← Back to sermon library

Chapter 27, I'll read paragraphs 
1 and 2, and then we'll look in some detail at what is taught 
here. All saints that are united to 
Jesus Christ, their head, by His Spirit and faith, although 
they are not made there by one person with Him, have fellowship 
in His graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory. and 
being united to one another in love, they have communion in 
each other's gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance 
of such duties, public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce 
to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man. Saints, 
by profession, are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion 
in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual 
services as tend to their mutual edification, as also in relieving 
each other in outward things according to their several abilities 
and necessities, which communion, according to the rule of the 
gospel, though especially to be exercised by them in the relations 
wherein they stand, whether in families or churches. Yet as 
God offereth opportunity is to be extended to all the household 
of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the 
name of the Lord Jesus. Nevertheless, their communion 
one with another as saints doth not take away or infringe the 
title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions. Amen. So we continue in our studies 
in the Confession of Faith. We see how Chapter 27 is closely 
associated with Chapter 26 of the Church, and how it does tease 
out and flesh out several other things that have gone on before 
in the Confession of Faith. So I want to look at Paragraph 
1 under the heading, The Nature of the Communion of the Saints, 
and then Paragraph 2, The Duties Involved in the Communion of 
the Saints. But in the first place, with 
reference to paragraph 1, we ought to define communion. In 
James Renahan's book, Edification and Beauty, he deals with this 
particular topic. He points to the Oxford English 
Dictionary for definition of the word communion. In fact, 
Dr. Renahan encourages that the OED be utilized in the study 
of the Confession, because it not only defines words, but it 
also gives you the date that that definition was in play. And so it not only gives you 
definition, but it shows you the range of meaning that the 
word adopts over time. And with reference to communion, 
he focuses on the two first ones in this part, and then later 
he deals with other things from the OED with reference to church 
communion, broader churches to churches. But in terms of this 
particular section, it means in the first place sharing or 
holding in common or participation, and that was used in 1382. And 
then fellowship, association in actions or relations, spiritual 
intercourse, and that's 1553. And so that's probably what's 
in view or what is in the backdrop of this statement concerning 
the communion of the saints. This word communion is used in 
various other places in the Confession. You can go to chapter 2, for 
instance. Chapter 2, paragraph 3, after 
considering the three persons of the eternal Godhead, it says 
in the last statement, which doctrine of the Trinity is the 
foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence 
on Him? And then again in chapter 4 at 
paragraph 3, Besides the law written in their hearts, they 
received a command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good 
and evil, which whilst they kept, they were happy in their communion 
with God and had dominion over the creatures." As well in chapter 
6 in paragraph 2. Our first parents, by this sin, 
fell from their original righteousness and communion with God. And we 
in them, whereby death came upon all, all becoming dead in sin 
and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and 
body." The other use has come later in the Confession, specifically 
in chapter 26, here in chapter 27, as well in chapter 30. So within the context of the 
church, that word communion is used as well. So Renaghan makes 
this observation. The first three occurrences, 
what we read in chapter 2, chapter 4, chapter 6, He says, the first 
three occurrences all relate to personal communion with God. 
The first man and woman were happy in their original communion 
with God, and by the fall they lost their communion with God. 
In each of these cases, communion relates to profound personal 
mutuality. There is true depth of fellowship 
and participation. So I think that's a great definition 
or an understanding of what the confession means here in chapter 
27 when we consider of the communion of the saints. Notice as well 
in chapter 27, paragraph 1, we note the foundation of the believer's 
union with Christ. In other words, what we have 
with Christ is the foundation upon which we have this communion 
with other believers. Because we are joined to Jesus, 
then it necessarily follows we are joined to others who are 
joined to Jesus. And it's making this as the foundation 
for what we have in the church toward one another. It's very 
important that we get that. We're not supposed to just get 
along because it's a good idea to get along. We get along with 
each other, we participate with one another, we engage in this 
mutuality of fellowship with one another because of what we 
have in Jesus Christ. If we appreciate Christ the head, 
then it necessarily follows we appreciate Christ's body, which 
is the church. That's the flow. And then it 
indicates the manner by which the believer's union with Christ 
comes to pass. Notice in paragraph 1, all saints 
that are united to Jesus Christ their head by His Spirit and 
faith. So this is the instrumental means 
by God in the covenant of grace to bring us into that vital union 
and communion with Jesus Christ. It is by His Spirit, Ephesians 
2.5. It is by faith, Ephesians 2.8-10. And then again in Ephesians 3.17. 
So you see, it's not the case that Paul, or not Paul, but Paul 
in the New Testament epistles, or the divines at Westminster 
and the London Baptist divines just said, y'all need to learn 
how to get along with one another. This is a necessary outflow of 
our redemption by Jesus Christ. In other words, if we have a 
high view of Christ, we will have a high view of the people 
of Christ. We ought to see their dignity, 
we ought to see the fact that they stand in vital union to 
the head, we as well stand in vital union to the head, therefore 
we must love one another, participate in fellowship with one another, 
engage in those essential duties of mutuality toward one another. Now note what the confession 
does go on to do in paragraph 1. It makes a qualification and 
a very necessary qualification. It says, all saints that are 
united to Jesus Christ their head by his spirit and faith. Now notice, although they are 
not made there by one person with him. Now, the confession 
differs here a bit with the Westminster Confession. The Westminster Confession 
does not contain this particular statement, although they are 
not made there by one person with him. But the Westminster 
Confession has a third paragraph where this is asserted. In fact, 
in the Westminster, chapter 26 for them, Paragraph 3, it says, 
this communion which the saints have with Christ does not make 
them in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead. 
We need to understand that. Our union with Christ does not 
divinize us. and it does not humanize the 
second person of the triune God. That's what's in view, and this 
is consistent with what we find in chapter 8. You see that systemicness 
and that systematic treatment of Christian doctrine. They don't 
get to chapter 27 and forget what they've written in chapter 
8. They don't forget all the theology that has gone before, 
and they take pains to qualify and to make sure that we realize 
that union with Christ does not lead to us being divine. So the Westminster says, this 
communion which the saints have with Christ doth not make them 
in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead or to 
be equal with Christ in any respect. Waldron points out that this 
was an important qualification in the 17th century. Different 
sects were interpreting union with Christ in a pantheistic 
sense. It's almost as if to bring Christ 
down or to elevate ourselves, so we need to understand what 
union with Christ is and what it isn't. In David Dixon's book, 
it's a bit of a commentary on the Westminster Confession, it's 
called Truths, Victory Over Error, he deals with this particular 
situation, and he specifically deals with a group called the 
Manichaeans, which essentially said that we share deity with 
Christ. He says, did not likewise the 
Manicheans err who blasphemously taught that the divine essence 
was mingled with the soul and body of every man? You hear this 
today, don't you? Pantheism. We all have a spark 
of the divine in us. We all have that little bit of, 
you know, God in us. The world around us is divine 
in nature. No, it isn't. It's the product 
of God's creative activity, and we need to keep our category 
straight, so when we come to this idea of union with Christ, 
it becomes important that we not only seek to understand what 
it means, but we guard against what it doesn't mean, so that 
we don't seek divinization, or somehow that we are partakers 
of the divine substance, rather than, you know, with the mediator, 
the Lord Jesus Christ. At any rate, back to Dixon. He 
says, "...did not likewise the Manicheans err who blasphemously 
taught that the divine essence was mingled with the soul and 
body of every man, and that therefore all his actions were wholly divine?" 
And then he gives several scriptural confutations, or refutations, 
and then he says this, a bit paradoxical. I mean, he gives 
like six or seven reasons from Scripture why the Manichaeans 
are wrong, and then he ends with this. Because the Manichaean 
heir is the utmost stretch of Satan's invention, beyond which 
he is not able to go, they deserve not confutation, but to be looked 
upon as devils incarnate. Isn't that amazing? That's the 
sort of theological language that was employed back in the 
17th century. This is important because just 
this week there's been some pushback on a defective understanding 
of the role of Jesus Christ relative to the Father and the Son. I 
mean, this has been going on for some time. Names like Wayne 
Grudem and Bruce Ware and Mark Driscoll and others have taught 
the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Well, 
if you're thinking in the proper categories, you will know that's 
not accurate. The Son, in the economy of redemption, 
willingly submits to the Father in terms of His mediatorial role, 
but in terms of His deity or His Godhead, He is not eternally 
submissive or subordinate to the Father. And so there's been 
some good pushback this very week, this past week. It's almost 
like, you know, all of a sudden everybody's getting on the bandwagon. 
Well, it's been pointed out that Reformed Baptists have been giving 
pushback over the last several years. In fact, Tom Chantry tweeted 
something to the effect, now everybody's pushing back if they 
all become Reformed Baptists. I mean, this was one of the things 
driving Confessing the Impassable God. It's one of the things driving 
Reformed Baptist academic publisher. It's the reality that God is 
being tampered with in terms of His being, in terms of His 
relations, Father, Son, and Spirit. And so it's good that there's 
pushback being given to these men who are tinkering with the 
historic creeds and confessions of the faith. But, of course, 
as soon as someone starts to disagree with a name like Grudem 
or Ware, and this is no reflection on them as human beings, they're 
lovely, wonderful human beings, but in terms of theological discourse, 
as soon as we disagree with somebody, the tone police come out, and 
they say things, well, you can't do that, that sounds harsh, that 
sounds vicious, that sounds unkind. I wonder what Dixon would have 
made of that if he were to say, they deserve not confutation. 
I'm not putting these men in the same category as the Manichaeans, 
but to be looked upon as devils incarnate. You know, when Nestorius 
was exiled from the church for teaching a two-person Christology, 
the letter that they wrote to him was addressed to Nestorius, 
the new Judas. Now, certainly, those men knew 
something about theological debate and discourse, and they didn't 
mince words. Now, they weren't attacking the 
human, they weren't saying, you know, you're the dirtiest, nastiest, 
vilest piece of human excrement that ever lived, but talking 
about the doctrine and understanding that doctrine has implication. and those who espouse heresy 
are to be rightly identified. So I think that this is a good 
observation. And again, I'm not suggesting that Grudem and Ware 
are Manichaeans or that they are to be looked upon as devils 
incarnate, but just to illustrate that if you read in church history, 
if you read Calvin and Luther, you will notice that we haven't 
even begun to engage in theological debate and dispute. I mean, Martin 
Luther was quite colorful in the verbiage that he used against 
his adversaries in terms of theological debate. In other words, theology 
used to be a place for big boys where they would get in the ring 
and they would battle for the glory of God and for the honor 
of the truth of Christianity. Now, as soon as we disagree with 
one of the big names, we've got to watch our tone, we've got 
to make sure we're loving. Well, it's not inconsistent to 
love and to disagree. It's not inconsistent to love 
and to point out error. In fact, I would argue that it 
is the essence of love to want to do that very thing. Now again, 
we need to do it in the orbit of Christian ethics and not engage 
in name-calling or just say, you know, your mother is so bad 
or, you know, anything like that. But we need to make sure that 
we are prepared to deal for the truth. Van Dixhorn sort of explains 
what's in view here. He says, the communion that we 
have with Christ is with Christ as our mediator, not with Christ 
in His being, in His substance as a member of the Trinity. In 
the early church, at the Reformation and today, there are those who 
devalue Jesus or overvalue the rest of us. This is a great mistake. So the union we have with Christ 
is not to be understood as if we are thereby one person with 
Him, that we have been engrafted into the substance of deity, 
that we are, as the body of Christ, now the fourth person of the 
triune God. Or the, not wouldn't be triune, 
what would it be? Quadroon? Quadroon God. That's simply not what is being 
taught in the doctrine of union. Now notice, it goes on to amplify 
or explain or tease out what sort of union or what we have 
in virtue of this union with Christ. And faith, although they 
are not made there by one person with him, have fellowship in 
his graces. They have fellowship in His graces. Again, Van Dixhorn notes the 
phrase fellowship with Him in His graces could refer either 
to saving graces or to Christ's likeness in life. The proof text 
offered by the assembly at this point, John 1.16 and Ephesians 
2.5, suggest that the gathering intended 
the former. In other words, it's an Ephesians 
1.3 sort of thing. Blessed be the God and Father 
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly 
places in Christ. So when we read that we are partakers, 
we have communion with Christ and the fellowship in his graces, 
this is to be seen in his the provision of saving grace to 
his people. We have been benefactors of what 
Christ has secured on behalf of his people. Hodge says, in 
all the covenant merits of his active and passive obedience, 
forensically they are complete in him. And Paul uses that language, 
complete in him, in the book of Colossians. Paul also speaks 
that in Jesus all the fullness of the deity dwells in bodily 
form. And so Paul would never have 
any idea that we are somehow participants of the substance 
of deity, or we are somehow united to God in terms of this substantial 
incorporation into the very being of God. But Paul can say we are 
complete in him. We have received every grace 
from the hand of God through our Lord Jesus. And then it teases 
out several other things that we see oftentimes in Paul's letters. We have fellowship in his graces. 
We have fellowship in his sufferings. Philippians chapter 3, verse 
10, the apostle speaks of fellowship in Christ's sufferings. Speaks 
of his death. Paul uses this language in Romans 
6. 4 to 6, we have died with Christ, we have been raised with 
Christ, we have all these benefits by virtue of our union with Jesus 
Christ our Lord. We are, or we glean or gain the 
benefit of His resurrection. and of His glory. So that's all 
stated there in terms of the believer's union with Christ. 
And again, before we proceed, we need to understand this is 
the foundation upon which the substance of this chapter now 
comes. The communion of the saints is 
because we have communion with the head. We're all attached 
to Jesus, therefore we are all attached to one another. We need 
to enjoy one another. We need to engage in fellowship 
with one another. There needs to be that vital 
mutuality and fellowship and communion and participation. There needs to be care and concern 
and love and kindness. There needs to be participation 
in the means. This is going to be spelled out 
later in paragraph 2. We need to see that what we do 
in terms of our relationship to one another reflects our understanding 
concerning our relationship with Christ. If we treat the people 
of God with contempt, or we have no place for the church of Jesus 
Christ in our Christianity, it's not the Christianity sanctioned 
by the head. It's not the Christianity sanctioned 
by the mediator. It's not the type that we find 
in the New Testament epistles. all of the love one another's, 
all to be hospitable to one another's, give preference to one another, 
esteem others as better than yourself, all of those are rooted 
in the foundation of the believer's union with Jesus Christ, which 
gives us that access to that comfortable dependence and communion 
with the triune God himself. Now notice, I think the end of 
paragraph one just as a general description of the believer's 
union with the saints, and then, as I said, paragraph 2 gets more 
involved in terms of the duties. But notice, specifically, there 
is to be a union in love. After glory in the semicolon, 
it says, and being united to one another in love. I mean, 
isn't this what it's supposed to be? I mean, isn't this what 
is supposed to characterize and identify the people of God? John 
13, 35, by this all men will know that you are my disciples 
if you have love for one another. You say, well, how would it be 
loving to call someone an incarnate devil? Well, Paul pronounced 
anathema on those who perverted the gospel of free grace. Notice 
in Ephesians chapter four, We see this whole emphasis on being 
united in love. One of the descriptions as well 
of love in the great love chapter in 1 Corinthians 13 is that love 
rejoices in what? It doesn't rejoice in falsehood. It doesn't rejoice in Manichaeism. 
It doesn't rejoice in Arianism. It rejoices in the truth, and 
we need to understand that. Something else that's intriguing 
about the current climate with reference to theological debates. 
Everybody knows what ecumenicism is. Everybody wants to love everybody 
else, and we want, you know, churches all over the place. 
Doesn't matter their theological convictions. We just need to 
love together and all that sort of thing. creeds in the early 
church were called the ecumenical creeds. So what was the purpose 
of those creeds? To unite people in love around 
the truth, because those great ecumenical creeds always ended 
with anathemas. I mean, consider the contrast 
with today. The ecumenicism that we push 
for has no place for anathema. It was the ecumenicism of the 
early church that demanded anathemas. In other words, if you don't 
agree with this creedal formulation, if you do not agree with what 
the church of Jesus Christ holds to, may the wrath of God be upon 
you. So ecumenicism and anathematizing 
are not inconsistent. They are necessary concomitants. Is that the right use of the 
word? I look over at cam.com to get approval there. Those 
are necessary concomitants when it comes to the church. Yes, 
we're to be a loving body driven by truth. 1 Corinthians 13, love 
rejoices in truth. Notice in Ephesians 4 verse 15, 
but speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things into 
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, that is to 
mark the communion of the saints. We are to love one another. Waldron 
says, the true love or true love for Christ immediately involves 
love for those in communion with him. You cannot love Christ and 
not love his body, his wife, his bride. I think this emphasis 
is necessary today. Have you ever met those believers 
or professing believers who say, yeah, I'm a Christian, I'm born 
again, but I don't go to church. Well, why? Well, because the 
church is full of hypocrites. Find a different one. Find a 
place where you can exercise what Paul envisions the church 
is to be doing. What the great confessions of 
faith envision the church is supposed to be about. You cannot 
have a robust love for Jesus Christ and have a hatred, contempt, 
or despise the bride of Christ. It's just not consistent with 
a profession of faith. Well, I just worship Jesus. You 
know, on Mount Shem, sure you can on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday 
or Thursday or Friday or Saturday, but on the Lord's Day, you need 
to be with the people of God. This is where God in the New 
Covenant has promised a special presence to His people. So find a church that you approve 
of. Find a church that preaches the 
truth, exercises discipline in the sacraments. Notice, as it 
continues, being united to one another in love, they have communion 
in each other's gifts and graces. Again, participation, fellowship, 
mutuality. In other words, we don't have 
gifts and graces from God so we can squander them. We don't 
have gifts and graces from God so we can sit in our living rooms 
and say, what a wonderful specimen of a gifted, graced person that 
I am. No, we're supposed to engage 
in the outflow of those gifts and graces for the good of the 
people of God. That's why the Lord gives us 
these things. That's why the Lord entrusts 
them to his people, so that we may be of mutual benefit to others, 
so that we may encourage others. I recently spoke to a young man 
who had been reading the book of Job, and he made a good observation 
concerning that latter part when the Lord comes to deal with Job, 
very specifically. And he asks him, where were you 
when I made the earth, when I laid the foundation of the earth? 
Remember that? When God answers out of the whirlwind, he says, 
Job, you weren't there. when all this took place. You 
really aren't in the position to question, you know, the eternal 
I Am. You really aren't in that position 
to, you know, offer up these sorts of rebuttals. But one of 
the things this young man had mentioned was that Job had no 
idea Job had no concern, no inclination that his book or the book of 
his story would be, you know, encouragement to millions and 
millions of people throughout the history of the church. That 
was a good observation. Job didn't know in the midst 
of his sufferings that all these things were going to ultimately 
work out for good, for God's glory, but as well to benefit 
the church. What does Paul tell us in 2 Corinthians 
1? That we go through afflictions. 
Why? So that we can, you know, fall apart? Well, we do fall 
apart, and that's the reality of it, but God picks us back 
up so that we may be able to encourage others as they go through 
afflictions. You see, God has His purposes 
for the people of God, that they engage in this mutuality, this 
fellowship, this participation. this communion of the saints 
with reference to this whole idea of gifts and graces. As 
well, it says, they are obliged to the performance of such duties, 
public and private, in an orderly way, as do conduce to their mutual 
good both in the inward and outward man. So it is the spiritual concerns 
that are in view. But your brethren don't live 
on love and fresh air. If your brethren need help financially, 
if they need help with reference to the outward man, you know, 
it's like James says. Somebody comes to your door and 
they say they're hungry and they're cold and, you know, you say, 
well, be warm and be filled and you shut the door on them. James's 
idea, or James's point, especially in the context of James 2, is 
where genuine biblical saving faith will always manifest itself 
in works consistent with that profession of faith. James would 
have you open the door, invite a man, and, you know, feed him. 
Give him a jacket. Give him a blanket. Help him. 
Don't just say, be warm and be filled. I'll pray for you that 
everything goes well as you go back to the roast on your table 
and that warm fireplace. I wouldn't want to be him tonight. 
Tell the Lord, please bless him. It's cold out there. Give him 
a coat. Give him something. So you see, 
that's the emphasis here in this general statement in the first 
paragraph. Now let's look at the duties 
involved in the communion of saints, paragraph two, the specific 
considerations. Note, first, holy fellowship 
and communion. Saints, by profession, are bound 
to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship 
of God. Now, we need to understand that just getting together with 
a believer and having coffee and talking about you know, politics 
or sports isn't necessarily communion or fellowship. It's about, you 
know, our common bond in Jesus. It's about those things that 
distinctly identify us as God's people. And so we need to maintain 
and holy fellowship and communion. And I love this, in the worship 
of God, the confession speaks to the private and the public. 
I think you see the private, well, you can turn there in 1 
Thessalonians chapter five. 1 Thessalonians chapter 5. Specifically in verse 11, therefore 
comfort each other and edify one another just as you also 
are doing. Notice in verse 14, now we exhort 
you brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the faint-hearted, 
uphold the weak, be patient with all, see that no one renders 
evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both 
for yourselves and for all. There is to be this private duty 
going on in terms of the believer's responsibility, one toward another. Turn over to Hebrews chapter 
3. Hebrews chapter 3, specifically in verse 12, �Beware, brethren, 
lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief and departing 
from the living God. But exhort one another daily 
while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through 
the deceitfulness of sin.� So you see, those private duties 
are involved. We pray for each other, we encourage 
one another, we love each other, we seek to use our gifts and 
graces for the benefit of others and the inward and the outward. 
But as well, there is this focus in terms of the worship of God, 
probably speaking of corporate worship. Sometimes people say, 
why should I go to church? I don't have a gift, I'm not 
preaching, I'm not the greeter, I'm not a deacon. Your participation 
there is helpful for the body. I don't think people understand 
that. You know who can encourage me 
on a Sunday? Show up! Not because I want to have a 
full church, but because I know that this is where the people 
of God are supposed to be in the New Covenant community, and 
to resist that or to neglect that is to your detriment. It's 
not a good thing to absent yourself from the participation of the 
worship of the living God with His people. If God loves the 
gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob, vis-à-vis 
Psalm 87, then what does that tell us about the place called 
Zion in the New Covenant community? If God loves those gates, if 
God loves that place more than He loves all the individual dwelling 
places, then I want to be there. If God smiles upon me and my 
family and my house on Woodbine Avenue, then He's going to smile 
upon me even more, and I'm speaking in the manner of man, He's going 
to smile even more when I gather together with the saints in Zion. 
to sing his corporate praises and to honor him and to be a 
means of encouragement and love to someone else. You see, this 
is what God calls us to. Williamson, G.I. Williamson says, 
the confession maintains that the duty of fellowship and communion 
in the worship of God is at least in part an outcome of this union. But some have argued that they 
can worship God by themselves, or at least without any commitment 
to membership in the visible church. Others seem to feel no 
obligation to loyal and faithful attendance at the services of 
worship in a particular congregation at its stated times of worship 
on the Lord's Day. He who is united to Christ is 
united to other believers, and being united to Christ necessarily 
entails solemn obligations to them. Turn to Hebrews 10. We've seen the private in Hebrews 
3. Now notice the corporate in Hebrews 10. The apostle comes to apply what 
he has spoken previously in verse 19, he has a therefore. And one 
of the arguments for Pauline authorship of Hebrews is found 
right in this particular section. Note the Pauline triad, faith, 
hope, and love, verses 22, 23, and 24. But he says in verse 19, Therefore, 
brethren, having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood 
of Jesus, by a new and living way which he consecrated for 
us through the veil, that is, his flesh, and having a high 
priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true 
heart and full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from 
an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us 
hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he 
who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another 
in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the 
assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but 
exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the 
day approaching. Not forsaking the assembling 
of ourselves together. Now, people don't like this. 
I remember preaching a series of messages on this section. 
This was years ago. You wouldn't remember the guy 
if I told you his name, or some of you might, but this was the 
sermon that pushed him out. You can't tell people they have 
to be at church. Has it really come to that, that 
we have to tell people they have to be at church? The first century 
worshippers were at church. They continued steadfastly in 
the Apostles' Doctrine, in fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and 
in prayers. They continued steadfastly in it. They weren't whining, 
grumbling, crying, sniveling babies. It's okay to have two 
services on a Sunday. Do not forsake the assembling 
of yourselves together, as is the custom or manner of Psalm. 
So much more as you see the day approaching. Be in church. This 
is the application. This is the context or the arena 
wherein you get to minister to saints. You know, that's the 
thing that always amazes me too. I want to be useful. I want to 
be, you know, I want to be in ministry. I want to be a service 
to church. Show up. Say something nice to 
someone. You'll see that that can be a 
great benefit and a boon and a blessing. So corporate worship 
is a necessary element. Notice as well mutual edification. It goes on to speak. and in performing 
such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification, 
as also in relieving each other in outward things according to 
their several abilities and necessities." You see? We've got the spiritual 
element or the inward man covered at the end of paragraph 1. It 
speaks of the inward man, but it also speaks concerning the 
outward man, and this is development or amplification or explanation 
on that particular point. It says, also in relieving each 
other in outward things according to their several abilities and 
necessities. If you have the ability and you 
can serve and aid somebody, then go ahead. That's what you should 
do. You should exercise this loving 
kindness to the saints of Christ in our church, outside our church. We do good to all men, but especially to 
those of the household of faith. And then the confession teases 
this out further. Notice. It says, which communion, 
according to the rule of the gospel, though especially to 
be exercised by them in the relations wherein they stand, whether in 
families or in churches. Families, primary responsibility 
in 1 Timothy chapter 5. Before the church looks after 
widows, Paul tells the family to look after the widows. Family 
is a vital element in care of widows. If the family is unable 
to, or if the family is not there, or the family is, you know, destitute, 
well then the church is to help in the case of widows. But who's 
the primary line of defense? And notice what Paul does not 
say. He does not say the Roman government is supposed to do 
this. He says it's family and then church. It's not welfare, 
it's not disability, it's not all those other corporate agencies. 
See, we've been trained from this cradle-to-grave mentality 
to render homage to the sovereign state, because the state has 
provided for us from the cradle to the grave. But that's not 
what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5. It is the family's responsibility 
to look after their own. If the family is unable to, then 
the church helps. So they say, or they move on 
to this families and churches, and then note this qualifying 
statement. Yet as God offereth opportunity is to be extended 
to all the household of faith, even all those who in every place 
call upon the name of the Lord Jesus. You see this emphasis 
in Paul's missionary journey. What does Paul do when he travels 
throughout the churches? He collects money for famine 
relief in Judea. In the first century, a famine 
hit Judea, and the Apostle Paul, in the second missionary journey, 
when he visited Gentile churches, he says to them, I want you to 
cough up, because the churches in Judea have a genuine need. 
You see that in Romans 15. Paul says, cough up. You see 
it in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Paul says, cough up. And he specifically 
appeals to the churches of Macedonia as an enticement or an incitement 
to the Corinthians to give. He says, the churches in Macedonia 
have been giving to this famine relief. And then he says, consider 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who though being rich, yet for your sakes 
became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich. 
That's an argument from Paul. Yes, it talks about glorious 
Christology and the wonders of the incarnation. But in the hands 
of Paul, it becomes an encouragement to the Corinthian church to cough 
up. Give to relieve those in need 
in Judea. And then notice when Paul comes 
to Jerusalem in Acts 21. What does he come with? He comes 
with dough. He says, James, here's money. 
Give it to the people who are suffering. Give it to the churches 
in Judea. Give it to the people of God. 
In Galatians 2, when the Apostle Paul says that he meets the pillars 
of the Jerusalem church, you know what one thing that they 
extend to him, the right hand of fellowship, and you know what 
one thing they encourage him with? and do not forget the poor." 
And Paul says, well, we were eager not to forget the poor. 
You see, this happened in the early church. They met needs. They not only engaged in that 
spiritual edification and comfort and participation in the public 
and the private means, but they also engaged in putting up their 
money for the alleviation of the needs of the persons that 
were affected. That's what it means there, yet as God offereth 
opportunity is to be extended to all the household of faith, 
even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord 
Jesus. Now notice an important qualification concerning private 
property. Look at what he says, or look 
at what they say. Nevertheless, their communion 
one with another as saints doth not take away or infringe the 
title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions. You see, what the divines are 
indicating here is that it's supposed to be fellowship. It's supposed to be communion. 
It's supposed to be mutuality and participation. It's not supposed 
to be communism. It's not supposed to be coercive. It's not supposed to be the abdication 
of private property. I don't show up at church this 
morning and take Roger's truck because I own it. Or, you know, 
it's part of the collective whole. No, that's the purpose of the 
qualification. And there's various reasons for 
this. Dixon addresses the Anabaptists. He says, do not the Anabaptists 
err who affirm that the goods and possessions of the saints 
ought to be common. There have been persons in the 
history of the church that have thought, wow, this is what we're 
supposed to do, communion, fellowship, participation. That works out 
for me because I have an old beater, and I happen to know 
a guy in my church that has a beautiful brand new truck. So, you know, 
that's my truck. I'm going to walk out there this 
afternoon, I'm going to drive it home, because it's part of 
the collective whole." No, the Bible does not sanction that, 
and Christian communities ought not sanction that. There is a 
biblical defense to be offered for private property. The first 
is the Eighth Commandment. You shall not steal. What does 
that imply? That somebody owns something, 
another doesn't, and you can't deprive the owner of it, right? Dixon says, because the eighth 
command, which is of perpetual use to all men, supposeth a distinction 
and propriety of goods, for if all goods were common, it were 
impossible to steal. So if I were to take that nice 
truck home today, no one could say, well, you know, he stole. 
How? If it's part of the collective wholes, I'm just taking what's 
already mine. This is a necessary qualification. 
The two qualifications in this particular chapter, you might 
think, well, you know, that just doesn't jive. When I think of 
chameleon, I think of sitting and having coffee with my brothers 
and sisters. I don't think about being united to the the deity 
of Jesus or the confiscation of private property? Well, you 
should think that way. You should understand where some 
in the church have gone with particular doctrines and ended 
up in the weird and the wacky. As well, secondly, the case laws 
in the book of Exodus and in Deuteronomy, specifically Exodus 
21, 33 to 22, 15. What's the emphasis? The law is concerning oxen. If 
you see your neighbor's ox going astray, return it to him. What's 
the implication? It belongs to your neighbor. 
It's not part of the community. It's not the collective whole. 
It's not Soviet Union. It's not the People's Republic 
of China. Israel respected the right of 
private property. Thirdly, the recognition of the 
poor by both our Lord and Moses. Deuteronomy 15, the poor you 
will always have. Jesus, Matthew 26, the poor you 
will always have. Jesus didn't say we're working 
for society where the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are all, 
you know, one big conglomerate and everybody... No, the poor 
you'll always have. Jesus assumes that in Matthew 
26, 11. As well, the command to practice acts of charity. 
Why would we be commanded to practice acts of charity if everybody 
owned everything? Right? I just wander over to 
your house and go into your fridge and take your ham. I mean, why 
would we give a ham to somebody or be commanded to practice these 
acts of charity if it was the people's property? And as well, 
the command to labor. You know, the Scripture does 
not condemn hard work. In fact, the Scripture is a big 
advocate of hard work. Six days you shall labor and 
do all your work. Do you see a man who excels in 
his work? He shall stand before kings. 
Hard work is sanctioned. Paul utilizes it in Ephesians 
4.28. He says, let him who stole steal 
no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands 
what is good, that he may have something to give him who has 
need. Again, the supposition in all 
of this is the right to private property, not an absolute right. 
God, you know, the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, 
Psalm 24, but He gives us certain things and He calls us to steward 
those particular things. It's not the right of private 
persons to come and take the property of other persons. There 
ought to be a willingness to share, this mutuality, this participation, 
this love, this desire. When we have the goods, when 
we have the ability, when we have occasion, when we have opportunity, 
we give to those. But it doesn't necessarily mean 
that everybody has a right to everybody else's stuff. It simply 
doesn't mean that. Now, there's always an objection 
from Acts 2 and Acts 4. You can turn there. Again, this 
is important stuff. Acts 2, Acts 4. Specifically Acts 2.44, now all 
who believed were together and had all things in common. It's a good description of the 
communion of the saints. And they sold their possessions 
and goods and divided them among all as anyone had need. And notice in 4.32. Now the multitude 
of those who believed were of one heart and one soul. Neither 
did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, 
but they had all things in common." So of course persons that believe 
in the, you know, the collective ownership of all of God's people. 
What text do you think they champion? What text do you think they use 
in their arsenal? Acts 2 and Acts 4. I mean, these 
are pretty compelling arguments for the relinquishment of any 
private property. These are pretty compelling arguments 
that everybody every Sunday brings everything here, and everybody 
just equally gets to take what they want. Right? Isn't that 
what the book is telling us? Well, in the first place, we 
need to realize there is an absence of any command from God necessitating 
such a practice. There is an absence from God 
of any sort that necessitates this practice. God didn't command 
them. Peter didn't say in Acts 2, repent, be baptized, and bring 
all your stuff to the common storehouse. That's not an appendage 
to his gospel declaration. It's repent and be baptized in 
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This was 
a willingness on the part of God's people to do this. It certainly 
wouldn't be against God's law for us to bring and have a storehouse 
here, and if persons wanted to grab something, they could grab 
it. There's no prohibition against it, but there's no command necessitating 
it. And we need to be very careful 
when we step into the realm of commanding persons to relinquish 
their private property for the common benefit of the whole. You're not supposed to do that. 
As well, the recognition by the apostles of the right to private 
property. Acts 2, Acts 4, Acts 5. Look at what Peter says in Acts 
5.4, specifically the Ananias and Sapphira incident. Acts 5.4, 
while it remained, was it not your own? You didn't have to 
do what you did. You didn't have to lie to the 
Holy Spirit. It was your own. You could do 
with it what you want. While it remained, was it not 
your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? The problem was they said they 
brought it all. Well, they didn't. They kept back some. And Peter 
says, why would you do that? You have the right under God, 
via 8th commandment, via rest of the Bible, that you are able 
to buy and sell, you are able to withhold some, you are able 
to give others. That's okay. You shouldn't have 
lied to the Holy Spirit. Why have you conceived this thing 
in your heart? You have not lied to men, but 
to God. So within this particular context, 
the apostles recognized private property. And as well, apart 
from the church and the strange and the wacky applications of 
Acts 2, this passage certainly does not validate state-coerced 
redistribution. There is no communism in Acts 
2 or 4. There's a willingness on the 
part of the people of God to willingly bring their things 
together so that persons of need could benefit. This was not the 
state putting a gun to the head and saying everybody's going 
to cough up for the common good. Does everybody understand that? 
Communism is socialism but with a gun. And that's not what's 
happening in this particular instance. no whiff whatsoever 
that these passages validate state-coerced wealth redistribution. Love the way Van Dixhorn sort 
of summarizes this point. But beyond doubt, this does not 
mean that communion requires communism. Generosity is not 
the same as collectivism. And that's a needed and essential 
point. I mean, so many people make this 
mistake and they say, well, you know, we just give everything 
and everybody gets everything. No, God's not against you having 
private property. He's against you being, you know, 
wicked, selfish, and wretched, but the actual possession of 
private property isn't condemned in the Bible. In fact, much of 
the law, the Mosaic law, is structured on that. Much of what we find 
in the New Covenant assumes that and makes the applications specifically. So, of communion of the saints. We need to love one another. 
We need to exercise that love for the church. There ought to 
be manifestation of this love in our conduct, and there ought 
to be manifestation of our communion in our common objectives. I like 
what Hodge says concerning the church. They have a common head 
and common duties with respect to him. a common profession, 
a common system of faith to maintain, a common gospel to preach, a 
common worship and service to maintain. Amen. Well, I'll close 
in prayer. Our Father, we thank You for 
these good doctrines that we have in our confession of faith, 
and I pray that You'd give us understanding to these things 
and help us, God, to flesh these things out in our own context, 
in our own local church, and in our families. I pray that 
You would just give us grace as we enter into the next hour 
to worship You. May our worship be marked as 
acceptable to You because it's defined by You, and may there 
be reverence and joy and thankfulness all expressed to the God of heaven 
and earth who has saved us. And we pray these things through 
Christ our Lord. Amen.