What Makes a True Church?

[sgemmen9]

Hi,

There's a local church that split from our church nearly a decade ago. I'm not sure if they practice the sacraments, though they do baptize new members and perhaps they go beyond that to do mass baptisms of individuals. (Which doesn't sit well with me).
I do know that they preach the Word, and I don't think they practice church discipline.
If a true church preaches the Word, enacts discipline, and includes the sacraments, it doesn't seem to me this is a true church.

How should our church interact with this church? Many don't see any difference and will say something like "where two or three are gathered there is worship." Sometimes some of their members come to our prayer meeting and pray for their congregation. How should we feel about this? I'd love to hear constructive thoughts, hopefully our words can be free from slander an disdain.

 

[mgkortus]

The Belgic Confession Article 29 identifies the three marks of true church: pure preaching of the gospel, proper administration of the sacraments, and proper exercise of Christian discipline.

We believe, that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects, who call themselves the Church. The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself. With respect to those, who are members of the Church, they may be known by the marks of Christians: namely, by faith; and when they have received Jesus Christ the only Savior, they avoid sin, follow after righteousness, love the true God and their neighbor, neither turn aside to the right or left, and crucify the flesh with the works thereof. But this is not to be understood, as if there did not remain in them great infirmities; but they fight against them through the Spirit, all the days of their life, continually taking their refuge in the blood, death, passion and obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ, "in whom they have remission of sins, through faith in him." 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. These two Churches are easily known and distinguished from each other.

Importantly, these three marks are not binary. In other words, there are different degrees to which a church manifests these marks. The more clear these marks are in the church, the more true that church is to the Word of God.

 

[sgemmen9]

The Belgic Confession Article 29 identifies the three marks of true church: pure preaching of the gospel, proper administration of the sacraments, and proper exercise of Christian discipline.

Importantly, these three marks are not binary. In other words, there are different degrees to which a church manifests these marks. The more clear these marks are in the church, the more true that church is to the Word of God.

Thanks for the reply,

so the church is "more" or "less" than rather than a "true" or "false" church in this case? Or am I misunderstanding your comment about it being non-binary.

 

[Jack K]

When you say this church does not practice discipline, I wonder what you mean.

Discipline means the church exercises authority to keep sin from running rampant. In our culture, where strict authority via the rulings of tribunals is seen as overbearing, churches have been moving away from the model where believers become members who are subject to elders and might even be removed from membership for unrepentant sinfulness. It's easy for us to look at a church that doesn't have this model in place and conclude that they don't practice discipline.

Now, I believe the model I described fits the Bible's description of how the church, in part, should be run. Churches that pay no attention to membership or fail to give their elders any real teeth in discipline have a serious flaw. But this does not necessarily mean those churches fail to practice discipline at all. And some of them may actually be quite effective at using authority in informal ways to keep their people accountable. "Practices discipline" does not necessarily equal "has formal excommunication procedures and is serious about using them."

Again, it's hard to practice discipline when the question of who is a member is fuzzy. Churchgoing without membership is a bad model, as is eldership whose spiritual authority is limited to giving advice. Yet, as these models become common in our land, I'm not sure we should go so far as to brand all such churches "not a true church." If you were to ask the people in some of these churches, some would still say their leadership still does a good job of disciplining them, in less formal ways, when sin becomes a problem.

This makes it had to say for sure which churches practice discipline. I wish they all had membership roles and elders with the authority, if necessary, to remove members. But I'm not sure this is the only model that can, to some extent, fit the confession's statement that "church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin."

 

[sgemmen9]

When you say this church does not practice discipline, I wonder what you mean.

Discipline means the church exercises authority to keep sin from running rampant. In our culture, where strict authority via the rulings of tribunals is seen as overbearing, churches have been moving away from the model where believers become members who are subject to elders and might even be removed from membership for unrepentant sinfulness. It's easy for us to look at a church that doesn't have this model in place and conclude that they don't practice discipline.

Now, I believe the model I described fits the Bible's description of how the church, in part, should be run. Churches that pay no attention to membership or fail to give their elders any real teeth in discipline have a serious flaw. But this does not necessarily mean those churches fail to practice discipline at all. And some of them may actually be quite effective at using authority in informal ways to keep their people accountable. "Practices discipline" does not necessarily equal "has formal excommunication procedures and is serious about using them."

Again, it's hard to practice discipline when the question of who is a member is fuzzy. Churchgoing without membership is a bad model, as is eldership whose spiritual authority is limited to giving advice. Yet, as these models become common in our land, I'm not sure we should go so far as to brand all such churches "not a true church." If you were to ask the people in some of these churches, some would still say their leadership still does a good job of disciplining them, in less formal ways, when sin becomes a problem.

This makes it had to say for sure which churches practice discipline. I wish they all had membership roles and elders with the authority, if necessary, to remove members. But I'm not sure this is the only model that can, to some extent, fit the confession's statement that "church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin."

Thanks for the post. I see what you mean. By lacking discipline, I meant that some sins were not addressed directly. Whether that be formal discipline and altogether not identifying sin as a sin. But I appreciate the generosity of your post, as it happens me view things in a more positive and gracious light.

 

[Edward]

so the church is "more" or "less" than rather than a "true" or "false" church in this case?

All churches, including yours, are 'more or less'.

"And particular Churches, ... are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
" 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."

I'm not sure if they practice the sacraments

I don't think they practice church discipline.

You might be better off praying about and working on the issues in your own church than judging the folks down the street on issues where you are 'not sure' or where you 'think' but don't know what they teach and do.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

Matthew 18:15-20, should always be applied when it comes to any matters of concern in the church

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

A helpful book on this is Calvin's The Necessity of Reforming the Church.

 

[mgkortus]

Thanks for the reply,

so the church is "more" or "less" than rather than a "true" or "false" church in this case? Or am I misunderstanding your comment about it being non-binary.

There are certainly churches that can be identified as false churches. For example, following the criteria of the Belgic Confession, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church. So my statement does not preclude identifying a particular church as a false church.
However, among those churches that manifest the three marks of a true church, there are different degrees to which they do so. In other words, there is a spectrum.

So as Edward said:

All churches, including yours, are 'more or less'.

"And particular Churches, ... are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
" 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."

 

[Andrew P.C.]

"As in the instance of the individual Christian, so in the instance of a Church; the question at the outset is: Are we bound to recognise such and such a body of professing religionists as a Church of Christ, yea or nay? And this question is solved very much in the same way as it is solved in reference to the Christian man. If in fundamentals the creed and the practice of a religious society are in accordance with the Word of God, we are not only justified, but bound to acknowledge that society to be a Church of Christ. The Westminster Confession lays down the simple and catholic doctrine, that “the profession of the true religion” is the one test of a Christian Church. It tells us that “the visible Church of Christ consists of all those throughout the world who profess the true religion, together with their children.” By the possession of this one feature, a Church of Christ is known; and however far in matters non-fundamental it may come short of our standard of belief and practice,—however much it may differ from us in non-essential points of creed, or government, or worship,—we are bound to recognise and to deal with it as a Christian Church, and not a synagogue of Satan. The Westminster divines discard the many notes of the Church usually laid down by Romish controversialists, the object of which is simply to enable them to build up the better the exclusive pretensions of the Church of Rome, and to unchurch all other religious denominations. The one note of the true Church, according to the Confession of Faith, is the profession of the true religion. And when we witness that feature in the case of any religious society, we are not only warranted, but bound in duty to confess such society to be one branch of the true Church of the Saviour."

Bannerman, Church of Christ, 2.337

 

[Edward]

At the risk of derailing the thread

Matthew 18:15-20, should always be applied when it comes to any matters of concern in the church

Not necessarily.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I should add this as well:

There can be no doubt that Scripture represents the one great object of the establishment of a Church in the world to be the glory of God, in the salvation of sinners, by means of the publication of the gospel. For this end the Church was instituted at first; for this end it continues to exist from one generation to another; and it is only in so far as it accomplishes this one grand object of its existence, that it serves the proper and primary purpose of a Church at all. Judging, then, by this first test, we are warranted in saying, that to hold and to preach the true faith or doctrine of Christ is the only sure and infallible note or mark of a Christian Church, because this is the one thing for the sake of which a Church of Christ has been instituted on earth. A true faith makes a true Church, and a corrupt faith a corrupt Church; and should it at any time apostatize from the true faith altogether, it would, by the very act, cease to be a Church of Christ in any sense at all. The Church was established for the sake of the truth, and not the truth for the sake of the Church.

In the second place, what are those things which, unlike the truth, have been instituted for the sake of the Church, and not the Church for the sake of them? Such, unquestionably, are the ordinances, office-bearers, and discipline which have been established within the Christian society. These being instituted for the advantage and edification of the Church, are, from their very nature, subordinate and secondary to the truth, for the holding and publication of which both they and the Church itself exist. They may be necessary, and are necessary, for the perfection of the Church, but they are not necessary for its existence. They cannot be accounted fundamental, in the sense that without them it would cease to exist as a Church at all. The single thing essential to the being of a Christian Church on earth is the faith or doctrine of Christ. According to the distinction already laid down, for this thing the Church was instituted, and not this thing for the Church.

Bannerman, Church of Christ, 1.59-60

 

[Von]

At the risk of derailing the thread

Not necessarily.

Give me leave to derail the thread, and ask that you would clarify your statement. I'm not disagreeing/agreeing with you, just curious as to your thoughts.

 

[jwithnell]

Aside from a need to assess a sister congregation within a regional church i.e., a presbytery, why would it be necessary for an individual believer to determine the strength of another church's convictions? If the leadership is talking to someone about membership or perhaps fencing the table, this assessment might be needed. But I'm baffled about other circumstances. A certain amount of charitable neighborliness is prudent in non-associated congregations.

 

[sgemmen9]

Aside from a need to assess a sister congregation within a regional church i.e., a presbytery, why would it be necessary for an individual believer to determine the strength of another church's convictions? If the leadership is talking to someone about membership or perhaps fencing the table, this assessment might be needed. But I'm baffled about other circumstances. A certain amount of charitable neighborliness is prudent in non-associated congregations.

This is a fair question and a well placed one. I realize my post doesn't give a lot of background details. I suppose some of the issues have to do with suspicion from members because of the way in which the church was formed. It happened without the church's blessing, it caused turmoil among many. As we're often invited to many events and things, and some attend our weekly prayer meeting there are going questions about how we interact with our neighbors to love them well while still maintaining doctrinal distinctions.

 

[sgemmen9]

All churches, including yours, are 'more or less'.

"And particular Churches, ... are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."
" 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."




You might be better off praying about and working on the issues in your own church than judging the folks down the street on issues where you are 'not sure' or where you 'think' but don't know what they teach and do.

Indeed, and that is a helpful reminder. The root my question was less about placing judgment but more asking "if this is a false church, what is our role in relation to its members?" This question is an underlying question that comes up often with many events, prayer meetings, and gatherings that we share. I think my question has been answered thoroughly already and I've moved away from some of the original assumptions in my original post. Thanks again for the reminder.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

So very true. The only perfect church will be gathered up on judgment day to be with the triune God forever and ever

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[Edward]

clarify your statement.

Start with verse 15. It deals with personal offenses/ secret sins, not public offenses which should be dealt with publicly. See Calvin.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

The Session rules the visible church with its members. Our desire is whether the sin is private or public to talk to the person who is causing division or strife in the church, that he or she may be brought to repentance

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk

 

[Von]

Start with verse 15. It deals with personal offenses/ secret sins, not public offenses which should be dealt with publicly. See Calvin.

Thank you! I've always thought church discipline begins and ends with Matthew 18.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

Thanks sir, very good and important question to consider

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk