What Does Calvinism “Look Like” with the Help of Secular Music?
How Calvinists keep their salvation: working hard at doing nothing all day.
How Calvinist elders oversee the flock:
What motivates Calvinist elders?
The Calvinist Gnostic mindset:
Calvinist parishioner’s theme song:
Or…
Calvinists that finally flee feel like this…
No more songs about death and sin, instead…
Protestantism: So Many Flavors, but It’s All Ice Cream
Protestantism has many different denominations and interpretations of the Bible, and let me explain why that’s the case. Protestantism was founded on the idea that the law of God has a single dimension. That’s the foundation, and that fleshes itself out in one way or the other across all denominational lines.
For purposes of keeping this simple, we will focus on how this applies according to what is in vogue presently: the law can only condemn; the law can only provoke us to sin; the law demands perfection or all bets are off; the standard for being justified is perfect law-keeping.
What to do about law? That fundamental question is what divides all sects of Protestantism. It is what drives all the bickering between Calvinists, Arminians, free grace (Zane Hodges), and the anti-lordship salvation crowd which is mostly made up of the free grace crowd
This is why Protestants can’t seem to get it together on Christian living. Trying to make a single dimension law work in the Christian life causes all kinds of confusion. Staying in the same vein of simplicity, let’s use Romans 8:2 in an attempt to understand the problem:
Romans 8:2 – For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
That’s two different relationships to the same law. To the born again believer, the Spirit uses the law to sanctify the believer (John 17:17). To walk in the Spirit is to learn and obey the word of God which is life. This is a colaboring with the Spirit in the truest sense.
To the unbeliever, the law can only condemn, and sin within uses the law to provoke the unbeliever to sin. To the unbeliever, the law can only bring death. Hence, “the law of sin and death.”
In what way does the law set us free to “serve another”? When we believe its testimony, it sets us free from being condemned by it, and frees us to obey it as a way of loving God and others. This isn’t a difficult concept: if we listen to wisdom we live; if we reject wisdom we die, but it’s the same wisdom.
Again, for purposes of making a simple point in this post, I am not going into how this all fits together with the believer being truly righteous, and able to please God through obedience while falling short of perfection. You aren’t going to understand any of that till you get this basic point anyway.
The following prompted this post: I stumbled upon an anti-lordship salvation kind of guy named Jack Smack who believes Calvinists, Arminians, and proponents of lordship salvation are all going to hell. Again, this all boils down to differences in how you get the square peg of a single dimension law into the round hole of Christian living and the gospel. Note what he states in the video:
Now what is Lordship salvation? It’s the idea that you have to live a certain way, you have to prove you are saved by your works. You got to obey God; you got to repent of your sins, and it’s all of this jargon. And there’s a lot, there’s a few other things they say: the lot of them will tell you, you know, you can’t live any way you want to and all this, well, they’re trying to control you. They’re trying to put you under the law. They’re doing exactly what these Jews were doing. It says, “why compest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Okay…
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Now look at this: Lordship Salvation, they’re people trying to get you to sin – they want you to sin! They teach lawless, that lewd antinomianism, because if you get down to it, they’re trying to put you back under a law. And all the law can do is cause you to sin.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
So actually, in all reality, ironically, a Lordship Salvationist claims like they don’t want people to keep on sinning, but the reality of what they teach, it’s going to make you go on sinning, according to that verse. So yes, Lordship Salvation proponents are antinomian. Regardless of whether or not they will admit this, the bible says they are. Any time you try to put somebody under a law, you are making them into a bigger sinner PERIOD.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
So, it’s all I have. Lordship Salvation makes you into a bigger sinner because you’re imposing laws on people that they just can’t obey on their own, and um…that’s exactly what these people are doing. So I , you know, believe in, I teach Free Grace. I teach that we’re justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
Now you have to understand Free Grace, or you cannot serve God; and you cannot, you know, obey God. You have to understand what’s been done on your behalf: Jesus Christ died for your sins. He was buried and rose again. He gives eternal life as a free gift. So, on the basis of that, we should want to serve God and to live right. And that’s what I teach. People that are teaching law, lordship, they’re the antinomians because the reality of what they teach leads to uh..transgression.
In the Bible, there are only two kinds of people: under law (lost), and under grace (saved). But what is missed in Protestantism is that being under grace doesn’t exclude being under law, it’s just not the law of sin and death. The law informs us as to what people need to do to be free from being condemned by the law, resulting in being free to use the law for loving God and others. If we want to know what to do in order to not die for lack of wisdom, we go and ask Lady Wisdom, right?
When we are saved by believing the law’s testimony about Christ, we are set free from its condemnation in a one time, completed transformation from death to life. We are now free to serve the law unto life more abundantly. Freedom from the law of condemnation is a gift, but obedience to the law as a born again believer yields rewards in the present life and the life to come. Hence, “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” But living to God doesn’t exclude the law; Matthew 4:4 couldn’t be clearer on that.
Nevertheless, notice how Smack states that the relationship of the law of sin and death remains the same for the believer. This keeps believers “under law,” which is the very definition of a lost person. He states that a demand for Christians to obey the law only causes them to sin more! Woe! But frankly, this take on law is the same problem with Protestantism in general across the board.
The obvious question becomes: how do I obey the law as a Christian in a way that won’t cause me to sin more or condemn me? Of course, this has caused much confusion among Protestants. The remedy is usually a confusing system of some sort that imputes the perfect obedience of Jesus to our life in the same way His righteousness was imputed to us by faith alone. These systems range from outright denial of the law in the Christians life to a “relaxing of the law.”
Here is what Christians need to come to grips with: the two uses of the law in Romans 8:2. That is the key.
paul
An Edited Point-Counterpoint Gospel Debate
Point: …you imply (to me anyway), that we work to make ourselves perfect and that’s our goal in salvation. Salvation is about reconciliation. It’s when we rest in the finished work of the Cross…through the in working of the Holy Spirit we change, but it’s all His work … The more we look at the flesh to control our fallen state under the law the more we fail. The law was given to increase sin…so we saw our need for a Savior. You seemed to me to be mixing the two covenants together, I know that will only cause bondage. The new covenant is about a relationship with our God. God bless.
CounterPoint: What you state above is the progressive justification that IS Calvinism. You have the traditional view of law/gospel that is just plain false.
P: No!!! We are already justified. The law has nothing to do with grace….Show me why you think I believe in progressive justification?
CP: You mean Protestantism’s “already not yet” justification? Ok, let me be specific: First, You make rest in justification the same thing as rest in sanctification. That’s Calvin’s Sabbath sanctification—if you do any works in sanctification it’s works salvation because justification and sanctification are fused together. Sanctification is NOT a rest.
Also, note that you make sanctification part of “reconciliation.” I thought you said the reconciliation was finished? Secondly, you state clearly that Christians are still under the law, and therefore, the Holy Spirit must do ALL the work. Thirdly, note that you plainly state that the law has the SAME relationship to us now as “Christians” as it did before we were saved: to increase sin.
Protestants don’t understand the difference between being under law and being under grace, and Calvinists and Arminians are both guilty of the same linear salvation. The “way of the Spirit” is a different relationship to the law—you are making it the same whether saved or unsaved. That’s the smoking gun. The law still serves to show us sin, and not love.
P: “You mean Protestantism’s “already not yet” justification?” Not sure of what part of IT IS FINISHED you failed to understand here. Then you say “Ok, let me be specific: “Christians are still under the law, and therefore, the Holy Spirit must do ALL the work”??? I never said anything of the sort …”The more we look at the flesh to control our fallen state under the law the more we fail”. Meaning the law has passed away…not for us now! It was never brought about justification or sanctification, salvation has always been by grace, the law was given to bring death.
I had this problem before with you; you fail to see the difference between sanctification and propitiation. Both justification and sanctification both parts are needed for Salvation. Christ justified the Fathers wrath on our behalf, (He paid the price), and we are sanctified through His BLOOD…wash as white a snow The moment we first believe. Without sanctification there can be no “reconciliation.”(new birth), you would still be in your filthy rags.
CP: The fact that you don’t understand the law’s relationship to sanctification speaks for itself. Here is what you say: “Both justification and sanctification both parts are needed for Salvation.” Bingo, you say, like Calvin and Luther, that progressive sanctification is part of the salvation process. How is this not “progressive salvation”? Sanctification is part and parcel with the Christian life, so you are saying the Christian life is part of the salvation process. You also say sanctification is the washing, it is not.
The new birth is regeneration, or the quickening, not the washing. You make justification, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, salvation (justification), and redemption all the same thing. Why? Because your gospel defines Christians as still under law. At any rate, to clarify, you clearly say that sanctification is part of the salvation process and is a progressive washing accomplished by the Holy Spirit. How is that not progressive salvation?
P: Sanctification means to set apart to make holy, to purify…without sanctification there is no regeneration (indwell of the Holy Spirit) the Holy Spirit cannot indwell otherwise; we need to be washed clean by Christ saving Blood. Justification is a legal declaration of being declared not guilty. The work of Holy Spirit is NOT progressive washing!!! That a Catholic works based salvation, and most of Christendom outside the Catholic Church teaches. It’s called religion. I am talking about the fruit of the HOLY SPIRIT, not man’s flesh and the works there of. We are saved to the uttermost the moment we first believe. I have never read Calvin or Luther, I far as I can understand Luther taught a milder form of Calvinism.
CP: So you’re saying the Holy Spirit’s salvific work is finished, right? And you are also saying sanctification is complete, right?
P: Yes. But you seem to use Sanctification in a completely different context. So you beleive we are in a ongoing process of sanctification, right ?
CP: You are correct about my position, sanctification is progressive. BUT, you make that one side of the salvation coin… Therefore, obviously, we don’t do sanctification because that would be works salvation. As you said, the Holy Spirit has to do sanctification for us because it is a part of salvation. SO, what you really mean when you say sanctification is finished is that it is finished FOR US, but NOT the Spirit. At any rate, here is your problem, the Bible specifically states that sanctification is an ongoing work done by the believer: 1Thessolonians 4:3,4.
P: I was not saying “sanctification is finished FOR US, but NOT the Spirit.” I fear you have to much invested to change your mind, but I will leave links dealing with this .Aaron Budjen is Jewish , he was saved while training to become a rabbi, so understands what living under the law is like more than most.
CP: Simply answer the question. Is sanctification finished or not? And if it is, for who? Is sanctification part of salvation, yes or no? You have already said it is, so is it finished or not? You have already said it is. So how do you reconcile that with 1Thess. 4:3,4?
P: O.K but it will take more than a simple answer …The words “sanctify” and “sanctification”, as they are used in the Scriptures, basically mean: (1) to set apart or separate for God, (2) to regard, treat, and declare something or someone as holy, and (3) to purify and make holy. 90 references to that doctrine in Scripture. Here is a list of some of them:
2 Tim 2:21; John 17:17; 1 Thess 5:23; Gal 2:20; 2 Thess 2:13; Ex 31:13; 1 Thess 4:3; 1 Cor 1:2; Rom 6:6; 2 Pet 1:2-4; Heb 13:12; Rom 6:1-23; 2 Pet 3:18; Heb 12:10; 2 Cor 1:22; 1 John 1:9; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Thess 4:3-5; Col 3:5; John 17:19; Rev 7:14; Heb 10:14; Eph 4:13; Gal 5:19-21; Lev 21:8; Ex 13:2; Jude 1:24; 2 Pet 3:1-11; 1 Pet 2:24; Heb 13:21; Heb 9:14; Heb 3:12; Col 3:1; Col 2:11; Phil 2:13; Eph 5:25-27; Eph 5:3; Eph 4:16; Eph 4:12; Eph 3:19; Gal 6:14; Rom 15:16; Acts 26:18; 1 John 3:3; Heb 12:1; Rom 12:1; Acts 26:17; Acts 20:32; Luk 5:32; Jer 1:5; Ps 91:1-16; Lev 22:9; Lev 21:1-23; Lev 20:8; Ex 40:9-11; Ex 30:29; Ex 19:14; Rev 22:15; 1 John 3:2; 1 John 1:8; 1 John 1:3; Heb 13:4; Heb 12:14; Heb 10:10; Heb 2:11; Titus 1:1; 2 Tim 2:11; 1 Thess 4:4; Eph 5:26; Eph 4:24; Eph 2:10; Eph 1:13; Eph 1:3; 2 Cor 12:21; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Cor 1:21; 1 Cor 7:14; 1 Cor 7:2; 1 Cor 6:18; 1 Cor 6:13; 1 Cor 1:30; Rom 13:12; Rom 8:7; Rom 8:1; Rom 7:20; Rom 6:11; Rom 6:2; John 3:6; Luk 16:13; Eze 37:28; Lev 11:44
Without complete sanctification, without being made holy, there is no salvation. Sanctification is accomplished on our behalf and in us when we are regenerated (born again), when we are made to be new creatures in Jesus Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 6:11 , Paul is writing to people who were certainly not the perfect pictures of what “good” Christians would look like. The church at Corinth was not regarded by Paul as a perfect example of what a church should be, yet he said to those people that they had clearly been sanctified, based on their faith in Christ. “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. ”If sanctification is two-fold, in other words partially achieved by the work of Jesus Christ and partially by man himself, then the words of Paul must be disregarded.
Additionally it would indicate that the sanctification brought about by the sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross, was incomplete and only partially effective. If sanctification is, even in part, understood to be progressive, then we are confronted by an insurmountable problem, and you said I believed in works salvation! We would never be able to determine at which point sanctification would sufficiently have been achieved by the sinner. The determination of that point would be left at the discretion of men, or that of a religious system and blabbering men like yourself, both of which are hopelessly fallible.
Where in Scripture are those parameters defined? They are not, because sanctification is not partially achieved by Christ, nor is it progressive. The work of Jesus Christ has been done, not only in part, but in perfect completion, and the imputed righteousness to the sinner (sanctification), is as a result, perfect.,, IT IS FINISHED…. The seventh day was set apart (sanctified) for God (Gen. 2:3). This was done by God Himself. This is the first time the word “sanctify” is used in the Bible. That seventh day was not altered at all from the other days, it was simply set apart, separated from the other days of the week a day of rest. Biblical sanctification is not a process by which saved believers become more holy over time. ……..If we are not sanctified, we are not saved. We cannot sanctify ourselves before God. The mere suggestion that we can do so is an absurdity.
CP: Uh, where is your answer in regard to 1Thess. 4:3,4? Clearly, the verse defines sanctification and states that we take part in it, and how we participate.
P: Don’t make me laugh, one scripture which I will look into, but I need to read the entire context … you cannot take a isolate verse and build a doctrine around it. Certainty when you have multitudes of scriptures stating the opposite. If we take part in sanctification, then it would make null and void the Cross, plus we would have something to boast in…. The gift becomes a reward that is earned … I don’t believe sanctification is separate work, if we was not sanctified then we were not washed completely clean by the blood Of The Lamb.
If sanctification is an ongoing process, to me you’re just added works to the mix. Now I do believe we bear fruit and we can certainly hinder that process, no problem with that at all. But the fruit is not us producing the fruit; it’s us yielding to the prompting of The Holy Spirit its allowing the Holy Spirit to use and work through us.
CP: You just lost the argument. Not only does the “One Verse” argument not cut it, you state the following: “If we take part in sanctification, then it would make null and void the Cross, plus we would have something to boast in…. The gift becomes a reward that is earned .” That’s pretty much the smoking gun on many points… You believe the same old Protestant gospel that keeps Christians under the law as a standard for justification. Hence, we must live our Christian lives by faith alone in order to remain saved. If we live by the Protestant formula of faith alone, the Holy Spirit, as you have stated clearly, OBEYS FOR US.
P: If we live by the Protestant formula of faith alone ” …you foolish man…” one verse you build your legalistic doctrine on and bring others back under bondage. “Hence, we must live our Christian lives by faith alone in order to remain saved”. Foolish again, we are kept …we do not keep ourselves in “faith”, YOU HAVE A CALVINIST VIEW OF SCRIPTURES. I would not be surprised in the least to found you were once a Calvinist. Sanctification is salvation along with justification.
CP: Very well, each man must be convinced in his own mind and God will judge all in the end. We all have one judge–and I am not your judge. With that, I can sincerely say farewell and blessings to you. The last word is yours if you want it.
P: Amen to that…..For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. Farewell and blessings to you also.
A Kinder, Gentler Approach to Tough Questions for Answers in Genesis: Introduction
Last week, this blog/ministry received more pushback in one week than all weeks put together since we launched in 2009. Also, a new crowd has shown up and made their disdain for us known: the Zane Hodges hyper-grace groupies. They can now get in line with the New Calvinists, Old Calvinists, Arminians, Anti-Lordship crowd, and discernment bloggers.
Indeed, in the midst of last week’s firestorm, I do take responsibility for the Ken Ham AIG post. I forget that this blog has been around for six years, and readers are not going to assume prior context. Basically, I have serious issues with Ken Ham that go back several years concerning a mutual acquaintance, and I am afraid that past bias provoked me to pull the trigger on that post without sufficient forethought.
If I would have to narrow this ministry down to one objective, it is to get people to think which at times results in frustration. I too-often forget what the readers are not seeing when I write a post, and that post lacked context on many levels, so it was pulled down.
With that said, I want to revisit the issues raised by the post in the right way. In part one, I concede that the lawsuit by AIG against the state of Kentucky is an issue of incentive and not subsidy (or a grant). In part one which is a pretty good three-way discussion at the Dayton Potter’s House, I explain my revised position on that. But what about the title? Do I really believe that Ken Ham wants a church state? No, but what we also discuss is the huge problem with the vast majority of American evangelicals believing that God’s kingdom is on earth, and how that assumption leads to de facto dominionism. This is why these lawsuits make me nervous.
Look, as I explain in part one, I was almost first in line with my family during the grand opening of the creation museum. But ironically, because of an individual associated with AIG, a person that I actually attended church with, I was forced to go on a journey, and that journey raises serious questions about the answers supposedly delivered by Ken Ham. In light of Ken Ham’s endorsement of Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics, what is Ham’s true worldview?
In addition, should Christians be investing millions of dollars to prove that Noah built a boat when precious few understand the difference between justification and sanctification? Moreover, was it a boat or a box? And am I making a bigger deal out of that than I should? Perhaps.
You be the judge, but frankly, because of a worldview that Ham has endorsed on paper, perhaps unwittingly, I lost a big chunk of my life which God, by the way, has replaced abundantly, and for that I am thankful. Nevertheless, because of that experience, I have a tendency to take too few prisoners, and I sincerely appreciate those around me who are willing to inflict faithful wounds and not deceitful kisses.
The part one video is being processed. Part two will be next week. We will also discuss the common thread that is putting us at odds with so many: the distinction between justification and sanctification; and that issue’s impact on the gospel.
paul
The Truth About “Church Discipline”
Audio Link: The Truth About “Church Discipline”
Good evening and welcome to False Reformation blogtalk radio. I am your host, Paul Dohse. If you would like to join the discussion tonight and add to what we are learning, call 347-855-8317 and remember to mute the speakers on your laptop or PC. And by the way, the question or comment does not have to pertain to the subject at hand—it can be off-point. When I answer, I will say, “Hello, you are live on Blogtalk radio what is your comment or question?” Just start talking as identifying yourself is optional. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the episode to see if she has anything to add.
A Short Contemporary History of Church Discipline
With that said let’s get on with our subject tonight, “church discipline.” I am going to begin by describing how church discipline has evolved in the evangelical church within the past ten years. Prior to 1980, church discipline was all but completely unheard of. It started making a comeback in the early 80’s much to the delight of many evangelicals who were frustrated and confused by indifference to sin in the church.
Of course, this comeback was spawned by the Calvinist resurgence that started in 1970. Churches that began to practice church discipline were seen as fellowships that were serious about following God and dealing with sin. The manner of practice was pretty much what you would expect: if someone was practicing sin of the baser sort, they were confronted by someone. If the person would not listen, two or three witnesses would return and confront the person. Of course, this all comes from Matthew 18: 15-20. Let’s go ahead and read the passage:
Matthew 18:15 – “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Even in the beginning of the discipline resurgence, there were problems with how church discipline was practiced. First, the Matthew 18 prism was, and still is, used for every situation in the church. In contrast, there are seven different applications for various situations within the church, and we will go over those tonight. Matthew 18 is only one of those situations; specifically, the resolving of conflict between Christians.
Secondly, rarely was the situation brought before the whole church before excommunication which Matthew 18:17 clearly calls us to do. The third step is usually an announcement to the congregation in regard to what the elders have decided to do. I think this is the strongest argument for home fellowships versus the institutional church model that there is: most institutional churches circumvent this step because of the impracticality of doing so because of size, numbers of people who don’t know the parties, and possible legal litigation.
Again, church discipline was rare and only practiced in situations where the sin was considered to be of the baser sort. All of that gradually changed. We began to see folks brought under church discipline for many different kinds of behavior. Most notably, lack of church attendance. This was first brought to light when Pastor Mark Dever, a well-known Neo-Calvinist, excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance.
This was followed by church discipline for non-tithing or lack of tithing. In regard to the biblical counseling movement that was growing at breakneck speed within the Reformed community, people began to show up at counseling appointments and finding unexpected additional persons present. Hence, the counselee suddenly found himself or herself in the second step of church discipline. Any attempt to vacate membership at that point would be considered an attempt to avoid dealing with the sin and excommunication more than likely the result.
Eventually, the cat was completely out of the bag; what was going on was the spread of something called “redemptive church discipline.” What was/is cause for church discipline? Sin; i.e., anything the elders deem sin and worthy of church discipline in their minds. What about the problem of people simply avoiding church membership? It is now generally accepted that any professing Christian is under the authority of any Reformed elder whether a formal member or not.
One might say, “They can pound salt—they don’t have that kind of authority over me.” True, but that doesn’t prevent them from announcing to the congregation that you are under church discipline WITHOUT naming your sin and thereby leaving the congregation to their imagination because in the minds of most Christians, church discipline is for sins like adultery or worse. Whether or not they truly have that authority over you—your reputation is ruined just the same.
Authority, and the Church Discipline Myth
Let’s look at another aspect of this: the supposed authority of elders to determine your salvation. We hear it all the time: church membership is synonymous with being joined to the body of Christ. If your membership has been revoked, guess what? It’s the same difference; church membership equals salvation.
Let’s address this, and also answer the question: is there really any such thing as church discipline?
In regard to actual excommunication, or expulsion from the body, the only account that we have, or cause for an expulsion from the assembly, is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. This is the only passage were expulsion is not in doubt, and the reason is gross immorality of the sexual kind. Paul says in no uncertain terms: “Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” And, “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
This is the only place in the Bible where expulsion from fellowship is explicitly instructed. Also note: in all of the other sins confronted in the letter to the Corinthians, this is the only place that any kind of disciplinary action is commanded! I think this is a point well worth mentioning. Paul motivates them throughout the letter to obey because of God’s promise of reward, loss of reward, judgment, the coming resurrection, etc.; but chapter 5 is the only place where God’s people are commanded to take specific action to remove a parishioner from the fellowship. I believe this speaks volumes toward an argument that church discipline is reserved for sins of the baser sort, those “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.”
Even in this one explicit case where we have a man expelled from the congregation, Paul does not declare him to be an unbeliever, but rather assumes the opposite: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Bottom line: nowhere does the Bible say that a professing believer should ever be “declared” an unbeliever for any reason; to the contrary, Paul states the opposite by assuming that the expelled Corinthian was saved. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus assumes the lost sheep that stray from the flock are part of the flock and should be diligently sought after (Matt. 18:10-14). Perhaps the idea that we can do this (declare individuals to be unbelievers) is spawned by the belief that it is the church that actually does the disciplining when the term itself (“church discipline”) is a misnomer. In rare circumstance we expel, but it is the Lord that does the disciplining outside of the church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” There is discipline by the Lord inside and outside of the church ( Hebrews 12:5-11, 1Cor. 11:30), and “self “ discipline by believers (1Cor. 11:31,32), but there is no “church discipline” practiced by elders or the church.
Now in regard to how this supposed church discipline works, let’s look at a couple of models:
Church Discipline and Counseling
In this model, the steps work the same as the traditional model. However, if the person repents, this begins the next phase of the church discipline “process.” The person is now required to enter counseling. This model integrates counseling and church discipline as one process. If the person refuses the counseling, he or she is not really repentant and the “process” goes to the next step. If the person enters formal counseling to “restore” him (Gal. 6:1,2) the discipline process ends when he/she is released from counseling. In other words, the person is “under” corrective church discipline until they are released from counseling.
The counseling is the correction part. Proponents of this model would scoff at the traditional view because “it does not deal with the person’s heart.” Only outward repentance is required with the traditional model. The person is supposedly only giving lip service to avoid public humiliation (as if the Lord wouldn’t use that to correct a person: 1Tim 5:20). Dropping the matter on the person’s verbal repentance alone is just “chopping off daisies,” and we don’t want the daisies popping back up tomorrow. We need to supposedly get to the “root” of the problem via counseling.
The supposed goal of church discipline is “real and lasting” change. On its face value, a very strong argument, if you approach the Scriptures using a heart theology hermeneutic, thus interpreting all of Scripture through that prism rather than drawing meaning from the plain sense of a particular text or combination of texts. The overall flavor of texts dealing with church discipline posits the idea that the matter is dropped upon verbal repentance (Luke 17:3,4).
I think proponents of this model see church discipline as one of the tools used to fine tune the church and therefore error concerning the truth. It reasons from the viewpoint of this model that all types of sin would be in play. In other words, you could be brought under church discipline for anything that is sin (just like counseling is for any kind of problem). If you carry that equation to various logical conclusions, the imagination goes wild, but this is in fact one of the tenants of this model.
Second Model of Redemptive Church Discipline
This model encompasses all of model two, except there is no confrontation because true repentance is determined by those who are spiritual (pastors, counselors, etc.) during the process. If it is observed that you are in sin, any sin, you can be placed in this process. You are “under” church discipline until it is determined by examining counselors or elders that you have repented. This is accomplished by examination and observation over time.
The steps are not confrontations to exhort repentance (like the traditional model), but warnings within the process that you are a step closer to disfellowship due to slackness or lack of change, or additional misbehaviors while in the process. Leaving the process without the blessings of church leaders who have not yet determined true repentance would usually result in disfellowship and treatment as an unbeliever.
A decision to place a person into this process by church elders is usually based on the testimony of others because mere verbal repentance on the part of the sinner is never acceptable. One is placed into the process without warning and for any reason seen fit by the elders; that is the primary difference in this model as opposed to the other two. Out of nowhere and without any warning, it is announced to the subject that they are in the discipline process.
The Terminology
No matter which model is practiced, and these are by no means comprehensive, the usual description for all models in constitutions and bylaws is the process of “corrective church discipline.” This description fits all three models and many more. Which one does your church practice? Are you sure?
What Does the Bible Really Say About Conflict or Sin Resolution Among God’s People?
Conflict resolution among God’s people always regards fellowship and not authority. No judgment is made in regard to the person’s salvation; it’s purely a fellowship issue. There is no church membership, you either fellowship with God’s people are you don’t. Our only judge is Christ, and our only authority is what God says in His word. By the way, the word “obey” in Hebrews 13:17, a verse often used to taut elder authority means to “persuade.”
The Bible is specific on how different situations are to be handled among God’s people.
1. Conflict Between Christians
Though Matthew 18:15-20 is often cited as the general template for the so-called church discipline “process”, I would argue that these are steps in regard to offenses between believers only. Verse 15 makes this abundantly clear: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” It is argued by some that the earlier manuscripts do not include “against you”, which allows the passage to address sin in general. Hence, the aforementioned one-size-fits-all approach. So, how do we know for sure what is correct? Are the earlier manuscripts the final word? I would say the context of both reveals the best interpretation. In all versions, forgiveness by the one who is to go to him alone is in view (Luke 17:3,4). Why would a brother who observed another in sin necessarily seek a personal apology (repentance)?
Peter, who was there to hear the lesson first hand, seemed to draw this conclusion as well when he asked this interpretive question to Jesus: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’” (Matthew 18:21).
What we have here is the steps to reconcile two brothers / sisters and nothing more. Corrective measures in regard to other types of sins will be addressed later. What unfolds in the rest of this passage is a process that protects the confronted as well as the confronter. In the final step the whole congregation is called on to exhort the offending brother, but also giving opportunity, if applicable, for the offending brother to tell his side of the story to the whole congregation in order to hold the offended party and witnesses accountable. In any regard, this process is intended to exhaust all possibilities before one is to be treated LIKE an unbeliever.
If a Matthew 18 situation is petty, the hope is that the one or two witnesses brought into the situation could somehow rectify that reality.
2. False Teaching That Causes Division
1Timothy 6:3-5 – “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”
2John:10,11 – “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”
Titus 3:10 – “Warn a divisive [other translations: ”heretick”] person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.”
Romans 16:17,18 – “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”
Note the procedure concerning heretics in the church that cause divisions: they are to be warned twice, then rejected. You can conclude from these verses that a divisive person is biblically synonymous with one who teaches false doctrine. This is a notably different procedure than Matthew 18. There is no exhortation, only warning.
3. Sinning Elders
I Timothy 5:19 – “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”
In regard to elders, we see a different procedure than Matthew 18. If it is established by two or three witnesses that an elder has sinned, he is to be rebuked before the congregation so that the other elders will fear.
4. Gross Immorality
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 – “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Though confrontation is not specified, verse 4 speaks concerning the necessity of involving the whole congregation in the casting out of the believer. This is absolutely critical. Confrontation beforehand and the liberty to apply some of the Matthew 18 process is not necessarily excluded and errors on the side of mercy.
5. Idleness
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 – “6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.”
Idleness falls under a category of confrontation apart from disfellowship. Verse 14 says not to keep company with him, but is followed by instruction to admonish him as a brother as opposed to treating him as a tax collector or heathen. This would certainly differ from Matthew 18. Verse 10 seems to indicate a refusal to help the brother until he starts working; fellowship would create a legal loophole for him to get monetary help through the back door, so-to-speak. The brother is to be ostracized within the church except for exhortation concerning work. This of course could include formal counseling.
6. Broken Fellowship Between Parishioners
At Phillipi, there was a situation where two parties refused to reconcile. Paul calls on them to agree while also calling on the congregation to help them. Since this was a public letter, the incentive for these women to quickly reconcile before the congregation got involved would have been greatly enhanced. The situation probably involved some sort of pettiness rather than overt sin.
Philippians 4:2,3 – “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”
7. Counseling and Restoration
Galatians 6:1 – “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.”
Those who interpret Matthew 18 in regard to general sins will now interpret this verse as a proof text that restoration is part of the steps in Matthew 18. However, Jesus clearly establishes the purpose of the second step in Matthew 18:16, that “every word may be established.” This does not seem consistent with restoring a fallen brother to spiritual health.
The Matthew 18 process is confrontational in nature. It seems to be primarily concerned with investigating a brother’s willingness to renounce his behavior and seek forgiveness from the one he offended. Furthermore, there is really no hint of “church discipline” in the context of Galatians 6:1. To attribute this verse to “church discipline” is assumptive at best. Discipline takes place outside of the church and is administered by God. We have specific instruction in the word for the purpose of ascertaining whether that should be done or not, and what types of situations should be applied. It is not discipline within the church by others and it is not counseling. However, correction from a wayward course and further instruction could, and often does result.
Conclusion
The repentant saint may seek additional help as a result of being confronted, but it is not a requirement to prevent further steps. A verbal commitment to cease the behavior is all that is required in most cases (“if he says” Luke 17:4). In all of the above verses, protracted counseling as a means of restoration to prevent further steps is nowhere to be found (as in redemptive church discipline). To further bolster this argument, keep in mind the qualifications for elders. They are not to be characterized by anger, excessive drinking, mishandling of finances or flirtations (1Tim. 3:1-12 Titus1:5-9). Paul says they can’t be elders, he doesn’t say to bring them up on “church discipline.” Obviously, consideration for eldership would be a moot point.
Ongoing struggles with besetting sins will always be among God’s people. Some sort of discipline process that will eradicate the need for daily forgiveness is not what the Scriptures call for. In 1 Thessalonians 5:14, the apostle Paul mentions several types of Christians and what they need, and it’s not a one size fits all “church discipline.”
Addendum
In the Holman Christian Standard Study Bible, yet another Neo-Calvinist translation in addition to the ESV, it states on page 1649 that there are “two categories of church discipline.” It frames all church teachings and examples set by the leaders as “formative discipline.” Everything modeled and taught to you is “preventative.” This overshadows all activities within the church with authority bolstered by preventative discipline or corrective discipline.
Example Letter for Elders Practicing Unbiblical “Church Discipline”
To the Elders of Anywhere Baptist Church, Ohio:
Regardless of what is stated in your Book of Faith and Order, or any covenant signed by me, The Ohio Revised Code states the following under chapter 2905: Kidnapping and Extortion, and 2905.12 specifically, “Coercion”:
(A) No person, with purpose to coerce another into taking or refraining from action concerning which the other person has a legal freedom of choice, shall do any of the following:
(2) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;
3) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit;
Please be advised that I have a “legal freedom of choice” to vacate my membership at Anywhere Baptist Church.
Signed,
Joe Grace
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment