# Church-goers and Covenant Responsibilty



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 23, 2008)

I have a very serious question here. There are some people that I know that don't think going to church is necessary for the Christian as long as they are part of the invisible church. They obviously don't use the language I'm engaging in, but the idea is still the same. 

But for the sake of indulging the group, here's what I propose: 
Everything Christ does is significant
Christ instituted the Church
Therefore, everyone who claims to listen to Christ must heed and yoke himself to the Church. 

(My argument is a deductive argument that I took from Matthew's Gospel, chapter 16.)

Would you call this valid in its formal and informal structure? The apparent inference would be that the church is significant, but I want to focus not on the church's mission but rather the Christian's responsibility to yoke himself to that significant institution.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 23, 2008)

Although I probably wouldn't do it, I'm tempted to just contradict the assertion.

"No, actually by your 'forsaking the assembling yourselves' together with the saints, you show you hate the church Christ loves. Nice. Stop being willful and disobedient."


----------



## christianyouth (Dec 23, 2008)

Jmartinez, also the people who don't go to church almost always will say, "Yeah, but the Church is not a building!" They will use the definition of the invisible church, so I think they wouldn't accept your argument.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 23, 2008)

I think there is a problem with the first axiom. It should be much more forceful, such as: 

'Everything Christ does is an expression of His Lordship over His people' (something along the lines of Matthew 28:18)

One might draw the conclusion from your argument that the establishment of the visible church is significant or helpful but that it is not necessary for them to join.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 23, 2008)

The last time I preached on Lord's Day 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism, I used a similar (but I think stronger) argument:

Those who love Christ will love what he loves (Union with Christ, e.g. John 15)
Christ loves his local visible church (e.g. Rev. 3:9)
Those who love Christ will love his local visible church

To be indifferent about the church (in the local, visible sense) should be unthinkable for a believer grafted into Christ by faith.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 23, 2008)

Maybe you can help this person see that this rationalization comes from a very low view of Christ's Body and a very self-centered attitude. 

One way of looking at this, that might provoke this person's thinking is that to not go to church is to deny the Body of Christ. By not associating, we are denying before the world what Christ has in fact done for us. We are not entitled to deny what Christ has done for us before the world because it is not true (ninth commandment violation) and it is a way of denying Christ Himself.

To not associate with the Body denies that person of the benefits and denies the church the benefits of that person. They may say something like, "I don't like the church for these reasons..." You might respond by saying, "how are you serving Christ's Body"? "How can you serve Christ's Body if you deny Christ's Body"?

After putting the presumption of denial on their implicit assertion (it doesn't matter whether I go to Church as long as "I have Christ"), then try explaining that God has established means of grace through

1) preaching and teaching the Word
2) taking the sacraments
3) corporate prayer

These are done through Church and it is a sin to neglect them. Ask this person if they have considered that it is a great sin to neglect the Lord's Supper.

It's somewhat like an animal saying it is a fish but refusing to get in the water.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 23, 2008)

The maxim of Cyprian is as true today as it ever was: Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, “Outside the church there is no salvation.”

Cyprian went on to state that:

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined with an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he who has abandoned the Church arrive at the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He cannot have God as a father who does not have the Church as a mother … He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.”

The visible church is not an option, it is the vehicle of Christianity.


----------



## Pilgrim (Dec 23, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Although I probably wouldn't do it, I'm tempted to just contradict the assertion.
> 
> "No, actually by your 'forsaking the assembling yourselves' together with the saints, you show you hate the church Christ loves. Nice. Stop being willful and disobedient."



A former pastor of mine went even further and published a tract entitled "Go to Church or Go to Hell!" He obviously didn't mean that going to church saves but was emphasizing that there are no "Lone Ranger" Christians and that the believer will naturally seek out fellowship with other believers and seek to be under the ministry of the Word, etc.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 23, 2008)

jmartinez83 said:


> I have a very serious question here. There are some people that I know that don't think going to church is necessary for the Christian as long as they are part of the invisible church. They obviously don't use the language I'm engaging in, but the idea is still the same.
> 
> But for the sake of indulging the group, here's what I propose:
> Everything Christ does is significant
> ...





I know people like that, the Church is full of hypocrits don't ya know and besides they worship in their hearts.

I would explain the different offices we have under Christ, because they probably have no conception of being priest, prophet and king to their family. Probably have never heard the concept before. Further, they need to understand that you *get* to go to Church, it is a privilege that they are not prizing. They probably don't feel the same way about the public school, or their job.

I'm a member of the invisible economy, so I choose not to go to work, after all the workplace is filled with hypocrits and I work in my heart.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 23, 2008)

This is a widely held error as it ignores or denies much biblical teaching about the importance of the visible covenant community. I wrote this essay to respond to the very claims made by your friend.

When Jesus said "tell it to the church" was he speaking of the visible or invisible church? (Matt 18). When he gave the keys of the kingdom to the Apostles (Matt 16), was this only an invisible kingdom? When Jesus instituted the Supper, did he institute it for the invisible church? Ditto for Matt 28:18-20 and Baptism. 

See also Belgic Confession Articles 28-29:



> Article 28: The Obligations of Church Members
> We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
> 
> But all people are obliged to join and unite with it, keeping the unity of the church by submitting to its instruction and discipline, by bending their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ, and by serving to build up one another, according to the gifts God has given them as members of each other in the same body. And to preserve this unity more effectively, it is the duty of all believers, according to God's Word, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the church, in order to join this assembly wherever God has established it, even if civil authorities and royal decrees forbid and death and physical punishment result.
> ...


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 23, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Jmartinez, also the people who don't go to church almost always will say, "Yeah, but the Church is not a building!" They will use the definition of the invisible church, so I think they wouldn't accept your argument.



I totally agree with you. Let me illustrate a better point. I recently heard a lecture by Professor R. Scott Clark (thankfully he's here too) and he gave a pithy statement that ran sort of like this (or the logic anyway):



> 1. He/she doesn't belong to a local body
> 2. He/she is part of the invisible church _only_
> 3. Therefore, they ought to repent and believe.



Numbers 1 and 2 are obviously those who claim to be part only of the invisible church--your "it's not a building" argument--and the 3 is obviously Dr. R. Scott Clark. Would you agree, Dr. Clark? 
What I later came to deduce from the argument in my own reasoning was that those who did not yoke themselves to the Church (BC XXVIII) are outside the faith. Is this correct?


----------



## JohnGill (Dec 23, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Although I probably wouldn't do it, I'm tempted to just contradict the assertion.
> 
> "No, actually by your 'forsaking the assembling yourselves' together with the saints, you show you hate the church Christ loves. Nice. Stop being willful and disobedient."



I love this quote. I'll be stealing. There are a lot of Lone Ranger Christians in Alaska.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 23, 2008)

*Response to R. Scott Clark*

But what of those who do not subscribe to the confessions of the Reformed faith? I sought an evangelical (a more general scope) defense of what the Belgic Confession teaches.



-----Added 12/23/2008 at 11:36:54 EST-----



Hippo said:


> The maxim of Cyprian is as true today as it ever was: _Extra ecclesiam nulla _salus.
> 
> The visible church is not an option, it is the vehicle of Christianity.



I totally agree, but to make it an argument to those who oppose it is my concern. I need an argument so compelling that there is no option for a retort. I want the argument to compel them to believe in the absolute abject horror of the negation of my claim that the visible Church is first before one can make a claim for the invisible Church--which tends to be the argument from those who say that they don't need the Church. My argument is basic: In order to define the invisible Church, one needs a visible one to define (or differentiate) it from the false church. Obviously the visible Church doesn't decide the salvation of men. I'm not saying that. But my argument is a basic demarcation of the souls who belong to Christ , who first need the visible in order to "_demarcate_" the invisible. Does that sound right?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 24, 2008)

> 1. He/she doesn't belong to a local body
> 2. He/she is part of the invisible church _only_
> 3. Therefore, they ought to repent and believe.



Numbers 1 and 2 are obviously those who claim to be part only of the invisible church--your "it's not a building" argument--and the 3 is obviously Dr. R. Scott Clark. Would you agree, Dr. Clark? 
What I later came to deduce from the argument in my own reasoning was that those who did not yoke themselves to the Church (BC XXVIII) are outside the faith. Is this correct?[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, the only persons who are members of the invisible church, ordinarily, are those who are members of the visible church. If one is not a member of a true church, then he or she can claim to be a member of the church invisible til she or she turns blue but I have no idea what that means. Membership in the church invisible ordinarily comes through membership in the church visible. I say "ordinarily" because there may be exceptional cases of one on an island reading a bible or the like. 

None of the NT gospels or epistles was written directly to "the church invisible." They were all written directly to local, visible congregations. Those congregations contained two sorts of people, those who believe and are members of the church visible and invisible and those who do not believe or perhaps do not yet believe and who are members only of the church visible.

All members of the church invisible are members of the church visible but not all members of the church visible are members of the church invisible.

-----Added 12/24/2008 at 12:56:38 EST-----



jmartinez83 said:


> But what of those who do not subscribe to the confessions of the Reformed faith? I sought an evangelical (a more general scope) defense of what the Belgic Confession teaches.



Well, the paper on the church is drawn almost exclusively from Scripture. It was written for that myriad of churchless evangelicals who claim to belong to the church invisible without having to be a member of a visible church.


----------



## Tim (Dec 24, 2008)

My argument on this would be:

"Why would you _not_ want to attend church?"

You shouldn't need a command to do this (although I understand the purpose and question of the original post - it is important to have an answer for this).


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 24, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> > 1. He/she doesn't belong to a local body
> > 2. He/she is part of the invisible church _only_
> > 3. Therefore, they ought to repent and believe.
> 
> ...


Where here's the situation. I go to Santa Monica every Friday to do evangelism. However, the guy that has all the equipment and permit belong to him. How should I tackle the issue? I have an argument, a Confessional Reformed answer by referring to the confessions, but I also have a general one; I'm calling it an evangelical response. However, I am convinced that the term doesn't fare with many people today. I know I don't like the term when thinking about the current state of the evangelical climate today, as shown by Dr. Ronald Gleason's new book, "Reforming or Conforming." (Yes, I know, Dr. Clark, that you and many other theologians contributed to the book; but since my Pastor was one of the general editors of the book, I figured I give him some of the credit here. I obviously respect your input, especially in your book "Recovering the Reformed Confession," which I read.) But the point still stands: How do I--who by the way is not an elder or holds any type leadership position--give an answer to this guy? I began with a question to see if my deductive argument from Scripture was valid. Having got my answer, I need a tactful way in presenting it.


----------



## Blue Tick (Dec 24, 2008)

> Having got my answer, I need a tactful way in presenting it.



Galatians 6:1


> 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.



Proverbs 15:1


> 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath,
> but a harsh word stirs up anger.



Below not a clear command in Scripture but an example of correction.
Acts 18:24-28


> 24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, *they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately. *27 And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 25, 2008)

Blue Tick said:


> > Having got my answer, I need a tactful way in presenting it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks. I appreciate your input, but this only shows me that I'm justified in correcting my friend. These texts do tell me that I need to correct him, but I just wish I knew how to correct someone who is very stubborn. He's been a Christian for many years, and I've known him for a long time. Last week, I heard him mention Israel as "God's people." I knew I had to correct him, but I didn't want to show the people we were evangelizing that we are at odds. We confess the Apostles Creed. We fellowship. To dissent would only strengthen their unbelief. After he said that Israel is God's people, a lady--a heathen evolutionist/materialist--asked how the Jews could possibly be God's people while they deny Christ. I wanted to say something, but I knew that she answered him correctly. 
Thank you for the passages, but I need a contemporaneous approach to the unique situation. These passages are very helpful. I know that I need to answer him, as shown by Priscilla and Aquila. I know that a sinful path is in need of a response, as shown by Galatians 6:1. My question is the _how_. 

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 02:26:20 EST-----



Tim said:


> My argument on this would be:
> 
> "Why would you _not_ want to attend church?"
> 
> You shouldn't need a command to do this (although I understand the purpose and question of the original post - it is important to have an answer for this).



I hate to be rude, but a question is never an argument. Just ask Dr. Clark. Don't take my word for it. You could put the question in a subjunctive mood:

If....
Then...
Inference: There is no reason why you (the person) should not go to a local church.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 25, 2008)

> I just wish I knew how to correct someone who is very stubborn.



Pray that opportunity will arise where you can explain, clearly the "heart of the issue" to him, biblically. Don't focus on what you think his response will be, but pray for him and trust God for the results. You do not have to carry the burden for the results, and you can't know exactly what God will do with your faithfulness to explain.

As you describe this person as "broadly evangelical" I would not (my thoughts here only) try to convince him that he can't be a Christian because he does not go to church. I would, however, try to get him to see his selfishness and disobedience in that, and trust God for the results. It may be helpful to speak of his denying Christ's Body more than "going to church."



> Last week, I heard him mention Israel as "God's people." I knew I had to correct him,


Based on what you are describing of this man's insight and maturity, I wouldn't engage this first. It sounds like this fellow has absorbed the "broadly evangelical" leanings of Arminianism, dispensationalism, and idea it is more spiritual not to have a confession and is not even clearly aware of it.



Get this fellow, gradually some good reading materials. I'll post a few suggestions.

-----Added 12/25/2008 at 08:04:38 EST-----

Here's a few recommendations for materials for your friend, the "broadly evangelical" who has absorbed a low view of "the church": 

(these are in order, I suggest give them to him one at a time, with you praying for time to engage him charitably after each one until he grows or decides to cut you off):

1) RC Sproul, The Holiness of God
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - The Holiness of God (Paperback)

This may help him to see a need to see things from God's point of view.


2) Joseph Pipa, The Lord’s Day
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Lord's Day (Paperback) by Joesph A. Pipa, Jr. 9781857922011 

This may help him see his need to walk obediently, and how far he falls short and right along with that, how marvelous God's grace is



3) Barrett, Michael, Love Divine and Unfailing: The Gospel According to Hosea 
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Love Divine and Unfailing: The Gospel According to Hosea (The Gospel According to the Old Testament) (Paperback) by Michael P. V. Barrett 9781596380752

This will introduce him to the idea that the Old Testament is relevant to us today, and is connected to the New Testament.


Then, if he shows any interest in “reformed theology” get him

4) RC Sproul, What is Reformed Theology?
Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - What is Reformed Theology? by R. C. Sproul 9780801065590

This will give him a somewhat deeper view of the "five points" and doctrines of grace and the idea that reformed theology is a systematic way at looking at all of Scripture for all of life.

Finally, if he starts to argue eschatology (“end time” events), let him listen to Dr Sproul’s very charitable overview of millennial positions. This will show him you understand dispensationalism, the importance of Israel, etc. This is only an entry, for possible future dialog.

5) Millennium overview (audio)
Ligonier Ministries


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 25, 2008)

> Don't focus on what you think his response will be, but pray for him and trust God for the results.


I obviously don't like the methods of _commercial evangelism_, let alone trying to convince someone by the _mere_ act of persuasion; and obviously persuasion plays an important part for the Christian. Sure I'm committed to getting my friend to repent from his ostentatious rejection of being a "church-goer," but I also want the group to understand that I'm not an advocate for "_whatever get's the job done_." I simply need wisdom (which only God can give) in the means of getting this done. Part of that is knowing the answer and presenting it meekly in the unique situation.



> I would, however, try to get him to see his selfishness and disobedience in that, and trust God for the results


Again, I'm a practicing Calvinist who subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith; I am also a standing member of a Presbyterian church (PCA). The reason I mention this is due to the misconception that I rely on results instead of the Holy Spirit's work in the individual Christian. My point was mainly an argument for the Christian view of the Church so that he, my friend, would be so compelled by Scripture that he has no retort. In other words, I need the _how._

*FYI*: Dr. Clark, I read your essay. I have to say that it was very enlightening. It was pretty thorough. I like how you related it to Covenant Theology. The Ekklesia/Qahal relation was pretty simple. Nothing too complicated there. My friend likes clear-cut answers. 

On a final note (for this current entry), I want to point out that my friend is not stupid. He's read B. B. Warfield and is well aware of the Canons of Dort. He's read them and claims to believe them. However, he sort of hit a wall after that. I think this is where he needs a new definition of Calvinism. Many people today have done the Reformed faith a disservice. And this is where I like to give credit to Dr. Scott Clark who did an amazing job at showing the current climate in Reformed Orthodoxy with the QIRE & QIRC (though I dissent with particulars, e.g., theonomy) in _Recovering the Reformed Confession._


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 25, 2008)

The doctrine of the church (and sacraments) is where most evangelicals, even predestinarian evangelicals, "hit the wall." My theory is because it is the doctrine of the church that forces them to confront their cultural prejudices and their most sacred idols. Predestination is inherently antimodernist but one can become a predestinarian evangelical without really confronting the issue because autonomy gets shifted from soteriology to ecclesiology. It's like trying grab hold of mercury. It keeps squirting away. So, the autonomous, modern (even predestinarian) evangelical squirts away from accountability to the church. 

There is another theory about American religion, that, insofar as it is truly America, it is gnostic, i.e., it is born of distrust of the material and physical world. This explains a great deal of American religious history since the late 18th century. The Jesus of American Christianity has become increasingly disembodied as American Christianity has become increasingly disembodied. This is partly why Americans have so little interest in concrete human institutions such as the church and sacraments. Becoming churchly entails becoming historically minded and Americans are naturally suspicious of the past. 

So, your friend is just being an American. He's tacked on the doctrines of grace to his American evangelicalism but his culture is still in charge of his "cult" (worship).


----------



## turmeric (Dec 25, 2008)

I shall never forget how devastated I felt as a fairly new Christian when I read Harold Bloom's accusation that American Christianity was basically a kind of Orphism! It's true of most evangelicalism.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 27, 2008)

*Rejoinder*

Dr. Clark, can you elaborate the following:


> Predestination is inherently antimodernist but one can become a predestinarian evangelical without really confronting the issue because _autonomy gets shifted from soteriology to ecclesiology_.



I'm more concerned with the latter portion of what you meant by autonomy being shifted. I understand that autonomous man is lost in its quest for moral and libertarian choice when the gospel enlightens the soul, i.e., TULIP (or Canons of Dort, for those who are more confessionally inclined). However, I don't understand how autonomy shifts from soteriology to ecclesiology.

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 10:16:58 EST-----



Poimen said:


> I think there is a problem with the first axiom. It should be much more forceful, such as:
> 
> 'Everything Christ does is an expression of His Lordship over His people' (something along the lines of Matthew 28:18)
> 
> One might draw the conclusion from your argument that the establishment of the visible church is significant or helpful but that it is not necessary for them to join.



I actually put a lot of stock on your assertion. I think it best represents a Reformed answer to the bi-church paradigm: visible & invisible aspects of the church.


----------

