Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

A Simple Question regarding the Primacy of Peter and of the Pope

The Church of Rome makes an interesting use of some of the remarks of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matt. 16:18-19, He said, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This was in response to Peter's profession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" in verse 16. In Greek, the name Peter means "a rock," so Rome has long held that Jesus was naming Peter the foundation of the church, and the Pope as Peter's successor.

I have addressed this question before, but I am going to take a different tack here.

One thing to note is that these particular words of Christ don't appear in the parallel passages in Mark 8:27-30 and Luke 9:18-22. Both of those gospel writers stopped after Peter's profession, leaving out the response of Jesus. If Jesus had been making such a fundamental declaration, wouldn't it have been included in the parallel accounts?

Moreover, in all three Synoptics, an account is given shortly after this one, in which the apostles were arguing over leadership. See Matthew 18:1-4, Mark 9:33-37, and Luke 9:46-48. Notice especially the words of Jesus recorded in Mark 9:35: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."

These three passages tell us two important things regarding the matter at issue here between Rome and Protestants (and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well). The first is that the other apostles didn't see the words of Jesus as appointing Peter to supremacy within their group. And second, they tell us that leadership in the church is not a matter of Jesus's call to supremacy, but rather His call to service. The palaces, gold trappings, and expensive art of the Vatican speak much of the former, but nothing of the latter.

There is, however, an account in Scripture regarding someone's claiming supremacy in the Church (III John 1:9-11): "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to place himself first, does not acknowledge our authority." The person who claims supremacy is an enemy of the church, not her head.

Bishops: Diotrophes in the Church

Before I start, I want to mention what a landmark this post is: Post number 300! When I first started this blog, I would never have imagined reaching 300 posts.

And now, to proceed: How many sermons have you ever heard from the Third Epistle of John? If your experience is like mine, not many, if any. In fact, out of my thirty-some years of listening to sermons, I can't recall even one. That's sad, because I think this epistle does have significance for the church today, even as small as it is.

I won't go into the question of authorship here; it isn't within the purview of this post. However, I take it as having been written by the Apostle John, as has been held throughout the history of the church.

In III John 1:9-11, the Apostle tells us, "I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to [welcome them] and puts them out of the church.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God."

It is from this passage that the Covenanters got their nickname for the bishops of Charles I, "Diotrophes in the church." They, like John's nemesis here, sought to be first in the church, as do their kin in today's Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

Jesus also addressed the issue of the lordship of men in the Church of which He alone is Head (Mark 10:42-45): "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

That is why a Presbyterian church cannot exist without at least two elders. This is what is practiced by Paul in Acts 14:23, and enjoined by him in Titus 1:5 (on which I have commented here). Notice that it says "elders in  every church," plural, not "an elder in every church," or even "in every town," contrary to the diocesan system of the prelatic churches. Notice also the reference to "overseers" in Philippians 1:1. That word translates the Greek work "episkopos," the very word which has come into English as "bishop." The Church at Philippi had a multiplicity of bishops!

And here, I describe the words of the Apostle Peter, the supposed first pope, which forbid the very monarchical bishops which have claimed his name and title. And someone should inform the Vatican that the Apostle Peter that they claim as their source was the married Apostle Peter (Luke 4:38 and I Corinthians 9:5)!

The original Diotrophes thrust himself into a one-man rule over the congregation in III John (we don't know where this congregation was located). In the same way, the Pope and his bishops, along with the others in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, have set themselves up as heads over the church, contrary to too many places in Scripture to be an accident. In his first epistle (I Peter 5:1-2), Peter commands the elders to "bishopize" (my own word, to translate "episkopountas") in the church. Thus, not only is it disingenuous for the Church of Rome to claim him as the origin of their church

government, but it is contrary to his very words! It is a self-justification for the papal tyranny over a billion souls, contrary to that attitude of service enjoined by Christ in the passage in Mark cited above.

Is a man saved by presbyterian church government? Of course not. Is he blocked from eternal life by the presence of bishops? Again, no man could say so. But, if Jesus has established a government in His Church, as I think I have proven, then it can only be rank rebellion to persist in ruling, or accepting rule, in that church, contrary to the express will of her Head. That is a serious sin, and cannot be anything but an obstacle to fellowship with that Head, who gave Himself to ransom her (Ephesians 5:25). 

I am concurring here with the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God..."

Bishops: the Hidden Admission of the Catholic Church

Titus 1:5-8 in the English Standard Version, says, "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined." "Elder" is a translation of the Greek word presbuteros, the origin of the English word "presbyterian," meaning "government by elders." "Overseer" is a translation of the Greek word episkopos, the source of the English words "bishop" and "episcopal," meaning "government by bishops." The use of "elders" in the plural is the origin of the Presbyterian principle of government by a multiplicity of elders, as opposed to a single priest or bishop.

In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the precept of "apostolic succession" holds that the bishop is the successor of the apostles, which is also the justification for papal supremacy and infallibility. Some Anglicans and Lutherans also hold to apostolic succession. This precept is, obviously, rejected by Protestants who hold to presbyterian or congregational principles of polity (i.e., "church government").

The New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, popular among English-speaking Catholics outside the United States, translates this passage with "elder" for "presbuteros," and "presiding elder" for "episkopos." No mention of a bishop, at all. In contrast, the New American Bible, the preferred translation among English-speaking American Catholics, uses "presbyter," a transliteration rather than a translation, and "bishop." However, in a footnote, the NAB says, "In Titus 1:5, 7  and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbuteros ('bishop' and 'presbyter') refer to the same persons." The NAB also includes this imprimatur in its introductory material: "free of doctrinal or moral error," so the Catholic hierarchy cannot dispense with it as a mere mistake or unauthorized opinion.

I find this astounding! After centuries of claiming apostolic authority for its bishops, the Catholic Church has come out and confessed, whispered though it may be, that their claims are without biblical justification! Ah, if only they would follow through and depose all of their unjustified bishops, especially that blasphemer and Diotrophes in the Church (III John 1:9), the Bishop of Rome. Then I could accept that the Catholic Church may be a true Church of Christ, rather than that kingdom of Antichrist, which I currently profess it to be.