← Back to sermon library
Well, last time Cam gave us a
good overview of sort of the historical background concerning
our Confession, so I wanted to basically do a part two of that
theme and give you the rationale for the Church's use of the Second
London Confession. Not just our Church, as we have
adopted it and we do use it, but why I think it's a wise thing
for churches to be confessional. So I want to just give us these
heads, and then we'll cover them in more detail. So the church's
use of the confession. First, to define the doctrine
of the church. Secondly, to defend the doctrine
of the church. Third, to discriminate with reference
to the doctrine of the church. Four, to discipline for departures
from the doctrine of the church. Five, to distinguish from matters
of Christian liberty. And then finally, to develop
an appreciation for the history of the Church. So I'm going to
just jump right into it first with the Church's use of the
Confession. First of all, the biblical rationale.
You can turn to 1 Timothy 3, just a couple of pertinent passages
with reference to the use of a good confession of faith to
define the doctrine of the Church. In 1 Timothy 3, After the giving of the qualifications
for elders and deacons, the Apostle Paul in 3.14 says, These things
I write to you, and these things I take everything that has preceded
and everything that will follow this brief statement. 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. Certainly a passage that
grounds us in the regulative principle of worship There is
a particular conduct that is worthy in the house of God. That
conduct is defined by God. It's not given to us to try and
figure out. So this oughtness isn't suggestive,
but it's a divine necessity. If I am delayed, I write so that
you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house
of God, and then he goes on to further describe that house of
God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground
of the truth. And it's important for us to
see that emphasis. It's the pillar and the ground
of the truth. Not of entertainment, not of group therapy, not of
some social construct, but it's the pillar and ground of the
truth. And then we have what is a confession in the early
church. Without controversy, great is
the mystery of godliness, or by common confession. And it's
no surprise that it focuses upon the Lord Jesus Christ. God was
manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels,
preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received
up in glory. So the church had a common confession,
and it was certainly Christocentric, at least here in 1 Timothy 3.
You can go to 2 Timothy 1. Again, to define the doctrine
of the church, a confession of faith is very helpful. Notice
in 2 Timothy 1 at verse 13. Hold fast the pattern of sound
words which you have heard from me in faith and love which are
in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed
to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. So confessions
of faith are helpful in that regard to help us to retain the
pattern or hold the pattern of sound words and to keep those
things that have been committed to us. So we've got not only
the written revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments,
but we have theology subsequent to the closed canon where good
gifts of Christ have blessed us by teaching us well the Word
of God, and then summarizing much of that teaching in the
creeds and the confessions that the Church has used. Notice in
1 Timothy chapter 5 as well. 1 Timothy chapter 5, specifically
at verse 17, while not directly connected, I think there is a
principle here that deserves our consideration. He says, let
the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially
those who labor in the word and doctrine. All of us would agree
that to labor in the word means to study the scriptures, to exegete
properly the scriptures, to prepare sermons based on those scriptures,
and then preach those scriptures. But notice as well, doctrine.
God assumes, God presupposes, God mandates that the church
will take the written data of revealed revelation and then
theologize with it, make connections with it, draw out implications
from it such that we can indeed instruct the people of God. And
creeds and confessions serve as a great help to define the
doctrine of the church. In the epistle to the reader
that we read with Cam the last time we met, they say, quote,
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 our 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 of us and them. And this was first put forth
in about the year 1643. So they use the mechanism of
a confession of faith to define what it is that they believe
this particular Baptist. And as Cam led that study, we
see that in large part, it was to show their solidarity with
Presbyterians and Independents. It wasn't to show how different
they were, but how similar they were. They had no itch to clog
religion with new words. So along the way, they did make
their differences known by way of definition in that confessional
summary. And then in terms of practice,
practically, if we don't use a confession of faith, we run
or pray to the broadest sort of sympathies to be entertained
in the life of the church. A Baptist, a former Baptist,
I'm not even convinced he was a 1689 or a particular Baptist,
but B.H. Carroll made this observation.
He said, a church with a little creed is a church with a little
life. He's right. 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. I think Carol's spot on with
that observation. So in the first place, the use
of a confession is helpful to define the doctrine of the church. Secondly, to defend the doctrine
of the church. You can turn to 1 Peter 3. to
defend the doctrine of the church, 1 Peter chapter 3, specifically
at verse 15. But sanctify the Lord God in
your hearts and always be ready to give a defense I think this
is instructive because it's not addressed specifically to the
pastors or the seminary professors or to the deacons or to the guys
in the church that really like to read theology. It's addressed
to everybody. We need to be ready as the apostle
commends here. 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. So we need to always be ready.
Now, that doesn't mean we're all going to be at the level
of those doctors and seminary professors and those men that
are skilled beyond us, but we need to be ready to give a defense
for the hope that is within us with meekness and fear. And then,
of course, in Jude's epistle, a passage that always gets invoked
when we discuss such things, Jude 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. So it's not just to contend,
but to contend earnestly. There ought to be some vehemence,
some diligence, and some fire in your bones when it comes to
this. to contend earnestly, notice, for the faith, not your faith,
not your subjective appropriation of the truth of the gospel, but
the objective content of propositional revelation. You need to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to
the saints. So we've got that written revelation
given us in the Old and New Testaments, and then the creeds and the confessions
come and define and summarize for us that faith. And so we
need to be those who contend for it. Go back to Philippians
chapter 1, a passage that I think highlights the practicality in
terms of this defense of doctrine. Philippians chapter 1, specifically
at verse 27. Only let your conduct be worthy
of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or
am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast
in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith
of the gospel." There's an external application in terms of the adversaries. Notice in verse 28, "...and not
in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them
a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that from
God." So we need to strive together, we need to hold fast, and a great
help to that are the creeds and the confessions that the Church
has given us. The confession is a helpful tool
for believers with reference to a defense of the Christian
faith. Robert Paul Martin says it 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. That's from a very helpful by
Dr. Martin called The Legitimacy
and Use of Confessions. It's in Waldron's exposition
of the 1689 Confession. I'm sure as well you can find
it online. Robert Martin died several years
ago. He was the pastor in Tacoma,
or Setac, good godly man. So to define the doctrine of
the Church, second, to defend the doctrine of the Church, and
then third, to discriminate with reference to the doctrine of
the Church, both for membership and for officers. And I should
make a qualification here and now. If somebody wants to join
our Church and they do not see everything the same way that
we do, I would not bar them from membership. I would, however,
warn them, not warn in a vicious way with fangs and teeth and
grimaces and all that, But I would tell them that more than likely,
if let's say, for instance, they were dispensational, they're
not going to be happy with a series on the Ten Commandments. That's
going to provoke them to wrath, at least to some degree or other.
If somebody's an Armenian, they're not going to like a strong emphasis
on sovereign grace or predestination or election. They're just not
probably going to ultimately be happy here. But if somebody
said, look, I understand the differences. This is the best
game in town in terms of what I'm looking for. I would then
just ask them, well, please don't hold Bible studies contrary to
our confession of faith. If we're meeting on a Wednesday
night, to study the Confession, don't have an alternate Bible
study on a Wednesday night to debunk the Confession. So I want
to make sure everybody knows, it's not that you have to dot
every I and cross every T to be a member of our church. And
typically in a membership process, when somebody comes to us that
has no Reformed doctrine in their background, really little to
no understanding with reference to the Confession of Faith, I
usually say that we as a church hold to full or strict subscription. That means we believe it, not
insofar as it is biblical, but because it is biblical. And that's
our position here. So that's what kind of sets the
parameters and the guardrails in terms of the doctrine and
teaching of the church. And if they're happy with that, then
the expectation is that they'll learn that stuff, right? Make
disciples, baptize disciples, and then teach those disciples
to observe all things that I have commanded you." So that's respecting
this great commission. So it's not just the making of
them, it's not just the baptizing of them, but it's also the instruction
of them. So to expect everybody to be
sufficiently instructed in the 1689 before they can become members
of the Church seems to me to be a stretch. So practically,
that's why we do what we do. But with reference to church
membership, Dr. Martin again 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. I've had this conversation
with people that have been in churches where perhaps there's
many people that are unsaved in that church, and they have
a concern, and rightly so, we should have a concern with unsaved
people in a church, but they see it as their mission to evangelize
that church. I'm sorry, but that's not the
primary emphasis in church, is to evangelize the guy in the
pew. Hopefully the church, the pulpit,
is evangelizing everybody week in and week out, but you're there
to worship. And you're there to praise, and
you're there to glorify, and you're there to express that
unity and that camaraderie that you have in the faith. And again,
if you have that as your mindset and mission, I'm not going to
say you're reprobate and you're going to hell, but it does seem
to be an odd emphasis that we're at church to evangelize versus
worship, praise, and glorify. So the Great Commission demands
that local churches instruct Christ's sheep of those things
He has commanded. And the Confession serves as
a helpful means to that end. It really does do that service
in defining for us Christian doctrine. The Apostle demands
that such instruction be truthful and produce unity. Turn over
to Ephesians chapter 4. Ephesians chapter 4. Notice beginning
in verse 11. He himself gave some to be apostles,
some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.
So the ascended Christ was ascended on high, he led captivity captive,
and he gave gifts to men. In this context, the gifts are
not tongues, the gifts are not helps, The gifts are not prophesying,
the gifts are men. Men qualified by God, recognized
by the church, to be used in the church for the three-fold
purpose that is expressed in verse 12. Notice, this is what
the gifts given by Christ are supposed to do. For the equipping
of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ. That's the purpose of gospel
ministers, to equip the saints, to engage in the work of ministry,
and to seek the edification of the body of Christ. Notice in
verse 13, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of
the knowledge of the Son of God. So a confession of faith helps
us in that endeavor to come to the unity of the faith. If you
are a dispensational Arminian, there are churches that you would
probably be more happy at, and there would be churches that
there'd be more solidarity and more union among. That's up to
you, and that's probably where you're going to be the happiest.
But this unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of
God to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the
fullness of Christ, that we should no longer be children tossed
to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by
the trickery of men in the cunning craftiness of deceitful blotting.
But speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things, and
to him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined
and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to
the effective working by which every part does its share, causes
growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. The practice
of this kind of discrimination, it's not ethnic, it's not racial,
it's not anything other than doctrinal, is not to starve the
hungry, but it is to feed the sheep and promote unity. Andrew
Fuller said, 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. So the purpose of a good doctrinal
confession isn't to keep at bay the weak, but it's rather to
keep at bay the wolf. And I think Fuller's right there
when it comes to this specific issue. But with reference to
discrimination in terms of church membership, we also must discriminate
in terms of church officers. If we are to select officers
in the context of the local church, the confession of faith gets
us in the ballpark as to what the man believes. Jehovah's Witnesses
believe the Bible. Mormons believe the Bible. Muslims
believe the Bible. There's atheists out there that
say, you know what? Historically, I got no beef with
it. I mean, there might be the odd
one here or there. But the expression or confession, I believe the
Bible, that's not really that powerful. Wouldn't it be nice
if we had a summary statement that defined for us Christian
doctrine by which we could vet men that have aspirations for
eldership and to teach in the life of the church? The qualifications
of elders in 1 Timothy 3, 2, necessitates that they be able
or apt to teach. That's what distinguishes the
elder from the deacon. The deacon in his list of qualifications
is very similar to the elder in terms of virtue and grace
and the way that he lives his life, but the deacon is not supposed
to teach or he's not called upon by nature, essentially, to be
a teacher or a preacher. He is to hold fast the mystery
of the faith. He is to hold fast those truths.
But the elder must be able to teach. And so for him to say,
well, I believe the Bible, well, the greatest heretics in the
history of the church have believed the Bible, admittedly, or supposedly,
or professedly. But this is a wonderful summary
statement of Christian doctrine. As well, Titus 1.9. You can turn
to Titus 1. Titus 1, 5 to 9, the qualifications
for elders, and in Titus 1, 9, holding 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. I take that as
a sort of a twofold reference. He holds the sound doctrine,
one, to exhort those people that believe the truth, those people
that are on board, those people that subscribe to a good confession,
but as well, secondly, to convict those who contradict. It's not
only enough to tell people what we believe, we need to distinguish
with what we don't believe. We not only need to understand
Orthodox Trinitarianism, for instance, but we need to understand,
at least to a degree, departures from that Trinitarianism so that
we can better warn the people of God. Turn to 1 Timothy chapter
4. 1 Timothy chapter 4. Again, the emphasis here, discriminate
with reference to the doctrine of the church, with reference
to officers in the church. Notice in 1 Timothy chapter 4
at verse 6, "...if you instruct the brethren in these things,
you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the
words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully
followed. But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise
yourself toward godliness." Creeds and confessions help us to reject
profane and old wives' fables. The creeds and the confessions
protect us from Arianism, from Sabellianism, from Nestorianism,
from all of the isms that have raised up in opposition against
Yahweh and His Christ. Verse 8, for bodily exercise
profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things,
having promise of a life that now is and of that which is to
come. This is a faithful saying and
worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor
and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who
is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things
command and teach. Let no one despise your youth,
but be an example to the believers in word and conduct and love
and spirit and faith and purity. Till I come, give attention to
reading." I don't think he means Timothy's private reading. He
means Timothy's public reading of the scriptures in the church.
Not only to reading, but also to exhortation from that reading,
and to doctrine. Articulate theology from that
reading. Do not neglect the gift that
is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying
on of the hands of the eldership. Meditate on these things. Give
yourself entirely to that, that your progress may be evident
to all. That's the kind of guys we want for gospel ministry.
Not the guy that's got his latte in one hand and his hand in the
other pocket, and he's up there just musing in some emotional
way about who Jesus is. Notice in verse 16, Brethren, if the church is to
be blamed today for not having clearly articulated doctrinal
positions, much of that blame lays in the ministry. If they
have not successfully and effectively taught the truth, then yeah,
if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. The
blind being led is still culpable and still responsible. But nevertheless,
the blind that are leading the blind, It's an unfortunate reality
that there's people in the church, professing church, that have
grown up in the church that have very, very little understanding
of any Christian doctrine whatsoever. Again, it's not probably nice
to blame other guys, but hey, if the shoe fits, wear it. Remember
years ago when I did go to the Chilliwack Ministerial, I remember
they had this time where they were going to have the gray beards
or the gray heads to come and instruct us younger guys. And
I thought to myself, these gray hairs and these gray beards are
the guys that kind of got us into this mess where people don't
have a clue about Christian doctrine. What were they doing in the 20th
century? What were they teaching? I mean,
they jumped on board with all of this garbage, and yet the
people of God have very little understanding of Christian doctrine.
Now, if the man is preaching faithfully, and he is laboring
in the word and doctrine, and people still aren't getting it,
well, that's on them at that point. It's the watchman passages
with reference to the prophet Ezekiel. If you don't warn them,
I will require blood from your hands. But if you do warn them,
Ezekiel, then you're off the hook, basically. Paul invokes
that principle before the elders in Acts chapter 20, my hands
are clean. In other words, I have not shunned
to declare to you the whole counsel of God. And so with reference
to church eldership, we need faithful men who not only believe
the Bible, but believe the Bible in the way it's supposed to be
believed. Notice in 2 Timothy 2. 2 Timothy
2 at verse 1. You therefore, my son, be strong
in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that you
have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful
men who will be able to teach others also. You see, Paul sets
forth the principle, the responsibility for the church the church which
is the pillar and ground of the truth, to be able to identify
her guys, to be able to make sure her guys are fit and qualified,
and then to make sure those guys are functioning in the capacity
for which Jesus purposed them. Commit these to faithful men
who will be able to teach others also. Notice in verse 15, be
diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who
does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth. Brethren, notice what he doesn't say. Be diligent to
present yourself approved to your hearers. Be diligent to
present yourself approved to this God-hating world. No, he says to be approved to
God. Have a clear conscience, void
of offense toward God relative to your pastoral ministry. And
if you can read through 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and see an
emphasis on tongues and prophesying, you are completely missing the
point. These are the last epistles or the latter epistles of the
Apostle Paul. Tongues are never mentioned.
Prophecies are never mentioned. What is mentioned? Sound doctrine.
Tongues and prophesying were revelatory gifts. The idea is
that once those revelatory gifts have been codified in the canon
of the New Testament, then the purpose of those apt to teach
is not to seek God for tongues and prophesying, but to proclaim
the sound doctrine that has been delivered once for all. That's
the emphasis of the Apostle Paul. Notice as well in 2 Timothy 4,
2. Preach the Word. Be ready in season and out of
season. Convince, rebuke, exhort with
all longsuffering and teaching. Well, how do we know he's going
to preach the Word properly? Well, because he says he believes
the Bible. Yeah, but so do Jehovah's Witnesses and so do Mormons.
What does he believe the Bible teaches? Well, this is a very
helpful summary of what the Bible teaches, and if the guy is not
fit with reference to that, then we're not going to use him. Dr. Martin, again, says on 1 John
4, 1 and 2 John 10, 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.
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. It
just seems so simple to me. Why would we not use the confession
of faith to test men who want to preach doctrine that is consistent
with that confession of faith? Fourth, to discipline for departures
from the doctrine of the church. Again, in the church, there's
going to be disagreements. It's going to be disagreements.
I always invoke eschatology. It probably irritates people.
In fact, I said something last week that most likely was very
inflammatory, that even if you're premillennial, you can go to
heaven. I need to watch that kind of stuff, because I realize
it could be taken in a very offensive way. But I mean it in the nicest
possible way. If people know my patron saint
is John Gill, and he was a premillennialist, so I suspect that we'll sit at
the marriage supper of the Lamb together, hopefully. I hope I
get that close to that faithful and godly man. But you can be
wrong, and I'm still thinking premillennialism here, sorry.
You can be disagreeable in certain things. But in the things most
surely believed among us, if there are departures from the
faith that was once for all delivered to the saints, that can in fact
be a disciplinable offense. You know, you hear about pastors
a lot falling because they looked at internet porn, or they engaged
in adultery, or they had some inappropriate relationship. I
don't ever hear pastors being thrown out because they deny
the Trinity. And I think there are out there
those who deny the Trinity, or those who believe that Jesus
is, you know, just a little bit better than men and angels. Somehow
we think that internet porn is a whole lot worse than internet
heresy. I'm not suggesting that either
are good to look at or frequent, but internet heresy is bad. And
I think that's a big problem today. I think that the church
is the pillar and the ground of the truth. Now I'm not suggesting
that everybody on the internet is necessarily a heretic, but
I am suggesting that it's much more likely you're gonna be led
astray on YouTube than in a good church that uses a confession
of faith. I just believe that in my core being. Every fiber
of my being speaks to that. So there are disciplinable offenses
when it comes to heretical positions. Listen to Samuel Miller. 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. It's usually
the first step. He says, men are seldom opposed
to creeds until creeds have become opposed to them. That's gold,
that's great. Listen to W.G.T. Shedd. Heresy is not so great
a sin as dishonesty. Now, he's not saying heresy's
okay. But he says, heresy is not so
great a sin as dishonesty. There may be honest heresy, Again,
this sounds a bit paradoxical, but I think what he's doing is
he's suggesting that those who say I subscribe to this while
their hands are behind their backs and their fingers are crossed
are worse than an outright heretic. Right? The man who's in a pulpit
under false pretenses that he imbibes a certain system of doctrinal
truth and undermines that truth, that man is a bigger threat. He says, there may be honest
heresy but not honest dishonesty. The heretic who acknowledges
that he is such is better than the man 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 master plan of
demoralization. That is a bigger threat in my
estimation. The guy who says he subscribes
but suddenly departs or even in a big way departs is more
dangerous than the old lady that lives over here that was brought
up as a Jehovah's Witness that has only ever read Jehovah's
Witness literature and in her heart of hearts honestly believes
that that's true. I am far more concerned about
the guy who says yes to the Second London, or yes to the Westminster,
or yes to the Savoy, or yes to the Three Forms of Unity, and
undermines it through his preaching. He's a bigger threat than the
old lady across the street. Fifth, to distinguish matters
of Christian liberty. If you're familiar at all with
the Confession of Faith, it begins in chapter 1 with the Holy Scriptures
and ends in chapter 32 on eschatology. Guess what you don't find in
chapters 2 to 31? All kinds of Christian liberty
questions and issues. Right? Do you think that the
divines actually meant what they said in chapter 21? I do. Chapter 21, Christian liberty
and liberty of conscience. 21-2, 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. In other words, when it comes
to the things revealed by Second London Confession, by Westminster,
by Savoy, by the Three Forms of Unity, and other faithful
creeds and confessions, those are things that Christians must
believe in terms of a right relationship with their God and a right appropriation
of scriptural teaching. We can disagree on alcohol. not on the abuse of it, it's
just always wrong to abuse, but on the use of it. Some in their
mind say it can never be used, others in their mind say yes
it can be moderately. Those are liberty of conscience
issues that churches should not divide over. Bible translations,
another thing I probably should stop doing is picking on the
ESV. But old habits die hard. I would never condemn anybody
for using the ESV. If you want to use the ESV and
you learn about Jesus, I think there's a couple of problematic
sections in it in terms of interpretation or translation. But I believe
that you can read it and get saved and happily go to heaven.
We shouldn't divide over that. The King James only controversy. Amazing division over an English
translation. Wow, how did that ever happen? I like the King James. I like
the King James tradition. I've got a King James Bible verse
up on my wall in my gym. I just love the language. But
to divide from the blood-bought children of God over it? The
confession of faith keeps us from that kind of division over
matters that are not necessary or essential with reference to
our right relationship to God and our appropriation of His
Word. So the confession is very helpful in that regard. And I've
always been helped by what the confession does not address. If it's not in the confession,
it's probably not worth fighting over. If it's not in the confession,
it's probably not worth dividing over. Well, we're gonna divide
over the King James only. Go ahead, and then there's gonna
be something else that you then divide over. It's a never nonstop
situation. So the confession, I think, is
helpful here. We do not exclude people from
the communion of the saints over matters that are indifferent
Why would we do that? Why would we say, well, your
view on this tertiary thing doesn't align with my view, so I don't
want to have any communion or fellowship with you. You know
who's going to be in your church? You. That's it. That's it, because we all have
different preferences, we all have different views on matters
of Christian liberty, and we shouldn't castigate somebody
because they're in a different place than us. How does Paul
deal with it in Romans chapter 14? He acknowledges the two excesses
on either part. The stronger brother has the
potential and the tendency and the predilection to look down
on his weaker brother and say, you need to knuckle under, you
need to suck it up, and you need to get strong. Right? But what
is the weaker's brother proclivity? To judge the stronger brother.
Oh, look at him with his steak. Oh, look at him with his beer.
That is wrong. And how does Paul bring it to
bear upon the believers? We're all gonna stand before
Christ and give an account of the things that we've done. It's
to your own Lord or to your own master. We're not each other's
lords and masters. Again, if you see somebody committing
adultery, stop them, tell them it's wrong, don't do it. But
if somebody disagrees with you or has a different view with
reference to Christian liberty, and you feel the incessant need
to correct everybody, you've got problems. And the confession,
I think, would substantiate that, at least by way of not addressing
every jot and tittle. You know, Christmas. That was
my first foray into the battlefield in Chilliwack. I mean, Christmas,
right? I didn't know. I was the guy
that bought the used car, drove the car off the lot, and all
four wheels dropped off. Got here in June, I'm ready to
do it. And by December, I'm like, what
is happening here? What's gone wrong here? I'm such a nice guy. I don't
think I ever said that. It was bizarre. It has been bizarre. Are we being taped or live feeded
or anything? Oh, no. Oh, boy. We're going
to have to change that. Anyways, Christian liberty, more
often than not, rather, not Christian liberty. Two things going on
in chapter 21. Christian liberty is our freedom
from the curse of the law, our freedom from the damage of sin,
our bondage of sin, our freedom from God's wrath and fury and
curse, and our freedom unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Liberty of
conscience is when they speak concerning God alone is Lord
of the conscience. In other words, the civil state
doesn't have the right to bind your conscience contrary to the
word of God. But neither does any ecclesiastical institution
have the right to do that either. Obviously, their focus or their
crosshairs was the civil state in Rome. You don't have the right
to bind people's consciences to waving incense in public worship
before the stations of the cross. That's not scriptural. That's
not biblical. You can't bind my conscience that way. But neither
can the civil state bind my conscience to things that are contrary to
the will and word of God. And so this is a very helpful
sort of point in my mind. It's to protect us from that
division or that wreckage that comes when we elevate our preferences
to the level of thus saith the Lord. It's not right, brethren. It's just not right. And then
I would suggest finally to develop an appreciation for the history
of the church. To develop an appreciation for
the history of the church. The Reformation The Protestant
Reformation dealt with primarily authority, soteriology, and ecclesiology. I always tell our guys, us guys,
I've said it probably here before, they didn't reform theology proper
or Christology. They didn't rework the whole
doctrine of the Trinity. They didn't say, okay, we've
come to this blank slate now, we've gotta formulate and organize
our thoughts with reference to Christology. You know where these
guys went? They went back to the history
of the church. They went back to Nicaea for chapter 2. They
went back to Chalcedon for chapter 8. They didn't reform the doctrine
of God because the church, at least up until that point, had
gotten it right. The fathers receiving from the
apostles, the medievals up to the time of the Reformation,
they didn't come and say, OK, we've got to start with a brand
new blank slate. They dealt with things, to be
sure, where they disagreed or were protesting Rome or where
they wanted reformation, but there were certain things they
just received from the giants that went before them and didn't
try to retool them or rework them or refabricate them. They just received them. The
continuity of theology proper and Christology. As I said, we've
got the Nicene, we've got the Chalcedon, and then you see them
make their appearances in 2nd London, chapters 2 and 8. It's
beautiful, and that's what we should expect. We should hope
for, we should be thankful for that what God has done in the
raising up the son of his love, to seat him in his right hand,
who led captivity captive and gave gifts to man, so that they
would labor in the word and doctrine, we should expect that along the
way they got stuff right. And when they got stuff right,
we should use it. When they got stuff wrong, we
don't use it. I don't know why this is a tough
one either. Well, you know, those fathers taught this. Okay, I
don't care. They taught this, and it's very
helpful, and it summarizes accurately what Paul's saying. Going through
this section in Philippians chapter 2, this Christology section,
the Nicene guys of the Nicene tradition, they weren't making
stuff up. They're simply articulating what
the Bible carefully lays out. They did good work. And for us
today to say, well, you know, those creeds and confessions,
why would you use that? I think that portrays a bigotry
and a prejudice. And it's interesting because
usually the people that hold the confessions are the bigoted
and prejudiced ones. Oh, you guys are proud. You have
the second London Confession. You guys are bigoted. You have
the second London Confession. I think it's just the opposite.
Richard Moeller says the 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. You want to talk about popery?
Look at Protestantism over the last couple of generations. Mark
Driscoll wasn't a pope. These fightin' fundies on their
own, they're not popes. These churches that have no creed
but the Bible aren't popes. It's potpourri, full-on, hardcore,
all the way in. Again, let me just read that
because it's so good. 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. 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 Sicilians. He's not wrong. He's right on.
And Matthew Barrett in Simply Trinity, I think it's that first
chapter that I mentioned is probably the best, Trinity Adrift, he
addresses this. Interpreting the Bible with humility
as God intended means interpreting the Bible with the church. We're not islands unto ourselves,
brethren. We do theology in concert with
the church. Jesus loves his church. The church is the pillar and
ground of the truth. Again, I'm not saying that the
guy who shimmies up to the top of Everest with him and his Bible
can't get some insights and glean some cool stuff. But usually
it doesn't happen that way. Usually he who separates himself,
as Solomon said, seeks his own desire. And he becomes that idiosyncratic
Pope. Back to Barrett. Interpreting
the Bible with humility as God intended means interpreting the
Bible with the church. 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. Now, if you think Barrett's making
this up, he's not. I once had encouraged a fellow
to read systematic theology. Why? Because I think everybody
should. But I thought this individual
really should have. because he had a treasure trove
of idiosyncratic interpretations. So when I suggested to him that
he read systematic theology, you know what he did? This is
my systematic theology. Yeah, so do the Russellites,
so do the Mormons. Back to Barrett. 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. Now, brethren,
what I'm not saying is that you cannot read your Bible and come
up with new things. Please read to your heart's content
and get those nuggets or gems that God hands down. You've all
had that, right? You see something in your Bible
that you hadn't seen before. It's not the case God just put
it in there. The Spirit guides, the Spirit illumines, the Spirit
leads. You see things. Because you've
read more now, you're making connections with other parts
of scripture, your comprehension level in terms of the whole is
expanding, and you're sort of connecting trees in the forest.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the guy that
repudiates the teaching ministry of the church, not just the present
church, but the history of the church. and says, you know, all
I need is me, the Bible, and the Spirit. Again, some of the
worst heresies ever have been hatched in that kind of a context.
And I think it's good to end here with a quote from Spurgeon.
I think this is, I mean, he's another patron saint of the Reformed
Baptists, so we've got to give him a word here. He's speaking about the 1689.
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 them. 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. 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.
Amen. Great. I often encourage people,
read the Confession. And you've heard me say before,
I love it not only for its doctrinal precision and the articulation
of Christian truth, but for its practicality. You know, nobody,
you know, I say that there's probably somebody, but usually
nobody prays like David in Psalm 42 and Psalm 43. Why art thou
downcast, O my soul? Hope thou in God. We don't usually
want to admit that. How are we doing? We're fine.
We're great. Everything's great. I guess, you know, part of that's
courteousness. You don't really want to hear, because it'll take
you about five hours. I'm not doing great. I got a lot of issues,
got a lot of problems. But we're always fine. We're
always great. David actually says, I'm not great. Asaph is
the king of not greatness. I looked around at the wicked,
saw them prosper, looked at the righteous, saw them suffer. I
struggled with that, Asaph tells us. The confession tells us in
far more practical terms about the reality of struggles in the
Christian life. Chapters on assurance, chapter
on sanctification, Yeah, there's times where you're not winning
the battle. They understand that. They get
at that. I think one of the most practical
chapters in the entirety of the Confession is chapter 11. If
you get justification by faith down, I'm not going to say that
you'll never have another problem for as long as you live. But
you're going to be able to manage those problems a whole lot more
effectively, understanding that there is therefore now no condemnation
for those who are in Christ Jesus. So the practicality of those
chapters within the confession of faith are very helpful as
well. Cultural relevance. There's been a lot of, well,
we need to update the confession because of the sexual sins, trannyism,
and all that. Chapter 25 is great. Marriage
is to be between one man and one woman. Why would we need
to rework that statement? It pretty much excludes all the
madness that we're seeing around us today. The chapter on the
civil magistrate, it's fantastic. Again, I wish more churches pre-COVID
would have had that framework in their minds and hearts along
with chapter 21, that God alone is the Lord of the conscience,
because it may have spared us a lot of anguish and a lot of
difficulty. The confession is doctrinal,
and it's very practical as well. Of course, all doctrine is practical,
right? This idea that we've got to have
15 principles on how to be a better me. No, we need to preach the
doctrine of the truth, and God, by His Spirit, will help them
figure out how to be a better me. So anyways, that's why I
think we should use a confession. I'll pray, and if there's any
questions, we can talk about that. Our Father, we thank you
that we have received this wonderful compendium, this wonderful summary
statement of Christian doctrine. We pray for your blessing to
be upon our church. We pray for our young people
and our children, that they would see the utility and the usefulness
of these kinds of things, these creeds, these confessions that
help us understand scripture, at least keep us from flying
off the mountain in terms of our understanding. We pray that
you would bless and protect all the churches in the associations,
and may we indeed shine as lights in this crooked and perverse
generation, and may we hold forth the truth of God's holy word.
And we ask this in Jesus' name, amen. Well, any questions or
comments? Yes, sir. that earlier on in
your teaching that it's with grace that we need to accept
people into the membership, and you named some things off, and
I know the Trinity and the deity of Christ are showstoppers. Arminianism. Yeah, that's a tough one. Definitely
justification by faith alone would be a showstopper. I'm not
sure that all Arminians deny justification by faith alone. What's that? Yeah, and I think
that's been my impression with Arminianism is very inconsistent,
right? You might have a guy that professes
Arminianism that's far more solid than somebody that professes
Calvinism. You know, again, it's that system
mindset or what they've been taught in the church And, you
know, it's like, like dispensationalism, I think, in terms of eschatology
is the default position, because it's pretty much taught everywhere
outside of the reform tradition. So that when somebody comes and
hears, oh, it's what? So I think there's Armenians
like that. A dyed-in-the-wool Armenian,
a John Wesley, if he came in here breathing his Armenian fire,
that might be a different story than the old lady that lives
across the street that just really hasn't ever been told the other
side. So, you know, case-by-case basis. So instead of having, you know,
a list of dogmas or doctrines, at least in my mind, it's usually
in a case-by-case basis. And to be quite honest, practically,
Armenians don't come here. You know what I mean? Like, if
they know what we're about, it's not like we're, you know, a year
in the community. We've been here, you know, going
on 30 years now, I think. The secret's out, you know, we're
predestinarian, we're Calvinist, we're Reformed. So I have not,
in the last while, had anybody say, you know, I'm an avowed
Arminian. Then I would push, press, and try to tease out what
it is that they do believe when it comes to salvation. That makes
sense. But I would suggest Trinity,
yeah, Christology, yeah, and certainly doctrine of justification
by faith alone. That would be the framework.
So Arminianism, you know, and I know that there's Arminians
that affirm good theology proper and good Christology, which the
Christology and then the work of Christ, I don't know how they
get there or how they do it, but yeah, I think case by case
basis with the applicant. Yes, sir. So what do you make
of, thank you, helpful. What do you make of someone like
Spurgeon, who notoriously modified 10.3, and yeah, what do you make
of that? I'm not Spurgeon, so I wouldn't
modify the confession. And I think Spurgeon is an anomaly
in the history of the church. I mean, one of the most helpful
things I ever heard from, I think it was Piper, and it was in the
context of Edwards. It may have been Spurgeon. You're
not him and you'll never be him. Okay. God made some mountains
in the history of the church. Spurgeon was one of those. And he did other things that
concerned me as well, had other views that concerned me as well.
Practically, I wouldn't do that. I think it would be an ecclesiastical.
It would have to be an ecclesiastical situation. If an association
wanted to put in an addendum or some further clarification,
I think that association or ecclesiastical body is free to do that. But
one pastor saying, you know what? I like this better. No, I'm not
comfortable with that. where there isn't really a structural
shift in the rest of the Catechism. Like, confession, not everything
hangs on that distinction. Whereas if you say, like, Christ
is, we're not going to refer to Christ as prophet, priest,
and king, right? Like, we're going to downplay
that. We're like, something else that's more structural gives
a whole. That goes sideways too, yeah. Everything else is connected
in some way. I mean, novices would argue that
that is connected. No, I agree, yeah. It's not foundational
or systemic throughout the confession. Yeah. Yes, sir. What do you do with some Christians
who might believe there's errors in the description? What do I
do with them? I'm a softy and a nice guy. I
actually don't do anything mean to people usually. I show them
my new knife. If somebody denies inerrancy
or infallibility, what do I do with them? I would exhort them
to change their minds because you can't do that. All scripture
is given by inspiration of God. It's not some scripture. It's
not part of scripture. It's all scripture. And then
on what basis, practically, are you then the decider and arbiter
of what is and what isn't? I mean, how do people not see
this as the big problem? If I deny the historicity of
Adam, how do I end up with the historicity of Jesus? How do
I navigate? Because what I think, that's
just arbitrary, it's folly, and it's certainly not a Christian
position. So repentance, you need to believe that the Bible
is infallible, the Bible is inerrant. We don't have any more time,
so yeah. Yeah, I like it. I love it. That's
a big one. But a different one than inerrancy,
right? I think the transmission of the
scriptures from their original to the copies is one issue separate
from the Bible has errors, right? Those are two different fish
to fry. You just had to throw that out.
