← Back to sermon library

Well, we've come to introduce 
the 1689 Confession of Faith, or the Second London Confession 
of Faith. Before I do that, there are a couple of resources that 
have come out since the last time I presented this material 
that I think are helpful in terms of a study of the Confession 
of Faith. And the first is a two-volume series by Dr. Jim Renahan. He's 
something of the patron saint in the modern Reformed Baptist 
movement. Just kidding. It was a joke. Definitely a father 
in Israel. So it's an exposition of the 
first London Confession of Faith and then an exposition of the 
second London Confession of Faith. You'll notice a bit of a substantial 
difference there. And I think the value or the 
utility in these two volumes over against some other expositions 
of the Confession, which are as well helpful. There's one 
by Sam Waldron. There's also a recent contribution 
by several authors, an exposition of the Confession, but one of 
the values of Jim Renahan is that he takes an originalist 
position. You've probably heard of an originalist 
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. We have people 
today that read back into the Constitution what they hope that 
it intended. where an originalist says, no, 
in the Second Amendment, they didn't mean deer hunting. They 
had just liberated a nation through a violent revolution. So then 
when they're talking about the right to bear arms, it's not 
in the context of deer hunting. So it's important to know what 
the original authors intended in their articulation of Christian 
doctrine. Dr. Renehans-Forte. His specialty 
is historical theology, and certainly when he goes and investigates 
these things, he does a very excellent work. So these two 
volumes are published by Founders Press. Broken Wharf is publishing, 
I think, just the second. I don't know about the first. 
But those are available and again very helpful in terms of a study 
of our confession. And then this is a recent release. 
It's just a collection of the creeds and confessions of the 
church all together in one handy volume. Basically it has the 
early creeds, so you've got the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, 
the Athanasian Creed, and then Chalcedon. Augsburg Confession, 
the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, the Canons of Dort, 
Westminster, London Baptist, Heidelberg, Westminster Larger 
Catechism, and Westminster Shorter Catechism. So a very nice presentation 
in terms of the various creeds and confessions used in the church 
by the church. And as I said, we're coming to 
introduce the Second London Confession of Faith. Just a brief historical 
background of the Confession. Again, you're going to find much 
more in Dr. Renahan. I'm leaning on him primarily 
here. And then we'll look at some points 
concerning the utility of the Confession. Why it's wise for 
a church to use a Confession of Faith. But in terms of the 
historical background, as I mentioned, you had a first London Confession. 
That's what this expounds. And then you had the second London 
Confession in 1677. So this is dated at about 1644. 
And then there was a minor revision, well, a revision to that that 
was published in 1646. That came as a result of some 
criticisms by an Anglican minister named Daniel Featley. But in 
terms of the historical situation, in 1677, that's when the Second 
London Confession was written. And in 1677, it was illegal to 
confess to being a Baptist. You were wrong if you were outside 
of the Church of England. If you were not part of the Church 
of England, you were castigated as a dissenter, and you could 
be put in jail. And so that certainly affected 
Presbyterians, it affected Congregationalists, and it affected probably more 
so the Baptists. And so in 1677 they penned this 
particular confession of faith, and then in 1689 it's basically 
confessed or ratified or subscribed by the several churches. So we 
typically used the reference to 1689. That's when it was adopted, 
and historically that's when William and Mary ascended the 
throne. In England, they passed the Act of Toleration about two 
months after that succession to the throne, and the Act of 
Toleration basically permitted or allowed people to not be Church 
of England. So it was no longer a criminal 
offense to be a dissenter. And so the date 1689, I've always 
thought, and I think Dr. Renahan has mentioned this, if 
you ever wanted to burglarize a Baptist church, it would be 
very easy to do. You would know their code. The 
alarm code is usually 1689, or for those realists, it would 
be a 1677. But either way, 1677 is the date that it was composed. 
1689 was the date that it was adopted, confessed, and brought 
to pass. Now, basically what they do in 
the first confession of faith is distance themselves from Anabaptists. And the subtitle in the first 
London confession is the confession of faith of those churches which 
are commonly, though falsely, called Anabaptists. So there 
were seven particular Baptist churches in London, and 15 men 
signed that confession. As I mentioned, as time proceeded 
or progressed, they saw the need to write another confession of 
faith, and essentially what they did is they took two existing 
documents. They took the Presbyterian Confession 
of Faith, which is called the Westminster Confession of Faith, 
And then they took the confession of faith used by Congregationalists, 
we also refer to them as Independents, and that was called the Savoy 
Declaration. And so they took the Westminster 
Confession and the Savoy Declaration, and for the most part, copied 
it word for word. There were changes along the 
way reflecting a particular Baptist theology. They certainly did 
not include Westminster or Savoy when it came to infant baptism, 
that's a distinctive of the Baptists, so they made sure that they sort 
of cleaned that up. But one of the things that they 
wanted to do was show their solidarity with the Presbyterians and with 
the Congregationalists. They wanted to show that they 
weren't some new kid on the block, they weren't to be lumped in 
with the Anabaptists, they were simply trying to present their 
principles so that persons would understand correctly what they 
believed. And again, following the Presbyterians 
and the Congregationalists was a very helpful thing. And those 
particular documents were very robust in terms of Calvinism, 
in terms of Covenant, in terms of all those distinctives that 
are unique to particular Baptists over against, say, Arminians 
or Pelagians or those that are not engaged in pursuit of Covenant 
theology. Now, from their preface in the 
Confession, I don't know that that doesn't have the preface 
or the epistle to the reader. It is included in Dr. Renahan's 
volume. I'm sure you can find it online. 
But basically, they describe what they're doing this way. 
They said, we did conclude it necessary to confess ourselves 
the more fully and distinctly, and finding no defect in this 
regard, and that fixed on by the assembly, they're referring 
there to the Westminster Assembly, which took place 1646, 47, the 
confession was done in 48 Westminster. Okay, so the Westminster Assembly 
was a big sort of gathering of ministers, they produced this, 
and so now the Baptists say in 1677, finding no defect in this 
regard and that fixed on by the Westminster Assembly, and after 
them, by those of the congregational way, so that's Savoy Declaration, 
John Owen would probably be the most famous Puritan that we would 
know that was associated with the Congregationalists or the 
Independents. They said, we did conclude it 
best to retain the same order in our present confession. So 
they start where Westminster and Savoy do. They start with 
the Holy Scriptures. They end on eschatology. They didn't alter 
that. They didn't change that. It's 
a systematic presentation of Christian doctrine, which they 
adopted. They say, for the most part, 
without any variation of terms, making use of the very same words 
with them both. This we did to convince all that 
we have no itch to clog religion with new words. They weren't 
trying to be novel. They weren't trying to be creative. 
They weren't trying to be innovative. They weren't trying to add more 
to what was already extent, but they wanted to use the best representation 
of Christian doctrine and basically sign on the dotted line along 
with the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists. They go on 
to say, so this we did to convince all that we have no itch to clog 
religion with new words, but to readily acquiesce in that 
form of sound words which hath been, in consent with the Holy 
Scriptures, used by others before us, hereby declaring before God, 
angels, and men our hearty agreement with them, in that wholesome 
Protestant doctrine. And this is an important statement 
in that Second London Confession, because there are those who have 
taught that Baptists are not Protestants. Baptists were their 
own sort of animal in terms of the history of the Christian 
church. Well, interestingly, they confess that wholesome Protestant 
doctrine, which with so clear evidence of scriptures they have 
asserted. And then they say some things, indeed, are in some places 
added. They add certain things in terms 
of their distinctives. They go on to say some terms 
omitted and some few changed. It's intriguing. In chapter 11, 
there was some debate at the Westminster Assembly in terms 
of the imputation of the act of obedience of Jesus Christ. 
So they sort of soften up that statement in their chapter 11. 
But in our chapter 11, it highlights That's the imputation of the 
act of obedience of Jesus Christ. So they cleaned up what they 
thought were some deficiencies, they added some things that reflected 
better their doctrines, some terms omitted, some few changed, 
but these alterations are of that nature as that we need not 
doubt any charge or suspicion of unsoundness in the faith from 
any of our brethren upon the account of them. And so basically, 
they spell out why they write this Second London Confession. 
Now, there have been those who've tried to put a wedge between 
the first and the second. And I think that's common amongst 
those Baptists that subscribe to, for the most part, the Second 
London, but they take issue with the statement or the chapter 
on the law of God. And so they've tried to put a 
wedge between the First London and the Second London, and they 
say, we like the First London better because it reflects more 
what the biblical position on the law is. The Second London 
just slavishly follows the Westminster Confession. Remember, they had 
the liberty now to follow the Westminster Confession. They 
had the liberty to confess what they wanted to confess relative 
to the law of God. So that they follow the Westminster 
Confession, for the most part, with reference to the law of 
God, indicates that they are fine with that. There's no enmity 
or animus with the First London Confession. It was not the case 
that it taught something wholly other. Renaghan again makes the 
observation in terms of the signers of the confession. It's not the 
case that it was an altogether brand new document. They weren't 
trying to correct it. They were showing continuity. 
They were showing development and amplification. So Renaghan 
says it should also be remembered that it was the same churches 
and several of the same men who issued both of these confessions. 
Seven London congregations published the 1644-46 Confession. By 1689, 
representatives of four of these churches also publicly signed the 1689 Confession. 
You had seven, now four. What happened to the other three? 
They either ceased to exist or had merged into the remaining 
churches. In addition, several key men signed both confessions, 
William Kiffin, Hansard Nolles, and Henry Forty, as well as the 
father-son duo of Benjamin and Nehemiah Cox. If the theology 
of the two confessions is different, one would have to demonstrate 
that these churches and these men went through a process of 
theological change, but no evidence for such exists. So there's continuity 
between these two confessions. It wasn't a corrective. It wasn't 
a republication of brand new beliefs. But there was consistency 
in terms of First London. There was fine tuning in terms 
of the Westminster and Savoy. But what we have in 1689 in terms 
of the presentation of this confession is what the particular Baptists 
in the 17th century confessed concerning these chief heads 
of Christian doctrine. Now, in terms of the utility 
of the confession, there are six things that I want to mention. 
And if you've been here before at this study, I'm using the 
same sort of a framework, but I've developed it a little bit 
or amplified it in certain points. But if we ask the question, why 
should we use a confession of faith? Why should a church in 
the 21st century adopt a confession that was written in the 17th 
century? What possible rationale do you 
have to do that sort of thing? Well, in the first place, it 
is to define the doctrine of the Church. To define the doctrine 
of the Church. If you look at 1 Timothy chapter 
3, you will see that the Church in the first century had confession. They confessed things concerning 
God Almighty. We see hints of this littered 
throughout the New Testament. I think it's very clearly here 
in 1 Timothy chapter 3. Notice in verse 14, "...these 
things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly. 
But if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you 
ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the 
church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 
And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness." 
This could also be translated by common confession. God was 
manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, 
preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and 
received up in glory. And then if you look at 2 Timothy 
chapter 1, you'll notice what Paul says in verse 13. He's telling 
his ministerial colleague, his younger ministerial colleague, 
Timothy, hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have 
heard from me in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Now 
some assert, and I think with good, valuable merit, that there 
were confession, there were a body of Christian truth that the Church 
has held to and confessed collectively in this first century setting 
when they didn't have written copies of the New Testament. 
They didn't have Cambridge large margin Bibles sitting in their 
laps. And not all of them were literate. This is why I say, 
for instance, go back to 1 Timothy chapter 4, when Paul tells Timothy 
in verse 13, "'Til I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, 
to doctrine." He's not telling Timothy how he's to conduct himself 
as a private individual, as a man before God. He's telling Timothy 
how he's to conduct himself as a minister in the public worship 
of God. You're to give attention to reading. Why is that? Because again, not 
everybody was literate, and not everybody had written copies 
of the scriptures. They didn't have that facility 
or ability to pull up their phone with, you know, whatever Bible 
version they wanted, and read it for themselves. And so the 
minister was to read that word. He was to exhort from it, and 
he was to teach the doctrine from that word. In the epistle 
to the reader, again in the Second London Confession, at the very 
beginning, they say, it is now many years since divers of us, 
with other sober Christians then living and walking in the way 
of the Lord that we profess, did conceive ourselves to be 
under a necessity of publishing a confession of faith for the 
information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly 
understand what our principles were. or had entertained prejudices 
against our profession by reason of the strange representation 
of them by some men of note who had taken very wrong measures 
and accordingly led others into misapprehensions or us and them. And this was first put forth 
about the year 1643. So from 1643, 44, 46, up to 1677, they see the need 
to republish, to make this confession, to distinguish what they actually 
do believe. And when it comes to the definition 
of Christian doctrine, I think you probably agree that that 
is a deficiency in churches that don't have confessions. Just 
a bare statement. We believe that there is a God. 
We believe that he sent his son Jesus to save sinners. We believe 
that the Bible is in fact the word of the God. Now donate to 
our church. That's not carrying the day. 
We need a robust presentation of Christian doctrine. There's 
an older Baptist by the name of B.H. Carroll. He made this 
observation, a church with a little creed is a church with a little 
life. The more divine doctrines a church 
can agree on, the greater its power and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, 
the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry, 
less creed and more liberty, is a degeneration from the vertebrate 
to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and 
it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create 
heresy. It only exposes and corrects. 
Shut off the creed, and the Christian world would fill up with heresy, 
unsuspected and uncorrected, but nonetheless deadly. If anything 
has been obvious in the last 100 or 200 years, it's that. Carol was speaking prophetically 
there. When we depart from a robust 
presentation of the Christian faith, then it's almost as if 
anything and everything goes. That's why with reference to 
a church today in the 21st century, the goal ought to be the articulation 
of more doctrines, not less doctrines. It ought not to be the case that 
we want to include everybody in the tent simply because they 
can utter the word Jesus. We need to appreciate that our 
religion is doctrinal. Our religion is truth-based. 
Our religion is distinguished and differentiated from all the 
other religions of man. And that if you do not believe 
that Jesus is who he says he is, you will die in your sins. 
So we need to know who Jesus is, who he says he is. And we 
need to have an articulation of the truth that rightly reflects 
the Bible. So first, to define the doctrine of the Church. Secondly, 
to defend the doctrine of the Church. You can turn to the book 
of Jude. Jude 3, specifically. We have this admonition on the 
part of our brother, writing under inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, to the church. He's not just writing to the 
doctors of the church. He's not just writing to the 
elders in the church. He's not just writing to the 
guys who like to study theology in the church. But we notice 
who he's writing to. Verse 1, Judabon, servant of 
Jesus Christ and brother of James, to those who are called, sanctified 
by God the Father and preserved in Jesus Christ. Mercy, peace, 
and love be multiplied to you. He's not writing to a particular 
class or subset within that group. He's writing to the people of 
God. He's writing to the church of God. He's writing to us. And 
then notice what he says in verse 3. Beloved, while I was very 
diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found 
it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend earnestly, 
notice, for the faith. He's not talking about your subjective 
belief in Jesus. He's talking about the objectivity 
of the Christian religion. I want you to contend earnestly 
for the faith, the objective content of the Christian religion. 
I want you to contend earnestly for that faith which was once 
for all delivered to the saints. It was delivered to the saints 
in the Holy Scriptures. The saints subsequent to the 
time of the Holy Scriptures read, studied, contemplated, and then 
debated those things and articulated creeds and confessions so that 
we could defend against the various onslaughts that come against 
the church. It's not the case that the church has been left 
alone. It's not the case that the church has gone unmolested. 
The church has always had its threats. The church has always 
been greatly resisted. And so to defend the doctrine 
of the church, confessions of faith are very helpful. Look 
at 1 Peter chapter 3. Again, an emphasis upon the people 
of God as the people of God. He doesn't say, I want you to, 
you know, just tell your pastors and your apologists and your 
scholars to go out and defend the Christian faith. But notice 
in 1 Peter 3.15, But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, 
and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason 
for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear. He assumes 
the people of God can do this. He assumes the people of God 
can chew gum and walk at the same time. He assumes that they're 
able to be always ready. And again, a confession of faith 
is helpful to that end, to know what the Bible teaches at specific 
heads of doctrine, so that we can defend the faith. As well, 
the church is to have one mind, and the church is to be striving 
together for the faith of the gospel, according to Philippians 
1.27. In the adoption of a confession of faith, we're not thereby saying 
everybody who disagrees is wrong and they're hellbound. We're 
not suggesting that at all. We know and recognize there's 
a lot of people out there that wouldn't subscribe to various 
chapters in this confession of faith, and that's okay. But when 
it comes to the business of planting local churches, again, do we 
want sort of men from every stripe and background in terms of Christianity? 
Not to say that they aren't saved, not to say that they aren't going 
to heaven, but in terms of striving together, in terms of manifesting 
unity, in terms of manifesting peace among one another, it is 
very helpful to have a confession of faith upon which we rally. Robert Martin says, the confession 
is a useful tool for discriminating truth from error and for presenting 
in a small compass the central doctrines of the Bible in their 
integrity and due proportions. It's a very helpful way in brief 
compass to understand what scriptures teach in these particular doctrines. So we've got to define, we've 
got to defend, and I notice thirdly, to discriminate with reference 
to the doctrine of the church. And by discrimination, I'm not 
talking about ethnic, I'm not talking about social class or 
economics, you can't come to our church unless you're black, 
can't come to our church unless you're white, can't come to our 
church unless you're Dutch, I'm not talking about that kind of 
discrimination. But discrimination in terms of 
truth, in terms of truth, and this has a two-fold reference. 
First, for church membership, and secondly, for church officers. Again, Dr. Martin says, the Bible 
envisages the local church not as a union of those who have 
agreed to differ, but as a body marked by peace and unity. We've 
seen that in Ephesians 4. You can turn there. Ephesians 
chapter 4, specifically in verse 1, I therefore the prisoner of 
the Lord beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which 
you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with long-suffering, 
bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity 
of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I mean, we shouldn't have 
to come to church to battle for say Calvinism over Arminianism. 
Those should be settled principles in a church. And if you're an 
Arminian, you should want to be in an Arminian church. If 
you're a Calvinist, you should want to be in a Calvinistic church. 
And you should hope that there's peace and unity reflected in 
the church as a whole. And that Bible studies every 
step of the way. Okay, you know, chapter one of 
the Holy Scriptures. Well, I don't think it is actually 
God-breathed. Well, let's have a Bible study. 
No, no, there's an assumption or presupposition that we've 
come to the place where we understand that this accurately does describe 
what scripture teaches. And so this is the means by which 
we discriminate with reference to church membership. And I should 
just make a very practical observation here. If a member or a Christian 
wants to be a member of the church, they're going to be a member 
of the church. We're not going to keep them out because they've 
got a different view of this, that, or the other in terms of 
a non-selfific thing. If they say, yeah, I'm a Roman 
Catholic at heart. I believe that justification 
includes sanctification. Yeah, this ain't the place for 
you. But if they differ on some finer points of doctrine, they're 
going to be a member if they're actually believers in Jesus Christ. 
That's the requisite. That's the prerequisite. Believe 
on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. I'd like 
to think we're very generous here. I don't want to say allow 
because that sounds kind of weird, but we do allow it. That's permissible. 
But I would always caution people that you may not be happy here. 
You need to understand that we do rally around an identifiable 
body of doctrine, and if you're at odds with that body of doctrine, 
you may not like to hear that body of doctrine preached and 
taught. If you're an Arminian, and this is the best game in 
town, I'm going to say, yeah, sure, come on in. But I'm going 
to let you know, you're not going to hear Arminian stuff, and you're 
going to maybe hear things that are contra-Arminian. So it might 
not be the happiest place on the earth for you. But with reference 
to some biblical strands of evidence here, we have the Great Commission 
that demands that local churches instruct Christ's sheep of those 
things He has commanded. You can turn to the Commission. 
The Commission is two-fold. It's not just get them saved, 
but it's also teach them that are saved. And if you notice 
in Matthew 28, 18, Jesus came and spoke to them saying, all 
authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. So the 
commission that he gives is grounded not in their savvy or in their 
ability, but in his sovereignty, his omnipotence. All authority 
has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, 
and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It's 
good to soul-win, it's good to seek conversion, it's good to 
preach justification by faith alone. It's good for the people 
to come out of darkness into marvelous light and be saved. 
Well, what's supposed to happen in addition to that? What's supposed 
to follow on the heels of that? Verse 20, "...teaching them to 
observe all things that I have commanded you, and lo, I am with 
you always, even to the end of the age." And so the Great Commission 
demands that local churches instruct Christ's sheep of those things 
He commanded. And what better help to that 
than a confession of faith that summarizes accurately the Word 
of God. It summarizes accurately the 
Bible's teaching on these heads of doctrine. We've seen in our 
studies in Ephesians chapter 4 the purpose for the Christian 
ministry. It's not to go golfing and it's 
not to have coffee, but it's to instruct the people of God. 
It's to bring maturity to the people of God. It's to bring 
the one new man who's been made by Christ, Jew and Gentile, to 
that place of a perfect man, to a full stature, not tossed 
about by every wind of doctrine. So when we don't have a settled 
upon, agreed upon body of doctrine, it's everybody's ballgame. It's 
up for grabs. Every week is something new. 
And what if your minister isn't disciplined by something like 
that? Well, today, brethren, we're 
going to speak in tongues. Today, brethren, we're going 
to be Roman Catholics. Today, brethren, we're going to let 
sister so-and-so come up and preach the word. We need to make 
sure that we have some sort of a guide of scripture to help 
us along. Andrew Fuller said, and again, 
this isn't to keep weak sheep out. This isn't to say, oh, you're 
weak. You haven't arrived to the place 
of rightly confessing all 32 chapters in our confession. So 
make sure you memorize all that. And when you're done, come back, 
and we'll receive you into the membership. No, it's not about 
keeping out the weak sheep. He says, the object of articles 
of faith is to keep at a distance, not those who are weak in the 
faith, but such as are its avowed enemies. That's another very 
important function in terms of a confession. It goes with that 
whole idea of defending. It's not that we're trying to 
keep a weak believer out. We're trying to keep a wolf out. 
We're trying to keep somebody out that doesn't confess justification 
by faith alone. That doesn't confess that Jesus 
is, in fact, God from God, light from light, true God from true 
God. That doesn't confess the triune God, Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit. It's those wolves that we want 
to protect the people of God from. So weak sheep are happily 
invited, but not the wolves, not those who would destroy the 
people of God. So not only for church membership, 
but also with reference to church officers. If you've been with 
us for any time in any ordination or installation service, this 
is what we use. We use the Bible, we use the 
Confession of Faith to examine ministerial candidates. Why? 
Because this rightly teaches what the various heads of doctrine 
teach concerning the Bible. So it's a great way to determine 
whether a man is a Calvinist, whether a man is covenantal, 
whether a man is a Baptist, whether a man does have, you know, his 
tap roots firmly connected to scripture in these particular 
areas. So 1 Timothy chapter 3, the man 
of God must be apt to teach. Well, wouldn't it be wonderful 
if there was a helpful tool by which we could gauge if he's 
apt to teach? Well, there is. It's a confession of faith. We 
see in Titus chapter 1, the ministry of an elder, is that he must, 
according to verse 9, hold fast the faithful word, as he has 
been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort 
and convict those who contradict. So with reference to membership, 
yeah, it's not that you have to know the confession backwards 
and forwards, but you need to not be at odds with it. You don't 
need to be a sworn enemy of it by which we welcome members in. But when it comes to a man of 
God, and again, I'm not suggesting that somebody who doesn't subscribe 
to that isn't an actual minister. I mean, there's differences of 
doctrine. The church has always recognized that. This church 
is no different. The argument is not, if you don't 
subscribe to this confession, you're going to go to hell. The 
argument is, is that this confession is very helpful for a myriad 
of reasons in terms of churchmanship where the people of God have 
common convictions and they want to go forward under a common 
confession. But with reference to examining elders, Dr. Martin again, he's got a very 
helpful, this isn't Albert N. Martin, this is Dr. Robert P. 
Martin. He died several years ago, he was a minister in Sea-Tac, 
prior to that he taught Theology at the Ministerial Academy in 
Montville, New Jersey. He has a very helpful article 
on the legitimacy and use of confessions of faith. I'm waning 
on him pretty much through much of this. But he says with reference 
to discriminating relative to church officers, we cannot obey 
these admonitions simply by receiving. This is the testing of the spirits 
in 1 John and in 2 John, test the spirits. Well, how do we 
do that? Well, you know, what does that mean to you? Well, 
it doesn't mean that to me. No, we have an objective body 
of truth in terms of scripture and we have a clear articulation 
in terms of a confession. We cannot obey these admonitions 
simply by receiving the confession that a man believes the Bible. 
You know who says no creed but the Bible? We don't need any 
creed but the Bible? Jehovah's Witnesses famously. 
Brethren, they have a robust creed. They have document after 
document of their creed. But their champion statement 
is no creed but the Bible. We just want to know Jesus. Some 
of the worst heresy that's ever occurred in the history of the 
church is under that mantra, no creed but the Bible. Those 
are the guys you want to put your back against the wall and 
cover your wallet because they're not for you. Those are guys that 
are dangerous. No creed but the Bible? Well 
the Bible tells us itself that we need the gifts that Jesus 
gave to the church. When we look at the Great Commission 
teaching them to observe, this is Jesus looking down the entirety 
of the church. Ephesians 4, He gave gifts to 
men. When it comes to the gifts given 
by Christ to the church, we don't disregard them, we don't invalidate 
them, we don't cast them away, but rather we build upon them. 
We stand upon their shoulders. We understand that they were 
gifts given by Jesus to the church. Let us use them and employ them. 
Back to Dr. Martin. We cannot obey these 
admonitions simply by receiving the confession that a man believes 
the Bible. We must know what he believes the Bible teaches 
on the great issues. So we had a ministerial sort 
of examination, and we asked the fellow, do you believe the 
Bible? Yeah. All right, welcome to the ministry. 
Preach your first sermon. And he preaches on speaking in 
tongues. Again, I'm not suggesting that 
everybody who speaks in tongues is necessarily going to hell. 
But I am suggesting that is not what scripture teaches. And I 
think men need to understand that and appreciate that. Or 
we, you know, ordain a woman because she preaches, you know, 
tells us she believes what the Bible says. But the same Bible 
tells us not to ordain a woman. So it's not enough to just say, 
I believe the Bible. So he goes on to say, a confession 
of faith makes it relatively simple for the church to inquire 
about a man's doctrinal soundness over the broad field of biblical 
truth. Without a confession of faith, the church's evaluation 
of its ministers is haphazard and shallow at best. And the 
church will be in great danger of laying hands on novices and 
heretics. All because it does not measure 
candidates for the ministry by a broad and deep standard. I think he's right there. So 
when it comes to discriminating with reference to the doctrine 
of the church, membership and eldership, we want to make sure 
that men that know scripture are men that teach scripture. 
The pattern for that is Ezra 7.10. He set his heart to study 
the law, to do the law, and then to teach the law. There's a progression 
there. Ezra's a model in terms of modern 
day pastoral ministry. Study the law, to do it, and 
then to teach. Not study to teach, but he studied 
to do and then to teach. Like Lloyd-Jones says, don't 
read your Bible for sermons, read it for food. That's the 
emphasis in terms of the man of God in Ezra chapter 7. Now, 
fourthly, to discipline for departures from the doctrine of the church. 
Now, discipline is not a happy subject in terms of the modern 
church, because it typically invokes images of people being 
cast out or excommunicated. Discipline is corrective, but 
discipline is also formative. There is a corrective discipline 
when a sinning brother gets out of line and does not listen to 
the church. So there's a pattern to deal with sinners or believers 
that sin. So if your brother sins against 
you, go to him. If he hears you, you've won your brother. If he 
doesn't listen, two or three witnesses. If he doesn't listen to them, 
tell it to the church. If he doesn't listen to the church, 
then treat him as a heathen and a tax collector. So Matthew 18 
outlines a strategy there for church discipline. But church 
discipline can't be willy-nilly. Well, you know what? We just 
don't like what you're doing, so you're out. Well, what's a 
good helpful guide to discriminate, or rather, help us to discipline 
for departures from the doctrine of the church? In a small compass, 
the Confession of Faith, and I will address another, I think, 
beautiful point in the Confession. It's not altogether comprehensive. There's not 64 chapters. There's 
not 132 chapters. The recognition is that there 
are matters where the people of God do disagree. The people 
of God do disagree on a whole host of things. We can't elevate 
our preferences to the level of commandments. And the Confession, 
I think, at least implicitly does that. It doesn't have a 
chapter 33 on You know, which political party you need to abide 
by. Chapter 34, on which place you 
go to buy your groceries. Chapter 35, what should you do 
on Christmas. Chapter 36, it doesn't do that. And so with reference to those 
things, most surely believed among us, if an erring brother 
or sinning brother goes astray, this is a helpful means by which 
we can distinguish and to discipline for departures from the doctrine 
of the Church. Samuel Miller was a Presbyterian, 
writing in the 1800s. And he made the observation, 
whenever a group of men began to slide with respect to orthodoxy, 
they generally attempted to break, if not to conceal their fall, 
by declaiming against creeds and confessions. Men are seldom 
opposed to creeds until creeds have become opposed to them. 
And I think that's a very valuable statement. And then WGT Shedd 
made this observation. Now, when I read this, notice 
that I just want to qualify. Shedd is not condoning heresy. 
He's not saying it's OK to be a heretic. He is speaking to 
that situation where men will enter into a confessional environment. And while they have confessed 
or professed that particular confession, they don't embrace 
it. they don't hold to it. They are 
gangrene within the context. If you ever read J. Gresham Machen 
on just about anything, you'll notice that was the backdrop 
in which he ministered. He was a Presbyterian in the 
20th century as things started getting really weird in terms 
of the Christian church. His books reflect that Christianity 
and liberalism And by liberalism, he's not talking about political 
liberalism, he's talking about theological liberalism. And he 
argues there that liberalism in the Christian church is not 
a subset of Christianity. It's an altogether different 
religion. It is altogether different. When you deny the resurrection 
of the Lord Jesus, when you deny the supernatural, when you deny 
those things that are the historic Christian truth, historic Christian 
faith, you are not one of us. And so this whole idea of embracing, 
at least outwardly, a confession, and then perhaps your convictions 
change, it's disingenuous to stay there. It's disingenuous 
to remain there. You should do the right thing 
and exit from that particular church. So Shedd says heresy. is not so great a sin as dishonesty. There may be honest heresy." 
I mean, again, it seems outlandish. The Jehovah's Witness at your 
door, he's probably honest. He probably really believes what 
he's saying is right. He says, there may be honest 
heresy, but not honest dishonesty. A heretic who acknowledges that 
he is such is a better man than he who pretends to be orthodox 
while subscribing to a creed which he dislikes and which he 
saps under pretense of improving it and adapting it to the times. The honest heretic leaves the 
church with which he no longer agrees, but the insincere subscriber 
remains within it in order to carry out his plan of demoralization. That's accurate, brethren, and 
we've got guys today, oh, we need to change the confession. 
I think we need to understand the confession before we ever 
discuss changing it or revising it. So many of the things that 
have caused men to clamor, we need to change this. Further 
investigation shows They don't understand what the original 
authors intended. They don't understand that this 
is in fact what scripture teaches. We saw this in a real life display 
in the ARPCA controversy that began in about 2014. It was that 
little tiny phrase, in the confession without passions. Well, it doesn't 
stop there. When you start messing with theology 
proper, vis-a-vis the Trinity, it shouldn't surprise us that 
on the heels of that, not necessarily in Arca, but in the larger Reformed 
world, what came next? Christ, Christology, He's eternally 
subordinate to the Father. You get the Trinity wrong, guess 
who else you're going to get wrong? You're going to get Jesus 
wrong. And so this whole idea of, well, we need to change it. 
Again, I'm not against changing. I'm not against a good brand 
new confession. But I remain convinced that the 
brothers that gave us that and the brothers that gave us these 
ancient creeds were a whole lot more equipped than the brothers 
that we deal with today. I'm not saying that as an insult. 
We got some sharp minds and some good guys. But we ought to be 
thankful that we stand on the shoulders of the men that went 
before us. I mean, those early centuries, or those first few 
hundred years of the church, the debates over the Trinity, 
the debates over Christology, this was real live business. 
This was serious work. This caused men to throw down. And we are the benefactors of 
that. So I think Shadd is right. That's 
from Calvinism, pure and mixed. Now, fifth, to distinguish from 
matters of Christian liberty. To distinguish from matters of 
Christian liberty. It's not the case that if you 
join a confessional church, every jot and tittle of your life is 
regulated by the church. No! I hope you're all like me 
in that you don't want ecclesiastical tyranny any more than you want 
civil tyranny. I mean, there's a sense where 
we have preferences. We have differences of opinion 
on non-salvific things. There are preferences that the 
people of God have. Paul acknowledges that in Romans, 
and he acknowledges that in 1 Corinthians. He acknowledges it when it comes 
to eating meat. He acknowledges it when it comes to a whole host 
of things. And so when it comes to our confession, one of the 
most helpful distinctions is chapter 22. God alone is Lord 
of the conscience and hath left it free from the doctrines and 
commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his word 
or not contained in it. So in other words, a confession 
can protect you from ecclesiastical tyranny. Which is good, brethren. You don't want me deciding what 
suit you need to wear, or me deciding, you know, what you 
have with your pizza, or me... No! Ecclesiastical tyranny is 
a reality. It's something to guard against. 
And when you read this confession, there's two enemies involved. There are two enemies, sparring 
partners at the bare minimum. Always Roman Catholicism, but 
also the civil government. Civil government and a false 
religious system does not have the right to bind your conscience 
on anything. You have liberty of conscience. 
So I've often, many times, reflected on my appreciation for the 32 
things that are treated and for the fact that a great multitude 
of other things aren't. We can disagree on Christmas. We can disagree on things. We can disagree on adiaphora, 
things indifferent. That's how the people of God 
have always lived together. You don't need some Pope in a 
Baptist church telling you every jot and tittle. It's intriguing 
because some have accused confessionalism as being under a paper Pope. 
Well, I'd rather a paper Pope that is the collective wisdom 
of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ than Pope Mark Driscoll. 
then Pope whoever else in whatever church is binding the consciences 
of the people of God will always have some authority in terms 
of church life. I'd like the fact that the elders 
and the ecclesiastical structure is disciplined and chastened 
by something outside of them as well. It's a very good helpful 
protective and corrective to the various abuses that we see. 
The usefulness of the confession in what is not addressed. We 
do not exclude people from the communion of the saints over 
matters that are indifferent. Preferences must not be elevated 
to the status of commandments. It's a tough lesson for the church 
to learn, but it's a lesson we need to learn. God alone is Lord 
of the conscience. Not any body of ecclesiastical 
elders, not any civil tyrant, none of those people have a right 
to intrude upon the liberty of conscience that God gives. We've 
got this mindset today that the government confers these rights 
upon us. We're image bearers of the living 
and true God. He will police and he will deal 
with our thoughts. That's nobody else's job. The 
government is to deal with, and the church government is to deal 
with, outward breach of criminal activity in the civil sphere, 
sinful activity, unrepentant in the ecclesiastical sphere. 
And then finally, and this is another D that I've added just 
recently, to develop an appreciation for the history of the church. 
To develop an appreciation for the history of the church. When 
you review this particular document, you will see its dependence on 
things that came before it. In other words, in chapter 2 
of God and the Holy Trinity, where do you think they got the 
language of unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding from the Father 
and the Son? They get it from older creeds. They get it from 
Nicaea. When you get to chapter 8, paragraph 2, when it talks 
about Christ as mediator, Christ, the hypostatic union, the one 
person with two natures, divine and human, where do you think 
they go? They go back to Chalcedon. They 
go back to what was written. There is a connection to the 
historic church that confessionalism brings. It's a wonderful thing. 
I like to think that, you know, Augustine or those brothers could 
come in and while they say, boy, you dress odd and you've got 
an odd way and you've got heat and all that, that the doctrine 
is there of, you know, unbegotten, begotten, and proceeding from 
the Father and the Son. That would resonate with the church. 
That would resonate with the people of God. And with reference 
to this, when it comes to this confession, when they went to 
reform, they didn't reform theology proper or Christology. We have 
a lot in common, and I know this is going to possibly get me thrown 
out of the window here, We have a lot in common with the Eastern 
Orthodox and with Roman Catholicism at the level of theology proper, 
who God is, and Christology. When the Reformers came to do 
their confessions of faith, they didn't reform those doctrines. They didn't change those doctrines. 
They adopted the best insights that the Church had provided 
and they incorporated it in their confession. They reformed soteriology, 
they reformed ecclesiology, they reformed and protested against 
abuses by the Roman Catholic Church, but they didn't change 
those things that had been accepted in the history of the church. 
So confessionalism brings us into connection, not just with 
churches in our environment, but with the ancient church. 
When we recite, for instance, the Nicene Creed, when we speak 
of Jesus, we have joined the host of the church militant in 
confessing those glorious things. The confession, rather, Muller 
makes this observation. He says, they, confessions, stand 
below but also with scripture. They also stand above the potentially 
idiosyncratic individual and prevent him from becoming his 
own norm of doctrine. That's just another way of saying, 
you know, it doesn't allow popes at the local church level, the 
guy that calls all the shots and makes all the rules and does 
all the things. He says, the non-credal, anti-confessional 
tendency understands the sola scriptura of the Reformation 
in a manner that the reformers themselves never did and surely 
would have repudiated. The reformers would most probably 
associate much conservative American religion with the biblicism of 
Servetus and the Sassinians. I don't think that's an understatement. 
I think he's right on. This anti-credal, anti-confessional 
mindset, and especially when it levels the charge at guys 
like us, oh, you're proud. You're bigots. You think that 
only this is the proper interpretation of the scripture. I don't think 
that's proud bigotry. I think it is connecting to the 
church as a whole, respecting the Ephesians 4 model, and that 
Christ gave gifts to the church. Why shouldn't we use Augustine? 
Why shouldn't we use the best insights from the medieval theologians? 
Why shouldn't we reflect upon the reformers that were very 
skilled in biblical exegesis and in theology, and who stood 
on the shoulders of those men to produce these great confessions 
of faith? I think the pride is oftentimes 
on the other side. Well, we don't need any creed 
but the Bible. That's a pretty arrogant supposition, 
especially when the Bible tells you that Christ gave gifts to 
the church to help people like you. No creed but the Bible. 
All I need is me and the Holy Spirit. Again, brethren, if you 
meet that guy, cover your wallet, because typically he does not 
have your best intentions in his view. This is not a good 
place to be. Matthew Barrett makes the observation. He's countering this objection. 
You guys are proud when you subscribe to these creeds. No, brethren, 
I'm proud. I'm not going to lie to you. 
There's a certain pride in being a subscriber to the 1689. It's 
not built in. There's a predilection to pride 
in, I think, most of us, some of us, a lot of us. But the confessionalism 
doesn't come with this pride attached. It might be an unnecessary. 
by-product, it might be an unsavory by-product, but it's kind of 
proud to think, the otherwise, why would I need a confession? 
I got the Spirit, I got my concordance, I got my Bible, I'm good to go. Okay, again, probably not the 
guy I want to sit under, but he's countering this objection. 
He says interpreting the Bible with humility as God intended 
means interpreting the Bible with the church. I've always 
thought that the way to do theology is in concert with the church. 
Why would we think that those gifts given by Christ to the 
church aren't helpful for the church in all ages? Oh, I don't 
need Augustine. Oh yeah, you do. You really do. We do. I don't need Spurgeon. 
Yeah, you do. We all do. These are gifts given 
by the ascended Christ. He goes on to say, many today 
will respond with a shout of protest, no creed but the Bible. 
That shout, however, is a selfish individualism or what I call 
a crude, narrow biblicism that masks itself in the name of biblical 
authority. Sola scriptura has been misunderstood, 
even radicalized to mean me and my Bible alone. But that is a 
mindset captive to our culture's God, autonomous individualism. It fails to recognize that everyone 
who picks up a Bible is located within history and embedded with 
a specific tradition. That is not a bad thing. It should 
be celebrated, in fact. The only question is whether 
it is the right tradition or not, whether it is a tradition 
that helps or detracts from the Bible as God intended. We're 
all part of a philosophical, biblical, theological landscape 
wherever we live. If we don't look outside of that 
from time to time for some checks and balances and some helps in 
terms of interpretation, we run the risk of being influenced 
by culture in a way that's just not good. You see it relative 
to the Seventh Commandment. You see a lot of capitulation 
today with reference to sexual ethics. And that is simply ungodly. We need to look outside of our 
generation. C.S. Lewis referred to it as 
a chronological snobbery. This mindset that doesn't look 
back in time. That only reads books that are 
written in our own generation. Again, there's a pride involved 
in that. Well, we don't need the early 
church. We don't need the medievals. We don't need the Reformation. 
We can go it on our own. Again, I'll take my lot with 
the brothers who have shown and demonstrated doctrinal fidelity 
throughout the ages. And then one final quote to sort 
of summarize all things. It's probably in your copy of 
the Confession. It's from C.H. Spurgeon. He republished 
this in the Metropolitan Tabernacle. He distributed it. And he called 
upon people to use it in a manner that was consistent with its 
production. He says this ancient document is a most excellent 
epitome of the things most surely believed among us. By the preserving 
hand of the triune Jehovah, We have been kept faithful to the 
great points of our glorious gospel, and we feel more resolved 
perpetually to abide by that. This little volume is not issued 
as an authoritative rule or code of faith whereby you are to be 
fettered, but as an assistance to you in controversy, a confirmation 
in faith, and a means of edification and righteousness. And I really 
like what he does here, because I've always thought this is a 
great use for the younger people in our congregations. Here the 
younger members of our church, and that's not just chronological, 
but newer believers. A 60, 70 year old new believer 
would do well to study Christian doctrine in a confession of faith. So he says, here the younger 
members of our church will have a body of divinity and small 
compass, and by means of the scriptural proofs will be ready 
to give a reason for the hope that is in them. Be not ashamed 
of your faith. Remember, it is the ancient gospel 
of martyrs, confessors, reformers, and saints. Above all, it is 
the truth of God against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. 
Let your lives adorn your faith. Let your example recommend your 
creed. Above all, live in Christ Jesus 
and walk in him, giving credence to no teaching but that which 
is manifestly approved of him and owned by the Holy Spirit. 
Cleave fast to the word of God, which is here mapped out to you." 
That's a wonderful commendation of the confession of faith and 
the fact that it does contain those things most surely believed 
among us. So hopefully that kind of gives us a sense as to why 
we use a confession in our church. There's certainly a lot of other 
things that we could add at this particular point, but hopefully 
that is sufficient. So I'll close in prayer. Our 
God and Father, again, we thank you for the Lord's Day. We thank 
you for this time to gather together. We know that the confession is 
not God-breathed the way Scripture is. But we do believe it rightly 
teaches what the God-breathed Word does. And we thank you for 
this. We know that you are the Lord 
God of truth. We know that confessing truth 
is crucial for the people of God and for the Church of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. And we pray there would be revival 
in this sense. There would be a recovery of 
the various gifts that Christ has given to the church throughout 
our ages. And we pray that you would be 
glorified in the midst of the church, and that you would bless 
that truth today as it goes forth. May the Spirit attend, and may 
sinners be saved, and may the saints be made more like Jesus 
Christ. And we pray in His name. Amen. 
Well, any questions or comments? Just have to be brief. Absolutely. Just to add a very 
quick comment, dealing with some stuff that Jay Brennahan has 
been saying, why don't we make teenagers dating back to the Old Testament, 
as it were, an Old Testament parallel to what you cited with 
1 Timothy 3. So this notion that Creolism 
is not biblical, well, no. Creolism is part and parcel of 
the Israelites. That's right.