SOTERIOLOGY : : ECCLESIOLOGY · Soteriology is a study of the biblical doctrines surrounding the...
Transcript of SOTERIOLOGY : : ECCLESIOLOGY · Soteriology is a study of the biblical doctrines surrounding the...
THEOLOGY V
__________________
SOTERIOLOGY : : ECCLESIOLOGY __________________
MICHAEL WURTZ INSTRUCTOR
SOTERIOLOGY
The word “soteriology” comes from the Greek word for salvation: soteria (σωτηρία).
Soteriology is a study of the biblical doctrines surrounding the subject of salvation. These
include common grace, election, the gospel call, regeneration, conversion,
justification, adoption, union with Christ, sanctification, perseverance,
and glorification. The discussions of common grace, the gospel call, adoption, and union with
Christ are covered sufficiently in our textbook and we will not deal with them in class to provide
sufficient time for the other subjects.
Predestination
In general terms, predestination is God’s determination or decision beforehand. In
Soteriology it refers to God’s choice, before creation, of certain persons for
salvation. For our purposes, predestination and election refer to the same thing.
Before seeing the Bible’s affirmation of the doctrine of predestination, let’s connect what
we saw in Hamartiology to this doctrine. First, both Adam’s guilt and Adam’s corruption are
imputed to every one of his offspring. So what is true about the sin nature is true about every
single human offspring of Adam (everyone who has ever lived except Christ). Second, the nature
of sin is such that everyone is dead in their trespasses.1 That means that every human is by nature
dead in sin and fully under the wrath of God. Third, our sinful natures lead us to hate God and
hate the light.2 So, everyone, of their own will and nature hates God and His light. No one
pursues or seeks after God.
1 Ephesians 2:1-3.
2 John 3:19-21, Romans 3:9-18.
TH 5 1
Now, consider the question of predestination. In order to explain away the implications of
predestination, many have suggested that God, in His foresight, looked into the future and saw
who would come after Him and follow Him, and He predestined those individuals to salvation. If
our understanding of Hamartiology is correct, then God could look through all of humanity for
all of time and He would not find a single person naturally seeking Him and following Him. If
God looks upon a valley of dry bones, how many of those bones will arise and serve Him on
their own? None! And if God looks upon Adam’s race of disobedient children, dead in their
trespasses and sins, how many of them will arise and serve Him on their own? None!
Therefore, we see that our understanding of Hamartiology demands that if
anyone will be saved, predestination must be true. Because all men are born dead
in sin, in order to save anyone, God must freely choose whom to save.
Yet, we do not have to rest on our own logic (which is subject to the affects of sin) to see
that predestination is real; the Bible is filled with references to predestination’s reality.
Acts 13:48 –
Ephesians 1:4-6, 11-12 –
Ephesians 2:4-10 –
1st Thessalonians 1:4-5 –
2nd Timothy 1:9 –
1st Peter 1:1 –
Revelation 13:8; 17:8 –
Romans 11:5-6 –
TH 5 2
John 15:16 –
1st John 4:19 –
These direct references could be multiplied, and the number of indirect references would
be almost impossible to calculate. The doctrine of predestination according to God’s sovereign,
uninfluenced choice is consistently and clearly taught throughout the Bible. In order for God to
save some, He had to choose whom He would give life to and save. If He had to wait for man to
come to Him, He would wait forever without a single person coming forward.
But what about man’s responsibility? Is man off the hook because of predestination? Not
at all. Man’s sin and guilt are real and fully deserving of God’s wrath. Just because God has
mercy on some who are guilty does not mean the rest are no longer guilty. God clearly calls man
to repent and obey. Those who are not saved refused to obey God’s call and are thus guilty. No
one will be excused from their guilt because they were not predestined. In fact, passages that we
have already looked at indicate that the damned are actively rebelling against God.3
Double Predestination
Double predestination is the doctrine that God not only predestines those whom He will
save, but those who will be damned. Most evangelicals who accept the reality of predestination,
dismiss double predestination out of hand. But, as R.C. Sproul points out: “It is manifestly
obvious that if some people are elect and some are not elect, then predestination has two sides to
it… [predestination] must be double in some sense.” What Sproul means is that if God chooses
3 John 3:20.
TH 5 3
some, and is aware of the destiny of the others, and capable of changing that destiny, then there
must be some sense in which he destines those he passed by to go to hell. But in what sense has
God done this?
As most understand it, double predestination is the doctrine that God
predestines the damned in the same way and with the same involvement
as he does the elect. Double predestination states that “God is [just] as active in keeping the
reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in.”4 The key text for double predestination
is Romans 9:18 which says, “He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills.”5 So the question behind double predestination is whether or not there is a difference in the
nature of God’s predestination of the saved and of the damned.
Before presenting the evidence for both sides, a few comments are called for. First, do
not associate double predestination with hyper-Calvinism.6 Hyper-Calvinism is a serious error
which directly contradicts clear biblical teaching. Although many hyper-Calvinists believe in
double predestination, a person’s belief in double predestination has no direct bearing on whether
or not they are hyper-Calvinists.
Second, while it is often excruciating for people to even consider the possibility of double
predestination’s reality, we cannot develop our theology on the basis of what we do and don’t
like. We must base our theology on what the Bible says, and if the Bible says something that we
4 Phillip R. Johnson, “Notes on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism,” 1998, !http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm (26 June, 2005).
5 v. 18.
6 A hyper-Calvinist can be defined as anyone who affirms any of the following five statements: (1) the gospel call does not apply to all who hear, (2) faith is not the duty of every sinner, (3) the non-elect does not receive the offer of Christ, salvation or mercy, (4) there is no such thing as common grace, or (5) God does not have any sort of love for the non-elect. For a more complete discussion, see the article by our own Philip Johnson, “A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism,” 1998, http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm (16 June, 2005).
TH 5 4
don’t like, we need to change what we like, not what the Bible says. The debate cannot be
centered on our likes and dislikes, or whether or not a certain doctrine is tolerable to us or not.
The question is whether or not the Bible teaches double predestination; if the Bible does, then we
must learn to embrace it; if the Bible does not, we are right in rejecting it.
Third, and closely related to the second, you will find in this discussion many godly
pastors and commentators who bring their theology into Romans 9 and force the text to mean
what their theology says. Such an approach is unacceptable. We must think carefully and
thoroughly about what the Bible says; we cannot justify our interpretation of the Bible by saying
our theology demands that interpretation. We must be able to support our theology from the
Bible.
Fourth, nearly all arguments for double predestination are based on Romans 9. There are
other texts which are related, but most would agree that if Romans 9 does not teach it, the Bible
does not teach it. So our discussion will center on Romans 9.
With these thoughts in mind, let’s look at Romans 9 and then consider the arguments in
favor of double predestination.
Romans 9:6-24, 30-33 –
Based primarily on Romans 9, the following arguments are put forth in support of double
predestination:
1. Paul says that God “hardens whomever He wills.” The most natural
understanding of this statement is that the good or evil within a person is not
TH 5 5
determinative in what God does, it is God’s free will alone that determines the
destiny of man.
2. The statement that God “has mercy on whomever He wills” is parallel to “hardens
whomever He wills.” This implies that in the same way God has mercy on
whomever He will, God hardens whomever He wills. We know that God does not
base His election on the works of those He chooses, and so we know that God
does not base His election on the works of those He damns. This idea is
confirmed by the statement in verse 16, that it does not depend on the one who
runs or the one who wills.
3. Both the vessel of mercy and the vessel of wrath are taken from the same lump of
clay. Therefore, the decision to save one and damn the other is not based on the
clay, but on the sovereign freedom of the potter. Therefore God does not base His
hardening on the self-hardening of the non-elect, but on His own will.
4. God’s predestination of Jacob was before birth, and along with that election came
the reprobation of Esau, also before birth. It is therefore consistent to state that as
Jacob was destined to salvation before he was born, Esau was destined to
damnation before he was born. The decision that God made is explicitly said to
have been “before either had done anything good or evil.” Thus, God could not
have based his decree on Esau hardening his own heart.
5. Fifth, the statement in Romans 11:7 that “The elect obtained it and the rest were
hardened,” makes another parallel between the elect and the non-elect. The
TH 5 6
effectual call of the elect is parallel to the hardening of the non-elect. Those who
did not obtain it, as the elect did, were hardened.
Additional arguments have been made, but these are probably the most persuasive
arguments in favor of double predestination. If you don’t find these arguments persuasive in the
least, it is most likely because you are not reading Romans 9 carefully enough. Again, we cannot
dismiss the teaching of Romans 9 because our theology doesn’t allow such teaching. Take down
your theological defenses, and look honestly at Romans 9. If you do, these arguments will at
least appear plausible.
Even though these arguments for double predestination are plausible, in the end they
should be rejected for the following reasons.
1. Although Romans 9:18 states that God hardens whomever he wills, this does not
mean that God’s choice to harden has no connection to Pharaoh’s sin. In response
to this, most commentators are quick to point out that Pharaoh hardened his own
heart several times before God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.7 But God told Moses
that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart before Moses even spoke to Pharaoh. So
God’s decision to harden Pharaoh’s heart cannot be based on Pharaoh’s own self-
hardening. Yet, when God spoke to Moses and told him that he would harden
Pharaoh’s heart, Pharaoh was not a neutral person, he was already in rebellion to
God. Pharaoh was “dead in his trespasses and sins,” and was “a child of wrath.”
7 Exodus 9:12 is the first time Moses says the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Prior to this Pharaoh hardened his own heart, 8:15, 32. However, 7:13, and 22 state that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, which is passive, and prior to Pharaoh hardening his own heart.
TH 5 7
Nowhere does God say, “Before time began, I chose Pharaoh for hardening and
destruction.” Rather, it is only after the fall, and after Pharaoh has demonstrated
rebellion against God that God declares He will harden Pharaoh. This is distinct
from God’s election of the saints before time began.
2. While the statement “He will have mercy on whomever He wills” is parallel to
“He hardens whomever He wills,” that does not mean they are identical. We must
bear in mind that this statement is not spoken before creation, but in the context of
a fallen world. Therefore it is wrong to conclude that this points to God’s eternal
decree to damn certain individuals before sin ever existed.
3. It is true that the two vessels (v. 21) are made from the same lump, but this is not
a neutral lump that God is forming before creation. God forms from a sinful,
fallen lump. God can take one piece and prepare dishonorable vessels, He can
take another lump and make honorable vessels, He can take another and destroy it
because it is all destined to damnation already. Isn’t it clear from Romans 3:9-18
that whatever lump of humanity God draws from is a totally depraved lump?
4. Appealing to “Before either had done anything good or evil” (vv. 10-11) cannot
be used to justify double predestination. God spoke to Rebekah and told her that
the older would serve the younger after the fall. Therefore Adam’s guilt and
corruption had already been imputed to her unborn children. Paul's point in saying
that it was “Before either had done anything good or evil” is to insist that Jacob
did not merit God’s election. Paul includes evil not to somehow bypass the
TH 5 8
consequences of the fall, but to make emphatic that election is not because of
works. The whole balance of Jacob’s good and evil deeds, and Esau’s good and
evil deeds, is not the basis of God’s election one way or the other.
5. Continuing on the fourth point, some have claimed that God declared “Jacob I
have loved and Esau I have hated,” before either had done anything good or evil.
That is not true. The statement in verse 12, “Though they were not yet born and
had done nothing either good or bad” is a quotation from Genesis 25:23. But the
quotation in the following verse, “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I
hated’,” is taken from Malachi 1:2, over a thousand years after Jacob and Esau
had died. God did not say, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” before Jacob and
Esau were born. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2 to confirm that the “older shall serve the
younger” came about according to God’s purpose in election. Nowhere does it say
in the Genesis account that Esau served the younger, and in fact it appears at
several points that the opposite is taking place (Gen 32-33). So Paul quotes
Malachi to show that Genesis 25 was indeed true. Paul is not declaring that God
chose to hate Esau before Esau had done any evil. In fact, Malachi 1:4 seems to
indicates that Esau was evil.
6. Romans 11:7 does in fact indicate a parallel between the saved and the damned.
God is active in both. God does not just “pass over” the non-elect. He actively
hardens them. But that does not mean that God is active in the same way that he is
TH 5 9
in salvation. God’s election of the saints took place before creation. But God’s
hardening of those who are not elect is not said to take place before creation.
7. Verse 16 argues strongly that God’s mercy is the basis of election and not works,
“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
If double predestination were being argued for in Romans 9, we would expect a
statement along the lines of “Damnation does not depend on human rebellion or
sin, but on God, who has wrath.” Such a statement cannot be found anywhere in
Scripture. This points to a distinction between election and reprobation.
8. One of the greatest problems in seeing double predestination in Romans 9 is the
statement found in verses 31-32, “Israel who pursued a law that would lead to
righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not
pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the
stumbling stone.” If Paul were arguing for unconditional damnation, wouldn’t he
answer the question differently? Why did they not succeed in reaching that law?
Because God hardened them. Instead, Paul says that they did not obtain it because
they tried to obtain it without faith. The basis for their condemnation is not God’s
election to damnation, but their lack of faith. This argues strongly that God’s
predestination of the saints is fundamentally different from his predestination of
the damned.
TH 5 10
For theses reasons we cannot accept double predestination as a doctrine taught in the
Bible. However, we ought to learn from Romans 11:7 that God does not merely pass over the
non-elect. Many have said that God doesn’t send anyone to hell, they choose to go there. That’s
not true.8 Not only does God send people to hell, He actively hardens those He has not chosen, so
that He can display His righteous wrath in them. That is an extremely difficult concept to accept,
but it is unmistakably taught in Romans 9.
8 Luke 12:4-5.
TH 5 11
REGENERATION
Because everyone is born dead in their trespasses and sins, and because we have no
capacity to bring ourselves to life and follow God, it was absolutely necessary for God to act on
His own initiative in saving us. So God’s sovereign choice of those He would save depends
entirely on Him and not on us. That is the relationship between Hamartiology and predestination.
We now turn to the question of what God does after He predestines us. How does He
actually save us? It’s clear from Scripture that God doesn’t just take an unbelieving man and
remove all sin from him and instantly make him perfect like Jesus.9 So how does God go about
transforming a man dead in trespasses and sins into a man who is truly like Christ? Clearly the
first step is predestination, but that happens before creation. What steps does God take to save a
person once they have been born?
It stands to reason that if we are all born dead in our trespasses, then before anything else
can happen, God must impart life to us. This act of God giving us life is referred to as
regeneration. The idea of regeneration can easily be seen in Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus.
John 3:1-8 – Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is
born again. This means that in order to have eternal life, we must be
born of the Spirit.
9 1 John 1:10.
TH 5 12
From this we can define regeneration simply as the instantaneous act of God in which He
imparts spiritual life. Just like our first birth, our second birth does not depend upon
on our own will, but on the will of our Father. This is confirmed in the following passages.
John 1:12-13 –
Ephesians 2:4-5, 8 –
Now the question arises, how does this regeneration relate to saving faith? Does one
come before the other? Are we first regenerated and then we have faith, or do we first have faith
and then we are regenerated?
The difficulty in answering this question comes from the fact that it is impossible for a
dead person to believe; no will seek after God on their own initiative.
Romans 3:11-12 –
1 Corinthians 2:14 –
But it is impossible for a person to be saved apart from faith. Based on this, many people
have concluded that regeneration must take place before a person has faith. That conclusion is
acceptable as long as we are careful to clarify that regeneration is not salvation. Yet, once we say
that regeneration takes place before salvation, the problem arises of having unsaved regenerate
people in the world. People who are not dead to God, but spiritually alive, and yet not saved.
That notion is impossible to support scripturally. Therefore, we add in a further clarification, that
regeneration in always followed immediately by saving faith. To following diagram illustrates
the difference:
TH 5 13
Regeneration Faith
Time
Salvation
Incorrect View
Regeneration
Faith
Time
Salvation
Correct View
So, while regeneration is necessary for a person to believe, you will never find an
unbelieving regenerate person. God grants a person spiritual life so that they can see the beauty
of the gospel, and as soon as they have that life they respond in faith to the gospel. So as far as
any human can tell, regeneration and saving faith appear to be simultaneous.
Colossians 2:13 –
In conclusion, we can say with confidence that on our own we never would have believed
in Christ. Therefore, God must have given our hearts new life in order for them to embrace Jesus
Christ. That imparting of new life is called regeneration, and it takes place immediately before
we exercise faith in Christ.
TH 5 14
CONVERSION
Conversion is a word which is frequently used today but which is somewhat uncommon
in the Bible. In fact, “conversion” is found only once in the Bible.10 But even if the word was not
used frequently, the concept was. The New Testament is filled with synonyms for conversion: to
become obedient to the faith, to become a disciple, to receive the word, to turn from wickedness,
to repent and turn, and the list goes on. Regardless of what word we use, the concept of
conversion is definitely a biblical one, and the question arises, when is a person truly converted?
What does it take to be converted, or what is required to be saved?
There are some who advocate non-lordship salvation, or what’s called easy believism.
Easy believism is the notion that the only requirement for salvation is belief, and that belief is
simple acceptance of the truth of Christ, with or without obedience.
John 3:16 –
Acts 16:31 –
Romans 10:9 –
1st John 5:1 –
Advocate of easy believism say that belief, mere intellectual ascent, is the only
requirement for salvation. So when a seven year old raises his hand at vacation Bible school to
receive Jesus into his heart, we can be confident that he is saved. If he goes on living a life of sin
and wickedness, that doesn’t change the fact that he believed, and therefore is assured of heaven.
10 Convert is found 4 times.
TH 5 15
They will often separate accepting Jesus as savior from accepting Him as Lord. The
seven year old accepted Jesus as his savior, but that doesn’t mean he accepted Jesus as Lord.
Conversion takes place as soon as Jesus is accepted as savior, but dramatic live changes may not
take place until later on in life (if ever) when Jesus is accepted as Lord. In response to this
teaching, which was exploding in the 70s and 80s, many pastors and teachers said that you were
not saved unless you accepted Jesus as Lord. Accepting Jesus as savior without accepting Him as
Lord was equal to not accepting Him at all. These teachers came to be known as lordship
salvationists; those who advocated lordship salvation. The lordship salvationists responded by
accusing their opponents of teaching non-lordship salvation.
As an aside, it was in response to this crisis in the 80s that John MacArthur wrote, The
Gospel According to Jesus, which created a stir in every corner of evangelicalism, and brought
MacArthur permanently into the national evangelical spotlight. Apart from the MacArthur Study
Bible, The Gospel According to Jesus will likely be his most powerful contribution to American
Christianity.
It’s true that the Bible often presents belief as the one and only requirement for
conversion, but we must understand what belief implies. There are many passages which make it
abundantly clear that belief is not merely accepting a list of truths about Jesus.
Matthew 8:29 –
Matthew 7:15-27 –
1 Thessalonians 1:9 –
Matthew 13:44-45 –
TH 5 16
Genuine faith, or saving faith, is the only requirement for conversion. And genuine faith
is the kind of faith that builds its house upon the rock of obedience, that turns from
sinful idolatry to God, and that treasures Christ so highly it is willing to sell everything
just to gain Him. Any faith that does not do these things is not genuine faith, but dead faith.
TH 5 17
JUSTIFICATION
We saw in our discussion of Hamartiology that man is guilty before God and totally
depraved. That led us to conclude that God’s free and sovereign election was necessary for
salvation. We then saw that regeneration must take place before a person can have faith, and that
true saving faith includes a turning from sin to seek after and treasure Christ. When a person has
that faith, they are saved and given eternal life. But where does their guilt go? If Adam’s guilt is
imputed to man, how can he ever enter heaven and stand before God?
The answer is justification. Justification is God’s legal declaration that
we are righteous in His sight. God justifies us and on the basis of that justification we are given
access to heaven. But how can God be both just and justifier? That is, how can God justify the
unrighteous, while remaining just? Before we answer this question, we must return to our
discussion of imputation.
Romans 5:15-19 –
So in the same way that Adam’s guilt was imputed to us, so the righteousness of Christ is
imputed to us. But that’s only half the story. Not only is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us,
our guilt was imputed to Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21 –
So, on the cross, God imputed to Christ all the sins of all the people who would ever
believe in Him, and treated Christ as though those sins were His own. And when we are justified,
TH 5 18
God takes the complete and perfect righteousness of Christ and imputes to us. This is the
doctrine of substitution.
Now we can return to the question of how God is able to be both just and justifier. When
God declares us righteous (justifies us), He remains just in doing so because He has imputed our
sin to Christ and given it just punishment upon the cross; and because He has imputed Christ’s
righteousness to us He is thus just in declaring us righteous.
In this we must recognize that our justification is not on the basis of our works, but on the
basis of Christ’s works. It is not our own righteousness that prompts God to justify us, but the
righteousness of Christ. And this is not new to the New Testament, it has always been true.
Romans 4:1-8 – Both Abraham and David were justified by their faith.
How does justification fit into the order or events that we have seen thus far? Before
creation God predestined us based upon His own sovereign choice. He imparted spiritual life to
us so that we could believe the gospel and be saved. So where does justification fit into that
order? Are we justified at the same time we are regenerated? Are we justified at the instant we
first have genuine faith in Christ?
Galatians 2:16 –
According to Paul, we believe in order to be justified. That places justification
after saving faith in Christ. Our faith in Christ results in substitution, which gives God the basis
for justification. Our works cannot be the basis of our justification or justification would no
longer be by grace, but would be a wage earned. But if we are justified, then according to James,
we will inevitably do works of righteousness.
TH 5 19
To sum up what we have learned so far: God predestined us before creation, and then in
our life regenerated us so that we would believe in Christ and then be justified. And having been
justified we now walk in (works of) righteousness. A person who has no work of righteousness is
an unsaved person; not because salvation is based on works, but because salvation always
produces works.
Predestination Regeneration
Saving Faith Justification Works/Fruit
TH 5 20
SANCTIFICATION
We often think and speak of salvation in a one dimensional way. We talk of someone
who was recently saved, or we think of the time when we ourselves were saved. And while this
language is certainly appropriate, it falls short of a presenting a full picture of what salvation is.
Salvation is not merely justification, that legal declaration of God that we are righteous in His
sight, but also what we look forward to at the return of Christ.11 And not only is salvation
something that we experienced in the past, and something we will experience in the future, it is
something we are experiencing right now.12 When we speak of salvation that we have
experienced, we are generally talking about justification; when we speak of salvation that we are
presently experiencing, we are generally talking about sanctification; and when we speak of
salvation that we are going to experience, we are generally talking about glorification. These
three elements or tenses of salvation are seen clearly in a number of passages.13
1 John 3:1-2 –
Colossians 3:3-4 –
Justification was defined as God’s legal declaration that we are righteous. Sanctification
can be defined simply as the process of becoming righteous. The word sanctification comes from
the Greek word hagiasmos (ἁγιασμός), which referred to something set apart or sacred. From
this we can more specifically define sanctification as the ongoing growth of a believer, through
11 1 Peter 1:5, Romans 13:11.
12 1 Corinthians 1:18.
13 See also, Romans 8:28-30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.
TH 5 21
the power of God, in rejecting sin and following Christ in daily life. Sanctification is
becoming set apart from sin for Christ.
Although the Bible does not always clearly distinguish between these three tenses of
salvation, they are still helpful for us to understand all that goes on in our salvation. The
following chart helps clarify these aspects of salvation:
Justification Past Faith born Legal declaration
I was saved from the penalty of sin
Sanctification Present Faith lived Gradual reformation
I am being saved from the power of sin
Glorification Future Faith realized Total transformation
I will be saved from the presence of sin
In theology this is how justification, sanctification, and glorification are typically
understood. But remember that the Bible doesn’t always have these clearly distinguished notions
in view. For example, Paul refers the Corinthians as “Those who have been sanctified,” right
before he details the myriad of worldly patterns in their church. Here Paul is apparently looking
at justification as the initial act of sanctification (or setting apart) for the Corinthians. He is
certainly not commenting on the completeness of their growth in Christ. This understanding of
sanctification is later confirmed in 1 Corinthians 6:11, where Paul says, “And such were some of
you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
TH 5 22
Understanding that sanctification is the ongoing growth in rejecting sin and embracing
Christ, how is it accomplished? That is, who is responsible for our sanctification? We were
unable to justify ourselves; God had to do it. We will be unable to glorify ourselves; God will
have to do it. Does that mean we are unable to sanctify ourselves and that God will have to do it?
“Let go, and let God.” That’s how countless thousands of Christians view their
sanctification. I can do nothing on my own strength, and God is the source of truth spiritual life,
so I need to stop trying so hard to be pure and just let go and let God. There’s a ring of
spirituality to the saying that seems to have convinced many of its authenticity. However, there
are serious and dangerous problems with this view of sanctification.
First, the Bible is filled with commands for believers to sanctify themselves.
Romans 6:19 –
Romans 12:1-2 –
2 Timothy 2:22 –
Second, this idea makes the Christian life look effortless, but the Bible makes
the Christian life look very labor intensive. It’s most often the “Let go” which appeals to a
person more than anything else. There doesn’t need to be any effort, or zeal, or work, or labor, or
strife, or tears, or sweat; just let go… and let God
1 Corinthians 9:27 –
1 Timothy 6:11-12 –
TH 5 23
There can be no doubt that Paul’s view of the Christian life was one of serious struggle
and effort.
Third, the notion that God is solely responsible for sanctification ultimately results in
placing blame on God for a lack of sanctification. If a person who lets go and lets God is not
growing in sanctification, who takes the blame? If their only responsibility is to let go, then the
only thing they can do wrong is try. As long as they’re not trying, they’re doing everything they
can! So when they’re not trying to sanctify themselves and they’re still not growing, it must be
God’s fault. Of course few would be so bold as to say that, but they struggle to take
responsibility because they’ve let go. Biblically however, when a person is not growing in
sanctification, the blame is put on the believer and not on God.
Hebrews 5:11-14 –
Revelation 2:3-5 –
Fourth, the idea that a Christian should let go, or stop trying, leads to greater
unrighteousness. According to Paul, the Christian life is a battle, a spiritual war; what happens to
a soldier on the battlefield who lets go and puts down his sword and stops fighting? Usually the
battle doesn’t turn in his favor when he does that.
Matthew 5:29-30 –
Christ says that in our battle against sin (sanctification) we should take radical steps to
win. The notion of letting go in that fight with sin would have been complete foolishness to
Christ.
TH 5 24
Having seen that the Bible does not advocate a passive approach to our fight against sin,
it’s important to point out that our struggle for sanctification cannot be won in the flesh. We
cannot be sanctified by mere human exertion. In fact, on several occasions the Bible speaks of
God sanctifying us without reference to our own effort.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 –
2 Thessalonians 2:13 –
John 17:17-19 –
So while sanctification is not passive, it is certainly not something we do on our own
strength. Sanctification is the ongoing growth of a believer, through the power of God, in
rejecting sin and following Christ in daily life. Unless the believer actively rejects sin and
follows Christ, sanctification cannot happen. But without the power of God working in the life of
the believer, no effort in rejecting sin will be successful.
TH 5 25
PERSEVERANCE
The fifth point of Calvinism, Perseverance of the saints, has long been debated within the
church. Although there are passages which are difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of the
Perseverance of the Saints, we will see that the most common reason for rejecting it is a
misunderstanding of conversion.
The Perseverance of the Saints states that those who are truly saved will continue in the
faith until the end of their lives, and that anyone who does not continue in the faith until the
end of their lives was not truly saved. The biblical evidence for the first half of this
doctrine is substantial.14
John 10:27-29 –
Romans 8:29-30 –
Romans 8:38-39 –
If a person truly comes to Christ, they cannot lose the life He gives them. The Bible
doesn’t speak in terms of the saint’s perseverance as much as it does in terms of Christ’s
faithfulness. If Christ, the shepherd, went and rescued a lost sheep, how could that sheep ever get
away from Him? The emphasis is on Christ’s preservation.
In addition to these clear biblical affirmations, there is also the basic notion of eternal
life. If a person had eternal life, then they would live forever. If they don’t have eternal life now,
14 See also, John 6:38-40, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.
TH 5 26
then they never did. To say that a person had eternal life at one point, but doesn’t
anymore, is a contradiction in terms; because, how long did their eternal life last?
On the other side of perseverance, that someone who does not persevere was never really
saved, the evidence is also quite substantial.
1 John 2:19 –
Matthew 13:3-8; 18-23 –
Hebrews 3:14 – 15
The fact that a person falls away does not mean they had salvation and lost it, it means
they never really had it. There may have been the appearance of salvation, but it was
not true salvation because true salvation never falls away. Consider the various external signs of
salvation that we know don’t finally prove someone is saved: believing that Jesus is Lord,16
following Jesus and being among his disciples for three years,17 being baptized,18 being an elder
in a true church,19 prophesying, performing miracles, and casting our demons.20 So a person can
15 It is a rule of logic that if a conditional statement (if a then b) is true, then the contrapositive must also be true (if not b, then not a). For example, if you are an astronaut, then you are not over six feet tall, is a true conditional statement. Therefore, the contrapositive is also true: if you are over six feet tall, then you are not an astronaut.
16 Matthew 7:22.
17 John 6:70-71.
18 Acts 8:9-24.
19 Acts 20:29-30.
20 Matthew 7:22; 24:24. See also Hebrews 6:4-8 for additional signs that do not prove a person is saved.
TH 5 27
have evidences of saving faith without actually being saved. That is why Paul urges the
Corinthians, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do
you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you fail to meet
the test!”21 And the author of Hebrews says, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving
the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation
of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”22
21 2 Corinthians 13:15.
22 Hebrews 10:26-27.
TH 5 28
GLORIFICATION
As we’ve already pointed out, in simplest terms, glorification is the freedom from the
presence of sin. Before we are justified, all we do is sin, and we never do righteousness. When
we are being sanctified, we sin, but we also do righteousness. When we are glorified, we never
sin, and all we do is righteousness. Glorification is the culmination of the salvation process;
when we are glorified salvation is complete.
We will discuss heaven and the eternal state in more detail in Theology VI, but a few
applicable points will be made here.
First, our glorification is not just spiritual, it is physical.
Philippians 3:20-21 –
Romans 8:23 –
Second, our glorification will result in complete sinlessness.
Colossians 1:22-23 –
Ephesians 1:4 –
Third, our glorification will result in complete Christlikeness.
Colossians 3:4 –
1 Corinthians 13:12 –
1 John 3:2 –
TH 5 29
In concluding our look at Soteriology, let’s briefly review the complete picture of our
salvation. Before time God predestined us. At some point after we heard the gospel, God
regenerated us, at which point we turned from our sin and exercised faith in Christ. Through faith
our sin is imputed to Christ and paid for on the cross, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us.
God then justifies us, declaring us righteous. We are then sanctified day after day, bearing fruit
and doing good works until Christ returns or we die. When we receive our glorified bodies we
are glorified and our salvation is fulfilled.
TH 5 30
TH 5 31
ECCLESIOLOGY
The word, Ecclesiology, comes from two Greek words, ἐκκλησία1(ekklesia, which is
often translated church) and λόγος (logos, which means word, or statement). Ecclesiology is the
study of the church’s nature and function, as well as its place in God’s plan of redemption. We
will look first at the nature of the church, then at its place in God’s broad plan of redemption, and
finally we will look at the local church’s structure and function.
The Nature of the Church
What is the church? When did the church begin? How do churches in one city relate to
churches in other cities? How does the Bible describe and define what the church is? These and
related questions help us explain the nature of the church.
The Meaning of the Word Church
Everyone has heard the word church. To most, church refers either to a church building,
or to the campus of such a building. Church is often associated with a particular branch or
denomination, such as the Catholic Church, or the Church of England. Our English word church
comes from the Greek word kuriakos (κυριακός), which comes from the same root as kurios
(κύριος) and means, belonging to the Lord. However, this Greek word is never used in the NT to
refer to the church. The Greek word used in the NT to refer to the church is ekklesia (ἐκκλησία),
which literally means, that which has the quality or condition of being called out. Much
has been made of this literal meaning, and so it deserves our attention.
It’s easy to hear this definition and assume that when Paul writes, “To the church of the
Thessalonians,” he is referring to those who have been called out of the world by God. While
TH 5 32
there is nothing theologically objectionable in this explanation, it is inaccurate and a bit
misleading. The morphology of ekklesia is very simple and lacks any sort of spiritual
background.23 It was in use over a hundred years prior to the NT, long before the church existed.
An ekklesia is simply a gathering of people; anything beyond that basic meaning must be derived
from the context it is found in, not from its morphology.24 Consider the following humorous
examples of what happens when you assume ekklesia always refers to a group of people “called
out.”
Acts 7:38 –
Acts 19:32, 39, 40 –
The basic idea of ekklesia is an assembly or congregation. The type of assembly being
referred to must be determined from the context. So in order for us to understand the nature of
the church, we are on much safer ground when looking at what the NT authors teach about the
church, rather than attempting to derive its nature from the morphology of ekklesia. What
happened over time with the word ekklesia is that it took on a technical definition clearly distinct
from its original root meaning.25 In studying the nature of the church we want to know that
technical definition.
23 ek (out) + kal (to call) + ia (noun; quality or condition) → someone/thing having the condition of being called out.
24 Cf. Hebrews 2:12, which quotes Psalm 22:22. In addition to these examples, the LXX contains over 75 uses of ekklesia before the “church” was even formed.
25 A good example of this in English is the word “good-bye,” which is a contraction of “God be with you.” The fact that good-bye originally referred to God does not mean that when an atheist says good-bye today he is acknowledging that God really does exist.
TH 5 33
The Church Local and the Church Universal
As ekklesia is studied throughout the NT, two major technical uses are discerned, beyond
that of a general assembled group. The first of these major technical uses is a local assembly
of people who publicly profess faith in Christ.26 This is what theologians have
termed the local church.27
Romans 16:1 –
Galatians 1:2 –
So the local church is an autonomous assembly of people who profess faith in Christ.
Although the local church is made up of people who profess to be believers, we know that in
reality it has both true and false believers in it.28
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 –
A second major technical use of ekklesia is the collection of all people who are
spiritually united in Christ. This is what theologians call the universal church.29
Ephesians 1:22-23 –
Colossians 1:18 –
26 Alternatively, this use could be defined as a local assembly of the baptized.
27 Some refer to the local church as the visible church.
28 Cf. Acts 8:9-24, 1 Timothy 1:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:16-18.
29 Some refer to the universal church as the invisible church.
TH 5 34
While the local church is an actual assembly, the universal church is a spiritual collection
or group and there is no mention of the universal church actually gathering together. If you are
truly a Christian, then you are part of the universal church.
These are only two senses in which ekklesia speaks of the church: a local assembly of
professing believers, and a universal collection of true believers. There is no reference in the NT
to a church building, a church denomination, or a state church. The NT often refers to a plurality
of churches,30 even within a single geographic region.31
The Birth of the Church
There are a multitude of theories regarding the birth or start of the church. Most of these
are based on the faulty assumption that the word ekklesia always refers to the church. So, in Acts
7:38, Stephen says that the church was in the wilderness of Sinai following the Exodus, and in
Matthew 18:17, Christ says that the church is already in existence. Despite the wide variety of
opinions, there is a high majority of biblical scholars who agree that the evidence
overwhelmingly points to the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost.
The church is not mentioned in the OT, and as the body of Christ, the church could
hardly have existed before the incarnation. In addition, Christ speaks of the church as something
He will build, not something He already built.
Matthew 16:18 –
30 Acts 15:41, 1 Corinthians 7:17.
31 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 Corinthians 8:1, Galatians 1:2.
TH 5 35
Added to this is the fact that the church was purchased by the death of Christ.32 So the
church could not have been formed prior to the death of Christ. So why do we say Pentecost?
Two reasons: first, the departure of Christ seems necessary if the church is His body. That means
the church was probably not formed until after the ascension. Second, the arrival of the Spirit
clearly marks the inauguration of something new.
1 Corinthians 12:13 –
If we were baptized into the body through the Spirit, then the most reasonable time to see
the birth of the body is when the Spirit came; that’s Pentecost. From the day of Pentecost onward
there was a clear assembly of people professing faith in Christ.
Acts 2:37-47 –
Based on these things, it is concluded that the church was formed on the day of Pentecost.
For those first days or maybe just hours, the local church and the universal church were identical.
Since that time the universal church has dramatically increased in size, and local churches have
been formed all over the world. But before the day of Pentecost it could not be said that “All who
believed were together and had all things in common.”33 This was the birth of the church.
32 Acts 20:28.
33 Acts 2:44.
TH 5 36
Metaphors for the Church
The NT does not define the nature of the church as much as it describes it. Most of these
descriptions come from metaphors, and so we will devote some time to discussing the various
metaphors used by the NT. We will look at four of the more dominant metaphors for the church:
the body of Christ, the temple of God, the bride of Christ, and the flock. The fact that multiple
metaphors are used to describe the church is a good indication that the church is a complex
entity. We need to guard against a simplistic explanation of the church that ignores its complex
nature and attempts to carry one metaphor too far.
The Body of Christ
This is Paul’s most frequently used metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ
and the church.34 The metaphor of the body of Christ views Christ as the head of the church, and
the church as His body. In the NT, this metaphor always refers to the universal church and not
the local church. Several applications are drawn from this metaphor.
First, the members of the body are mutually edifying to one another.
Ephesians 4:11-16 –
The purpose of the individual parts of the body is the edification of the body as a whole.
Christ gave the church apostles and prophets and teachers and pastors so that they would equip
the people to do the work of the ministry. Everyone who is a part of the body of Christ, the
34 Ephesians 1:22-23; 4:4, 12, 16; 5:30, Colossians 1:18, 24; 2:19. cf. Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.
TH 5 37
universal church, must use what he has been given to build up the rest of the body. This is why
the local church is so important; that is where this building up can take place. Is it okay to stay
home on Sunday morning and listen to sermons on CD, or online? Why has God given you the
gifts He has given you? Is Sunday about your edification only? No, it is also about the edification
which you provide to the rest of the body. The fact that the church is like a body, indicates that
there should be no maverick Christians; no loners who study the Bible on their own and never
interact with others. That is unacceptable in the church because that man has something to
contribute to the rest of the body, and if he withholds it, the rest of the body suffers.
Second, the members of the body have unity within diversity. The individual
members of the universal church have both unity and diversity. The unity comes from the
commonality of being in the same body and partaking of the same Spirit. It is amazing that when
two genuine believers meet from extremely different backgrounds, they still share such a
tremendous unity because of their place in the body of Christ. The diversity comes in the wide
variety of gifting which Christ distributes to the body.
Ephesians 4:16 –
Isn’t it marvelous that within the body every part of the body contributes something
unique to the whole? The body is built up both by the studious pastor who pours over the
Scripture hour after hour, and the young woman who ministers to orphans every evening. Two
people in the body of Christ can have radically different talents and gifts and yet both contribute
something vital to the body.
The third principle that is drawn from the metaphor of the body is that the members of
the body are subject to the head, Christ. Paul frequently refers to Christ as the head of
TH 5 38
the church, His body. The headship of Christ predominantly demonstrates the authority Christ
has over the church. The church is Christ’s.
Ephesians 5:23-24 –
Because Christ has authority over His own body, submission to Christ is not optional
within the church. Christ Himself, and no man, is Lord of the church. The church is directed and
guided by Christ, and as members of His invisible church, we must submit to Him above every
other authority.
So the metaphor of the body emphasizes three characteristics of the church: (1) the
members of the church are to edify one another, (2) the members of the body are diverse, yet
unified, and (3) the members of the body are all subject to the authority of Christ.
The Temple of God
A second metaphor used to describe the church is the temple, or house of God. This
metaphor focuses on God’s action in building the temple, and on God’s presence in the temple.
Whereas the body of Christ focused on the responsibility of the individual members building
each other up and being united with one another, the temple of God focuses on God’s work as
the master craftsman and occupant of the church.
Ephesians 2:19-22 –
1 Peter 2:4-5 –
This temple has Christ as its cornerstone, and the apostles and prophets as its foundation.
The tabernacle and temple of the OT were the indications of God’s presence with the people. In
the wilderness God manifested Himself at the tabernacle in either a pillar of fire or a pillar of
TH 5 39
cloud,35 and when the temple was dedicated the whole house was filled with a cloud and with the
glory of the LORD.36 In the same way, the church is now God’s house which He has built and
which He now dwells in.
The Bride
A third metaphor for the church is that of a wife, or bride. This metaphor stresses the
intimacy and relationship between Christ and the church. It is the church’s responsibility
to submit to Christ, but the other actions are done by Christ. It is Christ who gave Himself up for
the sake of the church, it is Christ who sanctifies, cleansing with the water of the word, and it is
Christ who nourishes and cherishes the church. As the bridegroom, Christ is all sufficient in
providing everything intended for the bride. As members of the church, we must look to Christ
for purification, and we must look to Christ for nourishment.
Ephesians 5:22-33 –
The Flock
The local church is referred to as a flock in Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesian
elders, and also in First Peter. The metaphor of a flock stresses the absolute dependence of the
church upon the LORD.
Acts 20:28-30 –
1 Peter 5:2-3 –
35 Exodus 33:9-10; 40:34, Numbers 12:5, Deuteronomy 31:15.
36 1 Kings 8:10-11, Ezekiel 10:4.
TH 5 40
Both of these images are used in the context of the local church, and picture the leaders of
the church as shepherds. In addition to these direct references to the flock of God, the term pastor
is actually the same word for shepherd, and points to the specific nature of the office of a pastor.
One of the most telling characteristics of sheep is that they cannot help themselves. They
cannot smell water or food; they cannot clean themselves; they cannot protect themselves from
danger. All these things are the job of the shepherd, and by extension the job of the pastor.
Like a shepherd, a faithful pastor cannot wait for the sheep to communicate their needs to
him, but they must seek out and examine the sheep for themselves and determine what they need
and then give it to them. This demands regular involvement in the lives of those we shepherd.
On the other hand, in this day of mega churches and extreme anonymity, we as sheep,
must put ourselves in a position to avail ourselves of our pastors, so that they can minister to us
as we need. And ultimately we must recognize that pastors are under-shepherds, who themselves
are being shepherded by Christ. Thus, all members of the universal church are sheep in the flock
which Christ is shepherding.
These four metaphors each stress different aspects of the church’s nature. The body
stresses the headship of Christ and mutuality of the members; the temple stresses the action of
God as builder, and His presence within the building; the bride stressed the intimacy between
Christ and the church, as well as the love and care demonstrated by Christ; the flock stresses the
total dependence of the church upon her great shepherd, Jesus Christ.
TH 5 41
God’s Plan for the Universal Church
Now that we have a better grasp on the nature of the church, it’s important to look at how
the church fits into God’s ultimate plan. The church has not always existed, so how does it relate
to God’s past and future programs on Earth? Central in this discussion is the church’s
relationship to Israel and the kingdom of God. Has the church replaced Israel? Is the church
synonymous with the kingdom of God? These questions are essential to answer if we are going
to have an understanding of God’s plan for the universal church.
The Church and Israel
Even though there are many minor issues which separate dispensationalist theologians
from non-dispensational theologians, there is probably no single question which more clearly
distinguishes one from the other, than the relationship between Israel and the church. In general
terms, and recognizing that there are definitely exceptions to this rule: dispensationalists view
the church and Israel as two distinct groups in God’s program with OT prophecies
about Israel being fulfilled in a national, physical Israel, while non-dispensationalists
view Israel as being part of the church with OT prophecies about Israel being fulfilled in
spiritual Israel, the church.
What evidence do the two sides have? A detailed discussion must be put off until our
study of Eschatology, but an introduction will benefit our discussion of the church. The
argumentation of the opposing views usually runs along these lines: dispensationalists begin their
arguments in the OT, and interpret the NT in light of what the OT says. Non-dispensationalists
usually begin their arguments in the NT, and interpret the OT in light of what the NT says. The
dispensationalist will say, “This NT passage cannot mean that, because the OT clearly teaches
TH 5 42
this.” The non-dispensationalist will say, “This OT passage cannot mean that, because the NT
clearly teaches this.”
Evidence for the Dispensational View
There are several lines of evidence which support the dispensational view of Israel and
the church. Let me say as a qualification that this evidence is not for dispensationalism as a
system, but for the dispensational view of Israel and the church. At the present time there are far
too many variations of dispensationalism for me to adopt wholesale any particular presentation
of the system. It seems most profitable instead to look at each relevant issue on a case by case
basis. This is an attempt to look at the issue of the relationship between Israel and the church.
We will limit ourselves to two major points. First, the NT clearly teaches that there is a
future for national Israel.37 Second, the promises given to Israel in the OT are not fully
realized in the church.
Nowhere in the NT is the church equated with Israel, and there are frequent distinctions
made between the church and Israel. Romans 11 clearly identifies Israel as a distinct entity from
the church, and plainly teaches that national, physical Israel will one day come to Christ and be
saved.
Romans 11:1 –
Romans 11:11-14 –
Romans 11:25-29 –
37 Cf. Leviticus 26:3-4, 14, 21, 23, 27, 32-33, 38-45.
TH 5 43
This passage makes it clear that God intends some time in the future to save the nation of
Israel as a whole. God has not altogether rejected Israel, but has temporarily set Israel aside in
order to bring in all His elect from among the Gentiles. Based on a straight forward and honest
evaluation of Romans 11, we do well to reject any system which proposes God has completely
done away with national Israel.
Second, the promises given to Israel in the OT are not fully realized in the church. There
is no question that the authors of the NT connected the events in the church with promises given
to Israel in the OT.
Acts 2:14-2138 –
The real question is how far did the authors of the NT go in identifying Israel’s promises
with the church. One of the biggest questions in this regard concerns the New Covenant. The
New Covenant was promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36,39 but appears to be fulfilled
in the church.
Luke 22:20 –
1 Corinthians 11:25 –
2 Corinthians 3:6 –
38 Cf. Joel 2:28-32.
39 Cf. also, Deuteronomy 30-31.
TH 5 44
So it appears that the promise of the New Covenant made to Israel in the OT is fulfilled
in the church. But when the OT promises are actually examined, we find that they are not fully
realized in the church.
Jeremiah 31:31-40 –
Ezekiel 36:22-34 –
Despite the fact that the church seems to participate in the New Covenant, there are clear
promises made to Israel which do not have their fulfillment in the church. If the church and Israel
are one, or if the church had replaced Israel, all of the New Covenant would be fulfilled in the
church, and not just some of it.
Although the discussion about Israel and the church is much broader than we have
indicated here, these two issues act as a good starting point: (1) the NT distinguishes between the
church and Israel, and (2) the promises made to Israel in the OT are not fully realized in the
church.
Difficulties for the Dispensational View
There are a number of overlapping problems facing the dispensational view of Israel and
the church, which center around the fact that some passages in the NT seem to equate Israel and
the church. Let’s look at the most frequently cited passage used to prove that the church is Israel.
Galatians 6:13-16 –
TH 5 45
While the most superficial reading of this passage would assume “the Israel of God” was
the church, such a view does not make sense in the verse itself, or in the wider context of the
passage. The Israel of God is the section of Israelites who believe in Christ.
Conclusion
The church is not Israel. There are Israelites who are part of the church, and Israelites
who are not part of the church. One day God will save the nation of Israel as a whole, and will
fulfill all His promises to the nation. This is consistent with both the OT promises given to the
nation, and with the NT’s consistent distinction between Israel and the church.
The Church and the Kingdom of God
Another significant question regarding God’s plan for the church is the relationship
between the church and God’s kingdom. Beginning with Augustine in the fifth century AD, there
have always been those who proposed that the church was the kingdom of God, and that God
was building His earthly kingdom through the church. This led to an extreme overlap between
church and state, and drove the thinking of postmillennialists, who believe that through gradual
growth of the church the kingdom of God would be established and then Christ would be ushered
back to earth as king. Few people today advocate such a reading of the Scripture. We will enter a
more thorough discussion of the kingdom of God in Eschatology, but for now we can look at the
evidence for a distinction between the church and the kingdom.
First, we must recognize that the NT clearly teaches all members of the universal church
will inherit the kingdom of God.
2 Thessalonians 1:4-5 –
TH 5 46
Colossians 1:13 –
Yet, the NT points to the presence of saints in the kingdom who were never part of the
church. This means that the kingdom of God must be bigger than the boundaries of the church.
Matthew 8:11 –
Luke 13:28-29 –
So the kingdom is not made up entirely of the church, but of all those whom God has
called. The church is part of the kingdom, and all those who are part of the universal church are
part of the kingdom. Old Testament saints, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are also part of
the kingdom of God. Therefore, the kingdom of God is much broader than just the church.
God’s Plan for the Local Church
We know that the universal church is distinct from Israel and everyone who is in the
universal church is part of the kingdom of God. We also know that Christ is the head of the
universal church, and when He returns He will establish the kingdom of God on earth.
Revelation 11:15 –
So how does the local church fit into this grand scheme? We earlier defined the local
church as a local assembly of people who publicly profess faith in Christ. How do those local
assemblies fit into God’s plan? God has designed these local assemblies for the strengthening
and building up of its members, and ultimately all the members of the universal church. The
instruction given to the church in the NT is not directed at the universal church, but at the local
TH 5 47
church. It is assumed that the growth of each individual member of the universal church will take
place in the context of a local assembly of believers.
We want to look at four different aspects of the local church which should provide an
overview of what a local church should look like. These five aspects are the church’s
organization, membership, discipline, and ordinances.
Organization of the Church
Three basic structures for the organization, or governance, of the church have been
suggested and implemented throughout history.
The first is the episcopal structure like the Catholic Church, which puts the pope directly
below Christ, the bishops below the pope, and individual churches beneath each bishop.
The second structure is the presbyterian structure which places elders, or presbyters,
above the local church, the presbytery (formed from the elders of a group of local churches)
above the local churches, and the General Assembly above the presbytery (formed from the
elders within a group of presbyteries).
The third structure is the congregational structure which places elders over the local
church, and Christ over the elders of each individual church.
The congregational structure seems to be what was in place in the NT. There is no
mention of a presbytery, or General Assembly, or pope in the New Testament. It is always elders
who rule over churches, and these elders are never under the authority of anyone but Christ.
Even Paul and Timothy, who helped establish the elders, are never seen as rulers over a group of
churches.
Acts 14:21-23 –
TH 5 48
Acts 20:28 –
Titus 1:5 –
It should be acknowledged that the NT does not explicitly forbid something like a
presbytery, or a denomination, but it does give every indication that the elders have
authority over the churches they rule in.40
Membership of the Church
Church membership is vital to the life of any believer in Jesus Christ. Such a statement is
often met with ridicule or even anger in today’s independent and individualistic world, but it is
true. The NT doesn’t come out and say directly, every Christian must be a member in a church,
but it does indicate that something like membership was a part of every believer’s life. Here is
the evidence for such a statement.
Acts 2:41, 47 –
On the day of Pentecost the people who were converted added up to about 3,000 people.
Three thousand is not an easy number to estimate, so it seems most likely that someone was
counting the numbers. This same effort to keep track of numbers is seen in several other places
in the book of Acts.
Acts 4:4, 32 –
40 See Hebrews 13:17 where obedience is clearly commanded.
TH 5 49
Acts 6:1-2 –
How would Luke know that the full number of the disciples were present if there was no
list? There were over 5,000 men in their number! So it seems certain that someone was keeping
track of who claimed to be a believer and was considered a disciple. This would also be
necessary in order to deal with the distribution of food.
1st Peter 5:1-3 –
Peter indicates that the elders had certain sheep placed in their charge. This indicates that
the elders knew who was a part of their church and who wasn’t. This gets to a basic question
which every believer must answer: is there an elder who knows that you have been entrusted to
his care?
Hebrews 13:17 –
1st Peter 5:5 –
Both of these passages speak explicitly about obeying “your elders,” or “your leaders.”
Do you know who your leaders are? If not, how can you possibly obey them? And if you do
know who they are, do they know who you are? If they don’t know that you have submitted
yourself to them, how can they possibly be expected to “keep watch over your souls”? That is
what membership is about; formally committing yourself to the care of a church’s leaders, and to
fellowship with the church’s members. The issue is not how membership is achieved, or what it
is called. The issue is whether or not you have made it abundantly clear to the leaders that you
are part of their flock.
TH 5 50
One last word to those who will say, “I still don’t see how this demands membership, so
I’m not going to become a member of any church.” We can agree that the Bible doesn’t say we
must be “members” of a church, but if you claim to obey Hebrews 13:17, and your leaders ask
you to become a member if you want their care, then you are obligated to obey their wish.
Discipline of the Church
One of the functions of the local church is formal discipline of its members. This practice
is demanded by Christ and His apostles, and is designed to keep the church and its members
pure. Sadly, most churches refuse to practice any form of church discipline, and thus expose the
entire church to the corrupting influence of unchecked sin. Most people who argue against
church discipline say that church discipline is unloving. That reasoning is frightening because
biblical passages are dismissed on the basis of one’s personal definition of love. Such reasoning
also misses the fact that although church discipline is painful, it is not unloving.
The goal of church discipline is the restoration of the sinning brother, and the removal of
corrupting sin. According to Matthew 18 this process begins with a single person going to
confront a sin seen in another believer’s life. If the person refuses to listen, the matter is brought
to the attention of one or two others, who then all go back to the sinning brother. If the person
refuses to listen to this group, then the matter is brought before the church and the entire church
calls the sinning brother to repentance. If the person still refuses to listen, then he is disciplined
out of the church and everyone in the church is to break all ongoing association with him.
Matthew 18:15-17 –
TH 5 51
In 1st Corinthians 5 Paul address a related matter where a so called brother was flaunting
his sin to other believers. In that case Paul’s response was that the man should be removed from
fellowship, and that the people were not to eat with, or have any association with the man.
1st Corinthians 5:6-13 –
In Galatians 6 Paul explains that when a person is stuck in his sin, those who are
believers and recognize the sin should help to restore him with gentleness, being careful not to be
led into temptation through the confrontation.
Galatians 6:1 –
Paul appears to shorten the process of discipline when the sin is being divisive. This is
probably because the sin is so damaging to the rest of the body, and because the person’s heart is
so clearly exposed through this sin.
Titus 3:10-11 –
Some people acknowledge that church discipline should take place, but never participate
in it themselves. One reason is that they believe they are not righteous enough to deal with
someone else’s sin. This comes across as noble and humble, but Christ does not allow such an
excuse.
Matthew 7:3-5 –
TH 5 52
If there is unconfessed sin in our lives, then we should not immediately confront someone
else’s sin. But our own sin does not excuse us from confrontation, it compels us to deal with it so
that we can correctly and accurately confront.
A second reason some people don’t actually practice confrontation is that they
misunderstand the principle of overlooking sin. This has become very popular today. There are a
few passages in the Bible that talk about love “covering” or “overlooking” sin. These passages
are interpreted to mean that true love will overlook or ignore many sins, and that it is only the
dreadful or repeated sins we need to confront. Time does not permit a full discussion of this
important issue, but the following points demonstrate that such thinking is flawed.
First, the Bible never advocates ignoring sin. The Bible does talk about covering sin, but
the sin which is to be covered is sin which has already been dealt with. When the Bible tells us to
cover sin, it does not mean that we are to ignore it, but that we are to deal with it and then bury it.
One passage will serve as an example.
Proverbs 19:1141 –
Second, the most frequently proposed justification for ignoring a bunch of “small” sins is
the notion that if we confronted every sin we saw, we would do nothing but confront all day
long. We must first reject this thinking because it rejects biblical principles based on pragmatic
consideration. We should also reject it because it misunderstands the nature of confrontation.
This response assumes that we must confront on all possibilities of sin, but confrontation is
reserved only for known sins. We may frequently have the thought that a person sinned, but
41 Cf. Job 7:21 and Micah 7:18.
TH 5 53
confrontation demands that we know the person sinned. Rather than running around confronting
everyone who looks at us in a funny way, we must reserve confrontation for those occasions
when there is no other reasonable conclusion than that a brother has in fact sinned. And
occurrences where this is the case are not frequent. Our problem is that we far too frequently
assume someone is sinning, when we really don’t know that they are. If love believes all things
and hopes all things,42 then we must give our brothers the benefit of the doubt when it looks like
they may have sinned, but we really don’t know whether they have or not.
In conclusion, church discipline should be practiced by the church whenever sin is known
an unrepented of. This confrontation should not be harsh or mean, but gentle and loving, aimed
at the restoration of the brother, but considerate of the corrupting nature of sin. This practice not
only works to keep the church pure, it helps purify the members of the church, and even
ourselves, as we bear in mind the admonition of Paul, to keep watch on ourselves.
Ordinances of the Church
The church is given just two ordinances, baptism and communion. These are sometimes
referred to as sacraments, but the word sacrament should be avoided because of its implication of
imparting grace. It is not participation in these ordinances itself which blesses the believer, but
what they represent and remind us of.
Baptism is commanded of all those who believe, and is only for those who profess faith
in Christ. Baptism is a public profession of faith and should be done by immersion in water.
42 1st Corinthians 13:7.
TH 5 54
Acts 2:38-41 –
Communion is also reserved only for those who profess Christ. Communion, or the
Lord’s Table, is a commemoration of the death of Christ and the inauguration of the new
covenant. Communion has two elements, as established by Christ: bread and wine.
1st Corinthians 11:23-26 –
Paul gives a serious warning that anyone who eats the bread or drink the cup in an impure
way could be severely disciplined by the Lord. In Corinth there were many people sick, and
some who had even died because of the abuse of the Lord’s Table.