Schism and the Redeemed Zoomer (Part 5): The Apostles and Institutional Faithfulness

by on August 25, 2026 | Comment

In a previous article, we considered the argument against schism in the Old Testament. Redeemed Zoomer’s (RZ) argument does not rest on the Old Testament alone. He also maintains that Jesus and the apostles remained within the temple and synagogue system until religious authorities expelled or persecuted them. Paul addressed churches filled with doctrinal and moral corruption, yet neither he nor his disciples separated from them.1 From this RZ derives a general rule: Christians must remain within an existing church institution unless they are formally excluded or bound personally to commit sin.2

This argument also contains an important truth. The New Testament does not treat separation as the first response to ecclesiastical corruption. Paul wrote to troubled churches, called them to repentance, and labored for their restoration. Christians should not flee at the first controversy or treat every serious error as proof that a congregation has ceased to be a church. But the New Testament does not teach that formal excommunication is the only permissible point of departure.

Jesus constituted a new covenant church around himself, promising to build his church, giving it authority to exercise discipline, instituting the new covenant Supper, and commissioning it to baptize and teach the nations (Matt 16:18–19; 18:15–20; 26:26–29; 28:18–20). Paul sometimes withdrew the disciples when opposition to the gospel became hardened and public (Acts 18:5–8; 19:8–9). The apostles commanded Christians to avoid false teachers and those who promoted doctrine contrary to the apostolic faith (Rom 16:17–18; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 3:10–11; 2 John 9–11). Christ warned visible churches that if they refused to repent, he would judge them and even remove their lampstands (Rev 2:5, 16, 20–23; 3:1–3, 15–16).

The controlling distinction is not between churches with problems and churches without them. Churches without problems do not exist. The distinction is between a church being corrected by Christ’s Word and an institution that persistently rejects that correction. Seeing this distinction helps us to consider the various biblical examples.

Jesus Constituted the New Covenant Church

Jesus attended synagogues and worshiped at the temple. The early Christians also continued to gather at the temple during the transitional period following Pentecost. This history should discourage simplistic claims that faithful believers must immediately abandon every compromised religious setting. But Jesus did more than begin an internal reform movement within the institutions of first-century Judaism. He constituted the new covenant church around himself. He called twelve apostles, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. He authorized them to preach, baptize, forgive sins ministerially, exercise discipline, and make disciples of all nations. He promised, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

He gave this church procedures for discipline in Matthew 18. He instituted the Supper as the meal of the new covenant. After his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to baptize and teach the nations. This was a unique redemptive-historical event, to be certain. No modern pastor or group of believers possesses authority to inaugurate another covenant or appoint another apostolate. The formation of the Christian church cannot be reproduced as though it were merely the first denominational split.

But this uniqueness undermines RZ’s argument. He cannot appeal to the temple and synagogue transition as though it established a universal rule that the older institution retains jurisdiction until it formally issues an expulsion order. Jesus gathered and governed a distinct new covenant assembly before every disciple had been formally excluded from every synagogue.

He also pronounced judgment on the established religious authorities. The kingdom would be taken from the unfaithful tenants and given to a people producing its fruits (Matt 21:43). Jerusalem’s house would be left desolate (Matt 23:38). The temple would be destroyed. The presence of an ancient institution did not place it beyond the judgment of its Lord.

Paul Did Not Always Wait for Formal Expulsion

The apostolic pattern was patient but not passive. For instance, Paul ordinarily entered the synagogue, reasoned from Scripture, proclaimed Christ, and sought the salvation of his fellow Jews. He did not withdraw at the first objection. But neither did he establish formal excommunication as the indispensable condition for departure.

At Corinth Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath. When opposition and reviling intensified, he shook out his garments, declared that he would go to the Gentiles, and moved his ministry to the house of Titius Justus next door (Acts 18:4–8). RZ might argue that this hostility amounted to a practical expulsion. Acts 18 should therefore not bear the full weight of the case.

Acts 19 is clearer. At Ephesus, Paul entered the synagogue and reasoned boldly for three months. Luke then records, “But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus” (Acts 19:9).

Several features matter. Paul exercised patience. He did not leave after one disagreement. The resistance eventually became hardened, unbelieving, and public. The gospel was being maligned before the congregation. Paul then made a deliberate judgment to withdraw. He did not leave alone; he took the disciples with him. Luke records no formal trial, sentence, or excommunication.

Acts 19 does not teach that every doctrinal dispute warrants ecclesiastical withdrawal. Paul was an apostle, and the synagogue was not a modern Christian denomination. The passage does not supply a complete procedure for denominational separation. It does, however, disprove the biblical claim that apostolic withdrawal occurred only after formal expulsion. Hardened and public opposition to the gospel could make continued participation destructive. Paul responded by separating the disciples from that environment and continuing the ministry of the Word elsewhere.

Corinth Was a Church Under Correction

The Corinthian correspondence must be handled with particular care. The problems in the church included factions, sexual immorality, litigation, abuses of the Lord’s Supper, disorderly worship, and confusion concerning the resurrection. Paul nevertheless addressed it as “the church of God that is in Corinth” (1 Cor 1:2) and called the whole body to repentance. This demonstrates that the presence of serious corruption does not immediately make a church no church.

Paul commanded the congregation, “Purge the evil person from among you” (1 Cor 5:13).

RZ could answer, “Precisely. The evil person must leave. Paul did not tell the faithful to leave.” This is correct. The ordinary work of church discipline is to remove persistent evil rather than surrender the church to it. Faithful members should ordinarily seek the correction of corruption, not abandon the church to corrupt men. But this does not resolve the actual question.

Corinth received Paul’s letter as an authoritative word from Christ. Paul later explained that he had written to “test you and know whether you are obedient in everything” (2 Cor 2:9). He rejoiced that his severe letter had produced godly grief, earnestness, indignation, fear, longing, zeal, and a desire to see justice done (2 Cor 7:8–11). Corinth was gravely troubled, but it had not officially declared Paul’s command false, constitutionally protected the offender, and disciplined those seeking to obey the apostolic word.

Suppose Corinth had responded differently. Suppose its officers had declared the immoral relationship holy, prohibited discipline, removed elders who upheld Paul’s teaching, and required future ministers to affirm the new policy. The situation would no longer be simply that an evil person remained inside a true church. The institution, acting through its authorized organs, would have identified itself with the evil against the Word of Christ.

Scripture does not give a mechanical timetable by which one may identify the precise moment a congregation ceases to be a true church. One act of disobedience does not immediately erase its ecclesiastical character. Christ is patient with churches and repeatedly calls them to repentance. But patience is not institutional immunity.

Corinth proves that a corrupt church may remain a true church while Christ corrects it through his Word. It does not prove that a church may formally reject that Word indefinitely while retaining an unconditional claim on the allegiance of Christians.

Galatia Was Being Reclaimed from Another Gospel

Galatians requires the same careful distinction. Paul did not command Christians to abandon the Galatian churches at the first appearance of Judaizer teaching. He wrote urgently to reclaim them: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel” (Gal 1:6).

His goal was reformation, not immediate separation. But Paul did not suggest that the churches’ institutional existence guaranteed their continued ecclesiastical legitimacy. Anyone preaching another gospel stood under an apostolic curse (Gal 1:8–9). Those seeking justification through the law were warned that they were severed from Christ and had fallen away from grace (Gal 5:4).

The Galatian churches were still being addressed as churches because the apostolic word was calling them back, and the controversy had not yet been settled officially against Paul.

The relevant comparison to a modern apostate institution would not merely be a Galatian congregation in which some teachers promoted legalism. It would be a Galatian institution that formally adopted the Judaizers’ gospel, condemned Paul’s teaching, removed ministers who preached justification by faith, and required future officers to uphold the contrary doctrine.

Galatians does not teach that such a body would remain secure merely because it had once been planted as a church. It teaches that the gospel is constitutive of the church. A church that abandons the apostolic gospel is not simply adding one more flaw to an otherwise indestructible institution. It is abandoning the Christ from whom the church receives its life.

Separation from False Teachers Is Sometimes Commanded

The New Testament repeatedly commands Christians to establish boundaries against false teachers. Paul told the Romans, “Watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them” (Rom 16:17).

Notice who creates the division. It is not the Christian who obeys the command to avoid but rather it is the divisive people who introduce teaching contrary to the apostolic doctrine. John warned, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting” (2 John 10).

Timothy was told to avoid those who retained an appearance of godliness while denying its power (2 Tim 3:5). Titus was instructed to reject a divisive person after repeated warnings (Titus 3:10–11). The Thessalonians were commanded to keep away from a persistently disorderly brother while continuing to admonish him as a brother (2 Thess 3:6, 14–15).

These texts do not offer a complete Presbyterian polity of denominational separation. Temporary disciplinary distance from an individual is not identical to withdrawing from an entire denomination. They do establish that Christian unity is not maintained through unlimited fellowship with false teachers. Any theory that treats every act of avoidance as schism contradicts explicit apostolic commands. Biblical unity has doctrinal and moral boundaries.

Christ May Remove a Church’s Lampstand

Revelation 2–3 gives the clearest categories for thinking about corrupted churches. The seven congregations are genuine churches. Several contain grave errors. Christ does not immediately declare that every compromised congregation has ceased to be a church. He warns, admonishes, threatens, and gives time for repentance. This restrains impatient separatism. The presence of serious sin, doctrinal confusion, or even temporary toleration of false teaching does not necessarily mean that the lampstand has already been removed.

Yet Christ’s recognition is not unconditional. He warns Ephesus, “I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev 2:5). Thyatira is not rebuked merely because a false teacher exists but because of its tolerance: “You tolerate that woman Jezebel” (Rev 2:20). Pergamum is threatened with Christ’s judgment because some hold to corrupt teaching. Sardis possesses a reputation for life while dead. Laodicea faces being spit out of Christ’s mouth.

The biblical progression is clear. Error may arise in a true church. The church must correct it. Tolerating it brings Christ’s rebuke. Persistent refusal to repent brings judgment. Christ may finally remove the lampstand. The lampstand belongs to Christ, not to denominational headquarters, property trustees, or historical corporations.

This does not give private Christians an infallible ability to identify the exact moment at which a lampstand is removed. Such judgments require humility, patience, ecclesiastical process, and careful distinctions between foundational error and lesser imperfection. But Revelation forbids the opposite error. No denomination may claim perpetual ecclesiastical legitimacy merely because it possesses historical continuity. A church may be genuinely but grievously corrupt, may stand under Christ’s patient warning, and may finally reject his Word so thoroughly that it ceases to function as his church.

The Question Is Not Whether Heresy Ever Appeared

This distinction is essential when considering the old Presbyterian Church in the United States (PC[USA]). This is not the relevant argument: Heresy appeared in the denomination; therefore, the denomination immediately ceased to be a church and every faithful Christian was required to leave. Heresy appeared in Corinth and Galatia. False teachers troubled many apostolic churches. The New Testament’s first response was correction, discipline, patience, and a call to repentance.

The more serious historical question concerns what the denomination did when error was challenged. Did its courts correct ministers who denied essential doctrines? Did it continue requiring adherence to its confession? Did it protect the freedom of ministers to uphold their vows? Did it discipline unbelief, or did it discipline resistance to unbelief? Did corruption merely exist within the church, or did the institution increasingly identify itself with the corruption?

The comparison with Corinth is therefore not, “Corinth had serious sin, and so did the PC (USA).” The relevant comparison would be a Corinth that rejected Paul’s authority, formally protected the offender, redefined the offender’s conduct as righteous, and suspended those who attempted to obey the apostolic command. Had Corinth done that, the church would not merely have failed in discipline. It would have turned discipline upside down. This is where Revelation’s threatened removal of a lampstand becomes relevant.

Faithful Separation Is Not Ecclesiastical Anarchy

Rejecting RZ’s formal expulsion rule does not mean that every Christian may privately declare a church apostate and begin a new congregation. Christians should seek correction. They should use lawful appeals. They should bear patiently with weakness, distinguish errors of differing severity, honor their vows, and avoid confusing personal frustration with confessional apostasy.

When separation becomes necessary, it should ordinarily be ecclesiastically ordered. Christians should join another true church rather than retreat into isolated religion. Ministers should not appoint themselves to office or gather followers around personal grievances. The alternative to institutional absolutism is not ecclesiastical individualism. But neither is the alternative to individualism unconditional submission to an institution that has rejected Christ’s correction.

Sometimes faithfulness requires remaining and laboring for reform. Sometimes believers endure until they are expelled. Sometimes, like at Ephesus, the public hardening of an institution against the gospel requires withdrawing the disciples. The decisive question is not who retains the old name, buildings, endowments, or corporate succession. The question is whether a church remains under the correcting authority of Christ’s Word.

Notes

  1. In his formal and online debates, RZ appealed to Robert Baillie’s observation that the apostles did not separate from Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Laodicea, and other corrupted churches, presenting this as evidence against voluntary ecclesiastical separation. For example, see RZ’s debate with Matthew Everhard.
  2. RZ has repeatedly presented formal excommunication or binding the faithful to sin as the decisive justification for separation. In his discussion with Gavin Ortlund, his position was summarized as permitting departure when Christians are formally excluded or violently persecuted; he also defended remaining in a mainline setting even where the bodily resurrection was denied if no other historic mainline congregation was available.

©Everett Henes. All Rights Reserved.

You can find this whole series here. 

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • Everett Henes
    Author Image

    Everett Henes (MDiv, ThM, DMin) is pastor of Hillsdale Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he has served since 2008. He is husband to Kimberly and father of five children and grandfather of five (and counting!). He teaches US History and Philosophy of History for Jackson College in Michigan. He is currently working towards a PhD in Humanities with a focus in US Religious History from Faulkner University. In his spare time, he enjoys competing in powerlifting and strongman and teaching homeschoolers Taekwondo.

    More by Everett Henes ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments are welcome but must observe the moral law. Comments that are profane, deny the gospel, advance positions contrary to the Reformed confession, or that irritate the management are subject to deletion. Anonymous comments, posted without permission, are forbidden. Please use a working email address so we can contact you, if necessary, about content or corrections.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.