The Five Solas: January 2015 Teaching Series

Handouts and Study Notes

Should Local Churches Have Membership Criteria?

When the elders at RBC decided to implement a formal Membership Covenant, we knew some people would question or challenge its validity. After all, the New Testament never speaks of a formal membership covenant. Where in the Bible did anyone have to sign a pledge or affirm certain vows to be part of a local congregation?

If we believe formal membership in a local church is biblical, then it is necessary for some criteria to be established for fellowship. When Saul tried to “join” the saints in Jerusalem, they rejected him because “they did not believe he was a disciple” (Acts 9:26-27). Being a disciple of Jesus was a prerequisite for identifying with the saints in Jerusalem. When Paul instructed the Corinthians to excommunicate an immoral member of their fellowship (1Cor. 5), he did so because participation in the church presupposes a certain standard of conduct which that man no longer met (cf. vv.11-13; 2Thess. 3:6, 10-15). Jesus said the impenitent should be put out of the church (Matt. 18:15-17). Paul warned that false teachers and the divisive were to be excommunicated also (Rom. 16:17-18; Tit. 3:10-11). Such statements are incomprehensible unless we believe there is some sense in which a formal relationship (membership) in the local church exists and that relationship is dependent on specific qualifications of faith and life.

Elders must decide how a person’s qualification for fellowship in the local church is to be evaluated. There is a limit to how much can be investigated or known. But is it appropriate to ask a candidate for membership questions about his life and faith? Not only is it appropriate, it is necessary! Should we admit a person as a member who likes our music but does not believe in Jesus? Should we receive into fellowship someone who professes to believe in Jesus but lives in open, unrepentant immorality? Now consider our Membership Covenant. What does it ask that anyone can reasonably object to? What does it require that is not explicitly required of every Christian in the New Testament? In a perfect world no such questions would be necessary, but we live in a fallen world and one where Christianity is regularly redefined to include impenitent, disobedient unbelief. The Membership Covenant says this church takes our faith seriously.

Every congregation that recognizes those in spiritual fellowship (i.e. those attendees who are presumed to be in Christ and regenerate), whether such recognition is explicit or implicit, formal or informal, has membership criteria. The church is not charged with disciplining outsiders, only insiders (1Cor. 5:9-13). Unless a church is in the habit of calling on anyone and everyone who walks through their doors to lead the congregation in prayer, teach a Bible class, or preach the word, they have criteria by which they assess those in their midst. Every church must examine the Scriptures and determine who are accepted as brothers and sisters in Christ and who they must reject.

RBC’s Membership Covenant makes explicit what virtually every church practices explicitly or implicitly (and reflects what the majority of churches have practiced historically). In fact, while the New Testament does not specify the way in which current or prospective members are assessed, it does require such assessment and specifies the criteria by which that assessment is to be made. Thus the elders at RBC have deemed it expedient to have members affirm and sign a formal commitment as members. In doing so, we recognize the authority of the Scriptures in determining the necessary faith and life of the church’s membership.-JME

 Reformation Bible Church Covenants

RBC Membership Covenant: Submission to the Elders

Reformation Bible Church Covenants

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

Do you submit yourselves to the leadership and discipline of this church, agree to its General Statement of Faith, and promise to work for its purity and peace? (Question 5 in RBC Membership Covenant)

The fifth question in our Membership Covenant at RBC calls for a commitment to the “leadership and discipline” of the church. This means we expect those formally received as members to submit to the elders and to support the instruction, correction, and discipline they provide to our congregation. This commitment is based on Hebrews 13:17 which commands us to obey church leaders who watch over our souls. The elders have local, specific authority, and it is to be respected by the congregation they serve (Acts 20:28; 1Pet. 5:1-5).

It is important to understand what submission to the leadership does not mean. It does not mean following elders into error. It does not mean surrendering intellectual or personal freedom to anyone. It does not mean agreeing with everything the elders believe, teach, or do. We can disagree with leaders and still respect them.

What submission to the leaders means is respecting their authority and submitting to their lawful leadership in the Lord as those appointed to oversee the church. The Church is not a democracy. Christ-like submission is expected in the brotherhood (Eph. 5:21) and family (Eph. 5:22-24). We even are to submit to our government, to respect and pray for our rulers, though we will not always (or often?) approve of their actions (Rom. 13:1-7; 1Tim. 2:1-2).

No one is required to affirm the membership covenant, just as no one is required to become a formal member of this church. But should we ever wish to join a church where we do not trust the elders to guide us? And should a church ever receive members who refuse to promise to submit to its leaders? The answer seems obvious. -JME

The Exclusivity of Christ

There are three major perspectives among religious people in assessing the salvific efficacy of world religions. Pluralism is the view that all (or most) religions are equally valid, all roads lead to heaven, and what matters is religious commitment and (usually) basic morality. So Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and Christians will all be saved because no one religion has all the truth or the only truth. Inclusivism is the view that one religion does express absolute truth but that adherents of other faiths will be saved, not by their devotion to their faith, but by the salvation offered by the true faith as ministered through their devotion to another religion. According to “Christian” inclusivism, Jesus is the only Savior, but His blood will cover and save those who sincerely follow other faiths. Exclusivism is the view there is only one true religion and one way of salvation. Anyone outside of that path, sincere or not, will be lost.

The Bible makes plain that true religion as revealed by the Creator is exclusivist in its orientation and affect. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). The Lord demands exclusive allegiance from His people (Exod. 20:1-6). Other religions are regarded as vain and damnable (Psa. 115:1-8; Isa. 44:9-20). The gods of the nations cannot save (Isa. 46:6-7; Acts 14:11-18). Saul of Tarsus was not saved in his devotion to Judaism nor Cornelius by his piety (Acts 9-10). Both had to hear the gospel and believe to be saved. God calls all men in every nation to repent and turn from their false ways and false religions because He will one day judge the world by His Son (Acts 17:30-31).

Some people believe it is narrow-minded and unkind to say people can only be saved by believing in Jesus. But is it narrow-minded or unkind to tell a person he has cancer or to warn her to flee from a burning house? How shall they believe unless they hear the message of salvation (Rom. 10:13-17)? We should not preach the gospel in an unkind way (Eph. 4:15), but it is hateful and harmful not to warn people that Christ is the only Savior and faith in Him is the only way to salvation. Unless they repent, they will perish (Luke 13:3). Love them enough to point them to the only Savior, Jesus Christ. -JME

Why is Justification So Important?

Many modern evangelicals make no distinction between the various aspects of salvation revealed and expounded in Scripture. Regeneration, justification, sanctification (both positional and progressive), and glorification are all summarized in modern Churchianity by the imprecise but not untrue declaration, “I got saved.” But there is a difference between these elements, though they are all part of the experience of salvation in Christ.

Justification is the legal declaration of a believer’s pardon by God. God justifies sinners when he declares their sins to be forgiven on the basis of the sacrifice of His Son (Rom. 3:21-26). Justification is possible because of the Great Exchange in which Christ became sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2Cor. 5:21). Justification is accomplished on the basis of God’s grace and received through faith alone (Rom. 3:28; 4:1-8). There is no work of obedience or personal merit man can contribute to his justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works, or we are not justified at all (Eph. 2:8-9).

John Calvin wrote, “The doctrine of Justification…is the principal ground on which religion must be supported.” (Institutes III.11.1) The Reformers understood the church could never be right if it got the doctrine of justification wrong. This is because everything in our faith and ministry flows from our understanding of justification. Do we obey in order to be saved, or because we are saved? Can man innovate in the design and function of God’s Church, or must we accept the design and function assigned by our Savior? Must there be complete uniformity of thought even on secondary issues, or can liberty of conscience be allowed to fellow believers? These are questions the doctrine of justification helps us answer correctly.

There continues to be much confusion and abuse of the doctrine of justification by faith alone today. There are those who use it as a license for sin (cf. Rom. 6:1, 15), and others who deny it because they assume it must inevitably lead to such. But the doctrine remains a crucial truth for Christ’s Church. It is a doctrine we must carefully study in order to consistently and biblically affirm. -JME