Just wondering about your rationale for this, where scripture opposes this.

Well, to be more specific, the ideology and methodology that scripture presents is contrary to this mindset; I wouldn’t say that there is a specific command that says ‘thou shalt not evangelize by inviting to church’.

To be clear: Jesus commanded us to “GO”, as in, “go into the world and preach…”, which is definitely not the same as inviting people into our midst. The church is not a building, but a body of worshipers, of true believers. Church is chiefly to gather and worship corporately (which could be fleshed out by examining the pastoral epistles and say, 1/2 Corinthians). The main purpose of ‘church’ is not to evangelize, though that can be a side effect –for we’ll always have unbelievers in our midst. And when Jesus and the Apostles are very clear in that there is to be no open, blatant sin permitted in our midst, it should be obvious that unbelievers will not and should not feel comfortable in church.

But nobody is saying that unbelievers should never be in our midst, or that we should never invite them to church. Rather, the New Testament presents us a clear model of going out and preaching the gospel on our own, while using corporate gathering for the worship and edification of true believers.

Just wondering about your rationale for this, where scripture opposes this.

I think the issue becomes a bit cloudy when the actions are not agreed upon as even being in error. A few years ago, a pastor was let go not for some act of misconduct but because of the manner they ran the church and their efforts in acquiring new members (among other things). Some accused the persons involved with his dismissal of pride and arrogance (something which should be repented of and for which amends should be made). The people involved insisted they were acting in the interests of the church.

In situations like this, where the truth is uncertain (even if the actions are outward and clear), I’m not sure what one is to do in terms of discipline.

So perhaps the only applicable situations are when the sins are open, obvious and incontrovertible.

Y’know that email answer I just sent you? Throw that away and substitute this post here as my answer.

I am not very familiar with Owen. You have given me more to read of him than I ever have on my own. I guess what I was questioning is where the infection comes from, and it cannot be simply from external influences.

You are absolutely right, it is more owing to the refusal of the church maintain its charge than the conditions it finds itself in that it falls into dis-grace. In this world you will have tribulation, of that we are assured, but we have been given the means to endure.

I think it was Gordan Runyan who encourgaged his readers on his blog to not give up, because eventhough things look bad God will not abandon his Church. We can expect, though we should not presume, that he will recue his bride. RC Sproul said that he was worried if we do not return to the Reformation doctrines, because where we are headed we do not want to go. I am confident in both these men’s statements, in that even if we get to where RC is warning against, Gordan is right, God will bring revival. Still, today is the day of Salvation…

Jesus and the Apostles taught simply that when a professing believer sins, and the facts can be observed and verified (thus eliminating motives and heart sins), then we are to go to the person and confront them in love. If they repent, we are to forgive, and this of course proves they are a child of God. If after much patience and exhortation they do not repent, we are to cast them out and count them as an unbeliever.

But, read my comment above to TT. We’re not arguing that a church be pure, but simply that open sin is treated for the seriousness that it is, and the seriousness in which Jesus commanded us to treat it, and that this will keep unbelievers from ascending to authority even though they will be in our midst.

Does that help answer your question?

Regarding your comments about cleansing the church: I don’t think that Owen (or myself in the portion I wrote) meant to say that a church must be perfectly clean. Far from it, no doubt. What I tried to hit on was that a church must follow the biblical principles of church discipline, namely confronting and if necessary punishing open sin upon it breaking out within the body. For clearly, there will always be spots in our love feasts, and hypocrites who we would never know are lost. But when a professing believer sins, blatantly, there is a process, and casting him out is absolutely necessary for the unrepentant. For, of course, believers are marked by their repentance and hatred for sin, not their abstaining from it. So then, what I saying was that churches who blatantly have no concern whatsoever about who is in their midst or even who stays in their midst, will not (by definition, I believe) preach a biblical gospel, and will be (by experience) filled to the brim with unbelievers who will or will eventually control what is taught from the pulpit.

Again, excellent thoughts. Thanks for sharing.

There you have the crux of the problem. If you acknowledge that all men are equally depraved sinners, where do you draw the line between what is acceptable for a church member and what is not?
None of us (and I include myself) are as good or decent as our outward appearance might allude to, and I’m not sure spiritual problems are any less a problem just because they may not manifest themselves in physical, outward actions.

How do you discipline one person for the physical act of adultery when lusting is no less a sin (at least according to Christ) and is perhaps more common?

Do you discipline only those who act on their impulses? If so, why? Why differentiate between the wicked deeds done and the wicked as one might do given the right circumstance? Shouldn’t one attempt to root out both? Of course, who would be left?

I’m just wondering how one goes about choosing who to discipline and why. What is the method/approach?

Are you in a true church?

Yes. I haven’t always been. But the church that I now attend would fall within Owens’ anathema because it is PCA, and though they do not hold to baptismal regeneration, their practice of infant baptism is easily attached to it. Still, the doctrine is far more Gospel centered than I could get elsewhere. I would say that in some ways it fails in certain disciplines, also. For the most part it is a good one.

The question of keeping out the leaven I think is one that is unanswerable. A few reasons. First, men are sinners, regenerate or not. Second, even though we are commanded to purge out the leaven, it is impossible to get it all simply because that which is easily recognized may be cleansed but the root remains ( I am thinking mold here). Third, Jesus selected Judas, then there was the compromise of the Apostles even though they had been witness to the risen Lord, and along with that, we have the testimony of Acts and the Epistles, James’, John’s, Paul’s and Peter’s, that all warn that even in highly spiritual churches there were those who rose up from within, be they brothers or not, who themselves breed the problems.

In short there can be no resolution. However, that does not remove our responsibility to resolve. It is, as you have pointed out from Owen, the neglect of the church to disciple that exacerbates the problems that are inherent in the make up of a church filled with saints simultaneously sinners. Neglect surely cannot remediate and gangrene must be cut off or the whole will die. What a radical image Paul paints!

When looking at the Problem With The SBC , they are confronted with what other mainline denominations down through time have had to deal. Having gotten over the hurdle of inerrancy, they must now answer just how is the Bible authoritative. But the SBC has been classically baptist in the autonomy of the believer and the local church (resulting in reality an ecclesium of the majority). Both of which undermine the ability of the authority, Biblically speaking, of carrying out church discipline. It is true that it is a doctrinal matter (it always is). That is a challenge though, since the doctrinal base is up for grabs; just what are baptist distinctives?This all goes to the point that even when we have conservative churches where doctrine at one time was preeminent, that given time, they all will slip away.

So I am in a true church, but it is not fault free. And that is the point. I am not sure that the body of Christ was ever meant to be, that is, I think that this is the means by which God does discipling, in a practical exercise sorta way. As the confession says, even though we have sin remaining, and even though we are being preserved, this is not an excuse to sloth, but diligence and every church, even the purest has problems, some so much so that they hardly merit the name. The warning sounds clear: If you think you stand, take heed lest you fall.

Try this Gospel:

Jesus Christ crucified by the Jews at the hands of evil men for the salvation of sinners; dead, buried, and resurrected for their justification so that those who believe and repent will be saved.

There is a big problem. This Gospel has for the most part stopped being preached since the 1940’s. But, it is precisely the Gospel preached in the book of Acts. You see, this pressure toward peace and not division has a compromising effect which will lead to demise, of which Owens warns. Too many are comfortable because their gospel does not make them despised by the community. Division is in reality the very tool by which Jesus is training up his children. “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword to cause division…” is remedy to sickness and apostasy. The big but is if we really institute discipline-ship many churches would no longer be megattractive.

So my question: is this the Christian Gospel, and if so, why do so many who claim the name neglect it?