The Belgic Confession provides several marks that are helpful as we seek to identify a true church of Christ. According to the Confession, a true church is characterized by the right preaching of the Word of God, the right administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the exercise of church discipline. Such a church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic (The Belgic Confession, 1561, Article 29).In identifying a false church, the doctrinal standards implied in the right preaching of the Word are especially helpful. While an attitude of tolerance ought to exist toward nonessential doctrines, church discipline should be exercised against those who compromise cardinal doctrines. When a church compromises a doctrine which has historically been understood to be a cardinal doctrine and which is essential to the truth of the gospel, then the organization is not a true church. Similarly, if an organization fails to exercise discipline against a church leader who adheres to false doctrine, the trueness of the church may be brought into question.
A parachurch organization is a specialized institutional ministry which functions to assist the local church, but is not under the authority of a local church. The administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline are helpful in distinguishing the parachurch from the church. If an organization administers the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, then this organization might more rightly be defined as a local church. And if the exercise of church discipline is employed within this organization, the group’s parachurch status might also be brought into question.
Steve, you have given matters of ecclesiology far more attention than I have, particularly issues of church polity. I’ve learned much from you in this area. I have a couple questions concerning this interesting post.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Belgic’s use of the definite article with the capitalized “Church” seems to me to intimate a strong polemical impulse against the Roman Catholic institution, thus meant to distinguish it, “[T]he false church,” from the Protestant “true Church.” This seems clear from Art. 29’s closing words: “These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.” It seems therefore that the article’s original intent was to create a demarcation between the Romish and Protestant communions; and to demonstrate the authority and authenticity of the Protestant Church biblically, and conversely, the apostasy of the Roman Papacy. If this is so, then it seems that employing these criteria for discriminating between true and false local churches existing within the value-variegated currency of Protestant denominations is not a purpose that was in the mind of the authorial divines, but only an application in principles. Would you agree with these observations?
2ndly, Art. 29, as you’ve stated (though not without catchword modification;), includes the conditional criterion, “[I]f she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ.”
The Belgic, of course, recognizes only two sacraments: Baptism and the Holy Supper (Art. 33). Concerning Art. 29 again, mustn’t we ask what the Confession means by “pure administration,” especially in such a weighty matter as determining the validity of a church?
Art. 34 labors that the pure administration of the sacrament of baptism ought to be extended to the faithfuls’ children, even infants. So, if the framers of the Belgic consider the pure administration of the sacraments a criterion for deeming a church valid or apostate, and their understanding of the sacrament’s pure administration is in part, the extension of the sign of baptism to covenant member’s infants (i.e., “shortly after they were born”), then would it not follow that credo-baptistic communions are apostate or false churches?
Actually, when I began this article, I wasn't going to cite a source for these criteria because they are so well-known to have been used by the reformers for distinguishing between the true church of God and the apostate church. I now see that I should have appealled to the Second London Confession instead of the Belgic Confession. ;)
ReplyDeleteOf course, and as you've oberved, during the context of the Reformation, the apostate church was viewed by the reformers to be the Roman Catholic Church. And so it is a question pertaining to the invisible church. The Belgic Confession specifically speaks of these three criteria as characteristics of the invisible church--the true church.
Now, only God can see the hearts of those who are part of the invisible church. A group of people can bear all of the outward signs of the invisible church yet not be born again. But if the group does not bear the marks of the true church (invisible), then they cannot be a true local church. A true local church is a congregation of those who are part of the invisible church (although it need not be composed solely of those who are part of the invisible church). Anyone can get together and call themselves a church. My concern is to discern where such ones cannot be a true church of Christ.
Regarding the issue of baptism, I'm not sure about what the framers of the Belgic would have thought about credo-baptism. I'm not sure if they would have thought that it compromised the essential purity of the sacrament's administration. I do know that Reformed churches today who hold to the Belgic Confession or the three forms of unity do not regard credo-baptist churches as apostate. What about you? You're a Presbyterian. Do you think Reformed Baptists, for example, are apostates?
I agree that at least two of these criteria are explicit and ubiquitous among reformational creeds and their divines: The pure preaching/teaching and hearing of the Word and the instituted administration of the sacraments. Calvin says plainly, “Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of Christ has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matth. 18:20). The whole impetus of Institutes, IV:I hangs on these two marks.
ReplyDeleteThe exercise of church discipline isn’t as central or explicit in the Second London, the Westminster, or in Calvin, who ironically cites Matt 18:20 to support the reality of the other two marks. Matt 18:20, however, is a text dealing with the issue of church discipline!
Clearly, church discipline is crucial for the argument of your second paragraph. Accordingly, if it is not exercised, “then the organization is not a true church.” I must take some issue with this statement. You well know that the church that Fanny, Beaner and I were members of and ministered at back home was practically void of genuine church discipline (and polity for that matter). Nevertheless, however flawed, I believe that it was a true church. Did the Belgic’s explicit statement of this particular mark influence your choosing it over the Second London?
Finally, with respect to the Belgic framer’s view of credo-baptism; I don’t believe that this is a mystery. The error of the Anabaptists that the framers found so detestable was twofold: 1. Their insistence on double dipping, and 2. that they did “condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who, we believe, ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant...And, indeed, Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful that for adult persons...” (Art. 34).
You asked of me, as a Presbyterian, whether Reformed Baptists, for example, were apostate? This is both a loaded question and a false dilemma.
Only if I concede that the Belgic’s distinction between the true and false (invisible) Church can validly be applied for discerning true and false (visible/local) churches is the question suitable. And I don’t concede that point; that was the point of the first paragraph of my last post.
I, as a Presbyterian, am inclined to assume the direction of the Westminster, which speaks of “particular churches...are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and publick worship performed more or less purely in them” (XXV:IV). Therefore, I’d say that those you mention are “less pure” than confessional Presbyterians, yet, obviously “have not so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ...” (Ch. V). Moreover, I suspect that those of Reformed churches who also don’t consider Reformed Baptists apostate share a similar view.
Not to sound to postmodern but this particular approach seems so confessionally relative! ;) I mean, the only way such criteria would be practically relevant or applicable would be within the confessional constraints of an adhering communion. And when a particular strain within a denomination feels the slightest bit of disciplinary pressure, they simply start a new denomination according to their doctrinal tastes. This problem looms large over Protestantism, and these criteria don’t seem to me to be remedial.
I chose the Belgic Confession because of its antiquity. But these three marks of a true church are well known and widely attested within reformed circles. Consider this statement regarding Calvin by Hesselink (Professor of Systematics at Western Seminary):
ReplyDelete“Calvin…formally recognized only two marks (notae) of the church: the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. More specifically, ‘whenever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted a church exists’ (Inst IV.1.9). Very closely related to these two marks, however, is church discipline. In fact, he describes the necessity of church discipline in such strong terms that several distinguished Calvin scholars have concluded that for Calvin—as for Bucer and Knox—it was virtually a third mark. (And it later becomes a third mark of the church in several Reformed confessions such as the Belgic Confession, the Scots Confession, and the Emden Catechism).” (I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary, Westminster John Knox, 1997)."
Clowney notes that Calvin "included discipline in the proper observance of the sacraments" (Edmund Clowney, The Church, IVP, 1995).
This view is also maintained by many contemporary scholars and historians including Albert Mohler and C. Matthew McMahon.
One need only to Google "preaching of the word," "administration of the sacraments," and "church discipline" to get a glimpse of how pervasiveness of these three marks.
Maybe this is something you understand well, but your last post seems to imply there is some question about the validity of these three marks. Of course, I think you could make this case historically. Perhaps you might even argue that Calvin only acknowledged two marks. But as the reformed tradition has continued to develop, I think you'll find that the vast majority of reformed scholars would recognize these three marks.
You said, "Only if I concede that the Belgic’s distinction between the true and false (invisible) Church can validly be applied for discerning true and false (visible/local) churches is the question suitable. And I don’t concede that point; that was the point of the first paragraph of my last post."
First, there is no such thing as a false invisible church. Secondly, what is a false local church if it's not an organization operating under the guise of a church that is made up of those who are not part of the invisible church? Let's forget church discipline for now. I think we would agree that the preaching of the gospel is a mark of the true church of God (invisible). If this mark is absent within a local church, then that local church is not a church. The reason for this is that a true local church is a fellowship of those who are truly born again. Again, I agree with the WCF regarding the purity of the church. Not all of those within a true local church must be born again in order for that church to be a true church. But within a true local church there must exist a body of those who are indwelt by the Spirit and bear the outward marks borne by such ones.
Make no mistake, I’m not at all questioning the validity or historical precedent of these marks; I just don’t quite see their utility. For myself, with you I agree that these three are reducible to only one, the right preaching of the Word of God (although I’d tend to lay equal emphasis on the embrace and reception of such preaching). The reducibility of the “marks” to one criterion, and that mark being the sole determiner of a (or “the”) true church is powerfully argued by Calvin in IV:II:4 of Institutes. But, in the other direction, you’ve admitted that with respect to the church discipline mark, there has been at least some measure of “continued development.” Why not, then, augment the list to include other criteria?
ReplyDeleteYou’ve said, “only God can see the hearts of those who are part of the invisible church.” Also that, “a true local church is a fellowship of those who are truly born again,” those who are part of the invisible Church. But, on the other hand, “A group of people can bear of the outward signs [marks?] of the invisible church yet not be born again.”
So, from our vantage, we can judge a local church a “true church,” according to these criteria. Yet this group may be sufficiently unregenerate to fail to be part of the invisible Church, THE True Church, which would therefore render it a false church. I’m just not understanding how this is very helpful.
I believe that subscription to the ancient ecumenical creeds of Orthodoxy would make a better more prudent standard. If a church's preaching and doctrine did not accord with the conclusion of the creeds, well then, they would fail the test. The very reason these historic creeds were decided on was to demarcate between orthodoxy and heresy, who’s in and outside of the true Church universal and invisible.
Furthermore, I think that the WCF is using the concept of purity a bit different that you have taken it. It doesn’t seem to refer to the purity of the individual members at all, but the “more or less” pure administration and discharge of the institutions (i.e., right preaching and hearing and the sacraments). It speaks of “particular churches,” not particular people. Therefore, I’d say again that Reformed Baptists are not apostate (of course) but are a “less pure” expression of the historic Reformational faith.
Finally, you said, “First, there is no such thing as a false invisible church.” Exactly! It would seem that the dialogue has driven me to an absurd remark, but that is the heart of my complaint. The Belgic’s article of choice, Art. 29, ends with these words: “These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.” What two Churches (the capitalized “C” is original in both the English and Latin)? Well, according to the context, “THE true Church” and “THE false Church.” What is THE true Church but the fullness of the number of the elect (Art. 27)? This is the catholic or universal Church; in a word, the “invisible” Church. What, then, would be the antithesis of the True-invisible-Church but the false-invisible-Church? So, I am only using the language of the Belgic here. If it seems silly, that’s my point; it’s a misapplication of the Belgic’s intent.
At bottom, we’re attempting to use objective sensible criteria originally meant to demarcate between two universal (invisible?) assemblies to judge whether particular churches participate in the invisible, universal Church. And this is an exercise that, as you’ve admitted, can be entirely inaccurate, as a false church can bear the criteria as a badge, but remain a false church nonetheless.
I appreciate your bearing with my dullness in this (and most things;).
We rightly criticize, even condemn, the purist adherent of New Perspective or Federal Vision on one count for failing to hold the line between justification and sanctification, or between soteriology and ecclesiology. I can’t seem to get my soft mind around our concepts so as to avoid the conclusion that something similar to this is eerily close.
I think we can augment these three marks with other more specific criteria. In fact, that's what we do with some of what's in our doctinal statements and confessions.
ReplyDeleteAs we've discussed, I think the utility of the marks is that they help us to identify churches which are not, in fact, churches, not that they enable us to definitively identify true churches.
Have you read Al Mohler's article on "The Missing Mark?" http://www.the-highway.com/discipline_Mohler.html I'd be interested to know what you think.
I found Mohler’s paper refreshing and needed today. Especially since I fully agree with you that church discipline essential to the health of any church. However, I still believe that there is a goodish bit of arbitrariness in Baptists pointing to the Belgic Confession as precedent for their case (which Mohler did also). Again, it affirms three marks, and according to it the Baptists who appeal to one are not in conformity to another. Why not then allow paedo-baptism to be the criterion?
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, you know I’m not an anti-disciplinarian at all. One of the membership vows at our church is that, as members, we will happily submit to the discipline of the EPC and the elders of our local session; this is confessed before the entire congregation. But one only need read Rev 2 – 3 to know this problem is nothing new. Take Ephesus, for instance. They had struggled against false teaching, against “false apostles” and the “works of the Nicolaitans.” They had mastered heresy head-hunting. And in so doing they had “abandoned the love they had at first.” This must mean that “their struggle with false teachers and their hatred of heretical teaching had apparently engendered hard feelings and harsh attitudes toward one another to such an extent that it amounted to a forsaking of the supreme Christian virtue of love. Doctrinal purity and loyalty can never substitute for love” (Ladd, Revelations, 39; contra Beale, who unpersuasively contends that the “first love” was their original evangelistic zeal).
The apostle John himself gives the criterion for “testing.” 1) a biblical view of the Person of Christ Jesus (1 Jn 4:2), and 2) submission to the apostolic teaching (4:6). “By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (v. 7). Any aberrant thing is “antichrist.” Thus, I still contend that the ancient ecumenical creeds are more appropriate for the task under question. As Reformed as I am, church history did not begin or end with the Reformation.
You concede that “we can augment these marks.” Is this still speaking of “marks” for distinguishing true from false churches now? If so, whose confession? According to the Pentecostals, we’re members of a false church, since we don’t recognize the continuance of prophecy and tongues; we would deem them false for not affirming the abrogation of those gifts. I still fail to see the utility. I mean, in the abstract, I can see how important this is, but what is the practical usage—the utility? Is it to be used by an individual or family selecting a church? Is it for one church pronouncing the church down the road forthwith to the pit?
Finally, riddle me this. What if one were to find a particular PCUSA church that bore all three marks with extreme fidelity? Would that be a true church, even though that local session is in submission to a presbytery and denomination that are apostate?
Do you understand any of my confusion in this?
I don't find the baptists appeal to historic reformed confessions in the least bit arbitrary. Reformed Baptists today find their heritage in the English Baptists, Puritans, and Reformed tradition. One needn't agree with every point of doctine within a particular confession or creed to agree with the general reliability of that confession or creed.
ReplyDeleteHere are several ways that the marks provide utility:
1. If you are a Christian and for whatever reason you must leave your current church (to relocate for a job or whatever), look for a church which bears these marks.
2. If you are part of a parachurch organization and a question arises as to whether or not the organization should perform baptisms or administer the Lord's Supper, the answer is "NO."
3. Don't come together "as Christians" with a church which does not bear these marks.
The PCUSA church about which you speaks bears the marks of a true church. That's a good sign. It may well be a true church. Perhaps it is less faithful as a church that is not autonomous (from a Baptist perspective). Perhaps it is not as pure as it could be because of its submission to an apostate church. And personally I would hope that the church would reject any request made by the presbytery which would lead it to violate God's Word. But I don't think that it's relationship with the denomination would invalidate its standing as a true church.
I'm sure we could continue this conversation for ever (perhaps when we are with God in eternity we can). But I think this will have to be my last word on the matter (of course, we can talk about it further on the phone if you like).
"I'm sure we could continue this conversation for ever (perhaps when we are with God in eternity we can)."
ReplyDeleteAt that time our points will have become moot. To recognize a true church, the true Church, we'll need only to open our eyes and look about us!! What glory!
But even then, I'm sure we'll find some fine points of doctrine to fuss over ;).
Speaking of that...Since church discipline is a mark of the true church, and the New Creation will be only the true church, will there then be church discipline in the New Creation?!?
Sorry. Just for fun; I'm not looking for a response. :)