Maintaining The Purity of The Visible Church

In treating this subject discipline in the Church, I have chosen to place it in the context of maintaining purity in the visible church. This should be one of the main purposes behind all ecclesiastical disciplinary practice.

By the term invisible church, we mean the entire Church comprised of the elect of all denominations. The invisible church is exclusively composed of true believers: God’s elect. By the term visible church we mean the whole mass of individuals who attend church or are counted as members or attendees of any Christian congregation.

At this point a very important observation should be made: the invisible church is in the midst of the visible church. It is no secret that all congregations are a mixed crowd. Not everyone who attends Sunday worship is a true believer. We all know the saying that going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going into a henhouse makes you a chicken! Any implementation of discipline in the Church should take into consideration this fact and conscientiously tackle this quandary.

This distinction is found repeatedly throughout Scripture. Paul tells us, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.1. In fact, earlier in his Epistle, Paul says, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” 2 Jesus himself declared, “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord…And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”3

Israel, even during its periods of spiritual declension, always had a small remnant of faithful souls. God told Elijah that He had preserved a remnant of souls who had not bowed to Baal 4 Isaiah speaks of a remnant of Israel sixteen times. Throughout the history of the Church, even in her darkest days of apostasy, there was still a trace of faithful souls represented by the likes of Bernard of Clairveaux, Savanarola, Jan Huss, John Wycliffe, Jerome of Prague and Martin Luther. Having seen that the distinction exists, we now proceed to argue its relevance to the issue at hand: the implementation of discipline. We must also hasten to elucidate that by discipline we do not mean merely punitive measures. Discipline should, above everything else, mean the setting up of a structured program intended to establish order and to mold and shape character.

It should be fairly obvious, on the strength of the foregoing definition that church discipline is intended for the benefit of the invisible church, but that it is applied to the visible church. By this we mean to say that the unconverted members of the visible church are not, nor are they to be considered the beneficiaries of ecclesiastical discipline. The beneficiaries are always the true elect of God: the members of the invisible church. Christ is returning for a spotless bride, without wrinkle, 5 terms which can by no means be applied to the visible church. Nevertheless, we have a moral responsibility, in faithfulness to the Heavenly Bridegroom, to strive to maintain purity in the visible church.

In speaking of purity, I am primarily concerned with orthodox theology. I believe that this is the primary purpose of discipline. The Corinthian church is a case in point. St. Paul called for the expulsion of a sinning member, but his directive was couched in a long refutation of false theology.

In 1970, the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer spoke to a national congress of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod on the subject of simultaneously exhibiting the holiness and the love of God. 6 His message details the implosion of the Northern Presbyterian Church in the United States in the 1930’s, due to a lack of discipline against false teaching.

In the late 1890’s, Dr. Briggs was put out of the ministry of the Presbyterian Church for being the first person to introduce modern Liberal Theology into Union Theological Seminary. But by the 1936 the Liberals defrocked Dr. J. Gresham Machen and put him out of the ministry. Schaeffer argues that the reason for such a change within the denomination was the fact that the leaders of the church waited far too long to apply discipline. And when they finally got up the courage to do so, it was too late: the Liberals had won the day.

Schaeffer argues that the Liberals have no right to the Church. The Church belongs to those who adhere to its Creeds and Confessions. One has no right to the Presbyterian ministry if he disbelieves the Westminster Confession of Faith. Tertullian used a similar argument against the heretics of his own day. He said that we should not allow them to use the Scriptures because the Scriptures belong to the true Church, not to the heretics. He says, “If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege.”7

When discipline is not applied swiftly and consistently, it can only wreak havoc in the church. And the Northern Presbyterian Church is a perfect illustration of this fact. In January of 1924, 150 Liberal theologians signed the Auburn Affirmation, which was a declaration of war by the Liberals against historic Christianity. 8 The Conservatives believed that the way to meet this was to get a conservative elected as moderator of the General Assembly. Later that year, they got a Bible-believing man, the Dr. Clarence Edward McCarthy, elected as Moderator in the General Assembly. Instead of disciplining the Liberals, the church tried diplomacy. The Liberals simply consolidated their power in the church bureaucracy. Within only a few years, the Liberals had kicked Machen out of the ministry and completely taken over control of the church and the seminaries.

It got so bad that many Bible-believing men began to exit the denomination. And here is where the real trouble began. Not all of the true Bible believers left at the same time. There was now a tension created – a polarization – between men who had stood side by side and fought together for years. This is where the importance of simultaneously exhibiting the holiness of God and the love of God comes into play. If we do not exhibit God’s holiness, we will compromise on every side. But, if we do not at the same time show forth God’s love, we will alienate our fellow believers who have not yet seen their way clear to leaving a corrupt church. Worse than that, we send a very ugly message to the world. Jesus told His disciples that the world had a right to judge whether or not they were truly His followers based on their love for each other.9 Even more sobering is Christ’s statement that the world may judge whether or not the Father has sent the Son based on our love for each other. 10

Returning to my distinction between visible church and invisible church, I now submit that ecclesiastical discipline should guarantee that the visible church does not override, outweigh or control the invisible church. Our example above shows that when false professors of Christianity are given freedom to speak in the name of the Church, from the pulpit or the seminary podium, it is the invisible church that suffers. The invisible church must always be in control and always apply discipline with consistency. If we stress only the holiness of God, we will present to the world and to our children something hard and ugly. We will be inflexible absolutists who will crucify each other over minor doctrinal differences. But if we stress only the love of God, we will compromise left and right to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Both can be done in the flesh, but we cannot create and maintain the proper balance in the flesh. It is only by the work of the Holy Spirit within us that we can faithfully show forth both the holiness and love of God.

My guess is that we are all subconsciously aware of the initial negative reaction that a serious consistent disciplinary code would create. Accusations of uncharitableness and sanctimoniousness would fly. We would be called “holier than thou” and “Pharisees.” Worst of all we would probably be labeled “judgmental,” and be reminded that Jesus said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” And it is the fear of such initial reactions that hinders us from implementing any sort of systematic code of discipline in the church. Besides this, we are all too familiar with strange “control cults,” i.e., churches that psychologically manipulate their members by means of stern codes of behavior. The last thing we want is to be labeled a cult.

But on the other hand, what are our options? Will we ever be a church without spot if we refuse to punish false teachers? Will we ever present a credible witness to the world if we act as relativistic as they do? The Church has been infected by the Hegelian relativism that controls the world’s thinking. Modern man does not believe in truth. It is not that he does not believe that he has the truth; he does not even believe that such a thing as truth even exists. Then we come along claiming to know the truth, yet we act as if the truth weren’t binding upon us. When the chips are down, would rather compromise with error than to be accused of being bigots. This is the spirit behind the whole ecumenical movement. True believers should have no more to do with Open Theists or Papists than they do with Voodoo priests, yet, bound by the Hegelian spirit of the age, we form alliances with such blasphemers! 11

We have two opposite choices: destroy the beauty of the Church by presenting a caricature of God that is hard and unyielding, or destroy the purity of the Church by sleeping with the enemy. The only safe way through this mine field is applying discipline in love and holiness in order to maintain the purity of the visible church.

1. Romans 9:6

2. Romans 2:28, 29

3. Matthew 7:22, 23

4. 1 Kings19:18

5. Ephesians 5:27

6. The tape recording of this message is available from the tape ministry of Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL

7. Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics, XV

8. Auburn Affirmation, Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology

9. John 13:35

10. John 17:21

11. One such alliance is ECT – Evangelicals and Catholics Together. What we must realize is that the only thing we share in common with Rome is some terminology that is used in completely different ways.

The Fathers Look at the "L" in TULIP

After yesterday's post on the doctrine of Limited Atonement, I wish to call upon the witness of history to show that this was not an inovation of the Reformers. What flollows is the reslut of countless hours of study and research.

Polycarp’s protégé, the great Irenaeus of Lyons says, “And when the prophet says: In the humiliation his judgment was taken away, he signifies the appearance of His humiliation: according to the form of the abasement was the taking away of judgment. And the taking away of judgment is for some unto salvation, and to some unto the torments of perdition. For there is a taking away for a person, and also from a person.” 1

The master apologist Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew says, “But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.” 2

Also applicable is this remark by Tertullian, “for selection implies rejection.” 3 Tertullian goes on to say, “For He who once for all appointed an eternal judgment at the world's close, does not precipitate the separation, which is essential to judgment, before the end. Meanwhile He deals with all sorts of men alike, so that all together share His favors and reproofs. His will is, that outcasts and elect should have adversities and prosperities in common, that we should have all the same experience of His goodness and severity.” 4 Notice how Tertullian deals with the issue of “common grace.” There are benefits experienced by the non-elect due to Christ’s death, but salvation is not one of them, as indeed he says here: “Accordingly the true God bestows His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own elect; upon which account He has appointed an eternal judgment…” 5

These further two quotes by Tertullian bear directly upon the Divine choosing and rejecting of some for salvation: “A preference for the one is not possible without slighting the other, and no choice can be made without a rejection. He who selects some one out of many, has already slighted the other which he does not select.” 6 “These were the ingenious arts of ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have ‘to wrestle,’ as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered.” 7

Another writer says, “The Almighty Christ descends to His elect…” 8

“He could bear Judas even to the last with a long patience - could take meat with His enemy - could know the household foe, and not openly point him out, nor refuse the kiss of the traitor.”Note that Cyprian explains how Jesus bore with Judas even though He was fully aware of what he would do at “the last.” 9

“Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills.” 10 This remark can equally refer to Election and Depravity, but it is noteworthy that Irenaeus limits the recipients of salvation to those who the Father wills to save.

Similarly, Basil the Great, understands salvation to be limited as well. He says: “I exhort you, therefore, not to faint in your afflictions, but to be revived by God’s love, and to add daily to your zeal, knowing that in you ought to be preserved that remnant of true religion which the Lord will find when He cometh on the earth. Even if bishops are driven from their Churches, be not dismayed. If traitors have arisen from among the very clergy themselves, let not this undermine your confidence in God…Remember that it is not the multitude who are being saved, but the elect of God. 11

Consider the confession of the holy Church of Smyrna, shortly after the commendation given to it by the Holy Spirit in Rev. 2:9 upon the martyrdom of their beloved bishop Polycarp: 12 “Neither can we ever forsake Christ, him who suffered for the salvation of the world of them that are saved, nor worship any other.” [It is an extract from a letter of the church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.]

Ignatius, as he was traveling to Rome from Antioch to be cast to beasts for the testimony of Jesus, says: “This is the way leading to the Father, this the rock, the fold, the key; he is the shepherd, the sacrifice; the door of knowledge, by which entered Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the whole company of prophets, and the pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ; for whom, instead of a dowry, he poured out his own blood, that he might redeem her.” 13

Surely Christ gives a dowry for no one but his bride.

Even earlier, possibly while St. John was still living, Clement, “whose name is in the book of life,” 14, with the whole church at Rome in his days, in his epistle to the church of Corinth writes:“For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.” 15 Here we have a testimony from the earliest days of Christianity, wherein we are told: a. The cause of Christ’s death, viz., his love to us. b. Its object — us, or believers. c. The manner how he redeemed us: by substitution.

Citing again from Cyprian, the holy, learned and famous martyr (ci.250 A.D.) we note that he speaks of Christ’s death thus, “He bare all us, who bare our sins;” 16 that is, he sustained their persons on the cross for whom he died.

In another place he says, “This grace hath Christ communicated, subduing death in the trophy of his cross, redeeming believers with the price of his blood.” 17

Lest doubt pervade concerning the use of the word “all,” see how the great teacher of the East speaks.“Wonder not if the whole world be redeemed; for he was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God that died. If, then, through the eating of the tree” (forbidden) “they were cast out of paradise, certainly now by the tree” (or cross) “of Jesus shall not believers more easily enter into paradise?” 18

Others use the word “all” in the same limited sense. Athanasius says, “He is the life of all, and as a sheep he delivered his body a price for the souls of all, that they might be saved.” 19 All in both places can be none but the elect.

The same could be said of Augustine’s mentor, Ambrose, who writes, “If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for thee, he did not suffer for thee.” 20

In another place he writes, “The people of God hath its own fullness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men.” 21 – In which place he proceeds to declare the reasons why, in this business, “all” and “the world” are so often used for “some of all sorts.”

1. Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

2. Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho

3. Tertullian, Apology

4. Tertullian, ibid.

5. Tertullian, ad Scapula

6. Tertullian, ad Nationes, Bk. 1, Ch. 10

7. Tertullian, Prescription Against the Heretics 39

8. Commadianus

9. Cyprian, On The Good of Patience

10. Irenaeus, The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching

11. Basil, Letter CCLVII

12. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Bk. 4, Ch. 15

13. Ignatius, Ep. Phil. 9

14. Philippians 4:3

15. 1 Clement, Ch. XLIX

16. Cyprian, Epist. 62, to Cæcilius

17. Cyprian, to Demetrian

18. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 13

19. Athanasius, The Incarnation of The Word

20. Ambrose, de Vocat. Gen. Bk 1 Ch. 3

21. Ambrose, de Fide ad Gratianum

Some Thoughts on The Atonement

Limited atonement is the elementary Christian doctrine that states that Jesus Christ came and died for a limited number of people. He did not die for, or redeem, every individual who has or will ever live, but some specific individuals, i.e. His sheep. This does not mean that the power of His death could not have saved all men. The power and efficacy of His death through one drop of His blood could have saved a million worlds. But the Scripture does not dabble in "possibilities." But it most certainly does tell us that the scope of His death is limited. He died for some people, and secured the salvation of those people through his death that took away their sin and imputed His own righteousness to them. This is something Christ accomplished on the cross alone.

Scripture does state that he died for "all men" and that God loves "the whole world." In these cases "all men" does not mean every individual inclusively. Nor does it necessarily follow that Christ died for the whole world because God loves the whole world inclusively. Jesus secured the salvation of those for whom He gave his life, and for those God imputes His righteousness upon them. Jesus does not infallibly secure the salvation of all men, for if this were true, all men would be saved.

As the Maxim goes: God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for either:

1) All of the sins of all men - which means all men are saved.

2) Some of the sins of all men - which means men are still in their sins.

3) All of the sin of some men - which is the biblical position.

Arminians must grapple with the fact that Jesus did His saving on the cross. All those for whom he died will be saved in time and justified by God. Arminians probably hate this doctrine more than any other. They say that it limits the value of the atonement or degrades the love of God.

Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. It is the Arminian who actually limits the atonement. The Calvinist limits the extent of it saying that it does not apply to all persons, although he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race. But the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. To use an illustration from Lorraine Boettner, for the Calvinist the atonement is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only halfway across. So we can see that as a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist. “The sin of Adam,” says Charles Hodge, “did not make the condemnation of all men merely possible; it was the ground of their actual condemnation. So the righteousness of Christ did not make the salvation of men merely possible, it secured the actual salvation of those for whom He wrought.” 1

1. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Ch. 8

A Conviction Against Convictions/

Perhaps the most prolific non-biblical concepts in Christianity today is the so-called “conviction.”

Although, I assume that everyone knows what I mean by this, I will explain it a bit. A “conviction” is a personal belief that God does not want you to do something which is not necessarily wrong in itself, not wrong for others to do, nor forbidden in Scripture.

It is my opinion that “convictions” are the biggest crock even imported into Christianity. As I have observed and evaluated people’s so-called “convictions,” I find them to be little more than a not-so-subtle form of will-worship that fosters self-righteousness and judgmentalism.

In the first place, I am not aware of anyone having a “conviction” against doing something they actually liked. This in itself is highly suspicious. I remember a woman who had an unreasonably strong “conviction” about listening to Christian rock music. The crazy thing was, she hated rock music of any variety even before she was a Christian. She had simply found a way to baptize her personal taste and use it as a way to magnify herself in her own mind. She was more holy and spiritual than these worldly bums at church simply because she had decided that her personal taste was holier than theirs. Frankly, I can’t understand how anyone in the world could enjoy Country Western music; I do not however, assume that this is a great spiritual quality about me which shows my Christian maturity over other believers. That seems as ridiculous as deciding that 7-Up is holier than Sprite.

The drinking of alcoholic beverages is probably the most common subject of these so-called “convictions.” And even there, I have yet to meet someone with this “conviction” who would actually drink if it weren’t for this “conviction.” The “conviction” assumes that something is sinful for you, but how can this be? Where do we find in Scripture the idea that something may be sinful for one person, but acceptable for someone else? Even the people who advocate abstaining from alcoholic beverages realize that although Scripture prohibits drunkenness, it does not actually prohibit drinking a beverage that contains alcohol. Personally, I do not drink, but that is because I can’t get past the smell. When I hear someone recount their “conviction” about drinking alcohol, it is always cast in language that suggests their spiritually maturity and superiority over those who indulge in their “freedom.”

What is this but the Pharisee’s prayer revisited? Paul declares, “Why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? (1 Cor. 10:29).

This is an example of the “apparent wisdom” Paul speaks of in Colossians 2:23, which does not restrain sin. Indeed it begets pride and self-righteousness. Once you think that there is something you do that makes you to differ from another, you are in serious trouble (1 Cor. 4:7).

The Liberty of a Christian's Conscience

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using) -- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. Colossians 2:20-22

One of the things Luther and the other Reformers protested was the Roman invention of extra-biblical disciplines and “spiritual” acts. The reason for the protestation was that Rome was binding the consciences of Christians to things not commanded in Scripture. This is similar to Christ’s remark to the Pharisees that they were making traditions more binding than the commandments of God.

Examples of this man-made Romish righteousness would be the prohibition of meat on Fridays, Lenten self-denial, auricular confession, making the sign of the cross, the veneration of images, ad nauseum. It is sinful for the church make people feel that they have violated their consciences by neglected to do these things because Scripture commands none of them, and actually prohibits most of them. This is what our passage refers to when it mentions the man-made commands “do not handle; do not taste; do not touch.”

Included in this also would be the apparent commonsense behind acts like the Pharisaical hand-washing. Certainly, it is wise and healthful to wash one’s hands before eating, but turning this into some sort of moral obligation is merely another form of will-worship – binding a Christian’s conscience to something Scripture neither prescribes nor proscribes. There is also the Mormon abstention from caffeine and Adventist vegetarianism.

Many people have spent a lot of time studying the Old Testament Jewish dietary laws and millions of claims have been made as to the supposed heath benefits of following this diet. It is therefore, erroneously concluded that this is why God enforced this dietary code. This is dangerous for a couple of reasons. First it contradicts Mark 7:19. Secondly, it creates a serious conundrum: If God prohibited the eating of certain foods merely for health reasons (and it is actually not health to eat these foods) then isn’t it sinful to eat these things? Yet this runs directly counter to all that we have already seen. If Christ declared all food clean, then who are we to pretend to be smarter than God?

Thirdly, it misses the point of the dietary laws. The dietary code was part of a whole system of laws and restrictions, the purpose of which was to set Israel apart as holy. Israel was set apart, holy unto God. The way in which they were marked out as different from the other nations of the earth was through such practices.

For instance, when God commanded Israel to keep the Sabbath, this made them different from all the nations of the Gentiles. The Old Testament is replete with “holy” things, from oil to lamps to incense to bells and clothes… all of which were forbidden for personal use. By “holy,” these inanimate objects were strictly set apart for use in the worship of God. That is the point of the dietary law: it made Israel different from the nations, i.e., it distinguished between the holy and unholy (Lev. 10:10).

We can all laugh at such religious legalism as Popish restrictions about meat and marriage or Mormon abstention from coffee and pop. But many Evangelicals are as guilty of such behavior. I have interacted with “Holiness Pentecostal” people and have seen egregious examples of such behavior. I have heard sermons against shaving and sermons against not shaving (Jesus saves and Jesus shaves). I have heard sermons against women wearing pants. Many holiness Pentecostal preachers would preach the wedding ring off your finger. I once heard a preacher virtually declare roller-skating to be the unpardonable sin.

Then, of course, there is the ‘higher life’ teaching of the Keswick movement. By placing excessive emphasis on death to self and personal sanctification, an upside down version of the Christian life is created whereby one’s justification is judged by one’s attainments in holiness. Instead of justification by grace, it becomes justification by sanctification. The Wesleyan preachers who thought they had discovered some new truth about the Christian life were much mistaken because this is nothing more than medieval Catholic mysticism in Wesleyan and Pentecostal garb.

Let me reiterate: Scripture alone is the rule of Christian doctrine and practice. Wherever Scripture does not provide a clear prescription or proscription, we should tread lightly. A Christian should never be made to feel guilty for doing or not doing things not taught in Scripture.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

1 Corinthians 10:29b For why is my freedom judged by another's conscience?