Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 19

 The eighth Mark of the Apostolic Church was the fraternal equality, the essential priesthood, of all the members…the fraternal equality of all the members involving the fraternal equality of the ministry. –Hassell

A hierarchy of ministers is not established in scripture. The traditional catholic churches have three degrees of holy orders: deacon, priest, and bishop. The bishop, in this view, is the fullness of holy orders, while deacon and priest are degrees underneath the full degree of bishop. Then there are different levels of jurisdiction for bishops, where they preside or even direct other bishops that are under their administrations. I share this so I can focus on the features that we are comparing to the Apostolic Church. The Bible does give us the office of bishop with certain authority and requirements to rule, so I want to discuss the order that Christ placed in the continuing leadership of his Church.

First consider the function of priest.

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus. Hebrews 3:1

And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore. Hebrews 7:33-28

Jesus Christ is the one and only High Priest in the Church. He’s the only one that made an offering to put away sins and this he did once, so that there is no need for continual offerings of sacraments meant to confer eternal life. There is no other mediator between God and men but the man, Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). Any church that has additional priests in the sense of mediating between God and men, is moving believers farther away from God than Christ did when he organized his church and is therefore regressive and not the true Church.

Once we have been cleansed by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, we have the authority to enter the priesthood of the church. Peter says ye (the elect, sanctified strangers who have tasted that the Lord is gracious and are coming to him) are an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices by Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5,9). Priests have a responsibility to offer sacrifices to God, which we are commanded to do. Praising God is explicitly listed as a sacrifice that we offer from our lips (Heb 13:15). We are also told to draw near to God because Jesus Christ has consecrated a way for us to go through the veil and given us boldness to enter the holiest place. There is no distinction in the level of our priesthood if we through the sacrifice of our High Priest have boldness to enter the Holiest of all (Heb 10:19-22).

Next let’s consider the function of Apostle. It’s clear that Apostles had a special kind of authority in their day that commanded the deference of all the other elders in the church. I believe Matthew 16:19 is teaching that Christ gave apostles a special gift to teach authoritatively so that what the Apostles taught the church was the same as Christ teaching them from heaven. John 16:13 shows that the Holy Spirit was present with them bringing all the teachings of Christ back into remembrance so that they remembered and taught “all truth” in the sense of everything the church needed.

Apostles were set apart by their direct commission from Christ in person, they were eyewitnesses of his resurrected body, and they had the ability to work miracles and to confer ability to work miracles in a way that has never been here since they left the earth (Mt 10:5-7; Gal 1:1; Ac 1:22; 1Co 9:1; Mt 10:8; Ac 8:14-19; Ac 19:6). Apostles are regarded as foundational to the establishment of the church with Christ (Eph 2:19-20; Mt 19:28; Rev 21:14). Now the question is what became of their authority and role in the church when they left?

I believe that their teachings, which were committed to writing and kept by the churches as scripture, carry apostolic authority (2Pe 3:16; 2Ti 2:2). So, there is no need for, nor example of, the authority and supervisory role of apostles to be passed to other members. Notice how Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9 for churches to compare what anyone preaches (even if it be someone with him, or an angel) to what we have already preached. This requirement is given here to the churches. So, there is a pattern within the Apostolic Church for the congregations to appeal to what has already been taught under inspiration, and to let those false teachers be accursed. That proves that Paul was expecting that the authority of the apostles to be on permanent record and that the church was to refer to it (scripture) and not to authoritative bishops.

Notice again Jude, the brother of the Apostle James, tells us to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). This alludes to a body of faith that was delivered once and not progressively or gradually delivered. If the faith was once delivered, then it makes sense that the scriptures are sufficient to teach the whole body of faith—including the order of the ministry. Then there is no need for a man or group of man to be present in every age to teach doctrine on the authority of their office like they did before the scriptures were complete.

Let’s make a little syllogism to simplify the argument. 1. The scriptures are profitable for doctrine and instruction so that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Tim 3:17). 2. Scriptures do not furnish the church with a succession of apostolic authority. 3. Therefore, claiming to be successors of the apostles is not a good work.

The advocates for apostolic succession often claim that it is necessary because scriptures do not explicitly answer every question. We do answer new questions from time to time, and they are recorded as confessions, creeds, and articles of faith; but the answers still rely on scripture. The inability to agree on these answers does not mean there is anything insufficient with the scriptural record. The fault is with the people making wrong interpretations, which is a fault that even having an episcopacy can’t solve. If having an episcopacy could solve the problem of division or misinterpretations, you’d think there would be one catholic church that agreed on these important questions.

Nevertheless, Christ and the apostles anticipated that there would be divisions and denials of the faith, so the crux of the issue is the order that they followed. Their answer was to withdraw from every disorderly brother (2Th 3:6), and to be separate from the world (2Co 6:17). There is no need for an episcopacy to do this. The episcopacy tries to solve a problem that Christ didn’t tell us to solve: outward or formal universal church unity. Our job is to contend for the faith once delivered, reject heretics after the second admonition, and to not walk with brethren that are disorderly or teaching another gospel. That is the order established in the Apostolic Church.

Moving on to bishops/elders. I think it’s not controversial to point out that the terms bishops and elders are used interchangeably in scripture and therefore throughout the Apostolic church so I will not try to prove it. By late second century or early third century, there became a distinction in the use of those terms and along with that development came the development of an hierarchy.

The term bishop in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word episkopos, which means overseer, and the term elder from presbyteros. The requirements of this office are to feed (spiritually), teach, care for, take the oversight of the people of God. They have a gift to preach the gospel with the Holy Ghost send down from heaven (1Pe 1:12) and by ordination the authority to baptize believers (Mt 28:19) and ordain other elders (Ti 1:5). They have the responsibility, by the influence they have gained through preaching and teaching, to ensure that the church behaves decently, in order, and as the pillar and ground of the truth (1Cor 14:40, 1Ti 3:15).

Hierarchical churches have a rank referred to as patriarch and they also claim the title of Father for their priests. Since Jesus condemned the use of religious status and titles by saying call no man Father on earth (Mt 23:9), I would seriously question the motive of Catholicism in using that title for their priests. Yes, it’s not saying you can’t call your natural father, father; and it’s also valid to point out that Paul considered himself to be a father to those whom he brought to the faith. But Paul never had anyone address him as father which is what Jesus is addressing Mt 23:9.

The second part of that compound word, -arch, is associated with ruling/governing and it refers to Jesus (archōn, Rev 1:5; archēgos, Ac 3:15, Ac 5:31, Heb 2:10, Heb 12:2; archē Col 1:18) or those who lead in the wrong way (Mt 20:25-28). This again makes me question why they would want to associate with a system that has “archbishops”. Jesus specifically contrasts a “gentile” or worldly way of exercising authority with how he expects his bishops to rule and lead. After James and John asked if they could sit next to him in the kingdom, he uses árchōn to describe the princes of the gentiles and says “It shall not be so with you”. He prescribes servant leadership for his ministers and there is always different terminology used for the sense in which bishops and elders are to rule in the church. Jesus evidently doesn’t want leaders in his church leading by status or rank like pretty much every worldly kingdom does. I know that these word choices are not what proves that a hierarchy does not match the order that the Lord gave his church, but it at least gives me a strong hint that those things are an effort to make the church match worldly kingdoms instead of the Apostolic pattern.

Hassell quotes a secular historian, Ernest Renan, on the history of ecclesiastical hierarchy being called “The history of a triple abdication: first, the community of believers committed their power to the presbyters; then the corps of presbyters abdicated to the Bishop; and last, the Bishop to the Pope (in the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870)." We covered the government of the church belonging to the whole body of the church in the fifth mark and is closely related to why a hierarchy is used in those churches. And the second point is similarly striking that it’s not only a mix up on abstract doctrine, it’s denying someone’s relationship and accountability directly to Christ by placing someone else between.

In sum, the hierarchy we see develop in the mainstream Catholic Church in the first few centuries after Christ is not only absent in the Apostles’ Day, it contradicts the order Christ established in his church. Although elders have varying levels of influence, they lead by example, not by rank, lording over God’s people (1Pe 5:3).

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 18

 The seventh mark of the Apostolic Church was that, although there were a few exceptions, the members were generally poor, obscure, unlearned, afflicted, despised, and persecuted. –Hassell

The seventh mark is different from the others because it isn’t about a principle that the church chooses to hold onto, but it’s equally as important when it comes to identifying the Lord’s Church.  It is a description of the church that is found in scripture. We have examples of this starting with our Lord as the head of the church and including his saints from the entire Bible. Being despised of the world is not something that we or any of our examples enjoy or wish for but is nevertheless a very meaningful characteristic of the church; it ultimately reflects God’s choice and what he values compared to what the world values.

Consider our Lord, although he is verily God and ever has all the rights and privileges of his glory, he made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross (Phil 2:5-8).

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. –Isaiah 53:3

Jesus declared to those wishing to follow him, that unlike the foxes and birds, he had no where to lay his head (Mt 8:20). He was raised in Nazareth where no one expected anything great (Jn 1:46), and was uneducated by the institutions of men (Jn 7:15). What a character! Not at all what folks of that day admired and even today the real Jesus is not acceptable to the world.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? –James  2:5

It pleases God to bless folks that are despised of this world (Mt 5:3-12). That’s His sovereign choice. We should remember this well-attested pattern when we read history about groups that were labeled radicals and fanatics by a church-state establishment and dismissed as heretics with a broad-brush by the esteemed academic historians of our day. Not that being rejected by distinguished academics means a group was the church, but it is at least one thing that group would have in common with Jesus and his unlikely apostles. See also 1Cor 1:26-29.

One final thing we should note is that being persecuted by the powers of the world is a mark of identity with Christ and his Apostolic Church. From the time Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as an official state religion to today, not only did catholic churches not have that mark of identity, they were many times sanctioning and cooperating with the great persecuting dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan (Rev 12). Regardless of the nature and character of the various weak groups persecuted throughout church history, the men advocating for corporal punishment for “heretics” are not identified with the Lord. Again, not everyone who is persecuted is in the church, but the Lord indicated that it would be the lot for those that follow him (Mt 5:10-12, Jn 15:20, Jn 16:2). Cain killed Abel because Abel was more righteous and that is a repeating pattern throughout history.

But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. –Gal 4:29-30

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 17

 The sixth mark of the Apostolic Church was religious liberty, soul-freedom, a complete separation of church and state, the entire independence of each church from all state control so far as regarded the membership, ministry, organization, faith, worship and discipline of the church. --Hassell

Elder Hassell calls this a fundamental and unchangeable principle that true Baptists advocate religious liberty, not just for themselves but for all men.

It's important to distinguish between religion and church. A religion describes the ultimate value set that rules our whole life, including when it is justified to use violence. There is no question that the Word of God should be guiding our government and to have a “Christian Government” in the sense of Christ-like would be a blessing. Government is an institution ordained by God for punishing evil so that we may live quiet and peaceable lives.

Fundamental religious commitments are necessary to determine what is lawful and what is aggression, so the laws of a nation necessarily express elements of a religion which all people in an earthly territory are obliged to follow. Since there is only one God, and Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Godhead bodily, religion is divided between Christianity and idolatry. There is no middle ground, there is no neutrality in religion; if it’s not Christian, it’s idolatry. This war is fought in the halls of government and in political campaigns, but it’s primarily fought within the person of each child of God. Instead of Christian people against idolatrous people, it’s more like my spiritual nature against my flesh nature and Christian ideas against idolatrous ideas. Gal 5:17, Eph 6:12.

The Christian idea is that God is all in all. The Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5 says “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” We believe that Christ acts directly on each man and each man is accountable directly to Christ in their whole walk of life. As we relate to others in society, we are also accountable to various institutions under the overall headship of Christ. But there is an idolatrous tendency in this world for one institution to consolidate power and regulate all efforts to maintain peace, prosperity, and general welfare among all men. This could be a church assuming control of state or a state assuming control of the church. Baptists agree that Christ prohibits his church from using the sword or coercion to induce participation in church membership and fellowship; and indeed it counteracts the spiritual witness of the glory of God in the church.

In distinction, the church that Jesus established on this earth did not include a civil government to rule over all people regardless of their faith. It is a peculiar institution for a peculiar people who love God and pledge their lives to serve him to worship together, to keep the ordinances, to uphold the truth of pure religion and glorify God.

The battle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of antichrist rages in all the temporal affairs of men. The weapons the church is given are spiritual, not carnal (2Cor 10:4). Although men get impatient and are not content with the “success” of those methods (in our carnal judgment Mt 16:23), when those methods are used it’s a surrender to the antichrist, not a victory.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. Gal 4:28-30

When Constantine “converted” to Christianity, he took an interest in the church and had an interest to unify the empire. There is no question this was incredibly refreshing and exciting for all Christians, but there were at least two specific ways it corrupted the church. Public favor and financial incentives were bringing people into the church that weren't interested before, and churches were appealing to the emperor to decide church issues. The members of the church disagreeing with the imperial council were expected to conform, or they would lose their legal status and sometimes had their property confiscated and bishops exiled. Whatever is true about the faith and practice of any persecuted party, I know the sect on the side of the violence (known as Catholics) was not of the Spirit but of the flesh and therefore had no inheritance in the true gospel church (Gal 4:28-30). Primitive Baptists came from people who were always distinct and separate from this church-state alliance.

Now let's consider the civil law delivered by Moses to the Old Testament Church and how that translates to the nature of the New Testament Church.

God gave Moses tablets with a moral law that has always been valid for his creation and always shall be, but he also gave a civil law that was applicable to a peculiar people for a particular place and time so long as they kept the law of God and eschewed idolatry. But the Israelites broke this conditional covenant (Jer 31:32) and it had lost its sovereignty among the nations. The scribes, pharisees, and many of the Israelites including the apostles had expected Christ to come and restore an earthly kingdom. This was evidenced by Peter rebuking Jesus for prophesying his death, (Mt 16:23) but Jesus insisted that Peter was thinking carnally and hadn’t grasped how much better of a kingdom was coming through his death and resurrection.

It was prophesied and confirmed by the Apostles that that Sinaitic covenant was completed and done away with in favor of a new covenant of Grace in the New Testament (2 Cor 3:6-9).  God sent the law to his people as a kind of schoolmaster for the time before Christ to teach us about him and his kingdom, but now that Christ is come, we have freedom. How appropriate would it be for a graduating senior to go back to kindergarten? Just as appropriate as teaching that the Mosaic civil law applies to us today (Gal 4).

Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate for Judgment on the charge that he was making himself a king to compete with Ceasar. Jesus never denied that he was a king, but his proof that he wasn’t changing the civil government was that if he were, his servants would fight to keep him from death. (Jn 18:36). This is conclusive that the church of Jesus Christ is not a political entity. Furthermore, in the garden when they could have made a stand, Jesus commanded his disciples to put up the sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Mt 26:52). So, it can’t be argued that the work of the sword is for a later time, or after the sacrifice has been completed. The work of the sword is for the institution appointed for that purpose, but not for the work of the church that Jesus established with his apostles.

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 16

The fifth mark of the Apostolic Church was the independent or congregational polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ; all local apostolic churches being united, by no outward bond of force, but by an inward bond of love.-Hassell

There are decisions and actions that a church must make to fulfill the obligations that the Lord has given her. Church polity describes the form of government that the church uses. Congregational polity is meant to distinguish from Episcopal and Presbyterian polities, both of which have the local congregations answer to a higher body that makes official decisions and can reverse the judgment of the local congregation.

None of these polities deny the ultimate headship of Christ, the difference is whether Christ made a hierarchy of bishops or assemblies to govern the local congregation under him. Congregational polity simply means there is no bishop or assembly that outranks the local congregation and can override her decisions. Bishops/elders are servants and other churches are sisters, so they should advise and warn if a church errs. But if a church will not hear the counsel of her sisters, the most they can do biblically is to mark them and avoid them by removing fellowship (Rom 16:17). The decision of any church may be wrong, but they answer to Christ the only head of the church. Just because God doesn't immediately remove the gifts he gave doesn't mean they are in order, or that sister churches are wrong to remove fellowship, it just means that God is longsuffering and keeping a long window open for repentance. But without repentance, a disorderly church over time will lose identity with the bride of Christ.

The first reason we conclude that the Apostolic Church practiced congregational polity is the lack of any instructions or examples of the apostles forming an organization for ruling over the local church (congregation). Furthermore, in Christ's instructions found in Mt 18:17-20, there is no higher authority to which to appeal on earth beyond the church described as a few gathered in Jesus' name. Another illustration of Christ governing his churches immediately and directly is the first three chapters of Revelation. John wrote seven churches in Asia a message directly from Christ. The message was personalized for each church but was published as a model for all his churches to learn from. John was plain that each church had to keep its own house in order, or the Lord himself would remove the candlestick from it. If the Apostolic churches were a part of an episcopal hierarchy, it would have been given a role for correcting the churches in Rev 1-3. So, hierarchies were a later innovation (probably third century) and had no part in the first century church.

I've heard someone say that we have extra-biblical offices and services when it comes to clerks, committees, and conferences. I disagree. Conferences, or business meetings, are biblical, and 1 Co 14:40 requires that all things be done decently and in order. Besides preaching, praying, singing, communion supper, and foot washing, what are all things that must be done? Here are a few examples: mediating disputes, Mt 18:17; receiving new members, Ac 10:47, Rom 14:1; ordaining deacons, Ac 6:3; approving messengers/letters, 1Co 16:3; Excluding members—and maintaining the membership roll, 1Co 5:4,11; marking heretics for bars of fellowship, Rom 16:17, 2Th 3:6. A faithful church will have to do all those things when the situations arise, so the conference or business meeting of the church is a necessary formality to do those things decently and in order. And there is no governing body recorded in the Apostolic Church except the local, assembled congregations including all members.

Wasn't there a governing assembly in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15? James, Peter, and Paul are all recorded as testifying and declaring a decision against a false doctrine that had been spread by members of the church at Jerusalem. Let’s consider a few points about what this conference was and wasn’t.

Before we get into Acts 15, let’s dismiss one accusation against congregational church government. It doesn’t make the church a democracy. The church is a monarchy, with Christ, and only Christ, the King of kings at the head. Churches decide, by a majority vote, where they stand and what they will do about situations that arise, but the deliberation leading up to the vote is always seeking for the Lord’s will on the question. Therefore, it is appropriate for someone, especially an apostle, to teach the Lord’s will and therefore what the church ought to do. Church polity is saying how the church acts officially and Acts 15 does not present an alternative to congregational polity.

The second thing about the Apostolic church I want to note is the office of apostle. Apostles performed a necessary and unique function in the establishment of the church in that they received instructions directly from Christ and passed them down to their disciples and recorded them authoritatively in scripture. When apostles deliberated and made a definitive statement on something it carried more weight than a statement from anyone else then or since. The office of the Apostle is no longer needed because the foundation of the church was completed in their lifetime and the record has been preserved and handed down by the church since that time. 

The Apostle Paul had to defend his apostleship because he came so late. If the role played by the apostles was meant to be passed down in the church, it wouldn’t make any sense for Paul to defend his apostleship by saying the doctrine he preached “Was not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” And then he specifically clarifies after he received the call he didn’t go up to Jerusalem to the apostles which were before him, Gal 1:11,12,17. Referring to himself as the least of the apostles, he said that the resurrected Savior appeared to him last of all, as one born out of due time, 1Co 15:8. That satisfies me that we shouldn’t be looking for church officials to appoint successors of apostles. Now we rely on their writings in scripture.

What happened in Acts 15 is that Paul and Barnabas heard false doctrine being taught in Antioch by members of the church in Jerusalem. They addressed that error directly with the church to which it was taught and to the traveling speakers teaching it. They didn’t settle the issue there, so they determined to bring it up with the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. Did he go to Jerusalem because that was the capital of the church or because the head bishops of the universal church were sitting there? It doesn’t say that. It does say that these heretics came from Judea, so Paul and Barnabas took the issue to their home church. That is consistent with the pattern given for addressing offenses that can’t be settled privately in Matthew 18. Paul said that a heretic, after the second admonition, is to be rejected. Tit 3:10. According to congregational polity, only the church that the heretic is a member of has the responsibility to officially reject him.

The apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter, Acts 15:6. Teaching and overseeing that all things are done according to God’s word is the responsibility of the bishop/elder, so it makes sense that they would get their heads before the question came before the multitude. If they can all get on the same page, then they gladly avoid contention when the whole church meets, and the church can act with a single mind. However, when elders cannot all get on the same page, at least by coming together before conference, they are better prepared to speak to the point and have their minds prepared with the relevant precepts to teach before the church makes the official decision. Everything in Acts 15 is consistent with congregational polity and does not in any way establish a council of elders to determine what member churches may or may not fellowship. 

The Apostle James, who was evidently the pastor/bishop at Jerusalem at this time, gave a sentence or a conclusion. That doesn’t mean that his sentence was the official action of the church. James appealed to scripture and gave a defense on why the church should take a certain action. The action to send two messengers with Paul and Barnabas to deliver letters was taken by the whole church (vs 22). These letters read to Antioch were statements that the church at Jerusalem did not endorse what had been preached by her members and cleared up confusion they caused. That clarity, from the church at Jerusalem which benefitted from the teaching of several apostles, gave the church at Antioch consolation, vs 31. Since the churches did not yet have the benefit of the complete New Testament, the sentence of an apostle carried that type of authority.

Finally, let’s consider what we have been given among sister churches because it is said that there is no way to maintain unity if there isn’t a formal authority figure to settle questions for all churches. Jesus in his final days told us how to keep unity and prayed the Father grant us that unity. The way Jesus said people would know we were his disciples is that we love one another John 13:34,35; 15:12,13; 17:20-23. This kind of unity cannot be obtained through formality or any external declarations. It is manifest in general meetings whereby members of various congregations meet for the purpose of worshipping the Redeemer we all adore. When the Spirit is manifest in the preaching of the grace of God in truth and the saints all rejoice and hug each other’s neck; we know that we are one and don’t need a synod to tell us so. This is what Jesus gave us and it’s all we want.

 

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 15

The fourth mark of the Apostolic church was the maintenance of strict discipline. -Hassell 

Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities. -Psalm 141:5 

Every institution, without exception, has some rule of discipline from which the main body will not tolerate deviation. When the rules of membership change, the institution changes. The church was designed to give glory to God and to perpetually maintain her identity within a world full of evil that is opposed to her and her Lord. The discipline of the church describes what is required of her members and how she enforces that standard. Two churches maintaining different standards of discipline cannot be in fellowship and only one that stays consistent with the apostles remains the church.

To expand what is meant by discipline, let’s consider our own physical bodies which provide a great analogy. Our bodies survive in a world full of toxins and pathogens that will kill us if they can. The body is equipped with an immune system to remove the invaders that don’t belong. Discipline is needed to keep that system healthy by exercising and eating the right food. If we just do what feels right in the moment, we will soon become sick. Likewise with the church, the subject of discipline is something that many people would rather skip in the short term, but it’s necessary for the long-term joy and perpetuity of the church of our membership. 

The first and fundamental type of discipline is self-discipline. The church is populated by individuals who love the Lord. When we all make pleasing the Lord our priority in practice, everything else is taken care of. But since no one, except Jesus, is perfect, it’s imperative in the church that we care for each other enough to remind, encourage, forgive, and provoke one another unto love and good works Heb 10:24. "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Gal 6:1 

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! -Matthew 18:7 

Jesus sets down the basic outline of church discipline in Matthew 18. He is giving a specific procedure to follow in the case of private/personal offenses between members, but let’s notice some preliminary points. The opening of the chapter identifies that it is necessary to become as little children to enter the kingdom, and that whoever offends one such child is cursed. Church discipline is about separating from those that offend the peace of the church. There is also reference to amputation of a hand, foot, and eye which should capture our very somber attention. I believe this analogy is here to prepare us for the reality that excommunication is sometimes necessary for the church. When a member of your physical body has lost its ability to control and remove its own infection, amputation is necessary to prevent your whole body from dying. 

If lax discipline has led to churches dying, eager discipline has done the same. Can you imagine a doctor that recommended amputation for an early or mild infection? You would and should fire that doctor. So too, I think we should remember that excommunication is a last resort after other biblical means of reconciliation have failed and should be done with sorrow and not bitterness. Excommunication that is done in love will be accompanied with sorrow and if the lost member repents, he can and will want to come back. If church discipline is executed with indignation or bitterness, the rest of the body is sick and there will be no desire for restitution in the event of repentance. 

Verses 15-20 of Matthew 18 is what we are commanded to do when one church member offends another. If we neglect this order by ignoring offenses or by skipping steps; we will lose peace. The Apostle Paul was so serious about this procedure that he chastised the church at Corinth for going to law against members of the church in 1Cor 6:1-8. He said that was defrauding the church and despising the wisdom that members of the church have and exercise in subjection to the Law of Christ. In Matthew 18:17, Jesus says if a member neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. After all lawful steps have been taken to be reconciled to your brother, if he neglects to hear the mind of the church, he simply has contempt for the body of Christ and should be excommunicated. Then and only then are we allowed to sue him in a secular court as we would a heathen. 

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear come on all them that heard these things. Acts 5:5

Now notice an example of church discipline enacted by the Holy Ghost found in the first eleven verses of Acts 5. Ananias and Sapphira, his wife, pretended to donate the entire proceeds of a sale but secretly kept part for themselves. Peter asked them why they lied about their donation since they could have kept as much as they needed. Then Ananias fell dead upon hearing those words and three hours later the same thing happened to Sapphira. Peter made it known that they were judged, not for how much they gave or didn’t give, but for pretending piety while harboring covetousness. The result of this divine act was to cause great fear to come upon all the church and as many as heard these things (v.11). Another result was that, although the sincere disciples were all in one accord, there were others (the rest) that dared not join them (vv. 12,13). We are surrounded by a religious world that values appearances and popularity, but the discipline of the Holy Ghost here plainly drove those folks from his church in favor of a small group of believers who were sincere in their fear of God. So, there should be a reverential fear about joining the church and we shouldn’t do it unless we’re committed to submitting ourselves to the discipline of Christ. 

We never see Apostles take any authority for inflicting bodily chastisement let alone death, because God reserves that right to himself. Paul says we “turn them over to Satan”. The most severe punishment that the church is authorized to inflict is removing access to communion. If close communion is not practiced, as defined in the third mark, then the church can't enforce any standard of conduct without an extreme social banishment or physical chastisement. Communion must be special and restricted if the church is to keep discipline without being severe and oppressive. 

For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God Judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1Cor 5:12,13

Another example of the Apostolic church maintaining strict discipline is 1Co 5. Here the Apostle Paul deals with the situation of a member publicly engaged in a sin that brings a reproach to the church. It brought a reproach because it was a sin condemned by the surrounding community and therefore the toleration of it would undermine their witness. 

A distinction must be made between offenses that are private and those that are public. Jesus in Mat 18:15-16 is telling how to address a brother that offends you—private. The nature of the offense in 1Co 5 is public because "it is reported commonly that there is fornication among you". When a member acts immoral in public, the whole church is offended—public. A second distinction is made between "gross" immorality and "minor" offenses. Hassell refers to minor offense as something that is understandable for someone to do under a strong temptation. A minor offense can be handled by going to the brother in private as in Titus 3:10, Gal 6:1. With repentance and a sincere acknowledgment to everyone who is aware of it, the church can move forward. However, if a public sin causes damage to the church's reputation, is a repeat offense, or an intentional spite to the rules of the church, it falls under the pattern set in 1Co 5 where the church, as soon as it meets should exclude the member in the name of Jesus Christ (vv. 4-5). There is room left for the judgment of the church according to real circumstances, but we should remember the amptuation analogy and pray for God to give us wisdom.

Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. Col 3:12-14 

The first purpose of church discipline is for the glory of God. That's why we are a church and carry the name of Jesus Christ (vs 4). Secondly, excluding a member is done in the hope that the shame of being put away from the church will cause repentance that ultimately brings them back to the sheepfold (vs 5). Thirdly, maintaining discipline keeps corruption from spreading, so the church remains pure (vv. 6-8). 

The Apostolic church practiced strict discipline, and it served to set us apart from the institutions of the world. It keeps the church a place of quiet rest and a refuge from strife and corruption that is everywhere in the world.  

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 14

As soon as Jesus and his disciples finished the bread and wine, Jesus got up and established the practice of washing the saints’ feet that the Primitive Baptists practice today. To get the full picture of the life and teaching of Christ, we must combine the accounts of all the Gospels and epistles because no one evangelist told every detail that we’re supposed to know and do. It’s the same with communion. Although Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover the symbolism of the bread and wine, they don’t cover the feet-washing; and although John covers the feet-washing, he doesn’t cover the bread and wine. When we come together to commemorate our blessed Redeemer in communion, we ought to wash each other’s feet, because he told us to.

The narrative is found in John 13:1-17. What Jesus did is illustrate humility, service, and brotherly love by establishing this ceremonial practice. I think it’s a sad mistake that so many church’s do not continue this practice because there isn’t more powerful image of service and love than in this ceremony.

It was a common thing for servants to wash the feet of the master and his guests when they came in to the house. But what happened here was more than that. We know he was continuing the communion ceremony, because if he was just showing another example of serving his brethren in a practical way, he would have washed their feet when they needed it—before supper. This occurred after supper ended. When Peter questioned him, the Lord responded that Peter didn’t yet know what he was doing, but that he would know hereafter. When Peter tried to stop him from humbling himself, he said that unless he washed his feet, he had no part with him. This is more than another example of service. It’s a ceremony showing the bonds of service that members of the church owe each other in washing the sin and offense from their walk.

Jesus intends for his church to continue this ceremony because he said, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” There isn’t a clearer way to state that command from the Head of the church—the practice should continue.

Like baptism (to adults by immersion), washing each other’s feet is something that goes against the grain of our nature. It is reprehensible to human nature. So, there is no wonder that people would explain it away. But there is nothing so joyful and sweet that we can experience than when we submit ourselves to the feet of our brethren and watch them do the same to us. I have scarcely ever gotten through this service without seeing a grown man cry with joy and love for his brethren. We have tasted the Lord’s promise in vs 17: “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.”

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 13

The third mark of the apostolic church is that the members being baptized believers, came frequently around the Table of the Lord, and commemorated the sufferings and death of their precious Redeemer, by partaking of common bread to represent His body broken, and common wine to represent His blood shed for them. –Hassell

The communion supper is an ordinance that Christ instituted the night of the final Passover and commanded that the church keep it in memory of his death. I want to recognize the elements in the supper, the profession of the communicants, and the fellowship that is required in its observation.

Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Mt 26:26

The verb “to be” is often—in any language and literature style—used in a figurative sense, as in this represents my body, or this is a picture of my body. A few examples of this from the Bible are Gen 41:26, 27; Ezek 37:11; Dan 7:24; Mt 13:38,39; Rev 1:20. Transubstantiation is a teaching that bread in the communion supper changes substance into the literal flesh of Christ, but the Bible doesn’t show that. This teaching came about centuries later and contradicts the teaching that Christ was sacrificed only once (Heb 10:10-13; 7:24-27). However, the bread is a picture of the body of Christ we see with our mind’s eye and remember his death. This remembrance powerfully affects us spiritually.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it with you in my Father’s kingdom. Mt 26:27-29

This fruit of the vine refers to wine because before refrigeration there was no shipping and storing fresh grape juice. This is significant because fermentation is a clarification and preservation process that removes the leaven that tends to spoil the juice. Jesus often uses leaven to describe sin and pride, so it is inappropriate to represent the body and blood of the spotless Lamb with light bread and juice which so quickly spoil with corruption. Jesus calls attention to the new testament in his blood (Lu 22:20). In our present dispensation (New Testament Church), our redemption from sin is accomplished by the sacrifice of the Son of God himself, and we which are called receive the promise of eternal inheritance. See Hebrews 9. The wine we drink represents that blood and reminds us of its accomplishment. Jesus is here also foreshadowing our future dining with him in heaven in a grand wedding reception of which we are joyfully reminded by this ordinance (Rev 19:7-9).

The “Great Commission” so-called that Jesus gave his disciples included: 1) Teaching and making disciples, 2) Baptizing, and 3) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you (Mt 28:19-20). The communion supper is an essential command we are to observe after we are baptized. Baptism is a one-time profession of faith and resembles the process in which our spiritual life begins. Likewise, communion is a profession of our faith that we repeat and resembles the process in which our spiritual life is nourished. This illustrates the necessity of being baptized before partaking in the communion because no one can eat spiritual food if they haven’t been immersed in Christ’s death and resurrection to walk after him in the newness of life (Rom 6:4). Eating the communion supper is a commemoration of his death and a profession that we have spiritual life because his body was broken and blood shed for us.

Finally, the communion supper is a symbol of fellowship and unity of the church. The Apostle Paul uses the terms fellowship, communion, concord, and agreement synonymously when it comes to who we work together with as brothers and sisters in the church kingdom.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.  2Cor 6:14-18

Primitive Baptists practice close communion. That does not mean that only members of the local congregation are allowed to participate in communion, but it does mean that there must be genuine agreement, concord, or fellowship in this service. All are welcome to come in and sing with us, pray with us, hear our preaching, and eat dinner with us; but to fulfill the Divine command to be separate from the world, and to disassociate from false doctrine and ungodliness, the communion table must be restricted to those who are members of churches holding to the same faith and discipline that we are. (see also 1Cor 5:7-13, Gal 1:9, 2 Thes 3:6). There is nothing more intimate and special than sharing the communion meal, but if we share it with anybody and everybody that claims the name of Jesus, it greatly dilutes the meaning of communion because of the many diverse ideas of the body of Christ and the accomplishment of his blood. Notice in Acts 2:42 after 3,000 had been added to the church, the breaking of bread was by those continuing steadfastly in doctrine and fellowship. Take away the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and the breaking of bread is just a cold formality.