Search

You searched for 'Chapter 19'

I've found 18 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 9: Of Free Will - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 19,948 views | 16,462 words | 1:25:57 hours | 04 March 2015 21:41

...e sin, as it has no power to forgive, but it condemns all who do not obey it (Gal. 3:10). Rather, he says that the law actually brings the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; 7:7). The law is not the problem; sin is the problem (Rom. 7:8), which uses the “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12) commandments to produce sin in us. Where there is no law, there is no sin (Rom. 5:13) because sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4). But all are indeed under the law either the one written on stone or on the conscience (Rom. 2:12-15; see Chapter 19). Sin has no power without the law (Rom. 7:8), but since we were under the law as a covenant of works (i.e., in the State of Sin), sin reigned over us and used even the good and holy to produce more sin and impurity. Thus Paul says that in a sense he was alive or unaware of his sin apart from the law, but when he understood the requirements of the law, he died (Rom. 7:9-11).

The problem of why the law is ineffective to bring life and sanctification to a person under the State of Sin is because the law is spiritual (Rom. 7:14). It is not designed to produce life and sanctification in the lives of those under sin, but only condemnation and fear. For the law to produce righteousness and sanctification, its subject must be those who are spiritual (Col. 2:13-15). Spiritual does not mean non-physical, but rather a person who is led by the Holy Spirit. This is indeed the promise of the New Covenant in which God promises that He will cause us to obey and delight in the law (Ezek. 36:25-27; Jer. 31:31-34). But the problem is that corruption still remains in us and we still sin (Rom. 7:14). Now we come to the controversial aspect of this chapter. The commentators are divided whether v. 14 and following refers to Paul in the present or in the past. I believe that it refers to Paul in the present, i.e., when he is regenerated and under grace and not law. I believe that this is the case because of the following reasons:

Paul speaks in the present tense and does not speak in the past tense. That is a bit strange if he was describing a time before his conversion, while he does speak in the past tense about his conversion (Rom. 7:5, 7, 9).
When he sins he calls that “the very thing that I hate” (Rom. 7:15). How is it possible for an unregenerate person to hate his sin? Everything that an unregenerate person does is sin (Rom. 6:20; 14:23).
There is a struggle between his desires (Rom. 7:16), which would not be there if he was under the dominion of sin and condemnation of the law (Gal. 5:18-21).
He has desires for what is right but does not have the ability to carry it out (Rom. 7:17-20). He wishes he would do the good, but sin seduces him. Can this be said of the unregenerate?
He delights in the law of God in his inner being, in his spirit (Rom. 7:22). Is this a description consistent with an unregenerate man?

Those are the reasons I believe that Paul is speaking of his present experience as a Christian. That would not be a problem if we do not expect the apostles to be perfect. The whole human race is sinful, Christian or not Christian. But the one is freed from the dominion of sin; the other still walk in it. Paul describes a struggle of desires in himself. He does not understand some things that he does. He sometimes does the sin which he hates and then does not understand why he did that. Many of us can concur. When we sin it seems to us at that present time to be nothing, but once we realize what we have done...

Extensive review of Jonathan Menn's Biblical Eschatology

Simon Wartanian | 5,111 views | 12,397 words | 1:05:40 hours | 09 February 2022 21:11

Book Reivew Jonathan Menn Eschatology Amillennialism Dispensationalism Millennium

...sence. I humorous reply to such classifications, is given by William Everett Bell:

Using [pretribulationists’] own methodology, it would be a simple matter to “prove” that the second advent described in Revelation 19 is not the same second advent described in Revelation 1:7, for example, (although [dispensationalist John] Walvoord and pretribulationsists generally insist that they are the same):

(1) At the second advent in Revelation 19, Satan is bound and cast into the abyss, while at the second advent in Revelation 1:7 Satan is not bound.

(2) At the second advent in 1:7, Christ comes in the clouds, while at the second advent in Chapter 19, He does not come in the clouds.

(3) The dead are resurrected at the second advent in Chapter 19, but no mention of a resurrection is found in 1:7.

(4) At the second advent in Chapter 19, AntiChrist is destroyed, while at the second advent in 1:7, AntiChrist is not destroyed.

(5) The second advent of Chapter 19 initiates the millennium, but no mention of any millennium is found in 1:7, thus inferring that amillennialism may be the Biblical teaching here.

This type of argument could be carried on indefinitely from the two passages until dozens of supposed “distinctions” were noted. . . . Such arguments, if expanded slightly, could be used to “prove” three, four, five, or almost any number of future comings of Christ. Such arguments, then, are completely irrelevant to a serious study of the nature and time of the second advent and serve to influence chiefly those who are impressed more with the quantity than the quality of the arguments. (pp. 169-170)

He then goes to deal with the distinction (for dispensationalist also a separation) between Christ’s coming for His saints and coming with His saints (pp. 170-171). Both will happen at the same time. When Christ comes from heaven with the dead in Christ, He will catch away the living saints (coming for His saints), and then proceed down to the earth (coming with His saints). This is how the word apantesis is used in the New Testament and in the ancient world (1 Thess. 4:17; Matt. 25:6; Acts 28:15-16). Dr. Menn cites F. F. Bruce who said: “When a dignitary paid an official visit or parousia to a city in Hellenistic times, the action of the leading citizens in going out to meet him and escorting him on the final stage of his journey was called the apantēsis.” (p. 170)

The Antichrist

The next chapter is titled “The Antichrist” and it is about a fascinating subject. This is especially fascinating in light of the time in which we are living where people are expecting “the mark of the Beast” and the arise of Antichrist everywhere.

Early in the church, with Irenaeus (ca. 130-200) and Hippolytus (ca. 170-236), Christians started to believe that the Antichrist would be a person from the tribe of Dan (p. 176). This is in contrast to the Jewish idea that the enemy of God would be a Gentile. The Christian position was based upon Jeremiah 8:16 and the absence of the tribe of Dan from Revelation 7:4-8. The characteristics of Antichrist from Irenaeus to the early fourth century are summarized by David Aune as: “(1) he is the agent of Satan, (2) he is a deceiver, (3) he performs false signs and wonders, (4) he is extremely evil, (5) he persecutes the people of God, (6) he has excessive p

...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 4: Of Creation - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 18,646 views | 6,589 words | 0:34:34 hours | 04 March 2015 21:12

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 4 Creation Young Earth Creationism Image Of God Imago Dei

...er to fulfill it. Something important to note here is that the law of God, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments, is not only formulated in the “thou shalt not’s”, but also positively in “thou shalt.” The seventh commandment to a sinless man, for example, would be, “You shall be faithful to your wife and cling fast to her.” The same concepts could be communicated in forms of “thou shalt.” Furthermore, the Confession speaks here of the law of God, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments (see Chapter 19), yet the wording of a specific commandment could be different from the time before and after the Fall.

Man, in his original state had the power to fulfill the law, but also to transgressing it, which Adam and Eve did. They were not fixed in their state, but were still in the time of their probation and were left to the liberty of their own will. This does not mean that God was not Sovereign over Adam and Eve’s decision, as God’s decree does not violate man’s liberty as chapter 3 teaches. Had Adam obeyed past his time of probation, he would have earned eternal life and blessedness for all his descendants.

Man is the epitome of creation, he is the crown of creation. Man is the only image of God of everything that God created. But what does it mean that man was made in the image and likeness of God as Genesis 1:26-27 teaches? A most basic observation about what man being made in the image of God means is that man resembles or reflects God. That is what images do and that is the idea communicated through words like image or likeness. Man is in some way like God. While the plants are made and reproduce “according to [their] kind” (Gen. 1:11-12), sea creatures “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:21), land animals “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:24-25), man alone is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27). In v. 26, God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. In v. 27, the narrator says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him”. This sets man apart from the rest of creation as the epitome of the created earth. Furthermore, God gets very personally involved in the creation of man as it is clear in Genesis 2. The rest of creation was made by divine fiat and speech, but when it comes to man, God’s hands get involved! Some have tried to find different meanings or senses for the words image and likeness, but is this justified? There clearly seems to be parallelism in v. 26 between image and likeness. When the speech of God is summarized in v. 27, there is nothing said about likeness, but the whole is communicated with the words that man was made in the image of God. Louis Berkhof helps us to see that both terms are used interchangeably in the Bible:

In Gen. 1:26 both words are used, but in the twenty-seventh verse only the first. This is evidently considered sufficient to express the whole idea. In Gen. 5:1 only the word “likeness” occurs, but in the third verse of that chapter both terms are again found. Gen. 9:6 contains only the word “image” as a complete expression of the idea. Turning to the New Testament, we find “image” and “glory” used in I Cor. 11:7, “image” alone in Col. 3:10, and “likeness” only in Jas. 3:9. Evidently the two are used interchangeably in Scripture.^[5]

That man is made in the image of God means that there are similarities between man and God. This is even more strengthened when we observe that man is the only creature made...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 16: Of Good Works - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,995 views | 8,785 words | 0:46:07 hours | 05 March 2015 18:58

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Good Works Fruits Of Salvation

!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 16: Of Good Works

What is a “good work”? In our world of today, many would call that which is against the Word “good.” What does “good” mean and what is the standard to measure “good” by?

§1 Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word

Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, 1 and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions. 2
1. Micah 6:8; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 13:21; Col. 2:3; 2 Tim. 3:16-17^[1]
2. Matt. 15:9 with Isa. 29:13; 1 Peter 1:18; Rom. 10:2; John 16:2; 1 Sam. 15:21-23; 1 Cor. 7:23; Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:8, 16-23

Good works are those which God hath commanded in His Holy Word and those derived from it by necessary and good consequence. Those are no good works which have no warrant from the Word and devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions (Matt. 15:9; 1 Peter 1:18; Rom. 10:2). God is to be worshiped and obeyed in the way that He has commanded and prescribed in His Word.

The Criteria For Good Works

We don’t simply invent for ourselves what good works are and declare that they are good, but rather it is God Who lays down the criteria for good works in Holy Writ. This does not mean that if a particular action is not mentioned in the Bible that it is therefore bad, but we look at the particular deed in light of all Scripture. We don’t demand an explicit text for everything. For example, helping an old lady cross the street is a good deed, but it is not mentioned in the Bible. Does that mean that it is therefore bad if it is not mentioned? No, not really. Because we know from the Bible that we should love our neighbor, and helping an old lady cross the street is such an expression of love and respect.

Commanded By God

Only what is commanded by God and what may be deduced from Holy Writ is binding upon the consciousness of men. Throughout history, various churches and religions have added to the commandments of God in such a way as binding the consciences of man. The Lord Jesus quotes the words of Isaiah approvingly when he says, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’” (Matt. 15:8-9 from Isa. 29:13). From this passage, we learn that whenever we add things to the Lord’s commandments and teach them as if they were the Lord’s, we dishonor Him and worship Him falsely. Therefore, the Confession is explicit that “Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word”, so that only God would be the Lord of the conscience (see also chapter 21 on the liberty of the conscious).

It is God Who teaches us through His will “what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2). And it is God Who is and determines the criteria of what good works constitute. It is His holy character as revealed in His Word. It is also God Who works in us His good works. We cannot really do any good works which are pleasing in His sight without His will and direction. That’s why Paul tells us that “...it is God Who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). The Holy Spirit in Hebrews 13:21 tells us that it is God Who “equip[s] you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight”. The glory of the New Covenant is the fact that we have God’s Law on our hearts and given the ability b...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 21: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 14,556 views | 6,372 words | 0:32:47 hours | 06 March 2015 19:19

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Confession Study Reformed Baptist Chapter 21 Christian Freedom Liberty Liberty Of Conscience Antinomianism

...bey (because we are not perfect), we are not cursed and have a way of receiving forgiveness through Christ.

The apostle Paul writes:

Rom. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

We are under grace, not under the law as a covenant of works, and therefore, the curses of the law as a covenant of works no longer apply to us. For more on this see Chapter 19:6.

4-6. This present evil world, from Satan and from sin

These three things listed are interconnected and therefore, I will treat them under one heading. These are:

Freedom from the present evil world
Freedom from bondage to Satan
Freedom from the dominion of sin

To belong to this world means to be a slave of Satan and under the bondage of sin. To live in sin means to be under the bondage of Satan and to belong to his world and so on. These things are interconnected and they concern the power of sin from which believers are delivered. Therefore, when I speak of sin, I always have in mind these three things. Some of the things already said above touch upon these points.

We no longer belong to the dominion of sin and Satan (Gal. 1:4; Col. 1:13; Rom. 6:12-14; Acts 26:18), but belong and are slaves to Christ and righteousness (Rom. 6:16-18). Sin can no longer reign in us as it did prior to Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. Prior to regeneration, we were children of wrath who “once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2), but now we are by grace seeking to walk in the good works prepared for us long ago (Eph. 2:10). We are set free from the dominion and power of sin to enjoy our freedom to not sin, but rather do that which is right! We are set free from this evil world so that we would be “transformed by the renewal of [our] mind, that by testing [we] may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).

Liberty from the power of sin is a great and gracious gift to the children of God, but it is one which will fully be realized in the eternal state. As long as we live in this fallen world, we will have to struggle against sin and we will see that sin will try to regain its dominion over us, but we have to fight! See more on the remaining corruptions in us.

7. The evil afflictions

Afflictions will come to the people of God, they are not delivered from afflictions. Yet they are delivered from the evil of those afflictions. Those afflictions will do them no ultimate or eternal harm. Afflictions will come upon the Christians, but they will be used as a means of further sanctifying us and disciplining us by God, not as punishments. They are meant for our good, even if the enemies of the Gospel may mean them for evil. The promise of Romans 8:28 stands fast:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Robert Shaw writes:

Christ does not grant to believers an entire exemption from the troubles that are common to men, but he frees them from all the penal evil of afflictions. The cup of their affliction may be large and deep, but there is not one drop of judicial wrath mingled in it. Their afflictions are designed for their profit; and, through the divine blessing, they are rented, in various aspects, highly beneficial to them. Hence the children of God have often acknowledged that it was good for them to have been afflicte...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 24: Of the Civil Magistrate - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 12,445 views | 5,667 words | 0:29:28 hours | 06 March 2015 19:38

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 24 Civil Magistrates Civil Government Romans 13

...ying that this is not inconsistent with a true Christian who takes up the office of a magistrate when called there unto. What should the Christian magistrate do? It is interesting that he is not said to enforce Christianity in general or Particular Baptist theology in particular. He is said to maintain just and peace according to the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. He is to govern according to the laws of the land and not make a theocracy of the land in which he is allowed to be a magistrate. As we noted in Chapter 19:4, Christians are called to submit to the laws of the land in which they live and not reimplement the Israelite theocracy of the Old Testament. The Christian magistrate is not to enforce the laws of God in his government as it was in the times of the Old Testament. But it is without a doubt that a Christian magistrate has a Christian worldview and therefore, justice and peace mean more to him than an unbelieving magistrate. His views of justice and peace will be and should be influenced by the biblical worldview. But principally, he is to enforce and maintain the wholesome laws of each kingdom and commonwealth. This is obviously different than what other Reformed writers had in mind. For many of them, the government had the duty to maintain the Christian religion and not only the Christian religion in general but Protestant Christianity in particular. But the Baptists did not follow with that as they did not see the New Covenant and the regulations under the New Covenant to be just like those in the times of the Old Covenant with the Mosaic laws. The Mosaic judicial laws were no longer applicable. The only application had to do with their “general equity” (see Chapter 19:4). Furthermore, they were being persecuted by those very people who wanted a particular branch of Christianity to be defended by the state, although they were as much Reformed and Christian as they were. Hence the publication of this Confession of Faith to show that we have more things in common than different.

Lastly, there will be times of war, but this has to be upon just and necessary occasions and it is specifically said to be under the New Testament. In other words, not every instance of war in the Old Testament is justifiable now under the New Covenant. But at the same time, this does not mean that no war is justifiable under the New Covenant.

Christians are not to reject involvement in civil matters but are to accept them. It is not sinful, contra the Anabaptists, to work in the government. Christians in the government are to seek justice and peace. They are not to turn the civil government into a theocracy, but they are to influence it and maintain justice and peace. Their rule is to be according to the laws of the land, yet one cannot disconnect their own convictions of the Law of God. One cannot be neutral at work and Christian at home. When Christians work in the government, they should try to bring their Christian convictions with them to work. They cannot believe one thing on Sunday and promote contrary things on the other days of the week. There is a fine difference between being influenced by the biblical worldview and trying to reimplement the civil law of Israel again. I’m sure many of us know politicians in our countries who are devoutly Christian and try to bring their Christian influence in the land we live.

Examples of believers involved in pagan governments are Daniel and his three friends, Nehemiah who l...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 30: Of the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 17,908 views | 13,619 words | 1:11:21 hours | 06 March 2015 23:22

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 30 Sacrament Ordinance Lord's Supper Table Of The Lord Communion Eucharist Transubstantiation Roman Catholicism Idolatry Means Of Grace

!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 30: Of the Lord’s Supper

What is the Lord’s Supper? Are we obliged to observe it? What does it signify? What is the Roman Catholic view? What is the Reformed view? Why should the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation be rejected? Doesn’t Christ saying ‘this is my body’ mean that the bread and wine are Christ’s literal body and blood? How is the Lord’s Supper a means of grace? Who may partake of the Lord’s Supper?

This is, I believe, the most anti-Roman Catholic chapter in the Confession. This chapter provides a positive presentation of the Reformed view on the Lord’s Supper and rejects the repugnant doctrine of Transubstantiation. It is important for us to understand the different views on the Lord’s Supper. The most important of those different views is the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation. In this case, I will try to let Roman Catholics themselves explain to us their doctrine and then provide a biblical case of what the Lord’s Supper is and what it is not.

§1 The Supper Of The Lord Jesus

The supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by him the same night wherein he was betrayed, 1 to be observed in his churches, 2 unto the end of the world, 3 for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, 4 confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, 5 their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, 6 their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; 7 and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other. 8
1. 1 Cor. 11:23-26; Matt. 26:20-29; Mark 14:17-25; Luke 22:14-23^[1]
2. Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-22, 33-34
3. Mark 14:24-25; Luke 22:17-22; 1 Cor. 11:24-26
4. 1 Cor. 11:24-26; Matt. 26:27-28; Luke 22:19-20
5. Rom. 4:11
6. John 6:29, 35, 47-58
7. 1 Cor. 11:25
8. 1 Cor. 10:16-17

The supper of the Lord is a “positive and sovereign institution” (chapter 28:1) by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He commanded it to be observed in His churches, unto the end of the world (1 Cor. 11:26). Why did He command it to be observed? ...for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of Himself in His death (1 Cor. 11:24-26). The Lord Supper signifies and shows forth the Lord’s suffering on our behalf, His body being broken for us and His blood being shed for our forgiveness. It is also given for the confirmation of the faith of believers to remind them of the sacrifice of Christ which is their only ground of hope and peace with God. It is for their spiritual nourishment, and growth in Him because the Lord comes very close to us as we partake of His supper and sit at His table. It reminds us also of all the duties which we owe to Him thanks to His sacrifice on our behalf. But it is also a bond and pledge of our communion with Him, and with each other. Since we are all in union with Christ and as we partake of His blood and body, we also partake and are united with each other as believers. Christ unites all believers together and this is also signified by the Lord’s Supper and it is a pledge of it (i.e., a solemn promise or undertaking to keep this communion).

Institution And Command Of Observation

The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance that is directly commanded by Christ. It’s not a deduction from multiple passages, but a direct and positive command of the Sovereign Christ. It is meant to cause us to look back to the perfect sacrifice of Christ of Himself by Himself for the perfection of all th...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 13,122 views | 1,873 words | 0:09:53 hours | 06 March 2015 23:11

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 28 Sacraments Ordinances Baptism Lord's Supper

!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

What does it mean that the ordinances are positive institution? What is the difference between the Reformed and Roman Catholic understanding of the sacraments? Who may administer the ordinances?

§1 Ordinances Of Positive And Sovereign Institution

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, 1 to be continued in his church to the end of the world. 2
1. Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25^[1]
2. Matt. 28:18-20; Rom. 6:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:13-17; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:5; Col. 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 11:26; Luke 22:14-20

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances and commandments of positive and sovereign institution. They have been instituted and commanded by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver and are, therefore, to be obeyed and continued in His church to the end of the world (Matt. 28:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). What does it mean that the ordinances are of positive and sovereign institution? It means that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are moral commandments which are added to the moral law already existing. They are not things which of themselves are moral, but they are moral because they have been instituted and appointed by the Lord Jesus. They are given to us as a law, which the Lord Jesus Christ, by His power and authority as Head, King and Lawgiver of the church has instituted. Finally, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only ordinances under the New Covenant which the Confession speaks about. Christ has given us only to ordinances which we ought to obey, not seven sacraments according to Roman Catholic teaching.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two ordinances or sacraments which the Lord Jesus by sovereign authority instituted and commanded us to observe. Now, what does the word “positive” mean in the sentence “positive and sovereign institution”? Does it mean something that is happy and good, over against something negative and bad? No, that is not the contextual meaning of the word. Rather, by “positive institution” or “positive command,” the Confession means an institution or a command that is not inherently moral. A person who has not read the Bible or heard of the God of the Bible, still knows that murder is wrong and lying is bad. But, can it be argued that they know that not being baptized is sin and not partaking of the Lord’s Supper is sin? Obviously not. So, these things, just like the command of Genesis 2:16-17 in the Garden, are things which are not inherently moral, but become moral when God commands them. They are things that are good because commanded, in contrast to pure moral laws that are commanded because they are good. The Lord Christ, by His own power and authority, established two ordinances for the New Covenant people of God. But, what do we mean by ordinance or sacrament? A.H. Strong writes, “By the ordinances, we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and confirm it to the believer.”^[2] They are the only visible signs which God has given His people to show the truths of the gospel with. He has not allowed us to use images of any of the blessed Persons of the Trinity (see here), but has given us the bread and wine, and the waters of baptism as signs which symbolize the truths of the gospel.

These two...