TESTS of
FELLOWSHIP
Areas of
Ecclesiological Separation Necessary to Maintain Church Purity
God
puts the administration of His pulpits in local churches under the direction of
the pastor of each local church. The
care and administration of what is preached from that holy desk is a grave responsibility that is beyond degree. Giving someone the right to stand behind that
holy desk and proclaim the Word of
God is a privilege that should never be given to anyone who has not been
carefully vetted about his beliefs and what he will preach. Everything a preacher teaches from a pulpit
is viewed as coming forth with the authority of God’s Word. Most of those in the pews will accept what is
proclaimed without any ability to insure that it is in alignment with what God
has said. Therefore, who I allow to
preach from the pulpit that God has given me to administrate must be someone I
believe will never lead a new believer astray.
This also becomes my test of fellowship with other pastors and other
local churches. As the pastor of my
local church, I am God’s appointed watchman
and guardian over the sheep of His
sheepfold. Other believers in a local
church are also responsible for the purity of truth from the pulpit ministry of
a local church as well as everything taught in all other aspects of the
ministry of that local church. However,
ultimately the responsibility falls upon the administration of the pastor. He is the “overseer.”
This
was the emphasis of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter twenty when he called the
pastors from Ephesus to hear his admonition regarding their responsibilities to
their flocks.
“24
But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so
that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received
of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And
now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom
of God, shall see my face no more. 26 Wherefore I take you to record
this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men {the admonition is
that they strive for the same testimony when they come to the end of their
lives}. 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the
counsel of God {Paul taught in-depth
doctrine by teaching all that the Word of god said, not just portions}. 28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves {they
would be held accountable for the same}, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with
his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall
grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also
of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away
disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the
space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears”
(Acts 2:24-31).
Clearly,
the responsibility for the tests of
fellowship by which any local church is governed must be administrated by
the “Holy Ghost” appointed overseer
of that local church. Therefore, the
definitiveness of the doctrinal criteria for the administration of fellowship
will be determined by the depth of a pastor’s understanding of God’s Word and
the depth of his understanding of the degree that any departure from God’s Word
affects the lives of believers under his administration.
However,
these tests of fellowship are being
defined by many outside of the local church.
Bible Colleges, Seminaries, and leaders of local church fellowships and
associations are telling us that these tests
of fellowship are too narrow. They
are telling us that these narrow tests of
fellowship are fractionalizing fundamentalism into groups so small they are
becoming ineffective in their cultural influence. Perhaps this last statement by itself tells
us why most of our historical tests of
fellowship are being abandoned – the quest for cultural relevancy. In this
quest for cultural relevancy,
evangelical Christianity is growing increasing like the world by degrees. We see varying degrees of this worldliness
directly proportionate to the abandonment of our historical tests of fellowship.
We have numerous Scriptural
examples of tests of fellowship
throughout the epistles of the New Testament.
If they were tests of fellowship
for early Christianity, they certainly should be maintained as God ordained test of fellowship today.
The Gospel
“6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of
Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that
which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said
before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you
than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9).
When
Paul speaks of the Gospel, he is referring to all that God does to save a
person from beginning to end. Paul
speaks of the Gospel that saves the soul, saves the believer’s life, and
ultimately even saves the believer’s body (I Thessalonians 5:23). This is the expanded Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul speaks of in Romans 1:16-17 and
explains in its fullest sense throughout the rest of his epistle to the
Romans. Although I Corinthians 15:1-11
gives us an abbreviation of the
Gospel, the epistle to the Romans is the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. To what degree then
can we allow someone to depart from this Gospel
of Jesus Christ and continue to have a working partnership with him in
ministry?
Obviously,
there must be a clear presentation of the objective facts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ before we can
continue in fellowship with another person or local church. There are two areas that are essential
regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ
before true fellowship can exist between believers or local churches.
1. There must be a clear understanding
of the objective facts of Gospel of Jesus
Christ and what those objective facts accomplish on behalf of the
sinner.
2. There must be a clear understanding
of what defines a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ involves numerous
details about the person of Jesus the Christ that are essential to His
accomplishing His work of redemption.
Not one of these details can be allowed to be corrupted if the purity of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be
maintained.
1. His immaculate conception and physical
incarnation in a human body
2. His life of perfect sinlessness
3. The detailed fulfillment of all
prophecies regarding His incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, and
glorification
4. The vicarious nature of His death,
burial, and resurrection.
5. The propitiation of God’s wrath for
the sins of the whole world
6. The impartation of God-kind righteousness (justification)
to the believing sinner
7. The complete victory over death by
His resurrection and glorification affording the believer the same surety in
the gift of salvation
Understanding these elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is essential to a
biblical faith response. Corruption of
any one of these seven details will corrupt the faith of anyone seeking to be
saved. It is a test of fellowship that the presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is continued with
patience and clarity until a person
thoroughly understands the details of the person and work of Jesus Christ. To allow the compromise of the presentation of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
anything other than patience and clarity until a sinner understands his
condemnation and his complete dependence upon what Christ did to save him is
complete irresponsibility manifesting a pragmatism that is of the grossest kind. Yet, this abuse is the foundation of the Church Growth movement.
“18 Hear ye therefore the
parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the
kingdom, and understandeth it
not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was
sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20
But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth
the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in
himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth
because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that
received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of
this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh
unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he
that heareth the word, and understandeth
it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an
hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:18-23).
There
are a number of false beliefs that immediately provide Red Flags to departure from these two essentials regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One such belief is that a person can lose his
salvation after he has been “born again.” It is ridiculous to think a person
could be un-“born again,” un-sealed with the Spirit, un-baptized from the “body
of Christ,” or un-indwelled with the Spirit. Yet, there are those that say this ought not
to be a test of fellowship.
The eternal security of the believer’s
salvation is an outcome of understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Show
me a person without eternal security of his salvation and I will show you a
person who has not understood the Gospel and who is still lost. Therefore, the doctrine of eternal security
is a test of fellowship.
Another problem is the failure to
teach repentance from “dead works” (Hebrews 6:1). We have many professing Christians who claim
a “born again” experience, but who have never repented of their trust in their
infant baptism or their sacramental view of salvation. They continue in varying degrees of co-redemption because of someone’s failure
to teach them the necessity of repentance from “dead works.” Failure to teach of the necessity of
repentance from “dead works” is a test of
fellowship. Christ’s teaching in the
Gospels, especially in His confrontation of the “scribes and Pharisees,” dealt more
with repentance of their trust in the works of the Law (Moralism and Ritualism)
than He did with repentance of sin. The
Apostle Paul gives the same emphasis is Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. Because of this gross failure, local churches
are filled with people converted to a religion
of Christianity, but who have never been “born again.”
There must also be a clear understanding of what defines a biblical
faith response to the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. The Bible uses five different verbs that
are included in a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We
cannot deny that God has inspired these five different verbs defining His
expected responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To deny that they are in the Word of God
would be ridiculous. Therefore, the
corrupters of the doctrine of salvation seek to simply reduce them to all
having the same mean – believe. The fact
is that things that are different are not the same. These five verbs do not have the same
meanings. These five verbs define five
different actions that define a faith response to the Gospel. Removing any one of these five verbs is a
form of reducing and corrupting a biblical faith response to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is also an order to these five
responses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ
that form the hand of faith that
receives God’s gift of salvation.
1. Repentance of sin (not sins) and “dead
works” (repenting of any trust in Moralism or Ritualism to help in one’s salvation)
2.
Understanding and believing the
details of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
3. Public confession that Jesus Christ is Jehovah
(His Deity)
4. Calling on the Name of Jesus to saved
5. Receiving the Person of Jesus as Lord
and Savior (This is receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is not consecration. Making consecration a required response to
the Gospel is Lordship Salvation.)
There
are certain anomalies that also must become tests
of fellowship. One of these anomalies
is Augustinian Theology. Augustinian Theology
corrupts almost every category of Theology in radical ways, especially the
doctrine of salvation. Calvinism is merely
a reformation (in most cases, merely
a restatement) of Augustinian Theology. In both Augustinianism and Calvinism, the
doctrines of Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Pneumatology are
greatly corrupted. In both cases, the
teaching that God has chosen certain individuals to be saved, while all others
are without hope, is a false doctrine that is suppositional and lacks any
credible biblical exegesis. Election is
never, not even once, used in this way in the Bible! Therefore, certain doctrinal anomalies coming
from Calvinism must be tests of
fellowship.
Monergism
Monergism is the belief that man is so
totally depraved (total depravity, or
total inability) that he cannot even believe. Faith must be given to him in regeneration
before he can believe. Therefore, Monergists
believe regeneration precedes salvation.
Monergism is the belief that God chooses only certain people (unconditional election) to be saved,
regenerates only those Christ died for (limited
atonement) at some undetermined point in their lives, giving them the gifts of faith and repentance, and brings
them to understand the Gospel, whereby they must
ultimately believe (irresistible grace). Then God
will cause those He has elected,
regenerated, and saved to persevere in their faith (perseverance of the saints).
All
of these premises and suppositions of Calvinism are outcomes of a false view of
the doctrine of election. However, Augustinian
Theology corrupts numerous other areas of Theology as well. Each corruption becomes a test of fellowship.
The contextual
continuity of the epistle to the Romans demands that we see Romans chapter ten
in the light of three dominant truths
already established from the earlier chapters:
1. God is universally propitiated for the sins of
the whole world from the fall to the
end of time.
2. This
translates into universal provision
of the free gift of salvation to
“whoever shall call upon the name of the LORD.”
Salvation is available to “whosoever.”
3. Although
both of these two statements are true and should be universally applied, and
although Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection is sufficient for the
salvation of all, it is beneficial only to those who respond in faith according
to God’s inspired directives of repentance from sin and “dead works,” believing
the objective facts of the finished work of redemption as detailed in the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, confessing Jesus as Jehovah, calling on the name of
Jesus as Jehovah to save, and receiving Jesus Christ in the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit of God.
No one
would have a problem following the contextual
continuity of the epistle to the Romans and the categorical theological
establishment of the three statements above if it were not for the pre-suppositions
of Calvinism and Reformed Theology that are imposed upon the epistle. For them, the word “whosoever” means whosoever of the elect. For them, when God says it is His will that all come to repentance and that all are saved, it means all who are elect. For them, God’s love for the world refers to two different kinds of
grace.
1.
Common Grace (or Prevenient Grace) comes to
all people. This is basically defined as
God temporally withholding his judgment upon sinners and the reprobate (those not chosen by God to be
saved) allowing them the common blessings
of life (“the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike”).
2.
Irresistible Grace (Efficacious Grace) comes only to the elect (those chosen by God to be
saved). God regenerates the elect at
some unknown time before their salvation giving them the gift of repentance and faith in the person of the Holy Spirit,
whereby the elect sinner will not be
able to resist God’s grace and will,
at some unknown time in his life, place faith in Jesus Christ. Because of this special working of God in the lives of the elect person, he will ultimately persevere in living the Christian life proving he is one of God’s elect (this is not the same as the
doctrine of eternal security).
These
two distortions of God’s grace flow from three other theological pre-suppositional aberrations of
Calvinism and Reformed Theology imposed upon the interpretation of the whole
Word of God.
1. Monothetism:
the monothetic definition of God’s
sovereignty (whatever God wills to be done must ALWAYS be done or realized).
2. Determinism
(God is the ultimate cause of all things thereby controlling all events in human history and in the future.) God can foretell
the future, not just because of foreknowledge,
but because God controls and causes all events in history.
3. Monergism
(being saved is not based upon the will of an individual making a faith
decision to trust Christ, but upon the sovereign
will of God operating within (not
upon) the elect prior to their
salvation by regenerating them before salvation in order for them to
believe.
In
Calvin’s preface to his Institutes of
the Christian Religion (second edition of 1539) we have a defining
statement that really tells us why the exegesis
of all Calvinists is perverted, transforming it into eisegesis. This happens
because all Calvinists look at the Scriptures through the theological pre-suppositions of Calvin. This is clearly stated to be Calvin’s purpose
in writing his Institutes of the
Christian Religion.
“I
have endeavored to give such a summary of religion in all its parts (in the Systematic Theology laid out in his
Institutes of the Christian Religion), and have digested it into such an
order as may make it not difficult for anyone who is rightly acquainted with it
(the Systematic Theology laid out in his
Institutes of the Christian Religion) to ascertain both what he ought
principally to look for in Scripture, and also to what head he ought to
refer whatever is contained in it.
Having thus, as it were, paved the way, I shall not feel it necessary in
any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish to enter into long
discussions of doctrine or dilate on commonplaces, and will therefore always
compress them. In this way the pious
reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished
with a knowledge of the present work (the
Systematic Theology laid out in his Institutes of the Christian Religion)
as an essential prerequisite.[1]” (Underlining and parenthesized areas added.)
What
does this statement of Calvin tell us?
It is a definitive reality behind most of what defines the Hermeneutics of Calvinism and Reformed
Theology. Calvin made his Institutes of the Christian Religion “an
essential prerequisite” to being able to properly exegete the Scriptures
accurately. In doing so, he also
negatively transformed the biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics) of every
Calvinist (anyone believing the theology of his Institutes of the Christian Religion) into eisegesis.
The Local Church and Congregational Government
Augustinian
Theology and Calvinism greatly corrupt the doctrine of the church. They corrupt the evangelical purpose of the church
by their Replacement Theology and their Theonomic world view. They corrupt the evangelical purpose of the church
by their false doctrine of Kingdom
building. Therefore, they purport a universal view of the church as opposed
to a local view of the church. These false doctrines are not simply acceptable
variations of views of the church. They
corrupt the doctrine of the church at almost every level. Covenant Theology is not another acceptable
alternative to Dispensational Theology.
Dispensationalism is NOT something new to the last century of
Christianity. Dispensationalism is the outcome of solid biblical exegesis. Covenant Theology is the outcome of biblical eisegesis (pre-suppositionalism, to
which most Covenant Theologians admit).
Augustine’s
Amillennialism in his Theonomic worldview was hardly reformed at all by
Calvin. Calvin simply changed the one-world
church from Roman to Reformed. Walvoord
speaks of Augustine’s view of the church:
“Augustine
(354-430) also believed in the coming of Christ after the millennium and could
for this reason be classified as postmillennial. His view of the millennium, however, was so
removed from a literal kingdom on earth that it is virtually a denial of it,
and he is better considered as an amillennialist. . . Their (Roman Catholicism’s) very structure of
church government and their program of works depend on use of Old Testament
promises about the coming kingdom as fulfilled in the church.”[2]
Calvin’s
reformed view of the church continued Augustine’s heretical hierarchal view of
church government and his replacement of Israel by the church. This continued to generate varying degrees of
the Big Church view of Christianity
rather than the local church view of Christianity. Although there can be degrees of this that
can be tolerated, the degrees are borderline as tests of fellowship. For
instance, one’s view of the church will greatly impact his practical
application of Ephesians 4:3 – “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace.” If your view of the
church is a Big Church view, you will
apply this imperative to a responsibility between all churches, regardless of
their beliefs. If your view of the
church is a local church view, you will apply this imperative to a
responsibility between individuals within a local church and then to your local
church’s cooperation with other local churches of like precious faith.
The End Times
The
corruption of the doctrine of the church (Ecclesiology) also corrupts the
doctrine of the end times (Eschatology).
The Apostle Paul considered the doctrine of Christ’s second coming critical
enough to correct aberrations that arose due to false teaching. This is certainly true of the rapture of the
church. The pre-tribulation view of the
rapture of the church and a pre-millennial view of the second coming of Christ
to the Earth to establish His Kingdom are tests
of fellowship.
“13
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which
are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep
in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the
word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of
the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the
Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words” (I
Thessalonians 4:13-18).
The
historical context that prompted these inspired words from God was the false
teaching that the rapture had already happened (II Thessalonians 2:1-2) and that
believers were now living in the terrible days of God’s wrath upon planet
earth. God intended these words to be
taught to all believers so that they might “comfort one another with these
words.” To allow the false doctrine of
mid-tribulation or post-tribulation rapture of the church to be taught is a
complete corruption of the purpose of I Thessalonians 4:13-17 – “comfort one
another with these words.” What comfort is there in a mid-tribulation
rapture of the church when one-third of the world’s population will be destroyed
by the first six seal judgments of Revelation chapter six? Certainly there is no comfort in thinking we must endure all the judgment of the nations
in a post-tribulation view of the rapture.
In fact, these perversions of the rapture of the church are discomforting. These perversions of the rapture of the
church are tests of fellowship. They cannot be tolerated.
Sanctification by Faith
“1
O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the
truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified
among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit
by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so
foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4
Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among
you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith”
(Galatians 3:1-5)?
There
are a number of tests of fellowship
when it comes to the doctrine of sanctification. For anyone to think that sanctification,
either positional or practical, can come by human effort apart from divine
enabling is absolute foolishness. We can
no more sanctify ourselves than we can save ourselves. Secondly, there is an aberration of the doctrine
of sanctification that teaches that the believer’s service, or “work of
ministry,” is acceptable to God solely on the basis of our positional
sanctification. In this perverted view
of sanctification, meaning personal holiness and separation, practical
sanctification has nothing to do with God using the believer to His glory. This perverted view of sanctification removes
all of God’s conditions upon His
blessings such as answers to prayer, producing the “fruit of the Spirit,” and
being used of God to bring lost souls to Christ and make disciples of Christ of
them.
Practical
sanctification is an operation of the Holy Spirit of God along with the
believer (“fellowship”) who has yielded (Romans 6:11-13) his will to God’s
will. Then, the Spirit of God fills that believer, practically
sanctifies him, and empowers him to live the Christ-life. He thereby,
produces the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22-24) as the overflow of that
filling, and thereby “abides” in Christ (John 15:5) bringing “forth much fruit.” All ministry that is not done in “fellowship” with the Spirit, becomes a work of the
flesh that is nothing more than “wood, hay, and stubble” (I Corinthians 3:12). This will become a pile of ashes at the
believer’s feet at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Knowing that all of this is true, this certainly must be a test of fellowship. How could any pastor allow the sheep of his
fold to be misled in any way regarding this wondrous doctrine of God’s enabling
grace when so much is at stake?
[1]
Shank, Robert. Elect in the Son: A Study of the Doctrine of Election. (Minneapolis,
MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1970), pages 227-228.
[2]
Walvoord, John. The Millennial Kingdom.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), pages 8 and 10.
