Why Do We Need a New Reformed Church?
Dean of Students, KGITM
This then is the first question: Is truth absolute? Will black always mean black and white always mean white? If this is not the case, then we can’t comprehend one another, nor can we expect people to take any law seriously. It is strange that many raise their children to appreciate what is good, noble and moral, yet when it comes to the truths of the Bible, they say: “Well, that is something else”. It is especially sad when church leaders say that the truths of the Bible are changing. For example, Dr. Sándor Szathmáry of the Hungarian Reformed Church asserts in “Református Egyház” (The Reformed Church): “We have to redefine the truths of faith in each age… How then should we understand Sola Scriptura? Is the Word infallible? … No, the Scripture is not inerrant or infallible.” (October 1995) It is the gravest of errors for people to treat the truths of our faith as insignificant and subject to change whenever they desire it. When they say this, they say that the truths rediscovered by the reformers were, in fact, no truths at all. And not only this. For if no absolute standard of truth is allowed, there is no room for an inerrant Bible. It becomes necessary then to insist that the Bible is fallible, the work of man, and therefore can be interpreted in a way acceptable to modern man.
So then the most important question for us is: Has God revealed Himself to us? If not, we can not have any certain knowledge of Him; every statement about Him is empty speculation. If God did not reveal Himself to us, our age is right in saying that one can live as he pleases and begin a new religion if he desires. But God did reveal Himself to us, and we do have an infallible Word from Him: “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.” (Ps.12:6). On the basis of the Bible we believe what the reformers believed, that eternal life is by grace alone through faith alone in Our Savior Jesus Christ. We must still proclaim the same message which Gáspár Károlyi, Calvin, Augustine and the apostle Paul proclaimed. Man’s problem in every age is the same: sin. We can not wash away our sins and can not fulfil God‘s righteous law. The solution to this problem is also the same for every age. The only mediator between God and man, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, took upon himself our sins and bore God’s righteous wrath, that whosoever believes in Him should have eternal life.
What then is the church? It is the society of those who have received the grace of God and are called to a life of holiness. In the Bible we find two kinds of verses characterizing the church. One type speaks of the church as being perfect and blameless (Ef. 5:25-27); the other presents the church as struggling with problems, having weaknesses and imperfections (for example, the church in Corinth). The reformers in solving this dilemma introduced the expressions “the invisible church” and “the visible church”. To the invisible church belong all of God’s elect who ever lived, now live or will live. This church is perfect in Christ Jesus. The visible church is the visible, organized form of the church that we can see in many denominations. Does this mean that every organization that uses God’s Word and performs certain ceremonies and outreach ministries can truly be called a church? “Not at all,” said the reformers, and we are in agreement with them. It is necessary to distinguish between true and false churches. But before we look at the marks of true and false churches, let us keep in mind that there is no true church which is perfect, only the invisible church, and there is no false church which does not have some elements of truth in it. In spite of this we will see that there are critical differences between the two.
1.The marks of a true church
In relation to this question it is important to have a clear conception of the church. István Kis of Szeged answers this question ‘what is the church?’ by saying: “It is the organized body of true believers, of saints, of God’s elect people who are bound together by faith, hope, love and Christ’s Spirit.”1 In other words the true church is none other than the community and body of confessing Christians. Let us look then at the marks of this true church. It exists where (a) the Word is faithfully preached (b) the sacraments are properly administered and (c) church discipline is rightly exercised.
(a) The Word is faithfully preached
Some of the reformers and reformed theologians (Beza, Amesius etc.) mentioned only this mark in describing the true church. But when they talked about the faithful preaching of the Word, they not only meant that the crucified Christ should be preached (1 Cor.2:1-5) and that traditions, nationalism, and the social gospel should not be incorporated into the gospel message. They meant to proclaim God’s whole counsel (Acts 20:27). Whoever then truly understands this first point, even if he speaks about this one mark only, it is clear to him that the faithful preaching of the Word includes the right teaching about the sacraments and church discipline.
(b) The sacraments are properly administered
What do we mean by the right administration of the sacraments? In the case of the Lord’s Supper, only those can be allowed to partake who have confessed that Christ is their Savior and by their daily living are not denying their testimony. Similarly, only they and their children can partake of the sacrament of baptism. Concerning the Lord’s Supper we read in István Patai’s catechism: “This sacrament was instituted by the Lord Christ for believers only.”2 Calvin also gives a very direct warning: “And here also we must preserve the order of the Lord’s Supper, that it may not be profaned by being administered indiscriminately. For it is very true that he to whom its distribution has been committed, if he knowingly and willingly admits an unworthy person whom he could rightfully turn away, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord’s body to dogs.”3
(c) Church discipline is rightly exercised
In the true church, there is not only talk about church discipline; but it is also practiced. Discipline might consist in reproof, suspension from the Lord’s Supper or excommunication from the Church. Church discipline is necessary “for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from like offences, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God which might justly fall upon the Church if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.”4
Church discipline may be administered only by the session of the church. Thus the issue of church discipline is an issue of church government. Furthermore the matter of who are the congregational office-bearers is not a secondary issue. The Bible leaves us in no doubt that God has ordained elders (who are elsewhere called presbyters or bishops - see Phil.1:1, Tit.1:5,7) for leading his church. This is why Beza says: “I most willingly leave the whole frame of Episcopal authority to the papists, of which (I openly profess) the Holy Spirit was never the author, but human policy, which if we do not observe to be accursed by God, we certainly as yet see nothing at all: and nourish we do a viper in our bosoms which will kill the mother.”5 Women should also not hold the elder’s office in the church (1 Tim.2:12, 1 Cor.14:34) or as Méliusz puts it: “Women should not preach in the congregation.”6 It is clear then to whom it is that God entrusts the exercise of church discipline. If others do it, then, the practice of discipline will collapse, and there will be both decay in the proper administration of the sacraments and in the preaching of the Word.
As already mentioned, it is possible that the gospel may be proclaimed in part in some places in a false church. In spite of this, such a church is dead and, because she boasts the name of a church, keeps her members in a false sense of security. The marks of a false church, according to the Belgic Confession, are: (a) it gives greater authority to man than to the Bible (b) the sacraments are not administered according to Christ’s commandment (c) it persecutes those believers who admonish her for her sins.
(a) It gives greater authority to man than to the Bible.
We say with sadness that the present Hungarian Reformed Church gives greater authority to man than to the Bible. This is obvious not only from the fact that the people run first to the leadership of the church, but from the very existence of the bishop’s office. Everybody knows that the authority of the bishops can not be opposed without serious consequences. Of course, the bishops are not only responsible for this. As one reformed pastor rightly put it: “We made them (the bishops) dictators”. How did this happen? It started by destroying the Bible’s authority at the seminaries. Then some who finished their studies endeavored to undermine respect for the Bible in the hearts of the people as well. They did this by means of a very clever procedure. They did not claim openly that the Bible is not the Word of God (naturally a few boldly asserted this), but they said it becomes the Word of God (Barthianism). In Török István’s dogmatics, for example, we read: “The Bible itself is not God’s revelation… It is the Word of God only as it becomes the Word of God.”7 Nor is it a coincidence that the Consultative Synod of the Hungarian Reformed Churches begins its April 1995 declaration by saying: “Members of the Reformed Church acknowledge Jesus Christ as their only Lord according to the Word of God sounding forth in the Scriptures.”8 It is obvious that according to the HRC the Bible and the Word of God are not the same. The Word of God may come to us from the Bible or certain sentences may become the Word of God. What can we conclude from this? Someone has to decide what is and what is not the Word of God. That person may be anyone who decides, an “expert” in higher criticism or an ordinary reader of the Bible. But the result is the same. Human authority is now more important than God’s authority. God no longer stands above the HRC, its leaders and its people. Yet the Church’s own confession, the Second Helvetic Confession speaks very clearly with regard to this question: “We believe and confess that the Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the true Word of God, and have sufficient authority in and of themselves, and not from men.”9
(b) The sacraments are not administered according to Christ’s commandment.
It is a tragic fact that in the HRC the sacraments are not administered according to Christ’s commandment. Not only may those who properly confess their faith partake of the Lord’s Supper, but anyone in the church. Anyone can take communion without difficulty. What is sadder is that evangelical pastors talk of the Lord’s Supper as a means for evangelizing people. But should the reformed pastors not consider the words of the puritan Thomas Brooks: “With Chrysostom, I had rather give my life to a murderer, than Christ’s body to an unworthy receiver… Because the admitting of such as are profane, ignorant, scandalous, or that are scoffers and mockers, to the supper of the Lord, is the ready way to turn the house of God into a den of thieves, and to bring a dreadful doom both upon consenters and presumers.”10
(c) It persecutes those believers who admonish her for her sins.
Can we not see this in the HRC? Yes, when true discipline is not applied, then church power will be used to persecute true believers. It is true that no one has yet been burned at the stake, for that is not possible now. But have we not heard of situations where evangelical pastors were forced to leave their congregations, or where evangelicals who spoke out were forced to resign from various church offices or where theological institutes were banned (Károlyi Gáspár Institute of Theology and Missions is a case in point). And what else can we call it when a believer can not defend the faith in his congregation because his pastor or his presbytery is offended? Let those who do not believe that the HRC persecutes believers make a serious effort to defend the truths of the reformation and they will find out for themselves what the HRC is.
What else, then, do we need as proof that the HRC is a false church? With deep sorrow we must conclude that that church which some time ago lifted up and carried forward the truths of the Bible has now ceased to be a faithful church. In both principle and practice she denies her confessions (“reinterprets” them) and holds to liberal theology (which casts out the authority of the Bible and is critical of those parts which relate to supernatural events). We must remember, as J. Gresham Machen said, liberalism is “not only the perversion of Christianity, but a new religion.” And this new religion has no place in the true church.
Why do we need a new reformed Church? Because God is glorified in this. Regarding the joining of a faithful church the Belgic Confession says: “It is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from those who do not belong to the Church, and join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes be against it; yea, though they should suffer death or bodily punishment. Therefore all those who keep themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God.”11
3. Arguments answered as to why believers remain in the HRC.
We do not pretend that there are no believers in the HRC or that well trained evangelicals in the HRC do not suffer for their faith. But, sadly, many of the arguments used to justify staying in a liberal, apostate Church come about because these very people want to stay in such a “church”. Let us look at some of them:
(a) One of the most frequently used arguments to stay in an unfaithful church is the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt.13:24-43), on the basis of which it is claimed that the boundaries of the visible church can not be traced. The wheat and the tares must grow together. Thus we are not to pass judgment on anyone’s faith because the church will always be in this mixed condition.
The first problem here is that the building of the church is not to be determined on the basis of a parable. Many passages speak clearly about the church and, according to the first basic principle in Bible interpretation, we must interpret less clear passages of Scripture in the light of the more clear parts. We cannot say that this parable speaks clearly regarding the church.
Secondly, Jesus Himself in interpreting the parable says that “the field is the world” (Matt.13:38) and not the church, the point being that this world’s inhabitants will always consist of believers and unbelievers.
Thirdly, even if we apply this parable to the church, our text says that the enemy sows the tares by night in secret. Thus even applied to the church this parable would prohibit receiving obvious unbelievers into the church. So then the parable in no way encourages the toleration of open sin (and of obvious unbelievers) in the church.
(b) Another well-known argument is that most of the believers and their leaders, some of whom have suffered a lot, have not abandoned this “church”.
First of all, this kind of argument turns on the authority of people as the decisive issue. Its so-called strength is that there are many people or they are excellent people. But if we look at people why not look at one like Athanasius who, in defending the doctrine of the deity of Christ, remained alone? When he was asked: “Don’t you see that the world is against you?” his answer was: “Then Athansius is against the world”.
Secondly, a reformed Christian should say with Luther: “One man, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must have greater weight with me than all the holiest people on earth put together.”12 Concerning people whose holiness is beyond dispute, he recommends: “Take them with you to Christ and see whether they agree with his teaching.”13 So believers should look to Christ, who guides them through His Word, and take steps, which may not be popular or be accepted by even the greatest of the saints.
(c) Making it appear to be a biblical argument, many allude to the fact that, although the Old Testament Church wrestled with many problems, believers still did not abandon it. Indeed the prophets remained in it and did not call for schism.
First of all, it is necessary to understand that it was a state Church and the only state church ever instituted by God, who also appointed its laws. In this way, then, the laws of the state were the laws of the Church. Everyone who was an Israelite and was circumcised was also a member of the Church. Further, the prophets, in spite of the intermingling of church and state affairs, clearly kept themselves from being contaminated by the sins of their age. Were they not against the evil of their times? And were they not therefore persecuted by the church of their time?
Secondly, can anyone prove that the HRC is a state church instituted by God to take the place of Israel? Further, it is clear in the light of the New Testament that the state and the church are meant to be independent of each other. Those who use this argument only want to cover the sins of the “church” by pointing to the sins of the Old Testament Church. But the Old Testament Church also had instances where church discipline was applied. Those who argue in this way do not mention this. If they did, they would have to admit the need for discipline in the HRC.
(d) A much quoted Bible verse which seems to approve of believers staying in the “church” is written in Proverbs: “Do not despise your mother when she is old” (Prov.23:22). Some interpret this verse in relation to the church. They say that members should not leave the church even if this “mother” is sick, old or has many problems.
First of all, not one of the commentators I looked up interprets this verse in an allegorical sense. On the contrary everybody interprets it in its natural sense, which is in accordance with the context.
But even if we take it in this sense, what would it teach? Would it not say that the task of the church (our “mother”) is to nourish and discipline her children? (We can not attribute to the church, as the Catholics do, the task of bestowing life.) What, then, if the mother does not feed her children wholesome food and poisons them instead? Is this a true mother? How is it believers in the HRC do not recognize that this is not their mother but their stepmother? Many reply: “Yes, but even so we became believers in this church.” Glory be to God for this (and not to the ”church”), who through His Holy Spirit gave new life to such people. Because out of His endless goodness He calls sons to Himself, even from such as cannot lawfully claim the title of church. We read in Rev.18:4 that even in Babylon, a symbol of the false church, there are believers who are urged to leave it quickly.
(e) An argument often proposed is that the Bible forbids division: “That there may be no division among you.” (1 Cor.1:10)
But it is clear what this verse refers to. It says that among believers there should be no divisions on unimportant issues. At the same time the Bible tells us that Christians should separate themselves from uncleanness: “Therefore come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.” (2 Cor.6:17) The presence of the Lord Jesus and His Word always creates division. It divides the world into believers and unbelievers (Luke 12:51, 52). Christians must also separate from false teachers (1 Tim.6:5, 2 John 10) and from worldly or evil company (Eph.5:11) and from false churches. J. Gresham Machen says: “If the liberal party really obtains full control of the councils of the church, then no evangelical Christian can continue to support the church’s work.”14 He says furthermore: “Liberalism is not Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour.”15
(f) An argument similar to the previous one is that Jesus prayed for unity.
Our answer is that He prayed for unity among Christians and not for unity at the cost of the truth. It is false to say he prayed for today’s ecumenical, syncretistic policy of mixing everything. Jesus prayed for the unity of His disciples and not for an organizational unity of truth and falsehood. It is clear what kind of unity Jesus prayed for in John 17. It was for unity among those who know God (v.3), who keep His Word (v.6), who receive His Word (v.8) and who are one with the Father and with Him (v.21).
(g) Another objection frequently raised is that there is no such thing as a perfect church on this earth; therefore everyone should remain in the church of his birth.
We have already mentioned we agree there is no perfect church on earth. We cannot, however, in taking this as our starting point, infer it is not essential to hold to the distinctive characteristics of a true church. That is to say, even if there is no such thing as a perfect church, we must still adhere to a confessionally true church (one which is faithful to the Bible). Similarly, in relation to the Christian life, would we say that since perfection is unattainable it does not matter how we live because, after all is said and done, man is sinful? What else would this be but a mockery of the gospel? If it is true, then, that Christians must live a holy life in spite of the fact that they sometimes fail, then the same is true for churches. Those who point to liberal churches and argue that there is no perfect church are similar to unbelievers who justify their disobedience by pointing to the faults of professing Christians whom they know.
(h) An argument similar to the previous one is that the situation in Hungary is different. It may be possible to establish confessional churches in other places, but history dictates something else here.
Here is the fundamental question: Does the Bible have eternal validity or not? Are its basic principles applicable in every place or not? Here the issue is not whether every nation has specific characteristics which are reflected in the life of the church. Here the issue is the existence of the church itself. Here we are talking about matters which make the difference between a true and a false church. Those who argue on the basis of the specific characteristics of the Hungarian situation might as well say that we Hungarians do not want to obey God in the really important matters.
(i) Another argument says it is necessary to remain in the HRC to reach more people.
This is a foolish argument. It is none other than pragmatism. Are we to do evil so that good may come? To remain in a house which is burning and soon will collapse is both risky and irresponsible behavior. Believers should not ease their consciences with evangelism while neglecting that which is the more important. I do not want to speak against soul winning for Christ, but this must not be the first principle of a reformed Christian. Rather it should be what the reformers insisted upon when they said: Soli Deo Gloria (Glory be to God alone). It is our duty to glorify God in all things, and in the church this must begin with faithfulness in the preaching of the Word, in a right use of the sacraments and in the proper administration of church discipline. If we are faithful in these, evangelism will be done in the right way, God will be pleased and souls will be saved.
(j) Finally, there are those who argue that the time has not yet arrived for open action.
First of all, those who hold this opinion no doubt hold it because they do not want to be the first to take action and suffer the consequences of such action.
Secondly, these people wait for a special sign through which God may urge them to make a change. But what kind of sign will God give such people when He has already given them His prophetic Word? (See Haggai 1:1-5)
Thirdly, the situation is considered as not so bad. They cannot admit that a false church is really a false church. But again the question is: What does the Bible teach? Let us now move on to some practical considerations.
4. What should believers in the HRC do?
Based on what we said before, it seems obvious that they should leave this “church” and join or establish a faithful reformed church. But we understand that those who have not tested this system of unbelief by standing for biblical obedience in it may feel they have not done enough and, therefore, cannot yet leave it. We, therefore, urge them to stand and we counsel them as follows:
(a) Study the Word of God to know what it teaches about the duty of believers in such a situation.
(b) Faithfully testify of those truths which others are suppressing. Call the attention of others to the unbiblical practices prevailing in the “church”. Do not be quiet in the name of a false humility and love. Indeed if you love those with whom you are in fellowship, draw to their attention what kind of church God is pleased with on the basis of the Bible and the historic confessions of the church.
(c) Take care not to participate in things which are openly unbiblical, including ecumenical worship services.
(d) Refrain from taking or giving the sacraments if they can not be done biblically.
(e) Do not listen to pastors whose preaching contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible.
(f) Do not financially support the liberal and ecumenical activities of the bishops (whose office has no biblical support anyway).
(g) Do not send your children to schools where the Bible is denied in principle (saying it is not infallible) and in practice (ecumenical worship) since to do so is to commit your most precious gift from God to the spiritual guidance of those who hold another gospel, something that God will not bless.
(h) Be ready to accept excommunication rather than compromise God’s truth.
We pray that God will open the eyes of many to see that Jesus Christ must not only be King of our private lives, but also King of the Church, to whom we owe absolute and unconditional obedience.
April 4, 2000
[1] Dr. Tibor Bartha (ed.), Studia Acta Et Ecclesiastica, Vol. III, (Budapest: A Magyarországi Református Egyház Zsinati Irodájának Sajtóosztálya, 1973), p. 201
[2] Dr. Tibor Bartha (ed.), Studia Acta Et Ecclesiastica, Vol. III, (Budapest: A Magyarországi Református Egyház Zsinati Irodájának Sajtóosztálya, 1973), p. 847
[3] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 4., (Philadelphia: The Weszminster Press, 1960), pp.1232, 1233
[4] The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 30., (Atlanta: Committee for Christian Education & Publications, 1990), pp. 94, 95
[5] Iain H. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), p. 101
[6] Dr. Tibor Bartha (ed.), Studia Acta Et Ecclesiastica, Vol. III, (Budapest: A Magyarországi Református Egyház Zsinati Irodájának Sajtóosztálya, 1973), p. 483
[7] Dr. István Török, Dogmatika, (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1985), p. 87
[8] Üzenet, Vol. 6., Is. 9, May 15, 1995
[9] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, II. Helvetic Confession, chap. 1., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), p. 831
[10] Thomas Brooks, The Works of Thomas Brooks, vol. 1, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980) pp. xlix, xl
[11] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, The Belgic Confession, Art. Xxviii., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), pp. 418, 419
[12] Iain H. Murray, The Reformation of the Church, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1987), p.30
[14] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, (Grand Rapids: W.B.Eerdmans, 1994), p.166
[15] Ibid.
How can you get saved?
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Acts. 16:31
