March 12th: Independency
Speaker: Chris Laws
The second distinguishing feature of a Reformed Baptist church, alongside that of believers baptism.
The two Reformed confessions of faith: Westminster (1647) for Presbyterian churches, and Baptist (1689).
Two main differences between them: (1) baptism, and (2) church government.
Distinguishing features of a Reformed Baptist church are
(1) baptism upon profession of faith, and (2) independent church government.
LONGEVITY
Independent Baptist churches in the UK have remained faithful the longest. Eg Tabernacle is now over 370 years old.
What is the secret of their longevity?
Denominational groupings have historically been somewhat short-lived. Eg Baptists, Methodists became liberal. Why?
NEW TESTAMENT CHURCHES
What were the NT churches like?
What did the early NT churches do? What did the apostles do?
Some call them the ‘primitive church’ – they weren’t primitive.
They were amazingly effective, and Paul tells us to copy the way he founded them, organised them.
That’s what the early churches did.
“And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord...so that ye were ensamples [mimics] to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Thess 1.6-7).
“Be ye followers [mimics] of me” (1 Cor 4.16, 11.1).
THE PATTERN CHURCH
The pattern church is crucial – copying Paul and the early churches. We cannot improve on that!
The early churches were persecuted, downtrodden, but supremely successful.
“Do as I do. Copy me.” Churches are to be “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2.20).
In other words, the New Testament contains a manual for our churches – no human ideas are to be added. Mimic Paul.
NT church government is simple. But things have become complicated and confused since.
ANGLICAN CHURCH
Anglicans do not believe in the pattern church. They were ‘primitive’ times.
The 39 articles speak only of “the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation”.
They say Scripture doesn’t lay down what we should do for other things like church matters.
‘Do what you think is best provided it isn’t forbidden by the Bible.’
As a result much in Anglicanism is of human invention – altars, vestments, rituals, baptismal regeneration, etc.
A very large organisation of churches – UK and worldwide.
Governed by bishops, archbishops, archdeacons, etc
Supreme head is the king or queen. Didn’t happen until Constantine in the 4th century.
Anglican church has historically swung between Protestant and Catholic depending on the monarch.
The Reformation made huge strides, but didn’t reform hierarchical government of the RCs.
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
Similarly a large organisation of churches with a hierarchical government.
Groups of local churches are governed by a higher assembly of elders known as the presbytery;
Presbyteries can be grouped into a synod; synods nationwide often join together in a general assembly.
Eg Dutch Reformed, Church of Scotland.
WHAT WERE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCHES LIKE?
(1) LOCAL – INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS
“Ecclesia” (church) means a called-out assembly – a congregation.
Paul wrote to “the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1.2), plural, not the 'Church of Galatia'.
John wrote to “the seven churches which are in Asia” (Rev 1.4).
“Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9.31).
“Church” in the NT never means a national church group, a denomination.
There is no mention of any denomination in the NT – just individual churches. No church of Galatia, Greece, Italy.
(2) REGENERATE MEMBERSHIP
“Ecclesia” – a group of people converted, called out of the world by God
One way the elders must rule is to attempt to admit only the converted into membership.
“Paul…to all the saints [Christians] which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons…”
Presbyterians admit children of believers into church membership. Many unconverted, and the churches speedily decay.
(3) SELF-GOVERNING
Then who were the bishops mentioned in the NT?
It is obvious that a “bishop” was a local church leader like a deacon: “Paul…to all the saints which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons…” (Phil 1.1). That’s all.
The term is used interchangeably with “elder” in the NT.
Confusion comes from the KJV which didn’t translate Gk “episkopos”, which means “one who oversees or inspects”.
So the pattern to follow is simply: self-governing churches, each with its own elders and deacons to oversee the work.
(4) GOVERNMENT BY CONSENT
They ordained “elders in every church” (Acts 20.14) and also chose their own deacons.
Paul left instructions for how to appoint them both in future.
“Look ye out among you seven men…and the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose…” (Acts 6.1-7).
Then the deacons and elders served, led and ruled. The multitude chose, and then the leaders ruled.
The Tabernacle elders/deacons have all been elected by the members (typically 95% in favour) to serve and lead.
Once appointed they oversee the work, and take many day-to-day decisions.
CONCLUSION
All NT churches were congregations of “saints” or believers, had their own government of their choosing.
There were no councils of bishops or elders ruling over many churches.
The Baptist Union today appoints the pastors to its Baptist churches.
In 1970, the Tabernacle left the (liberal) Baptist Union
Any denomination is an easy target for Satan. Once infected, the churches will be.
Any central Bible college will be an easy target, and infect its trainee pastors.
Presbyterian church groups have often been short-lived by admitting unconverted children into membership.
By contrast numerous independent local churches are harder to bring down.
NO BIG ORGANISATIONS
Independent churches turned the world upside down in the days of the apostles.
Apparently weak, no funds. Eg. When the Tab left the BU.
The unregistered Baptists of the former Soviet Union.
THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
Were there no organisations at all above the local churches in the NT?
Reformed Presbyterians (eg Berkhof, Reymond) say synods and national assemblies should rule the churches.
“It is important to note that NT churches were…bound together by a common government” (Reymond).
Where is that in the NT?
Acts 15 is the primary text used by Presbyterians. They call this event the ‘council of Jerusalem’.
They say this was a council convened to settle a doctrinal dispute.
Reymond says this ‘council’ issued a letter to the churches in Syria and Cilicia to be treated “as church law by all these churches – clearly these congregations were not independent and autonomous.”
What we actually find is that Acts 15 is about one church complaining to another.
Antioch complaining to Jerusalem, and a situation needing to be put right.
15.1-2 The problem was the Judaizers “from Judea” teaching “except ye be circumcised…ye cannot be saved.”
Directly contrary to justification by faith alone!
They caused Paul many problems on his missionary journeys with their false teachings.
So Antioch, Paul’s church, sent Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, the church the Judaizers came from.
Paul and Barnabas didn't go to debate the doctrine, but to complain to the Judaizers’ home church.
There was nothing to debate doctrinally.
15.23 tells us that the Jerusalem church wrote a letter to the churches influenced by the Judaizers.
15.24 They put the record straight: “forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment...”
Jerusalem was embarrassed by the activities of these people. They hadn’t sent them.
So this is about a local church setting the record straight - not a Council over churches.
