1689 London Baptist Confession Of Faith (part 5)

Father, thank you this morning for your steadfast, loving kindness, the fact that you pour blessings out upon us consistently, even though we are undeserving.

Lord, we are far from obedient children, and nevertheless, you are good to us.

You do good things. You only give good things. You are the giver of all good things. Lord, we come before you this morning, just asking that you would bless our time as we look to your word as the authors of the 1689

Confession of Faith understood it. Father, I pray that you'd bless each one here in Jesus' name.

Amen. Would somebody get that door, please? I don't want to disturb the nursery.

Okay, so we've been talking about scripture. We talked about general revelation.

And we've talked about how scripture self -authenticates.

And that really is key. And I've talked about this, and I want to mention it again, just because it's foundational.

And I'm going to use that word foundational because it's foundational. Presupposition.

A presupposition is what? And don't use the word presupposition in the definition. I already gave it away.

Okay, it assumes a certain knowledge. And so when we talk about presuppositionalism, presuppositionalism is the idea that, for example, everyone knows that God exists.

We would find that in Romans 1. Everyone knows that in their heart that certain things are right and wrong.

Why is that? Why does everybody, you know, we always say, don't trust your heart, etc., etc., etc. So why would

I say that everybody knows in their heart, Gary? God's law is written in our hearts.

We have a conscience. You know, the first time as a child, and I mean,

I don't know if you've ever, if you can remember any of the sins that you committed as a child, but I can.

And I can remember, you know, I mean, children don't always have the, let me back up. Children don't have the common sense not to do wrong things.

They don't have the common sense to listen to their conscience. But I can remember a few times in my life when like there was a five alarm fire going off in my head, right?

And I went ahead and did it anyway. And then, you know, the consequences ensued. Anybody remember anything like that in their childhood?

No, nobody does. Just me. It was just me. So when we talk about internal self -authentication, what we're talking about is the

Bible says that the Bible is true. And what do people say? How do unbelievers object to that?

If I say, well, the Bible says the Bible is true, they say it's a circular reference or a circular arguments written by men.

Okay. So if someone says that's a circular argument, what do you say? What's that?

We love circles. I'd rather be a circle than a square. What do you really, what do you really say?

That's a circular argument. You know, you're arguing that the Bible supports itself. Well, that doesn't mean anything to me.

Scripture interprets scripture. Yes, Andrew. Okay.

That's exactly right. Every argument is circular. And why do I say that?

Why does Andrew say that? Why did I steal it from Andrew? He stole it from me.

Thank you. Thank you for stealing that from me. Will the circle be unbroken?

Okay. Thank you for that. Circular arguments. So if somebody says, well,

I don't believe that. Well, on what basis do you not believe that? And ultimately, what does the circle come back to? What does the unbelievers circle of arguments come back to?

Themselves. In other words, they say, well, you say your authority is the Bible. I say my authority is me.

I don't know in that argument, and let's see, I've got to choose between the unbeliever and the Bible.

I'm going to go with the Bible. And that's the point of self -authentication. The Bible says it is the word of God.

It says it's true. It says it's accurate. It says it's infallible. It says it's inerrant.

So why do we go for the Bible instead of the arguments of philosophers or other unbelievers?

Because that's their opinion. The word of God is God's opinion, and I'm going to go with God.

So, sufficiency of scripture. Here's what the, I don't know why

I want to say that, the 1911 confession. What is the 1911 confession of faith? There is no such thing.

1911, I don't know. 1689 says about the sufficiency of scripture, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the holy scripture.

I think the Westminster says something about is necessarily implied or something similar to that.

In other words, we can see the inferences to these truths necessarily in scripture.

And to which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelation of the spirit or traditions of men.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word.

And that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.

In other words, I would just summarize that last part by saying this. There are some things not contained in the

Bible, not necessarily implied in the Bible that nevertheless seem good and right and orderly.

And so churches adopt them. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.

So what is scripture sufficient for when we say the scripture is all sufficient? What do we mean by that?

I mean, that pretty much says it. So let's close in prayer. We don't need anything else. If scripture is sufficient, then what else do we need?

And you know, it just, it reminds me of the words of Peter. If we have everything pertaining to life and godliness, you know, what else do we need?

Well, we might need money. We might need other things, but that's not what we're talking about. It's sufficient for all spiritual matters and sufficient for all matters that it addresses spiritual or not.

The Bible is not all sufficient for every conceivable purpose. The scriptures, for instance, are not sufficient as a textbook in math, biology, or Spanish.

I actually put that in there, Spanish or German or Latin. The sufficiency of the scriptures does not mean that they are all we need for the purpose of learning geometry or algebra.

The Westminster divines confessed their faith in the sufficiency, but not the omni -sufficiency of scripture.

Again, it doesn't cover everything, but what it covers, it is sufficient.

Surely this is clear from the qualifying statement of the confession that all things necessary for his own glory, man, salvation, faith, and life.

I like what, what is the guy's name who wrote the book? What's that?

That guy. Let me see. Let me see if I could find his name. Oh, Waldron. I knew it would come to me even if I was just faking like I was looking through the pages.

Dr. Waldron said this. He says, all things necessary for his own glory, meaning

God's own glory, man, salvation, faith, and life is far more than the four spiritual laws.

We need more than the four spiritual laws, which are flawed. I like pastor might call them the four spiritual flaws.

The Bible is not sufficient for all that we do, but it does speak to all we do sufficiently as to the glory of God, the way of salvation and the path of duty.

Let's see here. Here he says, and this is key. It needs no supplementation by new revelations as claimed by some

Anabaptists and others. I mean, we were, uh, if, if you are familiar with Mormonism, Jehovah witness ism,

I think the watchtower, uh, seventh day Adventism, Christian science, all these post 1689 religions, what do they all have in common?

An extra book, more revelation. And what the 1689 says is all those things are spurious.

They're not necessary. And in fact, they're detrimental to your health. Even, even though they claim to be the key to health, at least in one case.

Um, it also, this doctrine would also say that traditions of men like those of the extra biblical traditions claimed by the

Roman Catholic church ought to be ignored or set aside, or at least scripture ought to, uh, to supersede them on a common in, uh, in priority of them.

Let's look at second Timothy chapter three, verses 15 to 17, second

Timothy chapter three, verses 15 to 17 familiar versus when you, when you hear verse 15 and it says that they are able to lead to salvation.

Now, Paul writing Timothy, you know, theoretically he could have been talking about the gospels, could have been talking about earlier writings, but it's probable given the context.

Um, because he was talking to Timothy and how he had been saved. He's talking about what golf?

No, he's talking about the old Testament, the old Testament, but Waldron notes, he says, here is the explicit assertion that the scriptures contain all the wisdom necessary for our salvation, all the wisdom necessary for our salvation.

There's the assertion of verse 16, all scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

The term translated profitable in the NASB means useful, beneficial, advantageous scripture is useful for all, uh, spiritual needs.

He, uh, Timothy faced a bewildering away array of needs in Ephesus, which demanded in turn, many kinds of ministry.

Paul or Timothy as a young man, relatively young, probably in his mid to late thirties would have been, um, seen as a young man in that kind of setting.

And here he is put in, in charge of Ephesus, the church at Ephesus and Waldron notes, he must have often asked himself, how am

I to meet these challenges? How am I to handle these problems? And Paul's answer is what scripture you have the answers they're in scripture.

And a verse 17, he says that the man of God, meaning a pastor may be adequate equipped for every good work.

So Waldron says, he says, this assures us that scriptures are not merely moderately useful to the man of God, but thoroughly sufficient for all his needs as a man of God.

Then he says, surely if the scriptures are sufficient for the multifaceted duties of the pastor, they must be sufficient to show the ordinary

Christian, sorry, the, the, these are Waldron's words, not mine. The ordinary

Christians, uh, his path of duty. He also says this doctrine is no excuse for mental laziness.

The sufficiency of scripture does not negate the necessity of the spirit's teaching. This doctrine is no excuse for intellectual pride.

The scripture is not sufficient or, or clear to the, to the exclusion of the

Holy spirit. That in other words, the spirit is necessary. You must be illumined by scripture.

Let's talk about, or are there questions about the sufficiency of scripture? Objections to it?

Seeing none. Okay. The clarity of scripture 1689 asserts that all things in scripture are not alike, plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all meaning not everybody reads this and instantaneously gets it.

And not everybody gets the full depth of it on initial reading, or maybe even subsequent readings.

Yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other that not only the learned, but the unlearned in a due use of ordinary means may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.

In other words, we could, we could put it this way. No Christian has an excuse not to know well, the doctrine of salvation, because these things are clearly taught in scripture.

And he says, or the scriptures, sorry, 1689 says that anyone with the

Holy spirit by diligent study, by ordinary means, that's what it means.

If you're, if you're a Christian, you have the Holy spirit, you have the Bible, you could understand sufficient understanding of these doctrines and the clarity of scripture.

Who knows what the fancy word for the clarity of scripture is. All those with PhDs need not raise their hand perspicuity.

Okay. Perspicuity of scripture. The clarity of scripture is clear. And by the way, not all passages are equally as clear.

Um, there are some that are quite difficult, but scripture is understandable.

In fact, let's look at a second Peter three, second Peter three versus 15 to 18, where Peter explains, not only does he explain that not everything is easy to understand, but he also tells us that he,

Peter considered the writings of Paul to be scripture. Second Peter chapter three versus 15, 18, who has that?

Okay. So again, what we see here is it is clear.

It's understandable. Even if there are some passages, which he says, there are some things that are hard to understand.

He doesn't say impossible to understand. He says, they're difficult to understand what's the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction as they do the other scriptures.

What would you do if he came to a passage and you said, you know what? I don't really understand what this means. Call me two o 'clock in the morning.

You're studying diligently by, you know, the oil of your lamp and you'd call. Well, you can do that.

Or we can call Corey. Let me give you his number. Yeah. Nathan. Right.

Excuse me. Yeah. Look at the context. I mean, what, what are the basic rules of interpreting scripture?

Number one is context, right? Look at the near context, the immediate context, and then look at the larger context.

Uh, what is Paul trying to convey in this book or what is Luke trying to convey in his gospel or the book of acts?

You know, how can, how can that help me understand? And, but what's the first thing that typically

Christians do when they want to understand a scripture and they're not really sure what it means? What I think maybe the most common thing people do these days is what

Google, you know, the Lord gave us Google that we might understand scriptures better.

That might not be the right way to go. What do you think the most common thing that people do these days? I'm going to tell you what

I think. And you tell me if you think I'm wrong. I think the most common thing that people do is they look for, Oh, Larry.

Well, there is that, right? I think the most common thing that people do is they start going to cross references.

And you know what, when I was, uh, when I was in seminary and I can't remember all of them, but, uh, right off the top of my head,

I mean, I, I probably would get there eventually, but the last thing you do is cross reference.

I mean, it's not a bad thing to do, but it's the last thing you do. And why would that be? Why would

I say that that'd be the last thing you want? Right. They're not really related or even that, uh, you know, what

Luke meant in Luke chapter three might not be the same as what Matthew meant in Matthew, whatever.

And, you know, or, you know, what Paul meant over here, isn't what Peter meant over here, or they weren't using, you know, there are word studies and other things that you can do, but all those things, you know, you have to kind of, sometimes they're, they're difficult, uh, uh, difficult passages, you know,

Matthew 16, 18, what is the rock that Jesus is talking about when he says, you know, uh, well said to Peter, however he phrases it.

And then he says upon this rock, you know, I will build my church. Well, what is the rock is the rock?

You know, you can find, I think there are like, uh, eight, nine, 10 different variations on what that means, you know, is the rock

Jesus is the rock, the statement is the rock, the 12 disciples is the rock.

Peter is the rock. Peter in such a way as he's the first Pope, you know, there are all these different arguments and you have to, you know, look at the context.

You have to look at the purpose of Matthew. You have to look at the various word studies, you know,

Petra versus Petros and all these different things and kind of work it all out.

Um, and, and sometimes they're very difficult to come to a firm conclusion on.

And then you come to like a passage, like say first Corinthians 1529, I think it is where it talks about, you know, baptism for the dead.

And I think there, I've, I mentioned this one because I think there are like 30 different understandings of what it could be.

So sometimes they're very difficult, but if you start looking for a cross -reference for baptism for the dead, you know, you're going to find a dead end.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Because there, because there are no cross -references.

So, I mean, sometimes it takes a lot of hard work, but you know, again, how much time would you, you know, how much impact does first Corinthians 1529 have on your daily life?

I'm going to suggest probably not a whole lot. So, you know, if you want, unless you're a scholar working on some treatise in first Corinthians, it's probably not wise to spend a whole lot of time trying to sort that one out.

I mean, it's interesting and you can read some different commentaries and get some different opinions, but it won't change your life.

Okay. Let's talk about turning the page here.

Let's talk about the Trinity chapter two of God and of the

Holy Trinity. And I had to get another book here because it was interesting to me.

What's his name? What? Waldron. Yeah, that guy.

He, he says, basically, he's like, you know, the attributes of God have been covered in a number of books, and I'm not really going to talk about that.

I'm like, oh, thanks, buddy. And then he says, you know, about the

Holy Trinity, he and I was telling Pauline this the other day, I'm reading the section on the

Trinity, and I read it. I read it again. I read it again.

I'm going, okay, I'm either stupid or this is not perspic, it's not clear.

There's, there's a lack of perspicuity here. So I got another book that Pastor Mike recommended.

It's by a man named Van Dixhorn, that's his last name, Confessing the

Faith. But let me read chapter two, this first section of chapter two in 1689.

It says, the Lord our God is but one only living and true

God. And I don't know if this strikes you in the same way. I mean, this is

Deuteronomy 6 -4 language, right? The Lord, hero of Israel, the Lord our God is one. But when

I read that, I mean, instantly, it's just like, it just zeroes it down for me. And I've told you guys this before, not only is my background

Mormonism, but really one of the last struggles for me was the idea of the

Trinity. You know, that God is one in three persons.

And that, and I really, really wrestled with that because I spent my whole life denying that.

And it was a, it was a difficult one for me. So when it says the Lord, our God is but one living and true

God, that's a big statement. Then it says whose subsistence is in and of himself.

What do we call that? Anybody know that doctrine? If I had 25 cents,

I'd hold it up and throw it at it, you know, to whoever answered. Solitariness.

But I mean, there's a fancy word I'm looking for, and it's so cool. You can't even spell it.

It's so cool. That is, that is absolutely wrong.

Aseity. Aseity. When it says here, whose subsistence is in and of himself, who can say that about themselves?

I exist because I exist. I am because I am.

This is God whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself.

And again, you just have to stop and read that and think about it and go, whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself.

Anybody who pretends to comprehend fully God doesn't know what he's talking about.

We can't fully comprehend him. We're going to spend eternity getting to know him better, getting more comprehension of him.

A most pure spirit, invisible without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light in which no man can approach unto.

I mean, you hear this language, and this is all scripture just kind of put together, which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own, immutable, and most righteous will, for his own glory.

It's like he's in charge. Most loving, gracious, merciful, long -suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.

The rewarder of them that diligently seek him. And I can't even say this word even though it's short.

How do you say this? W -I -T -H -A -L, with all, really?

Seems like it should have another L there, but okay. And with all, most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

Van Dixhorn says, we can, of course, ask a question about who

God is, but scripture often answers, first answers that question, how? By asking, how many gods are there?

Again, Deuteronomy 6, 4, and you know, in Isaiah, multiple times where God says that there is only one

God, there were none before him, there'll be none after him. He's also infinite.

Van Dixhorn says this, but while God is limited in number, he is unlimited in his being and in all his perfections.

Job and his friends were wrong about many things, but at least all of them understood that the depths of the divine being cannot be sounded by any mere man.

We can hardly even grasp the outer fringes of his works. He's also perfect.

And again, he says, but while man or God is limited in number, he is unlimited in his being and all his perfections.

And I just read that. Okay, so he's perfect. Even angels are spirits.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. So let's move on. He's perfect. He's without any kind of even hint of imperfection or flaw.

He's incomprehensible. As I said earlier, we can't fully comprehend him. He's a spirit. Nobody can see the father or has seen the father.

The father has never appeared as a physical body because he doesn't have one.

This is an interesting one, and one that I mentioned two weeks ago and will impact this morning as well.

When I say that he is impassable, again, not impossible, but impassable, means he does not experience human emotions.

Why is that important? Why is it important to understand God in that way? What's that? Okay, our emotions drive us.

They should be the caboose, not the engine. And so what we would see in, say, mythology, if you read about Greek or Roman gods or Norse gods or whatever, what are they most like?

They're most like us, right? They are very passable. They're given to emotions, to rage, to love, to a very human form of jealousy and all these kind of emotions.

And so they act like us only, I'll just say it this way, they act like human beings with superpowers, right?

We get Thor, you know, this is the kind of thing that we get. And if God were like that, we would all be in a lot of trouble.

Any other thoughts on the impassability of God, Joni? Okay, now I'm going to try to summarize what Joni just said.

That's right. By saying this, the impassability of God also allows for this.

Pastor Mike has said before, you know, quoting Sinclair Ferguson, you know, what is

God doing right now? He is exercising all his attributes all at the same time, right? He can't do that if he is consumed with emotion.

You know, so if he is only wrath, you know, if he's just this consuming fire and that's all

God is, if he's not also loving and kind and long -suffering and patient and willing to forgive, then we have a

God who is much like, you know, the gods of, you know, the South Americans where they would throw, you know, people or wherever they did it, they threw them into volcanoes or did human sacrifice.

Is that from Joe and the Volcano? But they did human sacrifices anyway. They put people to death to appease gods.

And we don't have a God like that. And another one of his attributes is he's unapproachable.

You know, he dwells in light which no man can approach and all these kinds of concepts.

And what does that mean? It means, you know, he's so holy and we're so sinful, we can't get anywhere close to him.

But he even made a way for us to walk into his throne room, so to speak. But ultimately, no one can really fully approach him except through Christ.

He's also immutable and Van Dixhorn says this, immutable just means he does not change.

And he's talking about the men who wrote this confession of faith and he says how right they were to draw distinctions between the creator and his creatures, right?

God is not like us. God is immutable. He does not change like shifting shadows.

I mean, how often do people say, you know, this is my final decision and then there's a decision after that.

Or, you know, I will love you forever and, you know, forever lasts a couple weeks, a couple years, however long it lasts, right?

People change. Their emotions change, as Becky said earlier, right? But God does not change because he's not subject to what causes us to change, that is to say sin.

Indeed, the prophet Malachi once noted God does not change at all. In Malachi 3 .6,

Van Dixhorn says God is immense. He feels all things and is everywhere present. We cannot hide from God.

He's omnipresent. And there is no place for God to hide. Now, that's interesting.

You ever think about that one? We can't hide from God, but there's no place God can hide.

How is that true? There's no way that God can hide. What does he mean by that?

God is everywhere present, but how do we know that? The very universe, all of creation testifies to him, so it's not like we can look around and go, huh,

I wonder if God still exists. I wonder if he's still around. Of course he is. Because if God ceased to exist, then guess what?

We would cease to exist. He is the king of all ages, which is only to say that he is eternal.

And what is true of space is also true of time. God is from everlasting to everlasting.

So he's without beginning and without end. Okay, we'll just read this and then we'll see if there are any questions.

Even though we say we know all these things about God, how can we search out what these categories really mean when applied to God?

God is knowable. He has revealed himself. But here are such vast limits to our knowledge that we also admit that in a profound sense,

God is comprehensible or incomprehensible. He's knowable, but he's not comprehensible.

What does that mean? There are mysteries that we're not going to know until we get to heaven.

When we get to heaven, when we know everything. Why is that? Because he's still infinite and we will never be, right?

We're always going to be finite. We're always going to be limited. There's only so much RAM in the hard drive.

When we eradicate or when sin is eradicated for us, we may have bigger hard drives, but it still won't be big enough.

We can go a little further. God having all life, this is back to 1689, all life, glory, goodness, blessedness in and of himself is alone in and unto himself all sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made.

Let me ask you something. How many times have you heard a pastor or preacher or somebody say that God wanted fellowship, therefore he created mankind?

You ever heard that? What does that make you think about God?

He was missing something. It's like God was in eternity pining away for some relationship.

If only, you know, it's like a little kid, if only I had a dog that would complete me, you know, so in that analogy, of course, we are the dog, but we should warm our hearts.

But is that true? Was God lacking something? No. And they're exactly right here when he says, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only, listen to this, manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.

In other words, he didn't create us so that he would get glory. He created us so that his glory would be seen in, through, and it doesn't say upon them, which, when

God thrusts his glory upon us, that can sometimes be talking about judgment.

He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things.

And he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth.

In his sight, all things are open and manifest. His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain.

Now, again, what does that mean? That means he knows the beginning from the end.

That means he doesn't look at life as a series of, I mean, to us, they're flow charts, right?

Well, if I choose this, this might happen, and then there are all these branches out. And if I choose this, this might happen.

Well, God doesn't work like that. And he doesn't look at our lives and go, well, if Steve chooses this, then this is going to happen.

He doesn't think that at all. Why? Because he's ordained all these things ahead of time. It's not a flow chart.

It's a constant line. He knows exactly what's going to happen. He is most holy in all his councils, in all his works, and in all his commands.

To him is due from angels and men whatsoever worship, service, or obedience as creatures they owe unto the creator, which is to say all worship, service, and obedience is due.

And whatever he is further pleased to require of them, whatever God commands, that's what we ought to do, whether we do it or not.

We need to close, but let me just read Van Dixhorn. In speaking of God's justice and mercy of his power and his wisdom, indeed of all his attributes, we do not for a moment think that we are able to define

God in any limiting sense. If these paragraphs, he's talking about the 1689, were pages, or if all the world were prints, we could never hope to catalog the perfections of our triune

God. What we do want to do is rejoice in God's character with as much depth as we are able, so that we may better reflect his image, give him much glory, and enjoy him forever.

In other words, the more we understand God, the more we can even contemplate and understand his attributes, and understand his true character and nature, the better we will enjoy him, the more glory we can give to him, and the better we reflect his image.

Any thoughts or questions about that? Yeah, from his rightness or from his righteousness?

I mean, I think I could make arguments about which is the most important attribute.

I think righteousness would be up there. Top five.

Other thoughts? Okay, let's close. Father, thank you for this morning.

Thank you for your word. Thank you for who you are. And even as we study and just contemplate you, the immenseness, as we think about how scripture talks about your attributes, realizing that we are just grasping at the fringe of your garment.

We are just beginning to grasp the immensity of who you are.

It's something that we will spend eternity not struggling with, but just absorbing and being in awe and wonder as we grow to love you more and just know you better.

Father, would you bless each one here as we just think, yes, you are righteous, you are holy, and yet in spite of the fact that you hate sin, you would choose to spare sinners on the basis of the work of your