It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning. I bring you greetings all the way from the left coast and from Westminster Seminary, California. It is a bit odd for me to be in Texas in such hot weather. You know, it's kind of unusual. But nevertheless, I think we are going to have some fun. I've told a number of people over the last day or so that I really enjoyed putting these lectures together. I had a lot of fun. And so I hope that you have a lot of fun listening to them. If you don't, please don't tell me. I don't think that my fragile ego could take that. But nevertheless, let's talk about the biblical case for confessions. In that with the birth of the United States of America as a country, we can say that along with the birth of our country, there has been a decidedly American form of religion that has come along with it. The Stone-Campbell Movement, which was founded in part by Alexander Campbell, broke with the Presbyterian Church in the early founding days of the country and professed their own statement of faith, if you will, that said, no creed but the Bible, no creed but the Bible. And that Alexander Campbell wanted to remove what he perceived as many, many layers of accumulated doctrine, and he wanted to return the church's faith to its pristine and early form. And so, if you take a look at the demographics of the 18th century, in 1776, you can say that confessional bodies, typically congregational and Presbyterian churches, held some 39% of the church-going population. But some 75 years later, by 1850, that number fell to 15% while non-confessional churches grew and swelled to some 54% of the church-going population in the United States. So needless to say, we can say that a creedless Christianity really began to grow and thrive in the United States. We can say that as the wind of democracy and freedom blew across the land, so too many people wanted to proclaim their own declaration of independence from the theology of the old world. They wanted to reject traditional Christianity and essentially wanted to put forth their own version, essentially, me and my Bible, this no-creed-but-the-Bible mentality. So as popular as this notion might be, we want to first ask the question, and it may seem like it doesn't follow, what does the Bible have to say about these assertions? What does the Bible have to say about supposedly the idea of no creed but the Bible? And so what I want to do is I want to defend the idea in this first lecture that the Bible not only teaches that creeds are beneficial, but in fact, really, it demands that we have creeds. Now, especially in our own day and age, that may seem like the fool's errand because... It is so popular these days to say no creed but the Bible. But what I want to do is I want to substantiate that claim that the Bible mandates and says that creeds are not only necessary but also for the well-being of the church. And I want to substantiate that by looking at eight different texts. Eight different passages in the Bible. We're not going to be able to look at them very deeply. We're going to have to be able to just touch on a number of them. But as we look over them, I'm hoping what it will do is certainly commend it to you for further study. But what I want us to do is I want us to look at the institution of the Passover, and we'll look at two particular verses from Exodus Chapter 13. We'll look at the Shema. Hear, O Israel, the Lord, the Lord our God is one. from Deuteronomy chapter six. We'll look at the Apostle Paul's so-called five trustworthy sayings. When in the pastoral epistles, he says, this is a trustworthy saying. And then last but not least, we'll look at Jude and what he has to say when he exhorts the church to contend for the faith once delivered for the saints. And all of these texts, I think, when we look at them all together, it's going to show us that the Bible enjoins upon the Church the practice of maintaining a biblically faithful confessional and catechetical tradition. And so let's look at these. And so the first of these texts we want to look at is Exodus chapter 13. We heard a reading from Exodus chapter 12 with the institution of the Passover, but I want us to look particularly at Exodus chapter 13, verses 14 and 15. Exodus 13, verses 14 and 15, and we read this, and when, in time to come, your son asks you, what does this mean? You shall say to him, by a strong hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt and from the house of slavery, for when Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of animals. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord all the males that first opened the womb, but all the firstborn of my sons I redeem. Now, I think that this is obviously coming from some of the earliest strata of biblical revelation, coming from the earliest portions of the scriptures. And in particular, this particular instruction comes on the heels of the institution of the Passover, and in particular, the dedication of the firstborn. Now, it's only natural It's only natural that as households and as head of households were to carry out and to practice the Passover, that children would ask the question, hey, dad, what are you doing? What's this all about? My own children regularly ask that question of me, whether it's of things that we do in the church, whether it's things we do in the home, whether it's things that I say, things that I do, but what does all of this mean, dad? And so what God instructed Israel to do is he gives not only the institution, not only the institution of the Passover and of the sacrifice of the firstborn, but he also gives a revelatory explanation as to its significance. Okay? The significance. And what they were supposed to do is to take this institution of the Passover as well as its explanation, and they were to pass it down to future generation, to each successive generation. Now in Latin, in Latin, and I promise, I won't bludgeon you needlessly with Latin. I mean, if Jim yesterday was talking about foedus diplerum, which is Latin and Greek, okay, then I can at least throw one Latin word at you. In Latin, to hand something over, to pass something down, is conveyed by the Latin word trado, trado. And this is where we get the Latin word traditio, or in English, tradition. So here we can say is a biblically mandated tradition. The idea that God says, I want you to take the institution of the Passover, I want you to regularly practice it, but not simply practice it, but I want you to pass it down. Because when your children ask you, What's going on? What does this mean? Here's the explanation that I want you to give them. So it's a biblically mandated tradition, something to be handed down from one generation to the next, one generation to the next. So in this sense, we can say that there is a biblically mandated catechetical tradition. Teach your children what this means. Now, a second text that I want us to look at is Deuteronomy chapter 6, verses 4 and following, which is otherwise known as the Shema, which is the first word in Hebrew. Here is what that word means, but it's been abbreviated as the Shema. Here, O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be in your heart. Old Testament scholars characterize the Shema as Israel's doctrinal Magna Carta. their doctrinal Magna Carta, its chief confession of faith. Okay, so here you find a biblically revealed confession of faith, albeit brief. Now it may be brief, but it certainly is profound. It's brief, but it is profound because this particular confession was intended to be initially a doctrinal fence. a doctrinal boundary marker by which Israel was supposed to recognize who it was that they worshipped. that God was not many. In other words, they were not to worship the many other gods or so-called gods of the Gentile nations. And in particular, this command comes to them as they are preparing to enter into the promised land. So the implication would be, don't do as the previous inhabitants of the land have done. Don't engage in idolatry. Here, O Israel, the Lord, the Lord our God, He is one, all right? And so not only were they supposed to remember these doctrinal boundary markers. But inherent in all of this is that they were also supposed to regularly recite this. And in fact, according to Jewish tradition, the Jews recited this in conjunction with Deuteronomy chapter 11, verses 21 to 31, as well as Numbers chapter 15, verses 37 through 41. Now, we know historically that they were ultimately supposed to really put this upon their hearts. They were supposed to memorize it. Now the text says, bind it between your forehead, between the frontlets of your eyes. Bind it upon your hands, upon your heart. And so the Jews took this quite literally. They took little leather satchels, they tied them around their heads, and they put little minuscule scrolls with this particular statement in the scroll and tied it to their head. I think they took things a little bit too literally. It's not, it wasn't the intention that they were supposed to literally tie these things around their head, but rather it was supposed to be so impressed upon the mind, so impressed upon the heart, that it was as if it was tied between the frontlets of their eyes and written down upon the walls of their hearts. It's a reminder that God, Yahweh, was the sole attention of their devotion, the sole attention of their worship, the sole attention of their devotion. But notice here that with confession, with confession, that confession and piety go hand in hand. One of the things that we'll see, and we'll see this in the third lecture in terms of the case against confessions, is the caricature that confessions simply breed a legalistic kind of faith. The idea that, well, we've got all of our doctrinal ducks in a row and that's all that really matters. You've got your doctrine nailed down, but you do not love. You do not show grace. You do not show mercy. But yet this is not at all the case. And that ultimately, this verbal profession, this verbal confession was supposed to be a mirror to the soul. It's not merely an intellectual exercise to say, hero Israel, the Lord, the Lord our God is one. It was supposed to be a reflection of the heart, that this is the one God that I love. This is the one God to whom I have given my heart, soul, mind, and strength. In other words, this is the one God to whom I am wholeheartedly, in body and soul, devoted. The heart was the seat of the mind, the will and the affections, the soul, the source of one's existence, the might, the entire energy of the individual. And then, of course, the New Testament in Mark chapter 12, when Christ quotes these words, adds the mind to it. In other words, complete and total devotion, complete and total devotion. But notice here that with this confession of faith, you have in the verses that immediately follow it, you have the divine command for catechesis or for instruction, teaching, Verses seven and following, and these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall diligently teach them to your children. So notice, here's that trado, that handing over, the tradition, teach them to your children. You shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. So notice, confession, it's a boundary marker for orthodoxy, but it was also supposed to be reflective of one's devotion, not only of heart, but also of mind, but it was also supposed to be something that was handed over from one generation to the next, one generation to the next. So confession and catechesis were ultimately supposed to permeate really every facet of life. And you can see this in many respects as the Shema kind of acts as the narthex or the foyer, if you will, to the grand cathedral of the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. And you look at Deuteronomy chapters 12 through 26, and it takes the law and it investigates every kind of aspect of the law in terms of how it impacts everyday life. This is the nature of the law. This is the nature of their confession of faith. So we could say that if there is a foundation level here to the idea of confession and catechesis, that we find it in many respects here in the institution of the Passover with the reminder and the command to the fathers to teach these things to their children. When the children ask, what do these things mean? It's also here in Deuteronomy chapter 6 as Israel receives their confession of faith and it was ultimately supposed to be reflective of their heart and something that they were supposed to catechize their children in and pass it on down. Well, if there's a second layer, If the Old Testament constitutes this initial foundation, there is a second foundation layer that comes to us in the New Testament, and we find this in the Apostle Paul in his pastoral epistles, in his pastoral epistles. And that we find the same confessional and catechetical themes in Paul's five times when he says these trustworthy sayings. Some translations may say a faithful saying, some may say a trustworthy saying. We'll go with what the ESV says here in terms of trustworthy sayings. Now, the question that we want to ask is, what does Paul mean by this phrase? Why does he invoke it five times? And what we want to say is, is that first of all, is that these trustworthy sayings were objective restatements of things that Jesus taught about himself, which were recorded in the Gospels. or we can also say that they reiterate biblical teaching. So these trustworthy sayings are the repetition or the reiteration of either things that Jesus himself taught or things that we find taught in the scriptures themselves. And so in the simplest of terms, the trustworthy sayings repeat phrases and concepts that appear in other points in the scriptures. And in particular, I think we can say that these trustworthy sayings, I think, are very much like the Shema. They are brief, pithy, confessional doctrinal truths. And so we wanna look at each one of these, even if it's for a brief moment, so that we can get an idea as to what the Apostle Paul is doing with these trustworthy sayings, and see yet another foundational level here in terms of how the Bible itself is commending confessions of faith. The first one comes to us in 1 Timothy 1, 1 Timothy 1, verse 15. The Apostle Paul says, The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am foremost. Now, this statement finds precedent, we can say, in all four Gospels. You could take a look, for example, at Matthew chapter 9, verse 13 as one example. in that Paul makes a brief statement based on Christ's own testimony to prove that Christ's teaching has become manifest in his own life. This saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. And so he's saying, here, look, here's this biblical teaching, and it's become manifest in my life. Now, what's interesting about this, and this is something that we'll explore in greater detail in a few minutes, is that this is not a quotation of Scripture. This is not a quotation of Scripture. But rather, it is a faithful restatement of biblical teaching. It's a faithful restatement of biblical teaching. Now, it's a unique restatement of biblical teaching because the Apostle Paul folds it into his own divinely inspired letter. It's unique in that respect. But nevertheless, there is no precedent for it in terms of it is not a quotation, but rather a repetition and a restatement of biblical truth. That's an important thing to note. Now, the second statement comes from 1 Timothy chapter 3, verse 1. The saying is trustworthy. If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Right now, this is an interesting statement. Scholars ask the question, well, why would this be a trustworthy statement? Why would this be a trustworthy statement? Well, first of all, we could say that it was Paul's desire to establish order in the church. Remember what he said to Titus, this is why I left you in Crete, to establish and appoint elders in every city and every church. And he says that in Titus 1.5. And so this first and foremost reflects the apostolic concern for order in the church. This is something that really I like to hear. I like everything in its place and in its order. I think that I feel like when my family and I go into a hotel room, the running joke is that they take every towel and they toss it in every direction and there's water everywhere. I have no idea why there's water everywhere. Whereas I say when I go into a hotel room, I keep my towels folded. Even after I use them, I refold them and I put them over here and everything's nice and tidy and orderly. I'm really wound tight about some things. Tighter than an IRS auditor's cheap watch. So it just, it thrills me to hear that Paul's saying, yeah, let's keep everything in order. But why is this a trustworthy saying? I think it's because it's reflecting other biblical revelation, in particular, Israel's interest in the same topic. Think, for example, when you have the order of elders in the Old Testament for Old Testament Israel. Think of Jethro's advice to Moses when he said, Moses, you're wearing yourself out. You ought to establish judges to listen to the smaller cases and save the big ones for yourself. Set up this order. And so here, I think this is why Paul says this is a trust. This saying is trustworthy. If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Once again, there is no direct precedent in the scriptures for this explicit statement. You cannot find that this is not a quotation, but rather this is a restatement of biblical truth. It's a restatement of biblical truth. All right, third. Apostle Paul says this, he says, have nothing to do with irreverent and silly myths, and this is in 1st Timothy chapter 4, 1st Timothy chapter 4 verses 7 and following. Have nothing to do with irreverent silly myths, rather train yourself for godliness. For while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. Okay, so now here's the third trustworthy saying, something worthy of acceptance. First of all, it finds precedent, I think, in Christ's teaching in the Gospel of Luke, in the Gospel of Luke. Luke chapter 18 verses 29 and 30, truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more in this time and in the age to come eternal life. So here this echoes, it restates teaching that Christ himself has given to the church. But what the early church did is they took Christ's words, they drew a restatement of it, which restated Christ's teaching in more general terms, and then they produced their own statement based upon Christ's own teaching. And this teaching, this generalized statement about the nature of eternal life, nothing to do with irreverent silly miz, rather train yourself for godliness as it holds the promise for the present life and also for the life to come. As they restated this general teaching that Christ had given to them, Paul reincorporates this into his own apostolic divinely inspired letter. because it was consistent with Christ's teaching. It was consistent with Christ's teaching, and it produces a trustworthy saying, something that was trustworthy, something that was true, something that was consistent with God's revelation. All right, a fourth saying, fourth saying, the saying is trustworthy, for if we have died with him, we will also live with him. If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we deny him, he also will deny us. If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2, 2 Timothy 2, verses 11 through 13. 2 Timothy 2, verses 11 through 13. Now this, I think, particular faithful statement finds its conceptual roots in Matthew chapter 10. Matthew chapter 10, verse 22. You will be hated by all for my name's sake, but the one who endures to the end will be saved. Or it's possible that the church at this point had either picked up Jesus is teaching, or perhaps from the church at Rome, they had picked up Paul's teaching where Paul writes in Romans chapter six, verse eight. Now, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. Nevertheless, the point is this, this trustworthy saying, once again, it's not a quotation of scripture, but a generalized repetition or restatement of other biblical statements, either in the Gospels or in this particular case, in Romans, you know, in Paul's letter to the church at Rome. And so Paul draws on the Church's own reflection upon this divine revelation or this Church tradition. Ultimately, that's what these trustworthy sayings are, these statements that are handed down from one generation to the next. And he draws upon the Church's reflection upon Christ's teaching or his teaching or this Church tradition, and he incorporates it into his own letter. Last but not least, we have the fifth trustworthy statement. Titus chapter three, Titus chapter three, verses four and following. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God, our savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, our savior, so that being justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works." Now, what New Testament scholars say is that that statement from Titus chapter 3, verses 4 and following was likely a creedal formula, likely used in a baptismal setting. That's the most that I'll say on baptism, I promise, I promise. But it was a creedal formula used in a baptismal setting or perhaps a baptismal hymn. It's Trinitarian. It's Trinitarian, which means that it likely echoes the Great Commission. But by describing verses 4 through 7 as a trustworthy saying, he says and he's certifying that what the Church has concluded about God's teaching in the Word, he is certifying that it is faithful and that it is consistent with God's revelation. But also notice here, and this picks up on something that we would say that has appeared in some of these other trustworthy statements. But it's something that really comes out quite forcefully here with a result clause in verse 8. In other words, it gives the very purpose as to why Paul is saying these things. He says, the saying is trustworthy, and I want to insist on these things so that, for the purpose that, here's this red flag to say, here's the big reason. Those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. Notice the close connection between confession and piety, profession of faith and practice. The two go hand in hand. So let me briefly summarize these faithful sayings, and then we'll move on to the last of these eight passages of scripture. And then we're going to do some reflection upon what the summary of all of these things put together, I think, convey to us, in that these trustworthy sayings cover a wide range of topics. Redemption, church order, ethical conduct, and that there's a fundamental pattern here that the Church took divine revelation, restated it in its own terms, and then promoted it and promulgated it within the Church. And so what this presents for us is a revelation confession pattern. It first arises in the Old Testament, it reappears in the New Testament, and it exists within the New Testament church as a normative way of life. You know, to put it in the simplest of terms, we in the church should be producing our own trustworthy sayings. trustworthy sayings that are consistent with the Word of God and its message and the teaching of Christ. But we'll get to that in a few minutes. Last but not least, Jude 3, Jude 3. where we see in the latter half of verse three where Jude says, for certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation. Ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only master and Lord Jesus Christ. So Jude, in this context, wanted the saints in the face of these false teachers, and in the first part of verse three, to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints. To put it in what sometimes amount to offensive words these days, he was denoting and pointing out the heterodoxy the false teaching, and he wanted them to preserve orthodoxy, true teaching, and he wanted them to delineate between the two. And we could say quite literally that heaven and hell were in the balance, at least humanly speaking. And so he refers to the faith, the doctrinal content of God's revelation, the message of the gospel. There was an objective message that the church needed to promote and protect. As with the Passover liturgy, there was something that each generation was supposed to hand down to the next. The faith, contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. If it was once delivered, then it's something that is continually supposed to be handed down one generation to the next. Notice that it's not something that was discovered by the saints, but rather received from God to the apostles, and then from the apostles given down to the church. And that it is a revelatory tradition that is fixed and unchanging, as Jude says that it's once for all. In other words, there is a fixed body of truths. Fixed body of truths. There may be different truths that we bring to bear in particular circumstances or situations, depending upon our context, but this fixed body of truths does not change. And so Jude said, contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. All right, now, as we transition here to reflect upon what the scriptures have to say in all of these things, as we look at the aggregate, the collective truth of all of these different passages of scripture, we can say, I think, first is that there is certainly, I think, biblical warrant for confessions and catechesis. and that these biblical confessions point in two directions. First, they look back. They look back upon God's past redemptive activity and revelation, and they plant, to use the Old Testament term, Ebenezers, stones of remembrance, to remind the church of what God has done in the past. Second, we can say that they look forward. They look forward. As fathers were supposed to educate their sons, or we can say more broadly, parents were supposed to educate their children. For example, in the meaning of the Passover, Father, what does this mean? Or as Paul drew Timothy's attention to the faithful sayings that originated in the past but were supposed to echo into the future lives of those who said them. Or as Jude wanted the church to preserve the past faith in the present for the sake of the future. So this was not supposed to be the dead faith of the living, in other words, a dead traditionalism, but rather it's supposed to be the living faith of the dead, the living faith of the dead. Or in the words of Johann Wolfgang Goethe in his work, Faust, what you have as heritage, take now as task, for thus you will make it your own. As Matthew said in his introduction, where he said that each generation, quoting Ryle, had to contend for the doctrine of justification. I think that that is true not only of the doctrine of justification, but really the truths of the scriptures as a whole. Each generation has to own them. My grandfather used to say this, and I'm sure it's not unique to him, I'm sure others have said it, but you can't give away what is not your own. If you don't own it, you can't give it away. And so each generation has to do this, and this is what's built into this biblically mandated confessional tradition, handing down of these trustworthy sayings about the scriptures. Now, of course, of course we need to delineate between the inspired teaching of the Word of God versus the uninspired nature of the church's trustworthy sayings. You know, God's own word, for example, is inspired, given by Him through the Holy Spirit. It's inerrant, it's infallible. And so much of the Bible, as we teach in our confessions, whether it's the Westminster or Second London, we know what the Bible has to say because the Bible itself interprets itself. Scripture interprets Scripture. But undoubtedly, you can imagine that as sons would ask their fathers at the Passover questions about what does this mean, that the child's questions would exceed what had been revealed. Now, this is not a bad thing. Because so often it's the case that what the Bible does is it lays out important truth in a particular time and in a particular context, but it is not exhaustive to the point where it puts down answers to every single conceivable question. And so this is where it requires the church to take the word of God and to apply the truths that are principally there to the various types of doctrinal questions and challenges that might arise in the life of the individual or in the life of the church. Perhaps you've heard this, for those of you who have attended seminary, where they say, well, there's so much in seminary that is not covered that I've stumbled upon in ministry. They can't teach you everything in seminary. And sometimes students will say this, to be critical of the seminary education. They needed to teach me more. And I always kind of chuckle and I say, there's no way that we can teach you everything that you're ever going to encounter in ministry in your three years in seminary. We give you principles. We give you tools by which you then take those tools and apply them to the various circumstances. Otherwise, seminary would take like 50 years. And I know that many wives would be like, no, we are not going to seminary for 50 years. That's not going to work. All right, so this is the way we're supposed to, the church is supposed to reflect upon divine revelation, interpret it, restate it in its own words, and apply it to its various circumstances in which it finds itself. And so these ultimately, these uninspired statements, these uninspired trustworthy sayings, of course are supposed to be so consonant with biblical revelation that they are virtually one in the same. And the Apostle Paul found the trustworthy sayings, uninspired statements of restatements of scripture, so consonant with biblical revelation that he incorporates them into his letters. But this nevertheless shows that there is a legitimate scripturally subordinated confessional tradition that exists even within the Bible itself. And we find this pattern not only with the trustworthy sayings, but in other aspects of the Christian life. This pattern unfolds with prayer. When the disciples said, how are we supposed to pray? Jesus says, here, pray in this manner. And Jesus does not give us a prescriptive prayer. In other words, you may only say these specific words and go no farther. But rather, as we would recognize, it is a model prayer. It gives us principles of prayer. So that we have the responsibility of stating biblically faithful prayers that are consonant with the Word of God, but may not repeat the Word of God exactly. Because each one of us have different circumstances and situations in life in which we find ourselves. So this is a guide, not a prescription. The pattern unfolds with preaching. You know, if preaching was simply just picking up the scriptures and reading the biblical text, I would, of course, be out of a job. What need would there be for seminary professors and seminaries? But that's not preaching the Word of God. That is simply reading the Word of God, which is an absolutely vital part of preaching. You cannot have it without it. but that's not all that is involved in preaching, but rather it involves reading, reflection, interpretation, and application that is consistent with God's word. a biblically faithful but nevertheless subordinated teaching that is consonant with the Word of God. And you see this in other portions of the Scripture. Nehemiah 8.8, they read from the book, from the law of God clearly, and they gave the sense so that the people understood the reading. So we see this pattern with We see this pattern with preaching, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise to us when we see this pattern with what we can say are trustworthy statements, trustworthy sayings, doctrinal statements that are consistent and consonant with the Word of God. The Church is supposed to take the Bible's teaching, study it, comprehend it, and restate it for the Church, both in terms of instruction as well as defense of the faith. This is one of the contexts in which Jude was dealing. Contend for the faith once delivered for the saints. Thomas Manton, a 17th century theologian, he says, Christ has given prophets and apostles to the church to write scripture. He has also given pastors and teachers to open and apply the scripture, to that still it might be delivered to the saints, and also to vindicate the doctrine of it when opposed. One of the points of addressing these trustworthy sayings and bringing the truth of the gospel to bear or doctrinal truth restated for a particular case is in opposition to false teaching. I promise I won't do this too much today, but as Emperor Snoke said in episode eight of Star Wars, darkness rises and light to meet it. Darkness rises and light to meet it. In other words, whenever false teachers come onto the scene, the Lord sends the light of truth to meet it, to challenge it, and to extinguish it. And you see this in every age of the church. You know, Athanasius opposed Arius, who denied the deity of Christ. Augustine opposed Pelagius, when Pelagius said that grace is useful for salvation but not necessary, and that historic confessions of the Church is one way that the Church has opposed false teaching. We're going to see this in the next lecture, is that one of the reasons as to why confessions have gone from being somewhat basic statements and have grown in size and in breadth is because false teaching comes up. And so the church has to address the false teaching to say, no, not that, this. But that that is not a negative thing, but rather it's an important delineation of where the boundaries of truth and lie, truth and falsehood, where they are, where the boundaries are. So in that sense, it's important to recognize the biblically mandated creation and promotion of a biblically subordinated tradition for the edification of the church and for the defense of the faith. A second thing that it commends, I think, to us is that there are biblical protections There are biblical protections against a dead traditionalism. There are biblical protections against a dead traditionalism. I think that there are always dangers lurking about even for biblically mandated confessionalism. It's important to recognize that confessions embody tradition and that the scriptures teach and commend this to us, but there is always the danger of severing the tradition from the scriptures. You know, we are always looking away from the Bible. We have that bad tendency and habit. And we end up looking to the tradition rather than to the scriptures. And this is why I say that the tradition is always supposed to be biblically subordinated. It's always supposed to be hitched to the scriptures. And you see this, for example, how it goes awry in the Gospel of Matthew, where Christ opposed the tradition of the elders. That for the sake of the tradition of the elders, Christ said, you reject the word of God. You reject the word of God. And so the religious leaders of Christ's day nullified biblical teaching. Paul, in Colossians chapter 2, verse 8, invades against human traditions, traditions that find a source in something other than the scriptures. but there were also important biblical traditions that the church was supposed to maintain. Second Thessalonians chapter two, verse 15, Paul writes, so then brothers stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. So here Paul commends a biblically informed, apostolic informed tradition. Hold to those things. You know, I wish this was my statement, it's not, but Carl Truman, professor now at Grove City College, he said that we have to remember that biblical teaching is a lot like the NRA. You think, what? How's that? Doctrines don't kill people, people kill people, okay? So in other words, just because tradition and confession has been abused doesn't mean, therefore, that it is somehow inappropriate, unwarranted, or unbiblical. Abuse of a good thing does not negate its proper use. So yeah, there's always the danger of a dead traditionalism. But this is where we always have to be good Bereans. The Bereans there in Acts chapter 17, where they were continually checking Paul's teaching against the scriptures. So we should always be checking our biblically subordinated confessions, our trustworthy sayings, against the scriptures to make sure that they are consistent with them. Think, for example, just because it was Peter saying certain things, did not keep Paul from opposing him to his face, to say, no, this is not consistent with the scriptures. And so in this respect, we have to remember that as much as we may revere certain individuals within our circles, we have the names to which we like to appeal, and they are godly, they are gifts to the church, Our tradition in that respect is no respecter of person. It's always in subordination to the teaching and the authority of the scriptures. We're always checking the teaching of the church against the scriptures. So just because Turretin, Calvin, Beza, Manton, Spurgeon, whoever it is may have said it, And just because it's revered within a tradition doesn't automatically mean that it is consistent with the Bible. Always checking it against the scriptures. But then a third and final observation is confession and piety. You know, one of the things that you see there in the Passover, in the Shema, in Paul's faithful sayings, as well as even in Jude's exhortation to the church to protect the church's love feasts. In other words, the celebration of the Lord's Supper. They said that these false teachers have turned these feasts into the opportunity for sexual immorality. So he was telling the church, contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. In other words, to protect the godliness, the piety of your Christian life, of the church's profession. Again, one of the common criticisms against confessions is that it produces a dry and dusty orthodoxy devoid of piety. But I think in all of these surveyed examples, there are close inextricable links between confession and piety. They weren't simply, the Israelites weren't simply supposed to celebrate the Passover, they were supposed to say, here, son, this is what we're doing. Don't conduct yourself like the Egyptians. God has delivered us from that slavery. Again, the saying is trustworthy, writes Paul in Titus 3.8, and I want you to insist on these things so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. You know, if you're looking to infuse your own piety and practice with godliness, look at your confession of faith. Look at the Second London Confession and what it has to say on sanctification, what it has to say about good works, and ask yourself, is my life consistent with the doctrine that I confess? So we always ask, Are our confessions consistent with the word? But the people who use these confessions are always supposed to ask, is my life consistent with the doctrine that I confess and with the word of God that I profess? And so in this respect, I think that chief among the fruits of a vibrant confessionalism is that they nourish the church's love for God. You know, I think of the closing statement from Dr. Renahan's lecture yesterday, that closing prayer, if you will, that these confessions of faith were supposed to instill love for the God that they were confessing. And that's what lies at the heart of the Shema. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love lies at the heart of the Shema. Covenant and confession go hand in hand. Confession and love go hand in hand. So beloved in Christ, as popular as the statement might be, no creed but the Bible, which ironically is a creed, very short one, but it's a creed, as popular as no creed but the Bible might be, The Bible calls the church to a deeper reflection and contemplation of its truths. Pastors have to be prepared to explain the meaning of the scriptures and the church's practices so that when the young people of the church, the old people of the church, the children of the church say, pastor, what does this mean? You will be prepared to teach the church. Parents, you should be prepared to answer your children's questions. Dad, mom, what does this mean? Christians must be prepared to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints, that objective body of truth that God has given to the apostles and that the apostles have handed down to the church. But in all of these things, we have to remember that we do not merely repeat a cento of the biblical statements, but must explain, interpret and restate biblical truth in our own words. In other words, we cannot give away what we do not own. And it's my hope and prayer is that we will indeed give future generations that biblically informed tradition, the church's own trustworthy sayings, and that these sayings would always be consistent with the word of God, and that we would teach our children, defend the faith, but ultimately love the God that has commanded us to confess His name.