Are Church Members "Free Agents"? pt 3 Q&A

[R. Scott Clark]

On the HB

 

[Herald]

Scott,

Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.

 

[BertMulder]

There are indeed many refusing to submit to the yoke of Christ.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Bill,

Four things:

1. If someone has been abused they should complain to a higher/broader assembly. If their polity doesn't include that, then they should go somewhere it does it exist. If a congregation is abusive the question arises: is it really a true church? I've seen cases where people were in a sect and were abused.

2. People are obligated to join a true church. There is no excuse for not joining a true church. If a sect or congregation is impenitently abusive that is no ground for not uniting with a true church; one doesn't quit breathing because of air pollution. One finds a filter or clean air or some way to adapt.

3. We ought to be pastorally sensitive to and patient those who have been abused just as we would be so with a person who was in an abusive personal relationship. That person needs shelter, protection, care etc. It takes time to recover from such abuse. I understand that, but, at some point one has to unite with a congregation. One cannot be endlessly wandering. That would almost as bad for their souls as the abusive congregation was.

4. I'm trying to figure out Deo valente. Did you mean Deo volente?

rsc

Scott,

Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.

 

[Herald]

Hi Bill,

Four things:

1. If someone has been abused they should complain to a higher/broader assembly. If their polity doesn't include that, then they should go somewhere it does it exist. If a congregation is abusive the question arises: is it really a true church? I've seen cases where people were in a sect and were abused.

2. People are obligated to join a true church. There is no excuse for not joining a true church. If a sect or congregation is impenitently abusive that is no ground for not uniting with a true church; one doesn't quit breathing because of air pollution. One finds a filter or clean air or some way to adapt.

3. We ought to be pastorally sensitive to and patient those who have been abused just as we would be so with a person who was in an abusive personal relationship. That person needs shelter, protection, care etc. It takes time to recover from such abuse. I understand that, but, at some point one has to unite with a congregation. One cannot be endlessly wandering. That would almost as bad for their souls as the abusive congregation was.

4. I'm trying to figure out Deo valente. Did you mean Deo volente?

rsc

Scott,

Excellent article. What do we make of those who refuse to submit to local church authority by not joining in membership? I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Cyprian's statement of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" as indicative of every situation, but it certainly has ramifications for those who are more militant in their position against the church. One thing that wasn't brought up in the article are those who have been harmed, spiritually and emotionally, within a church. Sometimes people are hurting and find refusing church membership a means of protecting themselves. Perhaps that is a minority. I certainly have met my share of individuals who hop from church to church, replete with opinions, but no desire to submit to the leadership of the church and the clear teaching of scripture. About these Cyprian's statement may ring true.

Scott,

Thank you for pointing out the typo at the bottom of my signature. I had cut and paste it months ago from an article and assumed it was spelled correctly. It should be deo volente, "God willing." I shall correct it.

I don't disagree with the three points you listed above. I'm glad you added your third point. While there is no good reason not to join with a true church, we must be sensitive to those who have been abused. Of course abuse is the opinion of those hold to it. For every individual who has been genuinely abused there is one who refuses to submit to the teachings of the church, and therefore Christ. My only caution is that we don't paint with too wide a brush. Other than that I think we are agreed.

 

[tcalbrecht]

On the HB

Thanks for the series. Very informative.

One side note: this instruction places a great burden on church officers wrt the regulative principle of church oversight. Because church members are not “free agents” the officers are duty bound to see that all they do is strictly in conformity to the Word of God.

We typically think of this in worship, but the principle extends to all ecclesiastical functions. The officers have no right to abuse the conscience of an individual member in the name of their authority, for it is, in fact, a derived authority from King Jesus. If they cannot say with all certainty "thus saith the Lord" then they ought not to speak or act.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Tom,

Amen!

 

[blhowes]

My answer is that prior to joining a Reformed congregation there is a good likelihood that you were not in a “true church” as confessed in Belgic Confession Art 29. In other words, what you left may have been congregations but, if they lacked the marks of a true church (the pure administration of the sacraments, the pure preaching of the gospel, the use of church discipline) then they were something other than a true church.

How would you recognize a true vs. a false non-reformed church? What constitutes pure administration of the sacraments and pure preaching of the gospel?

 

[Red Beetle]

From The Blog:
If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."

First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.

Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.

You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[Herald]

Monty, Scott is NOT saying that justification depends on church membership. I don't want to speak for Scott, but what he seems to be saying is that those who are elect will be part of a local church. Refusal to submit to local church authority is not the hallmark of a believer. I was careful to bring up times when an individual may balk at being a member of a church. Scott concured.

 

[Red Beetle]

"Refusal to submit to local church authority is not the hallmark of a believer."

I thank God that Martin Luther didn't believe that.

 

[Poimen]

Actually Luther often submitted to church authority by appearing at various trials to answer the allegations against him. He also sought the opinion and advice of his advisor (Johann von Staupitz) and even respected the pope's judgment for a time.

Luther like many of the other reformers only cast off the authority of Rome when it was clear that they rejected Christ's authority speaking through the word.

On another note, Luther rejected groups such as the Anabaptists who themselves rejected all authority in favor of libertarian independency.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Speaking of the Westminster Confession of Faith, it has this to say about membership in the visible church:

WCF 25.2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;b and of their children:c and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,d the house and family of God,e out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.f
​

From The Blog:
If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."

First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.

Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.

You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

 

[toddpedlar]

From The Blog:
If Cyprian and the Belgic Confession are correct, and “outside of the church there is no salvation” then these floating, nominal Christians are placing themselves in spiritual jeopardy."

First of all, let's be clear. The Belgic Confession of Faith does NOT teach that one has to be a member of a local particular church or they are in danger of going to hell. Justification is NOT based upon membership in a local church. This is Roman Catholicism, not Calvinism.

Be careful what you accuse Prof. Clark of, RB. He did not claim that justification is by local church membership. Neither he, nor the Belgic, nor the Westminster Confession teaches those things. They all speak, however, with one voice - saying that it is EXTREMELY ABNORMAL for a person who is in Christ to be outside the membership of a local congregation and submitting (a la 1 Peter) to the eldership of that congregation for their spiritual edification and care. If you carefully read these documents, you'll see that they state merely that there is no "ORDINARY" possibility of salvation. Obviously there will be extreme cases, which these confessional documents allow for - but if one is a professing Christian, it is expected that membership in a local body will be sought out. To steadfastly refuse to join a church is problematic, and is a dangerous road to take.

Justification is ONLY based upon the active and passive obedience of Christ imputed to the elect. The fact that we do not read about the necessity of local church membership in Article 23 of the Belgic Confession Of Faith only demonstrates that R. Scott Clark has misunderstood Articles 27-29.

You might hear the pope make such an absurd claim when he visits the U.S., but you will not find this view in Chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession of Faith.

As has already been pointed out, the Westminster Confession and the Belgic are univocal on the issue of local membership.

 

[fredtgreco]

Or, as Dr. Morton Smith has put it, a Christian cannot love Christ and hate His bride.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Or as Paul noted:

[bible]Ephesians 4:11-16[/bible]

Which perfectly compliments the Great Commission which plainly implies that a disciple is one who is:
a) Baptized
b) Taught everything that Christ has commanded

 

[Red Beetle]

Gordon H. Clark correctly states,
"Then too, the universal church is invisible because it does not coincide with the membership rolls of the several visible churches. Some people whose names are on the rolls are not Christians; and some Christians are not members of any visible church. The word church itself (ecclesia) is derived from the verb to call or to call out. It refers to the called, the chosen, the elect. The catholic Church then is the aggregate of all whom God has predestined to eternal life."
(What Do Presbyterians Believe, Chapter 25, page 219)


Clark continues,
"The invisible Church, or more accurately a part of it, becomes the visible church as those who confess Christ, together with their children, are organized into congregations."
(Ibid., page 220)

Let the invisible Church be (A)
Let the visible church be (B)

Notice,
some (A) is not (B)
and
some (B) is not (A)

Also,
All (A) who profess the true faith is (B) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
However,
Some (B) is not (A) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)

A person's assurance should not be based upon being a member of (B), but one can know if they are a member of (A)--if they believe the Gospel (Acts 13:48).

So again, our Justification is not based upon being a member of (B). Judas was a member of (B) and it did him no good. Because (B) is not part of our basis for Justification, we can refuse to join, or even depart from, local congregations, presbyteries, or even entire denominiations claiming to be part of (B), but actually are not. Luther is the example I used above, but one could easily leave or refuse to join any OPC/PCA church which supports Federal Vision as well. Finally, no one has to submit to local church authority when it departs from Scripture Alone. One can even be excommunicated and still be a member of (A). Luther is also an example of this.

 

[toddpedlar]

Gordon H. Clark correctly states,
"Then too, the universal church is invisible because it does not coincide with the membership rolls of the several visible churches. Some people whose names are on the rolls are not Christians; and some Christians are not members of any visible church. The word church itself (ecclesia) is derived from the verb to call or to call out. It refers to the called, the chosen, the elect. The catholic Church then is the aggregate of all whom God has predestined to eternal life."
(What Do Presbyterians Believe, Chapter 25, page 219)


Clark continues,
"The invisible Church, or more accurately a part of it, becomes the visible church as those who confess Christ, together with their children, are organized into congregations."
(Ibid., page 220)

Let the invisible Church be (A)
Let the visible church be (B)

Notice,
some (A) is not (B)
and
some (B) is not (A)

Also,
All (A) who profess the true faith is (B) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)
However,
Some (B) is not (A) (regardless if they have joined a local church or not)

A person's assurance should not be based upon being a member of (B), but one can know if they are a member of (A)--if they believe the Gospel (Acts 13:48).

So again, our Justification is not based upon being a member of (B). Judas was a member of (B) and it did him no good. Because (B) is not part of our basis for Justification, we can refuse to join, or even depart from, local congregations, presbyteries, or even entire denominiations claiming to be part of (B), but actually are not. Luther is the example I used above, but one could easily leave or refuse to join any OPC/PCA church which supports Federal Vision as well. Finally, no one has to submit to local church authority when it departs from Scripture Alone. One can even be excommunicated and still be a member of (A). Luther is also the an example of this.

You've apparently misinterpreted everything that's been said in this thread. Nobody claims that one has to submit to authority when authority commands you to sin. Nobody has said you have to submit to authority when they teach false doctrine. Nobody has said that you can't be saved if you're not a member of a local church. Nobody has said that your justification rests on that membership. Nobody has said, in fact, any of the strange things you have put in their mouths (or into their keyboards, rather). You're fighting imaginary foes. Your hyperbole isn't needed. I'd suggest you take another look at what people actually wrote rather than complain about the strawmen you've been assembling.

 

[Gryphonette]

On a really picayune point, could you please not bold everything? ;^)

Maybe it's my age, but for some reason I find it hard to read. A word or sentence put in bold occasionally for emphasis is one thing, but entire paragraphs in it make me squint.

Thanks ever so!

 

[Gryphonette]

When y'all talk about someone refusing to join a church, do you mean they're just skipping around each week, attending whatever type of service they feel like that day, or are regular attendees without having formally joined?

I've never formally joined Christ Chapel because it holds firmly to unlimited atonement, and I just as firmly hold to particular redemption.

I'm a "mild" paedobaptist and its credobaptist. I'm amil and it's dispensational (though not the weird "Left Behind" sort).

It's where my husband wants to go, though, so unless I break away and attend another church on my own, this is where I go.

He's never been interested in officially joining, however, and since I'm living in hope of being able to someday coax him to just TRY the OPC church not far away, I don't push membership in it either.

Truth be told, I can't think of any particular practical difference membership would make, apart from being able to vote for deacons and elders. We give money to it, I've sat on the missionary committee and minded children in the nursery, taken bible study classes, and so on.

So for me, where it's either this big, BE church with my husband and son or another church on my own, what's the appropriate choice? I've figured it's keeping the family together and bowing to my husband's preference, and NOT acting like a "free agent" by flitting off on my own.

 

[Poimen]

Monty:

Do you believe that Christians should submit to the leadership of the church of which they are a member?

Jesus taught his disciples to submit even to the Pharisees:

Matthew 23:1-3 "Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.'"

What Scott and others are saying is that church membership and submission are the norm. This is the Reformation view as supported by the examples of Luther, Calvin and many others (not to mention the Reformed confessions).

 

[Theoretical]

On the HB

Thanks for the series. Very informative.

One side note: this instruction places a great burden on church officers wrt the regulative principle of church oversight. Because church members are not “free agents” the officers are duty bound to see that all they do is strictly in conformity to the Word of God.

We typically think of this in worship, but the principle extends to all ecclesiastical functions. The officers have no right to abuse the conscience of an individual member in the name of their authority, for it is, in fact, a derived authority from King Jesus. If they cannot say with all certainty "thus saith the Lord" then they ought not to speak or act.

Amen to this! I would also say that it strongly encourages strict subscriptionism to the church's confessions for officers of the church for the same reasons.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Monty,

I'm glad for your zeal but take it up with the Reformed Churches. Gordon Clark was a good man and we've all benefitted from his teaching, even those of us who have fundamental disagreements with him, but there is a basic difference in the authority of the private views of a philosopher/theologian and the public confession of the Reformed churches.

We confess that there is no salvation outside of the true church. It does not follow from this confession that one is justified by being a member of a true church. Belgic Arts 28-29 make that clear. It would help before you start blasting away in bold red print to read the Belgic. Second, you would help yourself by reading Clark's work on logic. I'm pretty sure that you've committed some sort of fallacy here.

Belgic 28 says:

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.

And so, all who withdraw from the church or do not join it act
contrary to God's ordinance.

All of this article refers to visible, local assemblies. None of this makes sense if it is all taken to refer only to the church considered invisibly.

I realize that this teaching is difficult to accept in our time when churchless wandering is so prevalent. I further admit that it is not as simple today as it might have been in 1561 to decide what is a true church. Nevertheless, this language ought to give pause to anyone who wanders away from a true church and unites himself to a congregation that lacks these marks.

Salvation is not gained ex opere by joining a Reformed congregation. The Belgic itself distinguishes between those who are visible members and those are visible members and also members of the church considered internally or invisibly. Yes, justification and salvation are sola gratia et sola fide but those gifts are only administered in visible, local congregations.

Having a high view of the visible church is not Roman. It's Reformed.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dr. Clark,

Thank you for a helpful article (again)? Having pastored a broadly evangelical congregation and attempted to exercise church discipline, I will testify to the difficulties of the task. And, in American custom, it is simply too easy to hop to the next church down the road. However, I am not sure that the lack of cooperation has much to do with you being TR. On numerous occasions I found that my colleagues in other denominations (and my own!!!) simply would not honor our congregation's efforts at discipline. Indeed, our hyper-independent age has spawned some very dysfunctional and sub-biblical practices.

On the note of critique raised about your blog, I could not disagree more strongly. There is nothing theologically or biblically in error in your treatment. Indeed, it was a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

 

[Scott]

This is a good series of articles and I sent the links to several people.

I would note that the PCA differs substantially in a couple of important areas. For one, our church covenant for membership does not involve affirmation of reformed doctrine apart from a statement that one is saved by faith alone. Here are the terms of the covenant.

1. Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
4. Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability?
5. Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?

The PCA recognizes evangelical churches generally as being true churches. Regarding church affiliation the terms of communion only require affiliation with "an evangelical church." Your (Dr. Clark's) church has a much narrower view of what constitutes a true church. That is relevant when the free agents leave to hop around. The PCA would see the options as being much broader. Going to a general evangelical church is a legitimate option. I am not saying that this is good, but it is codified in our Book of Church Order.

Also, the PCA BCO permits dissolution of a member's church covenant at will. This encourages free agency. Indeed, whole congregations can leave purely at their discretion and with no disciplinary consequence. This view in the BCO was a product of the split from the PCUSA, which required several congregations to leave their property behind with the errant denomination. The fathers of the PCA wanted to protect faithful congregations from suffering through the same injustice in the event the PCA loses its faith. So, the PCA does not recognize any discipline-worthy sin in free agency.

I think free agency is a problem, but in the PCA there is little to do about it from a disciplinary perspective.

 

[Red Beetle]

R. Scott Clark wrote,
"Yes, justification and salvation are sola gratia et sola fide but those gifts are only administered in visible, local congregations."

I'm afraid that this is not part of Reformed theology, nor can such a teaching be found anywhere in Scripture.

The eunich was converted in a chariot, apart from any local congregation.(Acts 8:26-40)
One might also mention Moses, Rahab, and even the woman Christ spoke with at the well (John 4:7-29), as other examples of conversions that took place outside your local church congregation.

The Bible correctly says, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ" (2 Timothy 3;15).
Notice that Paul doesn't say that the reading of Scripture is only effectual when one is present in a local church congregation.

The idea that one can only be regenerated and converted in a specific place and among a specific group of people is pure superstition.

Let us thank God that one does not have to be present in a local church congregation in order to be regenerated and converted.

 

[toddpedlar]

R. Scott Clark wrote,
"Yes, justification and salvation are sola gratia et sola fide but those gifts are only administered in visible, local congregations."

I'm afraid that this is not part of Reformed theology, nor can such a teaching be found anywhere in Scripture.

Perhaps before you advocate sending Prof. Clark to the stake as a heretic, you should ask for clarification regarding what he meant? Willing to do that, or are you simply going to condemn him based upon what you THINK he meant by what he wrote?

 

[DMcFadden]

R. Scott Clark wrote,
"Yes, justification and salvation are sola gratia et sola fide but those gifts are only administered in visible, local congregations."

I'm afraid that this is not part of Reformed theology, nor can such a teaching be found anywhere in Scripture . . .
The idea that one can only be regenerated and converted in a specific place and among a specific group of people is pure superstition.

Let us thank God that one does not have to be present in a local church congregation in order to be regenerated and converted.

First, I do not perceive that you have accurately read Dr. Clark. The example you adduce, for instance, reagarding the Ethiopian was under the auspices of a ministry by a member of the church. I do not believe that Prof. Clark said that conversion only takes place in a church, merely that the gifts of justification are administered by visible churches.

MODERATOR'S NOTE
Second, stepping out of the dialogical position and into my moderator's role (if I err here, please correct me mods), I would appreciate it if you did not continue to use loaded language when describing the position of a member of this board. "Pure superstition" and "absurd claim" do not facilitate free exchange of ideas. They tend, rather, to raise the emotional and rhetorical ante of the conversation, making it more likely that the thread will spin off in an unhelpful direction.

 

[Gryphonette]

Thank you! Didn't want you to think I didn't notice the nice, readable font. ;^)

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Red,

Okay, 2 caveats:

1) In the apostolic age extraordinary things happened that don't today. Deacons were transported by the Spirit etc. The Eunuch was baptized by an officer of the visible church. Nevertheless, we recognize irregular baptisms but we don't encourage them. If any of our deacons is being transported by God the Spirit, they should report that immediately to the council!

2) The Belgic is referring to what William Ames called the "ordinary ministry" of the church.

Thus, I might have said, to be perfectly clear, "ordinarily no one is saved outside of the visible, institutional church." Is God free to act differently? Yes, but we are obligated to act according to the revealed will of God. The revealed will of God is that salvation and justification are to be sought and found in a true church where the means of grace are administered. Today I would recognize only one of the marks of the true church in the congregation where I (think) I came to faith. Carl Trueman came to faith hearing Billy Graham at a rally.

I don't know that the Belgic means to say that the only place God the Spirit operates through the Word is in the local church. As you indicate God the Spirit is free to regenerate when and where he will (John 3). It means to say that Christians have a moral duty to join themselves to the visible church and to submit to the administration of the means of grace there. It means to say that, whatever extraordinary episodes happened in the history of redemption, no one has a right to be independent the true church (which is any congregation that has the marks) and that no one has a right to remain in the Roman communion under the pretense of sharing the Protestant faith secretly.

Where exactly does Paul speak explicitly or implicitly about the private reading of Scripture by private persons? When did 1st century Christians get personal copies of Holy Scripture?