LBCF Chap. 26: Of the Church Pt.1

We're up to chapter 26 in the London Baptist Confession of Faith. Chapter 26 is of the church.

This is one of the longest chapters in the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Chapter is divided into two parts and only two parts, however, there's 15 paragraphs.

Now we're only going to do about half of it tonight because it's it's so comprehensive.

And another reason I decided not to try to squeeze it all into one night is this a very crucial chapter for us as Reformed Baptists, all right, and I'll explain a little of that as we go.

This chapter is the one which most widely differs from the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I mean obviously baptism differs and all, but the doctrine of the church is probably the biggest difference between Presbyterians and Baptists other than maybe the

Covenant, all right, but that's even part of the doctrine of the church. So this is one which most widely differs and so that's why

I want to take our time and work our way through it. The Westminster Confession of Faith has only six paragraphs in this chapter and we have 15, all right, and I think you'll see when we get to it why there's so many more and I'll point out which ones are the difference, all right.

The doctrine of the church separates the Baptist Puritans even from the Presbyterian Puritans, all right.

Again, this was one of the biggest dividing points between the Puritans from England.

The Baptists were not the only ones who differed from the Presbyterians, by the way. The principles found in this chapter were advocated by Congregationalists and very big -name

Congregationalists, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, John Cotton, pardon me for not having a capital

C, and Jonathan Edwards, all right. So we're on pretty safe ground.

It's not only our Baptist forefathers but our Congregationalist forefathers from the

Reformation that held to the principles that you're going to see in chapter 26 of the

Confession, all right. Now paragraphs one to four deal with the universal church and they were derived pretty much from the

Savoy Declaration. Remember, the Savoy Declaration was the Congregationalist doctrine, okay.

But in this particular case, the Congregationalist just revised four chapters from the

Westminster Confession and then the Baptist pretty much took those, almost in total, but they made a couple of revisions as well.

So the first four chapters which cover the universal church are pretty similar, all right, not exact but similar.

Paragraphs 5 through 15, which deal with the local church, are substantially derived from the

Savoy Declaration. There's a great parity between our

Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration. Now remember, one of the

Baptist distinctives is the independence of the local church, all right, and as opposed to Presbyterian doctrine, which proposes what?

What is their doctrine of the church? Ask a stupid question?

Let's go back a couple more what's -its. Go ahead.

Interviews of the Old Testament and New Covenant. Yeah, that's true, but I'm talking about the doctrine of the church in particular.

Yeah, yeah, there's a hierarchy built into it, in other words, the local church in a

Presbyterian polity is -the church is governed by a session, and then this -in a very -in a geographical area, there's a presbytery that's over the individual sessions, so that, you know, not all decisions are available to the congregation in a

Presbyterian system. Certain -in fact, in most Presbyterian denominations, the pastor of the church is not determined by the congregation, but by the presbytery, okay, so whereas as Baptists, we've lived in -I hesitate to -the term everybody uses, we believe in the autonomy, but I hate that word, because it indicates something that we don't believe in.

We believe that the church is governed under the head of Jesus Christ. It's not an autonomous body, but it's an independent body under Christ.

Yes. That's correct. The pastor of the church is a member of the presbytery, not a member of the local church, okay.

Now somebody who watches this is going to point out that there's a Presbyterian church somewhere in East Podunk where they -there's always exceptions to the rule, all right.

In fact, interestingly enough, R .C. Sproul's church, St. Andrews, was not a member of a presbytery, so I used to dig a little bit.

Well, then it's not a Presbyterian church, you know. He was a Reformed Baptist who went a little bit -a little astray.

I know, I'm going to get cards and letters from Presbyterians all over the place now. All right. There is an issue, however, in paragraph four of our confession, and I'll point it out when we get there.

So let's begin our exposition of the 1689 doctrine of the church. Begins part one with the universal church.

Paragraph one in total talks about the identity as invisible, all right.

So the Catholic or universal church, and I hope everybody by now realizes that there's nothing wrong with the word

Catholic. Catholic means universal. We are a part of the Holy Catholic Church.

We recited the Apostles' Creed this past Sunday and unashamedly say that we are part of the

Holy Catholic Church. What we are not a part of is the Roman Catholic Church.

That's the difference, all right. And it's unfortunate that the word Catholic has been hijacked, and now if you say you're

Catholic, everybody thinks you're part of the Roman Catholic Church, all right. But that's not true. So first our identity as invisible.

The Catholic or universal church, all right, with respect to the internal work of the

Spirit and truth of grace, may be called invisible, all right.

Why do we call it invisible? Because it consists of the whole number of elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, who is the head thereof and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

That means that the universal church in its entirety is everybody who has been saved from the beginning of time and will be saved to the end of time.

That's why it's called invisible, because at this, at any point in time, you can't have the universal church gathered together because some are dead and some haven't been born yet, all right.

So that's the context for calling it invisible, not that there's some invisible entity around us that is in another dimension, but maybe it is another dimension, so no, all right.

And it just goes on to explain a little bit, to have been, are, or shall be gathered into one. Remember, there's only one church.

This also kind of refutes dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism was not invented when this confession was written. Just so that you're aware of it, if you've come out of a dispensational church, you know, you may not know, that dispensational theology did not come into existence at the earliest date of 1830, all right.

So this was not written to dispute that because it hadn't even been been organized yet, all right.

So gathered into one, there's only one body of Christ, doesn't matter

Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free, it doesn't make any difference.

As Paul said, there's only one body of Christ. That is the spouse, the church, and that's the fullness of him that fills all in all, all right.

It may sound simplistic, but that's a very, very important opening paragraph for our doctrine of the church, okay.

Any questions on that first paragraph? Okay, so let's go to paragraph two, still talking about, we're still in part one of the universal church, its identity as visible, all right, and this is important as well.

All persons throughout the world professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto

God by Christ according to it, not destroying their own profession by exerting any,

I'm sorry, by any errors averting the foundation, all right, or unholiness of conversation are and may be called visible saints and such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

Now let's look at this one by one. Firstly, again, we're talking about one universal church, okay.

How do we know who is constituted in the visible church? All those who are professing faith in the gospel.

That's one of the things that, it's a precursor or a prerequisite to be a member in our church and pretty much any

Reformed Baptist churches, you have to have a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That's the starting point.

Now notice, just because a person professes faith doesn't mean that they should be a member in a local church, all right.

Why? Because, in fact, let me back this up a little bit. Why? Unless they destroy their profession by errors in averting the foundation.

If somebody says, yes, I'm a believer in Jesus Christ, I've professed faith,

I've repented of my sin, all right, yet they espouse some major heresy, all right, a damnable heresy, that person should not be considered a believer, a part of the visible church, okay.

For example, take the era of full preterism. Paul made it very clear, he said,

Hymenaeus and Philetus made shipwreck of their faith and are spreading a gangrenous doctrine, all right, and so they would not be considered, and in fact, if they were already members, should be, in fact, excommunicated, all right.

But so that's what the whole purpose here is. Just because somebody says they're a believer doesn't mean, oh, you say you're a believer, you come on in to the church.

The elder, and you'll see later on, the elders have an obligation to protect the church, and not by those who might make spurious professions, or in holiness of conversation, all right.

These are things that one wants to look at, all right, and this is why membership process in this church is, how can

I put it, as lengthy, as comprehensive as it is, we want to know, number one, is the profession of faith genuine?

Is the person living a life that's commensurate, or do we see fruit of repentance, okay, as well as making sure that they understand what our doctrine is, and that they're not espousing any heresy, okay, all right.

Yes, somebody? Back then, conversation didn't mean just talking, it actually meant more like conduct.

Yes, yes, yep, absolutely, all right, but barring the two things that they say that they're concerned about, are and may be called visible saints, all right, and that's the difference between the invisible church, when you're alive, and you're espousing the right doctrine, you're living in in a manner worthy of your calling, you're called visible saints, and then here's the thing, and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

So what our framers of our confession are saying is, these are the people who should become part of the local church, okay, that make sense?

Remember, we're just looking now at the universal church, we're going to look at in greater detail in part two, how one joins the local church, all right, but but if you're a member of the universal church, if you're truly a believer in Jesus Christ, you ought to be part of a local congregation, all right, still under the universal church, we're still in part one, all right, paragraph three talks about its perpetuity, all right, and the first part, our good friend

Sam Waldron has called it, it's seeming improbability. What he means by that, the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error.

In other words, no matter how effective and how diligent the eldership of your church is, they're not perfect, and once in a while there's going to be a mixture, you know, somebody's probably going to wind up coming into membership who was believed to be a member or a true believer, but who may not, and that's why they begin with this, the purest of churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error.

If you've been in the church for any length of time, I'm surprised we didn't hear an amen, because we've all been through it, and we've had people who come into the church, profess faith, and the next thing you know, they're spreading false doctrine, they're spreading discontent, discord in the body, and you can't just look at the elders and say, ah, it's your fault, you know, you can only do so far, so the purest of churches, that's why he puts it, the seeming improbability, and some have so degenerated, it has become no churches of Christ.

This is where you come to the place where the eldership has not done its job, and it could be a true church.

I mean, we can go back through history and see churches that have been really on fire for Christ, and then what happens to them?

They fade, and the next thing you know, they have not become churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, and of course, this language comes right from Christ's letter to, in the book of the

Revelation, right? Okay, so that's why he calls it the seeming improbability.

You wonder if that's the case, you know, how are you ever going to have a church that is pure?

The second half of paragraph three talks about its actual certainty, all right?

Nevertheless, Christ has always had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world to the end thereof.

If only, what's his name? His name is

Family Radio. Camping. If only

Harold Camping had read this, because if you remember what Harold Camping came out and said, the church aid had ended, there is no church in the world anymore, all right?

And you can see right in our confession that Christ has had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world to the end thereof, of such as believe in him and make profession of his name.

That means as long as he tarries until he comes again, there will always, the church shall always be here.

And of course, I mean, as you know, I'm not trying to prove these, these doctrines, we're just reviewing what, so that everybody realizes what our confession says, but obviously there's some verses that just speak loudly on this, you know,

Christ, you know, the gates of hell shall not prevail against my church, and so many other verses of Scripture, okay?

So that's part one, still now we go to paragraph four, all right?

And again, we're still talking about the universal church. We're gonna, probably a little bit later, we're going to get to,

I think, two paragraphs in part two, the local church.

So, but I just want to keep reminding you that this is still talking about the universal church, we're not talking about the government and everything else of the local church yet, all right?

So here we're talking about its authority, the church, this is the universal church, has authority, all right, under Jesus Christ.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the church, all right? We must always acknowledge that, okay?

And whom by the appointment of the Father, Jesus Christ, the head of the church, by what authority? All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth, right?

We understand that, by God. All power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the church is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner, okay?

What does that mean? We can't do what we please. God has made

Christ the head of the church and has given him all power and authority to rule and to govern his church according to his will, not according to our will.

Can you see how important this is? What's one of the biggest problems in the contemporary church in America today?

I'll limit it to America, we could probably include the whole world. What are the problems? People are doing what they feel like doing.

They're bringing in concepts and unique ways of espousing the gospel and preaching that have never been mandated by Scripture.

In fact, some of them have been prohibited by Scripture, all right? And this is why, this is one of the things

I love about our confession, is it pulls all of these concepts together, and again, we could go through Scripture proofs to show that what we do must line up with the

Word of God. The Word of God alone is our standard for practice within the church of Jesus Christ.

It's his Word, and it's his church, and it's his spirit, all right? But notice invested in a supreme and sovereign matter.

That's why it's almost ludicrous when you hear some of these discussions on the new things that are coming out in the church, and they're sitting around, well, how did you come up with this?

Well, we took a poll. We went out into the neighborhood. Oh, we didn't talk to Christians.

We talked to the non -believers. We wanted to know about unchurched Harry. What should we include in our church service?

And if they got an abundance, they said, okay, that's what we're gonna do, because these people like, that's what they'd like, that'll bring them out to church.

What have they done to the supreme and sovereign manner of our Lord and Savior, who's head of the church? They've tossed it right out the window and made it the whim of unchurched people.

It's amazing, but this is what's happening out there, all right?

So, the true head of the church. We have a false head of the church. Neither can the

Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof. I'm gonna stop there for a minute, okay?

Obviously, this is one of the things that really separates us from the church in Rome.

We acknowledge no authority from the Pope, who is the

Bishop of Rome, all right? There is no biblical support for that whatsoever.

There is not even any biblical support that Peter was ever the Bishop of Rome, all right?

And yet, this is what it's based on. Now, remember I said that when we get to paragraph four, that we have a couple of issues, all right?

And this is where we have to read the Confession in its context to understand what's coming next, all right?

And also understand what was going on.

I mean, what was the relationship between the church in Rome and the Puritans and those reformers in Europe?

Beheadings, burning at the stake, persecution like you wouldn't believe, right?

All right? So, neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be the head thereof, but is that Antichrist, all right?

Now, I have to stop here because it's interesting. Across the church today,

I'm talking about the evangelical church today. If you mention the Antichrist, what do I think? The book of the

Revelation, all right? Talks about Christ versus the Antichrist.

Do you realize that the word Antichrist never appears in the book of the Revelation? You would think it did, but it doesn't.

It's in John's epistles, two of John's epistles, all right? Where he talks about, and not only does he talk about Antichrist, he says, but there are many

Antichrists. So, if it were to stop here, I could, in good conscience, say, yes, amen.

The Pope, based upon the doctrine of the Pope, and especially this Pope, because this

Pope isn't even Catholic. I mean, he goes against Roman Catholic doctrine, all right?

So, I would have no problem calling him an Antichrist, because what he teaches is against the doctrine of Christ, all right?

Now, again, please don't do this. Don't go out the next time you come to a

Roman Catholic and say, you know the Pope's the Antichrist? Please don't do that. That's not the way to witness to Roman Catholics, all right?

I mean, we want to give them truth, but gentle, and there's a lot of other ways of opening, you know, opening the door, other than with a sledgehammer, you know, okay?

But they continue that man of sin, it's in Paul's epistles, the son of perdition, okay, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called

God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming. This is, in many

Reformed Baptist churches, in their doctrine, you know, in their statement of faith, they'll come out and they'll say, we hold to the 1689

London Baptist Confession of Faith, with the exception of paragraph 4 of chapter 26, all right?

Because it gives the impression that we would look at Rome and say, he is, in fact, the man of sin who is coming at the end of the age, etc.,

and that's not, well, I can tell you this, it's not what I believe, all right?

So, if we ever did come to a place where we would have a revision,

I can guarantee you that this is one of the chapters, one of paragraphs, that would be revised in the modern context, okay?

Now again, there's some Reformed Baptists that have no problem with this, but I do.

Yeah, question? I was just going to add to what Chris said. The problem is, is even our use of English words have changed, and we have a cultural definition of antichrist.

We have a cultural definition of blasphemy, we have a cultural, modern -day cultural definition of heresy, but if you look at these terms in their original uses, they were just, they were actually very apt terms to describe theological truths, that, you know, an antichrist is anyone who sets himself up against Christ.

Yes, absolutely. Like you said, it's become over -dramatized today, and inflammatory, because, yeah, we're thinking of that big future boogie man who's going to come and take over the world, and that's not really the biblical definition of an antichrist.

No. I think that's part of the problem. I think they had a better command of the English language in the 17th century than we do today in the 21st century.

Yes, you've done well. No, I agree with you, absolutely, and it's interesting, because if you, this is why we keep emphasizing as well, you heard me

Sunday morning, all right, when I gave an introduction to the epistle to the

Hebrews, all right, and I talked a little bit about hermeneutics and the importance of context and words being used, and understanding biblical imagery.

There's a reason that John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, didn't use the term antichrist in the book of the

Revelation. He's the one who put, he's the one who called people antichrist in his epistles, and we're reasonably certain that the book of the

Revelation was probably his last one, or not necessarily, but could be his last book. Why didn't he use the term antichrist?

Because in the Revelation, what term does he use?

Not the antichrist. The beast. In fact, there's more than one beast. Beast from the land, beast from the sea, okay?

Why does he use the term beast instead of antichrist? Because he's talking about men, okay, and what's the opposite of a man?

What is our goal, number one goal for each man who is born and then saved in this life?

To become like Christ. What happens when you become like Christ? You become more godly. What do you call a man who strays and goes the other way?

A beast. Allah Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar is such a perfect example.

He was described as king of kings, boasted, and what happens?

He became like a beast, even crawling around eating grass, okay? And so that's why you find in the book of the

Revelation, John is making a distinction, the vision he gets is between Christ coming on the clouds of glory and all this, and a beast.

A beast is a man who is getting more and more like a beast, more like the animals than he is

God, okay? So, wow, that was extra, doesn't cost you a dime, right?

But it's not part of what we're doing. Okay, now we come to part two, and we're just going to introduce this, because, again, there's no way we'd get through the whole chapter.

Paragraph 5 talks about the local church now. So, remember, we're moving from the universal church to the local church, all right?

And here's what he says. Firstly, the foundation of the mandate. In the execution of this power wherein he is so entrusted, the

Lord Jesus calls out of the world unto himself through the ministry of his word, by his

Spirit, those that are given him by his Father, all right? Now, that's the mandate, that's the foundation of the mandate.

How is the local church formed? By those who the Lord calls out. Notice, you notice how, even just as a matter of fact, the doctrines of grace are built in here.

It's not that the church is made up of all those who came to their senses and made a good decision, all right?

No, it's in the execution of his power with he is so entrusted, the

Lord Jesus calls out of the world unto himself. How? The ministry of the word.

We've seen that in the past under the gospel. Always. How is anybody ever saved?

Through the ministry of the word, all right? By his Spirit, ministry of the word, by the

Spirit. The Spirit takes the word, regenerates hearts, and who are those that are going to be regenerated?

Those whom are given to him by his Father. Notice the Trinitarian aspect of salvation, all right?

I mean, it's crystal clear right there, all right? So, that's the foundation of the mandate, that they may walk before him in the ways of obedience which he prescribes to them in his word.

Notice again, it's not just the mere professed believer, but the one who is demonstrating fruit of repentance, okay?

Second thing is the substance of the mandate. What's the substance? Those thus called he commands to walk together in particular societies or churches.

In other words, there's no such thing as a lone ranger Christian. You can't just say, okay, I'm saved, now it's just me and the

Bible and the Holy Spirit, that's it. That's a recipe for heresy, the recipe for disaster, all right?

So, you are called to be a particular society or churches for, notice, mutual edification.

You and I need each other, and I'll tell you, going through this pandemic,

I know I've spoken to a lot of you, most of you felt it when you were not able to be here.

Fortunately for us, it was only a couple of weeks that we weren't meeting together, but even those couple of weeks,

I know I came in on a couple of those Sundays, and I was walking around the church,

I said, this is eerie, I don't like this, you know? It's not right,

I mean, this building, God gave it to us, we should have it filled, the church should be meeting here, you know?

So, for mutual edification and the due performance of that public worship which he requires of them in the world.

You can't have public worship by yourself in your private home, all right?

Now, I mean, that's not to say that you can't have a group of people getting together and having a corporate worship service, but if you have you and your family, guess what?

That's private family worship. I was going to say, you can't have it just watching a live stream.

No. Unfortunately, many Christians were trying to establish that.

Yes, it's different, it's not the same. It's not the same. Okay.

Paragraph six, it's defined membership, and there's three ways in which

Waldron breaks down, and I think he's done a pretty good job of this, in breaking it down, who's the defined membership.

The members of these churches are saints by calling, all right, visibly manifesting and evidencing by their profession and walking their obedience under that call of Christ, okay?

Why does he call it evangelical? Because it's the evangel. Who are those who are called? Those who are called by the ministry of the

Word, all right? So that's the first criteria. You have to be called by the ministry of the

Word if you're going to be a Christian. It's not just some idea you're going to come up with. You're not going to have a dream or a vision, all right?

Second thing is that it's volitional, all right? And do willingly consent to walk together.

In fact, I think it was John, it was either Owen or Edwards, I forget which one it was now, who made a very big point in his writings that the church is a voluntary organization.

You can't compel somebody to come and join your local church, all right? They have the responsibility of joining a local church, but you can't say it's got to be my local church.

So in that respect, it's volitional, willingly walk together. According to the appointment of Christ.

And the last is there's a covenantal aspect to it, which would be no surprise to us because we believe in covenant theology.

Giving up themselves to the Lord, here's the terms of the covenant. What is a covenant? Remember, it's mutual promises, okay?

And one to another by the will of God in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel.

There's another reason why it has to be corporate worship. It's just not the same.

Now, look, in the persecuted church, if you've got to go out into the middle of the woods with a group of 20 -30 saints and you hold a worship service, that's holy ground.

There's nothing wrong with that, but what this is speaking against is people who who don't want to join together.

Let's face it, people are tough to get along with. I feel that way every time

I start doing the what's -its. John Paul Sartre had a little bit of the truth.

My co -elders put, you know what Sartre said? He says, hell is other people, all right?

Now, we don't believe that, all right? But there's an aspect of that that we understand.

It's hard to get along with people. Look, if all of you just agreed with me, we'd get along so much easier, right?

So you get what I mean. But that's why it's talking about by the will of God, professed subjection to the ordinance of the gospel and willingly consent to walk together.

You know what? I think I'm going to stop it right here because it's just about 8 o 'clock and we're only not even halfway through this chapter.

Any questions? Remember, we haven't even really gotten into, we've only looked at the membership of the local church.

We have a lot more to do on the local church. We have, what, nine more paragraphs?

No? Yes? The line about, and do willingly consent to walk together according to the appointment of Christ, is that talking about, in terms of like, what church you specifically end up going to?

It should be the one that Christ, like, calls you to? Well, when it's talking about it, there's criteria for what is a biblical church, okay?

And there's several criteria. One, apostolic preaching, all right?

So if you go to a church that is preaching error, you shouldn't be there if you're a true believer.

Secondly, practicing or celebrating the ordinances, the sacraments of the church.

The church is not celebrating the Lord's Supper and baptism. It's not a true church. And third is exercising discipline.

If you do not have discipline in a church, it is not the Church of Jesus Christ. And now, granted, you have, quote, evangelical churches that don't do that.

They are wrong, and some people actually have as many as five or nine marks.

The Puritans held pretty much to these three, and if somebody comes to me privately and says,

I'm going to a church, they don't celebrate the Lord's Supper and they don't have discipline, my advice, get out.

I don't make any apologies. Get out of that church. It's not a biblical church, and that church is headed for trouble if it's not there already, okay?

So you have freedom, because remember, this is willingly, all right? It's volitional. You have freedom to join the church of your choice as long as it's a true biblical church.

So, I mean, because there can be some differences. I mean, look at our service.

We're very traditional, basically hymns only, not exclusively.

Some churches hold to exclusive psalmody. They'll only sing psalms. We don't believe that that's the scriptural mandate.

We sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and so if you have a personal preference, that would all fall within the guidelines of what's a true biblical church, and so we don't distinguish between that, and you might even have some differences within the body of Christ.

Some churches will have no instruments, right? Again, we don't think that that's biblical, but you have to be within the realm of what the

Scriptures would call a true biblical church. Good question. Any other questions?