← Back to sermon library

We can turn in your confession 
of faith to chapter 27 of the communion of saints. fitting chapter to follow chapter 
26, which deals specifically with the church. The end of chapter 
26 deals with intra-church communion or fellowship. In other words, 
those churches that are like-minded should have fellowship with one 
another. And here, chapter 27 speaks specifically 
of communion of the saints within local congregations, but obviously 
that extends beyond just the local church. So I want to read 
chapter 27, paragraphs 1 and 2. All saints that are united 
to Jesus Christ, their head by His Spirit and faith, although 
they are not made there by one person with Him, have fellowship 
in His graces, sufferings, death, resurrection and glory. and being 
united to one another in love, they have communion in each other's 
gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, 
public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce to their mutual 
good, both in the inward and outward man. Saints, by profession, 
are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the 
worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services 
as tend to their mutual edification, as also in relieving each other 
in outward things according to their several abilities and necessities, 
which communion, according to the rule of the gospel, though 
especially to be exercised by them in the relations wherein 
they stand, whether in families or churches, yet, as God offereth 
opportunity, is to be extended to all the household of faith, 
even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Nevertheless, their communion one with another as saints doth 
not take away or infringe the title or propriety which each 
man hath in his goods and possessions. Amen. Well, as I said, it connects 
very favorably with chapter 27, of course. The following chapters 
will deal with the ordinances or sacraments of the church, 
baptism in the Lord's Supper, and then the confession ends 
on the matters concerning the last things, or eschatology, 
the doctrine of the end. So in this particular chapter, 
we have two specific emphases. First, the nature of the communion 
of the saints in paragraph 1, as is often the case. Paragraph 
1 in each of the several chapters gives a good overview, and then 
other paragraphs sort of flesh out particular elements of that 
general overview. And then secondly, in paragraph 
2, the duties involved in the communion of the saints. So the 
nature of it, paragraph one, the duties of it in paragraph 
two. With reference to this language 
of communion, which is in the title and oftentimes occurs in 
the Confession of Faith, the Oxford English Dictionary simply 
defines it this way, sharing or holding in common, participation. fellowship, association in actions 
or relations, spiritual intercourse. And again, I think that the modern 
dictionaries would give that last emphasis, but that's certainly 
what's in view here in chapter 27. As I said, it's used several 
times in the Confession in chapters 2, 4, 6, 26, and then 27, and 30. And Renaghan 
says the first three occurrences all relate to personal communion 
with God. The first man and woman were 
happy in their original communion with God, and by the fall they 
lost their communion with God. In each of these cases, communion 
relates to profound personal mutuality. There is a true depth 
of fellowship and participation. So that's the sort of definition 
that we're working with when we look at chapter 27 and the 
communion of the saints. Now, in that paragraph, we see 
the foundation of the believer's union with saints is founded 
upon his union with Christ. So notice in paragraph 1, all 
saints that are united to Jesus Christ, their head by His Spirit 
and faith, although they are not made there by one person 
with Him, have fellowship in His graces, sufferings, death, 
resurrection, and glory, and being united to one another in 
love, they have communion in each other's gifts and graces. 
So in other words, the foundation for our relationship or fellowship 
or communion with one another first begins with our relationship 
or our communion with the Lord Jesus Christ. So that's the main 
emphasis here. And we see lots of other teachings 
from the Confession incorporated into this particular section. 
We have seen in the Confession that the Confession teaches what's 
called the covenant of redemption. that eternal transaction between 
the persons of the Trinity to save God's people from their 
sins. And then the historic outworking 
of that, we call it the covenant of grace. And again, Renaghan 
says, the mutuality of fellowship with Christ is the paradigm or 
pattern for church members' communion with each other. So, in other 
words, if we have union with Christ, then it necessarily follows 
we have union with one another. If we have communion with Christ 
by God's grace and the gift of the Spirit, then it necessarily 
follows that we have communion with one another by God's grace 
and the gift of the Holy Spirit. And notice the specific emphasis 
there. It is by His Spirit, and it is 
by faith, specifically. Their head by His Spirit and 
faith. So we don't come into saving 
communion with our Lord Jesus based on our works, or our performance, 
or our merit, or sort of an out. balancing of the bad with the 
good. We are in that state of communion 
with Christ by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ 
alone, and that according to the gift of the Spirit alone. 
So then notice, it goes on to sort of give us some clarification. What does it mean to be in union 
with Christ? Does it mean we participate in 
divinity? Does it mean that our substance 
is changed? Does it mean that we are radically 
increased in terms of who we are as people? Notice, it goes 
on to say, and although they are not made there by one person 
with him. And that's a good and necessary 
qualification. so that we don't suppose or that 
we don't assume that union with Christ means divinity on the 
part of Christ's people. In other words, what is being 
held to here is chapter 8, paragraph 2, specifically concerning the 
person of our Lord Jesus Christ. We call that The union of the 
natures in the one person, the hypostatic union. We know that 
Christ is one person, two natures, divine and human. So when we're 
in union with him, we don't actually participate in divinity. And 
the second London Confession here follows the Savoy Declaration, 
although they are not made there by one person with him. The statement 
is absent in Westminster, but Westminster has a third paragraph 
which in part reads, this communion which the saints have with Christ 
does not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of 
his Godhead or to be equal with Christ in any respect. Very important, 
we've got to make sure that when we're doing theology, we're being 
faithful on several fronts, and one of those fronts is that we 
don't compromise the divinity of Jesus, or that we don't increase 
our own status before God. So union with Christ does not 
mean a substantial change to what is man, but rather it is 
by God's grace, adoption, the work of the Spirit, the gifts 
of faith and repentance, We are participants in that union, not 
by a change of substance, but rather a participation in grace. Now, this may seem a bit far-fetched 
in our particular setting, but in the context in which these 
documents were composed, it wasn't far-fetched at all. In fact, 
Dixon, who wrote a commentary on the Westminster Confession, 
said, did not likewise the Manichaean's error, who blasphemously taught 
that the divine essence was mingled with the soul and body of every 
man, and that therefore all his actions were wholly divine. And 
then after giving several scriptural confutations, he ends by saying, 
because the Manichean error is the utmost stretch of Satan's 
invention beyond which he is not able to go. They deserve 
not confutation, but to be looked upon as devils incarnate. So 
it is to compromise the divinity of our Lord Jesus to suggest 
that man participates in the divinity of the Lord Jesus. So 
that's why that language is there. Although they are not made there 
by one person with him, union with Christ does not mean that 
our humanity is escalated into divinity, or that somehow the 
divinity of Christ is parceled out amongst the various members 
of his church. A recent commentator, Van Dixhorn, 
says, the communion that we have with Christ is with Christ as 
our mediator, not with Christ in his being, in his substance 
as a member of the Trinity. In the early church at the Reformation 
and today, there are those who devalue Jesus or overvalue the 
rest of us. This is a great mistake. So union 
does not mean divinization for the creature. Union does not 
mean diminishment of the divinity of Christ, thus parceled out 
to various creatures. So that's the language that we 
see there, although they are not made there by one person 
with it. protecting what has already been 
said concerning Jesus in the Confession at chapter 8. And 
then what it says with reference to man. We will not be changed 
into divinity. We do not partake in the substance 
of divinity. And then notice the explanation 
of this union. So it says they have fellowship 
in his graces, and we see that in John 1. The law came through 
Moses, but grace and truth came through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
We see it as well in Ephesians 1. Blessed be the God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed us with every spiritual 
blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. So it emphasizes that 
union that we have in our Lord Jesus. So in his graces, as well 
it continues in his sufferings. Now, the apostle speaks to this 
in Philippians chapter 3, and he understands all too well that 
this is part and parcel of being God's people. In Philippians 
3.10, it says that, I may know him in the power of his resurrection 
and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, 
if by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the 
dead. So Paul knew that both experientially, but he also knew 
it doctrinally. That section that we've been 
going through in the Upper Room Discourse when Jesus promises 
that there will be persecution, there will be opposition, there 
will be oppression from the world. Why? Because if they reject, 
resist, and hate the master, they're going to reject, resist, 
and hate the servant. And so that's just a natural 
part of our religion. We'll see a bit more of this 
tonight in the letter to the Philippians in chapter one. But 
it goes on, not only his graces and his sufferings, but also 
in his death. And there you can turn to Romans 
chapter six. Romans chapter 6, one of the 
arguments that the Baptists have often used in terms of baptism 
by immersion, not just the meaning of the word, baptizo means immerse, 
but is the theology and that demonstration of the union that 
believers have with our Lord Jesus Christ that is very beautifully 
represented in the act of immersion. We are buried with Christ. We died with Christ and were 
raised again with Christ. Notice in Romans 6, 1, what shall 
we say then? Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound? Certainly not. And I love here 
how Paul will eventually address the need to kill sin. He will 
say that later in this chapter. Don't present your members as 
instruments of unrighteousness. But before he gets to that, he 
points to the gospel. In other words, what's the primary 
emphasis in gospel holiness but gospel? It's not first, do this. It is first, remember what has 
happened to you with reference to salvation by grace through 
faith, then do this. So I think the tendency that 
we have is if somebody comes to us and says, I'm really struggling 
with this sin, is to say, well, stop struggling with that sin. 
I know that because I've said that many a time. But I should 
remind people, first and foremost, of what is theirs in the gospel. So before Paul gets to, don't 
present your members as instruments of unrighteousness, he points 
first to what is true of them concerning the gospel. In other 
words, the indicative, what is true, comes before the imperative, 
what you must do in light of what is true. So after asking 
the question, what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin 
that grace may abound? And just here I'd note a sideline 
note. We ought to be thankful that 
Paul had a ministry in the synagogues. We ought to be thankful that 
the Apostle Paul went into Jewish synagogues and preached that 
Jesus was the Messiah. Because no doubt, after the preaching, 
Paul got attacked, not necessarily physically, but certainly doctrinally. And so the questions that he 
asks in the Book of Romans and then answers weren't theoretical. He didn't just sort of make this 
up, thinking that somebody somewhere might actually think this. He 
probably heard it in the back of multitudes of synagogues. 
When Paul emphasized justification, by faith alone, probably on the 
way out, unbelieving Jews said, well, if you insist upon that, 
then people will think they can just sin. They will think that 
it's okay for them to continue and persist in sin, because Jesus 
has saved them from it, and we're justified by faith. If the exclusion 
of good works with reference to our acceptance with God is 
true, then people will wrongly conclude that it doesn't matter 
what they do. So I think that's why Paul asks the questions that 
he does. There's another one in Romans 
chapter 9 when he's dealing with sovereignty. Notice in 9.14, 
what shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with 
God? Certainly not. Again, Paul's not making up some 
theoretical charge against the doctrine of divine sovereignty. 
He'd heard it in the back of the synagogues. Well, if what 
you're saying is true, then it doesn't matter what men do. So 
that's the emphasis. So back to chapter 6. Certainly 
not, verse 2. How shall we who died to sin 
live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many 
of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his 
death? Therefore, we were buried with him through baptism into 
death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
That's the first line of defense when it comes to walking in holiness, 
is to ponder, to consider, and to remember the glory of the 
cross of our Lord Jesus, the fact that our sins are forgiven, 
and the fact that a righteousness has been imputed to us. So the 
Confession says we have union with Christ, not by participating 
in His divinity, but in His graces, in His sufferings, in His death, 
in His resurrection, and in His glory. So all that is true concerning 
what we find in the Gospel, all those benefits are conveyed to 
us by God's grace through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. 
So again, that's the foundation or the basis upon which the rest 
of the paragraph follows. So then notice, And being united 
to one another in love, they have communion in each other's 
gifts and graces. They are obliged to the performance 
of such duties, public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce 
to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man." 
So we have this union in love. You can turn to 1 John 3. You're 
familiar with the Epistle of John, the first one. It's sort 
of a continuation of the Gospel of John. John's purpose in the 
Gospel is that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, and 
that believing you may have life in his name. Well, 1 John 5, 
he gives us the purpose in verse 13. These things I have written 
to you, who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may 
know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to 
believe in the name of the Son of God. So he writes the gospel 
so that we may believe and be saved. He writes the first epistle 
so that our faith is nurtured, that it can grow, that it can 
be strengthened, so that we can remain in that comfortable dependence 
upon God. So that's why there looks to 
be many tests In 1 John, we know this because of this. We know 
this because of this. We know that we have passed from 
a state of death into life if we have love for the brethren. 
Notice in 1 John 3, specifically at verse 13, do not marvel, my 
brethren, if the world hates you. John, having been in the 
upper room, heard the Lord Jesus teach from John 15, 18 to John 
16, 4. He heard Jesus teach in John 
16, 33. In this world, you will have 
tribulations. So that's why the apostles, oftentimes 
in their letters, remind the people of God, there's going 
to be hardship. There's going to be persecution. 
There's going to be oppression. There's going to be suffering. 
So he says, don't marvel, my brethren, if the world hates 
you. We know that we have passed from death to life because we 
love the brethren. He who does not love his brother 
abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is 
a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life 
abiding in him. By this we know love because 
he laid down his life for us, and we also ought to lay down 
our lives for the brethren. But whoever has this world's 
goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart 
from him, how does the love of God abide in him? My little children, 
let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth." 
So when the confession speaks concerning our union with Christ, 
then our union with one another, certainly we ought to expect 
love as being a vital part of that. We have as well this communion 
in gifts and grace. Why does the Spirit give gifts 
to the people of God in the church? It's not so they can squander 
them, and it's not simply so they can use them for their own 
benefit, but Romans 12, 1 Corinthians, the section dealing with gifts, 
specifically in chapter 12, indicates that the gifts are given for 
the mutual edification of the saints. That's why modern tongue 
speaking is just so bizarre. Tongue speaking in the New Testament 
church was revelatory in nature. They didn't have the New Testament 
canon, and so there were tongues given, other languages, so that 
the works of God could be made known. Now that the canon is 
closed, there's no longer that need for revelatory gifts. And 
typically, the tongue speaking that you see today has nothing 
to do with the edification of the body. babbling mindlessly, 
babbling nonsensically, babbling in tongues that no one can understand, 
even you yourself, that is not to the edification of the Church 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. I mean, on the one hand, it is, 
because the rest of us can laugh at them. But on the other hand, 
it does nothing for the building up and the maturing of the people 
of God. And so when these gifts are given 
by Christ to the people of God in the Church, they are for mutual 
edification. And then note the obligation. There's an obligation connected 
to our union with Christ and our communion with one another. 
They are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, 
in an orderly way. "'as do conduce to their mutual 
good, "'both in the inward and outward man.'" So it's not just 
spiritually, and you see that in that emphasis in 1 John 3, 
when he says, whoever sees, or whoever has this world's goods, 
and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, 
how does the love of God abide in him? Or turn back to James, 
the epistle of James, where much is made concerning the kind of 
faith that is necessary. And it's saving faith, it's not 
a faith plus works. Genuine faith, we're justified 
by faith alone, but that faith is not alone, it's always accompanied 
by all other saving graces. But if you look specifically 
in James chapter two, let's see here. I'm thinking it's, yeah. James 2, verse 1. My brethren, 
do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of 
glory with partiality. For if there should come into 
your assembly a man with gold rings and fine apparel, and there 
should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay 
attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, 
you sit here in a good place and say to the poor man, you 
stand there or sit here at my footstool. Have you not shown 
partiality among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? In other words, there ought not 
to be that partiality in the communion of the saints, and 
there ought not to be a partiality with reference to goods, both 
physical and spiritual. We're to pray for one another. 
We're to encourage one another. But if we have ability and we 
see somebody in need, we have obligations to provide for those 
particular needs. Any questions or comments on 
paragraph 1 before we look at paragraph 2? Yes. Yes. Yeah. It's probably the misinterpretation 
of a few key passages in Scripture. I think the reality is that there 
is benefit in suffering, or else God wouldn't have us to suffer. 
He does all things. He works all things for the good 
of those who love him and to those who are the called according 
to his purpose. So the fact that there is benefit 
in our suffering, both temporally and spiritually, no one can deny. But a fascination with suffering 
is just an odd emphasis. I think that You know, because 
there's benefit with suffering, I'm not sure of any passage in 
the scriptures that says, therefore, go out and seek to suffer. I 
think the attitude is to have a willing acceptance of what 
God inflicts or afflicts us with. But I don't think it's wrong, 
and I think it is significant that we bear the image of God. 
There is a self-preservation aspect wherein we don't court 
suffering. We don't try to find suffering. But we're ready so that when 
we are suffering, we're not castigating or throwing aspersion on God 
for this present situation or somehow cursing God or anything 
like that. It's probably connected to their 
view of the sufferings of Christ. They make much out of the suffering 
of Christ. I remember preaching through 
John the first time and using a commentary by Herman Ritterboss, 
and he points out that in the gospel narratives, there's not 
an extended treatment of the passion in terms of the physical 
suffering of the Lord. Well, in Catholicism, there are 
extended treatments of the passion in terms of the physical suffering 
of the Lord. They magnify that. And again, 
I'm not really sure why it is or how that came to be. So I 
would imagine that if the torture of Jesus and all of its physical 
reprehensiveness is to be celebrated, then such is the case when it 
comes to the saints. So there is a benefit and blessing 
and suffering or God would not inflict it upon us, but I don't 
think it's natural by virtue of us as creatures to go out 
and try to find suffering. I mean, that's not always the 
right response. So I'm not sure that gets at 
it, but that's what I would suggest. Anything else on paragraph one? 
Is there someone today that believes 
that The Eastern Orthodox have a doctrine 
called theosis, and basically that means sharing in the substance 
of the divinity. But I think that everybody that's 
not Eastern Orthodox probably misses their point. You can turn 
to 2 Peter for just a moment. 2 Peter. 2 Peter 1, 4, by which have been 
given to us exceedingly great and precious promises that through 
these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped 
the corruption that is in the world through lust. If that was 
the only verse that one had in scripture, you might begin to 
suspect that we do partake in the divine nature. I don't think 
it means that we actually become divine. I think it means we participate 
in the benefits of the divine nature. So in Eastern Orthodoxy, 
the doctrine of theosis, and I think I could be wrong here, 
but I think they even speak of it as divinization. But I've 
read other treatments where they simply mean by that union with 
Christ. So when we emphasize union with 
Christ, they mean the same thing. They just use language that is 
a bit rhetorically charged. in the presentation of their 
doctrine. But then others, yeah, I think Dixon points to the Manichaeans. That was a philosopher that would 
mingle substance and different things like that. Pantheism is 
another thing, that all is God. Everything has the divine spark 
in him or it. So there certainly are panentheism, 
God is in everything. So as long as we guard the language, 
union with Christ is good. We can even use 2 Peter 1.4, 
partakers of the divine nature, insofar as we remember that we 
don't... I would say at a popular level, 
there's probably a lot of people out there that do think that. 
I would think these people that get converted, I see them on 
Twitter, and their theology is horrendous. So it wouldn't surprise 
me a bit if indeed there were many. And probably within the 
church, you're going to find people that kind of confuse, 
because theology is not really that important. Just tell me 
what's good for me. So when we don't make those necessary 
distinctions, when we don't protect the person of Christ, we don't 
understand the essential difference between divinity and humanity, 
I can see people mingling the two. Yes. Yes, I would definitely suspect 
that New Ageism. Yeah, yeah, it happens. Yes, 
Doug. Christian perfection is what 
Wesley kind of… So is there anything there? I don't know. That's a 
good question. I'm not sure how Wesley got there 
other than bypassing lots of Bible. But that's a great question. I know Warfield has a treatment 
on perfectionism. Might be a place to check. Probably, 
I would think, if not actually participating or being divinized. I mean, I guess you'd have to 
argue you have so much benefit of the spirit that kept you in 
that state. But I'm not sure that Wesley 
would have gone there in terms of actually being divine. But 
there's no shortage of departures from orthodoxy. That's another 
reason why we do what we do every other Sunday morning when we 
go through the confession. It's a helpful way for us to 
be mindful. And if not the specific errors, 
I mean, I doubt any of us have ever met a Manichaean. If not 
the specific errors, Solomon was right. There's nothing new 
under the sun. What has been will be. The errors 
that we see plaguing the church in the early centuries of the 
church are the sorts of errors that we see plaguing the church 
in this phase. There were early wacko charismatics 
in the early church, during the patristics, during the fathers. 
They were called Montanists, and they had all kinds of weird 
manifestations of the spirit. It'd make you feel like you were 
at a Pentecostal tent meeting today if you saw the Montanists 
doing their thing. So no new thing under the sun. Typically, heresy just gets resurrected 
every few years, and we have to deal with that. But having 
a good document like this, which accurately summarizes the teaching 
of scripture, is a helpful antidote against that kind of stuff. Now, 
in terms of the duties, there's specific considerations and then 
a qualification that I think is very helpful that the confession 
makes. So in terms of the specific considerations, 
note holy fellowship and communion. Saints, by profession, are bound 
to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship 
of God and in performing such other spiritual services as tend 
to their mutual edification. Now the confession's gonna deal 
with if your brother is hungry or your brother is cold, just 
like the Bible does, feed him or give him a coat. I don't think 
we value that first section the way that we ought, maintain and 
holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God and in 
performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual 
edification. If anyone were to ask me, Pastor 
Butler, how can I encourage you with reference to church life? 
You know what my answer would be? Show up. That's it. I don't need a parking 
spot. I don't need a new coffee mug. 
I don't need it. Just show up. I don't think we 
value the public means. I'm not picking on us specifically. Generally, we don't value our 
part in the worship of God. It's not a one-man show. It's 
not a preaching station. It is the place where the people 
of God gather together for what the Confession says here, holy 
fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing 
such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification. 
This past Wednesday night, we looked at Numbers 15. And Numbers 
15 is interesting because it's an emphasis on the requirements 
for religious life in Israel. Much of it is repetitive. It 
has to do with grain offerings and drink offerings when you 
offer up your animal to the Lord. has to do with the laws concerning 
unintentional and intentional sin, has to do with a particular 
violator of God's law, Sabbath breaker and his execution. And 
then the section ends with an emphasis on the necessity of 
remembering God's law by the tassels that you put on your 
garment. So when you look at those tassels, you remember God's 
law. Well, that's numbers 15. Numbers 11 to 14 is nothing but 
sin and rebellion. Numbers 16 is gonna be nothing 
but more sin and rebellion. So some might say, why 15 right 
there in the midst of sin and rebellion, sin and rebellion? 
Probably because if you comply with what's going on here in 
Numbers 15, it might help mitigate the sorts of sin and rebellion 
that you see in 11, 14, and 16. In other words, if you use the 
means of grace that God has ordained for your growth, for your profit, 
for your benefit, it may help to restrain you from going a-whoring 
from God and engaging in the sorts of wickedness that we see 
there. It's interesting. There are people 
that say Numbers 15 was just inserted there as an editor's, 
you know, mistake. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. It is there to emphasize that walking in communion with 
God is the best remedy against walking against God and His law. And so I think that this emphasis, 
and again, feeding the poor brother, clothing the poor brother, all 
of that is requisite. There always seems to be this 
balance that we're navigating. Some churches only the spiritual, 
others only the temporal. It's supposed to be a both and 
combination, spiritual and temporal. Look out for their inward being 
and look out for their outward being. G.I. Williamson says, 
the confession maintains that the duty of fellowship and communion 
in the worship of God is at least in part an outcome of this union. But some have argued that they 
can worship God by themselves or at least without any commitment 
to membership in the visible church. Others seem to feel no 
obligation to loyal and faithful attendance at the services of 
worship in a particular congregation at its stated times of worship 
on the Lord's Day. He who is united to Christ is 
united to other believers, and being united to Christ necessarily 
entails solemn obligations to that. What's the analogy Paul 
uses in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 when he's dealing with gifts 
employed in the context of the church? He's dealing with them 
as a body. And there specifically, you know, 
the eye isn't all on its own. The hand isn't all on its own. 
And the hand shouldn't complain because it's not a foot. And 
the foot shouldn't complain that it's not a hand. The eye shouldn't... 
Well, all that's true. But brethren, if I woke up without 
a foot one day, I'd notice that. I think the same is true in the 
public worship of God. If we're not bound together in 
our common confession, and people say, well, Christianity is more 
than public worship, but it's not less than public worship. 
That's kind of like the basic, right? If we don't get the basics 
down, we're not going to shine on all the other things. I think 
G.I. Williamson is right, and I think 
that's the emphasis of the apostle in Hebrews 10. Do not forsake 
the assembling of yourselves together, as is the manner or 
custom of some, especially as you see the day approaching. 
I take the day there as the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. So the 
apostle isn't saying, okay, the city's going to be destroyed, 
so go ahead and start prepping. You know, find some ammo. I'm 
not against prepping. I'm not against ammo. I'm not 
against food. I'm not against gold. I'm not 
against any of that. But it is intriguing that as you see the 
day of its destruction approaching, don't forsake the assembling 
of yourselves together. Isn't that the first thing that goes? 
Oh, there's going to be this great calamity, so we can't go 
to church today. There's going to be this great 
hardship, so we can't go to church today. I think the argument should 
be better that because of the calamity and because of the hardship, 
we better go to church today. We should be with the people 
of God, band together as the brothers that we are. So this 
holy fellowship and communion, and then notice mutual edification. in outward things according to 
ability and necessity. Notice, as also in relieving 
each other in outward things according to their several abilities 
and necessities. I mean, we can't give what we 
don't have, that's obvious, but if we have it, and we're able 
to give, the confession suggests that we should be giving. We 
should be helping brethren. Which communion, according to 
the rule of the gospel, though especially to be exercised by 
them in the relations wherein they stand. So you have a primary 
responsibility in your life, I think this is what the confession 
is nodding to, to those that are immediately closest to you, 
right? You gotta make sure your wife, 
your kids can eat, wear shoes and have shelter. Right? That's Paul's point in 1 Timothy 
5. In fact, you can turn there. 
1 Timothy 5, I think by way of observation, suggests to us a 
pecking order in terms of the relations that we maintain with 
reference to honoring or temporal responsibility. Notice in 1st 
Timothy 5 verse 3, honor widows. The honor there doesn't mean 
that you open the door for them, but we should, or that we give 
them the best chair in the house, we should, but honor there means 
money. It means honor. Pay them. Give them. Sustain them. Help them so that they can buy 
groceries. Help them so they can buy new 
moccasins and a housecoat. Honor. We know that because of 
1 Timothy 5.17. Let the elders who rule well 
be counted worthy of double honor. Double honor there isn't right 
reverence, sir. It's pay the man. He's like an 
ox who's threshing out the grain. Let him eat. And honor in the 
Old Testament background means the same thing. So honor widows 
who are really widows. But if any widow has children 
or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and 
to repay their parents, for this is good and acceptable before 
God. The first and primary order of business in terms of the support 
of widows is their kids and their grandkids. But if they don't 
have kids, they don't have grandkids that are in a position to help 
them, then the church. But even this, brethren, and 
this is where this mutual edification in terms of temporal provision 
becomes a bit difficult because the church isn't a bank machine 
where it just throws out money to everybody without any concern 
whatsoever to any other issues. Notice how it qualifies the widow's 
qualification for being on this list. Now, she who is really 
a widow and left alone trusts in God and continues in supplications 
and prayers night and day. But she who lives in pleasure 
is dead while she lives. And these things command that 
they may be blameless. But if anyone does not provide 
for his own, and especially for those of his household, he is 
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Now, note 
the qualifications. Do not let a widow under 60 years 
old be taken into the number. And not unless she has been the 
wife of one man. Not unless she is well reported 
for good works. Not unless she has brought up 
children. Not unless she has lodged strangers. Not unless 
she has washed the saint's feet. Not unless she has relieved the 
afflicted. Not unless she has diligently followed every good 
work. Quite a list of qualifications to make it onto that list with 
reference to the widow support. And then I love his counsel to 
the younger widows. You know what the younger widows 
should do? Go find yourself another man. Go find another dude. Hitch your wagon to that other 
pony and get married so that you can be taken care of. God's 
world is quite simple, contrary to our many attempts to overly 
complicate it. But with reference to this in 
the confession, which communion according to the rule of the 
gospel, though especially to be exercised by them in the relations 
wherein they stand, whether in families or churches, yet as 
God offers opportunity, is to be extended to all the household 
of faith. That's a good principle there. Your wife is taken care of, your 
kids are taken care of, you've got a bit of extra, and you know 
there's a brother in need, you don't have to make a big deal 
out of it, you don't have to make a big show out of it, you 
don't have to make the trumpet sound and say, brethren, I'm 
gonna relieve the poor. No, no, just give it, just cough 
it up, just do it. It's a wonderful and blessed 
thing that God does in the midst of the people of God. Now, the 
confession then gives, I think, a very necessary qualification. 
for the Christian church, because the Christian church at times 
is susceptible to socialism and communism. You've heard me recently 
say, and I get further convinced of this day in and day out as 
I witness it, communism is an antichrist religion. It is a 
religion. It is a faith commitment to godlessness 
and Christlessness. So notice the qualification that 
the confession goes on to say in that last section, the nevertheless. Nevertheless, their communion 
one with another as saints does not take away or infringe the 
title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions. This is a necessary qualification. Dixon asks, do not the Anabaptists 
err who affirm that the goods and possessions of the saints 
ought to be common? Because I have an obligation 
to give you something, that doesn't mean you have a right to my something. That's a different ball game. And this attitude that is oftentimes 
manifested in the church and propagated throughout the world, 
that everybody has the right to your stuff, that's not a biblical 
concept. I would suggest that communism, 
to a lesser degree, socialism, is founded on the rejection of 
the Eighth and Tenth Commandments. You are not supposed to steal 
as an individual, but neither are you as a government. And 
covetousness is bred in communists. It is the communist of guilt 
and envy and manipulation. And so I think the confession 
is right on here. So the Eighth Commandment is 
absolutely crucial to combat this mindset that my property 
is your right. Again, I have an obligation with 
my property. I have duties enjoined upon me 
by the head of the church. I have a stewardship under the 
God who owns all things, but has given me things to steward 
for His glory. I have that obligation. But you 
don't have the right to what is mine, brethren. There is private 
property. That's what economic theory ought 
to be founded upon, not transgressed by. That's why communism and 
socialism is wrong. It directly opposes the Eighth 
and Tenth Commandments. And when people say, well, the 
economy isn't really a biblical or ethical issue, it is absolutely 
positively a biblical or ethical issue. It is not right for government 
to take our money and to give it away. I wish more people believe 
that, but I can only bang the drum and thank the Lord God Almighty 
that the 17th century divines understood the Bible a little 
bit more appropriately. Dixon, in his commentary, argues 
against this commonality with reference to everybody's property. 
In other words, brethren, we're not hippies. This isn't a commune. Dixon says, because the Eighth 
Command, Exodus 20, 15, which is of perpetual use to all men, 
supposes a distinction and propriety of goods. For if all goods were 
common, it were impossible to steal. If all goods were in common, 
it would be impossible to steal. And we've got the case laws in 
Exodus chapters 21 to 22. It celebrates personal private 
property and what happens if somebody either steals it from 
you or damages it. As well, we've got the recognition 
of the poor by our Lord. The poor you will always have. Another particular tenet of communism 
is that they want to be God. Well, when God incarnate says 
there's always going to be poor people, we have to believe God 
incarnate. We don't believe the communistic 
state that preaches this idea that we can obliterate all distinction 
and everybody be. They have no concept of total 
depravity. And they're the most totally 
depraved of all. It's truly ironic. As well, you've 
got the command in scripture to practice acts of charity. 
If everything belongs to everyone, then 1 Timothy 6, 17 to 19 means 
nothing. Command those who are rich in 
this present age, notice he doesn't say command those who are rich 
in this present age to cash out, to give everything to the poor. 
to stop making money. He doesn't do that. I've often 
wondered how difficult this was for Timothy. It's hard to talk 
about money in your own church. I go to Mike's church. I go to 
Ryan's church. And again, I'm happy here. I'm 
not saying that. It's just an uncomfortable and 
awkward thing. I guarantee you, at your workplace, 
you don't have once out of the year where everybody looks at 
the budget and sees your salary, that sees everything you get. 
It's like being in here naked. It's a horrible thing. I'm just 
gonna say that. It's not a good thing. And y'all 
make it very comfortable, even in so far. But with reference 
to this command, command those, Timothy. You've got some well-heeled 
people there in the church in Ephesus. What do you want me 
to do with them, Paul? You want me to tell them to sell 
everything and give it to the poor and bang tambourines at the airport? 
Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, 
nor to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives 
us richly all things to enjoy. Let them do good, that they be 
rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, storing 
up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come, that they 
may lay hold on eternal life. It's almost like Paul understands 
that if you have some money makers in the church, they can help 
the non-money maker. I wish the government understood 
this. Why penalize productive members of your society? Those 
productive members of your society employ others to be productive 
members of society. It's a wonderful transaction 
founded on the principles of do not steal. This whole paying 
their fair share is commie speak, and we ought to respond with 
abhorrence. As well, the command to labor 
in Ephesians 4.28, Paul doesn't say, well, everybody shares the 
common fridge. So just lay around on your couch, 
don't go out to work, and just take whatever you want. Ephesians 
4.28, let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him 
labor, working with his hands what is good that he may have 
something to give to him who has need. It's a beautiful arrangement. And some will say, well what 
about Acts 2? They sold everything. Acts 4? They sold everything 
and gave it to the poor. The absence of any command from 
God demanding that they do that should give us caution, right? Short of a command to sell everything 
that we have and give it to the poor, we ought to be very careful 
about universalizing a passage and demanding an imperative from 
it. I would suggest as well, there 
was still a recognition of the private property of the believers 
even after they sold. The case of Ananias and Sapphira. It was perfectly fine that they 
sold their property, and if they wanted to give 50% to the church, 
that would have been fine. It was under your control. The 
problem with Ananias and Sapphira is that they lied. They sold 
it, gave it, and said, that's 100%. That was their error. And the inapplicability of these 
passages to especially validate coerced state redistribution 
of wealth. Acts II and Acts IV are not commie 
socialist playgrounds so that we can validate this idea of 
the elimination of private property so everybody can just share from 
the common good. Brethren, that is anti-Christ. Now, in conclusion, this might 
have been a bit of an excursion, but I think that's an important 
thing. Benevolence, generosity, help to others, charity, all 
that, but nevertheless, their communion one with another as 
saints does not take away or infringe the title or propriety 
which each man has in his goods and possessions. There is private 
property. God is for private property. He's not against it. You're not 
blessed because God hates you. God blesses people. He blesses 
unsaved people. He does good things. The world 
is His and everything in it He has given shares to people to 
enjoy and to prosper and to benefit others and all that sort of thing. The best thing is that we have 
a government that respects the Eighth and Tenth Commandments 
and gets out of our lives at the point of regulating everything 
to the point where we're broke and poor and money and gas and 
bread and the basic necessities of life are causing us to struggle. Brethren, it's not greedy grocers 
that have caused inflation. It's not greedy businessmen that 
have caused inflation. It's governments printing more 
money. It devalues the currency and 
it brings great confusion to society. Well, I'll close in 
prayer, and then if you want to argue the benefits and merits 
of communism, we can do that. Our Father in Heaven, thank you 
for this confession of faith, and thank you for our rich Christian 
heritage in terms of good theology. Thank you for the scriptures 
that this confession expounds and presents in summary fashion. 
We ask that you would give us that grace to be large-hearted 
and benevolent and generous, help us to take seriously what 
we find in Ephesians 4, to be able to give to those who have 
need, as well in 1 Timothy 6, not to be haughty, not to trust 
in these uncertain riches, to be humble and to be willing to 
share to those in need. As well, increase our desire 
for the public worship of God and the joy of the Lord that 
is our strength. And we pray in Jesus' name, Amen. Alright, any questions or comments 
on any of that material? All right.