What is Inerrancy?

The Doctrine of Inerrancy fundamentally addresses the reliability and truthfulness of the Scriptures. It has been called by some theologians “the most important of all doctrines,”¹ because every other doctrine that Christians hold, stands or falls on the reliability of the Biblical witness. If the Scriptures are not truthful in all their parts, then who decides which parts are true as they relate to such important doctrines as sin and salvation? How do we know that what we hold in our hands is the Inspired (God-breathed) word of God? The theological ramifications of an inaccurate Bible are incomprehensible. It would contradict God’s character quality of absolute truthfulness (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18), and call into question our Lord’s very testimony.

Any attempt to answer these questions means that some terms must be defined. The two words that are most often used as synonyms to describe Biblical authority are “inerrant” and “infallible.” While there is only a shade of difference between the two meanings, clarification seems necessary. As stated above “inerrant” emphasizes the truthfulness of Scripture, meaning that it is “wholly true,” while “infallible” emphasizes the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. The former means that the Bible is exempt from error, while the latter indicates that the Bible is incapable of error. What we are really addressing then is the issue of whether or not the Bible is truthful, hence trustworthy, in all that it conveys. In other words it makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice.

One very important point must be made as it relates to this doctrine. Claims of inerrancy are only made in regards to the original manuscripts. Since the originals have long-since disappeared, and what we hold in our hands is the product of a scribal copy, it is probably beyond our ability to prove this doctrine by examining and comparing biblical texts in some historical-critical way. We must attempt to prove this doctrine by examining how the Biblical writers and speakers viewed the Bible’s truthfulness. 

           

Internal Proof

    

Some disagreement exists today among scholars as to whether or not this doctrine is taught implicitly or explicitly. We feel that the Bible teaches inerrancy implicitly. The Bible attests to its own inspiration thereby requiring it to be inerrant because it is the very breath of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Since “all Scripture is inspired by God,” this must mean that it is equally inspired in all of its parts and that it is also infallible in what it intends to communicate. In other words, God does not make mistakes. The Bible also teaches its own truthfulness (Psalm 19:7-9; 119:43, 142, 160; John 17:17, 19; Colossians 1:5). It is important to understand that this does not simply mean that it contains truth in it but that it is truth itself.

In addition to these passages it is important to consider the Biblical criteria for prophetic revelation. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 provided Israel with the criteria for determining the validity and the veracity of the prophets and prophecies. An important factor in Israel’s acceptance of any book of the Bible as prophetic, hence revelatory, was that the message had to be verifiably truthful, if it were not the prophet was to be put to death. Not only did the prophecy have to be truthful and verifiable, but it also had to motivate the Israelites to a greater affection for God. The Jews had no doubt that the Old Testament scroll which they possessed was the very Word of God because it came through God’s ordained spokesmen, men who were attested to by the signs and wonders they performed.

Likewise, the New Testament writers believed their writings to be inspired “Scripture” as well (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Apostle Peter viewed Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in the same sense that he viewed the Old Testament Texts, thus he saw them as authoritative in matters of faith and practice, instructing other believers to obey their instruction. The time frame in which Peter wrote his epistle suggests that Peter may have had at least six of Paul’s letters, and perhaps as many as ten. The authority with which the Apostles wrote was not a human authority, but it was a divine authority, the Spirit of Christ giving the commands of Christ to His people. We see this very clearly in the early chapters of Acts as Christ’s ministry of teaching was transferred to the apostles (Acts 1:1-2; 2:42).

In light of this truth, there are several places in the New Testament which commend its own public reading alongside the authoritative collection of Old Testament Scripture (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; Revelation 1:3).

    

Our Lord’s View of the Scriptures

We can be assured of Christ’s belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, hence their authority, based upon two of His own statements in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ confirmed the veracity and authority of the Old Testament Law and the Prophets, when he said that not a single “letter or stroke” would pass away from it until it had all been accomplished. Additionally in John 10:34-35, He confirmed that the Scripture “cannot be broken.” He believed in the truthfulness of Scripture down to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew, yod; Greek, iota). In fact, He also said that not even the smallest “horn” or “tittle” of a letter would pass away before it had all been accomplished.

It is important to note, that our Lord believed in the veracity and authority of the Scriptures which he possessed, which would have been scribal copies of the original manuscripts. To say it another way, Christ had every confidence in the preservation of the text which he held in His hands, and complete trust that it was the Word of God. Many have attempted to debunk this thinking with speculations of accommodation theories. They suppose that Christ was condescending to the Jews acceptance of something that was inaccurate and “accommodating” their error. Others have, heretically, gone so far as to say that our Lord was ignorant of the fact that the Scriptures were errant. The problem with both of these positions is that they call into question the very character of Christ who was not only truthful in all of His dealings, but was the sinless Son of God.

Furthermore, Christ indicated that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the Apostles His words after His glorification and ascension (John 14:26). Thus, what the apostles wrote were things which Christ had taught them which they had been illumined to understand.

Do I Have an Accurate Copy?

The accuracy of the Bible as a whole has been contested by many over the centuries, yet “the Word of the Lord stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24). Despite the attempts by human sciences and philosophies to discredit the Word of God, it has endured any and all challenges.

In order to answer the question of biblical accuracy one must evaluate the availability and reliability of ancient manuscripts of the biblical text. While we may not have the original writings in our possession, we do have reliable copies which validate the accuracy of the transmission through the centuries. One challenge in this arena is the durability of the ancient documents. Because of the climate and the materials used to make the scrolls, many of the documents have been lost to the ravages of time. Despite this obstacle a significant number of biblical manuscripts have survived and remain for us to examine.

These ancient manuscripts, when compared to other ancient manuscripts from the same period of history, provide great confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament. For example, Homer’s Illiad has some 643 ancient manuscripts to support its accurate transmission. By all accounts the current version is considered to be very accurate when compared to the ancient copies. By way of comparison, there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament, and an additional 19,000 written in Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic. This reflects the Empire-wide use of the New Testament writings in the early centuries of the church. With the addition of these manuscripts, it places the total manuscript evidence supporting the New Testament at approximately 24,000.³ This simple fact provides tremendous assurance that the New Testament is indeed accurate. There are complete manuscripts of the New Testament dating from A.D. 350, and partial manuscripts dating within a century of the original writings. One important example of this is the John Rylands Papyri which contains a fragment of the Gospel of John.⁴ Scholars date this fragment to approximately 29 years from the original writing of the book, within the first half of the 2^nd century. The fact is that no other ancient document can compare with this support.

In addition, one often overlooked fact is the view held by the early church fathers regarding the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament which they possessed. In fact, it is possible to nearly reproduce the entire New Testament using Biblical quotes from their writings. These writings themselves date back to the second century and even into the late first century, perhaps in some instances even overlapping with the ministry of the apostle John. It is plain to see that they were closer to the original writings than we are and found them to be authoritative and accurate. During the years in which the church was being persecuted at the hands of Rome, many martyrs gave their lives to protect the manuscripts which they had in their possession. Some have tried to insist that the Bible was altered around the time of Constantine in the 4^th century. However, comparing these early quotations from the church fathers with the text we possess today invalidates any such accusation.

The Old Testament was preserved with even more remarkable accuracy. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the caves of Qumran in 1947, which have been dated somewhere between 150 B.C and 68 A.D., are virtually identical with our current version of the Old Testament. For instance, a comparison of Isaiah 53 with our current version showed that of the 166 words in the passage, only 17 letters were different. The difference can be accounted for as scribal spelling errors, style differences, and word choice, none of which altered the meaning of the passage in any significant way. This is an important finding considering that liberal scholars have accused the early church of changing the text of Isaiah 53 to comport with their beliefs about Christ.

So what we have seen is that the Hebrew Old Testament was considered to be the accurate and authoritative Word of God by the Jews, by Jesus Himself, and by His apostles. The New Testament was recognized as having been written with the same authority as the Old Testament and even testifies to its own authority. The earliest of church fathers, and even the later ones, believed in and extensively quoted the New Testament in their writings, believing them to be the inspired Word of God, and Church history bears witness to the fact that up until the time of The Enlightenment most considered the Scriptures to be authoritative, infallible, and inerrant.  

Living in the backwash of modernism and liberal scholarship, we have seen the devastating effects of the abandonment of the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Higher Critical methodologies have subjected the Scriptures to every form of ungodly scrutiny, which at their core are motivated by nothing more than unbelief in the possibility of the supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures. Because of this fact, Liberal scholars subject the Biblical texts to human reason and flawed speculation, thereby placing man and his wisdom above the objective truth of God.

We believe that our Bibles today, having been derived from error-free originals coupled with careful textual criticism, are near-perfect copies. This does not mean that our Bible is free of mistakes, it means that if it does contain mistakes (and it does), then they are the “mistakes of men,”² and not mistakes in the original manuscripts. At times there may be difficulties to deal with in a particular reading of a text, but upon closer examination there are always plausible solutions to any given problem.

Having said all this we can rest in the confidence of knowing that the Bibles which we possess are, in fact, the very Words of God. Importantly, the Bible does not just contain the Word of God, but it is the Word of God, equally inspired in all of its parts, and inerrant in what it communicates. It is timeless truth because its authorship was superintended by our eternal, unchanging God.

    

“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”

            The Evangelical Theology Society

END NOTES:

1.) Lightner, Robert P. A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1978, p. 3

2.) Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994, p. 97.

3.) Geisler, Norman & Peter Bocchino. Unshakeable Foundations. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2001, p. 256.

4.) Mezger, Bruce M. & Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament, 4^th Ed. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2005, p. 55-56.

The Vineyard Movement

What is the Vineyard Movement?

     The Vineyard Movement is an association of charismatic churches whose most notable figure was John Wimber, one of its founding members. In 1976 Wimber began to pastor Calvary Chapel of Yorba Linda, CA. Then around 1983, because of differences with Calvary Chapel leaders over issues related to the charismatic gifts, such as tongues, healings, and prophecy, some 30 pastors including Wimber, broke away from Calvary Chapel. Wimber renamed his church the Vineyard Christian Fellowship of Anaheim, following an associational union with a small number of other churches called “Vineyards” led by a man named Ken Gulliksen. From that time on Wimber became the main spokesman for the movement.

     From 1982 through 1985, Wimber also served as an adjunct faculty member at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. He along with C. Peter Wagner, a renowned church growth expert and professor of Fuller’s School of World Mission, co-authored the Fuller Seminary course MC510 – Signs, Wonders and Church Growth, which soon became the most popular class at the seminary. Wagner’s interest in signs and wonders grew out of his observation that church growth was most rapid among the Pentecostal and charismatic churches, especially in the Third World.

     Wimber also became the founder and director of the Association of Vineyard Churches (AVC), which boasts approximately 600 churches in the United States, and 250 more in other countries. One of the more notable of these is the Toronto Airport Vineyard which was later disfellowshipped from the AVC in 1994 for aberrancies such as “holy laughter” and the “golden sword prophecy.”

     Wimber died on November 17, 1997 from a massive brain hemorrhage however the movement continues to gain force. Recently other figures have come to prominence within the movement such as former Dallas Seminary professor, Jack Deere. His book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit is probably the best known defense of the Vineyard’s position to date and has undoubtedly drawn many into the movement.

What are its Teachings and Practices?

     The Vineyard Movement, because of the diversity among its various churches, is known by several different aliases. The first of these is “Power Evangelism” because the followers use supposed displays of the power of the Holy Spirit to win converts. Because of this “power” its members are referred to as “empowered evangelists.” The movement is also referred to as the “Signs and Wonders Movement” due to its emphasis on miracles as well as its ties to the Fuller Seminary course taught by Wagner and Wimber. Finally, the name “Third Wave,” coined by C. Peter Wagner, is a popular name for this group due to what he views to be three waves of the Holy Spirit’s activity within the last century. He sees the first wave of the Holy Spirit as the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles which took place in 1906. The secon of these waves was the charismatic movement of the 1960's, leaving the supposed rise of signs and wonders in the 1980's within The Vineyard Movement to be the "third wave."   

     As part of the “Third Wave” the Vineyard Movement emphasizes miracles, healings, casting out demons, and prophetic utterances as the things that will cause people to be won to Christ and discipled. This thought was predicated on Wimber’s belief that the gospel was ineffective without the accompaniment of signs and wonders. [1] Therefore, “signs and wonders” are employed with certain church growth methodologies to get the desired results, namely converts. These "Third Wavers" are taught that by performing “signs and wonders” they are reliving the days of the apostles.”

     Personal experience rather than Scripture seems to be what drives the movements worship. Congregants are told not to allow their minds to quench the Spirit, but to be open to allowing the Spirit to speak directly to their hearts. Consequently, observers of the services have witnessed congregants barking like dogs as well as making other animal noises such as roaring lions, weeping and dancing uncontrollably, shaking, jumping up and down (pogoing), and falling on the floor in group convulsions. In other words, chaos is normative in their services.

     In addition to this fundamental flaw, Vineyard’s theology is errant in several other areas, the most serious of these being their teaching on the person and work of Christ. They teach that although Jesus was fully divine, He completely set aside His divinity during His time on earth and performed His miracles as a human through the power of the Holy Spirit. This leads them to believe that man can perform miracles, works, and have knowledge as Jesus did.

     While they may not admit it, Vineyard also teaches a form of Dominion theology.[2] They believe that Christ’s first coming restored dominion over every area of life. Therefore, it is the church’s obligation to redeem not only individuals, but every area of society in order to usher in God’s Kingdom. They suppose that certain characteristics of the Millennial Kingdom are in place today, therefore, believers should manifest all the power that Christ had while He was here.

     The Vineyard churches hold some positions which separate them from traditional Charismatics and Pentecostals. The first of these differences lies in their beliefs regarding the baptism of the Spirit. Unlike the other two groups which teach a Spirit baptism subsequent to conversion, the Vineyard believes that baptism of the Spirit takes place at conversion. However, they do believe that a person can be filled multiple times. As far as speaking in tongues, the Vineyard also differs somewhat from Charismatics and Pentecostals, in that it downplays the importance of speaking in tongues. Even though it is practiced by many within their ranks, it is neither expected, nor encouraged.

Observations and Conclusions

• Personal experience should never be held in higher esteem than the all-sufficient Word of God, lest one’s spiritual moorings be lost, and he be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). Our Lord Himself prayed that we would be sanctified in the truth of the word, not experiences (John 17:17). As the Apostle Peter also said, we have the prophetic word made more sure to which we do well to pay attention (2 Peter 1:19-20). 
• The Apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, addressed the issue of orderly worship in regards to the spiritual gifts (I Corinthians 14:22-33). One should pay close attention to the fact that God is a God of order, and worship is to be orderly, not chaotic.
• In the process of sanctification, believers are supposed to have their minds renewed, not bypassed in favor of emotions (Romans 12:2).
• Believers are told by Scripture to flee from evil and to resist Satan. Nowhere are we instructed to try to confront the powers of darkness (1 Peter 5:8).
• Until the late-1900s, Orthodox Christians believed that the miraculous sign gifts all ceased with either the closing of the canon or the death of the Apostles.
• Scripture declares that the gospel has the power to save in and of itself (Romans 1:16; I Cor. 1:18, 22-24, 2:1-5, 15:1-3).
• Jesus Christ was fully God and fully human (John 1:1-5; Hebrews 2:1-4; Colossians 1:15-17).

END NOTES:

1.) Wright, Eric E. Strange Fire? Assessing the Vineyard Movement and the Toronto Blessing. Darlington, CO.: Evangelical Press, 1996, 225-226.

2.) Seibel, Alexander. The Church Subtly Deceived? Plumstead, London: Chapter Two, 1996, 91-95.

    

Giving

A Blessing?

     The Apostle Paul’s final instruction to the elders in the church at Ephesus was for them to remember that “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), yet many in the church today do not feel that giving financially is a blessing at all. In fact, many view it as an obligation they must fulfill in order to remain on good terms with God or the church, completely missing out on the blessing that comes from participating in the spread of the gospel and the worship involved in giving.

     Many churches will not even teach or preach on the topic of giving for fear of offending their congregants. Others have removed the offense by placing boxes at the back door of their church so its members will not have to experience the discomfort of putting money into an offering plate as it passes by. Instead, congregants can nonchalantly drop their money in as they exit, with no one watching.

     Perhaps no single issue has discouraged and squelched a correct understanding of biblical giving as much as the confusion and apprehension associated with the concept of giving ten percent, otherwise known as “tithing.” Are we required to give ten percent of our income to the church? Is giving to be done in an obligatory way, or should it be done out of the overflow of our heart? Nearly everyone in the church would agree that giving should be done joyfully, but at the same time many cannot articulate how much they should give. It is my hope that this article will alleviate some of the confusion in this area of worship and restore the joy of giving to the church of God.

Historical Practices

     Many would argue that tithing began before the Mosaic Law was instituted however this is not necessarily the case. Fundamentally, it is vital to understand that giving to God took two different forms; the voluntary offering and the required or commanded offering. In the Book of Genesis the “tithing” of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Jacob were actually voluntary gifts. The first use of the word tithe is in Genesis 14:17-20 in the context of Abraham giving an offering to Melchizedek, who was both a king and a priest. As a priest of God most High, Abraham offered him a tenth, however this was not a tenth of all that he owned, nor a tenth of his annual income. He only gave him a tenth of the spoils he had obtained in his battle with Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him. In Genesis 28:20-22 Jacob’s tithe was actually an attempt to bribe God; a common occurrence in the local pagan customs of the day. In these cases “tithing” was clearly not mandatory, it was voluntary.

     With the institution of the Mosaic Law came the required tithe of 10 percent, which was essentially a form of taxation to support the needs of the Levites. When Israel was given the land, the Levites did not obtain a property inheritance. Instead they obtained God as their inheritance.

     Under the Mosaic taxation system the Israelites were required to pay essentially three different tithes. The first was 10 percent of their produce and livestock to provide the Levites with support for their physical needs (Numbers 18:25-30). The second tithe provided support for the national worship system of festivals and feasts (Deuteronomy 12:10-11, 17). Additionally there was a third tithe, or tax, which was given every third year to help support the aliens, widows, and orphans (Deuteronomy 14:28-29). This would ensure that there would be no poor among the nation. These three taxes combined, totaled approximately 23 percent of a person’s annual income, and were all obligatory, not voluntary. There were even other forms of tax on top of this which brought the total to an estimated 25 percent of a person’s annual income (Leviticus 19:9-10).

     Voluntary giving was done in addition to these tithes/taxes (Numbers 18:12; Proverbs 3:9-10). Voluntary giving was to be generous, given by faith, and from the very best of the resources that a person possessed. In voluntary giving God was concerned about the heart attitude of the giver (Exodus 35:21-22).

Helpful Perspective

     The requirements of giving in the New Testament era continue in the same pattern. There is still the mandate for voluntary giving as well as the requirement to pay taxes. Our Lord Jesus Himself instructed His followers to pay their required taxes to the ruling government of the day (Matthew 17:24-27), and we should do likewise (1 Peter 2:13). Tithing has always been a form of taxation and believers are to pay their taxes to their local and federal government agencies as an act of submission.

     There are only two instances of the word tithe appearing in the Gospels (Matthew 23:23; Luke 18:12). In both of these cases it is used in reference to taxation or required giving. The only other place the word appears is in the Book of Hebrews in reference to Old Testament figures paying tithes (Hebrews 7:8-9). There are no commands in the New Testament which require believers of today to give 10 percent of their income to the church.  

     Believers have nonbinding examples of giving that they may emulate, however giving to the church should be a voluntary act springing from the overflow of a converted heart. In fact, giving is actually a spiritual gift for some in the body of Christ and should be pursued with liberality (Romans 12:8). Any amounts given are to be personally and prayerfully determined by the giver.

     The Bible indicates the following guidelines for giving:

·         Giving should be done by all (1 Corinthians 16:2).

·         Giving should be characterized by joy and a right heart attitude (2 Corinthians 9:6-7).

·         Giving should be generous and sacrificial (Mark 12:41-44; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35).

·         Giving should be done out of a concern for the poor and needy (Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Acts 11:29-30).

·         Giving should be planned for as a financial priority (1 Corinthians 16:1-4).

·         Giving should be done with liberality according to their gift (Romans 12:8)

     In conclusion, there really is no dollar amount or proportion that is correct when it comes to giving. Instead, in voluntary giving to the church, believers are free to give with joy as God prospers them. In doing so, they can enjoy His pleasure as they give with hearts of faith to the ongoing work of the ministry of the gospel, and to the needs of the saints.

Church Discipline

The Premise of Discipline

    

     The writer of the Book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that God disciplines His children on the basis of His own fatherly love for them (Hebrews 12:4-13). As the church wrestles with the important questions related to the discipline of its members it must consider the truth that love and discipline are inextricably linked together (Revelation 3:19). God disciplines His children because of His infinite love for them. When a believer is experiencing divine discipline it is because their heavenly Father is treating them as “sons.” It is the evidence of a true relationship with God.

     Historically, certain confessions of the church have posited three characteristics which identify a church as a true church. These characteristics include the preaching of pure doctrine, the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and the exercise of church discipline.¹ Unfortunately, the church at large has either given itself over to libertine doctrines or legalism, and in doing so, have either abandoned the third mark by foregoing church discipline altogether or they have gone completely overboard, disciplining their members unnecessarily. Disciplining for the wrong reasons has led one writer to charge, “The church is the only army that shoots its wounded.”²

     The process and purpose of discipline must necessarily be defined lest the church be torn apart in its dealings with the sins of its people. With the ever increasing problem of lawsuits and litigation it is incumbent upon the church to understand clearly what her role is in this area. Why should we discipline? What offenses should we discipline for? How far should we go in the process?

The Purpose of Discipline

    

          Both Jesus (Matthew 18:15-17) and the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 5:1-13) commanded the discipline of sinning members within the church, because foremost in their minds was the purity of the church of God which is the very bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27).

     In his writings, the great figure of the protestant reformation, John Calvin, referred to church discipline as the “sinews of the body of Christ,”³ without which the body would not hold together. In other words, without the chords of discipline holding the churches together, its cohesiveness and its purity could not be ensured. Ironically, the Reformed church of which Calvin was a part has difficulty enforcing this truth because one’s profession of faith is not part of being a member.

     Within the church, discipline is designed to restore to the community of believers one who has fallen into heresy, gross immorality, or a habitual pattern of sin in their life. The word “restore” in the Greek language contains the idea of “mending,” as one would do to a fishing net in order to return it to its functional use (Cf. Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19). Church discipline was never intended to drive a sinning saint away or to execute judgment on fallen saints. Instead, inherent within its purpose, is the idea of restoring such individuals to the body of Christ in a spirit of gentleness, through repentance and forgiveness, thereby mending the relationships that have been torn within the community of believers. The apostle Paul made this purpose clearly evident when he said to the churches of Galatia,

            “Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted” (Galatians 6:1).

     In this very letter Paul, through divine inspiration, included a list of sins which can be divided into sub-categories (Galatians 5:19-20). A summary may provide clarity in understanding which types of sins require intervention from individuals or the church. These include, but are not limited to, sexual sins (v. 19), false doctrine and worship (20a), sins of anger and related acts (20b), factiousness (20b-21a), and sins related to self-control (21a). These categories are not exhaustive as indicated by the phrase which follows, “and things like these” (21b).⁴

The Process of Discipline

     Our Lord left little ambiguity as to the process which He desired the church to follow in restoring a lost sheep to the fold (Matthew 18:12-18). The first step in the process of discipline should involve a private reproof of the offender from an individual (15a). If the offender continues in the sin then the second step should involve a private conference with two or three witnesses (16). This second step mirrors the Old Testament requirement for multiple witnesses for the conviction of a crime (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). At this point the sinning saint should recognize the seriousness of their offense. If, after this step, repentance is not demonstrated by the offender, then the third step requires that a public announcement be made to inform the church (17). The church body is then to pursue that individual, attempting to convince them to turn from their sin. The church in this context is best understood to mean the local assembly. Finally, if the offender even refuses to listen to the church, the next step is to treat them as a Gentile and a tax collector, placing them outside the circle of God’s people (17). This fourth step involves removal from the membership roster of the church, and discontinuation of fellowship and communion celebrations. Communication with the wayward sheep should only occur in attempts to call the individual to repentance. Ex-communication may seem harsh and severe on the surface however, the ultimate goal of the process is to bring about such a sense of loss in the sinning individual that they are brought to their senses and led to a desire to walk in fellowship again. The church’s leadership must pray earnestly for the wisdom to know how long to wait in between these four steps as there is no defined protocol. Adequate time should be allowed for repentance and change, knowing that the Lord Himself is slow to anger and patient, abounding in lovingkindess (Exodus 34:6; Numbers14:18). If at any point in the process the offender repents the Scripture says, “You have won him,” and the process should be discontinued (15b).

     In summary, the premise of church discipline is founded upon the eternal love of God for His children and His desire that they share in His holiness. The purpose for corrective discipline is the restoration of individuals who have strayed from following Christ and have fallen into such sins as those listed in Galatians 5:19-20. The ultimate goal in corrective discipline is always the restoration of the individual who is entangled in sin, both to God and the church, thereby mending the body of Christ. The process of discipline which the church should follow involves the four steps which our Lord Himself outlined in (Matthew 18:12-18).

     These are indeed sobering and serious matters and these waters should not be entered into lightly. However, for the purity of the church and the good of the sinning saint, if the situation calls for it, discipline should be administered without reservation.

  

END NOTES:

1.)      Laney, J. Carl, A Guide to Church Discipline, Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1985, 11.

2.)      Laney, J. Carl, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” BSac 143:572 (1986), 355-364.

3.)      Johnson, Stephen M. “The Sinews of the Body of Christ: Calvin’s Concept of Church Discipline,” WTJ 59:1 (Spring 1997), 87-100.

4.)      Kitchens, Ted G. “Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline,” BSac 148:590 (April 1991), 201-213