Chapter 4
The protestant Reformation presented people with many serious issues. We
have looked at the chief questions: (1.) What is the right way of salvation,
and (2.) What is the right way to worship God? There was yet another query
which follows upon the heels of these questions: Which is the true church? [1]
Both Rome and Protestants claimed to be the true church, each denouncing the
other as a false church. Additionally, there were Anabaptists and other sects
which condemned both Rome and Protestant congregations as false churches.
Today, the problem is exacerbated by a myriad of religious assemblies, all
claiming the title of Christ's church. How should a man sift through these
conflicting claims? How can he know which church he should join?
The reformers were sensitive to this dilemma, and the creedal formulations
of Protestants addressed the issue in a strongly pastoral manner. The creeds
hearken back to those basic issues we have already examined: the way of
worship, and the way of salvation. From scripture, the reformers concluded that
we should look for three basic marks to identify the true church: (1.) the
preaching of the gospel, (2.) the proper administration of the sacraments, (3.)
the right exercise of church discipline.[2] Where these
three marks are clearly present, we may rest assured we have found the church
of the Lord Jesus Christ.[3]
In a most practical manner, these marks provide the believer with a measure
by which to evaluate a local congregation before joining it. If the marks are
conspicuous, we may join with a clear conscience, knowing it to be a genuine
Christian congregation. If these three marks are not plainly manifest, we
should look elsewhere; we are not obligated to join an assembly which does not
exhibit the marks of a true church.
Further, if it is obvious that the opposite marks are present such as a
false gospel, corruption of the sacraments and worship, and gross abuse or
neglect of church discipline then it is our duty to avoid such an assembly
and admonish others to do likewise. Such openly corrupt assemblies are
synagogues of Satan.
It is not our purpose to enter into a detailed discussion of each of the
individual marks. As a summary, we note the following facts.
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom.
10:17). If a religious assembly has not the gospel of Christ, it is not worthy
to be called a church. Without the gospel, there can be no true Christians;
without true Christians, there can be no real church.
The administration of the sacraments is an indicator of a congregation's
practices in wor ship. If an assembly substitutes man-made forms of worship in
place of the sacraments, it is not worthy to be regarded as a true church. And
when a congregation adopts a multitude of humanly -devised "aids to
worship," as supplements to the biblical ordinances, the leaven of
idolatry is already present. Christians must avoid corrupt worship, "for
what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" (2 Cor. 6:16).
Church discipline is designed to maintain the glory of God and preserve the
health of the church. If a person makes a profession of faith, but exhibits a
life of moral corruption, men regard his profession as hypocrisy. Similarly, if
an assembly claims the title of a church, while tolerating notorious heresies
and scandals in its midst, it has degenerated so as to become no church of
Christ, but a "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
We stress that the marks of the church are used to answer a question about
the legitimacy of religious assemblies in their collective capacity. Does the congregation corporately bear the
character of a genuine church of Christ? The failure of a congregation jointly
to measure up to these standards does not, in itself, consign every individual
there to flames of perdition.
Having said that, we must assert the obligation of every Christian to seek
out a true congregation. Believers are admonished not to forsake "the
assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is" (Heb. 10:25).
The Reformers took this duty seriously, noting "that it is important to
discern with care and prudence which is the true church, for this title has
been much abused."[4] "It is the duty of all
believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those
who do not belong to the church, and to join themselves to this congregation
[the true church], wheresoever God hath established it. Therefore all those,
who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act
contrary to the ordinance of God."[5]
It is the office of every believer to discern between true and false
shepherds. Christ "putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and
the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger they will not
follow, but will flee from him: for they
know not the voice of strangers" (John 10:4-5). Since the preaching of an
assembly reveals its doctrine of the gospel, the believer must evaluate the
teaching ministry of the congregation. Is this church faithfully proclaiming the word of Christ? The
discernment of the believer is tested in this regard, and by his decision
respecting church membership. Will he follow the voice of Christ, or will he entertain the voice of a
stranger by joining a corrupt church?
These principles have great relevance to the present interaction between
Protestants, evangelicals, and Roman Catholics. Yet the imperative nature of
proper church membership is studiously avoided in contemporary literature on
inter-denominational relations. We contend that a proper approach to church
membership is mandatory for those who are faithful to the Lord and his word.
The marks of a true church will dictate two crucial matters: (1.) what church
we will join; (2) and whether we should recognize a particular communion as a
legitimate church and account its membership outwardly as brethren in the Lord.
Having considered the marks of a true church, in light of our earlier
examination of the gospel and true worship, we must conclude that Roman
Catholicism is a false church. At the Council of Trent, Rome officially
repudiated the biblical doctrine of justification, institutionally cutting
itself off from the true gospel. The popish corruption of the gospel and the
sacraments, and Rome's blatant practices of idolatry, openly display its
character as a synagogue of Satan.[6] There obviously is no
biblical discipline, because the heresies and corruptions of Rome go unchecked,
while anathemas are hurled against those who profess the scriptural gospel.
One recent writer, William Webster, makes an appeal to Roman Catholics to
"come out from among them and be separate" (2 Cor. 6:17). "Why
do I say that?" he asks. "Am I being impolitic in this counsel,
especially when many evangelicals are saying we should not call upon Catholics to leave their communion?"
He goes on to say, "The issues that separate Protestants and Roman
Catholics are not minor. They are major. They have to do with the eternal
destinies of men and women."[7] These comments speak
volumes at a time when many evangelical churchmen have lost sight of the
pastoral urgency of calling men to repentance.
But again, we must not stop with Rome. As we have seen, many modern
evangelical churches have embraced the false gospel of decisionalism and
adopted man-made worship. Moreover, great heresies and scandals remain
unremedied within evangelical congregations; because church discipline is so
unpopular among the people, it is generally avoided. In short, if the marks of
the church are telling against Rome, they are equally telling against evangelicalism.
In a recent evangelical book on Roman Catholicism, Donald Bloesch flatly
denies the historic distinction between true and false churches.[8]
Another author in the same book, Michael Horton, makes a passing reference to
the marks of the church (leaving out the third mark on discipline), stating
that Rome is "not a true visible church."[9]
Later in the same essay, Horton criticizes evangelicals for Pelagian
evangelism: "Entire denominations that were committed confessionally to
the doctrine of justification [by grace alone through faith alone] have ended
up adopting, in actual practice, a Pelagian message. When evangelicals deny
human depravity and inability, affirm that human beings cooperate in their own
conversion by the use of their free will, and view salvation as a project of
moral improvement (especially when that affirms a notion of entire
sanctification), they are further afield from the gospel than Rome has ever
been."[10] One might expect the author to state the
implications of his observations, and discuss the marks of the church as they
relate to evangelicals. But the essay comes to an abrupt halt, without
following through on such important ramifications.
Earlier in the same book, Robert Godfrey correctly summarizes John Calvin's
analysis of the chief disputes between Rome and the Protestants: namely the
conflicts respecting the gospel and true worship. After his historical
overview, Godfrey asks, "Were Calvin to evaluate Rome today what would he
conclude?" He rightly answers that Calvin "would surely conclude that
Rome is worse off today than it was in the sixteenth century." Godfrey
then reminds us of Rome's "syncretistic" worship, doctrine of
justification that "still rests on human cooperation," and
administration of the sacraments "in an idolatrous and magical
manner."
Curiously, Godfrey adds, "Calvin would no doubt equally lament the sad
state of much of Protestantism today." Considering that Godfrey's essay is
included in a book styling its authors as "evangelical Protestants,"
his definition of Protestantism must include the evangelicals of our time. So
why does Godfrey let evangelicals off with only a mild critique, in comparison
to his pointed criticisms of Rome? Surely what is good for the Popish goose
should be good for the evangelical gander. Why not apply the same historic
measures to both Rome and evangelicalism?[11]
One suspects that contemporary evangelical writers are reticent to press the
issue more forcefully because of the embarrassing implications. A due regard
for the marks of the church would not only unchurch Rome, but a major part of
modern evangelicalism. That prospect is so startling, that even the most
conservative and "reformed" theologians in our day cannot bring
themselves to consider the idea.
Horton speaks with hope of a new reformation within Protestantism.[12] But if there is to be a new reformation, we need to come
clean on the depth of the problem among evangelicals, and summon them to
repent, believe the true gospel, and depart from their idols in worship.
(Anything less is simply beating around the bush.) And until evangelicals bring
forth such fruits meet for repentance, historic Protestants will have no choice
but to regard the bulk of evangelical churches as no more legitimate than Rome.
Once again, we see that evangelicals and Roman Catholics together are making
shipwreck of the faith.
Footnotes for Chapter 4
1. In the following discussion, our comments are narrowly
focused upon the identity of the true church in an institutional sense. Because
the believer's connection to the institutional church comes within the context
of the local congregation, that is the focal point of our inquiry.
In an enlarged discussion of related themes, we could explore the
differences between the visible church and the invisible church. The scriptures
clearly make a distinction between the universal church of all ages, the elect "the heavenly Jerusalem the
general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven"
(Heb. 12:22-23) and the local congregations which are composed of those in
outward communion with the assemblies of Christ. Thus, the historic Protestant
creeds distinguish between the visible church and the invisible
church (cf. Westminster Confession (1646), chapter 25; the Scottish Confession
of Faith (1560), chapters 16 and 18). Obviously our discussion pertains mainly
to the visible church, regarding its proper identification: that is, how it may
be discerned among local congregations.
2. The marks of the church are treated in The Confession of
the English Congregation at Geneva (1556), the French Confession of Faith
(1559), articles 26-28; the Scottish Confession of Faith (1560), chapters 16
and 18, and the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), articles 27-29; Second
Helvetic Confession (1566), chapter 17.
3. The Westminster Confession elaborates on the doctrine of
the church when it says, "The purest churches under heaven are subject
both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no
churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan" (25:5).This statement does
not purport to tell us how we may "rate" churches in a dubious
condition, nor does the Confession commend believers to "less pure"
churches which have not yet fully degenerated into synagogues of Satan. Rather,
the Westminster Confession lets stand the previous creedal doctrine that calls
upon men to seek out a true church one clearly discerned by the right marks.
These comments would seem to be unnecessary, were it not for modern
Presbyterians who have sought to pit the Westminster Confession against the
previous Protestant creeds, in order to lessen the role of the marks of the
church. It should be noted that it was the Church of Scotland which ratified
the Westminster Standards, giving the standards their ecclesiastical approval.
Yet nowhere in the acts of ratification did the Scottish church repudiate its
former creedal testimony. It is worth noting that the Scottish General Assembly
had previously ratified (among others) all each of the following creeds: The
Confession of the English Congregation at Geneva, the French Confession, and
the Scottish Confession of 1560; and all of these creeds affirm the marks of
the true church.
4.. French Confession of Faith (1559), article 27. The
Belgic Confession (1561) says, "We believe that we ought diligently and
circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since
all the sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the
Church" (article 29). The Scottish Confession says, "Because that
Satan from the beginning has laboured to deck his pestilent synagogue with the
title of the kirk of God, and has inflamed the hearts of cruel murderers to
persecute, trouble, and molest the true kirk and members thereof it is a thing
most requisite that the true kirk be discerned from the filthy synagogue, by
clear and perfect notes, lest we, being deceived, receive and embrace to our
own condemnation the one for the other" (chapter 18).
5. Belgic Confession, article 28. In some cases, there may
not be a preexisting true congregation near a believer's home. Still, the
imperative to separate from false churches remains. In such irregular
circumstances, where there is not an acceptable preexisting church, the
believerwould be encouraged to help form one or, perhaps, move to a location
near a true congregation. During the Reformation, Protestants formed numerous
"house churches" sometimes called privy congregations, and often held "underground" meetings.
(See Second Helvetic Confession, chapter 17.)
The present author has discussed ecclesiastical polity in more detail
elsewhere. See: Kevin Reed, Biblical Church Government (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage, 1983, 1994 expanded
edition); also, Presbyterian Government in Extraordinary Times (Dallas: privately published [loose-leaf], 1993).
6. "Therefore we condemn the papal assemblies, as the
pure word of God is banished from them, their sacraments are corrupted, or
falsified, or destroyed, and all superstitions and idolatries are in them. We
hold, then that all who take part in these acts, and commune in that church,
separate and cut themselves off from the body of Christ." (French
Confession, article 28) "As for the false church, she ascribes more power
and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the word of God, and will
not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the
sacraments as appointed by Christ in his word, but adds to and takes from them,
as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes
those, who live holily according to the word of God, and rebuke her for her
errors, covetousness, and idolatry" (Belgic Confession, article 29). The
Confession of the English Congregation speaks of "idolaters and heretics,
as Papists, Anabaptists, with suchlike limbs of Antichrist." Status: RO
7. William Webster, "Did I Really Leave the Holy
Catholic Church?" in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze
What Divides and Unites Us (edited by John
Armstrong; Chicago: Moody Press 1994), p. 286, 288. Webster adds: "I
believe that a Roman Catholic who is sincerely committed to following truth
will eventually leave the Roman Catholic Church, realizing as the Reformers
taught that it is not the
historic, biblical, holy, catholic church" (p. 286).
8. "It has been fashionable in evangelical
Protestantism to regard the Reformation church as the true church of Christ and
the Roman Catholic church as a false church. A more biblical stance is to see
one holy and apostolic church irremediably fractured by the Reformation."
Donald Bloesch, "Is Spirituality Enough?" in Roman Catholicism:
Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us (edited by John Armstrong; Chicago: Moody Press
1994), p. 152.
9. Michael Horton, "What Still Keeps Us Apart?"
in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and
Unites Us (edited by John Armstrong;
Chicago: Moody Press 1994), p. 247; 258.
10. Michael Horton, "What Still Keeps Us Apart?"
p. 263.
11. W. Robert Godfrey, "What Really Caused the Great
Divide?" in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What
Divides and Unites Us (edited by John
Armstrong; Chicago: Moody Press 1994), p. 79.
12. Michael Horton, "What Still Keeps Us Apart?"
p. 264.
Copyright ©1995 by Kevin Reed