Neogillist
Puritan Board Freshman
I have been reading Calvin's Institutes lately and realized that Calvin did not include Church discipline as a mark of the true church but only the preaching of the gospel, and the proper administration of the sacraments. However, both the Belgic Confession and the first Scotish Confession recognized three marks to the true church, including church discipline.
When my pastor preached on the subject a few months ago, he said that Calvin omitted church discipline as a mark in itself because he saw it as a necessary consequence of gospel preaching. Thus if a church truly preached the gospel, it would necessarily ensure proper discipline and accountability. Recently, there were also two articles that came up in the TableTalk magazine where again only two marks were identified, thus following Calvin's view. However, the author of one article (I think it was Mark Denver) saw that church discipline was included as part of the proper administration of the sacraments, such that the elders were responsible to withold the sacraments from unrepentant members. Another article in Tabletalk also came up more recently in the daily devotions, where only two marks were again identified, and I forget if they sought to incorporate the third mark as a sub-branch of the other two.
So my question to those of you reading this thread is: Can't we agree on how many marks qualify the true church? Are there two or three marks? If there are only two, then does church discipline fit as part of gospel preaching or as part of the sacraments? I personally prefer the view that the true church has three marks since 1) in incorporating church discipline as part of the sacraments, we are basically making an association that is really too tight. There is a lot more involved in church discipline than merely witholding the elements from unrepentant sinners. 2) If we incorporate church discipline as part of gospel preaching, we are not making it quite obvious enough since there is a big difference between preaching and ruling, one being the responsibility of the minister, the other of the elders. A local church may preach the gospel to its members and still fail to exercise discipline. On the other hand, I think Calvin purposefully omitted church discipline as part of the marks because it is virtually impossible for a local church to ensure that none of its members are involved in any public sin whatsoever, and it would be easy for some to leave the assembly on account of a minor offense by another member. Calvin was also probably trying to avoid the error of the Anabaptists who would refuse to worship in the presence of unbelievers.
When my pastor preached on the subject a few months ago, he said that Calvin omitted church discipline as a mark in itself because he saw it as a necessary consequence of gospel preaching. Thus if a church truly preached the gospel, it would necessarily ensure proper discipline and accountability. Recently, there were also two articles that came up in the TableTalk magazine where again only two marks were identified, thus following Calvin's view. However, the author of one article (I think it was Mark Denver) saw that church discipline was included as part of the proper administration of the sacraments, such that the elders were responsible to withold the sacraments from unrepentant members. Another article in Tabletalk also came up more recently in the daily devotions, where only two marks were again identified, and I forget if they sought to incorporate the third mark as a sub-branch of the other two.
So my question to those of you reading this thread is: Can't we agree on how many marks qualify the true church? Are there two or three marks? If there are only two, then does church discipline fit as part of gospel preaching or as part of the sacraments? I personally prefer the view that the true church has three marks since 1) in incorporating church discipline as part of the sacraments, we are basically making an association that is really too tight. There is a lot more involved in church discipline than merely witholding the elements from unrepentant sinners. 2) If we incorporate church discipline as part of gospel preaching, we are not making it quite obvious enough since there is a big difference between preaching and ruling, one being the responsibility of the minister, the other of the elders. A local church may preach the gospel to its members and still fail to exercise discipline. On the other hand, I think Calvin purposefully omitted church discipline as part of the marks because it is virtually impossible for a local church to ensure that none of its members are involved in any public sin whatsoever, and it would be easy for some to leave the assembly on account of a minor offense by another member. Calvin was also probably trying to avoid the error of the Anabaptists who would refuse to worship in the presence of unbelievers.