24 comments

1. A couple of years ago the Theocast guys on their podcast considered the term ‘carnal Christian’ and what kind of person that describes and they said unreservedly that that describes every single Christian of all time. Does MacArthur think that because he himself has made ‘more’ progress in the service of habit forming disciplines with regard to personal holiness than, say a guy who struggles and often fails with some addictive sin pattern like pornography, that this makes him a Christian and the other guy Judas? John MacArthur sins every single day in thought, word and deed! Where does it say in the creeds or Catechisms that not one of us has ever followed a single one of God’s commands and that in sanctification we will only begin to? Where do the lordship guys fit into that truth? Where does lordship salvation make room for the guy ‘In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail’? What do lordship guys say about bruised reeds and smoldering wicks??

   Because MacArthur himself and all of the other lordship guys sin every single day in thought, word and deed, do they think that the difference between them and a guy ‘who has not made Jesus the Lord Of his life’ is somehow just a matter of degrees? Like, you have to get at least 75 on the test, they all have at least that high of a score and the other people haven’t? To such and understanding of the Christian life like this one my only hope would be to cry out “Woe is me, I am undone, for I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” and then cry out (louder, while bearing by breast!) “God, have mercy on me, a sinner!”

   • Paul,

     You’re thinking of Heidelberg 60:

     60. How are you righteous before God?

     Only by true faith in Jesus Christ; that is, although my conscience accuse me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone always to all evil; yet God without any merit of mine, of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, as if I had never committed nor had any sin, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me; if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.

     The Theocast guys make a good point.

     “Carnal Christian” isn’t a category to defend but Romans 7 does describe our experience and it is God’s Word.

2. Thank you for this!!

   What of the second paragraph of my comment? Is this a fair characterization. If lordship salvation, that if you are simply obedient *enough* that you past the rest of making Jesus the lord of your life? Is it just a matter of degrees?

   • Paul,

     I think your analysis is correct. Both the nomist-Dispensationalists & Antinomian-Dispensationalists come from the same holiness family tree.

     They aren’t from the Reformation family tree.

     That’s an important part of how we got here. They operate without really important Reformation categories.

     In so far as it is, for them, a matter of degrees, ultimately, they are just different positions on the same spectrum.

3. Passed the test, I mean.

4. Would you go so far as to call Zane Hodges a heretic?

5. In my experience MacArthur’s Lordship Doctrine/Position is tolerable in most cases, although I have not attended a TMS Pastors Church for long periods , where this seems to get problematic is when a zealous and poorly educated “Reformed” (TMS family) preacher starts to incorporate this type of thinking into a Sanctification paradigm, which I have personally experienced. During this period I would regularly hear “how to” sermons and repentance (which really meant penitence), and if one did not meet the “Shepherds” definition of this in deed, then you were in the lower stage of blessing, and were treated as such until you fell into line, and until one did, they would remain there, this is not an uncommon paradigm. The Pastor determined who was in and out of this stage – kind of like TGAJ on Steroids. Good work DR Clark, and thank you for taking a difficult stand on this, I wish TMS people would engage in a civil discussion on this issue.

   • Grant,

     Thank you for the encouragement.

     I suppose there are lots of people who, when taught the lordship salvation doctrine, don’t entirely understand the implications, and thus do not suffer all of the possible consequences. It has been put to me repeatedly that all McArthur is asking is for fruit and evidence. Were that the case, there would be no controversy with the orthodox Reformed. But, of course, it is not the case, hence the controversy.

     Here’s an interview I did with a couple of friends, Chris Gordon, and John Fonville. The latter was a student at TMS and actively involved at GCC. He describes the spiritual effect (and affect) of the lordship salvation doctrine in his life.

     https://heidelblog.net/2015/06/heidelcast-95-reformation-happens/

     As to the state of the discussion, its history suggests that the LS partisans will ignore what’s actually being said (consider how Hohn Cho was treated) but perhaps this series will help those who aren’t committed to the defense of LS come what may?

6. “We distinguish between the holy catholic church, and the visible church, which can be distinguished from the false church (e.g., Rome) and sects (e.g., most American evangelical congregations)”.

   Are you saying most American evangelical congregations are sects because of their’e practice of baptism or a lack of gospel preaching? In other words, which mark(s) are they so lacking in as to remove them from the church?
   Would you go as far as to say that any congergations that do not practice infant baptism are by defenition sects? Because I have a hard time going that far. It is not like they avoid baptism altogether. How is that diffrent then posthumously excommunicating the whole church starting at some arbitrary point in the medeiveal era?

   • Sam,

     American evangelical Christianity, in the modern sense of the word evangelical, essentially became or began to become largely Anabaptist in the 19th century. It coincided with the rise of Jacksonian populism (let the reader understand). It was symbolized by the various Pentecostal revivals (e.g., Cane Ridge et al.) and cemented by the Second Great Awakening. American evangelicalism is a blip on the radar of the history of the church. The entire church practiced infant baptism until the rise of the Anabaptist movement in the early 16th century. The evidence for infant baptism dates to c.AD 205 in both Tertullian and Origen. They both indicate that it was an established practice and there’s not a shred of evidence that it was controversial. Augustine said that it was the universal practice of the church, so the practice of infant baptism pre-dates the medieval church by three or four centuries.

     Consider the movements that arose in the 19th century. Not only did we see the Pentecostal movement (which has roots in the early Anabaptists) but also the Millerites, the Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mormons, to name but a few. American religion became an asylum but one that quite resembled the Anabaptists and other radicals of the early 16th century.

     I did not write the Belgic Confession. The Reformed churches adopted in the 1560s with the full knowledge of what it said about the Anabaptists. To the degree American evangelicals have followed the Anabaptists, to the same degree they have have placed themselves outside of the true church according to Belgic Confession.

     The Anabaptists rejected the Reformation solas. They rejected justification/salvation sola gratia, sola fide. Many of them rejected sola scriptura. When the Belgic Confession says “sects” (art. 29), they are thinking specifically of the Anabaptists and other radical groups, whom the magisterial Protestants called “sects,” “fanatics,” etc. I’m just applying the Belgic to our situation.

     It’s not just baptism, though that is essential. In the 19th century, American revivalist evangelicals largely gave up the Reformation (and thus the Biblical) doctrine of salvation too. It’s hard to overstate the damage done to American Christianity in the 19th century both by the revivalists and the theological liberals. By the early 20th century it was hollowed out by both movements. The mainline churches were deeply infected with the cancer of liberalism and the evangelicals with the cancer of the revivalism.

     For more on this see the essay, “‘Magic and Noise’: On Being Reformed in Sister’s America” in Always Reformed. It’s available on Kindle or in libraries via inter-library loan.

   • I understand what your’e saying, and for the record do not disagree that children of beleivers ought to be baptized. But saying that the sacraments as a mark of the church are so damaged by the refusal to baptize that we do not share “One lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father” ext is a pretty big claim. That conclusion would also have very grave implications, especially if one also affirms that outside the church there is no ordinary possibily of salvation. Of course, if that is what the scriptures teach, one would need to grapple with those implications, but I am still unconvinced that this diffrence is enough for the church to stand or fall.
     It is easy to say that the pentacostals are unchristian, but would you extend that to the most (seemingly?) orthodox particular baptists?

     • Sam,

       The Belgic was not a particularly controversial document, at least among the Reformed, when it was adopted. It has been the confession of the Reformed churches since c. 1567. Our confession hasn’t changed but the world around us has.

       The rise of the Particular Baptist movement is a challenge. They share the Anabaptist error re the sacraments and the implied reading of redemptive history (have you read Sam Renihan et al.?) I’ve engaged the PBs at length on this. My personal opinion is that the more orthodox PB congregations are irregular. I just made that up. It’s not a category in the Belgic and we don’t confess it. It’s my way to recognize the commonalities we have with the PBs but also the discontinuities or the profound disagreements we have. They have, were it possible, unbaptized the whole church prior to 1519. That’s pretty radical, don’t you think? It means that we’re outside the church doesn’t it? It might not seem like a big claim in America, where there are roughly 60 million Baptists, but it does everywhere else in the world.

       So, it’s not obvious to me that I’m making any “big” claims but an ordinary Reformed conviction seems “big” or odd on the funny farm.

       “Irregular” is my attempt to avoid the conclusion of Belgic 28 as applied to the Particular Baptists.

       I’m grateful for my PB friends but they have no compunctions about unbaptizing the entire church and yet get itchy when I apply the Belgic.

       My engagement with the PBs:

       1689 Versus The Westminster Confession: A Comparison And Contrast

   • If the PB are “irregular”, refusing to baptize covenant children is not an issue on which the church stands or falls, as you were suggesting up to now.
     I think scripturally, the big question is whether we can affirm “one baptism” with them (assuming the other marks are fine). Since their’e baptisms are valid I struggle to see how the answer could be “no” when all other marks are there, unless there is some passage I haven’t considered.
     Which brings us back to the original question.

     • Sam,

       The category of true (v. false and sects) church has been around for a long time. It’s in the Scots Confession (1560) and the Belgic uses it in article 9:

       This doctrine of the holy Trinity has always been maintained in the true church, from the time of the apostles until the present, against Jews, Muslims, and certain false Christians and heretics, such as Marcion, Mani, Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, and others like them, who were rightly condemned by the holy fathers. And so, in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian—as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them (emphasis added).

       Again, I didn’t write the Belgic Confession. Maybe it would help to read the full article?

       We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church—for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of “the church.” We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves “the church.” The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks:

       • The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel;
       • It makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them;
       • It practices church discipline for correcting faults.

       In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church— and no one ought to be separated from it. As for those who are of the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works. Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him. As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry. These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

       When you invoke the language of Alsted, “stands or falls,” you’re changing categories. That’s a different question. This is about the “marks” (notes, indicators) of the true church. The article of the standing or falling of the church is justification. The question here is a different one: how can a believer tell the true church from the false or from sects? Thus, like several other Reformed confessions and catechisms, we speak of the marks of the church. E.g., Geneva Catechism (97):

       Q. 97. Can this Church be known in any other way than when she is believed by faith?

       A. There is indeed also a visible Church of God, which he has described to us by certain signs and marks, but here we are properly speaking of the assemblage of those whom he has adopted to salvation by his secret election. This is neither at all times visible to the eye nor discernible by signs.

       and the Second Helvetic:

       Moreover, as we acknowledge no other head of the Church than Christ, so we do not acknowledge every church to be the true Church which vaunts herself to be such; but we teach that the true Church is that in which the signs or marks of the true Church are to be found, especially the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God as it was delivered to us in the books of the prophets and the apostles, which all lead us unto Christ, who said in the Gospel: “My sheep hear me voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life. A stranger they do not follow, but they flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers” (John 10:5, 27, 28).

       And those who are such in the Church have one faith and one spirit; and therefore they worship but one God, and him alone they worship in spirit and in truth, loving him alone with all their hearts and with all their strength, praying unto him alone through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator and Intercessor; and they do not seek righteousness and life outside Christ and faith in him. Because they acknowledge Christ the only head and foundation of the Church, and, resting on him, daily renew themselves by repentance, and patiently bear the cross laid upon them. Moreover, joined together with all the members of Christ by an unfeigned love, they show that they are Christ’s disciples by persevering in the bond of peace and holy unity. At the same time they participate in the sacraments instituted by Christ, and delivered unto us by his apostles, using them in no other way than as they received them from the Lord. That saying of the apostle Paul is well known to all: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (I Cor. 11:23 ff.). Accordingly, we condemn all such churches as strangers from the true Church of Christ, which are not such as we have heard they ought to be, no matter how much they brag of a succession of bishops, of unity, and of antiquity. Moreover, we have a charge from the apostles of Christ “ti shun the worship of idols” (I Cor. 10:14; I John 5:21), and “to come out of Babylon,” and to have no fellowship with her, unless we want to be partakers with her of all God’s plagues (Rev. 18:4; II Cor. 6:17).

       In the Belgic Confession, the Reformed churches are saying what the other Reformed churches.

       It wasn’t the Reformed churches who corrupted the sacrament of baptism. It was the Anabaptists and the Baptists chose to follow them on this.

       “Irregular” seems like a gracious category. It’s not a category the 16th or 17th century Reformed theologians or churches used. When the Reformed in England came into contact with the PBs they denounced them as Anabaptists.

       I don’t think they are ABs, in every respect, but their reading of redemptive history is radically different (though some readings, e.g., Denault and S. Renihan are quasi-Dispensational) so that it destroys the unity of the covenant of grace.

       These things go to the heart of the Reformed confession. My Baptist friends tell me that it’s no big deal but the confessions speak differently. Why should I let the Baptists tell me what is and isn’t important about our confession of God’s Word?

   • Mr Clark,
     I never said you wrote the confessions. But though this may be an intellectual discussion, your role here is of the one who is making an assertion. I am a younger, much less learned person who is asking questions. I struggle to accept this assertion without compelling evidence, but am not confident in rejecting it either.

     My question is,
     Do the scriptures teach that refusing to give the sign of the covenant to children, and giving it to adults who have already received it, is such a great error, that a group making it is by defenition not a member of the commonwealth of Israel, and does not share “one baptism” with the true Church?

     You have made your point regarding the weight of those who held this position. I am asking for clarifications on the biblical evidence behind them.

     • Sam,

       I keep reminding you that I didn’t write the Belgic because you keep writing as if I did write the Belgic. I subscribed the Belgic, the Catechism, and the Canons before God the church and I receive it as my confession.

       Part of Belgic art. 35 says,

       Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists (Anabaptistarum itaque errorem hic detestamur) who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children. And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.”

       Every Baptist church shares this detestable error. Am I supposed to ignore that?

       As to what Scripture teaches, what did Yahweh threaten to do to Moses when he refused to circumcise (i.e., baptize) his son?

       And Yahweh said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me.” If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.’” At a lodging place on the way Yahweh met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and touched Moses’ feet with it and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!” So he let him alone. It was then that she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” because of the circumcision (Exodus 4:21–26).

       I understand that happened under the types and shadows (strictly speaking, the Old, Mosaic Covenant; 2 Cor 3; Her chapters 7–10).

       Our sovereign God instituted infant initiation under Abraham and he has never revoked it. Indeed, when he makes covenant with us, throughout redemptive history, it is always with the believer and his family/seed.

       Here are some resources on these issues. Perhaps you might start with the podcast series and then read the articles in the order presented. They are mostly responses to questions from Baptists.

   • Correction: Dr. Clark, not Mr. Clark

     Clarification: I am equating the “Commonwealth of Israel” with “the true church”

   • The quote from Exodus is helpfull.

     How did the reformers view the pre-reformation church, at the time when most of the abuses were already in place?

     If we can indeed not confess “One Lord, one faith, on baptism, one God and father of all who is above all and through all and in all” with any credobaptists, even the ones who call themselves reformed and even the most orthodox particular baptists (and I do admit I need some time to digest some of these matters), what does this mean for (paedo) Protestant cooperation with Baptists? What does it mean for former baptists who live in areas without any presence of non-baptist protestants?

     • Sam,

       We should not assume that the entire pre-Reformation church was as profoundly corrupt as it came to be in the 13th and 14th centuries. A lot of the corruption that we associate with Rome is relatively late. This is one reason why I do not refer to the pre-Reformation church as “Roman Catholic.” I speak of the Patristic and Medieval church. A lot of what makes Rome what it is was ratified at Trent. The five false/ecclesiastical sacraments were not formalized until 1274.

       The Reformers did not tend to view to medieval church quite the way American evangelicals do because they were aware that many of the corruptions were quite late. They read the Fathers and saw in them much that they wanted to recover. Some of the Protestants read Thomas. He was more widely read by the Protestant orthodox but Calvin and Luther read Bernard and loved him.

       There is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism…”. Whereas the Baptist churches do not recognize our baptisms, the Reformed churches accept their baptisms! We’re not sectarians.

       One an individual basis I cooperate with Particular Baptists all the time but it’s a little more complicated when it comes to ecclesiastical cooperation. Again, why would a Baptist church want to cooperate with people who, in their view, are unbaptized? They can’t have it both ways. They can’t say, on one hand, that the Reformed are (mostly) unbaptized but Baptism isn’t really that important so we’ll pretend there is not issue.

   • I used “pre-reformation” to refer to the last few generations of the medeiveal church, but I can see where the confusion comes in.

     How did the reformers see that period?
     How are we to see baptists?

     To clarify, I learned the relation of Ephesians 4 to the marks of the church from the Augsburg confession. Its one of ths few things I still remember from reading it:

     Article VII. Of the Church.
     Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
     And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/of-the-church/ )

     Perhaps you would like to nuance or contest this, and explain the diffrence between having one baptism and the baptists lacking it as a mark of the church.

     • Sam,

       The Reformers were very critical of the Franciscans (e.g., Ockham and Biel) but they were appreciative and influenced by the neo-Augustinians, e.g., Bradwardine et al. The Reformed agree with art. 7 of the Augsburg but, again, the question is what is a church? Practicing baptism doesn’t make an assembly a church. The Lutherans were well aware of the Anabaptists when they adopted these words but they didn’t intend by them to include the Anabaptists. E.g., Augsburg Confession art. 7

       Of Baptism [the Lutherans] teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

       How are we to see Baptists? In general (Baptist is a very broad category) they are radical sectarians. The Particular Baptists are closer to us but they perpetuate some serious Baptist errors. To some degree or other they deny the continuity of the covenant of grace (one covenant of grace, multiple administrations). Some of them affirm that but see the New Covenant as too eschatological to permit infant baptism. Others, however, more radically, deny that the covenant of grace is present in redemptive history until the New Covenant. Such a view is utterly outside the Reformation consensus and outside the bounds of historic Christianity going back as far as Barnabas (c. AD 120), Justin (AD 150), and Irenaeus (c. AD 180), who strongly affirmed one covenant, multiple administrations. Further, more radical of the PBs are now teaching a version of the limbus patrum.

       I’ve had a lots of PB students and I have many PB friends. On an individual level we have good fellowship. I worship regularly with my friend, Pat Abendroth (Omaha Bible Church), who affirms the 1689. I was even present for a (believer’s) baptism not long ago. I was, as he said, outside the “splash zone.” LOL. I’ve even recommended PB congregations when there aren’t any Reformed churches nearby. I don’t think I’m being unduly sectarian.

       So, it’s complicated. I recognize that the PBs want to be considered Reformed (they aren’t) and they want to affirm much of what we teach on Scripture, God, Man, Christ, Salvation, and Eschatology. We still, however, read the Bible rather differently and obviously we have a different view of the church and, to some degree, of the family (although some PBs, inconsistently to my way of thinking) treat their children like covenant children.

       So, the short answer as to how we ought to think about Baptists is, “it depends.” How Baptist are they?

   • How are you defining sectarian?

     Would you use Ephesians 4 when asked to defend the marks of the true church? If you would, what’s the distinction between you having said we have “one baptism” with the baptists, and their’e baptism being insufficient for the marks of the church?
     If you would not, where would you turn?

     Do you think the orthodox PB could be seen as (an irregular) part of the church based on the precedants of the late medeiveal church and some of the less faithful periods in Israels history (say the desert sojourn when they didn’t circumsize)? Or are those exanples fundementaly diffrent?

     • Sam,

       The question is less what I would do and more how the Reformed churches came to their conclusions. One of the better discussions of this is in Calvin’s Institutes (4.1.9ff):

       7. Invisible and visible church
       bHow we are to judge the church visible, which falls within our knowledge, is, I believe, already evident from the above discussion. cFor we have said that Holy Scripture speaks of the church in two ways. Sometimes by the term “church” it means that which is actually in God’s presence, into which no persons are received but those who are children of God by grace of adoption and true members of Christ by sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Then, indeed, the church includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world. Often, however, the name “church” designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and Christ. By baptism we are initiated into faith in him; by partaking in the Lord’s Supper we attest our unity in true doctrine and love; in the Word of the Lord we have agreement, and for the preaching of the Word the ministry instituted by Christ is preserved. In this church are mingled many hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance. There are very many ambitious, greedy, envious persons, evil speakers, and some of quite unclean life. Such are tolerated for a time either because they cannot be convicted by a competent tribunal or because a vigorous discipline does not always flourish as it ought.
       Just as we must believe, therefore, that the former church, invisible to us,14 is visible to the eyes of God alone, so we are commanded to revere and keep communion with the latter, which is called “church” in respect to men.

       8. The limitation of our judgment
       c(b)Accordingly, the Lord by certain marks and tokens has pointed out to us what we should know about the church. aAs we have cited above from Paul, to know who are His is a prerogative belonging solely to God [2 Tim. 2:19].15 Steps were indeed thus taken to restrain men’s undue rashness; and daily events themselves remind us how far his secret judgments surpass our comprehension. For those who seemed utterly lost and quite beyond hope are by his goodness called back to the way; while those who more than others seemed to stand firm often fall. cTherefore, according to God’s secret predestination (as Augustine says), “many sheep are without, and many wolves are within.”16 For he knows and has marked those who know neither him nor themselves. Of those who openly wear his badge, ahis eyes alone see the ones who are unfeignedly holy and will persevere to the very end [Matt. 24:13]—the ultimate point of salvation.
       bBut on the other hand, because he foresaw it to be of some value for us to know who were to be counted as his children, he has in this regard accommodated himself to our capacity. b(a)And, since assurance of faith was not necessary, he substituted for it a certain charitable judgment whereby we recognize as members of the church athose who, by confession of faith, by example of life, and by partaking of the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with us.17
       cHe has, moreover, set off by plainer marks the knowledge of his very body to us, knowing how necessary it is to our salvation.

       9. The marks of the church and our application of them to judgment
       bFrom this the face of the church comes forth and becomes visible to our eyes. aWherever we see the Word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there, it is not to be doubted, a church of God exists [cf. Eph. 2:20].18 For his promise cannot fail: “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them” [Matt. 18:20].
       bBut that we may clearly grasp the sum of this matter, we must proceed by the following steps: the church universal is a multitude gathered from all nations; it is divided and dispersed in separate places, but agrees on the one truth of divine doctrine, and is bound by the bond of the same religion. Under it are thus included individual churches, disposed in towns and villages according to human need, so that each rightly has the name and authority of the church. Individual men who, by their profession of religion, are reckoned within such churches, even though they may actually be strangers to the church, still in a sense belong to it until they have been rejected by public judgment.
       There is, however, a slightly different basis for judgment concerning individual men and churches. For it may happen that we ought to treat like brothers and count as believers those whom we think unworthy of the fellowship of the godly, because of the common agreement of the church by which they are borne and tolerated in the body of Christ. We do not by our vote approve such persons as members of the church, but we leave to them such place as they occupy among the people of God until it is lawfully taken from them.
       But we must think otherwise of the whole multitude itself. If it has the ministry of the Word and honors it, if it has the administration of the sacraments, it deserves without doubt to be held and considered a church. For it is certain that such things are not without fruit. In this way we preserve for the universal church its unity, which devilish spirits have always tried to sunder; and we do not defraud of their authority those lawful assemblies which have been set up in accordance with local needs.

       (A church with these marks, however defective, is not to be forsaken: the sin of schism, 10–16)
       10. Marks and authority of the church
       bWe have laid down as distinguishing marks of the church the preaching of the Word and the observance of the sacraments.19 These can never exist without bringing forth fruit and prospering by God’s blessing. I do not say that wherever the Word is preached there will be immediate fruit; but wherever it is received and has a fixed abode, it shows its effectiveness. However it may be, where the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time being no deceitful or ambiguous form of the church is seen; and no one is permitted to spurn its authority, flout its warnings, resist its counsels, or make light of its chastisements—much less to desert it and break its unity. For the Lord esteems the communion of his church so highly that he counts as a traitor and apostate from Christianity anyone who arrogantly leaves any Christian society, provided it cherishes the true ministry of Word and sacraments. He so esteems the authority of the church that when it is violated he believes his own diminished.
       eIt is of no small importance that it is called “the pillar and ground of the truth” and “the house of God” [1 Tim. 3:15, KJV]. By these words Paul means that the church is the faithful keeper of God’s truth in order that it may not perish in the world. For by its ministry and labor God willed to have the preaching of his Word kept pure and to show himself the Father of a family, while he feeds us with spiritual food and provides everything that makes for our salvation. It is also no common praise to say that Christ has chosen and set apart the church as his bride, “without spot or wrinkle” [Eph. 5:27], “his body and … fullness” [Eph. 1:23]. From this it follows that separation from the church is the denial of God and Christ. Hence, we must even more avoid so wicked a separation. For when with all our might we are attempting the overthrow of God’s truth, we deserve to have him hurl the whole thunderbolt of his wrath to crush us. Nor can any more atrocious crime be conceived than for us by sacrilegious disloyalty to violate the marriage that the only-begotten Son of God deigned to contract with us. [Cf. Eph. 5:23–32.]

       11. The inviolable validity of the marks
       bLet us therefore carefully keep these marks imprinted upon our minds and esteem them in accordance with the Lord’s will. For there is nothing that Satan plots more than to remove and do away with one or both of these. Sometimes he tries by effacing and destroying these marks to remove the true and genuine distinction of the church. Sometimes he tries by heaping contempt upon them to drag us away from the church in open rebellion. By his craft the pure preaching of the Word has in some ages disappeared; and now with the same malice he is striving to overthrow the ministry, a ministry Christ so ordained in the church that, if destroyed, the upbuilding of the church would fail [Eph. 4:12]. But how dangerous—nay, how deadly—a temptation is it, when one is prompted to withdraw from that congregation wherein are seen the signs and tokens with which the Lord thought his church sufficiently marked? We see what great heed we are to take on either hand. For, in order that the title “church” may not deceive us, every congregation that claims the name “church” must be tested by this standard as by a touchstone.20 If in Word and sacraments it has the order approved by the Lord, it will not deceive; let us, then, confidently pay to it the honor due to churches. But again, if, devoid of Word and sacraments, it advertises the name of church, we must just as scrupulously beware such deceits, as we must avoid rashness and pride on the other side.

       12. Heeding the marks guards against capricious separation
       bThe pure ministry of the Word and pure mode of celebrating the sacraments are, as we say, sufficient pledge and guarantee that we may safely embrace as church any society in which both these marks exist. The principle extends to the point that we must not reject it so long as it retains them, even if it otherwise swarms with many faults.
       What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church. For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort. Some are so necessary to know that they should be certain and unquestioned by all men as the proper principles of religion. Such are: God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like. Among the churches there are other articles of doctrine disputed which still do not break the unity of faith. Suppose that one church believes—short of unbridled contention and opinionated stubbornness—that souls upon leaving bodies fly to heaven; while another, not daring to define the place, is convinced nevertheless that they live to the Lord. What churches would disagree on this one point? Here are the apostle’s words: “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be of the same mind; and if you be differently minded in anything, God shall reveal this also to you” [Phil. 3:15]. Does this not sufficiently indicate that a difference of opinion over these nonessential matters21 should in no wise be the basis of schism among Christians? First and foremost, we should agree on all points. But since all men are somewhat beclouded with ignorance, either we must leave no church remaining, or we must condone delusion in those matters which can go unknown without harm to the sum of religion and without loss of salvation.
       But here I would not support even the slightest errors with the thought of fostering them through flattery and connivance. But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul’s statement applies to this: “If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent” [1 Cor. 14:30 p.]. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order.22 That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline.

       Notes

       b edition of 1539

       c edition of 1543

       14 The concept of the invisible church of all the elect is present in Augustine and was habitually employed by Wycliffe. Cf. Augustine, City of God, passim; On Baptism III. xix. 26 (MPL 43. 152; tr. NPNF IV. 445); Wycliffe, De ecclesia, Wyclif Society edition, p. 37: “Universitas fidelium praedestinatorum”; so also Hus, De ecclesia i, ed. S. H. Thomson, pp. 2 f., 8; tr. D. S. Schaff, The Church by John Hus, pp. 3, 6; J. T. McNeill, “Some Emphases in Wyclif’s Teaching,” Journal of Religion VII (1927), 452 ff.; Unitive Protestantism, pp. 25 f. The idea is also familiar to such conciliarists as Dietrich of Niem (see LCC XIV. 150 f.). Luther employs similar language frequently, e.g., in his Preface to Revelation (Sämmtliche Schriften XIV [St. Louis, 1898]; tr. Works of Martin Luther VI. 488). Other citations from Luther and Zwingli are found in OS V. 12, note 1. Cf. J. Courvoisier, La notion d’Église chez Bucer, pp. 68 ff.; Wendel, Calvin, pp. 225 f.; H. Strohl, La Pensée de la Réforme, pp. 174–181; McNeill, Unitive Protestantism, pp. 39–45; Augsburg Confession, articles vii, viii.

       c(b) edition of 1539 as altered in 1543

       a edition of 1536

       15 Sec. 2, above.

       c edition of 1543

       16 Augustine, John’s Gospel xlv. 12 (MPL 35. 1725; tr. NPNF VII. 253 f.).

       a edition of 1536

       b edition of 1539

       b(a) edition of 1536 as altered in 1539

       a edition of 1536

       17 Cf. Luther, Enchiridion piarum precationum (1529) (Werke WA X. ii. 394). Cf. sec. 20, note 30, below.

       c edition of 1543

       b edition of 1539

       a edition of 1536

       18 Cf. Augsburg Confession, art. vii, where the church is defined as “the congregation of saints in which the gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments are rightly administered.” Important as discipline is for Calvin, he does not distinctly make it one of the notae, or marks, by which the church is recognized, as does Bucer, Scripta Anglicana, p. 36. Cf. Wendel, Calvin, p. 228. The First Scots Confession, ch. xviii, makes discipline the third “mark,” as does the Belgic Confession, art. xxix.

       b edition of 1539

       b edition of 1539

       19 Sec. 9, above. Note the important phrase presently added: “where the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard.” Cf. Calvin’s Articles of the Faculty of Paris with the Antidote, art. xviii (CR VII. 29, 31: “ubi verbum eius auditur”; tr. Calvin, Tracts I. 103). See also Comm. John 5:24: “Now he affirms that life is obtained by hearing his word, and by the word ‘hearing’ he means faith.… But faith has its seat not in the ears but in the heart.”

       e edition of 1559

       KJV King James Version

       b edition of 1539

       20 “Ad Lydium lapidem.” The Lydian stone (a velvet-black variety of jasper) was used in testing the purity of gold.

       b edition of 1539

       21 Cf. IV. ii. 1. The distinction of fundamental and nonfundamental articles of belief is woven into Calvin’s thought, though not definitively treated by him. F. Wendel remarks on the importance of this doctrine in Calvin’s championing of church unity, and cites Comm. 1 Cor. 3:11 (CR XLIX. 1354): “The fundamental doctrine, which it is nowise permissible to break, is that we cleave to Christ, for he is the only foundation [unique fondament] of the church.” The doctrines here named are introduced by the word qualia (such as) and are of course not a full enumeration of those which Calvin would hold requisite. The notion of fundamental articles formed the core of various liberal projects of union in the seventeenth century when it was advanced by Georg Calixtus, Pierre Jurieu, Samuel Werenfels, J. A. Turretin, and others. See Rouse and Neill, A History of the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 79 ff., 92 f., 107, 111.

       p. paraphrase, designates a Scripture quotation or near-quotation, not conforming fully to any as yet ascertainable source; many of these are in oratio obliqua.

       22 On 1 Cor. 14:29–33, 40, Reformed and Puritan churches have rested their principle of participation by the members in Scriptural discussions as an expression of the priesthood of all Christians. (Calvin has inserted “better” in verse 30.) Cf. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, pp. 301, 318 f.; Pannier, Institution II. 133, note a, p. 386.

       John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011).

       The marks are objective indicators of the existence of the true church.

       I said that there is one baptism. The Reformed churches accept the baptism performed in Baptist churches but we also accept the baptism performed in the Roman communion, despite the many defects, because they are Trinitarian. I’m not willing to use that fact to change the status of the Roman communion or the Baptist churches.

       We live in fallen world and that leads to many incongruities, difficulties, and tensions. I don’t try to resolve all of them (or very many of them).

       No, I don’t think the precedent of the late-medieval church changes the status of the Baptist churches, who willfully rejected the Reformation view of the church, the Reformation reading of redemptive history, and the sacrament of holy Baptism as practiced in the apostolic and post-apostolic church for 1,500 years. The pre-Reformation church did not have the benefit of the Reformation.

   • One of the secondary questions here that I have been wondering about your’e view of for a while, is that of you beleiving credobaptist congergations can not be true churches, along with the idea that “outside the church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation”. You have not addresed this at much leagth in this conversation (and fair enough – I only brought it up once, and you did address the problem of the Particular Baptists). I just so happened, however, to stumble upon a place where you did helpfully address it – and thought I would paste your’e reply here for the benefit of people reading our conversation in the future. Of course, since it is from 2010, feel free to add to it if you since modified your view.

     ———————————————————————-

     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.

     ———————————————————————-

     Source: https://heidelblog.net/2010/03/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-est/

     To clarify, I am still a little torn on the issue of baptists (perhaps my own upbringing scews my view here), altough the longer I am reformed, the more problems I see with various baptist groups (or sects, I guess).

Comments are closed.