27 comments

1. Hi Brother Clark,

   Sounds like the Red Beetle guy has come from left field. In watching and then reading the forum I found myself amazed at how some people are able to take things completely out of context I think putting a link up would also be helpful. As it would Red Beetle goes to conclusions that aren’t made. It would seem that all you were saying is that someone who gets saved by God will want to become a member of a Church (that is preaching the truth). Where as Red Beetle seems to think that you’re saying you need to go to a church to be saved.

   Bless you Brother.

   P.S. Thanks for writing books, blog and recording podcasts I really enjoy reading/listening to your work.

2. Hi Andrew,

   Thanks for the encouragement.

   First, the Belgic Confession, confessed by my federation of churches and by the Dutch Reformed churches since the 1560s, repeats the formula without modification. The debate in the 16th and 17th century was not whether there is a true church or whether there is salvation outside of the true church but which church it was, the evangelical (in 16th-century terms, the confessional Protestant and Reformed churches) or the Roman.

   The Westminster divines added the qualifier “ordinary.” The question is whether this means, as it frequently does in 16th and 17th-century usage “by divine ordination” or “normally.” Nevertheless, the churches have recognized that were someone to come to faith on a desert island (say a bible washes ashore, the deserted fellow reads it and comes to faith) he would be apart from the visible church. That would be extraordinary or unusual. Ordinarily, the visible church being present, one is obligated to join himself to it.

   Second, I didn’t write the Belgic or the Westminster Confession. So it’s not my personal view that we’re discussing (although I agree with the Belgic and the WCF).

   Third, the churches are not saying that “if one goes to church, one will be saved.” That would be the very sacerdotalism from which the Reformation delivered us. Clearly there are those who attend church who do not believe.

   Fourth, the churches are saying, however, that ordinarily, salvation is not possible outside the visible church. What does this mean?

   Though I know what you mean. we should not say “get saved.” Strictly, we (believers) were saved by Christ’s obedient, suffering life and death and resurrection, i.e., by God’s saving act in history. The Israelites did not “get saved.” They were saved by what God did by taking them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, on dry ground.

   God has chosen to administer salvation in one place: the visible, institutional church. Just as he chose to administer salvation in Noah’s ark and just as he chose to administer salvation through national Israel, so too he has chosen to give the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16) to the visible church (Matt 28:18-20).

   Thus, those who willfully absent themselves from the true visible, institutional church (see Belgic Confession Art 29) have placed themselves in jeopardy. Think of it thus: if a man is willfully and impenitently committing murder and tells me “I am a Christian” I think I have a right to doubt his claim. Why? Because he’s an impenitent murderer! If a man tells me, “I don’t go to church, I belong to no church, I don’t need church. I have Jesus in my heart” and, if after instruction, he continues to persist in his abandonment of Christ’s church, then I doubt his claim to be a Christian.

   There is the strongest possible moral necessity for those who profess the Christian faith to join themselves to the true visible, institutional church. It’s not a second blessing for the illuminati. It’s not just a “good thing” to do. It’s not optional. It’s necessary. It’s not the instrument of justification. That is faith alone. It’s not the ground of justification. That is Christ and his righteousness. The true visible church is, however, the place where God administers his salvation ordinarily (in both senses) such that one cannot absent himself from it without the gravest jeopardy.

   Finally, I realize that the Reformed doctrine of the church is a great challenge to American religious sensibilities. It should be. We are missionaries here in a strange land full of radical Anabaptist, mystical, rationalist weirdness. We should not look like the prevailing practice of religion; not at all.

3. “The believer on an island,” I would think, as long as that person acknowledges herself as part of the Body of Christ, is still part of the visible church. I think an “out of ordinary” (abnormal) circumstance would mean someone who was born intellectually disabled, and cannot respond to the gospel in a sensible manner.

4. “The believer on an island,” I would think, as long as that person acknowledges herself as part of the Body of Christ, is still part of the visible church.

   But if the analogy is marriage, then we would say that as long as a deserted spouse acknowledges herself a member of a marriage she is still married. Perhaps technically this is correct, but it’s hard to imagine any deserted spouse who’d be satisfied with that sort of counsel. And wouldn’t it be odd if there was? Churchless evangelicalism seems like a lot of deserted spouses running around reveling in technicalities.

5. I am amazed at how loosely and indiscriminantly you use the word ‘church’. And I see this as a common characteristic of many in what I call the modern Reformed movement. One phrase is particularly pregnant with what I would consider self-serving, unbiblical language. Could you please define for me the ‘visible, institutional church’?

   It seems to me that you are attempting to raise the ‘institutional church’ to a level almost on par with Jesus Himself…insinuating or stating out right that there is no salvation apart from the ‘church’. And by ‘church’, you seem to mean some ecclesiastical institution with a hierarchy and structure, a building, services and programs, and a ‘membership roll’. What I am missing here?

   By the way, I am not suggesting here that a born-again believer should not be in fellowship with his brothers and sisters in Christ. And I don’t really want to articulate my entire view here as I’m more interested in hearing more of yours. But for simplicity sake I would just say that I think the Bible is pretty clear that anyone who is born-again IS a part of the Church, the body of Christ, the called out ones, the elect. I don’t see how the ‘institutional’ part fits in.

   • Jason,

     It’s neither loose nor indiscriminate. Did you read the paper on the doctrine of the church I linked above? Did you read the Belgic Confession, Articles 28 and 29 and the Westminster Confession of Faith on the doctrine of the church?

     Please read those things and then we’ll talk.

6. I read your paper and I suppose that we are not so terribly far apart in our views and understanding, but definitely not in complete agreement. Maybe I’m just hung up on a word, but I just can’t go with you on the ‘institution’ concept. To me it epidomizes and connotes much of what is horribly wrong about ‘churches’.

   Your conclusion – “The Church is the people of God assembled together under the authority of the Word of God for worship, instruction, and mutual edification. By his Word through the Apostles, God has ordained that we unite together to accomplish these purposes. The organized Church is not a mistake, but instead, the Biblical and Apostolic institution for the advancement of the Kingdom of God.”

   Here’s mine. Your thoughts?

   “The Church is the born-again elect of God joined together by the Spirit of God under the authority of the Word of God to proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvelous light. We are instructed by the Word of God to gather together regularly for worship, instruction, and mutual edification. Each member of the Church has a purpose and a function that is inextricably connected with other members. When all members embrace and live out their God-given assignments–individually and collectively–the Kingdom of God advances to the praise of His glory.”

   • Your definition is, in a word, Anabaptist or pietistic. It has more to do with democratic, populist American evangelicalism than it does with the biblical definition. There is no question that one-anothering is an important concept and praxis in the NT but there’s virtually none of that under the typology. A comprehensive definition has to account for all the epochs of the church. I don’t see the advantage of your definition. It seems entirely focused on “mutual edification.”

     It doesn’t account for the fact that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to the apostles, not to every believer who ever lived. He gave the great commission to officers. The apostle Paul established pastors, elders, and deacons in Asia Minor. Peter addressed elders. Paul addressed elders. The ministry is largely committed to them.

     God’s people, the laity, have an important role but the biblical evidence for “every-member ministry” is very thin indeed.

     • Dr. Clark,

       I’ve dealt with Jason before. And I’m afraid I may have inadvertently “sicced” him on you by linking to this post from my blog.

       • I should also point out, when he says, “modern reformed movement,” he’s referring to predestinarian evangelicals along the lines of “Young Restless and Reformed,” not the actual Reformed tradition.

         • So, the YRR has an overly high doctrine of the church? Really?

           • No…that’s what’s frustrating about them to me. My ecclesiology is quite high. However, my church is in the Acts 29 network, and I seem to be Jason’s main point of contact.

       • Okay…to clarify…again for Gene. I read a handful of blogs rather sporadically, some of which I know will present thoughts, opinions, and views to which I do not readily ascribe. Every now and then I am compelled to offer a comment either to put forth an alternative idea or get more clarity from the author of the original post. Maybe I’m missing something here, but I thought that’s what blogging was about. That’s why I am so dumbfounded by your (Gene’s) post. It comes across to me as somewhat paranoid and also derogatory towards me. I am particularly referring to when you say you’ve ‘dealt with Jason before’ and that you inadvertently ‘sicced’ me on Richard.

         As you may recall, in my last communication with you I offered to get together sometime and talk face-to-face since I have actually visited 1.21, we live in the same city, and are supposedly brothers in Christ, but I never heard back from you. I took the hint and decided not to comment on any more of your blog posts (which I had only commented on one anyway…not exactly a stalker). I do not have any axe to grind with you so I guess I am just disappointed in the content and the tone of your comments directed towards me personally. I do not want to give you any more fuel for your apparent fire so I will not comment on any further postings from you even if they are about me…however, my offer for an offline conversation still stands.

         • Jason,

           I don’t want to hash out all of our personal history here, where it doesn’t really fit the conversation. But I think a couple of comments are in order.

           1) I can see that my choice of the word, “sicced” was a poor one. I’m sorry for that. The rest of what I wrote was explaining to Dr. Clark the terminology you were using.

           2) If you comment on a church’s official blog, which the pastors use to communicate with their sheep and build them up in the faith, and do so in a way that contradicts the doctrine of that church and makes character allegations about that church’s elders (which you have done on two occasions), you should expect to be refuted, and to have the church’s pastors insist on having the last word.

           3) When someone writes to you in an email (which I have), “I’m going to offer you the last word here. I insist (because of my biblical responsibilities as a pastor) on having the last word on the blog (not my blog, the church’s blog). But here, in personal correspondence, you can have the last word. I’ll write this email, you can respond, and that will be it. You can be sure I’ll read your email, but I won’t offer any rejoinders.” Then you should not expect to “[hear] back from [them].” I did exactly what I said I would.

           4) I have no personal beef with you. I find your pietism and lack of concern/respect for the visible institutional church established by Christ troubling. But as I’ve said before, “I’m convinced that you’re sincere. I’m sure you’re a nice guy. And I’m not going to hold ill will against you. While I disagree with your views, I wish you and your ministry all the best, and hope that people are able to come to know Jesus and serve him and his church faithfully as a result. Be blessed.”

           So to reiterate, I apologize for the tone of my first comment, and hope that you better understand the reasons behind the other ways I’ve related to you in blogdom.

           Cheers,

           ERS

     • I submitted a reply to Gene’s post earlier today but it appears you have allowed it to be posted. I hope that in fairness you will post my reply to Gene’s post. If not, then I think you should at least remove Gene’s post.

       • correction.. ‘you have NOT allowed it to be posted.’

       • if I deleted a post it’s because it was over the top. If you don’t want to be deleted, don’t cross the line.

         • I certainly didn’t ‘cross the line’ and I see now that you actually did post my comment. So thank you.

7. Well, I think you’ve pretty much told me what I need to know. One thing that I can assure you, I am definitely far from your typical ‘democratic, populist American evangelical’. I guess if you just had to stick a label on me, I probably do fit in with the pietists…although I would certainly argue that embracing the notion of a ‘heart religion’ does not mean I’ve checked my brain at the door. For your part, I pray that you don’t merely have a ‘head religion’ that keeps you from the type of overwhelming devotion to Jesus–body, soul, and spirit–that stirred a group of ‘heart religionists’ to board ships containing their coffins, set sail to foreign lands, and even sell themselves into slavery in order that they might proclaim the excellencies of our Father to lost souls. Of course I am referring to the early Moravians. God bless.

8. Jason, I’d be interested to hear how you reckon with notions of the church’s connectivity and mutual accountability and submission. I’m glad to hear you haven’t checked your brain in at the door; have you thought through whether your definition gives those notions any practical teeth? Not attempting to zing you; I ask as one thoroughly convinced of presbyterian ecclesiology in principle, but am wrestling with how the rubber meets the road in the real world.

9. Thanks for the many stimulating posts you make so often on your blog Dr Clark.

   I’m not interested in disputing it, but I wondered if you would be willing to clarify your position somewhat. For a while now I’ve wondered whether you make any connection between the confession’s statement that outside the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation, and your belief that Baptist congregations are not true churches.

   To state it bluntly, is salvation not ordinarily possible at baptist churches? Do those who study at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at Westminster Seminary California and then go on to pastor (presumably) non-churches minister to Christians who have somewhat unusually recieved salvation outside of the visible church, or non-christians impenitently outside of the true church? Or, as is altogether possible, have I missed something?

   Many thanks for your thoughts

   Ed

   • Hi Ed,

     I’ve addressed this at great length:

     http://en.wordpress.com/tag/defining-reformed/

     • Dear Dr Clark,

       I wish no insult to you, but after having read the majority of the articles linked, and your entire series on “Churchless Evangelicals” I have been unable to find an answer to the specific question I intended to ask. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough.

       I do not intend to dispute whether Baptists are “Reformed” or not, you do admirable work in RRC to demonstrate that in the confessional sense, they are not. (Whether this precludes their being correct is not one I’m interested in discussing with you right now, and I’m sure you’re hardly raring to discuss it with me).

       Rather, I am really asking for your reaction to the syllogism:

       Baptist congregations are not true churches
       Outside of the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation
       Therefore, members of baptist congregations are not ordinarily saved

       By a “baptist congregation”, for the sake of argument, I intend a congregation which confesses the 1688 LBCF, which preaches the gospel and administers the Lord’s Supper and exercises church discipline. I don’t intend the vast majority of what passes for Evangelicalism in America, which I fancy I find as tiresome as you do.

       It’s not to initiate a debate, just to clarify your position. If you’ve already written on this specific matter, I’m sorry to have wasted your time, but I did honestly try to find it. If you don’t agree with the syllogism, I’d be most obliged if you could explain why not.

       Many thanks

       Ed

       • Hi Ed,

         I’ve addressed this elsewhere but like you I can’t find it. I do believe that even confessional Baptists deny one of the marks of true church, the “pure administration of the sacraments” (Belgic Confession Art 29). I’m convinced that there’s no way to reconcile the Reformed confession regarding the sacraments and the Baptist denial of the same. There’s no historical evidence, of which I’m aware, that the Reformed churches accepted the Baptist (from 1611) denial of infant baptism any more than they accepted the Anabaptist denial of it.

         So, where does that leave Baptists? Can Baptists be saved? Well, the short answer is yes, they can, in the same way that there are Roman Catholics (and others) who are saved despite the doctrine of their communion, who, despite the doctrine of their communion, are trusting in Christ alone for their righteousness. Should they leave the Roman communion? Calvin thought so and I agree. See the posts on the Nicodemites. As I see things, Baptist congregations are irregular and salvation in them is thus extraordinary (i.e., outside the ordained means). Nevertheless, I won’t try to limit the divine freedom. Further, we’ve always affirmed that there are Christians in the Roman communion. How can they be Christians? How can they be saved? Their communion lacks all three marks. At least a confessional Baptist congregation has two of the marks so, I suppose, we could say that it’s 66% less “extraordinary” for Baptists to be saved.

         I’m happy to have an alternative but I’m unwilling to condemn all Baptists. I don’t think it’s necessary but I’m unwilling to say that the sacraments (including infant baptism) are adiaphora or unimportant. I’m unwilling to negotiate the marks of the church and most Baptists are (rightly) unwilling to recognize me as a baptized person and they (should) regard our congregations as consisting of unbaptized persons and thus outwardly, anyway, non-Christians and if we are Christians it’s just as extraordinary from their point of view.

         I don’t think it will work to redefine “church” or “true church” to mean “any congregation that preaches the gospel and administers discipline.” The sacraments as Christ instituted them continue to be abiding, binding obligations on all congregations and Christians. Thus, I continue to affirm BC 28 and insist that everyone unite himself to a true church while recognizing the anomaly of Baptist Christians who have placed themselves outside the true, visible church.

         I understand how outrageous this must sound. I remember being a Baptist and thinking that everyone who wasn’t a Baptist was in jeopardy. That said, I think Baptists should be uncomfortable. I’m certainly uncomfortable with the tension this situation creates.

10. Gentlemen,

    Very interesting discussion. Jason – I dare you to attend a sound Reformed or Presbyterian Church with an open mind for a month. It would be great to have you as a fellow member. I also dare you to read the Heidelberg Catechim & Belgic Confession and look at the scripture references. Dr. Clark’s church has an excellent version available. I was in baptistic, evangelical churches until the age of 36 when the light went on. You are a thinker and I admire that. Dr. Clark – How do you handle visiting non-members of sound Reformed or Presbyterian churches coming to the table at Oceanside? This has been a difficult issue for our consistory. We even lost an elder over it.

    • Hi Erik,

      I’m probably not the guy to ask about this. I don’t think many people agree with me but I still agree with the Synod of Dort on this. My congregation has a broader policy than I have advocated and a broader policy than it once had.

      http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/fencing-the-table-or-the-scandal-of-the-church/

      http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/more-on-fencing-the-table-dutch-reformed-voices/

    • Could you elaborate more on ‘when the light went on’?

Comments are closed.