← Back to sermon library

The chapter is indeed a long 
one, and it's broken down into two primary sections. Paragraphs 1 to 4 deal with the 
universal church, and paragraphs 5 to 15 deal with the local church. 
So we'll just take up the first four paragraphs this morning. 
Beginning in chapter 26 of paragraph 1, the Catholic or universal 
church, which with respect to internal work of the Spirit and 
truth of grace, may be called invisible, consists of the whole 
number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered 
into one, under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the 
body, the fullness of him, that filleth all in all. all persons 
throughout the world professing the faith of the gospel and obedience 
unto God by Christ and according unto it, not destroying their 
own profession by any errors, averting the foundation or unholiness 
of conversation, are and may be called visible saints, and 
of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. 
The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, 
and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, 
but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, Christ always hath 
had, and ever shall have, a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, 
of such as believe in him and make profession of his name. 
The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, in whom, 
by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, 
order, or government of the Church is invested in a supreme and 
sovereign manner. Neither can the Pope of Rome 
in any sense be head thereof, but is that Antichrist, that 
man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself and the 
Church against Christ and all that is called God. whom the 
Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming. Amen. We can turn 
in your Bibles to the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew chapter 16, 
just want to demonstrate that there is this recognition or 
rather demonstration of the universal church and the local church in 
the context of the Word of God. Matthew 16, specifically at verse 
13, when Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, 
he asked his disciples, saying, who do men say that I, the Son 
of Man, am? So they said, some say John the 
Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 
He said to them, but who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered 
and said, you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus 
answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh 
and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is 
in heaven. And I also say that you are Peter, 
and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades 
shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will 
be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed 
in heaven. So this is a treatment of, or 
a declaration concerning, the universal church. Christ will 
build His church on earth. He's given particular responsibility 
to Peter and the apostles. They would serve as foundation 
stones with reference to the building of that church, but 
it's obvious here, and as well when we compare New Testament 
epistles, that what we find here is the universal church. Now 
turn over to Matthew 18. Matthew 18, and the procedure 
for church discipline. Beginning in Matthew 18 at verse 
15, moreover, if your brother sins against you, go and tell 
him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you 
have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take 
with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three 
witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, 
tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear 
the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. 
And I think it's obvious that this is dealing with local churches. This isn't a statement that when 
somebody sins in a church, say, for instance, in Chilliwack, 
that the elders there need to generate a letter and contact 
every single church in the world, every single one that is in existence. The obvious interpretation or 
implication is that tell it to the church means the local church 
that the sending member is a part of. So there is this distinction 
in scripture between the universal and the local church. That's 
what our confession is doing with chapter 26, paragraphs 1 
to 4, and then chapter 26, paragraphs 5 to 15. Now the word church, 
as I'm sure I've told you before, is used or is more connected 
to the word Kirk that we often hear in Scottish, 
Dutch, German, and it's from the word kuryakon. And kuryakon 
in the Greek New Testament means something that belongs to the 
Lord. In fact, you can turn to 1 Corinthians 
11. 1 Corinthians chapter 11. You've probably heard the church 
identified as an ekklesia, and that's true, and we're going 
to notice that in just a moment, but our word church is not really 
related to ekklesia, but to this kuriakon, that which belongs 
to the Lord. Notice in 1 Corinthians chapter 
11 at verse 20. It says, therefore, when you 
come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's supper. Now, the Lord there is kuriakon, 
the supper that belongs specifically to the Lord. This word's only 
used twice in the New Testament here, and in the other text we're 
going to look at in just a moment. So this kuriakon means that which 
belongs to the Lord. So church is relative to that 
particular word. All supper, every bit of food 
that ever comes to man comes from the hand of God. So technically, 
everything could be a Lord's supper, but not in this instance. It's a technical term defining 
a particular supper that the church engages in to remember 
her Lord in his life, or in his death, death for sinners. So kuriakon is that Greek word. 
And then Revelation 1.10. Revelation 1.10. Again, I think 
these are familiar passages for those who have been here for 
any time. Revelation 1.10, John the Apostle 
says in verse 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Again, every day belongs to God, 
but not like this one. It's Sunday. It's the Lord's 
day. It's that day that has been uniquely 
carved out by God for the good of His people. So the word church 
is connected to Kuriakon. It's in Scottish, Dutch, German. 
It's referred to as Kirk. Now the Greek word translated 
church here is Ekklesia. And Ekklesia oftentimes is explained 
as being the called out ones. Now, I don't doubt that that's 
somewhere down the line with reference to the range of the 
meaning of that word, but it's relative to the qahal, which 
was the assembly in Old Covenant Israel. So ekklesia has this 
idea of assembly, convocation, or congregation. And that's what 
church means, or ekklesia means, and that's a bit of a language 
that is used by both the Bible and the confession of faith. 
Now when we look at this statement concerning the universal church, 
it's helpful to look back in the history of the church, and 
with reference to creedal sort of statements, one of the first 
creeds that identified particular attributes of the church was 
the Creed of Constantinople in 381, AD 381. And they say, or 
confess, we believe in one holy universal and apostolic church. Now, the word Catholic that we 
find here in paragraph 1 simply means universal. When you see 
the word Catholic, don't all automatically freak out. Obviously, 
they're not pro-Catholic based on what they say in paragraph 
4. If you were here on Wednesday night when we were studying Manasseh 
in 2 Kings 21, I mentioned the author can't say enough bad about 
Manasseh. I mean, he keeps heaping it up, 
piling it up, showing us just how bad Manasseh is. Well, the 
divines do that in paragraph 4. I mean, there's no wiggle 
room whatsoever to think that these persons actually appreciated 
the Roman Catholic Church. So the word Catholic does not 
It's a useful word and a word that, in Protestantism, we need 
to retain. It speaks of something that's 
universal. We might refer to Catholic Christianity. That, again, doesn't mean Roman 
Catholicism. It means what the Church universal 
has held as true. Catholic Christianity touches 
on things like the doctrine of Christ, the Trinity, all those 
things we have in common with one another. So the word or the 
use of the word Catholic ought not to freak us out. So the constant 
Neapolitan creed said, we believe in one, holy, universal, and 
apostolic church. So those attributes are important. 
One, there is one universal church. Notice what our confession says. 
The Catholic or universal church may be called invisible. It consists 
of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall 
be gathered into one. So that is the oneness of it. We see the holiness of it in 
paragraph 2. The persons that profess faith 
in Christ and live their lives with reference to holiness and 
righteousness, they are the ones that make that up. And then with 
reference to universal or Catholic, we see that there. And then apostolic 
simply means the teaching of the apostles given to us in the 
New Testament is what the church rests upon and is founded upon. So in Acts 2, they continue steadfastly 
in the apostles' doctrine. That's what apostolicity refers 
to. It means that we're committed 
to the Word of God as delivered to us through the prophets and 
through the apostles. So let's look first at the universal 
church in paragraphs 1 to 4. Note the identification of the 
church in paragraphs 1 and 2. In the first place, we ought 
to observe the church exists with respect to God's electing 
grace. Notice, the Catholic or universal 
church, which, with respect to internal work of the Spirit and 
truth of grace. In other words, it doesn't come 
into being on its own. It's not a society of persons 
that gather together and draw up a constitution and a confession 
of faith and say, this is how we want to define ourselves and 
this is what we want to do. No, the church finds itself together 
because of the work of the Spirit of God, the internal work of 
the Spirit and truth of grace. In other words, when God saves 
sinners, what does He do with them? He binds them together 
in the church. He gives them that common affinity 
in the Lord Jesus Christ and that common expression of their 
love for Christ and their service to Him in the world. So with 
respect to election, we need to appreciate the Catholic or 
Universal Church as founded or established. Notice it goes on 
to say, and it may be called invisible. We think of the invisible 
church. Some Baptists in particular reject, 
there was a pun there, some Baptists in particular, but not the particular 
Baptists, reject the concept of the universal church. You 
may have heard of landmark Baptists, or Trail of Blood Baptists, or 
several other types of Baptists. They reject the concept of the 
universal church. which is noteworthy because when 
our brothers went to write or put together their confession 
of faith, they didn't embrace that thought that it was only 
local churches in view. They embraced the concept of 
the universal or the invisible church. Again, there are Baptists 
out there or groups out there that deny this universal church. The only church we ever see is 
in the context of local churches and typically in the context 
of their local churches. So realize that this idea of 
a universal church is not gladly embraced or ardently embraced 
by everyone. But it may be called invisible, 
and then it says it consists of the whole number of the elect. 
So, you know, the Apostle Paul is a part of the church. Martin 
Luther is a part of the church. course, depending upon who you 
ask. John Calvin is a part of the church. We're part of the 
church. It's invisible. It consists of 
the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall 
be gathered into one. And I think that statement there 
reflects what we in in preaching or in reading Puritans make a 
church militant and church triumphant distinction. The church militant 
pictures the church here on earth, striving forward, battling against 
enemies, seeking to be faithful in the midst of crooked and perverse 
generation. But the church triumphant speaks 
of that time when the body of Christ is ultimately in the presence 
of Christ in the eternal state, and the consummated glory is 
brought to pass. You see, this idea of the church 
spans all ages, it spans all sort of ethnic types, it spans 
all things, and it consists of the whole number of the elect 
that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one." So we 
see the invisible Church with respect to sovereign grace. We're 
elected by the internal work of the Spirit, with respect to 
its stages of existence, militancy, and triumph. And then notice 
with respect to its relation to Christ. In other words, how 
does this universal Church, or this Catholic Church, relate 
to Christ, and that's specified there at the end. Under Christ, 
the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness 
of him that filleth all in all. So go to Ephesians 5. Ephesians 
5, just to highlight or demonstrate or see how each of these things 
are scriptural in nature. In Ephesians chapter 5, Verse 22, wives submit to your 
own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is head of the 
wife, as also Christ is head of the church, and He is the 
Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church 
is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands 
in everything. Husbands, love your wives just 
as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that 
he might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water 
by the word, that he might present her to himself a glorious church, 
not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she 
should be holy and without blemish. So you see that these things, 
that the Confession sets forth, and this isn't the only place 
in the New Testament, but this is the relation of the Universal 
Church to Christ. He is the head, we are His spouse, 
we are His body, we are the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. 
Go back to Ephesians 1, Ephesians chapter 1, verse 21, well, 20, which he worked in 
Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his 
right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and 
power and might and dominion and every name that is named, 
not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. And 
he put all things under his feet and gave him to be head over 
all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of 
him who fills all in all. Now, I think a practical observation 
stems from this sort of this paragraph here. If Christ looks 
at the church this way, how ought we to look at the church? I think 
there is this undervaluing of the Church that I don't know 
why it is the case, I don't know how it's happened, when the Scriptures 
speak so positively concerning Christ and His view of the Church, 
and then we come along in union with Christ and we don't share 
His view of the Church. Christ sees the Church as His 
bride. Certainly, I'd like to think 
that persons in our churches don't treat their own brides 
the way that they oftentimes treat the bride of Jesus. I mean, 
it's shameful the way that we use the church, or the way that 
we abuse the church, or the way that we neglect the church, or 
the way that we sort of tack church on when Christ sees the 
church as His bride. There is that relationship in 
terms of Christ being the head, and we are His body. And again, 
Paul develops this in Ephesians 5, if we would have kept reading, 
nobody hates his own body, he nourishes and he cherishes his 
own body. The primary instruction there 
isn't about husbands and wives, that's an image picturing the 
relationship between Christ and his bride, or Christ and his 
church. So again, we don't despise our bodies, we don't ingest poison 
as a matter of routine, we don't go and walk in front of trains, 
we don't shoot ourselves in the head. I realize there's exceptions 
and there are people that do those things, but as a general 
rule, image bearers of God tend to their bodies. And again, when 
it comes to Christ's body, we don't tend to it. We don't seek 
to promote its health. We don't seek to try and increase 
its vitality. We either, A, neglect it, or 
B, worse, we try and destroy it. And that's simply unacceptable. Again, if you're in a local church 
that doesn't, you know, satisfy all your needs and desires, then 
it might be better to find a different local church than to destroy 
that particular one. There's nothing noble in kicking 
Jesus' body in the shin. There is nothing noble about 
trying to introduce poison into Jesus' body. If you disagree 
doctrinally, find a church that preaches the truth as you understand 
it. You know, this idea that, you 
know, I know that this is a Calvinistic and a Reformed Baptist church, 
but I'm going to go in there and I'm going to teach them dispensationalism 
and sort them out on their terrible view of the law. Don't kick Jesus' 
body in the shin. Find a dispensational church. And same way, brethren, I've 
known Reformed people. I'm going to get into that dispensational 
church, and they're going to learn Reformed theology at my 
hand. Well, if they ask you to teach, 
if they ask you to preach, and they give you a Bible study opportunity, 
that's fine. But don't ingest things even 
that are true to the destruction of that particular expression 
of Christ's body. You see, we need to value the 
church the way that Jesus values the church. So it's his spouse, 
it's his body, it is the fullness of him that filleth all in all. Again, how many of us, and I'm 
not trying to pick on anybody or make you feel bad, in fact, 
you're probably not in my crosshairs. The fact that most of you are 
here every Sunday at 9.30 and on Wednesday night and on Sunday 
night. I'm preaching to the choir, but just trying to draw out some 
practical implications. Do we see the church in terms 
of fullness? It's the fullness of Him that 
filleth all in all. If you're still in Ephesians 
1, look at what Paul says there. Ephesians 1. Verse 22, He put 
all things under His feet. Remember? This is the mediatorial 
reign of Christ. Jesus is the second person of 
the Trinity, always possessed absolute, sovereign, universal 
authority. But in His function or role as 
mediator, God confers upon Him this absolute sovereignty. So 
what we find in verse 22, is sort of a parallel passage to 
what we see in Matthew 28. All authority in heaven and on 
earth has been given to me. So notice in verse 22, he put 
all things under his feet and gave him to be head over all 
things. Now notice, to the church. which is His body, the fullness 
of Him who fills all in all. So as I understand that, He has 
universal, absolute, complete authority and rule over all things, 
including politics, including family, including individuals, 
including business, including economics, including whatever 
it is there is, He has absolute authority. But notice the particular 
focus of Christ's rule and reign, to the church. You see, he is 
the ruler over the kings of the earth, and he has absolute sovereign 
authority over the synagogues of our age, but where is Christ, 
if I can use the metaphor, where is his eye especially focused? It's on his church. If Christ 
sees and values His bride that way, why such a low view of the 
Church among the professing people of God? Why is it an add-on or 
a tack-on to our lives? If it is the fullness of Christ, 
why is it one-sixteenth of our lives? If it's the fullness of 
Christ, why is it seen as if we're somehow doing God a favor 
by showing up? We need to appreciate that the 
Church is what this confession of faith says, based on just 
these few texts that we see in Ephesians. It is His spouse, 
His body, His fullness, and therefore it ought to occupy that sort 
of a steam in our own minds and in our own hearts. Now, note 
with reference to the visible Catholic or universal church 
in paragraph 2. So we move from the invisible, 
and now we move to what makes it visible. And again, this is 
not particularly with reference to the local church. We're going 
to deal with that in a few paragraphs. But here it speaks about, you 
know, how do we know there is this invisible church? How do 
we know that there exists in the world that which is identified 
as his spouse, his body, and his fullness? Notice in paragraph 
2, all persons throughout the world professing the faith of 
the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto 
it, not destroying their own profession by any errors averting 
the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may 
be called visible saints, and of such ought all particular 
congregations to be constituted." In other words, the invisible 
church manifests some visible fruits. How do we know that somebody 
is a part of the Church? Because they tell us so? Because 
they have some weird view that, you know, by virtue of the fact 
that they're an image-bearer of God, or they're a creature, 
or whatever it is they are, they're a part of the Church? No, it's 
very clear. Those persons who profess the faith of the Gospel. 
In other words, if you don't profess the faith of the Gospel, 
you're not a part of the Church. That's foundational. What's entrance 
into the church based upon? It's our profession of faith 
in the gospel. So if somebody says, you know, 
I have this idea of who God is, but, you know, I don't think 
Jesus is God. I think he was a good teacher. I think he was 
a moral man. I think he, you know, set forth a pretty good 
example for us to follow. But, you know, I'm part of the 
church. No, you're not. If you don't profess faith in 
the gospel as the gospel demands, then you are not a part of the 
church. And then it highlights both positively 
and negatively those who profess the faith of the gospel and obedience 
unto God by Christ according unto it. Again, this whole idea 
that I'm a member of the church while, you know, I'm just this 
profligate wicked sinner. Nobody wants to talk in these 
terms anymore. Nobody wants to actually say 
to somebody, look, the Bible says that adulterers go to hell. While you're committing adultery, 
don't lie and say you're part of the church or that you're 
a member of the body of Christ. No, because those who are part 
of the church, those who are members of the body of Christ, 
don't do those things. If they do them, they confess 
them, they forsake them, and they repent. Again, brethren, 
I have a category for somebody who goes out and commits that 
sin. There is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared. 
We're not there. We've gone a step further. We're 
saying that it's okay to be a sodomite and a Christian. It's okay, next 
probably, to be an adulterer and a Christian. Soon it'll be, 
it's okay to be engaged in bestiality and be a Christian. Nobody wants 
to actually say that those who profess the faith of the gospel 
ought to obey God by Christ according unto it. And then notice negatively, 
not destroying their own professions or profession by any errors averting 
the foundation. In other words, the faith of 
the gospel is not in a creature, Jesus. It's in the second person 
of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is very God of very 
God. So if you deny the deity of Christ, 
you are everting the foundation. If you deny the Trinity, you 
are everting the foundation. Again, there are errors and there 
are issues and there are differences between churches that don't necessarily 
be church then. In fact, paragraph 3 is going 
to tell us that. There's no such thing as a perfect 
church on earth. But there is a body of core doctrines 
upon which the church stands, upon which if you deny, you are 
no longer church. You are error, heretic. You are 
hell bound. And so negatively, not destroying 
their own profession by any errors averting the foundation or unholiness 
of conversation. So in other words, these things 
being the case, they are and may be called visible saints. You've got this invisible church, 
and you've got these visible saints. How do we know there's 
an invisible church? Because there's these visible 
saints that profess this faith and live in light of it. Now, 
based on that, of such, ought all particular congregations 
to be constituted. In other words, we have this 
universal, invisible church, It is expressed in the lives 
of these visible saints that make a profession and live in 
light of it, and it's from that body of people that we establish 
local churches. So there is a close connection 
between the invisible universal Catholic Church and what we find 
in the local church. There is that connection, there 
is that organic connection. Do you see the movement of the 
confession? Invisible, visible saints, according 
to the fact that they make this profession of faith, they live 
in light of this profession of faith, and then it brings it 
home at the end of paragraph two, and of such, those persons 
already here and described, of such ought all particular congregations 
to be constituted. In other words, we're Baptists. We don't just baptize the nations 
and say, OK, you're part of the church now. We don't just sprinkle 
people indiscriminately of a profession of faith and a life that consists 
in godliness according to that profession of faith. We are Baptists, 
those who profess faith and live in light of that faith. Those 
are the ones, or that is the stuff, among which we make particular 
congregations. When we move through chapter 
26 in the Confession, the Baptists will not let us forget that they're 
Baptists. This is contra a Westminster 
sort of distinction between invisible and visible saints. See what 
the Baptists do? Invisible church, visible saints. You gotta see what the Presbyterians 
do, and I'm not picking on them, I'm just pointing it out. You've 
got invisible saints and visible saints, because everybody's baptized 
into the covenant and into the church, so we treat them as saints. 
Some just happen to be visible ones, others happen to be invisible 
ones. So you need to appreciate the 
movement of our confession at this particular point. Now notice 
the perpetuity of the church in paragraph three. In other 
words, is the church going to die? You hear this sometimes, 
oh, Islam's growing so rapidly. So what? Who cares? I mean, I care on the one hand, 
because I don't like them murdering people in the streets, or taking 
their C4 vests and going to see Allah. I obviously care. But 
in terms that it's often communicated, well, if Islam keeps growing 
and there's more and more adherents, what's the underlying assumption? 
The church may die. The church is going to be gone. 
The church is being built by King Jesus Christ. The gates 
of hell are always going to assault it, but it's always going to 
prevail and triumph. And that's what we find here 
in paragraph three. The purest churches under heaven are subject 
to mixture and error. So there's a bit of a qualification 
before it actually states that there is a perpetual church. But notice, the purest churches 
under heaven are subject to mixture and error. I've always found 
that comforting. Comforting. Oh, your church this 
and your church that. I'm sorry. We got error. We got problems. We got issues. 
That's why we're here. So Jesus can fix us and put us 
back together again. You know that old adage, there's 
no such thing as a perfect church. We all say that, but none of 
us want it to be the case. We want a perfect church. We 
want people to fawn all over us. We want people to minister 
to us. We want sermons the amount of time we want. We want sermons 
with the content that we want. We want nursery care that's beautiful 
and perfect and impeccable. We want just enough ministries 
to satisfy my desires. We all want the perfect church. 
I think the confession reflects what the Bible teaches. Lower 
your expectations. Maybe that'll be on my gravestone 
someday. I don't mean that in the sense 
that we ought not to pursue the highest, the sumum bonum, the 
highest goal we ought to be pursuing. But brethren, realistically and 
practically, when we expect that from the people around us, we're 
going to burn them out. They can't handle being able 
to live in a perfect manner. So we need to appreciate the 
purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. 
We are wrong. We have issues in our theology. 
A hundred years from now, I don't think this will happen, but a 
hundred years from now, some guys Saturday morning are going 
to be going, man, why did they believe or do that? Maybe they'll 
be our great-grandchildren. Why did they think that? Well, 
we have more light now. We figured it out. That's just 
reality. I'd like to think that if we 
knew where our errors were, we'd fix them. But the bottom line 
is we have errors. We are not infallible. We are 
not inerrant. We are not God. So the purest 
churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. Face it. Embrace it. Realize it. Now it 
goes on. And some have so degenerated 
as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. So you 
see, it's one thing to have this mixture or a subject to mixture 
and error. It's one thing to have some issues 
in our theology or perhaps in our practice. It's one thing 
to recognize and affirm that. But some have so degenerated 
as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, those 
who deny the Trinity. those who deny the deity of Christ, 
those who deny the work of Christ, those who deny the doctrine of 
justification by faith alone. There are certain core doctrines 
that the church must get right to continue to be a church. If 
the church loses that, or the church relinquishes that, then 
as the Confession points out, they have degenerated so as to 
become no churches of Christ, but they are in reality synagogues 
of Satan. Again, there are things that 
separate or differentiate us from, say, the Presbyterians 
or the Independents or the Dutch Reform. There are things that 
are peripheral in terms of you can have a difference of opinion 
on those and still go to heaven and still be called a church. 
But there are those things that if you deny, you have degenerated, 
you're no longer a church, and you have become a synagogue of 
Satan. And then here's the positive statement concerning the perpetuity 
of the church. Nevertheless, Christ always hath 
had and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, 
of such as believe in him and make profession of his name. 
Again, a very encouraging statement. You know, we can, in our own 
situations and in our own struggles, be Elijah under the broom tree. 
I mean, remember Elijah under the broom tree. He was living 
in a day when Baal worship was institutionalized. He was living 
in a day when Ahab was the king of Israel. He was living in a 
day when Ahab, the king of Israel, brought Baal worship to Israel. I mean, it was a discouraging 
time for Elijah. And what does God comfort him 
with? He comforts him with this paragraph, basically. He says, 
I have 7,000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal. We need to 
be encouraged as the people of God with our confessional statement 
here, but with Matthew 16, I will build my church, and the gates 
of Hades shall not prevail against it. We need to believe and trust 
the Savior that He's going to do what He has covenanted and 
committed to do. That's a beautiful statement. 
Nevertheless, Christ always hath had, and ever shall have, a kingdom 
in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and 
make profession of his name." Now, there's some question as 
to the relationship between kingdom and church. Is the church the 
kingdom? Is the kingdom the church? I think we ought to understand 
it this way. For the sake of brevity, the 
kingdom of God is expressed visibly in the world through the church. Now, the kingdom of God, the 
kingdom of Christ rules over all. He has all authority in 
heaven and on earth. Christ is king over your bank. 
Christ is king over your wallet. Christ is king over every atom 
that makes you up. So the kingdom, there is a broad 
reference to be sure. But when we ask, where do we 
primarily see the kingdom of God on earth? We see it in the 
church. We see it in the local churches. 
And that's what we ought to remember. Again, not confined to the church. The rule, the scope of authority 
with reference to Christ exceeds or or transcends the church to 
include all other things, but it's primarily manifested and 
visibly displayed in the life and context of the church. And 
then let's look at paragraph 4. with reference to the head 
of the church. The first section is a positive 
statement, the latter section is a negative qualifier. Notice, 
the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church. We've seen 
that in Ephesians, you see that in Colossians, you see that throughout 
the New Testament epistles, let alone Christ's words in Matthew 
chapter 16. I will build my church." Matthew 
28, all authority in heaven and on earth is mine, therefore go, 
or go therefore, and do these churchly things. So Christ is 
the head of the church, in whom by the appointment of the Father, 
again, according to his role as the mediator, as the God-man, 
he's appointed by the Father for this particular task, to 
be the head of the church. All power for the calling of 
the church belongs to Jesus, for the institution of the church 
belongs to Jesus, for the order of the church belongs to Jesus, 
and for the government of the church belongs to Jesus. In other 
words, Christ as head of the church has absolute authority 
to declare what happens in the church. This is another reason 
why we hold to the regulative principle of worship. It's based 
on the headship of Christ over His church. When we ask the question, 
how do we do church? The answer can never be, well, 
I'd like to have a little bit of this, I'd like to have a little 
bit of that, I'd like to have a little bit more of this and 
a little bit less of that. That's not the way we address 
the question of how do we do church. We ask, what does the 
head of the church say? What does the head of the church 
define? What has the head of the church 
declared concerning this particular situation? Lo and behold, we 
get to the New Testament, we see the head of the church communicating 
his will for the church through his apostles. You see it very 
clearly spelled out, the sorts of things the church, as church, 
is supposed to do when you get to the New Testament. We would 
expect that, wouldn't we? The head gets to call the shots. The head makes the decision. 
The head tells us, and we, the loyal subjects, do what he commands. Again, a beautiful argument for 
the regulative principle of worship. We do nothing more, we do nothing 
less, and we do nothing else than what the head commands us. 
That should occupy us as the people of God until the day that 
Jesus comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. 
So He has supreme authority, He has absolute headship, and 
we as His bride, we as His body, we as the fullness of Him that 
filleth all in all, simply need to obey Him. We need to toe the 
line, we need to do what our head commands. And then note 
the negative qualifier. Neither can the Pope of Rome 
in any sense behead thereof. Now, when we read this paragraph 
in our situation, we go, wow, this is pretty harsh. I mean, 
nobody would say this sort of thing today. I mean, Francis 
has got his issues, but boy, we shouldn't speak like this 
of anybody because it might make them feel bad. Remember, in the 
17th century context, theology mattered. Theology was everything. Theology was always seen as the 
queen of the sciences, the queen of the disciplines, and now we 
see all other things just basically trump theology. No pun intended 
there. But basically, they had to contend 
with the pontiff of Rome, the Pope of Rome. And so, in their 
confessional statement, combating the error of Rome, which taught 
the headship of the Pope, this is a most appropriate statement. 
The Pope has been called the vicar of Christ on earth. Now, 
we may think that's just some cool title that they made up. 
Vicar means substitute. The Pope claims to be Christ's 
substitute on earth. He is in the place of Christ. That's an interesting thing, 
too, because antichrist, we often translate that preposition anti 
as against, and it certainly bears that meaning. Antichrist 
means one opposed to Christ. But another meaning of that preposition 
is in the place of. It's like an anti-type. You have 
a type in the Old Testament and an anti-type. It's not that this 
anti-type is against the type, but that it's in the place of. 
There's correspondence. You need to remember that dual 
meaning when it comes to Antichrist. It has the idea of opposing Jesus, 
but it also has the idea of being in the place of Jesus. And so 
when the Pope arrogates to himself this vicar-ship, he is suggesting 
He's an antichrist. That's kind of an interesting 
thing, just kind of dawned on me. Maybe I'm sharing an epiphany 
here. I'm just kidding. Those two meanings are there. 
So antichrist, again, with the idea of a type. David is a type 
of Jesus. Adam. Adam is a type of Jesus. 
Again, not against, but corresponding to and in the place of. What 
is true of the first man is true of the second man and fulfilled 
by him. So anti doesn't necessarily and 
always mean against, but it's also in the place of. And the 
Pope does both. He is, at least by his own admission, 
in the place of Jesus, but by what we see in his conduct, he 
is opposed to Jesus. So notice how they go on to describe 
the Pope of Rome. Neither can the Pope of Rome 
in any sense behead thereof, but is that Antichrist, that 
man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the 
church against Christ and all that is called God, whom the 
Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." Now, the word 
Antichrist appears just four times in the New Testament. It's 
in 1 John 2.18, 1 John 2.22, 1 John 4.3, and 2 John 7. So when we look at those particular 
texts as used by the apostle John, I think that we learn that, 
first of all, they are contemporary to John and his audience. Now, 
I'm going to suggest that this is not suggest, it is. It's an 
ecclesiastical statement, not an eschatological one. In other 
words, they are describing the Pope of Rome in terms of ecclesiology. He's not in chapters 31 and 32 
dealing with eschatology. So, I will argue, and I suggest, 
that the Pope is an Antichrist. He is certainly Antichrist by 
every definition presented to us by John in his treatments 
of Antichrist. But to be the Antichrist assumes 
some malevolent figure in the future, often equated with the 
beast, and with that man of sin related to us in 2 Thessalonians 
2. So the Antichrist in 1 and 2 
John. They were contemporaries of John 
and his audience. You've heard that Antichrist 
is coming. Many Antichrists have already come. In other words, 
this was a present reality to John. We learn as well that they 
were religious people who went out from the church. It's often 
the case that we hear of Antichrist, this malevolent sort of figure 
in the end times is going to be a political figure. Again, 
that's associating Antichrist with the beast. There is a political 
dimension to at least one of the beasts in the book of Revelation. But to just say the Antichrist 
is the beast, that's to me an exegetical leap that one cannot 
legitimately make. But when we talk about Antichrist, 
they went out from us, but they were not of us. They were within 
the church. They weren't by deception. They 
weren't political figures that were sort of imposing things 
upon the church, but they were rather religious sort of bodies 
or religious persons. And then they weren't recognizable. 
John says you can know these ones by these particular fruits. And those fruits, in terms of 
the Antichrist heresy, what did Antichrists teach? What was their 
doctrine? Well, as we might believe, it 
had to do with Jesus. In the first place, they denied 
that Jesus is the Christ. Notice in 1 John 2.22, sort of 
fleshing out what this Antichrist thing is that John deals with 
in 1 and 2 John. In 1 John 2.22, we learn that 
they they denied that Jesus is the Christ. Who is a liar? 1 John 2.22, but he who denies 
that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the 
Father and the Son. So Christ is denied, Calvin said, 
whenever those things which peculiarly belong to him are taken away 
from him. Jehovah's Witnesses are antichrist. 
Mormons are antichrist. Any Christological heretic is 
an Antichrist because, I think Calvin is right, Christ is denied 
whenever those things which peculiarly belong to him are taken away 
from him. You strip him of his deity? You're 
an Antichrist. You strip him of his humanity? 
You're an Antichrist. You strip him of his ability 
to save sinners? Your Antichrist, it's a heresy 
that the early church confronted and that unfortunately lives 
on in our day, denies the Father and the Son. The latter part 
of verse 22, He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the 
Son. Here we might locate errors concerning the Trinity. You know, 
those who have no distinction between the Father and the Son, 
what we would call today modalists, or oneness Pentecostals, or in 
the history of the Church, Sabellianism. This is a denial of the distinction 
between the Father and the Son, and that is heresy, and therefore, 
that is Antichrist. And then notice, they denied 
that Jesus came in the flesh, 1 John 4. 1 John 4, and again, 
there were at least professing Christian sects that denied these 
very things as well. Docetists, they didn't believe 
that Jesus actually came in the flesh. Jesus was a phantom. Jesus was ethereal. Flesh is bad, so therefore Jesus 
couldn't have come in the flesh. Well, John's already combating 
this in 1 John. Notice 1 John 4, 1. Beloved, 
do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits whether 
they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out 
into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit 
that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. 
and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has 
come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the 
Antichrist which you have heard was coming and is now already 
in the world." You see, this Antichrist heresy was already 
present in the time that John wrote. You see, those are the 
things that are denied by Antichrist. They deny that Jesus came in 
the flesh, they deny the Father and the Son, they deny that Jesus 
is the Christ. Again, when we look at the doctrine 
of the Trinity, which, God willing, we're going to do in our morning 
sermon in a little bit of detail, and then the doctrine of the 
deity of Christ, or the fact that He is the second person 
of the Trinity, which, God willing, we're going to do tonight, any 
error concerning those truths lands one in the realm of Antichrist. So again, Barack Obama, wicked 
man, terrible policy, but Antichrist. Antichrist in terms of, yeah, 
I'm sure he would deny one or three of these particulars, but 
we're looking for this malevolent figure to sort of come and make 
this covenant with the nation. It's so dispensational, this 
end time sort of a phenomena. Whereas John is dealing with 
it as a present reality affecting the churches of Christ, and he 
is telling them on how to guard against it. And the best way 
is to know who Jesus is and what he has done. Hodge says, interpreters 
have differed as to whether these phrases were intended to designate 
a personal opponent of the Lord or principles and systems antagonistic 
to him and his cause. The authors of our confession 
can hardly have intended to declare that each individual pope of 
the long succession is the personal Antichrist. And they probably 
meant that the papal system is in spirit, form, and effect, 
wholly unchristian, and that it marked a defection from apostolical 
Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture, all of which was 
true in their day as and is true in ours." So Hodge recognizes 
some apply these teachings with reference to Antichrist, man 
of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2, and beast to some particular 
embodiment of evil that comes at the end. or as a system of 
principles that marked a defection from apostolic Christianity. And I think that's probably the 
way to interpret that particular section. Now, having said all 
that, I think a good dose of Luther is always helpful when 
it comes to the Pope. Timothy George has a book called 
The Theology of the Reformers. And he writes, as he grew older, 
his polemic against Rome became sharper. He referred to Pope 
Paul III as his hellishness. Were not the pope and his associates 
at least members of the church? Yes, as much as spit, snot, pus, 
feces, urine, stench, scab, smallpox, ulcers, and syphilis are members 
of the body. So that's as anti-papal statement 
as you can get in terms of Luther. I just kind of read that to give 
you a bit of historical context in terms of what Martin Luther 
said concerning the Pope. You're going to be all right 
there, Isaac? Somebody get him a cool cloth 
or something. Luther's still slaying his audience. Anyway, so that's where we'll 
stop the identification of the church, the perpetuity of the 
church, and the head of the church. And the Lord willing, in the 
next couple of weeks, we'll look at some things concerning the 
local church in paragraphs 5 to 15. Well, let's pray. Father, 
we thank you for your Word, we thank you for the doctrine carefully 
articulated in our confession of faith, and we thank you for 
the Church. And I pray that we would love 
her, that we would appreciate her, that we would value and 
prize her the way our Lord Jesus Christ does. We ask that you 
bless our time of worship now, As we gather together, as we 
sing your praises, as we pray to you, as we hear from the scriptures, 
God, may it be the case that our thoughts, our minds would 
not wander, but we would focus and we would find great joy in 
knowing our God. Go with us, we pray, through 
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.