith alone. Because covenantal faithfulness, while those who are proponents of the federal vision would use language that we're familiar with, justification, grace, faith, all of those things, there's nevertheless the reality put forth that justification is not about the imputed righteousness of the obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ. and the forgiveness of sins by virtue of his passive obedience, but it ultimately comes down to grace-assisted covenantal faithfulness on the part of the covenant member. And that is an explicit rejection of the blessed biblical and historic doctrine of justification by faith alone, where we're justified solely and alone by the act of obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ imputed to us and the blessed redemptive benefits of His passive obedience in His death, where He substitutionarily and sacrificially takes upon Himself the wrath of God in the stead of all who believe. 

Simply put, our justification rests not upon ourselves, not upon Christ plus ourselves, but solely and alone upon the perfect and finished work of Jesus Christ. 

Okay, we were going to do this as two different questions, but it sounds like a lot like the Baxterianism. So let's just... It does sound a lot like that. It does, yeah. So what is that? What's going on there? Yeah, what is Baxterianism? Well, from that particular word itself, or that word is taken from Richard Baxter, who was a 17th century Church of England minister, initially a Church of England minister in the 1600s, in the, you know, the early, mid 1600s. And what Richard Baxter essentially did, and It may be that it was informed by his opposition to licentiousness, looking around at the landscape of what we may today call easy-believism, where I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but I'm going to live like the devil. a licentiousness. Because I've been saved by grace, I don't need to live in accordance with that grace. Paul deals with that in Romans 6, for example.

So, Baxterianism is essentially Richard Baxter's response to the licentiousness of his day, where Justification, his doctrine of justification, is not and was not the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, but rather it was God justifies us by looking upon our evangelical obedience as the ground of our justification. So, he gave perhaps a measure of lip service to imputation, but did not emphasize it the way that the Reform did, which is the imputation of the act of obedience of the Lord Jesus Christ and his passive obedience in his death for our whole and sole righteousness.

So, Baxter basically answered licentiousness by a doctrine of justification that sees our Evangelical obedience is the ground of our justification. And it's certainly so much closer to Rome than it is to Geneva. It isn't the reformed doctrine of justification.

In our confession in chapter 11, paragraph 1, it actually, in essence, is dealing with Baxterianism with one of the clauses and others who would who would assert this approach to justification. But in chapter 11, paragraph 1 of justification, we read, Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, that's another error at the point of justification, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone, not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or notice, or any other evangelical obedience to them as their righteousness.

So, Baxterianism says that, that our evangelical obedience is our righteousness before God whereby we are justified in his sight. The Confession masterfully, according to the Biblical, the Blessed Biblical Witness, says that our justification is by imputing Christ's act of obedience unto the whole law and passive obedience in his death for our whole and soul righteousness.

And so, yeah, Baxterianism, we could say, as so many errors on the point of justification does, it conflates justification and sanctification as that by which God looks upon in order to accept us in his sight.

we ought to say that is evangelical obedience a good thing? Absolutely. In chapter 13 on sanctification, that phrase is used with regards to our sanctification. But justification, as Pastor Butler mentioned earlier, being that blessed gift of grace whereby we're justified not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of Christ, excludes any human merit, whether it's works solely, whether it's our works added to the finished work of Christ, which let's just think about that. That's terrible. Then what is the purpose? Why the incarnation? Why the perfect life of Christ? Why the perfect death of Christ? Why the vindication of His perfect work in His resurrection? But so, yeah, Baxterianism is an error at the point of justification. And in that, it's also an error with regards to the law of God. Baxter taught essentially a new law in the New Covenant, the law of the gospel, if you will, where God actually relaxes his requirements for his people, for sinners, for believers, and that obedience to that relaxed law, that evangelical obedience to a relaxed law, is that whereby we are justified.

There's a very important or strong statement in chapter 19 of our Confession of Faith that speaks to that particular error of God's law in the gospel somehow being relaxed. And in chapter 19 of the law of God, we read in paragraph 5, the moral law doth forever bind all as well justified persons as others to the obedience thereof. And that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. And listen to this, neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

So another error of Baxterianism in the horror of destroying the doctrine of justification is relaxing the law of God. Praise God that The God of unmitigated perfect holiness does not relax His law, but rather in upholding the perfection of His law and upholding His holiness and justice, He sent the Son of His love into this lower world to perfect the law's obedience in our stead, to bear the curse of the law, and to bring many sons and daughters to glory by virtue of that perfect work.

And so anything, whether it's the federal vision, whether it's Baxterianism, anything that destroys our resting upon the perfect and finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ is something that should not be touched with a 135,000-foot pole. And that's been so clear as you've been preaching through Galatians. It's like almost every verse that's coming up there, right? Yeah. How many times does the Apostle Paul have to say that we're justified by faith and not by the works of the law? He repeats it five times in Galatians 2.16. It's repeated throughout the book. It's repeated in Romans. The other apostles pick it up using perhaps some different language, but the same truth. That we're saved from first to last, midst and throughout, by a triune God who saves without a helper. And that by virtue of the soul work of the Lord Jesus Christ. His act of obedience unto the whole law and passive obedience in his death for our whole and soul righteousness. Amen. Excellent. Good. Amen.

Yeah, title I've given to this one is, Who Should Categorize Your Children, Parents or the Church? So is there a biblical case for Christian parents bearing that primary responsibility for teaching their children? And is there practical guidance, just on the nuts and bolts of how to do that at different ages?

Sure. Yeah, the biblical case, I would say, is, you know, Deuteronomy 6, teach these things to your children when you rise up, when you walk by the way, and when you lie down. Certainly, as well, on the plains of Moab, the emphasis is pass these things on to the next generation. When your son sees this happening, he'll ask the significance for it, and you're supposed to be able to answer him. And then the New Testament passage is Ephesians 6, fathers do not, you know, provoke your children, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. It's training and admonition of the Lord. It's not the training and admonition of mathematics, though mathematics is under the purview of our Lord, but the emphasis is on religious instruction.

I think Malachi the prophet foretelling the ministry of John the Baptist is that John would or His ministry would turn the hearts of the fathers to the sons and to the children to the fathers. So, I think the primary orbit of catechetical instruction is the family, but I don't think it's an either-or, either the family or the church. I think it's a both-and. I think that the church you know, feeds and instructs the sheep of God, the husbands and fathers and mothers, so that they in turn then go home and teach their children.

But as well, I think pastors should, in their preaching, want to be understood by children. Again, you mentioned earlier, if we get 25 percent not a hundred percent, 25 is better than nothing. I think that every sermon, you know, well preached, ought to speak to everybody in attendance. The hay needs to be put out for all the horses. Some are taller, some are shorter, but put the hay at a place where, you know, the short ones can get it too. So, I think it's a both-and approach.

The church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, instructs parents so that parents can in turn instruct children. But children are being instructed in the church as well through sermons that they can follow or understand, through catechism classes, through Sunday school. That's all helpful and supplemental.

In terms of the nuts and bolts, Similar to what we said with the Bible, pick it up and open it. You know, we make available a catechism for young children, and it would be akin to you teaching your child to read. It would be akin to teaching your child basic mathematic facts. It's basically rote. It's memorization. It's, you know, who made you? God. God made me. What else did God make? Excuse me, all things. So, repetition, you know, memory work, just, you know, encouraging, explaining along the way the significance of these questions and answers.

And one of the things that I have seen in the use of catechetical instruction, excuse me, for young children is that, you know, they don't get it. They get it the way they get six times six is, you know, what is it, 36? They get it you know, at that surface level. But what I've seen and, you know, personal experience is that kids get converted and they get it. They didn't get it. I mean, they got it. Who made you? God. Well, that's pretty gettable. But once they're converted, you know, what is God? God is spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable. And it's being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. I mean, that's they get it in a way that they didn't get it when they memorized it by road.

But memorizing by road inserts into them a body of truth and doctrine that will last them the rest of their lives. I mean, arguably, that's why we teach kids their mathematics tables, their times tables. We teach kids, you know, phonics and how to read and alphabets so that will serve them for the entirety of their lives.

So, the nuts and bolts, very simple, open it up, sit your kid down, It's repetition. It's long haul, just like you teach. I mean, just like, but similar in way that you would teach multiplication tables.

So, both in church and family, primary orbit is family. Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up. It's not my job to raise your kids, right? It's not the government's job to raise our kids. It's not, you know, civil authority's job to raise other people's kids, and it's not ecclesiastical authority to raise people's kids. Can we help you and instruct you and provide some things for them? Sure. The primary onus of responsibility in terms of parental or in terms of child training is on the parent.

You know, the parent that looks for the government to raise their kids is a pretty pathetic individual. But I would argue that it's not the church's primary focus or job to raise your kids either. I've seen that in certain churches, when parents baptize their babies or have them sprinkled, they're saying vows, and the wording in there is you vow to raising up your children in scriptural truth or cause it to happen. And it should be an and, not an or there, right? That just sticks out to me, right?

So people just basically abdicate, they delegate. Oh yeah, church and school has it. So mission school, that's taken care of, checkbox, checkbox, and I'm done. Right, yeah. Okay, excellent. Well, we'll wrap up this series of questions here and save the rest for another time. Sounds good. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.