I believe in God! I believe in Jesus Christ! I believe the Bible teaches predestination. All these are familiar assertions frequently heard from the lips of Christians everywhere. Muslims and Christians believe in God, but which God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church) and the Methodist Church believe in Jesus Christ, but which Jesus Christ. Baptists and Presbyterians believe in predestination, but which view of predestination.
Theological liberals have accused theological conservatives with divisiveness because of doctrine. In fact the war cry of the liberals during the middle of this century was "doctrine divides, service unites." They are wrong. However, I grant that the spirit of the postmodern age opens the door for a form of neo-ecumenism. Doctrine no longer divides because the legitimacy and credibility of a creed has become personal relative among many creedal and confessional churches. (Denial will not ease the pain of this truth). Every branch of the church has been touched by the postmodern concept, to a greater or lesser degree.
Every Christian and every church has a confession which is a statement of what they believe. Some are very informal and some are lengthy and cumbersome. Presbyterians have a long history of subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. It is an outstanding document on biblical doctrine, but doctrinally in-depth that many ordained elders who say they believe it probably do not understand it. They have not escaped this "I'll say I believe it mentality" even though they may not understand it. Many Presbyterian denominations were way ahead of the postmodern deconstruction concept by requiring elders to subscribe to a "system" of doctrine. There is no sense of "ownership" if one only subscribes to a "system" because different people may interpret the system in different ways. To put it another way, one person may not have the same system as another person. After this "system" has passed through enough generations there remains no objective standard, but the "system", whatever that happens to be, will survive. The solution is to subscribe to the content of the creed as it was given by the church fathers. It was either right or wrong. In the case of Presbyterians and the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, Presbyterians would do themselves a favor by adopting the Confession as it was given or write a new confession.
What kind of church and confession are we passing on to our offspring? If churches follow their current neo-ecumenical course, there will be no doctrinal distinctions. Everyone will do what is right in his own eyes and loudly proclaim that "we must agree to disagree." It is not possible to agree to disagree. It is possible to say that one or the other is wrong and maybe both are wrong. To agree to disagree is to fan the fire of ecumenism. It will destroy the church by deception. We should all remember that Jesus called some churches "synagogues of Satan" because they had a false profession (Revelation 3:9). The only protection the church has from “false professions” is the biblical form of church government. God designed the government of the church to protect it from false doctrine.
The reason that various denominations have so many different gospels and so many different doctrines can be found in the fact that although they may have one common creed, they have an unbiblical form of church government. Churches everywhere seem to have forgotten that God is the governor of the Universe. The word of God in the Book of Psalms says: “The Lord has established His throne in heaven, and His kingdom rules over all.” (Psalm 103:19). God’s government must be the factor that determines church government. Common law and humanly devised statute law is not sufficient to rule God’s kingdom.
This generation of God’s people is past due on their responsibility to call the entire church to task on the very issue that has divided the church. What has divided the church? Is it the doctrine of God’s saving grace? Is it the doctrine of God’s holiness and man’s responsibility? Is it over the consummation of all things? No, the church is divided over the government of His church.
Since we believe the gospel and we believe that born again sinners want to hear the gospel, then it would seem normal and sensible for God to give us the means to preach and teach the gospel and for that matter preach and teach the whole counsel of God. However, the condition necessary for the church to determine who has the right and authority to decide which gospel is the right gospel and which doctrine is the right doctrine is biblical church government.
The reason the church is divided and the reason there are so many denominations is they have not determined who has the right and who has the authority to settle a controversy in the church.
Paul faced the same dilemma in his day as we face today. There were two different versions of the gospel. In Acts 15 “some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue (Acts 15:1,2). According to one gospel salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. The other gospel taught salvation by grace through faith in Christ plus the necessity of circumcision according to the custom of Moses. Please notice that Luke brings to our attention the fact that the brethren were the subjects placed under the duplicity of doctrine.
If they are brethren, they should have every desire to settle the controversy. A brother implies kinship, a covenant relationship and therefore a unity of doctrine should be the norm. Instead the church was divided over the question of keeping the law of God for the salvation of the soul. Brethren are sinners and subject to disagree and find themselves on the opposite end of some doctrine, but the Bible makes it clear that Paul could not live with two different gospels. Neither did Paul seek the advice of two church courts. If they were brethren it would seem that they would be willing to discuss the controversy and come to unanimous decision (See Acts 15).
The Governor of the universe gave two principles so His people could establish the biblical form of church government. The first principle is the word of truth. This principle is called constitutional government. John Calvin recognized this principle in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Under the heading “necessity of church constitutions Calvin said, “many unlettered persons, when they are told that men’s consciences are impiously bound by human traditions, and God is worshipped in vain, apply the same erasure to all the laws by which the order of the church is shaped” (Institutes 4.10.27). He is right because man-centered worship tends to replace God-centered worship. The same principle applies to the government of the church. Calvin continues: “Yet since such diversity exists in the customs of men, such variety in their minds, such conflicts in their judgments and dispositions, no organization, is sufficiently strong unless constituted with definite laws…Therefore…when churches are deprived of them, their very sinews disintegrate and they are wholly deformed and scattered” (Institutes 4.10.27).
God regulates the manner in which the church must be governed. When the church is deprived of God’s regulation and God’s constitution of church government, then the church is deprived of God’s government. At the present time the evangelical church has not agreed on the doctrine of God’s government. The prophet Amos left a masterpiece for the New Testament church. “Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3).
God’s government is constitutional. However, the contemporary church has heard little if any about God’s plan for constitutional church government. There is a tendency to ignore the principles of God’s government as unimportant to the congregation and it is not just a recent omission. For example, in 1856 a Presbyterian minister said, “I do not remember to have ever heard on any occasion, except at the settlement of a minister, any attempt made to teach the people why they should be Presbyterians and not Prelatists… .” He went on to say, “I have met with not a few others, who tell me they have sat all their lives in Presbyterian Churches and do not remember to have heard on any Sabbath a single principle of Presbyterian Church Polity, stated and explained” (The Apostolic Church by Thomas Witherow).
As important as sound biblical doctrine may be, and sound doctrine is indisputably important, there must be a governing body to maintain sound doctrine. Presbyterian churches from America to Australia, from the most liberal to the most conservative churches must come to grips with the deception of this age. I have acquaintances in ten of the twenty plus Presbyterian denominations in the world. I don't see any hope at the present time, for those ten Presbyterian denominations to congregate as one. Is doctrine the problem? It should not be since they all "say" they subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. Then what is the problem? Of the manifold problems among Presbyterians, unbiblical practices related to church government are the Achilles’ heel. Strange that the very thing that defines the Presbyterian Church is the very thing that undermines the Presbyterian Church.
The government of the church is under the supreme headship of Jesus Christ. It is well known that there must proceed from the headship of Christ a particular form of church government. The government of the church is not merely an optional stand in for modernity’s managerialism. The principles of church government must be founded upon the word of God. Jonathan Edwards, although a Congregationalist, said to the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Ebenezer Erskine, that "as to the Presbyterian government, I have long been perfectly out of conceit of our unsettled, independent, confused way of church government in this land; and the Presbyterian way has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things" (The Works of J. Edwards, Hickman ed., vol. 1, page cxxi). It is true that many in the history of the church understood that the guiding principles in Scripture demand a Presbyterian form of church government. Edwards like so many more seemed content with what they viewed as an acceptable form of church government, thus denying the ultimate authority given to the elders by the Lord Jesus Christ. The spiritual government of the church is not merely pragmatic or utilitarian. The government of the church is the source of order and authority for the church to carry out its mission. The church cannot carry out its mission of making disciples without sound biblical God appointed church government. It is well known that the church cannot do its work amid chaos and confusion. Therefore Christ appointed elders to rule over His church. These elders or presbyters rule by an ultimate standard which is the word of God. In Calvin's Catechism of the Church of Geneva he asked the question: "Is it of importance, then, that there should be a certain order of government established in churches?" The answer was: "It is: they cannot otherwise be well managed or duly constituted. The method is for elders to be chosen to preside as censors of manners, to guard watchfully against offenses, and exclude from communion all whom they recognize to be unfit for it, and who could not be admitted without profaning the sacrament.” What will it take to awaken the sleeping giant? The sweet romance for power and money will chase away any hope of reformation and the restoration of a sound biblical church government.
The testimony of our forefathers in the faith is a great help, but finally the word of God is the constitution upon which God governs His church. The seed of constitutional government was given to Noah. Under the Mosaic covenant, the particular specifications for God’s government became more evident. The development of God’s government over the Old Testament church actually precedes the law given to Moses at Sinai. If God had not given His sacred government to His people, the law would have been subject to interpretation by man-made autonomy, rather than God-centered theonomy.
The second principle God gave His people to establish a biblical form of church government is “rule by order.” The elders in the Old Testament ruled by order, according to God’s law (See Exodus 18). The elders made binding decisions. The fashionable “thou shalt not judge” is not God’s plan to settle matters of doctrine and practice. In the Old Testament judgment was the work of the elders at the gate. In the New Testament judgment is the work of elders who come together as representatives of the church. The immediate thought and words of any Christian is “what about the sinfulness of all men including the elders.” True, but the elders were men who had been set aside according to God’s constitution. In the Old Testament the qualifications for the elders was not merely old age. God’s constitution says they must be “able men, such as fear God, men of truth, [and] hating covetousness.” In the New Testament the qualifications are more specific than the general qualifications found in the Old Testament. The elders make vows thus calling them to account for the purpose of judicious adjudication of all matters pertaining to doctrine and practice. Therefore care must be taken in the selection and ordination of elders. If the elders are ungodly, unruly, and ill equipped, then their decisions will be ungodly, unruly, and deficient of God’s constitutional government. A number of ungodly men making ungodly decisions are not the biblical form of church government we find in Scripture.
The most prominent example of biblical church government previously referred to is found in Acts chapter fifteen. The decision of the court was in agreement with the word of God. Since the representatives of the court were under constraint to judge justly, they could not possibly disagree with the word of God. When a decision is contradictory to the word of God, then the constitutional principle was abused or ignored. An ungodly decision does not come from a godly church court. Furthermore godly people must not obey an ungodly decision.
Thomas Witherow left us this challenge: “If our distinctive principles are not apostolic and important, by standing apart from other denominations upon such a ground, we only perpetuate needless divisions in the Church of God. If we discover that the peculiarities of the system are either not true, or truths of minor consequence, we should take speedy steps to heal the schism that exists, and exemplify Christian union on a large scale by uniting with some sister sect, whose principles are more Scriptural and important than our own. But if on the other hand, our distinctive principles are very important as well as true, then duty to God and the Church demands that we avow, illustrate, and defend them, and press them on the notice of the world.”
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.christian-article-bank.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites