You see, the verdict is in. And now I perform on the basis of the verdict. Because [God] loves me and He accepts me, I do not have to do things just to build up my resume. I do not have to do things to make me look good. I can do things for the joy of doing them. I can help people to help people - not so I can feel better about myself, not so I can fill up the emptiness.
Tim Keller

A Root Of Apostasy

A Root Of Apostasy

A ROOT OF APOSTASY

by Bill Jackson

Jesus Christ said, in Mt 16:18, “I will build my church.” In Mt 18:17, He indicated that this Church would be definable and visible. In Mt 20:25 He gave definite commands concerning the government of this Church. It was not to be fashioned after the Gentile powers that had great men ruling over the people.

From these scriptures we can learn a great deal about the Church. It is His Church; it is locally manifested; it is not to be ruled over by dictatorial authority. In the Book of Acts, the end of evangelism was the establishment of a local church, and never do we read of any authority that abrogated the Lordship of Christ in the local church.

In I Tim 3:15, the local church is referred to as “the house of God…the pillar and ground of truth.” This was not speaking of a structure – this was the local church, men and women called out from the world for the express purpose of representing God before men, angels and demons.

Today, if you were to ask, “Where is the church?” you would probably be directed to a building. While God made no provision for any authority between the local church and Himself, when we talk of the Methodist Church or the Baptist Church we often mean a denominational organization. This is not scriptural terminology.

Where did it start to go wrong? Can it be that many of the problems we face today with ecumenism and compromise are rooted in the wrong concept of the church?

Both Paul (Acts 20:29) and Peter (II Peter 2:1) prophesied that false teachers would attack the church. One false teaching was put forth by Irenaeus in the 2nd century. He proposed the concept of a monarchical bishop as a safeguard against heresy. Regardless of the logic of this, it was in direct disobedience to the words of Christ (Mt 20:25) and was an affront to His Lordship. As the system developed, the Lord Christ was supplanted by my Lord Bishop. Peter had warned about this (I Peter 5:3).

This concept of hierarchy (rule by priests) developed into the present Roman Catholic system of Pope-Cardinal-Bishop- Priest-People. This bars a local congregation from access to God and subjects each individual to priestly control, robbing him of the believer-priesthood that would be his if he rejected the works-grace mixture of Romanism and put his trust in the Saviour from sin, the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Reformation corrected many doctrinal problems, especially concerning justification by faith alone, but, while affirming the priesthood of believers, it still continued a church governmental system that seemed totally oblivious to the unique position of the local church. Leaders over groups of local churches soon appeared as bishops, archbishops, superintendents or moderators. As this leadership became self-propogating, men were loathe to give up the power and prestige that was theirs as denominational leaders, and the term “ministry” tended toward lordship over the flock rather than its true meaning of service to the members of the body.

As reformation and revival movements surged and ebbed over the next few hundred years, doctrinal purity was often sought, but unscriptural governmental procedures persisted. Denominations were inevitable because new groups had distinctives that separated them from others, but, rather than use the biblical pattern of local church autonomy, human leaders soon were enthroned in positions of authority over local churches in their denomination.

Many of the problems we face today are due to these unscriptural concepts of the church and church government. From the biblical pattern where the Lordship of Christ is asserted over the local church, we have come to abrogate His Lordship and adopt a structure that is more in tune with humanistic patterns of government.

This institutional structure is, by virtue of its form, one that can and has been invaded by Satan, resulting in a totally disgraceful doctrinal disobedience and ecumenical compromise. It can only be said that “this church” – of whatever denomination – is not “His Church.”

Let us observe one Christian – Mr. X. He is a truly converted man, cleansed by the blood of Christ, baptized by the Holy Spirit into His Body.

This man will always be a Christian. He has eternal life, and he will have eternal life in 1, 000,000 years. If he could cease to have it, it was not eternal to begin with.

He joins a local church that admits only born again believers, where Jesus Christ is truly Lord over all affairs.

One Sunday a visitor encourages the church to join with other Christian churches in one organization. He speaks of love and Christian co-operation that would result. The believers had always had good rapport with Christians in near-by towns, but the visitor tells them they would have more of an impact on the world by being actually united. They were told they should form a board from all the churches to co-ordinate activities. This sounds like a good idea, so the like-minded churches got together, and a board was formed.

A Superintendent was elected – not a mean, harsh dictator, but a loving man who insisted that all he wished to do is to help the local churches. As the structure gets more involved, it begins to control the missionary activities of the local church and then establishes theological schools for future ministers.

Many of the fundamental churches in this group, or denomination, continue their evangelism and growth locally, and don’t pay much attention to what is going on at headquarters. They don’t realize that, over the years, some men who are not sound on the fundamentals of the faith come into positions of authority on the board.

We can look at Mr. X. He is still a Christian, but is disturbed when he reads that one of the professors at a school run by his denomination has written a paper denying the Deity of Christ. But, after all, he assures himself, this does not affect me. I’m still a Christian and my church is still preaching the Gospel.

Several years pass. A young man, Mr. Y, is converted in one of the more fundamental churches in this denomination and goes to Bible College to train for the ministry. There he is influenced by a liberal professor who doesn’t believe the Deity of Christ. Mr. Y begins to espouse some very liberal theology.

Some years later, the pastor at Mr. X’s church dies and a replacement is sought. The denomination with which they are affiliated has secured control of their church property, and the church is told they must find a pastor who is approved by their board. By now a number of preachers in this group are unsound.

The young Mr. Y comes to candidate at the church. He doesn’t say much about his beliefs about the Lord Jesus Christ, but, it is thought, he must be sound because he comes from one of our colleges. Mr. X had thought he might question the man about some fundamentals, but others reprimanded him for being too narrow. Mr. Y preaches a good sermon and is called to the pastorate.

Mr. X, still a Christian, now attends a church where the minister is unsure about the Deity of Christ. Evangelism has given way to ecumenism, and Bible teaching has ceased. Mr. X is still saved, but over the years his loyalty to Christ has been supplanted by a loyalty to his denomination. His soul is now dry and he yearns for the good old days when the Gospel was preached and Jesus was truly Lord.

What should Mr. X do? It is easy to see that he should leave his church and find a fellowship where Jesus is Lord. To face it more precisely, when should Mr. X have left his church? Since the main function of a Christian church is to champion the Lordship of Christ, Mr. X should have left the first instance that the Lordship of Christ was abrogated, which would have been the first time that unscriptural control was exercised on the local church. Any authority between the local church and the Lord Jesus Christ is unbiblical.

Those of us who take a stand against the ecumenical movement and the World Council of Churches do well to deplore the Christ-rejecting positions and unbiblical political thrusts. However, the WCC in its present formation could only exist as an amalgamation of unscriptural denominations. If we want to get to the root of the problem, we must see the ecumenical movement unfolding from the point where the Lordship of Christ over the local church is rejected in favor of hierarchical control. Even if this control over the local church appears to be harmless and loving, the Lordship of Christ is abrogated. As soon as the Bishop (or Superintendent or Moderator) is enthroned, Christ is dethroned – and only disaster can be the result.

Purity must not only exist in our fundamental doctrine. Our ecclesiology, or church concepts, must be the scriptural revelation of the autonomous church body, comprised only of Christians with Christ as actual Lord of the individual and the body. Any other position is a step toward the heresy of hierarchical control, a position which is the basic foundation of Romanism. This position is plain disobedience of Christ (Mt 20:25 – “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them…but it shall not be so among you.”) This disobedience can only result in situations that bring dishonor to the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church.

Much of the doctrinal and ecumenical corruption that is in Christendom can be traced to this root of apostasy which resulted in the actual dethronement of the only One Who can be called Lord.

Copyright to this article is held by Christians Evangelizing Catholics. You are allowed to reproduce this article only in its entirety and without any additions or deletions. This article originated on S.O.N.