We have an interesting question for us tonight. And I say interesting because it has no counterpart in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I've made the comment a few times now that the Baptist Catechism does with the Westminster Shorter Catechism what the Second London Confession of Faith does with the Westminster Confession of Faith. And that is that it basically borrows from it. Most questions and answers in the catechism that we've been going through are word for word the same in the Westminster Shorter Catechism. And the reason for that is because the particular or Reformed Baptists wanted to show that they were part of the same larger universal body of Christ going all the way back to the apostles and even those who were truly saved before the cross of Christ. And they especially wanted to show their solidarity in their day with the Presbyterians, with the Continental Reformed, and the Congregationalists, that they too, this group of particular Baptists, were part of the Reformed tradition. They were covenantal, confessional, and Calvinistic. And when it comes to one specific aspect of the sacrament or the ordinance of baptism, of the baptism of infants, or as John Gill would call it, infant sprinkling, there was a significant difference behind and in front of the doctrine. And by that I mean to say that there were theological reasons which needed to be addressed that preceded one's baptism, and then also theological reasons that needed to be addressed as once a person was baptized. So this question for us tonight is one of those, or is getting at one of those significant changes between the historic Baptist catechism, sometimes called Keech's catechism, and the Westminster. And in fact, this question again, it's so baptistic that our Presbyterian brothers have no equivalent for it in their catechism at all. This isn't even a question that they pose, and that's because of a fundamental difference in our doctrine of baptism and how it relates to the local church. and which has behind it some serious differences in covenant theology as to the reason which I'm not going to address tonight in detail. But there's significant differences between baptism and church membership and church covenant. So now the interesting thing here is that this difference really is actually seen only in our commitment to the biblical and historic position of baptizing professing adults only, or professing believers only. And the only is important here because when Presbyterians and Reformed churches speak of believers baptism or credo baptism, we have a great agreement with them, like 100% agreement with them on those topics, noting that baptism is a sacrament and an ordinary means of grace. But the difference comes in light of infant sprinkling. Pastor Jeffrey Riddle condenses these differences and a lot of the proper subjects of baptism and church membership in the following way. This is on your outline. It's a little simplistic, but I think it'll help us to get thinking about the catechism question and the answer that we have for tonight. And so, Pastor Riddle points out that there's the Pedio-Baptist model and then the Credo-Baptist model. And for the Pedio-Baptist model, there's three points and there's three points for the Credo-Baptist model as well. And so for the infant sprinklers, the baby baptizers, the paedo-baptist model, the first point says you are part of a visible church at birth due to connection to believing parents. Then two, you are baptized as an infant in recognition of your membership in a visible church. And then three, you may or may not one day come to faith. If and when you should be converted and profess faith, you at that point become part of the invisible church. But for Credo Baptist, which is what we are, a Baptist church, the first point says, you profess faith in Christ and so join the invisible church. Two, you're baptized in recognition of your membership in the invisible church. And then three, you give up yourself to membership in a visible church. So you see the difference there, I hope. A visible church and invisible churches are two categories, but a visible church is just another way of saying a local church. So First Family Church is an example of a visible church. Some of us are going to a conference next Saturday in Sacramento at Emmanuel Baptist Church. That's another example of a visible church. We read in Galatians 1-2, to the churches in Galatia. Those are visible churches, local churches in the region of Galatia. The seven churches listed in Revelation, all with their own unique and personal exhortations and warnings, are examples of local or visible churches. and members in visible churches for Baptists are made up of people with a credible profession of faith. That's just for the membership. Sure there are guests, sure there are visitors. Sure, there are children there, but properly speaking, members are people who have professed faith in Christ and who have been baptized. And we believe those members to actually be saved until there's evidence that there isn't. And then church discipline exists for that, and we'll speak about that a little bit tonight. But the invisible church is different than that. The Invisible Church is what we would call Catholic, universal. Catholic with a little c, not Roman Catholic. And it's made of all people who have ever been saved, and technically speaking, all people who ever will be saved as well. Remember, all of the elect, their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life, even right now, right? That is the invisible church. It's invisible because it's not localized. And so, for example, in Acts 2, when many had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Weeks, but God had other plans, and Peter preached, and 3,000, nearly 3,000 people were converted, and then, quote, they were added that day, about 3,000 souls. Well, added to what? added to the invisible church. Those people wouldn't stay there. They would go back to their homes. And so they were added to the number of believers of the church. The church there would be speaking of the invisible churches. Membership consists of people who are truly saved and also members in local churches now, as well as people who are in glory already. The assembly enrolled in heaven, Hebrews 12, 23. Or the saints around the throne that we read of in Revelation 7, 9 through 17. Now, again, this is an interesting question, an answer, because the Westminster doesn't contain it. And that has to be, as you see when we read it here, is because that baptized infant can't do what the answer says. But I would imagine, actually, for being charitable, that Presbyterians would affirm this of baptized adults, and even that it's what would be expected, actually, of baptized infants. They grow up into children and hopefully, you know, then actually do convert and profess faith in the Lord Jesus. But it's very interesting that the Westminster Catechism doesn't have this question here at all. So let's consider the question and answer. question 101, and it says, what is the duty of those who are rightly baptized? So first then, we notice that we're speaking of people who are not simply baptized, but we're saying rightly baptized. The baptism, the doctrine of baptism that we've been hearing sermons on for the last month, And we're speaking of how this ordinarily works, right? Obviously, there is extraordinary accounts in Scripture, even especially as the Gospel was initially spreading in light of the ratification of the New Covenant, like the example of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8, which that was pretty unique. I spoke about that last time, even, when I had an opportunity to preach. And so ordinarily, for a person who is baptized rightly, there are four things for us to think about. Number one, there is the professed faith of the recipient. So obviously then, no infants, because an infant can't profess faith. Our brother John talked about that last week. They may have faith, they might. That might be God's will, but in order for them to be baptized, they should be able to profess it. Now the person who's being baptized should have a credible profession of faith, meaning that they understand the gospel, they can explain it, they know that they're a sinner and that they need salvation, which only Christ Jesus can supply and provide. And they evidence it in what they believe and how they live. They show it in such a way that faithful pastors and other believers can see that God has done a work in their heart like Acts 2.37, when the crowd was pricked in the heart, and from that they repent and they believe the gospel, Mark 1.15. Secondly, a rite baptism consists of immersion in water. The washings, and Brother Nick spoke about this, the washings in the Old Testament and John's baptism evidence this, plus the baptism of the eunuch in the testimony of the early church, such as in the Didache, Didache, yeah, which I think Brother John read from last week even, and especially that baptismal formula that is given in Romans 6 in which it's baptism is spoke about and it's what happens at baptism is typified there in Romans 6. Explain to Romans 6. Thirdly, should be baptized in the triune name. Not just in the name of Jesus, like the Oneness Pentecostals think. They are Trinitarian heretics. But to be rightly baptized requires a person to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. From start to end, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are working in our salvation. causing it and completing it. And so you're baptizing the name of all three. The Great Commission is so clear in Matthew 28, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And then fourthly, for a right baptism, it has to be involved with a true church by which it is administered. In other words, a church that has a true gospel. So not a Roman Catholic church or a Mormon church. Not a church with women pastors because women can't be pastors, 1 Timothy 2. And there must be pastors or elders in the congregation for it to be a true church, 1 Timothy 3, Revelation 2 and 3. And so we would also mean that a private baptism done by a non-ordained family member in a bathroom, cut off from any involvement in a local church, isn't a rite baptism either. That's an attempt to take a means of grace and almost make it into some sort of a magical rite. And so I don't want to go into too much detail with that stuff because we went over it, but when we think of rite baptism, those four categories should exist. And then secondly, before we get to the supplied answer, we note that there is a true and tangible aspect of baptism that is responsive from the baptized, the baptized person. There is a duty as the question asserts. We wouldn't expect someone to be baptized to be baptized and then just live like it didn't happen. There's a way of life that is expected, but what I want to say before we get to the answer is that we can't confuse that way of life with what baptism is itself. So baptism is absolutely a means of grace. It's a vehicle by which God, through the faith and Holy Spirit in you, communicates grace to the participant. He spiritually works to sanctify the person through it, both the person who is being baptized and even the church who has the Holy Spirit of faith as well, as they see that person get baptized and are reminded of their own baptism and thinking of their own union with Christ as well. And remember, the proper baptism is always accompanied by the word of God as well, which is the primary means of grace. And certainly in baptism, there is the promise of God to justify and to unite to Christ on the basis of his work of atonement being applied to you. Baptism is primarily about what God has done. And as evangelicals, we tend to underemphasize that. And it does us a disservice. We confuse what baptism is with duty, which is what question 101 is actually about. But do you remember what question 97 answered was on what is baptism. It says, "...to the one being baptized," and this is on your outline, it says, "...baptism is a sign of his fellowship with Jesus in his death, burial, and resurrection, a sign of his being engrafted into Jesus, and a sign of his remission of sins, all because of his union with Christ." And for the most part, We are in evangelical Baptist churches. I'm speaking of especially churches that aren't confessional, which is the majority of Baptist churches here in the United States and the West. We have made baptism all about the individual's profession of faith. though we are to receive baptism and when we repent and believe, Baptists have tend to make it more about our duty rather than what God has done. We look at it like it's this ceremonial way of announcing to the world what we've done rather than what God has done. It's I'm choosing Jesus and so here I am being publicly identified with him. And there is an aspect of that that holds water, no pun intended. It's a sign of our fellowship with Him as question 97, or answer 97 explained. But answer 97 also puts all the emphasis of baptism on what God has done and what God promises in our salvation. And so going into the waters of baptism, of a baptismal font, friends, I would submit to you this evening that it isn't so much about your personal profession. That's secondary in your baptism. The primary aspect of baptism, as we understand it to be a means of grace, is what God has done and what God is doing in your life, and how baptism signifies that in your union with Christ. And actually, I would say the reason that we have so many people who grow up in Baptist churches getting baptized multiple times is because of this wrong view of baptism being mostly about our public profession. Because what happens when that public profession doesn't line up with scripture? When does it ever often really, you know, we all struggle with sin. And so then a person goes off to a camp, or they go to some sort of a revivalistic seminar or conference, and they have the hell preached out of them. And that makes them think at that point, well, I need to get baptized again, because I wasn't living right at that point. And it's because they're viewing baptism as this sort of individualistic, pietistic work. I'm baptized, and look at what it communicates about me. But that's not what baptism is intended to communicate. What it does communicate is that, or what does communicate that, is how you live after you've been baptized. Just think of our Christian culture today. How many baptized people are there who are willing to affirm the LGBT lifestyle? How many baptized believers are there that are pro-democratic party and the legalization of abortion, of homosexual marriage, of the government dictating when and how you can worship? I just saw, those things are prolific. I just saw someone sent me an image of a of a boast really I think of Fellowship Church last week saying they had just recently baptized like 220 something people. I say boast because it's not like it was a bunch of images of all the people getting baptized and they're showing hey here's these pictures of you know Jane, Sam, John, all being baptized. But it's a shot of one person baptized and a big number overlaid on top of it like that. Like, look at how great we are. Now, I hope that all those people really are Christians. but just because they got baptized, does that mean that they are truly Christian? It doesn't. It should be. Ideally, that's how we would want it to work, but that's not always the case. And so the answer to question 97 also says this about baptism, and this would actually be the baptized participant's public profession. Question 97 ends by saying, and of his giving up himself unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in the newness of life. giving oneself up to God, living and walking in the newness of life, that is a Christian's public profession of faith. And the last part of question 97 is in fact what the answer to question 97 or 101 elaborates upon. So we read our question for tonight, an answer. What is the duty of such who are rightly baptized? And the answer is, it is the duty of those who are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. So you see how that narrows, the answer narrows down this duty, this requirement to a couple of things. Two main points actually, and then two sub points under each main point. So this is on your outline. Number one, they're supposed to give up themselves, which means to join, to join in a covenant. Two, and then sub point one, a particular church. And then secondly, a particular church that is orderly. And then secondly, we're supposed to walk in a specific way. First, to walk in all the commandments of the Lord blameless. And secondly, to walk in all the ordinances of the Lord blameless. And there's a number of different verses cited from Acts and then 1 Peter and Luke. These are the proof texts. So let's take a look at them briefly and see what they were thinking of in light of the answer. So if you have your Bible tonight, we'll look first at Acts 2. This is that famous account, I mentioned this a little bit already. Acts 2, 41 to 42 is the first verse cited. There we read, so those who received his word were baptized. And they were added that day about 3,000 souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayers. So there's a few things to notice here in light of the catechism answer. First, there are people who receive the word. Peter had just preached Christ, and preaching Christ is a means of grace. Remember, if you remember this from maybe a month and a half ago, maybe two months max. The preached word is the only means of grace that is a converting means of grace. Baptism doesn't convert a person. We don't teach baptismal regeneration. The Lord's Supper, eating the bread, drinking the wine, that doesn't convert a person. What converts a person is the gospel preached to them. Romans 10, we went over that. And in Peter's preaching, these people were converted to Christianity. They received the word, the preached word. They were pricked in the heart and they were told that meaning that the Lord had worked on their heart. He took their heart of stone and made it a heart of flesh. They saw their sin. They saw their guilt before the cross. And they said, what should we do? And Peter told them to repent and to be baptized. And so that day, there was added about 3,000 souls to the assembly of the believers. Now, that's not quite an argument for joining a local church, but it's saying that they are now baptized and numbered among the people of God. That's, I think, the invisible church when they're mentioned at that point. But notice verse 42, and this is especially important here. In other words, it's what the catechism asserts, the answer asserts, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. The Apostles took what Christ taught them, the commandments and the ordinances, and then they taught others. And so the normal and right way to live the Christian life is to do the same thing as these early believers here. To be devoted unto the Apostles' teaching and the fellowship of the word normally preached, or the fellowship of the believers. And where do we find the Apostles' teaching? It's the Word. It's the Word of God, the New Testament. And where is the Word normally preached and taught? It could be anywhere, of course. But normally, it's specifically to be administered when the Church gathers on the Lord's Day, by the men that God calls to do that, by the elders, the pastors, and other gifted men in that regard. And understanding this is really foundational in how we view what the church is to be doing on the Lord's day even. Is preaching on the Lord's day to be directed to the lost? Are we to have evangelistic, revivalistic sermons week in and week out? Or is the preaching to be directed at the sheep, to those who are baptized, those believing members? Is the church for the lost or the found, right? And it's for believers, obviously. People devoted to the apostles' teaching and ordinances and a faithful preaching of Christ, mind you, that is careful to properly distinguish between law and gospel will compel people to look to Christ, either for the first time at the moment of salvation or as the source of all of our true comfort and rest for the one who already believes. More on that later. The next verse that the Catechism cites is just a couple chapters over, so if you're in Acts 2, turn over to Acts 5. It's 13 and 14. There it says, But the people held them in high esteem. There were many signs being done by the apostles. These signs testified to the truthfulness of their message. But it says that people didn't join them. And then, but nevertheless, people still held them in high esteem. Then in verse 14, And more than ever, believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. And then also, before we have a brief comment on that, let's look over at 926 because that's also cited. A couple more pages over. 926 in Acts. That says, and when he, speaking of Saul or Paul, same person, no difference in Saul or Paul, when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples and they were all afraid of him for they did not believe that he was a disciple. So again, so in these two combinations of verses, we see added, we see join. This time it was added to the Lord. And then the desire of Saul, his desire was to join the disciples. He wanted to be with them. They weren't sure about him yet. You know, was his baptism legit? How would he live? They were skeptical at first, but the point here is that he wanted to join them. He was desiring to be a part of the group of disciples there in Jerusalem. So the idea here is that there's a natural giving up of oneself that takes place in the life of a person who is regenerate, who then of course would want to be baptized. At one point, these people would not be part of the group, a part of the church, but now that they are baptized, they are joining and being added to the group. If I added four apples to a bowl of six oranges, I would know how many apples and oranges are in that bowl. So I think the point that is seeking to be captured in these proof texts is the idea that when a person receives Christ, They just can't be some sort of a Lone Ranger style believer. That doesn't actually exist. That's not the ordinary example that we see here. There's added, there's an adding of people to this other larger grouping, and it's countable. Certainly not, if we think of in Revelation 7, we read that the Apostle John is unable to count the number of people that are around the throne. But certainly God is able to do that. We read that in 1 Timothy 2. God even knows the numbers of the hairs on every person's head. this attitude, this joining, it's something measurable. The idea that says, me, my Bible, and my Jesus, I go to church when I want or never, that's not what we see happening in scripture. That's no way to live the Christian life. To do that would be to neglect the commandments and ordinance of the Lord, and I know I don't really need to tell you guys that. You've come to the evening service, even. 1 Peter 2, 5, it's another verse they cite. Gotta turn a little bit more to get to 1 Peter 2.5. 1 Peter 2.5, and actually, Pastor Nick mentioned this verse a couple times in his sermon this morning, actually. We didn't talk about that at all even. But 1 Peter 2.5 says, And he's speaking here now to believers, Peter is, and he says, You yourselves, like living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Christ Jesus, or through Jesus Christ. Again, you really have both of those two main points in the catechism answer here in this one verse. Believers here are compared to living stones and they're being built up into a spiritual house. We are united to God or we're united to one another through the spirit that seals us, making us this spiritual house where individual stones come together to form this spiritual house. And that larger invisible body is made up of smaller visible bodies. And then note, too, we are a holy priesthood, holy primarily because of the righteousness of Christ that has been accredited to us, which makes us justified in his sight. We are positionally holy, based solely on the accomplishments of Jesus Christ. But then also, we seek to be holy because God is holy. Look at the previous chapter, chapter one, verse 15 and 16. there Peter writes, but as he who called you is holy you also be holy in all your conduct since it is written you shall be holy for I am holy. And how how exactly do we do that? Well, it's through obedience to Christ's commands. It's the third use of the law or the golden use of the law. The law matters to us as believers because it shows us how to live in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. And we actually truly desire to live that way even because of the change that the Holy Spirit has worked in us. Our choosing to live that way, our choosing to keep the commandments, it doesn't affect our justification at all. It doesn't cause us to be justified in God's sight. But, it is something that we do because we have been justified in God's sight. And then note, it's not just holy, it's a holy priesthood. There is, what does a priesthood do? They are involved in sacraments. They're involved in the ordinances. They offer up spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ is what Peter writes. And so the ordinances of Christ would be in view in that regard. And then the last verse that's cited communicates the same thing. They also cite Luke 1.6. And this is a little bit more of an interesting choice in light of the topic. But there, and this is speaking of John the Baptist's parents. And so verse six says, and they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. Now, we could make the case that this is before the new covenant was ratified in the blood of Christ, and that would be true. And that would mean that baptism, as we understand it now and today, that Baptism in light of the New Covenant wouldn't have happened to John's parents. That would be right. That hadn't happened yet. Even John's baptism hadn't happened at this point, right? But you still see the point that I think the catechism formers were thinking of, I trust. And that is that the people who love God, people who are properly called God's people, they're to live in a certain way. They're marked by living in a certain way. And here we read that they are walking blamelessly in all of the commandments and all of the statutes. The very thing the catechism is wanting to communicate about the duty for those who are properly baptized. And so these are the verses the catechism cites as a basis for thinking through the answer that was provided. And so I wanna think back to those basic categories that I pointed out existing in the answer, so we could talk about it more fully. Those who were rightly baptized do two things, and those two things each have two sub points to be made. And so first, they give themselves up to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ. So number one, They give themselves up to join a church. It means to join a church, to give themselves up here in this context. I mentioned earlier the distinction between the visible and the invisible church and the fact that the catechism here says a particular church. is clearly pointing out that they are encouraging the joining of a visible local church. And so we'll touch on that here again. Baptist Puritan pastor Benjamin Keach has a really helpful little primer on the church. Listen to this title though, because this is literally, this is a primer. So like in modern print, It's like 80 pages long, but the title of this little book is The Glory of a True Church, and it's discipline displayed wherein a true gospel church is described, together with the power of the keys, and who are left to be let in and who to be shut out. That's the whole title of this little primer. But you see the point of the primer in the title, he's thinking about what a true church looks like. in light of the need to do church discipline even. And it's a very helpful little book. And in it, this is what he says a true church is. He says, do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord and one to another according to the will of God and do ordinarily meet together in one place for the public service and worship of God among whom the word of God and sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's institution. And he cites a number of verses and I put the verses on your outline if you want to look at those that were fueling his idea behind that definition of a true church. But what I wanted us to think about is just how much that sounds actually like the catechism answer even. And he cites a lot of the same verses and other ones as well. Now listen also to this definition of the church from the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. This is from chapter 26 and it's article 6. And it says, these members of these churches are saints by calling visibly displaying and demonstrating in and by their profession and life their obedience to the call of Christ. They willingly agree to live together according to Christ's instructions, giving themselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God, with the stated purpose of following the ordinances of the gospel." Also, very similar sounding to the Catechism Answers. And citing, once again, some of those same passages. Acts 2 and Acts 5 is cited in the Leinenbach's Confession of Faith as well. But the local church, friends, it is God's, we need to be clear that it is God's plan for his people. It's not just an option. It's the community by which he is reigning on the earth and the means that he uses to distribute the means of grace. And so a person who is baptized shouldn't just pop from local church to local church on any given Sunday, but they should give themselves up to a particular church because it's in the context that the beauty of a church, who is Christ Jesus, is most exalted. Psalm 87, two says, the Lord loves the gates of Zion more than the dwelling places of Jacob. And from that verse, Benjamin Keech would say, therefore the public worship of God ought to be preferred before private. The gathered community, where all the baptized members, not just a small segment of them, where they all come together to gather and minister to one another and are equipped to do the work of ministry by the one appointed to do so through the preaching of the word. That is the context, the means by which God is wanting to grow and sanctify his people and distribute the means of grace. And so it's a particular church, a particular congregation. We may think of this today in light of what we would call a meaningful membership. If there's gonna be a meaningful, important view of membership that is healthy and accountable, there must be at least these four categories present. So number one, when thinking of joining a particular church, the first thing that we should think of is that the members of the church should be Christians. Seems obvious. But remember in Acts, those who believed the gospel and were baptized, they were added to the church, Acts 2, 41 and 47. The apostle Paul's letters are to the churches and are to Christians. And we know that because he starts almost all of them out by saying to the saints in Rome and Galatia and Corinth and Ephesus, saints meaning people who have been set apart, people who have, who have been born again, people who are the church. And of course, you know, no church, for being honest as we should, no church will perfectly discern who is and who isn't a Christian. The first sentence of, in chapter 26, article three of the Lenten Baptist Confession says, the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. But if we're going to be faithful to the new covenant, then there should be a pursuit of regenerate membership. In so much as we can tell, we're people. Like I talked about, maybe it was last Sunday, like Spurgeon's quote, where we can't pull up the shirt of someone to see if there's a big E on their back to see if they're elect or not, right? But in so much as we can tell, we should only baptize people who seem to be truly regenerate and only admit to membership people who are truly regenerate. And when that goes bad, which it does, because we live in a fallen world, and you think of the parable of the soils, but when that goes bad, there is church discipline for that. More on that soon. Secondly, I'm thinking of meaningful membership. Is it gonna be meaningful? The members of the church should be regular attenders. Church membership helps churches oversee the lives of its members. If someone doesn't regularly attend, the church has no way of really knowing how that person is doing. I mean, we could guess. We could text. Now, they didn't have that option back then even, right? But if someone doesn't regularly attend, we don't know how they're doing. Elders as undershepherds have a responsibility to the great shepherd Christ Jesus for their conduct before Christ sheep. And it's their calling to preach to them and to pray for them. And think of it even like this. I mean, every elder is actually a member of the church as well. Another stone among other living stones. And what if the elder just attended church casually? The same is true for all members. The Holy Spirit has gifted every true believer in such a way that they can encourage and build up others in the church. Doesn't matter the age of a person, What matters is the spirit in you. As I've said before, a church, our church, is a great excuse to miss anything else. If there's going to be meaningful membership, there needs to be regular attending. Hebrews 10, 23 to 25, probably a well-known passage for us, especially coming out of the craziness that was those COVID lockdowns, those hypocritical COVID lockdowns. Hebrews 10, 23 to 25. So again, how could you do that if there's not regular attending? If you're not How could you, at that point, prompt others to good works? To stir up others to good works? How could you really do that if you're hopping around from one church to another church to another church, if you're at four different churches in a month? I mean, in one way, you'd be happy that a person is at church every week in the month. But how are they really stirring up others to good works and love if they're only seeing them once a month? And then what if they're not there that other time that they come? It's a particular church that you should be involved at and committed to. Number three, members view the church as their primary context for fellowship and ministry. So for example, this is a sentence that we wouldn't want to hear. I'm a member at First Family Church, but my real ministry is whatever, whatever it is, it doesn't matter. That's an unbiblical way to begin a sentence. Your ministry, as a member of a particular church is to that church, to the other saints that are a part of that church. Of course we serve our community as well too, but that's secondary. We might serve overseas, that's also secondary. The main ministry, like we read in Hebrews 10, is about ministering to one another. The New Testament is full of one another commands, and they're written to members of local churches. Again, it's not to say that Christians shouldn't fulfill them, these commands among Christians and other churches as the occasion arises. But the point is, is that the New Testament envisions fulfilling those commands primarily among a concrete group to whom they're accountable. Like, think of 1 Corinthians 12, you know, the different parts of the body. which are all needed. And then fourthly, the members of a church should have certain biblical privileges and responsibilities. The members of a local church should have the privilege of being admitted to the Lord's Supper, namely, firstly, after having been rightly baptized, but they also have the responsibility, and we'll just list these six things here, I won't read the verses with them, but they have the responsibility to pray for the church, We get to do that together on Sunday evening. I enjoy doing that. Secondly, that's Ephesians 6, 18, instruct us there. Secondly, we are to be in transparent relationships with other church members in which they care for, in which we would encourage, rebuke, teach, and learn from each other. Again, a lot of the good growth tends to happen not just in the preaching of the word, but also in the times in between Sunday school, after the service, in which we can talk about it. And we can see how it is that the Lord is working on each other's lives, and we can encourage each other. Thirdly, we submit to the church's leadership and teachings, Hebrews 13, 17. Fourth, members have the responsibility to promote unity. If they're not there, can't promote unity, right? Ephesians 4, 3. Galatians 6, 6.5, we're supposed to financially support the church's ministry. And then the sixth point, to use the spiritual gifts that they are given to build up the body however they can. however the Lord would desire for them to do so. So those four categories should be in view when you think about giving yourself up to a particular local church. And if any of those categories are neglected, then not only is membership not really meaningful, it's not really biblical either. But remember, it's not just a particular church that you're to be joined to, but it's a particular church that is orderly. In other words, a true church, friends. A true gospel church. One that is ordered by Christ. But what makes an orderly church a true church? Some would say that there's nine marks of a church. There's a contemporary ministry named after that even. But since the Reformation, there have been three marks noted as to what constitutes a true or orderly church. Article 29 in the Belgian Confession says this, And this was written, you know, shortly thereafter the Reformation. So those three things. will be the marks of a true church. And they are the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the practice of church discipline. You leave any one of those out, and what the reformers will want to communicate is that you no longer have a true church. Which, if you think about it, explains a lot of the problems that we see in Christianity today, doesn't it? The pure preaching of the gospel is rare. the sacraments are neglected and abused, and church discipline is even rarer than the pure preaching of the gospel. These three marks of a true church are in contrast with the marks of a false church, as the Belgic Confession continues. where it says, as it thinks proper, it relies more upon men than upon Christ, and persecutes those who live wholly according to the word of God, and rebuke it for its errors, covetousness, and idolatry." And so just think, you know, actually for the former of the Belgian Confession, they primarily had the Roman Catholic Church in mind when writing about what a false church is. And we should have that too, right? There's still no peace with Rome. Rome hasn't turned from her perversion of justification by faith alone. But also, it extends in our day to many Protestant congregations who are simply have synchronized with the world and are man-centered and don't preach the pure gospel, rarely ever do the sacraments, or hold them up as a display to boast of how great they are, and certainly most don't do church discipline. In fact, most are these days endorsing sin. So it should be said that the Reformed churches are not motivated to talk about true churches and false churches because of pride and arrogance, but really out of a sincere desire to see all of God's sons and daughters in churches that will feed their souls, where the ordinary means of grace will be faithfully distributed, and then from that, too, saints will have a biblical assurance. And so the first mark of a true church, we have covered that topic for the Baptist Catechism already. The preaching of God's word was addressed in sermons covering questions 93 to 95. And right now we're working through questions dealing with the peer administration of the sacraments, Baptism specifically, and the Lord's Supper over the next couple weeks. So for the sake of time, I'm not going to go into detail there, but I think it makes sense to mention a couple of brief things concerning the third mark, church discipline. Especially since the Catechism answer points out that we are to walk in the commandments and the ordinance of the Lord. What if we don't walk in the commandments and the ordinance of the Lord? Well, that's why church discipline is to exist. So the third mark of a true church, church discipline, has largely negative connotations in our culture, and I suppose that's why so many neglect it, but the biblical idea is both positive and negative. So a person is brought into the church by the work of the Lord in regeneration, and then a local church through baptism. And that person is nourished and disciplined by the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the Lord's Supper. All true believers need to be nourished and disciplined by these means until the Lord comes again. Again, that's why it doesn't make sense to have like a Lone Ranger Christian off who just, me, my Bible, and Jesus, because you're missing out on that nourishment. And therefore, these gathered saints they should receive the preaching of the of the word from their pastors and partake of the lord's supper when it's served by the church's elders And it is by these means that the church leaders carry out the positive forms of church discipline. It is positive in the sense that members are encouraged and they're built up and they're strengthened through God's appointed means by God's appointed messengers. When the warnings of scripture are preached, the elect hear those and they heed those warnings. They don't dismiss them. They're the means by which God convicts us of our sin and grants to us repentance as his kindness towards us. And then in so doing so, God preserves or perseveres them. Scripture exhorts the church to obey their leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who have to give an account. And it goes on to say that, let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. That's Hebrews 13, 17. And by contrast, Discipline in its negative form involves the punishing of sin, which the Belgic Confession Article 29 also says, in those who are unrepentant. And the goal in that is reconciliation of the one in sin, as well as the purity of the church, which is Christ's bride. Because if the person is unrepentant, and remains part of that church, and church discipline doesn't happen, then that very person's rebellion is like a stain upon that church. And they must be removed from that church as well, because we don't want people to also have a false assurance of their salvation. And so discipline promotes God's holiness. Ezekiel 36, 16, 21, 1 Corinthians 5, 1 through 5. These verses, the references are all in your outline. Church discipline protects the church from infection. Church discipline restores the rebellious. Church discipline makes clear the seriousness of their resistance to Christ's word and the church. And so an orderly true church being joined to one is an important duty for a baptized person. With so many churches in any given local community, it's extremely important to find one with a congregation that is a true Christian church, one in which Christ Jesus truly meets with his people in word and in sacrament. And the shepherds, them by the disciplines of his under shepherds, and Christ is actually shepherding his people by the discipline of his under shepherds, the pastors and the elders. And the second category given in the catechism answer is exhorts baptized believers who have then joined a solid local gospel preaching true church to live out that faith, not just simply in a lost world, not just simply before your families in the home, but in the context of others who have been baptized rightly as well. And of course then, to live in a specific way. not in a way to earn our place before God or to even keep or maintain our place before God. Once a person is saved, they are completely and finally saved all the way to the end, justified by faith in Christ alone. But we live in a specific way and have been given a place with God. Jesus in John 14, 15 said, This is also part of the duty of those who are rightly baptized. So the Catechism answer goes on to say in the second point, Not perfectly, so there isn't any sin or something like that, but confession and repentance are part of his commandments and ordinances as well as they are often met through prayer. Now, there's a lot that can be said about these two sub-points, but we've gone over the Ten Commandments in previous sermons through the Catechism, and we've seen how the Decalogue even speaks to obedience in much more than ten ways. The Church has, for a long time, pointed out that the Ten Commandments are a summary of all the moral law, for moral living and lawfulness. Like I've already mentioned, we're currently going over the Ordinance of the Church as we have been talking about the ordinary means of grace, plus the verses of the Catechism, cited, touched on those things as well. So for the sake of time, I'm trusting that these principles have already been established for you, and if not, you know, you can go back to our website and look up those sermons. They're all recorded for you. But as we conclude our thoughts on the catechism answer, it's important to be clear about this question and answer and what it's really getting at, the notion of, and that is what it means to be the church. Who actually is a member of the church? And the point that the Baptist catechism is wanting to make is that only those who are regenerate and then baptized upon their profession of faith, who then seek to live in a blameless way, they are the true members of the new covenant community of God. And I say blameless, because if that's lacking, well then there should be church discipline. And that person would be removed from the church, excommunicated from the body. And I understand, and that tends to get a little confusing also when we think of children. Confessionally, we would recognize that they are what amounts to an external member of the church. not of the new covenant, but of a local church until they are baptized upon a profession of their faith. And so we engage children in the same way that we ourselves are engaged in the truths of the gospel. We seek to bring them up to the things that we do, and we anticipate that God will be merciful to them and save them, not presume that God will, but anticipate the kindness of God that leads to repentance in their life. So we don't treat them like pagans, or we don't treat them even like self-deceived people. But the church internally is made up of those who are in the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, and with God. And those are people who have had Christ's accomplished work of redemption applied to them. Benjamin Keats is about the church. It consists in the excellency, glory, and the suitableness of the materials it is built with, answering to the foundation, which the foundation is the apostles and Christ Jesus, who is the cornerstone. all precious stones, lively stones, all regenerated persons. And he'd be thinking about the verse from 1 Peter 2 that we read earlier. The church, internally speaking, and the way we must especially think about it until someone shows us they aren't actually a part of it, is that it is made up of regenerate or saved members only. And in that way, the church is actually the kingdom of God. Article 32 in the Belgic Confession says, So if Christ is a king, His people are his kingdom. And his king will have his subjects. And so his kingdom will always be. That is what the Belgian Confession is wanting to assert. The Westminster Confession says the same thing, and note where we would disagree with them here, because we're going to disagree with what their statement is, but it's still a good statement. I'm going to read it anyways. 25.2 says, the visible church, which is also Catholic, lowercase c, or universal under the gospel, not confined to one nation as before under the law. He's speaking of the nation of Israel there. It says, consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and here's where we disagree, and of their children. But then it says, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Second, London Baptist Confession of Faith use the same language, but they express this truth in an article where they also acknowledge that some who are admitted into membership are only external members, even though they have been baptized. Article 3 says, and I read this first line earlier, And so church, if you're baptized, That should be because you have a credible profession of faith. And that means you're part of something that is greater than you. You're the church. You're the bride of Christ, the kingdom of God. And as a member in that kingdom, there are certain duties that we have. They aren't what saves us. They aren't what saves us. Our keeping of these duties isn't what maintains our justification. But these duties contained in the catechism are part of our public profession of what God has done in our lives. We do them in response to what God has already done in us. So let's pray and then I'll attempt to answer any questions or clarify anything that you might have. Father in heaven, we do thank you for your wisdom in setting up the church. a place where we can come to gather to be with others who are the church and worship you in spirit and truth to have the means of grace distributed to us so that we can be sanctified and we pray Lord God that you would help us to walk in a way that is blameless in your commandments and in light of your ordinances. We're thankful for your word which instructs us clearly in those matters. We're so grateful that it's not left up to guessing or to looking to nature to understand what it is that you require in that. So we thank you for preserving your word in such a way that we would know what those things are. And we pray, oh God, that you would help us here at First Family Church to be a true church always, Lord, that you would preserve us from error and from failing to be orderly. Christ, in so much as you are the head, we don't worry. And so we pray that you would be gracious to us and remain the head of this body. And we know that certainly your kingdom will never fail, that even the gates of hell won't prevail against it. So fill us with confidence and joy, knowing that you are greater than anything in this world, Lord Jesus, and we are yours. We pray this all in Jesus' name, amen. All right, well, any questions or things I could try to make clear? Again, interesting question, being that it's been, since the first 100 questions, almost identical to the Westminster Shorter Catechism until we really get to here. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, a lot of churches now, you know, they'll try to maintain and even just do online church. That's not church. You know, you can't do those stirring up each other in love. She has something way back in the back. I had a question. Under the section where you described the rightly baptized, it lists the triune name as important for a right and proper biblical baptism. And I was wondering, at that point, when the distinction is drawn, particularly in Acts chapter 18, when Apollos is preaching the scripture, and he is met with Priscilla and Aquila, and they pull him aside and they talk to him about baptism. They say, have you been baptized in the baptism of Jesus Christ? And he says, I've only been baptized in John's baptism. Do you think perhaps one of the distinctions between the two is that John's baptism doesn't rightly name Father, Son, and Spirit because of the lack of advancement in revelation at the time of John's preaching? I'm not really sure. So I know that obviously there is, you know, one is Pentecostals and there is a couple of verses in Acts where it talks about being, you have to be baptized in the name of Jesus. And they appeal to that. And so what I've read at least is that they had been baptized but specifically because these were already Jews and they were already in some cases I think another one is Simon who was like was a God-fearer and so they were already like familiar it familiarity with Judaism but not and so when they even when they say that they were baptized in Jesus that that's actually just shorthand for the Trinitarian formula because Jesus was left out of it and maybe just baptized in the name of God I mean it's interesting we don't really know What the other formula is even it's not recorded for us set down a scripture like what did John? Actually say he didn't say in the name of anybody and it's just for the remission of your sins Rene and also points out that it doesn't say in Acts 18 that they rebaptized Apollos Even though he had just been baptized in John's baptism, it doesn't say explicitly that they made him be baptized again, which is interesting. I never noticed that. But I'm just curious about what changes from John's baptism to Jesus's, because clearly there is a distinction there. It just doesn't get into too much detail, I guess. Yeah. And when I think of those, there's a couple other sections in Acts where it talks about being baptized in the name of Jesus. For me, it works when we think of the analogy of faith, where you take what's plain to help you better understand what's more obscure. And Matthew 28, the Great Commission, is very, very plain, right? I mean, it's where it just names the name of, the name of, the name of. Those are issues we have to struggle with, and that's why we talk about what the Bible says. None of us ever claims to have everything perfectly figured out, but I also enjoy confessions for that because then it puts us in a stream of spirit-filled believers who have labored through these things and thought about these things as well. That's one of the points that one of my buddies who's Presbyterian makes. because he will often say, look, the baptism of John is a strong point for us to not just exercise the belief in baptism. I always try to counter it with the fact that not all Presbyterians even believe in the baptism of John. It is a good example of Presbyterian baptism. But he uses that argument, that very argument, Does it give a teeth? I don't think so, but of course he thinks it does. What does John tell people when they come to be baptized? Repent. So how is that infant baptism? I mean, I think he had repented. Yeah, he'll say, I can't remember what he says. He says that it was a balance of cleansing. You know, John was telling them to repent in the sense of getting their hearts right before the Lord. When you point that out, he's just like, well, you know, not even all those people who were coming to his baptism were even regenerated for a moment. So I'm like, that's unique to me. Because the Pharisees were coming to the baptism, right? And I'm like, well, that's not as proof. Infants, right? So he calls it a covenant baptism. They do, because they believe in the Westminster Confession that we read. They believe the children of believers are part of that, because of that verse in Acts 2, where it says, the promise is to you and to your children. But they don't continue to read, because it's what you talk about. It's also to those who are far off. as well, too. So it's not saying that baptism is like the old covenant ceremonial aspect of circumcision. It's just saying that it's going to spread, that the gospel is going to go forth. They'll hone in on that one aspect that you mentioned. They do. Ignore the other stuff you just brought up about what about princes. It's funny. When you think about baptism, I mean, You wish you would say, OK, Jews now do exactly this when it comes to baptism. They just don't have that. It isn't that verse. It would be nice if there was, but the Lord has, I think, still preserved it throughout the history of the church so that we can have great confidence in knowing what we're doing is what people have done for thousands of years. OK. All right.