LBCF Chapter 27-30 explained

All right, we're starting today, chapter 27 of the Communion of the

Saints, all right? Relatively simple chapter, so we'll look at the first paragraph, all right?

All the 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 their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.

Okay, let me just briefly say what this means. Because we are one with Christ, we become one body, and they make it, the confession makes it very clear, not in a physical sense, all right?

But in a spiritual sense, we become one with Him, and because of the communion we have with Christ, we have communion with one another.

But that also comes with obligations, okay? So, that's all right, come on in.

We're talking about Communion of the Saints, and I just want everybody to understand what we're talking about by the

Communion of the Saints, it means that we have obligations one to another. When you belong to the body of Christ, we're no longer separate and distinct in that sense.

While we remain separate and distinct, we have our own families, we have our own personal interests that we have to take care of, but we also have obligations one to another in the body, and notice how the confession puts it, so as to conduce their mutual good both the inward and outward man.

In other words, it's all of our responsibility, not just the pastor, all right?

But every member of the body of Christ is to look out for the other person, okay?

You remember one of the hallmarks of Christianity is putting others first, and being more considerate of others than of yourself, and that means putting yourself out, all right?

It also means that unless providentially hindered, you should be at the services of the church, all right?

Because if you're missing, part of the body is missing, okay? Now again, there's times we're providentially hindered, we're traveling, you know, things like that happen sometimes, you know, work is a necessity sometimes, so obviously there are things that happen, but in general, that's what it's talking about.

We should make every effort to be at the services of the church, and also to be involved in some of the other activities of the church, because you're needed, okay?

There's the scripture that goes along with it, so that's what it's talking about when it says communion of the saints.

The church is not just another organization, okay? It's a very unique organization, with Christ as the head, we in his body, okay?

So paragraph two, saints by profession are bound to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services that extend 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 relation wherein they stand, whether in families or churches, yet as God offers opportunities to be extended to all the household of faith, even all those who are in every place call upon the name of the

Lord Jesus, nevertheless their communion one with another as saints does not take away or infringe the title or propriety of which each man has in his goods and possessions.

This is really, this section is against the idea of communes, all right?

Some people mistake that in the early part of the book of Acts, that when they had all things in common, they weren't considering anything that they owned it, but was donating to the common good of the church.

Some people take that that's the way the church must be. That's not the message of scripture.

We remain separate and distinct in our families. We have the right to private and personal possessions, but so nothing in the scripture mitigates that you have to give up all that you have in that sense.

But in the same sense, we are to be able to use what God has given us for the mutual edification of the church.

We are a community in that sense, and it's a unique community. The church of Jesus Christ is different than any other organization out there.

And in fact, this part of the confession ties right in with what I'm talking about this morning.

The title of my sermon this morning is the mission of the church, okay? And from the prayer of Jesus, you know, what are we sanctified for, okay?

Any questions on the communion of the saints? We do have obligations towards one another.

That's one of the most important part. We're not, you can't come into the church and just, you know, shield your eyes and say, well,

I'm not concerned with what anybody else is doing. I'm going to come in, I'm going to worship God, then I'm going home. No, worship is first and foremost to God, but also the fellowship of the saints is another means of grace and equally important, okay?

Okay, no questions? Okay, chapter, okay.

Chapter 28, let me just back it up here one more second, is a baptism in the

Lord's Supper. These next couple of chapters, 28, 29, and 30, are distinctively

Baptist, all right? Remember, a couple of sections of the confession, I mentioned to you that they are particularly

Baptist. A large part of this confession, you could read it and adhere to it in the

Presbyterian or the other Reformed churches because it's verbatim. If you look at the

Westminster Confession of Faith, large sections, many chapters of our confession and the

Westminster Confession are identical, virtually, and right down to the very words. The men who wrote the

London Baptist Confession, all they did was they took the Westminster Confession. They said, this is a good document, but we have some changes to make because we're

Baptist, and that's what they did, okay? So we need to understand that this is one of the chapters that is distinctively

Baptist. Now look, a baptism in the Lord's Supper, our ordinance is a positive and sovereign institution appointed by the

Lord Jesus, the only Lord given to be continued to his church to the end of the world. This is true of all the

Reformed churches, they would all hold to this. All right, notice, the Lord's Supper is not an institution of men.

It was instituted by God himself. The Lord Jesus himself said that we are to do this until he comes again, okay?

So that's actually an easy paragraph. Paragraph two, these holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called according to the commission of Christ.

Now again, this is specifically Reformed, not specifically Baptist, but we do hold to the fact that baptism in the

Lord's Supper should not be administered outside the confines of the church, and by those men who are called as elders or overseers of the church.

There's a lot of Baptist churches, like the free will Baptist churches and all. If a child makes a profession of faith at a summer camp, they baptize them, all right?

And it's our contention, they have no business doing that, that it's a church ordinance, not an individual. Same thing, there's some big movements, especially in the homeschooling community, all right?

There's a big movement, there's a segment of it where they have, well, we're just gonna have home church.

We're not gonna go to any other church. And they actually do the Lord's Supper and they baptize, we disagree with that.

We believe that these are church ordinances. There's a difference between the family and the church. They are two separate and distinct covenant institutions.

The family has certain obligations and responsibilities that the church does not have, all right?

And the church has certain responsibilities and authority that the family doesn't have. The Lord's Supper, baptism, or church ordinances, okay?

Any questions? Okay, that was another easy, and chapter 29 is a baptism.

Now this chapter here, this is one of those that makes this distinctively a baptistic confession, all right, as opposed to the

Westminster. Look at what it says pertaining to baptism. Baptism is an ordinance of the

New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ to be unto the party that baptized a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection of his being engrafted into him of remission of sins and of giving up to God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of life.

Now notice, if you look at this statement, the Presbyterians wouldn't disagree too much with what we have to say.

But what I would ask you to do is look at that statement and say, how can you apply that to an infant?

You know, if it's a sign of fellowship with him in his death and resurrection being granted and a remission of sins and of giving up to God through Jesus Christ, how can a baby can admit to that?

All right, so you can see right in the definition of baptism, we find we have some differences, but it gets even more specific.

Those who do actually profess repentance toward God, faith in and obedience to our

Lord Jesus Christ are the only proper subjects of this ordinance. This is why it's very particularly baptistic.

With this paragraph, there's no way that you can justify baptizing infants, because they can't, they can't repent.

In the first century, they weren't actually professing repentance. Yes, and so again, so this is one of the departures, this chapter is a departure from the

Westminster, all right? And then the third paragraph.

The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized in the name of the

Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, we hold to the Trinitarian Baptist because of the

Great Commission, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, okay?

And then notice water is to be used. It's again, this is just defining what the elements are.

There should be no question. Anybody have questions on that? It's pretty, pretty good.

I have a question. The difference between what we do and like a, is there a big difference between doing it in like a, the heart of the temple -

No. One's not more ripe than the other? No. Okay. No, it depends on what's available. If we had nothing available, we would do it.

The reason, I'll tell you the reason we use baptism, we built that ourselves. Yeah, it's cleaner.

All right? No, it's not that it's cleaner, because the water is almost irrelevant as long as it's water, all right?

And in fact, if you look at the Didache, which is what the teaching of the 12, you know, it says to baptize where there is water, if not much water, then a little water.

If it's not hot, then cold. You know, basically, you're just saying, you know, it has to be water.

All right? The reason that we have the baptismal is we like to make it part of the worship service.

All right? If we didn't, I mean, it's perfectly acceptable. If you don't have a baptismal, you've got to baptize somebody.

You could do it in somebody's swimming pool. All right? But the church body needs to be present because it is an act of worship.

And it should be public. One of the big things about baptism is it's a public profession of faith, and the signs are important.

So that's why we do it here, and it is part of the worship service because it is an act of worship. That's why we went through the trouble of building the baptismal so that we could do it instead of having to dismiss the service and go to a lake or whatever.

Or, you know, you could do it in the sound. But it is a church administration. And again, this is something that should be done by church officials only.

And notice what paragraph four says. Immersion or dipping of the person's water is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.

In other words, the person has to be immersed. Do you know why we hold to that? Okay? That's part of it because apostolic example is a good reason.

But there's a more even basic reason why we immerse. Okay? The word used in the

Greek, all right, is baptizo. Baptize is a transliterated word.

You know what a transliterated word means? That means you're just translating virtually almost letter by letter and taking the word as it is in the original language and making it an

English word. That's transliteration as opposed to translated. That's the difference. Baptizo means to immerse.

So it's actually a redundancy if I say, well, we baptize by immersion. What I'm really saying is we immerse by immersion.

All right? And this is one of the arguments that we have against the

Paedo -Baptists is they say, well, baptism can be done. How can you immerse somebody by sprinkling?

It doesn't make sense. See, and one of the causes of the confusion is they transliterated the word instead of translating it.

If they had translated it in the sections of the Bible, it would have said, you know, go therefore and immerse people, make disciples, immersing them in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That's what it literally says. All right? So that's the main reason that we hold to immersion and that it's necessary.

Okay? I've seen mission churches down in South America where they, in the cities like Buenos Aires and whatnot, they can't, you wouldn't want to go into their rivers in anything anyway.

So what they do is actually they take a little baby's kiddie pool and they actually take the person, lay him prone, and immerse them.

And I admire that because they're doing whatever they can to be consistent with the scriptures, you know?

Okay? So that's, yes. No. I doubt that there were because there's nothing in the scriptures to indicate, all right, that there were.

And in fact, if you look in the case of the jailer, it also says it doesn't just say that he baptized him, but he and his household believed, which would mitigate against there being an infant.

And if there was an infant, I doubt if they baptized him because he couldn't have made, profess faith.

All right? And again, we need to understand something. The scripture uses hyperbole all the time.

All right? Just like I just did. All the time. Okay? And when they say his entire, his whole household, does that necessarily mean that every single person who is related to the

Philippian jailer was baptized? Not necessarily. All right? Could just mean a majority of it.

We see that all the time. For example, like when Jesus went to Capernaum, the scripture says the whole town came out to meet him.

Do we think that every single man, woman, and child got up and went to greet Jesus? No, that's not the intent.

All right? Bible uses that type of language. But again, where you have specific instructions in scripture, when at Pentecost, when

Peter finished preaching, what did the men say? What must we do to be saved? What did he say?

Repent and be baptized. Baptism follows repentance. Okay?

And again, that's one of the things that we argue. And as Julie mentioned early, I've got a book on my bookshelf here someplace that was written by two

Presbyterians. And they show, they did research, because they actually started off by trying to show that infant baptism was one of the practices of the early church.

And what they show is that infant baptism was not practiced for about two centuries. The early church far and away practiced believer's baptism and believer's baptism only.

And there's good documentation to show that. No, no, they say it's a place of circumcision. That's the way they get around it.

Okay, but see, now there's a problem with that. And the problem is our view of the covenant.

This is, again, another reason why as Baptists we hold to a different view. The Presbyterians hold to one continuous covenant.

They say that the covenant of grace started in the garden. And there were just two administrations of it.

And that's how they get, that's why they say that. So in other words, there was the old covenant administration and the new covenant administration.

And so therefore the continuity is greater. So circumcision was replaced by baptism.

And our answer to that is no. The new covenant did not start until Christ died on the cross because he says, this is the new covenant in my blood.

All right, and he doesn't say this is a new administration. He says, it's a new covenant. There are two covenants, the old covenant, which was still the covenant of works and the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace.

And so the signs are different and the continuity is greater from the old covenant to the new covenant.

Because again, look at the discontinuity. Who was circumcised in the Old Testament?

Men only. Who's baptized in the New Testament? Only men? No, all women.

And children, as long as they're old enough to repent. All right, so there's discontinuity between the two, because there was two covenants.

And in fact, what does the writer to Hebrews say? He says, if the old covenant was sufficient, there would have been no need for a new covenant.

So there's no question. It's not just a different administration. It is a new covenant. That's one of the distinctives of Reformed Baptist theology is our view of the covenant is different than the

Presbyterians and the other Reformed. All right? Okay, and that has caused many, many debates.

With our Reformed brothers. And again, remember this too. Our Reformed brothers, the Pedobaptists, we are closer to them than we are with the other

Baptists. Because our theology is so, so close. It's some of these, but these are not minor issues.

All right, so it is a major departure. But we think that we're on solid grounds biblically.

Any questions on baptism? Okay, chapter 30 is the

Lord's Supper. Now this one's gonna take a little bit longer. But there's not too much difference between us and the other

Reformed churches on this. This section is really what sets us apart from Roman Catholicism, okay?

The Lord's Supper was instituted. All right, the Supper of the

Lord Jesus. Let me just get here. Was instituted by Him the same night when He was betrayed to be observed in His churches unto the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance and showing forth the sacrifice of Himself in His death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, the spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, the further engagement in and to all duties which they owe

Him, and to be a bond and a pledge of their communion with Him and with each other. That's a statement that very few people in the

Christian church would disagree with. But it's important that we understand. It is instituted by Him.

It is His Supper. It is to be served until the end of the world, all right?

It is that perpetual remembrance, all right? And it's a sign and a symbol.

What it really is is covenant renewal. Remember, we are in the new covenant, the sign. This is, in fact, let me just back up.

This is one of the reasons why we advise people not to partake of the Lord's Supper until they've been baptized, all right?

Because the baptism is the sign that you have entered into the covenant. It's like the entrance, all right?

You repent, you should be baptized. There shouldn't be long delay, okay? The Lord's Supper is the sign of covenant renewal.

Every time we have the Lord's Supper, we are remembering the covenant that we are in because this is the covenant that Jesus established in His blood.

So it's like a covenant renewal sign and symbol, okay?

Does that make sense? And it's important, and by the way, it is to a means of grace.

As you participate in the Lord's Supper, God gives you grace. Every time you're obedient to the ordinances or the command of God, it is a means of grace.

He, you know, supernaturally, spiritually, imbues you with more grace, okay?

That's why it's important that we have the Lord's Supper. One of the debates we've had in this church, which is ongoing, is how often should we have the

Lord's Supper? Now, we have traditionally served it once a month, all right?

There are churches, especially the other Reformed Baptist churches who have moved to serve it every week, all right?

And that is under very serious consideration by us, especially if you understand that every time you do it, it is a means of grace and it is a sign.

So something that we're thinking of, I just figured you guys need to know that.

All right, paragraph two. In this ordinance,

Christ is not offered up to his father nor any real sacrifice made at all for the remission of sin of the quick or dead, but only memorial of that one offering up of himself by himself on the cross once for all and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto

God for the same, so that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, the alone propitiation of all the sins of the elect.

All right, this paragraph is specifically against the Roman Catholic Mass. It's obvious, it's what it says.

Remember what the Roman Catholic Mass teaches, that they are re -sacrificing

Christ every time they offer up the elements. Yes. That's why, if you're ever in a

Roman Catholic Church for any reason, whether it's a funeral, for a wedding, you must not, must not partake of the supper if they offer it.

All right, because it is blasphemous. Okay, and I've had to counsel

Christians who have done that. They thought they were being polite. No, you're not gonna be polite. You have nothing to do with the

Mass whatsoever. Okay, if I've had, I've gone through a couple of funerals, you know, but I just sit back, you know, and observe, but will not take part in the

Mass. The Lutheran is a form of it. The Catholic, Roman Catholics believe what they call transubstantiation.

The Lutherans believe in a doctrine called consubstantiation, which is a second cousin of it. They don't believe it actually becomes it, but that there's a presence of it, even though it doesn't change form.

So it's, it's, it was, it's almost like hair splitting. We don't, we don't hold, we believe that that also is, is, yeah.

Okay, yes, sure. Well, going is a matter of conscience.

All right, I have opted in most cases, I will go to a wedding. I will go to a funeral.

I will do things like that, but I just will not participate in any of the service.

Okay. No. Yeah, I, that's why whenever I go,

I always take the last seat. And so that I'm observing, I'm observing because I have,

I have Roman Catholic family, you know, through marriage. And so that has been an issue, you know, over the, and, but I, it's, nobody had, it's so funny because nobody has ever, has ever, you know, confronted me on it.

You know, why didn't you kneel? Why didn't you stand? Why didn't you participate? I think they kind of know, you know, so.

So you just sit down? I just sit, you know, I stay in the back, sit down, let them do what they're going to do.

And then, then afterwards I'll, you know, give my congratulations for whatever's going on or mourning if it's a funeral.

But here's a, here's a key too. If what's going on offends your conscience, then you can't go.

Under all costs, you can never offend your conscience. Remember James says that, you know, if you, if you think that it's wrong, even if it's not and you do it, you're in sin for violating your conscience.

So the conscience is something you can always restrict, but you can't loosen, you know.

If it's a direct command, you can't do it. If it's a matter of conscience, matter of liberty, you know, we talked about Christian liberty.

Then you, you have the liberty to do it or not, but not less, not if it offends your conscience.

Yes, well, that's what I mean. There's some things that are clear that are prohibitions.

And even if your conscience says it's okay, if it's a clear prohibition, you can't go, you can't do it. But I'm talking about the things that would be okay.

It's not a clear violation of scripture. But if your conscience offends you, well, I'll give you a clear example.

Well, this comes up a lot with, with drinking alcohol, okay? The Bible in nowhere, know how condemns all drinking of alcohol.

What it condemns is drunkenness, okay? However, if you have an offense against drinking for whatever reason, maybe you, like I grew up in a household where I was taught that it was a sin to drink any alcohol.

It was sinful, all right? And if I come out of that kind of a background and somebody says, well, would you like a drink?

And my conscience bothers me, like I can, then I shouldn't do it. I shouldn't do it.

Okay? As the danger there is trying to put your conscience on everybody else.

Okay? And that's definitely not a good thing to do. Okay, so paragraph three.

The Lord Jesus has in this ordinance appointed his ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine and thereby to set them apart from a common to holy use and to take and break the bread, to take the cup and they communicating also themselves to give both to the communicants.

Now again, notice this confession is pretty basic here. The ordinance, it's an ordinance of the church.

So it's the ministers, the elders of the church who pray, bless the elements, consecrating them or sanctifying them.

Remember, we've been talking about what it means to be sanctified in our sermons. All right? The elements of the

Lord, when they're prayed for, we sanctify them, which means we are setting them apart for a holy use.

We're not eating the bread and drinking the wine to satisfy our stomachs.

All right? We are eating and drinking to pay homage and to remember the sacrifice of the

Lord Jesus. So that's why it's sanctified. It is set apart for that purpose. Okay?

And notice to give both to the communicants. And I think the next paragraph talks about the fact that you're not to withhold.

Remember, the Roman Catholic Church for the longest time wouldn't let the congregation drink the wine.

I think some of them they do now. All right? But that was withheld. They were to take the bread, but only the priest drank the wine.

Okay? So... And again...

Oh, and notice also, and bless the elements of bread and wine, not grape juice.

Okay? Do you know why this paragraph in this confession specifically says wine?

Other than the fact that that's what the scripture says. Because there is no such thing as grape juice.

1800s. Late 1800s. It was a Methodist deacon whose name was

George Welch. The founder of Welch's Grape Juice. Welch's Grape Juice was actually founded so that they could serve it in communion in place of wine because he was part of the temperance movement.

Okay? And so they changed, you know, up until the late 1800s, worldwide, the only thing that was ever served in the communion tray was wine.

Real wine. And you may have heard that, well, you know, back in Jesus's day, there was unfermented wine.

There was no such thing because it was only, it was only when

Mr. Welch used, stole, appropriated the pasteurizing of milk process and he applied it to grapes that they could stop the fermentation.

Soon as you start crushing the grape, it starts to ferment. So... The new wine was just wine that wasn't properly aged but it was still fermented.

So it was always a matter of alcohol content as soon as you start crushing the grapes until the late 1800s.

Okay? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And again,

I mean, if you think about it, if the wine that they're talking about in scripture was non -fermented, then why would

Paul say Henry drunk with wine? I mean, that makes absolutely no sense.

What's always condemned, in fact, in Proverbs, you find out that there is legitimate, you're supposed to, if somebody is mourning, if somebody is downcast, the book of Proverbs says, give them a little drink.

So it's okay. And... Hold on. No, that's fine.

Okay, let me... Okay, here we go.

The denial of the cup to the people worshiping the elements, the lifting up, carrying them about for adoration, reserving them for any pretended religious use were all contrary to the nature of the ordinance and the institution of Christ.

That's what the priest does in a Roman Catholic church. He holds them around, parades them around. That's forbidden.

Paragraph five. The outward elements in this ordinance duly set apart to the use ordained by Christ have such relation to him crucified as that truly, although in terms used figuratively, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they represent to wit the body and blood of Christ, albeit the substance of nature truly remain bread and wine.

All right. Again, this is what separates from the Catholic church. They say it becomes the body and blood. We'd say, no, it symbolizes the body and blood, but it's still bread and still wine.

And there are some serious ramifications for that because they believe the bread is the body of Christ.

Priests are told that if there's a fire in the church before they start saving people, they have to save the little temple where the extra bread is.

That's no lie because that's the body of Christ. All right.

That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood commonly called transubstantiation by consecration of a priest or by any other way is repugnant not to scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason.

Its overthrow is the nature of the ordinance and has been and is the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.

Again, that's clearly against the Roman Catholic teaching. Worthy receivers outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally or corporally, but spiritually receive and feed upon the

Christ crucified. And all the benefits of his death, the body and the blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in the ordinance as the elements themselves are their outward senses.

So in other words, what we teach is that in a spiritual sense, these elements, because they represent the body and blood of Christ, we are spiritually feeding on the body and blood of Christ, not physically.

Okay. So we would, to sum this up, we would say there's a real presence of Christ in the elements, but a spiritual presence.

Okay. So it's not just memorial only. See, some of the Baptist churches, see, this is memorial only.

It's symbolism only. But no, it's much more serious than that. And by the way, we would be right in line with our

Presbyterian brothers and sisters on that as well. All ignorant ungodly person says they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ.

So are they unworthy of the Lord's table? Cannot without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of the holy mysteries or be admitted thereunto.

They whoever shall receive unworthy are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.

That's why I give that admonition every time we partake of the Lord's supper. I have to warn people, don't do that.