We'll be continuing our study of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, chapter 26 today. I'm gonna go back and cover paragraph eight that I didn't have time to last time I taught. Then we obviously will skip the covers, Pastor Sam just covered paragraphs and then we'll Spent some time in the last two paragraphs. Apologize ahead of time for my lack of detail in this PowerPoint presentation. I set yesterday aside for preparing the Sunday school lesson, and it turned into a very horrendous day, and I didn't end up with much of a PowerPoint. But we'll get through it. Before we begin, let's go to Lord in prayer. Oh, merciful and gracious Heavenly Father, we do bless you and thank you that you have set aside this day that we can set aside all of our earthly cares and labors and focus upon that one thing needful, which is You, Your Son, Jesus Christ. Lord, may He be glorified and honored in all we do here in this place and on this day. And Lord, we do thank You for Your Word, and we thank You for the wisdom of Those who have gone before us in the faith, we pray that you would be with us as we study what our confession says about communion between churches. We pray that you'd keep us from error on the left hand and on the right, and guide us by your spirit. In Christ's precious name we pray, amen. All right, so last week, not last week, two weeks ago, We left off, just did not have time to start paragraph nine. Paragraph nine of chapter 26 is about the appointment of the church's government. Remember, we talked about the confession as a two-office view of church government. They're simply elders and deacons. They're not And bishops, elders, deacons, pastors, shepherds are all synonymous terms, presbyters, the idea that a bishop There is something other than a pastor who has authority over multiple churches, things like that, we'd find no place for in scripture. The only authority God has given in the church is through pastors, and the only other office is deacons, who are basically servants of the churches. That brings us to paragraph nine, appointment of those offices. It reads, the way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit unto the office of bishop or elder in a church is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with the imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein. In other words, there should be this laying on of hands of the eldership of the church if the church already has an eldership. Obviously, new church, first elder doesn't have an elder in the church to lay hands on him. And a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, suffrage again is voting, and set apart by prayer in the like imposition of hands. So first of all, we see the necessary qualification. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the office of bishop and elder in the church. That's who we're talking about. The office of bishop or elder or pastor in a church is not open for anybody who wants it. A pastor is Christ's gift to His church, and those who should serve in that office, He fits for that office, He gifts them, so that He grants them the gifts and graces that He requires. So we go to 1 Timothy and Titus, we see what the requirements for a pastor are, and we recognize that those who God wants in that office, He gives them those gifts and graces. Christ gives elders as gifts to his church, the Holy Spirit gifts and equips those men. It is the duty of the church to recognize those whom Christ has given these special gifts and graces. So it's not election in the, you know what, I think I'm about to get ahead of myself and back up. Stick to my slides. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person under the office of bishop or elder is that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself. So again, the common suffrage, it's voting. We see things like the majority, what is in 1 Corinthians 5, where we see Paul, no, yeah, 2 Corinthians, where the majority imposed the church discipline on the wayward brother, But this is not to be confused with other kinds of election. Yes, it is an election in that the church votes, but it's not a political election in the way we're used to. There's never anything in the Bible where there are two men who want to be the pastor and the church votes which one they're going to. That's not what's in view here at all. It should not be political. In fact, if you want to taint yourself in my eyes faster than anything else, just let me see you campaigning for the office of elder. It's sickening. To quote our beloved Sam Waldron, we have no biblical right before Christ to vote for whomever we please. We have a duty to vote for the one Christ is giving as a gift to his church. So the church is to be actively trying to recognize those that God may in our midst be raising up to become elders. God is gifting and gracing men. It's not the church's job to go out and find men. It's their duty to recognize those who Christ is giving, and they recognize that by their vote. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person under the office of bishop or elder is Is that exactly what I just read? Oh yeah. I'm going on to another Sam Waldron quote, that's where I am. No one may be appointed to any office in the church without the consent of the church itself. The elders of the church itself may not appoint a man to be an elder without the consent of the church. No supposed higher authority may do this, whether that authority is a bishop, a denomination, or a pope. The only The only authority to appoint a pastor lies in the church itself, in the local church. There is no biblical hierarchical structure of those who would appoint others as elders. We do see examples of that in the New Testament, apostolic examples. We don't have apostles anymore today. highest authority under Scripture is the local church. It's interesting, if the Pope had been thinking this, working this way, I don't think the Reformation would have ever actually occurred in Geneva, Switzerland. It began because their bishop died, who is, it's already a hierarchist, but he's basically supposed to be the pastor of the city. They voted and chose a man to replace him and sent to the Pope to get it authorized and someone else bribed the Pope to give them a different bishop who had their worst interests in mind and God used those wicked means to begin the Reformation in Geneva. That was a point of interest. But this paragraph not only talks about election but ordination. where they are solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with the imposition of hands of the eldership of the church. So the elders of the church lay hands, it's a ceremonial thing that comes after setting them apart by fasting and prayer. But we do not believe in ordination in some ways that it is commonly used. In churches today, An ordination is not simply a man becoming a pastor of a church. Now it's him becoming a pastor, period, and he can move from place to place, not be pastoring anymore, but he's still an ordained minister. No, an ordination doesn't mean that in the biblical sense. Ordination means you are being installed as the pastor of this church. You are no longer an ordained minister when you cease to be a pastor of that church for whatever reason. Again, to quote the beloved Samuel Waldron, Baptist polity does not permit the notions of permanent or universal ordination. Ordination, if it is to be used, to describe anything biblical, it must be used to describe succinctly and formal installation of a man into office in the church by means of or with the imposition of hands of the eldership of the church. And then there are a number of instances of ordination in the Bible. First Timothy 4.14, we do not neglect the gift that is in you which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of hands of the eldership. Who was ordained? Who ordained? Who did the ordaining in this place? It was the eldership laying on their hands. Who was ordained? This is talking about, Paul's talking about when Timothy was ordained. First Timothy 5.22, do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins. Keep yourself pure. Who does the ordaining in this? Timothy. Who was ordained? Elders. Acts 6.6, whom they set before the apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. Who's doing the ordaining here? The 12 apostles. Who was ordained? The first seven deacons. Acts 13.3, then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, they sent them away. Who does the ordaining? Prophets and teachers. And who was ordained? Paul and Barnabas. Second Timothy 1.6, therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. Now again, who was ordained? Who did the ordaining? Paul. Who was ordained? Timothy. Now before we move on to the next chapter, does anyone have any questions, comments about ordination or election? Yes, John? Yeah, yeah, it's nothing like that. You know, both my parents were ordained United Methodist ministers. I remember, you know, I don't know what their polity is like. I was a kid, but what I do remember is when my dad graduated from seminary, there was a general ordination service where a bunch of people were ordained. And the interesting thing is, in that polity, when you were first ordained as a pastor, you were ordained as a deacon, which is, deacon meant a new pastor. And so you're a deacon for two years, and then you go back and you get ordained as an elder. So that deacon, rather than being a servant of the church and a separate offer from the pastor, they're both pastors. But then they have bishops that rule over different areas. It gets really sloppy and messy. Go ahead, yeah. I had completely forgotten this now, but when I was much younger and much less knowledgeable, I worked a couple of summers for a camp in Michigan, ECUSA camp. And we would have at the beginning of the summer an ordination service at the church. Oh my. Right. It seems like that's what's happening when Paul talks to Timothy. The power is given you through the laying on of a hand. Honestly, Yeah, it seems to me that it's a passing on of authority, or maybe not passing on, but it's symbolizing. Don't ask me deeper than that right now. Go ahead. Yeah, I was wondering, and maybe I missed it, is it worth developing a distinction between the choosing or the electing of the man gifted and called by Christ as a shepherd and the appointing of them by the elders. In other words, is it worth drawing a distinction between the choosing of a man by common suffrage and the official appointing of the man by the elders? So that we're not saying that the church ordains formally, but does officially select and the elders appoint. And the reason I'm asking the question is because in the instances of Titus, who Paul tells to appoint elders in every city, it would seem as if he's doing the appointing, but we don't want to necessarily abandon the notion that the church selected the men qualified. That's worth thinking about. What we see clearly is it's two distinct things. I'm just going to leave it, that's worth thinking about. You choose, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. Right. The apostles appointing and the congregation choosing and selecting. Right. Yeah, it's clearly two separate things. And yeah, there's probably something to that. Bryce? I thought it was interesting to add to that Professor Ben's question. So when Moses laid hands on Joshua, it was a passing of authority to him that was recognized by the nation. All right. Right, right. Right. Okay, now we're going to move on to the last two paragraphs. which are on the communion of local churches. Well, let's just see if we can get through this. So, paragraph 14. As each church and all the members of it are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ in all places and upon all occasions to further it, everyone within the bounds of their places and callings in the exercise of their gifts and graces. So the churches, when planted by the providence of God so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification." So the paragraph begins basically with our duty toward the church universal. Our duty as church members, our duty as a church and all the members of it, toward every true church of Christ, every local body of believers in the earth, we have a duty toward them. We are bound to pray continually for their good and prosperity for every true church of Christ, whether they may not be Reformed Baptists. Most of them are not Reformed Baptists. It's a fact. There are way more true churches of Christ that are not Reformed Baptists than there are that are. We're a tiny percentage. We need to pray for those who differ from us on any assortment of doctrines as long as they're still true churches of Christ, preaching the true gospel, practicing church discipline, believing the Word of God, etc. So our first duty is to pray for them all, but it goes on upon all occasions to further it, that is, further the good and the prosperity of those churches. We have a duty not only to pray for them, but if there are other things that we can do to help them in their prosperity, and it's further according to our callings and the exercise of gifts and graces, if we have gifts and graces and callings that enable us to help other churches, we should as we are able. I mean, you see it practiced here, and there'll be a church that reaches out, needs help, for some reason they don't have a pastor for a little while. We give them pulpit supply. Churches will come to our elders and ask for advice on what to do in matters. It's our duty to help other churches in ways that God has gifted us and enabled us to do so. but it goes on to our duty toward local churches specifically. And what I mean by local church, I'm talking about specific local churches that are planted providentially in our realm or that we know of other churches like-minded to us. At one point in time, this is probably more geographically confined, but in our world today can be far away geographically, but those whom we have a special duty to our churches that are providentially closer to us, whether geographically, but more importantly, doctrinally. We, our duty toward them is to hold communion among themselves. We as a church are to hold communion with other local churches. Now, there are those who claim, I'm gonna go back, it is true, something that's not obvious to uninformed readers, The Baptists who wrote this confession would often use holding communion together as basically a technical term for having a formal association of churches. There has been great debate about whether it has to mean that or not. Now, I'm in a unique position. I spent my first 11 years as a Reformed Baptist in a Reformed Baptist church that did not believe in formal associations. I spent the next 15 years of my life in Reformed Baptist churches and two Reformed Baptist churches that did believe in formal associations. Here's just some facts. Yes, the particular Baptist did use this as a technical term for their formal associations. But here is why I can't go with, and there are those who hold so strongly to that, that they would believe, it was common to find these guys 10 years ago, if your church was an Anarbica, it was not a Reformed Baptist church. Because you are denying this paragraph of the confession by not joining informal association. Therefore, you're not even a Reformed Baptist. They wouldn't hold communion with a church two hours away because they weren't really Reformed Baptists. That's how stringent. Now, here's the biggest problem with this. This wasn't originally authored by Baptists. Our Baptist forefathers took this word for word, the holding communion among themselves, from the Savoy Declaration written by Congregationalists who did not have formal associations. They believed the same things should be happening in this holding communion together, but they thought the best way to accomplish it was through synods and other such things. They did not have formal association. And the authors of our confession are very clear in the introduction. They used the same terminology and meant it the same way. If they had differences, they expressed them, or they had agreements, they left the language alone. So to insist that even though the particular Baptists undoubtedly practice formal association, the idea that the only way to have true communion together in churches is to have a formal association, I just can't buy it. And if anyone's interested, I've got a couple papers written by Dave Chansky where he brings out a lot of what the Congregationalists actually taught, how they practiced it, what they meant. And the thing is, there's no Reformed Baptist writings saying we think the Congregationalists are wrong the way they did it. The way I come down personally is I believe formal associations are the best way the most helpful way to accomplish what we're gonna be talking about in these paragraphs, but I don't believe they're the only way. Which brings us, wait, wait, wait, I mean, what are the benefits of this holding community together? It finishes, it's for our peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. These are the true benefits, whether you're using formal associations or simply churches holding communion together in another way. Getting to know other churches, communicating with them, praying for them, knowing they're praying for us greatly aids in the peace of the church, love among the churches, and mutual edification, which, Lord willing, I'll talk a little bit more of before we're done. The last paragraph is basically about advisory meetings. I'm going to read through the whole thing once, and then we'll take it apart piece by piece. In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order. It is according to the mind of Christ that many churches holding communion together do, by their messengers, meet to consider and give their advice in or about that matter and difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned. Albeit these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so-called, or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers. So the first thing we see in this paragraph is the problems or concerns envisioned. Cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration, wherein either the churches in general are concerned, or any one local church, in their peace, union, and edification, or any member or members of any church are injured in or by any proceedings in the centers not agreeable to truth and order. So what are we envisioning here? We're envisioning it could be two churches are in disagreement with one another about a certain doctrine, and they're arguing over it, and they want to settle it peaceably, and so they call other churches to come and confer with them over this, or it's clearly talking about what if you are a member of a church and are wrongly disciplined, or you're convinced you're wrongly disciplined, what can you do? There's no authority above the church. There's no one to come and say the church is wrong to do this. No, there's no authority, but you can enlist the aid of other churches to come investigate their matter and give their advice. You're not completely on your own. Let's face it. Every true church is still full of sinners and sins are going to happen. Things, these situations can and will come up that the assistance of other true churches of Christ, you need help, you get the help. And that's, so that's the problems concerned. You know it could be you just think your pastors are starting to preach error. You've got people to go to, things like that. in a peaceable way, but what is it that the association or group of churches informally associated, what is it that they do? And it's in accordance with the mind of Christ. that many churches holding communion together do by their messengers meet to consider and give their advice in or about the matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned." A number of things here. What do they meet for? To consider the matter and give their advice. The paragraph closes out with very strict guidelines showing that there is no authority above the local church. What are they there to do? To hear the matter, consider it, and give advice about the matter in difference. And then here's one of great importance, to be reported to all the churches concerned. This is a problem we've seen in some formal associations. That sentence right there, reported to all the churches, has been completely failed to be, and decisions were made by small groups of men, hidden from others, hidden from the majority of the churches, and it was not, though it was a formal association, it wasn't being run like an association of churches. In the early debates about associationalism, there were those against associationalism whose argument was there's nothing you can do to keep it from turning into a denomination that's run from the top down. I disagree with those men, but I believe there is the danger and we've seen it happen. So if we are in a formal association, we need to do everything in our power to keep things like that from happening, keep it an association of churches. And here you can see why formal association is the easiest way. It's not when you have a problem, you have to come up with some list of churches to ask for help. you've already got churches that you're associated with. But again, what are they doing? They are giving advice and reporting. But now it's left, the paragraph ends with emphatic limitations. These messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church power properly so-called. whether it's a direct association or not, there's no church power involved. There is no authority over the local church, above the local church. Or, with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures either over any churches or persons or to impose their determination on the churches or officers." Now there's some important things here. When we're talking about exercising censures, that may just sound like declaring anything. Okay, there are those who take this to mean that an association, even let's say some group of men, a man or a group of men, made formal decisions in the name of that association. The association cannot condemn those even if they find that they were atrocious. because this says they cannot exercise any censures. That's not, emphatically not what this means. Censures was indeed a technical term they used for church discipline. Church discipline is being put out of the church, the other forms of withholding the Lord's Supper, that's what this is talking about. The association cannot, or the churches coming together in whatever form of unity they are, the emphasis is they can't excommunicate anyone. That's what it's saying. They have no church power. There is no authority above the local church. Like I said, I've spent 11 years in a non-associational Reformed Baptist church, and 15 years in associational Reformed Baptist churches. And I've already said, I believe associations are the best way. However, when we talk about the real advantages of holding community together between churches, There are things that the non-associationalists did so much better than most associationalist churches. The church I was in, we had, it wasn't a formal association, I can't even tell you how many churches were involved, but we had hour and a half prayer meetings every week. in which we would read prayer letters from other churches that were detailed, two to four pages long. and we would read those prayer letters, and we would pray for those churches, and we would get to know…when every four to eight months you're getting a new letter from this church, you're seeing how God's answered your prayers from the last…some of those prayer meetings were more edifying than almost any sermon. that you really got to know these other churches. And they had regular pulpit exchanges. where the pastor from one church, the church pastors would just switch pulpits one Sunday, and you got to, okay, here's this church that we pray for on regular, this is their pastor. He comes, he preaches to you, and you can have him over to your dinner, meal, and talk to him about it. You really felt like you got to know these other churches in ways that, you know, I haven't seen in many, many associational churches. Am I saying that's the only way to hold communion together? No. Honestly, it's really hard to have an hour and a half prayer meeting. What I'm just pointing out is some of the things of truly holding biblical spiritual communion together can be done very well whether you're in an association, formal association or not. Tom. on the extreme safe zone. You know, I understand your nervousness about abuse in associations, because we have had people, seen people kicked out of the association in Arizona because they held to the wrong view, according to some. Just some background to help answer that and think about it some more. Titus and Timothy held the office of an evangelist. There are two offices mentioned in Ephesians 4.11 that we don't believe are important today. But in their day, when Titus was given a charge from the Apostle Paul to ordain elders in these cities, he may have had that committed to him within his office that a normal pastor or teacher cannot do. So there are certain charges to Titus and Timothy that were unique to the office of an evangelist, because in the New Testament time, evangelists started at New Testament churches. They were really at home. And so there were certain things in their office that Paul committed to them to do, and so you have to kind of keep that in the back of your mind when you're answering some of the questions that come up in Titus. Right. And whether you, I mean, you know, you're talking about Owen and others' view of what the Office of Evangelists was, whether you agree with that or not. Timothy and Titus are both apostolic representatives granted authority. Now, Owen's view and what you're talking about is the view that that apostolic assistant authority is the office of evangelist. And it's clear, that's why, okay. You go look at our confession and it cites a bunch of Acts 15 under these two paragraphs. do not base Baptist associationalism on Acts 15, because that's not what it is. That is a council with apostolic authority. They made apostolic decisions and imposed them on all the other churches. That's the opposite of what we're talking about. It's only advice and consent. There is no authority in Baptist associationalism over the churches. So it's don't go there. I only know one current Reformed Baptist who does go there, but both Dr. Waldron and Dr. Renahan are very much against using Acts 15. More thoughts? What's the exact question again? So basically, let's say if there's an error that you're concerned about that could lead to heresy with this other church and you want to discuss with them about it, would it be wise to also let others know about it as well and have kind of like a formal debate or a formal discussion regarding that error or regarding that problem that could lead to a heresy or a destructive teaching Certainly, you know, so. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. It doesn't need to be a heresy to need other churches involved. And even what look like little errors to us often don't stay little. What's the quote Dr. Waldron would give off? What was a small thing then is a small thing no longer. There are errors that I thought were pretty little five years ago that suddenly are getting really huge. And bringing in other like-minded churches That's one of the benefits. We know there are no Lone Ranger Christians. There shouldn't be any Lone Ranger churches either. We have one Lord, one book, one Holy Spirit. We're not out of time, but I'm out of slides. OK. I was going to say, we're in a local and regional association now. We call it MARVAC. But if you read our constitution, it gives 10 really good purposes for our association. It just kind of fleshes out what this chapter speaks about. But if you have time, go ahead and read those things. If you want to read them now, Rex. Yeah. Where can I find this quickly? It's on the Marvac website. And what is that? We currently have three churches in the association, so we're still pretty small. But we do. It's in the Constitution, you said? Yeah, the Constitution. Oh, it's downloaded. But just an example of us coming out of the churches. Brother Tim went to Shelbyville yesterday to help proclaim the gospel with the Shelbyville Church during a pride parade. But that's just a way we can help one another out. Are you talking about the purpose of the association? Okay. The purpose of this association, A, to advance and secure in every way the interests of Christ's kingdom. B, to cooperate in the spreading of the gospel, especially in planting Reformed Baptist churches in the region. C, to show visible unity to the world and churches. D, to gain greater knowledge, communion, and love with sister churches. E, to afford counsel and advice in difficult cases of various types. F, to help preserve uniformity of faith and practice within the confines of our confession of faith, especially in dealing with doctrinal and practical questions. G, to detect and deal with heresies and or heretics, and in so doing to maintain harmony and peace in the churches. H, to give financial aid as God prospers our churches. I, to help curb the wanton abuse of church power. And J, to supply the pulpits of sister churches in the event one is without a pastor. That's an excellent summary. Go ahead. Concerning formal associations, once churches are associated formally, how It doesn't have authority to excommunicate. In other words, it can't say, thus saith the Lord, you… I mean, when we excommunicate someone, we're saying, you are not one of Christ's sheep. They have no authority to do that, but they do have an associational authority to say, you do not meet the criteria to be a part of this association. You have demonstrated that your church is erring in this way. And so there is a lesser kind of authority, but it's simply… It doesn't have the, thus saith the Lord, Somewhat, I mean, it does provide accountability. We're saying, when we formally associate, we believe these churches are truly churches of Christ, and if we withdrew that fellowship, it would say, you know. So, it does provide accountability without any formal church authority. Yeah. Roberto? And to your point, Rex, just as the Bible encourages local churches to hold communion together for the benefits that are listed in the confession, there's also a biblical command for us to disassociate ourselves from those who are walking in a disorderly manner and who are undermining the foundation of Christ. Amen. All right, now I'm a minute over.