I'm nervous. Alright. Let's pray really this time. Father, we're very thankful for your continued mercies. We are at a point here with our lecture now to where we're moving actually into the outline section where we're going to see how these men felt it needed to be organized and we will examine why they looked at it from this aspect. So I pray that tonight's lecture will give us some organizational thoughts that will cause us to be more understanding of how this is laid out for us. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen. What we have before us, if you have your booklet, and I would recommend you get it out. If you don't have it and you need a copy, I do have an additional copy, but if you have it, get it out so that you can go to the front and look at the content section in it so that you're familiar with that. Who asked? I am now, just now as a matter of fact. Pardon me, what did you say to who? Yes, I have many extra copies. I have copies of phone copies I made sure so that that's not something we would not have. That's a $100,000 book, so do not lose it. You want two of them since you got your wallet with you? Okay, now please do not take what I'm about to say on the last word as the outline of a confession because this helps me. Now you may outline it differently and it'll help you. This is the most basic outline you're probably ever going to see of the confession. Point one or part one is the first principles. That's chapters one through six. Now I marked it in my book so I could understand it. You might want to do that too. So chapters one through six are the first principles. Those are the things that are established. We're going to talk about what that basically means when we say first principles. The second part is God's covenant, that's chapter 7 through 20. I just drew me a little line there so I could kind of keep them separate. And as we move through in the next year of lectures, we are going to say things like first part, fourth part. In the third part, we're talking about the way that it'll be divided up. So we want to become familiar with this layout just to help us in our conversation. Have you ever read, like I'll be reading in the book, and it'll say, the Westminster Assembly, it'll say, from this point forward, called the WM or something, you know, and that's how they'll write it without having to type out the whole thing. That's probably what we'll start doing as we go through it. The third part is on Christian liberty and you're going to see why we call the Lord's Supper Christian liberty. and baptism, Christian liberty. It's a terminology that the writers chose to use not because we have the liberty to do what we want, but because it's distinguishing them from the Westminster divines who had a different way of doing the Lord's Supper and they had a different way of doing baptism. And the Baptist writers wanted to emphasize most importantly that We're not being involved in heterodoxy here. We're just exercising Christian liberty to look at something and do it differently than the way you're doing it. That's chapters 21 through 30. And then, of course, part four, the last things, the eschatology of the writers is seen in this, chapters 31 and 32. That's the most simple layout that I can give you at this point in this. Now, there is a question among people that that you'll meet in the Reformed circle, the circle of believers that are not Catholic and are not Arminian. And in the Reformed circle, it's not all Baptists are there. But there are Reformed people that would like you to believe that Baptists can't be Reformed. The idea, I think, manifests itself with the undue fascination with infant baptism. That they believe that reformed people sprinkle their infants. And therefore, reformed Baptists, if they don't sprinkle their infants, are not reformed. But yet, there's no reform from the Catholic Church among the reformed brethren who still sprinkle their infants. because they're still sprinkling their infants just like the Catholics did. So I would urge them to rethink that statement as they want to accuse us of this but there's three basic views that we hold to. All of us hold to these basic views and we want to understand there is something called historic orthodoxy and that would be out here. Historic orthodoxy. Now, we need historic orthodoxy. We don't need to cast it off. In fact, the men that Josh is teaching us about it, they're in the past, they're our history, and they were orthodox. Now, if they came into our assembly today, they might accuse us of being heterodox. because of all the things that we do that are simply not found in Scripture. They might say, this is outside of orthodoxy. You've stretched this, and you've done that, and you've taken liberties here, and you've taken liberties there. Because they were extremely basic in their worship, and they believed that the Catholic community in the 400s and 500s had become so ornate and over the top that it began to lay the foundation for the need of reform. Because you had the apostolic church that was doing things in the most basic sense. and it began to grow and things became more and more flowery and we would add this and add that. The next thing you know there's pointy hats that the preacher had to wear and long robes and all sorts of things had to happen and things had to be said in Latin. Today we were driving by a little restaurant and it said, you know, don't forget our fish on Friday. Why do you think restaurants serve fish on Friday? It's because that's when the Catholics, for a ruling years and years ago, said this celebrates the proof of Jesus' resurrection. He ate fish and so we're going to make it a holy act to eat fish one day a week or we don't eat any other kind of meat. Some years later, the Catholics said, ah, you don't have to do that to really be a faithful Catholic. And they nullified that. But if you really want to be a really faithful Catholic, you still do that. And so they would add things to it. And so Reformation means moving away from a lot of that stuff back to historic orthodoxy, getting back to those things. I believe the 1689 London Baptist Confession stands in the tradition of historic orthodoxy. Reformed Baptists believe in the classic Christian God of the Bible. We don't have a neoplatonic view or an Aristotle's ideology of what's real and what's not. We believe in the classic Christian God presented in the Bible. We believe in maybe what is called the Nicene Doctrine of the Trinity. Because when the Nicene Creed was written, it was to defend this fact that God is three persons in one. This is not some oddity here. So we believe that. So we would hold to that very historic orthodoxy. So the commitment to historic orthodoxy really shows that the fathers in the faith placed no premium on originality. They weren't trying to be original. They were trying to hold to proven truths from the scripture. That's what makes something historically orthodox. Not that it's, hey, you know, in 1967, The church voted that we were going to start doing this and, you know, boy, that's part of our history. No, that's not what we mean when we say historic orthodox. We're talking about going back to the apostolic faith and seeing even what these very early church fathers held to and what they did. And then next in this circle would be reformed theology. Now, Reformed theology, of course, was born out of the Reformation. And the 1689 London Baptist Confession leans heavily upon other confessions. We're going to look at many of the European confessions. that predate even the Westminster Confession, when we look at, say, the very first point of the Holy Scriptures, we're going to not just look at what the 1689 Confession says, but what did the Westminster say about it? What did the Helvetic Confession say, which came over a hundred years before that, several hundred years before that actually, what were they testifying about the Holy Scriptures? What did some of the early church fathers say about the Holy Scriptures? So that you see that the historic orthodoxy is not lost in Reformed theology. that the Reformation was seeking to reclaim things that had been left behind. If you go to a Catholic website, for example, and you type in, what do Catholics believe, in their search thing, it'll bring up a page probably, you know, Catholics hold to the truth of the Scripture and tradition. It'll say that every time. They hold the truth of scripture and tradition. And they may say church tradition, but most of the time it just says tradition. And they'll even quote a scripture from the Bible where Paul had told them, you know, don't forsake the traditions we've taught you. See, Paul had traditions. And so the church has traditions. And we don't want to forsake those traditions. And Reformed theology just would ask the question, where is this tradition in the Bible? And if it's not there, we need to get back to something more simple. down. We embrace the Reform views that are found in these other documents, to be sure, the views of God's decree, the views of sin, what does the Bible say about the work of Christ, free will, effectual calling. You can come up with any of these Reform views, the law of God, the regulative principle, the Christian Sabbath, the doctrine of last things, what is said about these things in these confessions. It reflects a Reformed view. So the 1689 does not deviate from historic orthodoxy. It does not deviate from Reformed theology. And it embodies particularly, you won't be able to see it in this little circle, Baptist principles. And that says principles. If you don't believe me, Well, I can't prove it. So, against the entire Reformed world, except some of the views of the Congregational Puritans, admittedly, the 1689 teaches Baptist principles. And this shows that there is an absolute proper place, I believe, for independent judgment on the basis of the Word of God. Go to your Bible and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 7. This is going to tell who you're... When I read this, you're going to say, oh, I believe this about that. And it's going to tell what era you get the bulk of your doctrine. When I read this to you, 1 Corinthians 7.23, you are bought with a price, be ye not servants of men. We read that and not in any context whatsoever, we just read that and immediately some things come to our mind. He starts off talking about, let's see, go up to verse 18. Is any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called an uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing. An uncircumcision is nothing but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant? Care not for it. But if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman. Likewise also, he that is called being free is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price. Going back to what? 1 Corinthians 6.20. We're bought with a price. Isn't that what 1 Corinthians 6.20 says? If somebody's got that, read it. Am I correct? There's nothing unusual about this type of terminology being used in Rome, in Corinth, in Ephesus, because there were so many bond servants and so many slaves. It was part of the economy to the point that it was just It was something that nobody had any question about understanding. And so he says, you're bought with a price. Of course, he's probably referring back to what he said just a paragraph earlier in his letter to the church at Corinth. But then he says, be not ye the servants of men. Now depending on the era that you look at in your commentaries or the men that you listen to and things of this nature, I personally think that it's teaching a distinctive of the independent of judgment on the basis of how you view the Word of God. When a man brings you a tradition that is not found in the Word of God, and you say, I'm going to follow that tradition, and I'm going to make that tradition part of my religious activity. A man that believes the Bible ought not feel bound by that. He needs to say, well, wait a minute, that's not taught in Scripture. I'm not going to feel bound by it, so I don't feel obligated to do that. I just don't feel like that's something that's taught there, and that ought to be his liberty. Now, John Bunyan was big on that. He believed that if the Word of God doesn't say that, and your conscience is having an issue with it, then you shouldn't be forced to use that prayer book. You shouldn't be forced to use the liturgy that the Parliament is saying that you've got to use in your church. I mean, it would be wrong to impose that. And that's what the Congregationalist Church was saying. Look, we don't want to be the servants of men. We want to be the servants of God. We want to do what God has commanded us to do. And I said whatever era you are born in, that would help define what you believe about 1 Corinthians 7, 23, because people believe things about that all over the board. But I think that the London Baptist Confession holds true to the historic orthodoxies, the Reformed theology, and particularly the Baptist principles. And those distinctives are not Arminianism or Antinomianism. We know what Arminianism is and it is the following of Arminius who believed in basically free will or a form of semi-Pelagianism, Antinomianism or that the There should be. There's no law. We're not under law at all. There's no law that guides us. The Ten Commandments are not something that Christians are bound by. That would be antinomianism. Baptists don't believe that. Historic Baptist. Historic Orthodoxy is always believed that the Old Testament was critical. And Reformed theology brought that back to the surface that you don't separate the distinctions out in dispensations and say that the Old Testament dispensation doesn't affect us today. And Baptist principles have never done that either. They have believed the Word of God as a whole. And anabaptism, as well as many other false teachings. But the Baptists have believed in the independence of the local church, not being bound to the state. The Believers' Church. Baptists have believed in a Believers' Church. Now this is, you say, what do you mean a Believers' Church? This is all I've ever known. Well the truth is, even in Reformed churches, And particularly in the Catholic Church, you remember the church by virtue of your baptism as a baby. You didn't have to be a believer to be in the church. You just had to be sprinkled as a baby and you were in the church. Baptists didn't believe that. They said, no, we believe in a believer's membership, a redeemed membership. In order to be in the church, you had to be redeemed. And that was contrary to the Westminster Confession, but yet not to Reformed theology as a whole if you follow the Savoy, for example, which was the Congregational Puritans said you had to profess Christ to be part of the church. And then they still believed you had to be baptized as an infant. So there was hypocrisy going on in that. So Baptists have the principle. We believe in regenerated membership. Also believers' baptism. We believe that you only were baptized if you were a professing believer. And that principle stands right in the center of all of this because historic orthodoxy never led to any other conclusion. However, Reformed theology did. Well, we also believe in the supremacy of the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews teaches us this. Everything is better under the Lord Jesus Christ. We don't have the bondage of the law and all of the ceremonies that we had to keep The ordinances were nailed to the cross. They were done away with. Those things that we would have had to have been under, under the Old Testament dispensation. So, the Baptist principle stands as a centerpiece in the London Baptist Confession, but we don't discard Reformed theology and we don't discard historic Orthodoxy. All of those things were terribly important, and we didn't dump them just because. Now, in the very first principles, chapters 1 through 6, these early chapters of the Confession are what we call foundational. First principles would be foundational. So these are the critical matters. Look at them in your book. Of the Holy Scriptures, What could be more foundational than making sure we have that settled? Of God and of the Holy Trinity, of God's decree, of creation, of divine providence and sin. These are things you've got to have a clear understanding of if you're going to move forward in your Christian walk. Because these are all the things that we struggle against. The second part is God's covenant. And, of course, covenant is translated from a Latin word, feodus, which is where we get our word federal. And so when you hear someone say federal theology, they're meaning covenant theology, but how we define Covenant theology and federal theology might vary depending on where you're at in this circle right here. We agree with a lot of Reformed theology, but we might not look at covenant theology in the same way in the Baptist circle, and we're going to let the confession make that clear as we get to it. On Christian liberty. Christian liberty is a major Reformation issue, and it affects every one of the subjects in part number three. This is what John Calvin had to say on Christian liberty. I think this is very helpful. He said, We are now to the treatment of Christian liberty, the explanation of which certainly ought not to be omitted by anyone proposing to give a summary of gospel doctrine. So he said, if you're going to give a summary of gospel doctrine, you cannot leave out the teaching of Christian liberty. Interesting, coming from a guy who's probably loaded down with Catholic baggage as he's writing this. He says this, for it is a matter of primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can scarcely attempt anything without hesitation. Do you know anybody that has convictions about everything and therefore they are scared to do anything? I mean, I don't know. I just don't know what I need to do about this. I don't know what I need to do about this. I don't know. Are we allowed to do this? One of the biggest questions that comes up is on the Lord's Day. Can we do this on the Lord's Day? Can we do that on the Lord's Day? Are we allowed to do this on the Lord's Day? Is this on the Lord's Day? And you get a million questions on it, you know. Well, what are we supposed to do about dating? What are we supposed to do about this? What are we supposed to do about that? Oh! And John Calvin says if you don't have this one settled in your mind, you won't be able to do anything without hesitation. And he says you ought to be able to live your Christianity so deliberately You don't have to hesitate at every point in your walk with the Lord. In particular, he said, it forms a proper appendix to justification and this is of no little service in understanding its force. That's in the Institutes, the third part. And John Owen wrote on Christian liberty also. John Owen was the guy who wrote the, help me again, Savoy and he was a congregational Puritan. One day I'll remember that. This is what he said about Christian liberty. He said the second principle of the Reformation and it's interesting he calls it the second principle. The first principle being justification. And he says, the second principle, whereupon the reformers justified their separation from the Church of Rome was this, that Christian people were not tied up unto blind obedience unto church guides. Church guides were the teachers in the church. but were not only at liberty, get this, but also obliged to judge for themselves as unto all things that they were to believe and practice in religion and the worship of God. Boy, that's a far cry from Roman Catholicism. What do you think the preacher means when he says, open your Bibles to such and such? He's saying, look for yourself about what I'm about to tell you. Open your Bibles. Now the Bereans believed this. What do we read about the Bereans? They were more noble because they did what? They were more noble because these people searched the Scriptures to see if the things they were hearing were true. They said, we're not going to blindly follow a guide unless we can see it right here in the book. We want to make sure that it's before us. And this is exactly what he was saying. He said, they're not obliged to follow these guides, but they can judge for themselves unto all things that they were to believe and practice in religion and the worship of God. Isn't that a comfort to know that that is the religion that we are in? We can look at the word, we can hear a man preach the word, and we can take the Bible and open up right in front of it and say, is that what it actually says? Is that what it actually says? Because if it doesn't say that, I'm not going to do it. Then of course, part number four of last things. And these are the things that, of course, are summarized. It does not go into extensive detail, but gives us the basic Baptistic view, and I think very important. And in breaking these sections down just a little bit further, in section 4, we're talking about God's covenant, chapter 7 through 20. The confession, and this is what confuses people sometimes, let me see if I can say this. The confession does not follow, you remember the sheet I gave you that had the Ordo Salutis, or the Order of Salvation. Do you remember that little piece of paper that I gave you? And it had all the different views and the Order of Salvation. The London Baptist Confession does not follow that. They aren't writing it to give us, thank you, they're not writing it to give us what the proper order of salvation is. They're writing it to explain the foundational truths of what the Baptists believe. but not in that particular order. So don't look at it and think, oh, okay, I gotta get this because chapter 10 is on effectual calling, chapter 11 is on justification, chapter 12 is on adoption, and chapter 13 is on sanctification. Then you get to chapter 14 and it talks about saving faith. So you might say, well, boy, this don't make sense. If this is the way a person is saved, that's not what they're trying to do. So it doesn't follow that at all. So there. Now, I'm going to read to you a little something very quickly. First of all, go to Psalm 34 in your Bible. Psalm 34. Let's see if I can find it. I'm going to find it. I'll tell you what. I'm just going to have somebody read it to me. Now I need it. Hold on a second. Boy, I'll tell you what. This technology is awesome. Oh, I did it. Okay. Alright. Psalm 34. Look at verse number 11. Come, ye children, hearken unto me. I will teach you the fear of the Lord." Now, this is a song. Keep that in mind. And it's beautiful. You just imagine the singer singing, Come, ye children, hearken unto me. I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desireth life and loveth many days that he may see good? Here it is, keep thy tongue from evil and thy lips from speaking guile. Then he says, depart from evil, do good, seek peace, and pursue it. Fear of the Lord. If a man is desiring the fear of the Lord, I will teach you the fear of the Lord. He desires life, he wants to love many days, he wants to keep his tongue from evil, He keeps his lips from speaking guile. He departs from evil. He does good. He seeks peace and he pursues it. That is not the modern apologetic ministries today. They don't sound like they're seeking peace. They don't sound like they're pursuing it. They sound like they're trying to stir up a dust storm. I used to listen to tons of these apologetic ministries and things of this nature. I always had one on. And by the time I was off there and turned on ready to get these little piggins ready to fight it. And I realized it wasn't causing me to seek peace or to pursue it. We're not heretics. We actually agree with you in most of these points. When we were talking about Justin Martyr, he's writing to the Emperor. He was writing to say, hey, we're not that different from you guys. We're just trying to follow the truth just like the rest of us. They were seeking peace. And you were pursuing it. But he had to try to chop somebody's head off about it. Or help them say, hey, don't attack us. We're just trying to do the best we know to let you be. Some of the modern apologists would probably say Justin Martyr was a wimp. He should have wrote that in and said to him, I'll tell you right now, this is what I believe and I'm going to tell you you're wrong and you're a heathen and repent. You know, okay, I get it. But listen to what the Baptist writer said. I'm going to read this to you. What time is it? See if I can read it. Okay, y'all just listen really fast. You're the judicial and impartial reader. So he sets you up. You need to be judicious about this and you definitely have to be impartial to accept what we're about to tell you. Purpose. Courteous reader. Don't you love that? Courteous reader, it is now many years since divers of us, with other sober Christians then living and walking in the way of the Lord that we profess, did conceive ourselves to be under a necessity, publishing a confession of our faith. Thirty-three years later, they wrote this. It was 1644 when the first London Confession was written, and 1677 when the second one was written, and 1689 when it was finally published. So, writing this, he says, it's been many years now since we've written this thing for the information and satisfaction of those that did not thoroughly understand what our principles were or had entertained prejudice against our profession by reason of the strange representation of them, by some men of note, who had taken very wrong measures and accordingly led others into misapprehension of us and them. So there were some things said that people just got confused about us. That's what we believe happened. We believe they just misunderstood who we really were. And so, this was first put forth about the year 1643 in the name of seven congregations, then gathered in London. Since which time, divers' impressions thereof have been dispersed abroad, and our end proposed in good measure answered in as much as many and some of the men both eminent in piety and learning were thereby satisfied that we were no way guilty of the heterodoxies and fundamental errors which had too frequently been charged unto us without ground or given on our part." So he said, once learned people and pious people read that confession, they went, oh, these people aren't in the heterodoxy. Why, once those learned people read it, they understood immediately. Now, isn't that an interesting way to defend yourself? You know, you say to somebody, well, I know you're a very intelligent man, so obviously you can see the value of the product that I'm trying to sell you. Isn't that how a salesman usually does it? I know you can see quality. You're a man. You look like a man who can spy quality. I bet you're a guy who can see something cheap immediately, can't you? That's why our product stands out to you because it's wonderful. Well, he's writing it in a very salesmanship way to say to them. Now, no fool is going to call us heretics because all you got to do is read the confession and you'll figure it out. Most people don't read confessions and that's a big part of the problem. He says, and for as much as that confession is now commonly to be had and also the many others have since embraced the same truth which is on their end, now he's doing something called the bandwagon approach. So he said, so that confession is very common among people now, that first confession we wrote. And by the way, many people Many people have embraced this truth since then. So a lot of people are coming to see this as a truth. But it was judged necessary by us to join together in giving a testimony to the world to affirm our wholesome principles by the publication of what is now in your hand. And that's this confession, the latest one, the 1689 confession. And he said, and we're going to impart to you the reason thereof. They mention in this introduction, the Westminster Assembly, finding no defect in this regard in that fixed on by the Assembly. What a nice way to say that the 121 theologians that were appointed by the Puritan Parliament came up with this document. They said, we don't find a defect in that. What do they mean? I thought they didn't agree with baptism. I thought they had baptistic principles. How could you say that you didn't find a defect in the Westminster Confession if you're writing a confession that disagrees in some areas? It's because they are seeking peace and pursuing it and this is what they said. Finding no defect in regard in that fixed on by the assembly and after them by those of the congregational way, the Savoy is what he meant. we did readily conclude it best to retain the same order in our present confession. In other words, we didn't see anything wrong in the way that they had it ordered. It was very good. It was right. Also, when we observe that those last mentioned did in their confessions chose not only to express their mind in words concurrent with the former in sense concerning all those articles wherein they were agreed, but also for the most part without any variation of the terms, we did in like manner conclude it best to follow their examples. I just think these guys are awesome in the way they're doing this. When we read the Westminster, we said that's the way a confession ought to be ordered. And the way they worded things, we're going to follow their example because it was so good. Thus, we did the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both in all the fundamental articles of Christian religion. Right here. Historic Orthodoxy. So they did their best to manifest their consent with historic orthodoxy. And also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world on behalf of the Protestant in diverse nations and cities. Reform theology. So they were looking at all of the countries and cities where there had been the Belgic Confession, the Helvetic Confession, many other confessions around the world. They said, we held to the Christian doctrine. We're holding to these doctrines that were confessed in all of these other places. And also to convince all that we have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquiesce in that form of sound words which hath been in consent with the holy scriptures used by others before us." We don't have an itch. to cause a problem by giving you new tricky things. And then when they talked about the various differences, this is what they said. And those things wherein we differ from others. We have expressed ourselves with all candor and plainness that none might entertain jealousy of ought secretly lodged in our breast that we would not the world should be acquainted with. In other words, there is nothing in our hearts that we are trying to be tricky We're not trying, we're not wanting you to think that we're jealous about something, that we're envious. Yet we hope we have observed those rules of modesty and humility as a reader, as we'll render our freedom in this respect inoffensive, even to those whose sentiments are different from ours. And here is where they are avoiding, as they say in their statement, unnecessary contention. There is one thing more which we sincerely profess and earnestly desire credence in, and it says viz, which is just a literary term meaning namely, So there's one more thing that we want to say that we sincerely profess and namely it's this. That contention is the most remote from our design and all that we have done in this matter. We hope that the liberty of an ingenuous unfolding our principles and opening our hearts unto our brethren with the Scripture, grounds of our faith and practice, will by none of them be either denied to us or taken ill from us." Now, all of this is said to say, do not take this confession and go spank all the other churches. That's not what they wrote this for. He said, we're writing this to show you that we too are in the historic orthodox circle. That we too agree with the reformed principles of theology. But we are indeed Baptist, holding to certain things that though they differ from you, ought to be allowed to be a matter of freedom in our interpretation through Christian liberty. And I think they did a good job on it, personally, because it makes sense. So they close out by saying, and oh, that other contentions being laid asleep, the only care and contention of all upon whom the name of our blessed Redeemer is called, might for the future be to walk humbly before God in their exercise of love and meekness toward each other, to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord, each one endeavoring to have his conversation such as becometh the gospel. We just want We're not going to impose our view on you and force you through some law to do something and we would never expect you to do that to us because of your love for the gospel. So they're kind of laying it out in a very correct, kind, and loving way. Because of time, I'm not going to be able to do it tonight, but they include in the conclusion of their introduction, boy does that make sense, in their preface, a discussion on family worship and how they are incensed at the fact that family worship has been basically ignored in their day in the 1600s. Is that not an affront to our society today when less than, what is it, 2% of the Baptists actually read their Bible at any point during the week? So imagine what happens in their homes. My wife and I make an attempt to never, ever, ever finish breakfast without having read the scriptures aloud to one another. We just don't want to do it. So we try to make sure that that is something we do. I have. It's not something that makes us more holy than other people. But what we want to do is make sure that there is not a day that goes by that the words of God do not fall upon our ears to one another. We want to make sure we say, I love you to one another. We want to make sure we kiss each other goodbye. You see things, never forget to kiss me goodnight. Never forget to say goodbye. Always wave. Whatever sentiment you have, Shouldn't a more important one be that the Word of God is in the ears of the person you say you love more than anybody? Well, it ought to be, but it's not in a lot of homes. So I'll try to read a family worship next week. But next week, we're going to start looking at the confession proper. So we're done with the introduction except for family worship, and we'll deal with it. Any questions at this point? And you'll be required to reproduce this and this next week. You'll be required to say, I want to see what are the four parts and how they're broken down. Yes, sir? It's really interesting because we have the knowledge of the so-called Christian denominations. Three Orthodox is one name of the religion.