Introduction
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.
Defending Church Doctrine
Secondly, to defend the doctrine of the church.
Discriminating for Membership and Officers
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.
Defining Church Doctrine
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?
Disciplining Doctrinal Departures
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.
Distinguishing Matters of Liberty
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.
Developing Historical Appreciation
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.
Closing Prayer
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.
Questions and Answers
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.