The Visible Church & the Outer Darkness:
Partakers of Other Men's Sins.
Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6
It is common for Separatists to quote Scripture passages such as First Timothy 5:22 “neither be partaker of other men's sins.” This naturally raises the question of how we become partakers of other men's sins. Separatists assume and assert that we become partakers either by our mere presence with them or at least by being members of the same church with them. So they quote Second Corinthians 6:17, “wherefore, come out from among them and be ye separate,” as though Paul were exhorting a church already full of division and schism to further schism.
The specific meaning of such passages is to the effect, “do not commit the same sins that other men commit.” For example, in Ephesians 5:11, Paul exhorted the Christians at Ephesus that there are certain works of darkness that they must avoid. The principal way that we become partakers in other men's sins is by following their example. Therefore, the chief warning that Paul is giving both to Timothy and to the Ephesians is not to follow the examples of evil men.
Men are more ready to follow the bad examples of evil men than to follow the good examples of righteous men. The example of the ungodly is like a mighty stream and it requires both determination and effort to swim against such a current. Most men are like the dead leaves of autumn that simply float wherever the stream may take them. As the saying goes, “even a dead fish can swim downstream.”
At the very least, the example of evil men may remove some of the stench from sin for us. It is hard to be one of “the few” when “the many” are in the other way. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14). Though it requires being counted as “few” rather than “many,” the strait, i.e. difficult or strict, gate leads to life.
If it seems unlikely that there is so much power in bad example, consider that even “Peter dissembled, and the other Jews also with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation” (Galatians 2:13). Now if even such a one as Barnabas could be influenced by bad examples, how dare we think that such a thing could never befall us! So Paul, after reminding the Ephesians that the wrath of God comes against evil-doers, warns them not to become partakers of their sins (Ephesians 5:6-7). It is as though Paul were saying, “if you partake in other men's sins you will also partake in their punishment. Therefore, do not follow them or their bad examples.”
There is also a more “limited” sense in which it is possible to become partakers of other men's sins. That is, though we may not actually commit the same sins that others commit, yet we become accessories to their sins, so to speak. Therefore, to understand that Paul is not telling us to commit the sin of schism to avoid the sin of becoming an accessory to others, it is necessary to examine how we become accessories.
As a transitive verb “to partake” means literally “to take part in.” Therefore it follows that those who command, assist or entice someone else to sin are “taking part” in the sin itself. Yet, if someone purchases food with stolen money and then invites us to dinner, it does not automa-tically follow that to partake of the food is to partake of the theft. Other considerations are necessary before we can come to that conclusion.
If we have consented to the theft that purchased the food, then we have certainly become partakers of not only the food but the theft as well. Our consent either before the theft or after it makes us to some degree partakers in it. But the consent must be to theft in order for it to make us a partaker of the sin. Simply consenting to the act of eating does not in any way imply that we condone robbery.
Now consider the case one step further. Suppose that a man's pantry had been filled with good things to eat. Suppose further that an extremely generous friend had been the one who filled the pantry. Now for the purpose of this illustration, suppose also that the steward of the house has been secretly purloining some of the foodstuff and sharing it with fellow thieves. Could anyone claim that in this situation the householder is, in any way, partaking of the steward's theft? He is a victim, not an accomplice! Or would anyone in their right mind suggest that the householder should move out of the house, or that his heirs should move out, because there is a dishonest steward who has wrongful access to the keys of the cupboard?
Now here is the point of the parable. A corrupt steward in a house does not make the house corrupt, any more than tares in a wheat field makes it into something else. So neither does the presence of corrupt members or even some corrupt ministers make a church into a Synagogue of Satan.
The graces and ordinances of God's house continue to belong to those who are by right of adoption the heirs of salvation. For the heirs of the householder to become partakers of the sins of the steward, they would first have to command, counsel, entice, assist or consent to his evil acts.
The first manner in which it is possible to become a partaker of another's sin is by commanding or requiring something of them which it would be sinful for them to perform. When David commanded Joab to place Uriah at the front of the troops and then to withdraw support, David was guilty of his own evil plots against Uriah, for he had already murdered Uriah in his heart. But David compounded his sin in also becoming a partaker in the actual death of Uriah.
Thus commanding others to sin is a manner of partaking of the sins which they ultimately commit. This manner of partaking of others' sins is one we must avoid in our roles as parents, husbands, employers, church-officers or civil magistrates. When God has placed someone in a position of authority, the authority is from God. Any command from a superior authority to sin is nullified due to their lack of authority to command sin. Thus the defense, “I was only following orders” is useless before God. This is how we understand Peter's statement, “we ought to obey God rather than men;” that is, when the statutes of God and man are at variance.
Another manner in which it is possible to become partakers of another's sin is if we counsel, assist or abet anyone in carrying out their own evil devices. Jonadab gave counsel to Amnon how to carry out his incestuous desires with Tamar and thus became a partaker of Amnon's sin (Second Samuel 13:1-39). Judas helped the chief priests in their plot to take Jesus by night and so carries the burden of being a partaker in their sin of crucifying the Savior (Luke 22:3-6, 21-23, 47-49). Jacob abetted Rebekah in her plot to deceive Isaac and also carried the burden of being partaker of another's sin (Genesis 27:6-29).
A third manner in which we become partakers of other men's sins is by alluring and enticing them to sin. Proverbs 1:10-15 warns us against those who would entice us to sin with promises first of riches and then of a “common purse.” Those who are enticed to commit robbery or murder are themselves sinners, but those who entice them to sin with such promises are partakers of their sins.
A fourth way involves consenting to sin. Ahab wanted Naboth's vineyard and Jezebel devised an evil plot by which he could have it. Jezebel was the plotter and chief actor in Naboth's death, yet Ahab partook of it by knowledgeable consent. Therefore the prophet said to Ahab in First Kings 21:19, “Hast thou killed . . .” etc. Ahab's consent to Jezebel's act was the same as if he had performed the act himself.
We also should note that Ahab was in a position to stop Jezebel. He was both her husband and her king. Two things, then, were required in order for Ahab to become a partaker in Jezebel's sin. First, a certain and provable knowledge that the offense either had taken place already or was imminent. Second, it was required of him to be in a position (station, if you will) to prevent or punish the offense.
Still another way in which we can take part in other men's sins is by flattering them or praising them for their sin. This has the effect of lessening the gravity and stench of sin both in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. The Scripture speaks of those who not only commit sins they know are worthy of death, “but have pleasure in them that do them” (Romans 1:32). Again, such partaking requires us actively and knowingly to approve of someone else's sin. The Scripture knows nothing of partaking in other men's sins through ignorance.
Every approach we have examined requires both that we have knowledge that the sin is being committed and then either by action or inaction on our part grant some level of approval to the sin. It is at this point that the Separatist maintains that the very action (or inaction) of remaining in a partially corrupt church grants that approval. But, this is not a Presbyterian assertion – it is Congregationalist from beginning to end.
If private Christians were free to determine for themselves when the church is in extraordinary times, then actions by the church qua church would become impossible. As soon as any private church member is displeased with anything the church does he may declare a “state of emergency” and separate from the church. Then, that person is then required to declare the “offending” church a Synagogue of Satan. And so Calvin deals with persons who would leave a church in order to “separate from wickedness.” In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin boldly reproved, “There are others who sin out of ill-advised zeal for righteousness . . . . Where the Lord requires kindness, they neglect it and give themselves over completely to immoderate severity . . . . [T]hey depart out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked.” Further, regarding the rights and duties of private members, Calvin stated, “For individuals ought not to have the authority to determine who are to be received and who are to be rejected. This cognizance belongs to the church as a whole and cannot be exercised without lawful order.”[Calvin, Institutes. IV.i.13; IV.i.15.] Thus, concluded Calvin, “he who voluntarily deserts the outward communion of the church (where the word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered) is without excuse.”[Ibid., IV.i.19.]
When a possible dissension exists within a church to such an extent that a party believes himself compelled to leave the church, James Bannerman insisted, “most certainly the onus probandi rests upon those who defend or seek to perpetuate separation.”[Bannerman, op. cit., ii, p. 335.] Church unity is such a foundational biblical doctrine, that those who would leave a church on the supposition that existing divisions or breaches were irreparable must bear the burden of making proof of their assertion. Liberty of conscience, for Bannerman, “is not an unlimited right; it gives a man no title to believe and think and act in religious matters as he pleases, even although his conscience should sanction his doing so.”[Ibid., i, p. 166.]
The most obvious reason that private Christians are forbidden to separate from the body is that we all need one another. God perfects His church by giving various gifts to members of His church which they, in turn, utilize for the edification of the whole. Placing the right within the hands of private members to excommunicate the whole church works anarchy and disorder, not peace and unity. No member, by himself, has the gifts necessary to a functioning body. In commenting on Ephesians 4:7, therefore, Calvin maintained, “no member of the body of Christ is endowed with such perfection as to be able, without the assistance of others, to supply his own necessities. A certain proportion is allotted to each; and it is only by communicating with each other, that all enjoy what is sufficient for maintaining their respective places in the body.”[Calvin, Commentaries, in loc.]
For Calvin, the unity of the church was no abstract theological concept for men to debate. Christ has commanded unity in His body because we need each other.
Now all these questions about what it means to partake of another's sin come down to the question, “may I commune with those in the church who are known sinners?” Or, as it is phrased in “Extraordinary Times,” “Separation from wickedness, and from ungodly church connections, are essential steps toward biblical reformation . . . . And when men linger in such ungodly ecclesiastical alliances, it is additionally criminal for them to hurl accusations of schism upon those who have seceded for just cause.”[E.T., pp. 15-16.] Of course, whether someone has “seceded for just cause” is the very issue at hand.
But the Genevan Reformer dealt with that question in his work, “Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper.” Calvin explained what is and what is not within the authority of the private Christian:
It is not the office of each individual to judge and discern, to admit or debar whom he pleases; seeing that this prerogative belongs to all the church in general, or rather to the pastor with the elders, whom he ought to have assist him in the government of the church. St. Paul does not command us to examine others, but each to examine himself. It is very true that it is our duty to admonish those whom we see walking disorderly, and if they will not listen to us, to give notice to the pastor, in order that he may proceed by ecclesiastical authority. But the proper method of withdrawing from the company of the wicked, is not to quit the communion of the church. Moreover, it will most frequently happen, that sins are not so notorious as to justify proceeding to excommunication; for though the pastor may in his heart judge some man to be unworthy, he has not the power of pronouncing him such, and interdicting him from the Supper, if he cannot prove the unworthiness by an ecclesiastical judgment. In such cases we have no other remedy than to pray God that He would more and more deliver His church from all scandals, and wait for the last day, when the chaff will be completely separated from the good grain.[In Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters. Henry Beveridge, ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), ii, p. 181.]
Samuel Rutherfurd, a commissioner of the Church of Scotland to the Westminster Assembly, was much more succinct than Calvin in making the same assertion: “It is not lawfull to separate from any worship of the church for the sinnes of the fellow-worshippers, whether they be officers or private Christians.”[Samuel Rutherfurd, A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbyterie in Scotland. (London: John Bartlet, 1642), p. 132.] When the Separatists of his day brought up Second Corinthians 6:17, Rutherfurd hastened to reprove them for their abuse and wresting of Scripture. He then went on to explain,
Now this separation in Corinth was in a church from the idolatry in it, which separation we allow; but not a separation out of a church, else the wordes would beare that Paul will have them to forsake the Church of Corinth, for idolatrous tables in it, and set up a new church of their own, which the Separatists dare not say, and is contrary to other places . . . .[Ibid., p. 150.]
Again, we see the reformed Scottish theologians making a distinction that neither the Separatists of their day nor ours seem willing to make. For it is always necessary to separate from the sin in a church, but that is not the same thing as separating from the church. Rutherfurd continued,[Ibid., p. 160. This edition numbers the page 160, but the pagination is incorrect at this point.]
It is not lawfull to communicate with the holiest church on earth in an act of false worship we grant; but every false worship doth neither make a true church, a false church, or no church; for there was much false worship in Corinth, where many were partakers of the Idols' tables (First Corinthians 8:10) and many denied the resurrection, . . .
After Calvin and Farel were required to leave Geneva, Antony Saunier opposed the ministers who were elected in their places. Saunier requested Calvin's advice on whether he should receive the sacraments from these new pastors. Calvin's opinion is found in a letter he wrote to Farel on October 24, 1538:
Among Christians there ought to be so great a dislike of schism, as that they may always
avoid it so far as lies in their power. That there ought to prevail among them such a
reverence for the ministry of the word and of the sacraments, that wherever they perceive
these things to be, there they may consider the church to exist . . . .
We know by our experience how difficult it is to keep within due bounds those who are
puffed up with a silly opinion of their own wisdom . . . .
As to the trifling ceremonies, strive to induce the brethren not to dispute the point with
those of their neighborhood with so much stiff-necked obstinacy. It will then come to pass
that we may carry our point, ourselves free from all, that we may only serve the interests
of peace and Christian agreement.[Calvin, Tracts and Letters, iv, pp. 101-103.]
Neither the original Reformers of the sixteenth century, nor their seventeenth century counterparts in the Westminster Assembly (excepting only the Independents), believed that communing in a true particular church would ipso facto cause one to become partaker of another's sin.[The context of Confession XXV:5 follows article 4 which speaks of particular churches. Article 5 states “The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; . . .” (emphasis added). The Scripture referenced is the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30).] Calvin defined the concept of true churches so as to include all those that preach the true gospel and administer the sacraments in accordance with God's Word. The Westminster Assembly, following John Ball, defined a true visible church as consisting of all those who profess the true religion, together with their children. They followed up by maintaining that true churches have been more or less visible in various ages and places “according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and publick worship performed more or less purely in them.”[Confession XXV:4.] As the effectuality of the sacraments does not depend upon any virtue in them, nor in him that administers them; neither does the corruption of a particular minister make the sacraments ineffectual to anyone who by faith receives them.[Cf. Westminster Shorter Catechism (Shorter), number 92. See also Larger number 161.]
It may sometimes become necessary for Christians to withdraw from a church that requires sin as a term of communion. At such a time separation is still not an option – it is a requirement of those who would walk godly in Christ Jesus. But until such time as a church preaches “another gospel” or denies the substance of the sacraments or requires us to sin, “those who reject communion in the ordinances of Christ with a true church, and separate from her, because of the corruptions in her, while in the meantime they might keep communion with her without sin, are guilty of schism and sinful separation.”[T. Boston, “The Evil and Danger of Schism,” in Works, vii, p. 603.]
“Extraordinary Times” specifically accuses the PCA of “Romish notions of worship, Pelagian methods of evangelism, horrendous doctrinal aberrations, and de facto prelacy within the bureaucracy of their church government.”[E.T., p. 15.] This book is not intended as an apology for the PCA or any other denomination; however, when one so manifestly demonstrates that he is “not afraid to speak evil of dignities” (Second Peter 2:10, cf. Jude 8), neither can it be taken lightly. Mr. Reed concludes that “to join such an ecclesiastical union [as the PCA] is to countenance manifest apostasy; and to adopt their terms of communion, which are altogether unlawful.”[Ibid., pp. 15-16.]
If that author refers to the vows that one takes upon becoming a communicant member in a PCA church, the only possible conflict one might have is the promise in response to the question, “Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the church, and promise to study its purity and peace?”[PCA Book of Church Order (BCO) 57-5.(3).5.] I would challenge anyone to find even one pastor in the PCA who understands this to mean that one must submit to an unlawful requirement. In point of fact, the very words suggest otherwise; for it is not merely a promise to submit to the government and discipline, but contains also a promise to work for the purity and peace of the church. Though it seems to “go without saying,” one cannot “study the purity and peace” of the church from outside the church.
When Mr. Reed was still a Presbyterian, he wrote a pamphlet entitled Biblical Church Government. In that pamphlet he complained that “Organizations are audaciously founded without having to answer to any authority within the Church . . . . Just like individuals, religious organizations have no special exemption from submitting to proper authority in the Church.”[Reed, Biblical Church Government (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1983), p. 23, n. 4. (emphasis added).] Now he maintains that such statements are “authoritarian chatter” because he has declared a state of emergency!
In the same publication the author notes with alarm that “Local churches militantly assert their independence, and pastors assume their `callings' in an independent fashion, teaching and leading others according to their own private inclinations.”[Ibid., p. 31.] Of course now that the American church is in “extraordinary times” that is no longer the problem. Now the problem is that men go “cap-in-hand” to corrupt presbyteries. The author asks, “Honestly now, what is such presbyterial approval worth?”[E.T., p. 18.] Please! “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid” (Romans 3:1-4).
One would be hard pressed to find a more plainly spoken sermon of denunciation than Christ's “Woe unto you” sermon in Matthew chapter twenty-three. Before speaking to the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus spoke first to His disciples (Matthew 23:1) and explained that it is reformation and not revolution that we must desire. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not” (Matthew 23:2-3).
In these words Christ placed a difference or distinction between separating from the wickedness in a church and separating from the church. The distinction that the Reformers made was not merely useful; it was also biblical. Christ warned against becoming partakers of the Pharisees' sins when He said, “do not ye after their works.” Do not follow their example! A group of corrupt men such as the Pharisees were likely to command something unlawful. We see no indication at this point that such a possible eventuality prevented Christ from maintaining that they sat in Moses' seat.
A vow to submit to the government and discipline of the church has never been understood by Reformed people to be an oath binding us to sin. So Presbyterian standards plainly assert, “Neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just.” Therefore an oath “cannot oblige to sin.”[Confession, XXII:3, 4.] Finally, “no man may vow to do any thing forbidden in the word of God.”[Ibid., XXII:7.]
When the very Sanhedrin of which Christ spoke in Matthew 23:2-3 commanded Peter and John “not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus” they responded “we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:18-19). Were Peter and John disobeying the command of the Savior in Matthew twenty-three? Hardly. They had a reformed understanding of lawful authority. When the apostles were later called to account for disobeying that unlawful command, “Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29) when the two are at variance.
The great Sanhedrin was commanding the apostles not to speak Jesus' name because the apostles had “filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). What did the apostles do? Did they immediately, with the power of the keys that Christ gave them, declare a “state of emergency?” Did they claim to be in “extraordinary times” and therefore free from all authority? “Daily in the temple and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). Additionally, the apostles (or at the very least, Stephen) continued to attend the synagogues (Acts 6:9-10).
The apostles continued to attend the temple and the synagogues until they were cast out of them. Over time it would prove to be the method, especially of Paul, to go first to the synagogue and only after being cast out of the synagogue to separate from it. Why? Because in the synagogue was Moses' seat.
It is not necessary that we must emulate the apostles down to every particular before separating. Nor is it the case that corrupt church leaders must exactly duplicate the responses of the rulers of the synagogue. What we must demonstrate is the apostles' willingness to withstand every inconvenience before we begin even to speak of separation. Scripture gives us methods to correct the vices of others which Augustine refers to as “modest remedies” because in utilizing them “sincere love is kept and unity of peace preserved.”[Augustine, Against the Letter of Parmenianus, cited in Calvin, Institutes, IV.xii.12.]
It was not therefore the scribes and Pharisees considered as men that the disciples should obey. It was certainly not their manner of life or even their doctrine that Christ was commending (see Matthew 16:6, 12). As James Durham points out in A Treatise Concerning Scandal, “We see in Christ's time, the Scribes and Pharisees were pointed out by Him as scandalous (Matthew 23:3). Yet even there He requires continuance in the ordinances administered by them, notwithstanding.”[Durham, op. cit., p. 110. (emphasis added).]
Mr. Reed must recognize that the PCA has not adopted “Romish notions of worship.” It is the case that some churches within the PCA have adopted forms and elements of worship that are out of line with the regulative principle of worship. In most, if not all cases, the “notions of worship” being espoused are more in line with standard Lutheran or Anglican ideas than Romish. Where such things come to our attention we have a duty to attempt to reform them according to our several places and stations within the body of Christ. Yet, if one did not know better, he might think that the “Romish notions of worship” to which Mr. Reed refers had to do with transubstantiation or the “sacrifice” of the mass.
Christ spoke to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation chapters two and three in terms that were and are unmistakable. He required that they purge themselves of impurity in the churches. Yet even in those churches Christ had His faithful remnant. Christ rebuked what needed to be amended, but simultaneously commended the particular churches where commendation was possible. As James Durham notes regarding these churches, “those who kept themselves pure from these scandals, though continuing in that communion, are commended and approved, and exhorted to continue as formerly.”[Durham, op. cit., p. 107.]
We must separate from every sin both without and within the church. But it is extremely rare that we are required to separate from the church herself. The occasions for such separation are rare because God has placed the means of reforming His church within the church herself: viz., church government. There have been situations in the history of God's church in which it became impossible for men to remain in a particular or national church without sinning.[One such example would be the great ejection of Ministers from their livings following the Act of Uniformity in the Church of England under Charles II.] But we cannot ignore the fact that the key criterion to such separation is just that: when we cannot remain without sinning.
We must remember that mere contact with sinners does not cause us to become sinners (First Corinthians 5:10). When church members actively pursue the means of reform according to their places and stations they do not by that become partakers of others' sins, but may well be the means God uses to prevent the sins of others. There have been times in the history of redemption during which sinners have outnumbered saints even in the visible church. If we live in one such time, we will find no solution in deserting our posts in the face of the enemy.
We must strive by God's grace to be among the faithful remnant of the church of our generation. We must strive to be as those in the Church of Sardis, to whose angel Christ said, “thou hast a few names even in [the Church of] Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before His angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev. 3:4-6). We must each be grieved by and forsake the sin that remains in us, our families and the churches of Christ. But we must not be hasty to forsake the bosom of the mother that bore us.
Page Last Updated: 01/10/08 12:12:56 PM