London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession and Really Bad "Not" Churches (Chs. XXV and XXVI)

How do we address really "bad" churches?  This is a interesting dilemma avoided in evangelical circles today.  Some tout church discipline.  Others say the gospel is all that matters (well at least a Calvinistic version).  There is an ever growing impulse to look past false teaching from the pulpit and disobedience in the pew and what is called a church is actually not.

To many this may sound judgmental (whatever this term means usually only to the one defining it).  But this concept is not new but was actually addressed nearly 400 years ago in the London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith (one place Presbyterians and Baptist can agree).

LBC (Ch XXVI) reads,
"The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

WCF (Ch. XXV) reads,

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan."

I doesn't take much imagination to see that they are identical.  They both held to such a firm belief that local churches can become so corrupt in the errors that they are not actually functioning churches.  The confessions do not explicitly elaborate on what defines as error but it is clear they both believed you can err enough to no longer be a church.

Here's the sad part of the story.  Today theology has become some marginalized that you can almost believe anything without being accused of false teaching.  Here is one place (among many) where I believe new evangelicalism and their offspring have gone wrong.  Consider the following:

Does orthodoxy still matter?  Who determines what is correct doctrine?  Have problems with orthodoxy church creeds, then write another one?  Make up a new one from scratch to be as broad and inclusive as (presently) deemed necessary.

Does orthopraxy still matter?  Who determines what right Christian living and practice is?  Nearly everyone is ready with a finger to accuse of legalism or antinomianism.  Is your practice too worldly?  That's an easy fix, just redefine what is worldly (so that it doesn't include what you want to do).

Does orthpathy still matter?  Who determines what right emotions, desires, and affections are true and correct?  What forms of media and music are given full permission to affect our minds (and the minds of our children)?  What of literature and entertainment means?

In summation, pointing out and avoiding false teaching is nothing new (think: novel).  Don't think the most recent evangelical authors producing books on church discipline are coming up with some new or more biblical than the past.  Simply not true.

I think if we actually read many of our church's documents from the past, we'll find great deals with which we can agree (and take hardy counsel).  Without feeling the need to rewrite it all over again.

So is your church a real church?  What errors are we tolerating in the pew?  From the pulpit?

Wesleyan View of Progressive Sanctification: Entire or Perfect? (Series on sanctification part five)

The Wesleyan View of Sanctification (Part Five)

Series Part One          Series Part Two          Series Part Three      Series Part Four


There are many view of sanctification practiced by professing Christians across the globe.  One common thread identifiable in the vast majority of them is that one key aspect of sanctification is its progressive nature.  Christians are identified as saints (note the beginning of many of Paul's epistles, "the saints at...").  Even though set apart, sanctified, or holy there is still an idea that Christians can and must grow in their sanctification.  But what does this look like?  Somewhere and somehow people will be forced to deal with God's activities in this process and man's responsibility or obligation in this process.

Scripture gives us glimpses of what this growth looks like.  And as a result many have tried to categorize this growth either in steps, phases, hills, valleys, and decisions, etc.  What I wish to do here is attempt a presentation of each position (and the scriptural proof texts employed by each position).  I leave it up to you the reader to discern the truth/error, value, strength/weakness of each position.  In some form or fashion, I'm sure you have seen and/or heard all these positions before (maybe not in full but at least some of the parts).

Each system or position has to deal with key texts in scripture.  Consider how you personally understand or have been taught concerning the following texts (Just a thought: Claiming God does or does not keep promises of both blessing and cursing will not change the exegesis of the following texts.  However, presuppositions do provide powerful "rose-colored" glasses to view all texts):

1.  Simon the sorcerer (Acts).  Was he a true believer?  Did he only make a profession?  Fruit bearing?
2. Romans 7 and 8.  Who do these texts describe? Believers?  Unbelievers? Mature?
3. 1 Corinthians 2-3.  Who is fleshly?  Who is carnal?  Who is spiritual?
4. Gal 5-6.  Who walks in the spirit?  Who walks in the flesh?
5. Romans 12.  When do we do this?  How many times do we do this?  What if we don't more/less sanctified, separated, dedicated?

We'll begin with the Wesleyan view of sanctification (please see diagram below).

Just in case pictures help to understand the theological teaching of Wesleyan progressive sanctification, please see the diagram above.  These charts are not unique to me (sources using same charts are listed at end of this article).***

If you will notice (at least in the realm of evangelical Christianity), Christian growth begins at the cross.  This pattern will appear in each chart position presented.  In this (means) of Christian growth the point of salvation is described as a first work of grace (perhaps efficacious, saving, or prevenient).   Notice also from the diagram that there is a point in the chronology of progressive sanctification which is called a crisis.  This crisis will be identified in many of the charts though with various titles/nomenclature (spirit-baptism, Christ as Lord, speaking in tongues, etc...).  Notice also that until this point the professing believer is still in a non-sanctified state (I take this to mean that they have not reached a crisis point where true sanctification can begin).

Note that when this crisis occurs (which is not actually an upward clime or progressive) but that the professing Christian actually functions on a higher level than when they began (we'll call this maturity or being a mature/complete believer).   This higher level is also identified as entire sanctification, Christian perfection, perfect love between God and man.  This crisis event will take multiple forms under different systems of progressive sanctification (accepting Christ as Lord, Life-dedication, full time Christian service, Spirit-baptism/tongues speaking, etc...).  These will be discussed in more detail with each related system (with particular system proof texts).

Lastly, please see there are arrows going up and down between this higher position and lower level.  I presume this to mean that this higher level of mature living can be lost and gained again.  Please remember this pattern it will also appear in other Christian diagrams describing Christian sanctification.  You will see this changing of levels in multiple forms of progressive sanctification.

A careful reading of original source literature denotes that advocates are not claiming sinless perfection (though some may take this position or accuse all advocates as teaching such).  Note: English translation glosses such as" "perfect"  "perfection" or "holy."  Notice the sermon on the mount or 2 Tim 3:16-17, using this terminology of "perfect."  Perhaps even in your own scripture study you've seen the terms but have used other words such as "mature" or "complete."

So how would you identify this form of progressive sanctification in a local church?  Notice how the sermon ends?  What are you actually asked or encouraged to do?  Dedication, commitment, salvation?  These type of questions (but not exclusively) help to identify what form/pattern of progressive sanctification is being taught in the local church.

*** I don't know for certain who originated these charts but the following employ them in literature:

H. Wayne House. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Naselli, Andrew.  Let Go and Let God?  A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology.  Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010.

Ryrie, Charles.  Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody, 1969.

Hope this article and the ones to come on the issue of progressive sanctification are a help in this area of Christian growth.

Comments and corrections exegetically or theologically always encouraged.

The series will continue with other Christian views of progressive sanctification.

The Indicatives and Imperatives of Scripture: Series on Sanctification Part Four

The Indicatives and Imperatives (Series on Sanctification Part Five)

Series Part One          Series Part Two          Series Part Three

So what does right doctrine look like (orthodoxy)?  Or what does right living (orthopraxy) or right feelings and affections (orthopathy) look like?  I would again like to suggest all three are necessary for healthy Christianity.  I would also like to suggest (this is not unique to me) that these concepts mirror the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.  Let's reword these to help elaborate: God has made direct promises and/or statements which are both positive and negative (think: divine sovereignty) and believers have obligations to obey/practice/do/applications (human responsibility).  Throw into this formula doing everything with the right biblical motive/feelings, affections (orthopathy).  To emphasize one of these and neglect the others is dangerous.  Consider some options in quick recap (does not exhaust every possible arrangement of the three variables):

Right beliefs but with a wrong daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.

Wrong beliefs but with a right daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.

It is probably easiest to believe all the right doctrinal truths.  Just pick up a theology text or read a creed and/or confession and its not to hard to see some overlapping categories of doctrinal truth.  Its hard to pass by consistent categories such as Bible, God, Creation, Sin, Salvation, Church, etc....  However, consider the vast number of sermons or text which simply explain the truth of scripture and then make no applications to daily living.  Consider in your own mind the dangers of people obeying a list of rules (applications) without scriptural motivation either by command or well-derived principles.

The emphasis on this indicative and imperative framework appears in many large sections within the scriptures (sometimes even shaping the content of entire epistles).  Consider some indicative and imperative texts in near context relation.  They both are necessary.  Having all the Christian doctrine by itself leaves your Christianity incomplete.  On the other hand, Christianity is also incomplete trying to obey or practice without a basis or foundation.  So let's compare some texts (some technical words will be used):

Romans 6:2 and v. 12.

"God forbid.  How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"  The verb "are dead" appears in the aorist tense.  This generally refers to a past action.  It appears in the indicative mood stating a past fact.  Compare this with verse 12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof."  "Let not sin .... reign" is a present tense (continually) command or imperative.  So the facts don't stand alone without an obligation placed upon the reader.  Based on a particular fact or reality (think promise made by God), you need to obey now.

Col 3:3 and v. 5.

"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God."  Again "ye are dead" is a past tense verb appearing in the indicative mood and "is hid" is a perfect tense verb.  The perfect tense contains an idea/active that happened in the past but has ongoing results/benefits.  We could easily identify surrounding imperatives in this context,  both before and after.  "Set you affections" is an imperative from previous verse (drawing from reality of verse one) or "mortify ... your members" from the following paragraph (v. 5).  Both appear as imperatives placing an obligation upon believers (think human responsibility).

Gal 5:24 and v. 25-26.

"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (v. 24).  Consider the following verses (v. 25-26), "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in  the Spirit.  "let us not be desirous of vain glory,..."  Here as well, we a verse reminding the reader of a fact/reality "have crucified" appearing in the aorist tense and indicative mood.  This is followed by a different nuance for a verb (the subjunctive mood).  Both verb appearing as commands or exhortations in the English text are what we might call a hortatory subjunctive or if negative a prohibition.

Eph 4:21-23 and v. 25.

"If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, ... and that ye put on the new man."  These verbs are little more tricky than the previous references.  "Put off" and "put on" are infinitives.  However they both are elaborating on the claim of vs. 20, "But ye have not so learned Christ ... as the truth is in Jesus."  The verb learned is in the indicative mood.  The putting off and putting on are realities for a believer.  But where's the command for believers?  Keep reading.  "Speak every man truth with his neighbour" (v. 25).  This imperative "speak" is followed by a string of imperatives all for believers.

We could apply this pattern to hundreds of other indicative and imperative references throughout the scriptures.  I hope this is enough to show several key concepts in relation to the topic of progressive sanctification.  We will touch more on the subjunctive mood in another post in relation to conditional clauses (for now think: "if ... then" clauses) in relation to progressive sanctification.

1. God has made promises to all believers (divine sovereignty) and believers have commands still made to them today (human responsibility).  We still need to address the relationship of obedience to progressive sanctification.  The epistles call believers "saints," people who are holy and sanctified already.

2. Denying the promises God has made leaves you with a self-defined religion of self-righteousness.  History shows this is definitely not orthodoxy. It is very easy to see how a works-righteousness can emerge: obey to be saved or bear fruit so you can be saved.  Late we will need to address a plethora of texts placing fruit-bearing as a result of justification not the means of justification.

3.  Denying the hundreds of commands God has still placed upon believers produces a religion of license and liberty that history shows is definitely not orthopraxy.  Even this cuts cross grain to many church discipline passages explicitly written to correct/confront/discipline sinful practices (of professing believers).  How we live and obey scripture does matter to God.

4.  We will have to wrestle with obeying the imperatives based on the motivation provided from the indicatives.  This will also need to tie in at a later date motivations based on "love of God" "love of Christ" and "love of neighbour."  In time we will also need to address the means by which these motivations are made possible.

We will have to address in a later post the claims of legalism and antinomianism in relation to these above points, especially how they relate to Christian growth (progressive sanctification) and assurance/perseverance issues for believers.

Much more to come.  Hope this helps some in your daily walk.

Comments encouraged.

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy: Series on Sanctification (Part Two)

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy

Series Part One

You may or may not have experienced these terms before but they are crucial to understanding a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  Consider their three simple definitions:

First, orthodoxy is correct doctrine/teaching.  The content is right.

Second, orthopraxy is correct living.  The lifestyle is right.

Third, orthopathy is right emotional and/or affections.

To deny a right doctrine or teaching at worst case could produce a false teacher or false preacher.  Church history preserves this pillar for us through creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, all of which show that certain beliefs are correct and others are not.  But the scriptures do not stop identifying a healthy Christianity with beliefs alone, there is more.  Even those who adopt a minimalist view of core beliefs for the sake of fellowship or defining what a Christian is are in fact admitting that certain beliefs do matter.

To deny a right lifestyle is essential and many times may have its own motives: avoidance of confrontation, refusal to address a known sinful lifestyle, refusal to obey clear commands found in scripture, avoidance of ad hominems such as "legalist," etc....  In recent evangelical history, primarily in writing and preaching, this has been an issue of divide.  Consider the terms indicative and imperative.  The orthodoxy (point one above) has this one nailed down.  They believe in right doctrine however when it comes to the imperatives then we have a new ball game.  Actually its kind of ironic that the same ones accusing others of Pharisaism, legalism or any other self-defined position turn around and make up their own lists (usually from a minimalist position).

But in the end there are too many action verbs (regardless of verb tense) orchestrating the lives of every believer.  You could also view this through the lens of bearing fruit and good works repeatedly demanded of true believers.  If this were not enough, right doctrine and practice is still not enough to produce a truly desirable Christianity.  Even as I write this I am looking at the mission statement of a our church our family attended years ago.  Their statement ends with this clause, "glorifying God our Father in all we do and say."  Here's a test case question: when you hear or read someone use the phrase sola scriptura, what do they really mean (maybe sounding reformed is cool, relevant,  or trendy)?  Do they mean the Bible is sufficient or the only source of authority for doctrine alone?  Very interesting that sola scriptura doesn't apply to how we actual live (think: right beliefs, but wrong lifestyle).
      
Lastly, to deny that right emotions or affections are necessary leaves you open to influence from a plethora of external sources (all of which of course are neutral and unbiased, as some will claim).  These last two are commonly denied to make it convenient for focusing only on correct doctrine and practice (that is right living and affections don't matter).  There are many doors to the human heart changing and/or affecting our desires (eyes, ears, touch, etc...).  I'll be blunt to end this section.  If the sounds going into your head are producing emotions and affections that do not correspond with scripture, then the sound is not aiding in your sanctification.  If what is placed before your eyes, is producing horrible images and thoughts in your mind and heart, then what you are viewing is not helpful.  Or worse any of these gates to the heart produces sinful thoughts (followed with sinful actions), then don't claim it is aiding in your personal growth.

In recap as this series on sanctification begins there are multiple aspects to a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  

History through careful Biblical exposition, creeds, and confessions has repeatedly defended that orthodoxy (right beliefs), orthopraxy (right living) and orthopathy (right affections) are all necessary for a correct view of Biblical Christianity.

Hope this is helpful to your personal daily walk with the Lord.

Comments encouraged.