The primary point I have been trying to make is the absolute necessity of having your basic presuppositions established by texts of Scripture and not theological necessity. God made us rational beings and part of that rationality is the need to be logical and consistent in our beliefs and practice. Because this is true, any sincere person will earnestly try to obey the implications of the things that he believes are the will of God. If the person misunderstands the will of God, his sincerity will not keep him from doing some very cruel things in the name of God and conscience. Your conscience is tied up with your creed. If you love God, you must be consistent with both your conscience and your creed.

I believe John Calvin loved God as much as any converted man that ever lived. That is why he would have been a deliberate hypocrite if he would not have had Servetus burned at the stake. His view of sacralism, the wedding of church and state, dictated it was the good and necessary thing to do. This was not a wicked man going against his conscience and committing a horrible crime. This was a man who loved God and was determined to follow his theology at all costs. Calvin did what he did, in his mind, for the glory of God and the good of his church. Because his theology was wrong, his actions brought disgrace to himself and the church. However, we must see that Calvin really had no choice once he accepted his view of Covenant Theology sacralism!

I have witnessed some horrible examples of wicked prejudice and bigotry done by good men all in the name of Christ. Churches have been split, families have been divided, and lives have been destroyed by power-mad men who were determined to establish, by any means necessary, the ‘true church of Jesus Christ.’ The horror stories always begin with a powerful personality believing they alone have the truth. Their church alone is the true New Testament church, and they, as the leaders of that ‘true church’ are God’s vicars on earth. Let me give you two examples of godly men being very wrong. The first is a great Presbyterian named Thornwell and the second is a great Baptist named Harvey.

The emphasis in the following quotation is mine:

There are amongst us those who hold that God gave us our church-government, as truly as He gave us our doctrines; and that we have no more right to add to the church-government, which is Divine, than to add to the doctrine, which is Divine.

Others…believe no definite form of church-government is of Divine origin… God gave only general principles, and man is to work out of them the best system he can. Thus, one party amongst us holds that Christ gave us the materials and principles of church government, and has left us to shape them pretty much as we please. But the other holds that God gave us a Church, a Constitution, laws, Presbyteries, Assemblies, Presbyters, and all the functionaries necessary to a complete organization of His kingdom upon the earth and to its effective operation; that He has revealed an order as well as a faith, and that as our attitude in the one case is to hear and believe, in the other it is to hear and obey.^[1] 

Thornwell sets the whole issue in clear focus. The Word of God is just as clear about church government as it is about the doctrine of salvation. We should hold to the system of Presbyterianism just as strongly as we hold to the doctrine of justification by faith simply because the Word of God is equally clear on both subjects. To refuse to do so is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture.

Apart from the very slight caricature, ‘has left us to shape them pretty much as we please,’ I would wholeheartedly endorse the second position and reject Thornwell’s position. It is one thing to say that you use principles in Scripture to build a system, and quite another to say you can do whatever you like. Likewise, it is one thing to build a system on ‘necessary consequences’ instead of actual Bible texts and admit that logic supplied many of your ‘facts,’ and quite another thing to build a system with logic and then boast that your entire system is totally biblical. It is one thing to believe you have caught the cat, but it is quite another to bring him out of the dark room of your own prejudices and sit him under the clear light of biblical texts of Scripture. This has not been done yet with any of the many ‘true NT’ cats including Thornwell’s Presbyterian cat.

Several more statements from Thornwell should remove any question as to what I am opposing:

…the duties of carrying out the great Commission were given to the Church, and should be carried out by the divinely ordained organizations of the church, namely its presbyteries… [Baptists would say “the local church”]

But have we not always boasted that our Church is adequate as organized in the Scriptures…? Have we not gloried in our polity as complete …? Is our Church competent or is she not competent to do her work? Is she so organized, and so equipped, and so officered, that she can, in the use of her own courts and her own powers, do what her Master has bidden her to do? If not, then openly acknowledge your beggary, and cast about for the best system you can find! If not, then openly acknowledge your impotence, and pronounce your Divine institutions a failure!^[2]

There is absolutely no question what Thornwell believes. He states it clearly. The Presbyterian system of government is just as ‘divinely ordained’ of God as is the gospel that Jesus saves. Jesus Christ established and ordained the Presbyterian Church, and the Scriptures clearly set forth the whole organization in all of its essential details. The Presbyterian system alone is THE ‘true New Testament Church’ that Christ established.

Thornwell is a master of argumentation and seeks, like all religious leaders with his mindset, to force you into one of two choices. The implication is that if you can prove one position is wrong, then the other position has been proven to be true. This is very illogical but is used constantly as a method of proving something to be true.

(1) Either sincerely believe and practice the total Presbyterian [or Baptistic if it is a Baptist writer] system because it is the institution given by God in Scripture, or else 

(2) Admit that you really do not believe that the Bible is sufficient and complete enough for us to do God’s work today. 

Once you accept the first assumption presented by Thornwell above, then logically you are forced into one or the other of Thornwell’s two choices. And who in his right mind is going to choose the second? There is a third choice. However, this third choice (which I hold) is not open to the man who accepts the first assumption that the Scriptures give us a divinely ordained role model for the church as an institution. That man is already locked into a position that totally stands or falls on finding the black cat.

I reject both of Thornwell’s options as well as his basic assumption. I also reject Thornwell’s appeal to equate faith in his system of government with faith in God’s clear promises. I can believe in the total inspiration of the Bible as the complete Word of God without believing that it gives me a clear and detailed ‘church order.’

My faith in the adaptation of our system is founded on my faith in its divine origin. Believing that our Zion is the city of our God [by our Zion he means the Presbyterian system] and that he has promised to establish her forever, I am fully persuaded, that, if we would carry out our principles into thorough, practical operation, His presence and spirit would attend us and make our walls salvation and our gates praise.^[3] Let us only have faith in the success and efficacy of Divine institutions…What we want is faith—faith in the Divine promises, faith in the Divine appointments; …^[4]

Thornwell, as you can see, believes that the entire Presbyterian system is just as clearly revealed in Scripture as are the gospel promises. We should receive his system with the same conviction and assurance that we receive the message “Jesus saves.” To reject either is to reject the sufficiency of Scripture. The Presbyterian Church, in its entirety and all of its details, is the church that Christ established, and it is this church alone that has Christ’s authority on this earth to do his work.

You should note the order of concern and emphasis in this last quote. Correct church order is the guarantee of God’s blessing. If we would “carry out our principles,” then the “presence and power of the Holy Spirit” would come and revive us. As I mentioned earlier, no matter how much of God’s Spirit seems to be with another group and its efforts, it simply cannot be a work of God because it is not being done through the ‘duly authorized’ structure that God has revealed clearly in his word.

Here is Thornwell’s final appeal:

In conclusion, all we ask is Presbyterianism, simple, pure, unadulterated Presbyterianism—the regular, uniform, healthful action of our noble system. … we can have no reason to expect His assistance when we have trampled His institutions [Presbyterian polity] in the dust. When the law goes forth, it must go forth from Zion [remember what Thornwell means by this]; and because we have told her towers, and marked her bulwarks, and considered her palaces, and have been fully assured that she [the Presbyterian Church] is the city of the Lord of hosts, the city of our God, we are resolved neither to rest nor to hold our peace till out of Zion shall go forth the law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.^[5] 

Thornwell believes that the Presbyterian system is Zion, the true city of God. When truth goes forth, it will go forth from the one true church that Christ founded. That one true church is Christ’s only authorized agent on this earth. When I read things like that, I pray that God will never allow men with that mentality to rule our nation. That is the spirit and conviction that has, and will, shed Baptist blood (and the blood of anyone else) for daring to challenge the ‘duly authorized’ city of God in any way. That is Roman Catholic institutionalism. That was the battle cry of Rome, of the Reformers, and of the Puritans when they put to death any and all that disagreed with ‘God’s holy truth’ as set forth in their particular creed. Their mind-set forced them to do what they did for the ‘glory of God and the good of his Church.’ The more sincere they were, then the more vehemently they went after anyone that disagreed with God’s revealed truth (their creed). We have men today that would do that very thing if they had the civil authority to do so.

BAPTISTS AGREE WITH PRESBYTERIANS

Lest my Presbyterian brethren think I was picking on them when I quoted Thornwell, let me quote from a book by a famous Baptist writer who was a contemporary of Thornwell’s. The publisher’s foreword, by a contemporary Reformed Baptist pastor, says:

Finally, I began to see the utter simplicity and scripturalness of a consistent, historic, Baptist view of the church. I saw that many of my Baptist peers had actually departed from the biblical teaching of their forefathers. New Testament evidence and sound reasoning led me to see Baptist polity as normative for local churches today.^[6]

In reading Harvey’s book, I find exactly the same spirit and approach to the Baptist ‘denomination’ that I find in Thornwell and his concept of Presbyterianism. The ‘New Testament evidence’ mentioned above is often hard to find but the ‘sound reasoning’ abounds on nearly every page. I really have no difficulty with Harvey, Thornwell, or anyone else producing their logical systems and using them to establish order. I wholeheartedly admit that every congregation needs a clearly defined church order, and all of the members should accept and abide by that order. However, when men claim absolute biblical authority for all of the details of their system and accuse those who disagree as ‘questioning the sufficiency’ of Scripture, then we see a Roman pope wearing a Presbyterian or Baptist robe. If the above writer had just left the word scripturalness out of his introduction, I could practice nearly everything in Harvey’s book without a qualm of conscience.

The title heading in the introduction to Harvey’s book says it all: “INTRODUCTION: The external institutions of Christianity divinely instituted.”^[7] By external institutions Harvey means the whole of church polity. He is not talking about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. He means exactly the same thing that Thornwell means. He is not just talking about the ordinances, but about the totality of church order and practice. By divinely instituted Harvey means that the church polity he is about to set forth is to be received the same as you receive Scripture itself. The emphasis in the following quotation is mine.

In the following discussion it is assumed [here we go!] that the outward institutions of the Christian religion are of God, and that, therefore their form and order, as delineated in the New Testament, are of divine obligation. The Bible presents a definite and final constitution of the church, the ordinances, and the ministry, and is on these subjects the sufficient guide and the only authority; no man may set aside, alter, or supplement the divine model there given.

… Explicit directions are given respecting the membership, officers, and the discipline of the churches, and the ordinances to be administered…^[8]

You will notice that Harvey assumes as a fact in his opening sentence the first assumption mentioned in the beginning of this article; namely, that there IS a true institutional role model church in the New Testament Scriptures. For Harvey, and anyone with his mindset, the details of a complete role model of operating a local church are just as clear and just as ‘divinely inspired’ as the doctrine of justification by faith. Once you accept that assumption as true, the whole story has been told. 

Harvey then lists and attempts to refute two classes of objectors to his position. At this point he is not arguing with those who disagree with his ‘Baptist’ position. He is arguing with those who reject the idea that there is a complete institutional church role model in the Scripture. He is doing exactly what Thornwell did. Harvey and Thornwell are in total agreement on this point. Their disagreement is only on the color and shape of the cat they have each caught. 

The first objectors to his position that Harvey deals with are those that trust ‘The authority of the Fathers.’ I know of no one in our circles who holds that view as Harvey sets it forth so we shall skip it.^[9] Again as with Thornwell I fall into the second class of the objectors, but not the objectors as caricatured by Harvey.

The other class [of objectors] insists that there is no divine-required form of the Christian institutions, this being a matter of expediency, to be determined by men according to the ever-changing conditions and needs of human society…

According to these, all the different forms of the church and the ordinances are equally valid, provided they are adapted to the age and circumstances in which they exist. Expediency is the only criterion of validity.^[10]

Saying there is no absolute ‘divinely required’ church order and believing that ‘expediency is the only criterion’ are two different things. Rejecting the idea that there is a total institutional church role model in the Scriptures and affirming that ‘all the different forms of the church and ordinances are equally valid’ is quite a jump. There are very clear principles in the Scriptures that must be used and followed when we seek to establish church polity. However, different situations and cultures may be led by the Holy Spirit to apply some of those principles differently. This is the heart of the argument with the institutionalist. He simply cannot allow a single exception to his church order any more than he could allow deviations to his doctrinal system. It is one ball of wax. You must either believe the Bible gives a clear, total, detailed institutional role model of the church or else you believe in ‘expediency.’

The last two paragraphs of Harvey’s introduction, like Thornwell’s statements, are a classic example of the inevitable mindset that follows the acceptance of the first wrong basic assumption. I have inserted some comments in brackets. I remind you that Harvey is not talking about a few incidentals but the whole of church order and practice in detail. His basic presupposition and his attitude are identical to Thornwell’s:

True there is in the Bible no formulated statement of the ecclesiastical constitution that God has ordained, but so also there is no formal scientific statement of a system of Christian doctrines; yet, as the later fact does not prove that the Bible contains no system of divine truth; so neither does the former, that it has no ecclesiastical constitution. Plainly, in revelation as in nature, God has set forth manifold facts and principles [but they are set forth in specific texts of Scripture when given to the church as a rule of faith and practice], and as a means of mental and spiritual development has made it obligatory on men, by careful investigation and comparison of these, to evolve from them the system of truth and the ecclesiastical constitution he has ordained. And if, as has been show [sic], the Apostles in establishing these institutions [a complete role model organization], acted under the guidance of the infallible Spirit, it necessarily follows [human logic is essential in the absence of clear scriptural guidance] that their example [which was arrived at by logic and not by actual textual examples], when clearly ascertained [and our creed, set forth in this book, has clearly ascertained (it has?) it], has all of the force of a divine precept and is as obligatory as divine law.”^[11] (emphasis mine). 

You can cut that last statement any way you want to and the bottom line will always be: disobedience to the divine role model set forth in our creed as it has been set forth in this book is disobedience to God himself. That is Roman authoritarianism whether uttered by a Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Roman Catholic. That is a mentality that must be avoided at any cost. It equates our system, our books, and our creeds with the words inspired by the Holy Ghost himself. It makes mini-popes out of church leaders and bigots out of those who follow them.

THE ALTERNATIVE

We reject the notion that there is a ‘true, New Testament, institutional role model church.’ No one can find such a system anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures! We would argue the same as the Anabaptist argued with the Lutheran when discussing baptism. The Lutheran chided the Anabaptist by saying, “Surely, sir, you believe there was at least one small infant in the Philippian jailer’s household.” The Anabaptist replied, “No, sir. The youngest person in that household was a sixteen-year-old boy.” The Lutheran opened his Bible to chapter 16 of Acts and said, “Where, sir, do you find your sixteen year old boy in these words?” The Anabaptist replied, “In the same verse that you find your infant child!” 

I am not obligated to prove that something could not possibly be in the Bible. It is your duty to prove it is clearly there if you claim biblical authority for it. I can say that no single ‘institutional’ view of the church is biblical and therefore not mandatory, not only because there are so many different views, but also because no one view can be established with specific texts of Scripture. However, in this case I can go further and prove that the basic concept of church that is essential to any institutional system is itself contrary to Scripture. That fact alone is enough to convince me that the black cat does not exist. Let us consider the following facts:

(1) An institutional role model church simply cannot be found in Scripture by clear exegesis of texts. It must first be assumed to exist and then discovered by a whole series of logical (?) deductions. One must first make the assumption and then look for the evidence to prove it. This is backwards. The truth should come directly from texts of Scriptures. It takes a pretty thick book to prove any system of church order. You have to have a lot of therefores, and we can assumes, when you have no texts of Scripture. If the Bible was one-tenth as clear about church polity as the institutionalist claims, his book on church order would be very thin and contain mostly Scripture. He could make his statement and give a text of Scripture to prove it. It is the ‘sound reasoning’ part that takes up so much space.

(2) We could not have such a true New Testament church today without someone having the same authority as that possessed by the apostles. Some Baptists, especially some Reformed Baptists, have actually come very close to practicing this in their view of eldership but none (that I know of) have claimed apostleship.^[12] One Reformed Baptist preacher has convinced himself, and some immature zealots, that he is the ‘modern day Nehemiah’ raised up by God to purify the twentieth century church. 

(3) We could not have a true New Testament church without having the apostolic gifts of the Spirit in operation since it was these gifts that created and operated the early church. Do we have prophets giving us special messages from God today? I agree that some zealots make this claim, but we all know better.

(4) We could not have a true New Testament church unless all of the true believers in our area were part of it and there were no other kinds of churches around. If Paul wrote a letter to the “Church in Any Town,” I verily believe that some deluded souls actually believe the mailman would bring the letter directly to their pastor. They literally believe they are the only ‘duly authorized’ church in town. Is a Bible-believing Presbyterian church just as duly authorized by God as a Reformed Baptist church? Can we accept them as a ‘church’ when most of their members have not obeyed Christ in biblical baptism? The moment you say “yes” to either of these questions then you must either admit that there is no clear role model for the institutional church or else God has ‘duly authorized’ some people to disobey God and practice error.

(5) We could not have a true New Testament church today because the NTS not only do not give us details for such a church, they give us evidence of more than one view of church polity among the early believers themselves. One of the difficult struggles in both the book of Acts and Paul’s epistles is resolving the problems that arose simply because they did not have a uniform polity in the various churches. This was glaringly evident in the Jew/Gentile struggles. The church at Jerusalem, under James, would never have agreed to operate that congregation like the Gentile congregations that Paul established.

(6) We should not even want churches like some of those described in the NTS! How would you like to be an elder in the Corinthian church? Who in his right mind would accept a call to pastor the Galatians? This last question assumes that local congregations in the New Testament times followed the modern practice of extending a ‘call’ to an ordained (?) clergyman to come and ‘pastor’ them. Is this practice (a) biblical, (b) against Scripture, or (c) legitimate expediency? Are we denying the sufficiency of Scripture when we frankly admit we have no clear biblical proof for such a practice? Just because Paul would never have been willing to accept a call to pastor a church already established by someone else (Romans 15:20), does that make it wrong for me to do it today? If so, then I have sinned in this manner at least five times.

I will never forget the first Baptist ordination service that I attended. The chairman kept saying, “We Baptists go by the Book” as he waved the Bible. However, all he did was wave it. He never opened it. I was waiting for him to read about how the early church ‘called an ordination council,’ how they interviewed the candidate on ‘his (1) conversion, (2) call to the ministry, and (3) his doctrinal statement.’ I was really waiting for the verses that justified women being on the ordination council (actually there were more women than men but only the men ‘laid on hands’). I guess everyone was familiar with the verses ‘in the Book’ on that subject so they did not bother to quote them. I really learned a lot about ‘Baptists going by the Book’ that day.

(7) The Scriptures themselves give us no encouragement even to look for a role-model church with each detail laid out. It gives us principles and exhorts us to apply them in wisdom and love to the existing situation. We are to create a church order that is consistent with biblical principles and which also enables us to serve God in unity and efficiency with other congregations that differ with us in church order but preach the same gospel of grace.

WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?

These statements need to be developed in separate studies. The most important thing is to get a clear picture of what the New Testament Scriptures mean when they talk about the ekklesia of Christ. The place to start is in the Word of God and see what it says. We should assume nothing until we first look at what God himself says about the ekklesia of Christ. We need to fully acquaint ourselves with some of the specific terminology that the New Testament Scriptures use when talking about the people of God or the church.

One more comment is in order at this point. The philosopher and his black cat story is another way of saying, “Are you sure you are asking a question or are you merely assuming an answer?” And if you are really asking a question, “Are you sure that you are asking the right question?” Preachers and theologians are often like politicians; they raise the particular questions that they themselves want to answer instead of really dealing with the basic questions that should be answered. When someone asks the right question, they side step it and deal with another question that was not asked. 

When a strong Baptist says, “Show me one single place in the New Testament Scriptures where a person joined the church without first being baptized,” we must see this as an invalid statement simply because it makes an assumption about the New Testament ekklesia that is not true. It totally institutionalizes the church or ekklesia. It reduces the ekklesia of Christ to a physical organization or institution that one ‘joins.’ Nowhere in Scripture is such a concept found.

Another invalid statement is, “The local church did all of the work of God in the New Testament.” That is the same as saying “Only Christians did God’s work in the New Testament.” The church was all of the Christians, and all of the Christians were the church and there wasn’t anyone else or anything else. A situation existed then that does not exist today, nor is it repeatable today as long as there is more than one brand of Christian. Can any rational person really believe that his local church (and sister ‘true churches’) is the only agency through which God is accomplishing any real kingdom work in the world today? 

Some Conclusions

The implications of this part of this book need to be developed further. My primary concern at this juncture is to prove only one point, namely, that it is impossible for two sincere and honest people to work together if one of them accepts the basic assumptions noted at the beginning of this book while the other does not. It would be like two men being handcuffed to each other and constantly trying to go in two different directions at the same time. All they would do is argue about the direction in which they should go, and they would go nowhere. Nothing but perpetual frustration would result. 

It is not a question of brotherly love or tolerance. It is men sincerely holding totally different basic presuppositions. If both men are honest, then it is impossible for them not to try to be totally consistent with the logical implications of their respective views. What an institutionalist would give his right arm to see established I would give my left arm to prevent and vice versa. Some men are literally forced to reject fellowship with all that do not ‘follow God’s truth’ as they themselves understand that truth. There are no gray areas with this type of mentality. Everything is either black or white, or else the Bible ‘is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice.’ Thornwell and Harvey are quite clear as classic examples of this thinking.

These men may sincerely love the Lord but it is hopeless to attempt to work with them unless you put on their straitjacket. The straitjacket is usually a specific confession of faith but it may also be submission to one man’s personal authority. These people will always be a thorn in your flesh even as you would be a constant thorn in their flesh. I could no more work with an institutionalist than I could mix oil and water, and it would be just as impossible for an institutionalist to work with me.

I am convinced that the real bottom line is (to quote my late brother Donald) an attitude that says, “Lord, those people are good enough for You, but they are not good enough for us. You made them your sheep and took them into Your sheepfold, but we cannot accept them as obedient sheep and take them into our congregation. You are willing to be their Shepherd, but we are not willing to do the same until we put our peculiar brand on them.” This attitude is impossible to avoid whenever a person accepts the basic assumptions that we are discussing.

The true institutionalist is prepared to suffer fully the consequences of being consistent with his system since he believes God revealed that system just as clearly as he revealed the doctrine of the Trinity. He is compelled to ‘bar the door’ against any and all who will not bow to his creed or authority. His constant fear is what might happen twenty years from now if he should ‘open the door.’ I sometimes feel like giving these people a forty-penny spike with a note saying, “Driven into the door at the right spot, this nail is guaranteed to keep out Arminians, Legalists, Antinomians, InterDenominationalists, Hyper-Calvinists, and all other undesirables.” I would then add this note of caution: “The Attorney General of the Church wishes you to know that the same nail will also shut in the love of Christ and the gospel of free grace to sinners.”

It is time to start working out the implications of the basic presuppositions set down in this book. I refuse any longer to waste my time and efforts trying to build a biblical superstructure on a non-biblical foundation. I say, “God bless you” to all who are trying sincerely to find the black cat. Look for him as long as you like, but please don’t ask me to help find something that does not exist. While you are looking for the cat that isn’t there, I am going after the mice that really are there. The woods are full of mice called lost sinners, and some of them are the elect of God. I have been commissioned to seek and find his lost sheep. I have not been commissioned to be the vicar of Christ and establish his one ‘duly authorized true church.’

There are a lot of issues that will never be settled on this side of heaven. However, these issues dare not allow us to deny our fellowship with any of God’s true sheep. This biblical principle includes far more than many of us have been willing to admit. There are biblical principles laid out in the New Testament Scriptures that forbid a church or a pastor from refusing to accept a believer into fellowship on the same grounds that Christ our Chief Shepherd accepts sinners as his sheep. How dare we claim to be Christ’s true sheepfold and then refuse to accept into that fold the very sheep that Christ shed his blood to redeem?

I do not have the slightest hope of convincing any die-hards to agree with me. These people already have both the whole truth and the duly authorized authority to be its sole representative. They have been more than willing to cause divisions and heartache among the people of God just to prove to themselves, and others, that they are God’s duly appointed sheriffs. These defenders of God’s true church will view me as a traitor to God’s clear truth as well as a rebel against God’s ‘duly authorized authority.’ When I plead for biblical tolerance in secondary areas of truth, the institutionalist will be forced to call it ‘expediency’ and feel it is a compromise with God’s revealed truth. He has no choice if he wants to be consistent with his theology.

What I do have hope of doing is saying out loud what many Christians already feel in their hearts! I believe there are many churches, pastors, and battered sheep that are sick of the evils that have attended the ‘we are the true church’ mentality. They are ready to reach out, accept, and be accepted by, a much broader spectrum of other believers without denying or jeopardizing our sovereign grace convictions. They are ready to get involved in ‘furthering the gospel’ (Philip. 1:5) instead of building the one true institutional church on earth. 

There are many conscientious Christians in rigid, institutional congregations that are sick of the ‘we four/no more’ mentality that has destroyed any meaningful fellowship with other believers because ‘these people are not really in our camp.’ These Christians are tired of seeing the Arminians get all the converts while their own local church efforts consist of witnessing Calvinism and ‘true church’ doctrine to these ‘immature and untaught victims of easy-believism.’ I believe I speak to many hearts that long to see sinners saved and changed in their own assembly, instead of wistfully seeing it happen in other places—and bravely trying, in vain, to justify why it is not happening in their own assembly. Is your heart and conscience asking the following question: “If our church has the most truth and the only true biblical authority, why doesn’t God use us to save his true sheep instead of using those people that we are constantly opposing and criticizing?”

Maybe the answer to that question is far more obvious than many of us have been willing to admit. Maybe the people and churches that have been criticized for not preaching ‘the true gospel’ have at least faithfully preached the gospel as they understood it. Is it not a fact that these people preach the Lord Jesus Christ himself as the only way to be saved, and do they not also urge sinners to flee to him for salvation? Must we not also admit that many of our ‘true New Testament churches’ have made the establishing of ‘the one true institutional church’ to be the primary goal of their preaching and practice? And is it not also tragically true that these same ‘true’ churches have miserably failed to (1) preach the gospel to the sinners in their own immediate area, or (2) heal and help the wounded sheep under their own care? 

I do not attend your church and therefore have neither the right nor the ability to judge it. However, you have both the ability and the responsibility before God to judge whether your church is more interested in the souls of men, or if its primary concern is the ‘authority’ of the church and its leadership! You are responsible to your Lord to judge if your church exhibits the love of Christ, the fruits of the Spirit, and is genuinely interested in people, or whether your church is primarily interested in church order, the authority of the elders, and criticizing everyone for ‘false evangelism’ while you have no real evangelistic effort to reach the lost.

---