Old Testament Reading: Zephaniah 3:9–13

“For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord. From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshipers, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering. On that day you shall not be put to shame because of the deeds by which you have rebelled against me; for then I will remove from your midst your proudly exultant ones, and you shall no longer be haughty in my holy mountain. But I will leave in your midst a people humble and lowly. They shall seek refuge in the name of the LORD, those who are left in Israel; they shall do no injustice and speak no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful tongue. For they shall graze and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.” (Zephaniah 3:9–13)

New Testament Reading: Luke 18:15-17

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Luke 18:15–17)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

Introduction

One thing I have found helpful when interpreting the Gospel of Luke is to look for themes. It seems to me that when Luke wrote his Gospel he grouped stories and teachings of Jesus together according to themes. Perhaps you recall that not long ago we encountered a string of passages linked together by the theme of money and the right use of money. Here in this section of Luke’s Gospel, we find three passages that teach us what is necessary to be in a right relationship with God so that we might enter his Kingdom and have eternal life.

In the previous passage, we learned that it was not the religiously devout Pharisee who was right with God. That man was filled with self-righteous pride! Instead, it was the repentant tax-collector who was right with God, for he was humble and contrite. He knew he was a sinner and that he needed a Savior. As he prayed to God at the temple, he stood “far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” Jesus tells us that it was this man who “went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:13–14).

In the next passage, Luke 18:18-30,  we will learn of an encounter that Jesus had with a rich young ruler. The ruler approached Jesus and said, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18). As we consider that story we will learn that this man thought he could inert eternal life through his keeping of the law, that is to say, by his own goodness. Jesus showed him that this was not possible. This man needed to be humbled by the law to recognize his need for a Savior. 

And sandwiched between these two stories, which are intended to put self-righteous pride to death, we find this little story about Jesus receiving little children to bless them. As Jesus received the children to bless them, he delivered a message. “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:16–17). The meaning is very similar to the passages before and after this one. To stand right before God, to enter the Kingdom of God, and to gain life eternal, one must do away with all self-righteous pride and humbly come to Jesus to be embraced by him and to receive the salvation that only he can give. The Pharisees, and others who were filled with self-righteous pride, stood far off from Jesus and ridiculed him as one who received tax collectors and sinners. But these children came humbly, without pretense or pride,  to receive Jesus’ warm embrace. Only those who come to Jesus humbly, out of a sense of their need for him (his person and work), will enter the Kingdom of God, of which he is King.  

This Passage Is Not About Infant Baptism

If you read commentaries on this passage you will see that it is often used by those who believe in baptizing the infant children of believers to support their position and practice. This only shows how desperate they are to find support for their practice from the New Testament. This passage has nothing to do with the sacrament of baptism, but it is often appealed to by paedobaptists because no better or stronger New Testament texts can be found. 

The best paedobaptists will simply admit that the New Testament does not teach infant baptism. B.B. Warfield was a paedobaptist theologian who was not afraid to admit this. In a work entitled, The Polemics Of Infant Baptism, Warfield writes, “It is true that there is no express command to baptize infants in the New Testament, no express record of the baptism of infants, and no passages so stringently implying it that we must infer from them that infants were baptized. If such warrant as this were necessary to justify the usage we should have to leave it incompletely justified. But the lack of this express warrant is something far short of forbidding the rite; and if the continuity of the Church through all ages can be made good, the warrant for infant baptism is not to be sought in the New Testament but in the Old Testament, when the Church was instituted, and nothing short of an actual forbidding of it in the New Testament would warrant our omitting it now. As Lightfoot expressed it long ago, ‘It is not forbidden’ in the New Testament to ‘baptize infants, — therefore, they are to be baptized’” (The Works Of B.B. Warfield, vol. IX, p. 399).

I trust you can see the argument that Warfield and Lightfoot put forth. Given that the New Testament does not teach infant baptism, their position and practice must be argued from the Old Testament and their doctrine of the covenants. While I have immense respect for men like Warfield and Lightfoot, I find this argument to be very weak. Why would we look to the Old Covenant Scriptures to learn how to properly apply the sign of the New Covenant? This seems like a very strange move. If baptism was instituted by Christ as the sign marking entrance into the New Covenant community, then shouldn’t we expect the instructions for the proper administration of this ordinance to be found on the lips of Christ and in the New Testament Scriptures? I think most would agree that the New Testament Scriptures would be the most natural place to find instructions concerning the administration of this New Covenant ordnance. And indeed, when we search the New Testament Scriptures for an answer to the question, to whom should baptism be given, the answer is found. “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18–20). 

Those familiar with this debate will know that the paedobaptists assume that because male infants were circumcised on the eighth day under the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants then babies should be baptized under the New Covenant. The trouble is, this assumption is false. 

This assumption is false because the New Covenant is not the same as the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant. No, the New Covenant is substantially different from the Old (see Jerimiah 31:31ff.).

For one thing, the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were made with a particular ethnic people, namely, the Hebrews. It is no wonder, then, that the sign of the Old Covenant was applied to the male reproductive organ of the Hebrews at birth. All who were born from Abraham were members of the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, so naturally, all of the males were to be given the sign of the covenant at birth as a visible reminder to all of the Hebrews—and yes, the males and females were both suitably reminded by this sign—that they, as Heberws, were in a special covenantal relationship with God. 

But the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant in some very important ways. The most important point of discontinuity to note (as it pertains to the topic we are now considering) is that the New Covenant is not made with an ethnic people. Physical birth matters nothing as it pertains to entrance into the New Covenant that Christ mediates. It is only those who turn from their sins to place their faith in Jesus the Messiah who are members of the New Covenant, and this they are enabled to do only by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit as the Gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed. 

It is no wonder, then, that the sign of the New Covenant is different than the sign of the Old Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. If the Old and New Covenants were the same in substance, one would expect the sign of these covenants to remain the same. But because there is more discontinuity than continuity, the sign marking one’s entrance into the covenant community has changed from circumcision to Baptism. Not surprisingly, the sign that marks one’s entrance into the New Covenant community does not have anything to do with procreation or physical birth. Baptism symbolizes new birth and cleansing through union with Christ, which is received by faith alone. This is what the Apostle Paul teaches when he says, “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15). And the Apostle John gets at the same truth with these words, “But to all who did receive [Jesus], who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12–13). As I have said, Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant. It symbolizes this new birth, cleansing, and union with Christ. Therefore, it is not surprising that the New Testament consistently teaches that the sign of the New Covenant is to be given to those of whom these things are true —  it is to be given to those who make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ who show signs of regeneration or conversion. .   

The reason paedobaptists must try to make a case for their practice of baptizing their babies from the Old Testament Scriptures and the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants of circumcision is that, as B.B. Warfield admits, there is not a single text that commands or describes this practice in the New Testament. Worse yet, as it pertains to the question, to whom should Baptism be given, everything explicitly taught or described in the New Testament demands that we say, it is those who turn from their sins and profess faith in Jesus who are to be baptized. 

Matthew 28:18–20 has already been cited. Listen to Acts 2:38: “And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’.” Acts 2:41 says, “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” Finally, Acts 18:8 tells us that “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.”

When the Paedobaptists attempt to use the text that is open before us today to support their practice of giving baptism to infants it only shows how desperate they are to find New Testament support for their practice. This text is not about baptism. It does not say that Jesus (or his disciples) baptized the babies that were brought to him. It says that he touched them (to bless them). It says that he instructed his disciples to let the children come to him and not to hinder them (see Luke 18:16). And neither does it say that the kingdom of God belongs to the children of believers. No, Christ said, “to such belongs the kingdom of God”, and “whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:16–17).

These are precious and important sayings of Jesus. We must allow this text to say what it says, and not attempt to force it to say things that it does not. I’ve taken the time to show what this text does not say so that we might better appreciate what it says.

Let The Children Come To Jesus

What then does this passage say?

In verse 15 Luke reports that the people “were bringing even infants to [Jesus] that he might touch them.” This should not surprise us. At this point in Jesus’ earthly ministry, great crowds were following him (see Luke 14:25. Jesus was especially popular with the common people, for he had touched many who were sick and lame to heal them. When Luke tells us that the people “were bringing “even infants to [Jesus] that he might touch them”, it is most natural to think that these parents were bringing their children to Jesus so that he touch them to heal them. If your were to look up the appearances of this word “touch” in Luke’s Gospel, you would find it used in the contect of healing. These parents wanted Jesus to touch their children to heal them or perhaps to bless them. It should be clear to all that touch means touch. It does not mean or imply baptism. 

Luke goes on to report that when “the disciples saw” these people (parents, I presume) bringing their infants and children to Jesus “they rebuked them“ (Luke 18:15, ESV). The Greek word translated as “rebuked” is actually quite strong. The disciples expressed strong disapproval — they rebuked these parents for attempting to bring their children to Jesus.

The same Greek word appears again in Luke 18:39. In that passage, a blind beggar heard that Jesus was passing by, “And he cried out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And those who were in front rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And Jesus stopped and commanded him to be brought to him”, and he healed him” (Luke 18:37–41). 

I’m noticing a theme. The disciples of Jesus must have been concerned to protect Jesus from being overburdened. They were beginning to distinguish between those they thought were more or less important and most or less worthy.  Jesus would have none of this. He healed the blind beggar and he commanded that the children not be hindered from coming.

It is in verse 16 of our text that Christ intervenes. Having become aware of what was happening, “ Jesus called them [the parents and the children] to him, saying, [to the disciples] ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them…” (Luke 18:16). 

There are several lessons to be learned from these words. 

Disciples

All who are disciples of Jesus must learn that Jesus does not need to be shielded from those who wish to come to him. He was able to receive all who came to him in the days of his earthly ministry, How much more is he able now that he has ascended to the Father and sent forth his Holy Spirit? Furthermore, the disciples of Jesus learn from this story not to discriminate between those they perceive to be more or less important or more or less worthy. This is not for is to judge. Finally, by considering this scene, disciples of Jesus must come to see that their Lord and Savior is not cold or aloof, but is tender, merciful, gracious, and kind. 

Parents

Christian parents must also learn from this story, for there is encouragement found here to bring your children to Jesus! Christian parents, you must bring your children to Jesus. Bring them to him in your private prayers. Bring them to him in family devotions. Bring them to him in corporate worship. Bring them especially to hear the preaching of the word of Christ! Teach your children to worship. Teach them to pray. Let them observe the administration of the sacraments so that those visible words may speak to their minds and hearts. And when the time is right — when your children profess faith in Christ and show evidence of true conversion and repentance, then lead them to the waters of Baptism.

Parents, we should not act like baptism is the only or even the primary way to bring our children to Jesus. Before baptism can be applied, we must pray for them, teach the faith to them, and preach the gospel to them. The sign of the Covenant is only to be given once they make a credible profession of faith. And we must remember that our children might be regenerated and believe the Gospel before they are capable of expressing faith and demonstrating repentance. 

Dear parents, you must bring your children to Jesus! But this does not require you to seek to  apply the sacrament of baptism prematurely. Those who apply the sacrament of baptism to infants apply it, not to those in Christ, but to those in Adam. Those who apply the sacrament of baptism to infants apply it, not to those who have been washed clean by the blood of the lamb, but to those who remain in the guilt of Adam’s imputed sin. Those who apply the sacrament of Baptism to infants apply it, not to those who have been united with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection, but to those who remain dead in their sins with corrupted natures. Of course, the great hope of these parents is that their children will someday turn from their sins and place their faith in Jesus the Messiah so that the symbolism of baptism, namely, union with Christ, cleansing, and new birth (most of which is lost in the practice of pouring or sprinkling, by the way) becomes true of their child after the fact. Whether or not these children grow to profess faith in Christ, it is not uncommon to hear these parents encourage their children to walk with Christ with these words, remember your baptism! The trouble is, they cannot remember their baptism. 

Parents, bring your children to Jesus in prayer and through the proclamation of the gospel, and when it becomes apparent that they have embraced Jesus and that Jesus has embraced them, then baptism is to be applied. And then these may be exhorted to continue on walking with Jesus with these words: remember your baptism. Remember when you said, “Jesus is Lord” in those waters (see Romans 10:9; . Remember when the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was placed on you (Matthew 28:18-20). Remember when you made that “appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” (1 Peter 3:21). Remember when God reassured you that you have been cleansed and raised to newness of life. One very good and practical reason for delaying baptism until our children make a credible profession of faith is so our children can actually remember their baptism as they look back upon it with understanding.  

Children

There is also something for children to learn from this passage. Children, listen to me. You must come to Jesus. You must confess that you have sinned against God by disobeying his commandments. You must turn from your sins and trust in Jesus to forgive you of your sins. 

Children, please hear what I say. Baptism does not save you. Jesus saves you. The water of baptism does not wash your sins away. The blood of Jesus washes your sins away. Baptism does not give you eternal life. Jesus gives eternal life to all who believe in him. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). 

All who have turned from their sins to place their faith in Jesus must then be baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to show that Jesus is their Lord, that they have been united to him by faith, washed by him, buried with him, and raised to life eternal with him. And this we will do in due time. 

Little children, you will need to wait to come to the waters of baptism and to the Lord’s Supper (a credible profession of faith is what we are waiting for), but this does not mean that you must wait to come to Jesus. If you can understand my words, if you know that you are a sinner who needs a Savior, and if you know that Jesus is the Savior God has provided, then you must run to him today knowing that he will receive all who who turn from their sins to trust in him. As Christ has said, “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out” (John 6:37).

For To Such Belongs The Kingdom Of God

We have a little more of our passage to consider. Look again at verse 16. “But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them…:” And then he added these words of explanation, “for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:16–17).

Pay careful attention to Jesus’ words. “To such belongs the kingdom of God…”, he said. He did not say, To these belongs the kingdom of God. Or to infants and children belongs the kingdom of God. Or to the infants and children of believers belongs the kingdom of God. This is how the paedobaptists read the text, but the text says no such thing. What did Christ say?  “To such belongs the kingdom of God…” The Greek word translated as “such” means “like such”, or “such as these”. The meaning is not that all children or the children of believers are a part of God’s kingdom. Rather, the meaning is that it is those who are child-like (“like such”, or “such as these”) who will enter God’s kingdom. 

That this is the meaning is made very clear in verse 17. There Christ says, “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:17). Far from teaching that all children, or the children of believers enter the kingdom at birth (and therefore ought to be baptized), Christ teaches us that it is only those who “receive the kingdom of God like a child” who will enter it.

Quoting now John Gill, “it is as if our Lord should say, do not drive away these children from my person and presence; they are lively emblems (symbols or representations)… of such that shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: by these [children] I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above; that they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive; free from rancor and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority.” 

Conclusion

This is the lesson being conveyed by Jesus. Far from teaching that infants and children should be baptized because they are somehow partakers of Christ’s covenant and kingdom by virtue of natural birth, he teaches that those who wish to enter the kingdom God must receive the kingdom (Christ’s kingship and rule) in a child-like way. And what are the qualities of children worthy of imitation? Is it their ignorance? Is it their immaturity? No. Given the context of the passages that precede and follow, Gill is right. Christ here draws attention to the fact that these infants and children were harmless and inoffensive; free from [hatred] and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority.” 

Dear friends, those who are proud and self-righteous will never enter God’s Kingdom, for their self-righteous pride will forever keep them from bowing the knee to King Jesus. “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them”, Jesus said, “for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it” (Luke 18:16–17).

Baptist Catechism 44

Q. 44. What is the duty which God requireth of man?

A. The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to His revealed will.

Scripture Reading: Ecclesiastes 12:13

“The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” (Ecclesiastes 12:13, ESV)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

From time to time I like to take a step back from our catechism to consider where we have been and where we are going. There is a structure to our catechism, and recognizing this structure can be very helpful. Now, it’s not as if the compilers of our catechism placed the 114 questions into these categories for us, but if you pay careful attention to the themes and their development, categories do clearly emerge. I’d like to share my outline of the catechism with you today. I think this broad overview will help us to better appreciate the individual questions and answers as we come to them.

I will admit that others might outline the catechism a little differently. And it is possible that their outline is better than mine. If I find that to be the case, I’ll alter my view. But as of right now, here is how I see it. 

Our catechism is most obviously divided into three major parts.

Questions 1 through 6 of our catechism make up the first part, and we may give it the heading, “First Principles” or “Foundational Truths”, for it is in questions 1 through 6 that the most fundamental truths of the Christian faith are established. Q. 1 asks,  Who is the first and chiefest being? Q. 2 asks, Ought everyone to believe there is a God? Q. 3 asks, How may we know there is a God? Q. 4 asks,  What is the Word of God? Q. 5 asks, May all men make use of the Holy Scriptures? And Q. 6 asks, What things are chiefly contained in the Holy Scriptures? These questions are addressed first because it would be impossible to say anything meaningful or sure about God, his ways with man, and what he requires of us, without these foundational truths being established. 

Question 6 of our catechism is very important. Not only does it wrap up the “First Principles” section, it also introduces parts two and three when it asks, “What things are chiefly contained in the Holy Scriptures?”, and then answers: “The Holy Scriptures chiefly contain what man ought to believe concerning God, and what duty God requireth of man.” The rest of the catechism teaches us about these two things: “what man ought to believe concerning God, and what duty God requireth of man.”

The second major part of the catechism is found in questions 7 through 43. Here we will find a  summary of what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning God and his dealings with man. 

The third major portion of the catechism is found in questions 44 through 114. Here we find a summary of what the Holy Scriptures teach concerning man’s duty or responsibility before God. Notice, that we are considering question 44 today. It asks, “What is the duty which God requireth of man?” So then, you can see that we are now entering into the third and final section of the catechism. 

Clearly then, the catechism is divided into three major parts. Questions 1-6 establish “first principles”. Questions 7-43 tell us what man ought to believe concerning God. And questions 44-114 tell us what duty God requires of man. 

I would like to break the catechism down just a little bit more for you before briefly considering question 44. I think this will be helpful to us as we move forward. . 

Part one need not be broken down any further. It stands as a single unit. But part two can be divided into four sections. Remember, this entire section is telling us what we ought to believe concerning God and his dealings with man. 

First, in questions 7 through 15 we are told about God, his nature, decrees, creation, providence, and covenant. Second, in questions 16-22 we are told about man’s alienation from God by his fall into sin. Now, some may object, saying, I thought this section was about God, but this is a section about man. Well, yes. It is about man. But more specifically, it is about man in relation to God. Third, in questions 23-31 we are told about the redemption accomplished by God through Christ. There in that section, Christ is identified as the redeemer of God’s elect. There we are told about the incarnation, and the threefold offices of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King. And there were are told about his humiliation and exaltation. Finally, in questions 32-43 we are told about how the redemption earned by Christ is applied by God to his elect through the Spirit. There we learn about effectual calling, the gift of faith, and the benefits that come to all who believe in Christ in this life, at death, and at the resurrection. At the end of that section, we are told about what Christ has saved us from, namely eternal condemnation. 

Notice two things about this second major section of our catechism running from questions 7 through 43. 

One, it is profoundly Trinitarian. After being taught about God as Trinity in questions 7-9, and after being told about man’s alienation from God in questions 16-22, then we are told about the accomplishment of our redemption by the Son of God incarnate and the application of it in time to the elect of God by the Spirit.  Section two of our catechism is profoundly Trinitarian. 

Two, in questions 7 through 43 the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented in a redemptive-historical way. There in that section, we are told about God, creation, the covenant of works, man’s fall into sin, the accomplishment of our redemption by Christ in time, and the application of the redemption that Christ has earned to sinners in time. And “how doth the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ?” Answer 33 says, “The Spirit applieth to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.” Finally, the benefits that come to all who have faith are described – the benefits that come in this life, at death, and the resurrection. This is the good news of salvation through faith in Christ presented in a historical way. 

That brings us to question 44, which the question we are considering today. Question 44 then asks, “What is the duty which God requireth of man?” Answer: “The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to His revealed will.” Notice three things about Baptist Catechism 44: 

One, this question marks the beginning of the third major section of the catechism. Back in question 6 we were told that the Scriptures mainly teach “what man ought to believe concerning God, and what duty God requireth of man.” We have considered the first theme, now we will consider the second. 

Two, this question is the only reasonable question to ask after hearing about God, his creation and covenant, man’s fall into sin, and the redemption that God has so graciously accomplished for us by Christ and applied by his Spirit. Having considered all that Christ has done for us, and having considered the wonderful benefits that come to those who have faith in Christ, the reasonable question to ask is, “What is the duty which God requireth of man?”  In other words, how should I respond to this salvation that has been freely given to me? Answer: we ought to obey God’s revealed will, that is to say, his law. 

This reminds me of what Jesus says in John 14:15: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” And listen to Jesus’ words to his disciples in John 15:9-11: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.” Those who have been redeemed by Christ and effectually called by his Spirit so that they have faith, have had the love of Christ graciously set upon them. And how are they to respond to this love? With love! And what does it look like to abide in the love of Christ? Those who have been loved by Christ and who love him will strive to keep his commandments. 

So then, I hope you agree that question 44 is very fitting. After considering the love that has been lavished upon by God through Christ and by the Spirit to redeem us from the curse of sin and to bless us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, our impulse should be to ask, what does God require of me? Having been redeemed by him, justified, and adopted, I want to serve him, for I am grateful. What does he require? Again the answer: “The duty which God requireth of man, is obedience to His revealed will.”

The third thing I want you to recognize about question 44 is that it does not only state the appropriate response to the redemption that has been graciously earned and applied to us, but it also sets us up for another presentation of the gospel, but in another way, namely, through a consideration of the law and the gospel. 

Please allow me to very briefly break down this third major section of the catechism into two parts. Questions 44 through 114 are about the duty that God requires of man. 

First, in questions 45 through 89 we are taught about God’s moral law. Here we learn that God’s moral law was first written on Adam’s heart at creation. And here we also learn that this moral law is summarized for us in the Ten Commandments, the sum of the Ten Commandments being “to love the Lord our God, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength, and with all our mind; and our neighbor as ourselves” (Baptist Catechism 47). Here in this section the meaning of the Ten Commandments is carefully and clearly explained. With each commandment our catechism asks, what is this commandment? And after that it asks, what does this commandment require and what does it forbid? So then, here in questions 45 through 89, we find very helpful teaching on God’s moral law. 

But at the end of this section, a very important question is asked. Question 87: “Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God?” The answer is bad news. “No mere man, since the fall, is able in this life, perfectly to keep the commandments of God, but daily break them in thought, word, or deed. Question 88 then  asks, “Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?” Answer: “Some sins in themselves and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others. Question 89, which is the last question in this section that we are beginning to consider today, then asks. “What doth every sin deserve?” More bad news: “Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and in that which is to come.”

So then, this entire section on God’s law which runs from questions 44-89 does two things. One, it tells us what duty God requires of man. And two, it condemns us. And this is exactly what the Scriptures say about God’s law. One, it functions as a light to our feet. It reveals to us how we ought to live and the way we should go. Two, the law is also like a schoolmaster or a strict disciplinarian. It magnifies our sin and proves that we are guilty sinners in need of a Savior. 

That brings us to the second part of the third section of our catechism, where the gospel is proclaimed yet again. I think questions 90 through 92 are my favorite. Question 90: “What doth God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin?” Answer: “To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.” Question 91: “What is faith in Jesus Christ? Answer: “Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation, as He is offered to us in the Gospel.” Question 92: “What is repentance unto life?” Answer: “Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.”

Finally, our catechism concludes with a wonderful presentation of the outward and ordinary means of grace that God uses to give his people the benefits of the redemption that Christ has earned for us. These outward and ordinary means of grace are the Word of God (94-95), baptism (96-101), the Lord’s Supper (102-104), and prayer (105-114).

So, I hope you can see that the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented twice in our catechism. First, in a redemptive-historical way, and then a second time in a law-gospel way. Twice, our catechism presents “faith in Christ” alone as the way to salvation. This central truth is communicated first in question 33, and again in question 90. 

 *****

Why have I taken the time to provide you with this sweeping overview of the structure and teaching of our catechism?

I hope that by seeing the structure, and especially by seeing the way in which the gospel of Jesus Christ is presented, not once, but twice, and in two different ways, you will be further motivated to use this great catechism in your own life, with your family, and to appreciate and support the preaching and teaching of these great doctrines within the church year after year and for decades to come.   

As you can see, these are not a random collection of 114 questions and answers intended to merely fill your mind with cold, hard, facts. No, here we have a succinct and beautifully warm presentation of the teaching of Holy Scripture concerning our great God, our miserable condition before him because of sin, and the marvelous grace that he has shown to us in providing a Redeemer, Christ the Lord.  This document urges the very thing that the Scriptures urge, namely, reconciliation with God the Father, through faith in the incarnate Son, by the working of the Holy Spirit. May we be faithful to proclaim the crucified and risen Christ in the years to come. May we be found mature in him when Christ returns or calls us home (Colossians 1:28). 

Second London Confession 26.15

“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 in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted 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.” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 25; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 John 4:1)

Scripture Reading: Acts 15:1-29

“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.’ The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’ And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.’ Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements [or necessary things]: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’” (Acts 15:1–29)

*****

Please excuse any typos and misspellings within this manuscript. It has been published online for the benefit of the saints of Emmaus Reformed Baptist Church but without the benefit of proofreading.

Introduction

Second London Confession 26.14 takes up the question, of how should individual local congregations relate to one another. The answer given is that churches must pray for the good and prosperity of other churches, and when they have the opportunity, they ought to hold communion among themselves to encourage their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification. When our confession says that churches ought to hold communion together it means they ought to enter into formal relationships with each other. In other words, churches ought to form associations. While 2LCF 26.14 states the principle and necessity of formal associations, 2LCF 26.15 lays a foundation for the practice of associationism. Should local churches enter into formal relationships with each other? 2LCF 26.14 says, yes. Paragraph 15 now says something about how associations should function, practically speaking. 

Second London Confession 26.15 Explained

The first portion of the paragraph speaks of the difficulties and differences that sometimes arise within churches and between churches. “In cases of difficulties or differences”, the paragraph begins. Churches will sometimes experience difficulties, that is to say, problems or perplexing situations that require advice. And sometimes differences will arise within churches or between churches. Differences is a stronger word than difficulties. Sometimes difficulties lead to differences of opinion within a church or even division. 

 The paragraph goes on to say, “In cases of difficulties or differences, either in point of doctrine or administration…” Sometimes churches will find that they are facing difficulties in doctrinal questions, and sometimes those difficulties will become differences. And other times churches will find that they are facing difficulties in administrative issues (church discipline cases, perhaps), and sometimes those difficulties will become differences within the congregation. Whether they are difficulties or differences, and whether they are over doctrinal questions or administrative concerns, churches in formal association with each other can offer assistance in the form of advice. 

The beginning of the paragraph goes on to mention a number of possible scenarios as it pertains to those affected by the difficulties or differences, when it says, “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…”

So then, the difficulties or difference might be of concern to the churches of the association in general, or they might be confined to one church in particular, or the difficulty or difference might be of concern to only one member or a handful of members of a church who think they have been treated unjustly in a church discipline case. This is what is meant by the phrase,  “or any member or members of any church are injured, in or by any proceedings in censures not agreeable to truth and order…” In any of these scenarios, an association of churches can help. 

The remainder of the paragraph outlines how churches can help churches while also establishing proper boundaries. 

The words, “it is according to the mind of Christ” remind us of what we confess in 2LCF 26.4, that the Lord Jesus Christ is head of the church. It also reminds us that Christ the Lord has revealed his mind (or will) for interchurch communion in his Word. The question, of how should local churches relate, is not left to us to answer. God’s Word provides the answer. It is found throughout the New Testament, but the Acts 15 passage we read a moment ago is certainly of prime importance. 

“[I]t is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together”, that is to say, in formal association with each other, “do, by their messengers, meet to consider, and give their advice in or about that matter in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned…” Notice a few things about this statement. 

One, churches are to assist churches by their messengers. Messengers’ are representatives selected by the churches. Typically, they are elders. Deacons may also serve as messengers. And in our association, if no elders or deacons are available to represent the church, leading brothers from the church can be selected to represent the congregation. This is what is described in Acts 15, by the way. I will not re-read the text for you now. But if you were to read it again you would do well to notice that Apostles, elders, and leading brothers represented the churches concerned. 

When our confession states that churches may help churches by their messengers it clarifies that all the members of one church should not try to assist all the members of another church when difficulties arise. Why? For one, a different approach is modeled in Acts 15, as has just been stated. Two, this would be very impractical if not impossible. Three, this would be disorderly. Given that elders and deacons are called to lead in the ministry of the Word and in service respectively, it makes sense that elders and deacons (or other leading men) from one church should be appointed to advise other churches when difficulties arise.

The final portion of 2LCF 26.15 establishes important boundaries when it says, “howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted 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.”

What power do the messengers from one church have over another church? They are not “entrusted with any church-power properly so called…” They do not have the power of liberty in another local church, for they are not members of that church. And elders do not have the power of authority over another church, for they are not elders in that church. 

What, then, do the messengers’ of one church in an association have the power to do in another church? When called upon to do so, they may assist another church by looking into their difficulty or difference to make determinations and to give advice. They may not, however, have “jurisdiction” over another church, “exercise any censures either over any churches or persons”, or  “impose their determination on the churches or officers.” While we believe in a robust associationism (associationism with real muscle) we are committed to respecting the autonomy and independence of each local church.   

One question that often arises at this point is, what power does an association have in a situation where a church goes off the raise doctrinally or administratively? The answer is simple, an association of churches does have the power to disassociate from a church and to state its reasons for disasociation publically.  

How should churches associate? 

“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 in difference, to be reported to all the churches concerned; howbeit these messengers assembled, are not intrusted 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.” (Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 25; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 John 4:1)