The following article is taken from a free publication called Content for the Faith by Providence Strict Baptist
Assembly in Canada. Anyone wishing to get on their mailing list can do so by contacting Gery or Mike Schmidt
at 104-1138 Yates Street Victoria British Columbia Canada V8V 3M8.
There is a good deal of talk among professing
Christians concerning the necessity of reforming the
church. But while there seems to be a clear perception
relative to what needs to be reformed, namely,
doctrinal and practical deviations, there is a cloud
of confusion regarding what church in particular is
to be reformed. In the sixteenth century there was
no confusion about what church had to be reformed.
Men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli sought with all
their cohorts to reform the Roman Catholic Church.
This futile endeavor,- however, has long since been
abandoned seeing that the Catholic Church is a church
of Christ, and is quite irreformable. But since these
things are so, what church to it that modern day reformers
(in imitation of their sixteenth century predecessors) are
seeking to reform? Is it the universal invisible church,
or some particular local church? Is it a denomination, or
some national church? Or is it the entire realm of what
is called Christendom? In seeking to answer these questions,
let us consider the following.
To begin with, it is imperative that we recognize that there
are but two kinds of churches in the world, namely, a false
church and a true church. A false church is one that professes
to be a true church of Christ, and yet is deficient in one or
more of those marks which characterize a genuine assembly of
Christ. It generally possesses a false gospel, an unscriptural
or invalid immersion, and is by nature made up of the unregenerate.
A true church, on the other hand, is a congregation of regenerated
and immersed disciples of Jesus Christ who do possess the
true gospel. Now with respect to our theme we ask
the following question: do either or both of these
churches need to be reformed? The answer to both parts
of this question is an emphatic no.
First, a false church is one that cannot be reformed. The reformers
of the sixteenth century learned this truth by experience. Though at
first they looked upon Rome as a true church of Christ, which simply
needed to be purged of various corruptions that had
crept in over time, they eventually came to view
Rome as a false church, and their desired reform
failed miserably. Indeed, for all Intents and purposes,
the reformation of the Roman Catholic Church came to an end
once the Protestants began to organize their own churches.
In Job l4:4 it is written, 'Who can bring a clean thing out
of an unclean? No one!" With respect to a false church, it is
impossible to make clean by reformation what is inherently
unclean. For how does one reform a false gospel? Or
how can an unregenerate sinner be reformed for the
better? Can an unscriptural Immersion be reformed?
The answer to these questions is no. One does not
reform a false gospel, but gives it up as lost. An
unregenerate sinner does not require reformation,
but regeneration. And an unscriptural immersion must
not be reformed, but thrown out altogether and replaced
with a Scriptural immersion. The reformation
of a false church is a forlorn hope that ought never
to be entertained by any professing Christian.
Secondly, a true church is one that does not
need to be reformed. A true gospel assembly represents
the handiwork of Christ Jesus (cf. Mt. l6:18),
and the doctrinal and practical content which make
up the faith are of divine origin. Since these things
are so, both the assembly and the doctrinal and practical
content connected with it can admit of no need
for improvement. Thus, the very concept of reformation in
conjunction with such things represents something utterly
incompatible. Now many professing Christians will respond
to this by arguing that the necessity of reformation concerns
not so much the things mentioned above as the doctrinal and
practical deviations of God's people. Yet in response to this
it must be noted that the New Testament nowhere indicates that
the doctrinal and practical deviations of God's people are to be
dealt with by way of reformation, but rather by corrective discipline.
Now many will enquire, are not reformation and corrective
discipline one and the same thing? The answer is no.
And certain important elements of the sixteenth century
reformation will demonstrate why the two ought not to be equated.
When the reformers' desired reformation of the
Roman Catholic Church failed to materialize, they
eventually organized their own churches. Now these
assemblies were reformation assemblies founded upon
reformation doctrine and practice. Yet notwithstanding
these things, corrective discipline was conspicuous in
reformed churches by its absence. And the chief contributing
factor to this reality was Protestant ecclesiology itself.
When the reformers, parted company with Rome and set about
organizing their own churches, they brought with them complete
and intact the popish ecclesiology. In particular, all Protestant
assemblies were founded upon the same rite of infant sprinkling,
which rite guaranteed their assemblies would be made up of the
unregenerate, and the reformers continued to adhere to the union
of church and state. These two elements together essentially
rendered It well-nigh impossible for the reformers
to implement corrective discipline. Now corrective
discipline have a two-fold aim: first, to rid the
assembly of such who prove to be, unregenerate, and
secondly, to restore the truly regenerate to the path
of righteousness, whether doctrinally or practically.
But how could the reformers excommunicate the unregenerate
when they themselves were the ones responsible for deliberately
bringing them into the church, via infant sprinkling, in that
state? Or, with respect to the union of church and state, wherein all
the citizens of a given city were simultaneously members of the church
through infant sprinkling, how could the reformers have implemented
corrective discipline without the risk of depopulating entire towns,
and thereby reducing themselves to the necessity of removing to another
place for their livelihood?
When the Protestants first organized their own churches in
the sixteenth century, they placed themselves in a most precarious
and lamentable position relative to corrective discipline. On the
one hand, they rightly repudiated the peculiar and unscriptural
methods Pope employed relative to sin amongst her
communicants (i.e. penance, indulgences, etc.). But
on the other hand, because they retained the popish
ecclesiology, the reformers were unable to embrace
the Scriptural practice of the Anabaptists (i.e.
corrective discipline). The Protestants occupied
something of a middle ground between the Catholics and
the Anabaptists, and thus, though their assemblies
were reformed, they were not disciplined. And for this
they were severely criticized by both Papists and
Baptists. The Catholics took particular pleasure in
noting that despite their reformed status, the members
of Protestant assemblies were no better in conduct than
those of Romish churches. The Baptists likewise contemned
the reformers for the lack of true spirituality manifest in
their assemblies. The reformers felt the sting of these
criticisms, and they could do little more thin either seek
refuge in such errors as the universal invisible church theory
and their misinterpreted version of the wheat and tares
parable, or they would take to the offensive both
challenging the Papists to set a better example themselves,
and charging the Anabaptists with perfectionism. Such actions,
however, ultimately betrayed the peurility and weakness of the
reformed position. But one thing that is clear from this brief
discussion is that reformation and corrective discipline are
not one and the same thing.
In conclusion, since a false church cannot be reformed,
and a true church needs no reforming, the whole question
concerning the necessity of reforming the church is
evidently completely irrelevant. Indeed,
what ought rather to engage the serious reflection
of professing Christians are the following two questions:
what is a true gospel assembly, and am I the member of such an
assembly? These questions involve both a doctrinal and
practical element that require a thorough searching of both the
Scriptures and one's own soul. And for such who are truly the
people of God, such things will turn out for their spiritual
good, and will redound to the glory of God.
Please direct your comments to
Mike Krall.
BACK TO MAIN MENU