The
Seven Churches of the 21st Century
Chapter 6
Sardis: Dead And Buried
Revelation 3:1-6
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a few names even in 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.
The terrible downward progression continues as we come to the church in Sardis. As we’ll see, this church was one that looked alive, vital, effective, and progressive but was in reality dead and buried.
And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars;
The vision of the Lord Jesus found here is from Revelation 1:4: “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.” The seven spirits is a reference to the Holy Spirit. Of course, there is only “one Spirit” (Eph. 4:4), so what our Lord is saying here is that the number “7,” which is the number of “perfection,” pictures the diversified activities and perfect ministry of the Holy Spirit. After all, Christ sent the Holy Spirit (Jn. 15:26) and here shows His authority over the Spirit. We then see the seven stars, which refer, as we saw in 1:19, to the seven churches. Therefore, Christ shows that He desires to control the churches by working in the pastors through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who will illumine the Word of God to the minds of those leaders. But, as we will see, the church at Sardis was not following Holy Spirit leading and had usurped Christ’s authority.
The word “Sardis” means, “Those who have escaped, a remnant.” The remnant of this church is found in verse 4: “Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.” We’ll return to this verse later, but we not e here that there were a few faithful servants who were not a part of the dead orthodoxy in Sardis, a few who were clinging to the Truth, and our Lords praises them as “worth.” Based on thought, we will later be challenged to examine ourselves to see if we are part of that remnant today.
Prophetic
History
This church clearly pictures the
period of Church History called “dead Protestantism.” This was the time of the
great state churches of the Reformation (1517-1790). We’ll come back to this in
great detail in “The Rebuke.”
Sardis was located about thirty miles southeast of Thyatira and stood at the junction of five main roads. Sardis was an important city of commerce, being not only a center of the carpet industry and the dying of wool, but the place in which many believe coins were first minted. Sardis was one of the greatest and wealthiest cities in the world. Its wealth, in fact, was legendary. As archaeologist William Ramsay recounts, while there was none found by Romans, legend has it that the sand of the Pactolus River, which flowed through the lower part of the city, actually contained gold and is where much of the cities wealth originated.
Another interesting thing about Sardis was that it was located on top of an almost inaccessible plateau. This fact caused the people in Sardis, however, to have a false sense of security; they believed that their city was impregnable. History tells us that Sardis was, indeed, conquered twice (Cyrus, 549 B.C. and Antiochus the Great, 214 B.C.), but the most fascinating thing is that it was conquered both times in the exactly same way. Each time the invaders found a secret trail leading to the top of the plateau and found an unguarded city.
The city in view in the first century A.D., therefore, is but a shadow of its former splendor, and, as we’ll see, the church in that city was in the same condition.
While the words “I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest” might seem to be a regard, they are not because they only describe outward appearance, not reality. There is actually no regard given to this church. The only possible exception to this would be the positive words of the Lord to the remnant in the church noted earlier (v. 4), but to the church as a whole there is no commendation whatsoever. How tragic it was that our Lord could find nothing noteworthy in a group of New Testament Believers. It had drifted so far away from the Truth that it no longer even resembled a New Testament church. This should strike us profoundly as we continue.
I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. . . . for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
The problem in the church at Sardis was that it was living in mere dead orthodoxy. As we did in our study of the church at Thyatira, let us look at three emphases.
The Greek behind livest is the verb zaō, from which, with the noun zōē, is where we get English words such as “zoology” and “protozoa.” It means to have life or existence. Metaphorically, it means lively or active, and that was the church at Sardis; it was active and lively. As one commentator puts very well, “In all probability it was a beehive of organized activity. . . . It had a reputation of being a progressive church.”[1] No doubt everyone knew where it was and knew how lively it appeared. Like many churches today, it was undoubtedly a big, prosperous, and progressively growing church. I heard one expositor comment that Sardis might be the church a pastor would recommend his people attend if they were on vacation in Sardis. He would probably say something like, “Oh, you just have to go see what incredible things that are going on there!”
But as the old saying goes, things were not as they seemed. While this church appeared to be alive, it was in reality dead. It possessed only an outward form but no inward fervor; there was only liturgy, no life. Like flowers that look real but upon close examination are actually artificial, this church was not the genuine article. It looked beautiful and appealing, but upon close examination it was nothing but a corpse.
Our Lord says specifically that their works were not perfect before God. The Greek for perfect is plēroō, which speaks of filling a container. It was once used of ships being filled with sailors, rowers, and soldiers and means “to influence fully, to control.” As one Greek authority adds, “To fill up, to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally, to flood, to diffuse throughout.”[2] It is used, for example, in Matthew 13:48 to refer to a full fishing net. The chief idea in the present context, then, is that this church was not complete, not full, not influenced and controlled rightly. In short it was not filled with God, not controlled by the Holy Spirit. It was, in fact, living a lie. This condition was, of course, the inevitable end to what had begun in Pergamum and developed in Thyatira. First we tolerate the world and then embrace it; once that is done, we are on the road to a dead church.
With the foregoing in mind, let us take a few moments to consider some warning signs that a church is near death. Every Believer should search his or her spiritual condition for the presence of these warning signs.
First, a sign of a church’s death is liturgy rather than life. From the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer to some inflexible order of service or even the exact opposite of a strict insistence on spontaneity, anything can become liturgy because we’re thinking only of the way we’re doing something instead of concentrating on what we’re doing. Mindless activity, regardless of the form it takes, is not worship. It’s dead orthodoxy.
Second, another sign is an emphasis on social reforms instead of spiritual realities. More and more Christian leaders today have embraced the idea that social problems are the biggest obstacle of people coming to Christ. We see it historically in Methodism, and we see it today among the “seeker-sensitive” crowd. But that is not what the New Testament teaches. We might give a sinner food, clothes, a house, and a job, but now all he is a fed, clothed, housed, and employed sinner. A person needs Christ first, Who will then meet temporal needs (Matt. 6:25-34).
Third, a sign of a dying church is materialism over ministry. True ministry is service without thought of remuneration. Is it no contradictory when a business puts the word “service” in it name? If you pay someone, what they give is not service; that is trading and bartering. True service asks nothing in return. Today, however, money and material gain are the goal. Christ is marketed in the same ways we market cars, clothes, and candy. Gone is the desire for spiritual Truth. While we look lively and thriving, we are dead.
Fourth, another sign is a concentration on creeds instead of Christ. Doctrinal statements are very important. No better statements exist than The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646 and The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. We also see statements in our modern day, such as The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, drawn up and signed by hundreds of evangelical scholars in 1978. But when we then examine the teachings and practices of some of those who supposedly hold these documents dear, we find staggering contradictions. We see Christ and the Gospel more and more redefined and diluted with each passing day. If all we have is a creed, we are dead.
Fifth, following the previous sign, a strong sign of a dying church is when the Bible is only an addition rather the authority. For example, while the document just mentioned is basically good, it blunders with this troubling statement, “We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience.” But is that true? To many readers, that seems fine, even accurate and praiseworthy. But words mean things and the word “supreme” is a very poor choice. Why? Because it means highest in rank, authority, degree, or quality and it’s a word of comparison. The Supreme Court, for example, is the highest of all courts, so saying the Bible is the “supreme written norm” clearly means that there are other norms, the Bible just being the supreme. But that is simply not so! Whether intended or not, that statement weakens the sole (not supreme) authority of Scripture. That statement should read, “We affirm that the Scriptures are the SOLE written norm by which God binds the conscience.” There is no other norm!
The fact of the matter is, however, that the Word of God is ignored today when it comes to ministry, methods, and motives. Let’s get real! The Church today simply does not follow the Bible alone in all that it does. It has become merely an addition, not the authority. If it consulted at all, it is usually only to prop up a doctrine we’ve already formulated, a decision we’ve already made, or the practice we’ve already instituted. Regardless of what Scripture says, we end up just doing whatever we think will accomplish our goals.
Sixth, one last sign is when Christians are look for recreation instead of Christ’s Return. Indeed, many churches today not only look lively, but they also look hedonistic. When one studies this trend historically, in fact, he finds that entertainment offered in churches today is unprecedented in Church History. Never before have we seen the emphasis on entertainment that exists today. We’re not looking for Christ’s appearance, rather we’re looking for the appearance of the latest “Christian” celebrity and buying tickets to the next exciting event. Instead of the place of worship, reverence, and learning, we’ve turned our churches into theaters and arenas.
The tragic story of Sampson provides a graphic example of dead orthodoxy. Here was a man God chose to accomplish great work but a man who failed miserably and is one of the saddest stories in all of Scripture. And why did he fail? Yes, he did some amazing feats in God’s name that awed the people of his day and even ours. But I am immediately reminded here of “The Power Team,” a group of strong men and women who travel around the world doing great feats of strength to inspire people to do great things in their lives. What a warped philosophy! Yes, Sampson was his own “Power Team,” but he ended up defeated, disgraced, and dead because he disobeyed God’s Word. And that is exactly where a large part of Christianity today is headed. Yes, we look impressive in what we’re doing, we look effective to the thousands of people we’re supposedly reaching, but the real Truth of Scripture is nowhere to be seen.
Again, let each of us examine our spiritual lives for these signs.
If the history we studied concerning Thyatira was amazing, the history we are about to examine is truly astonishing.
Prophetic History
Again, the church at Sardis
vividly pictures the time of the Reformation, but there are both good and bad
aspects of that pivotal era. Because of the complexities of the Reformation,
let us break down its history into these two aspects; the positive import
and the negative impact of the Reformation.
The importance of the Reformation should never be discounted or understated. It cannot be adequately understood, however, without also understanding The Renaissance. In southern Europe, this movement had turned to Humanism to try to find meaning to life. The cry of the Renaissance was man is the center of all things; he can do whatever he wills and can accomplish anything he sets his mind to. The seed of this was actually planted in the Middle Ages by Thomas Aquinas (1227-74), the Roman Catholic Schoolman who mixed Christian thought with pagan thought, especially Aristotle’s. By teaching that while man fell in his will, his intellect did not, the inevitable result was the idea that man could think his way out of his problems. This tainted the Church as well. No longer was the Bible the authority; rather the Church became the authority. We should also interject that that idea is still with us today, even among Evangelicals. While we give the Bible lip service, it is far from being the SOLE authority in all that we believe and do in the Church; we look to our intellect, our understanding, and our ideas. We have never wholly escaped Thomas Aquinas, who is still studied today as one of the greatest thinkers of Church History. Additionally, right in line with Humanism, Renaissance thought further tainted the church by adding human works to the work of Christ for salvation.
At first, Humanism seemed true and workable. The art and architecture of the Renaissance, for example, especially in Florence, Italy, is breathtaking to this day. Michelangelo’s statue David still stands as the ultimate statement of the Renaissance. It pictures man as supreme in his own strength and breathtaking beauty. Likewise, the incredibly brilliant Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) truly epitomized Renaissance man; he was not only an artist, but also a chemist, musician, architect, anatomist, botanist, and mechanical engineer. His accomplishments still stagger the mind 500 years later. But it’s especially significant that Leonardo himself, near the end of his life, saw the inevitable failure and ultimate defeat of Humanism.
There is a staggering paradox here, namely, thinking does not lead to the Truth. Truth is not discovered; Truth is revealed. Man can never discover Truth; only God reveals Truth, and He reveals it only in Scripture.
While this was happening in the south of Europe, however, another movement was arising in the north. The men there struggled with the same questions of morals and life, but they came to a conclusion, and therefore results, that were the polar opposite of Renaissance man. As had the forerunners of the Reformation—John Wycliffe (c. 1320–84) and John Huss (1369–1415)—the Reformers started with God, not man. They first realized that man fell in his entire being. That principle, in fact, is at the very foundation of biblical salvation doctrine. Every false teaching—whether it be Arianism, Pelagianism, Arminianism, or any other—has at its core the wrong view of man. Every one, in fact, views man as having either not fallen at all and is basically good, or that his fall was only partial, that there is at least a little good in there somewhere. But the Reformers recognized the biblical teaching of man’s totally fallen and perverse nature, that his entire being—his intellect, emotions, and will—is hopelessly depraved.
The reformers also considered the Bible as the Word of God and the only authority over men’s lives. By removing Humanism from their thought, the Reformers rediscovered the Truth of the Gospel. The leaders of the Reformation were men such as Martin Luther (1483–1546) in Germany, who nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the church door in Wittenberg (Oct. 31, 1517), John Calvin (1509-64) in Switzerland, who wonderfully outlined biblical Truth in his monumental Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, and John Knox (c. 1513–72) in Scotland, who said the Catholic mass was idolatry and whose preaching turned that country upside down.
The Reformation, therefore, truly brought the Church out of the darkness that had ruled for 1,000 years and was the first major attempt to return to biblical Christianity. Its primary accomplishments were the bringing back salvation Truth and the authority of Scripture. Disastrously, those truths are again being challenged in our day even from within the ranks of Evangelicalism. Some so-called evangelicals maintain that the Reformation was the most tragic mistake of Church History, that it split the Church and destroyed unity. Such teaching from so-called evangelicals is beyond comprehension.
While it’s true that the Reformation brought the Church out of the Roman Papacy, it is equally true that the Reformation produced its own set of problems, problems, in fact, that are not minor. As one writer words it, “The Reformation was not a golden age. It was far from perfect.”[3] That is truly an understatement. While the Reformers tried hard to make Scripture their only standard, there were inconsistencies that seriously marred the movement.
One such contradiction was Luther’s response to the Peasants’ War in 1525. After hearing Luther denounce the authority of the Church, the peasants of southwestern Germany applied this to their social and economic problems and revolted violently against the abuses of feudalism. While they looked to Luther for support, he thought that their fanatical revolution might endanger the Reformation and undermine orderly government, so he sided with the princes. While Luther was no doubt right in not supporting the fanaticism, he greatly erred when he urged the violent suppression of the uprising by the princes, even writing a pamphlet titled, Against the Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants. An estimated 100,000 peasants were slaughtered and the rest remained in the Roman Catholic Church.
There were also some problems in Luther’s theology. Luther was, of course, a Catholic monk who, after studying the book of Romans, realized that salvation comes from faith in Christ, not by the Roman system. He then broke from Rome and began to spread reform. To this we say, “Praise the Lord!” He was still affected in many ways, however, by Roman Catholic theology. Now, Luther did reject “transubstantiation,” the Roman Catholic doctrine that says the bread and wine of “the eucharist” (the Lord’s Supper) turns into the literal body and blood of Christ. We should interject here that this practice comes directly from pagan religion. But, while he rejected that practice, Luther still held to what is called “consubstantiation,” which says that in a “mystical way” Christ is present in the bread and wine, a clear violation of our Lord’s own words that His table is a memorial only. Neither did Luther change with regard to the mode of baptism (which in Catholicism is pouring, not immersion), nor did he reject infant baptism, which is nowhere taught in Scripture. Luther then merely developed church liturgy and government that was basically his own and only a reaction against Rome. All this led, of course, to “Lutheranism,” a man-founded system. The bottom line is, Luther came out of Catholicism, but not far enough.
Another example was Huldreich Zwingli, the leader of Reformation thought in Switzerland. He held most of the same views as Luther but rejected “consubstantiation” and held the Biblical position that the Lord’s Supper was only a memorial. Zwingli did much against the Roman Church, probably more than Luther. However, Zwingli held some humanistic ideals. He also, like Luther, founded his own religious organization, which later merged with the Calvinistic forces in the reformed churches of Switzerland. So again, the bottom line is, Zwingli came out, but not far enough.
Bible teacher and commentator Lehman Strauss puts it well:
The Reformation raised up a group of men who came out from Romanism and who rescued much from the mortuary of Rome. But they did not go far enough. State churches were organized, many of which are in operation today in Germany, Holland, and other countries. Denominationalism with its sacraments, forms, and ceremonies became a cold, lifeless formalism. Ministers became ministers of the church, not of Christ.
We could trace much more of this, but we’ll just briefly name a few other historical incidents. “Reformed Faith” or “Reformed Churches” refer to John Calvin’s Theology (much of which is truly important to our faith and which we embrace), but “Presbyterianism” is the word used to describe the system of government that a man developed. James Arminius opposed Calvinism and had considerable influence on one wing of the Anglican Church of England in the seventeenth century, the Methodist Movement of the eighteenth century, and the “Salvation Army” in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Another important fact is that the Anglican Reformation in England was similar to the Lutheran Movement in its approach to reform. But since the Anglican Reformation had no dominant leader (like Luther or Calvin), it was, therefore, dominated by whoever was in governmental power. That, of course, produced a “state church.”
Another regrettable result of the Reformers not going back far enough was their retention of the word “sacrament,” which makes me cringe every time I hear a Christian utter it. The Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic reaction to the Reformers, defined a sacrament as, “Something presented to the sense, which has the power, by divine institution, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently conveying grace.” The Roman system teaches that baptism, Holy Eucharist (the perversion of the Lord’s Supper), and five other sacraments convey grace and give salvation, which is not only a perversion of the Gospel, but is also a thoroughly pagan system. The Latin sacramentum, in fact, was used to refer to the mysteries of ancient pagan religion. Further, the Prayer Book of the Church of England actually calls the Lord’s Supper “these holy mysteries.” While no true Christian should ever use that word in reference to the “ordnances” that our Lord Himself ordained, many tragically do and thereby give credence to Rome. Why the Reformers retained that word is beyond explanation.
What is the point to all this? Simply this: All this was reform but was not a return. A. C. Gaebelein says it well:
The reformation itself was of God and the great men of God who were used were the most mighty instruments of the Holy Spirit. It was the greatest work, up to that time, since the days of the apostles. But out of it came the human systems which go by the name Protestantism. The reformation began well, but soon developed in the different Protestant systems into a dead, lifeless thing.[4]
Indeed, the Reformation was of God and had a glorious beginning, but its leaders fell short by failing to return to the principles of Church government and ministry that were evident in the first century and which are recorded in the Word of God. The majority of what we have just seen was founded, not on Biblical authority, but on human reasoning and human ideas. What should Luther have done? He would have been much better off, as we would today, if he would just have thrown out everything and, with an open Bible in front of him, started over. We say again, most of what the Reformers did was marvelous, but their systems degenerated because they were not based on the Word of God alone. The result was “Protestantism,” a human system. It has been well said, “At the birth of every organization are the seeds of its destruction.” Man-made organizations will always fail sooner or later. So, the result of all this that came historically, and which still remains today, is big, dead denominations.
William Newell, one of the most reliable evangelical commentators, wrote these words in his commentary on Revelation:
“Thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art dead.” Nothing could describe Protestantism more accurately! As over against Romish night and ignorance, [Sardis] has enlightenment and outward activity: the great “state churches” or “denominations”, with creeds and histories, costly churches and cathedrals, universities and seminaries, “boards,” bureaus of publication and propaganda, executors of organized activities, including home and foreign missions, even “lobby” men to “influence legislation” at court! You and I dare compare the church with no other model than the Holy Spirit gave at Pentecost and in Paul’s day.
No truer words have ever come from an expositor. What the Reformers should have done, and what we should do today, is open our Bibles to the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul and base our churches on that alone. While the Church is in need of another Reformation, what it needs more is a Return to the New Testament! That thought leads us to a third consideration.
With Newell’s words still in mind, let us see how clear these historical truths are today. I have struggled with this issue at various times over the years, and I have tried to strike a balance. I heard one well-known preacher say recently, “Denominations are a necessity in order to mark distinctions between the many groups that exist and to keep doctrine pure.” Now, we most certainly agree that we must have distinctions. I believe strongly in doctrinal statements and strong distinctions based on Theology. But does that require a denomination? What exactly is a denomination? Webster defines it as, “A religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices.” In other words, it’s an association of churches that agree in doctrine, order, and practice.
In today’s practice, however, a denomination goes further to denote that the said group organizes itself as another entity apart from any one church. The fact of the matter is, however, that while there have been many attempts to justify the organizing of several churches into its own association, which is then often called a denomination, the New Testament simply does not say that, and that ought to be enough. What is says is that Paul and others founded churches, but it does not say that those churches were then organized into another entity called a denomination or association, which in turn has its own constitution, by-laws, organization, leaders, officers, and so forth.
The seven churches here in Revelation serve as an example. While we often refer to them collectively as “The Seven Churches of Asia Minor,” Scripture does not call them that, or call them something like, “The Independent Fundamental Churches of Asia Minor” (IFCAM), or “The Near Eastern Association of Christian Churches” (NEACC), or any such denominational term. Each was an independent work with no so-called “association” or collective organization implied. In fact, local churches of that day were so autonomous that they sent out their own “missionaries” that is, church-planters, as did the Church at Antioch when it ordained and sent out Paul and Barnabus (Acts 13:1-3). Today, of course, we think we can improve upon that by using mission boards and other organizations. Does no one see a problem here?
Does that imply that churches should never fellowship with one another? Of course not! When churches can agree upon the “seven unities” of the faith that Paul lists in Ephesians 4:4-6, there can be blessed fellowship. But once we “organize” that fellowship into its own entity, we have abandoned the biblical precedent and are asking for trouble.
Someone has put the matter this way: Every man-made organization or ministry goes through four stages: a man, a movement, a machine, and a monument. How true that is! Many a man has started with a well-meant and sincere burden or “vision,” who sees the potential of some new organization. We then witness a movement, where thousands jump on the bandwagon, attend the new movement’s conferences and rallies. Next we see the new organization purring along like a machine as its board of directors control finances and policy. But sadly, after a few years of novelty, we see the organization turn into just another monument to some man’s dream and then watch it fall by the wayside and make room for the next progression.
It needs to be said that denominations and other such associations, including parachurch organizations, are man-made not God-ordained. Oh, how we need to go back to Biblical authority! We praise God that the Reformers went back to the Word of God in several areas, but they didn’t go back far enough; they didn’t go back to the New Testament standards of the Church. As a result, their systems were riddled with man’s organization and therefore human weakness. The same is true today. Most of our evangelical churches are encumbered with organization that was founded on Reformation opinion instead of Biblical Truth. Just one example of this is that the government in most churches is one that is based on one of those founded by a Reformer.
“But what about ‘labels’?” is it is asked. “There are so many views, so many teachings, that don’t we need labels to distinguish one group’s teaching from another, such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and so forth?” Here is where my aforementioned struggle comes, for tragically there is some truth in that. From the early days of the Church, men have looked at particular doctrines a little differently, practiced worship in a little different manner, governed their church differently than other churches, and so forth; they then adopted a particular name to differentiate them from others. Other groups have simply fallen into error and had to be described using some label, such as Arianism, for example, named after the apostate Arius.
I would submit, however, that the less Bible believing Christians do this among themselves, the better off the true Church will be. If I may stoop to use myself as an example, if someone asks me, “What are you?” meaning what denomination I am, I usually answer, “I pastor an independent Bible Church.” That is usually followed up by the question, “What’s that? What do you believe?” I answer, “Our church is independent and believes in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and believes the Bible to be the absolute, final, and sufficient authority in all maters and issues” I have had some ask further, “Is that like a Baptist?” To which I answer, “Yes, it is baptistic, but I prefer not to use the term Baptist.” I go on to explain why. While I believe passionately in virtually every historical Baptist doctrine as outlined in The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, sadly that term today immediately paints someone as believing certain things that are not historically Baptist, such as Arminianism and legalism in Christian living. It’s tragic that many Baptist denominations are Arminian when that is NOT historically Baptist at all. Men such as Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, Augustus Strong, John Dagg, and many others were all not only strong Baptists but also strong Calvinists. To my dear Baptist brethren out there, I also cannot accept the idea of congregational government because it clearly contradicts the shepherd/sheep analogy in the New Testament, which so obviously indicates pastoral leadership that I don’t understand how anyone can justify any other form of church government. If the Bible says anything about the Church, it clearly outlines Pastoral Leadership (also called Elder Rule), not Congressional, Presbytery, or anything else.
At any rate, while some labels are sadly unavoidable, the more we can avoid them among true Believers, the more godly unity we will have. The classic example appears in I Corinthians 3. The church in Corinth (the most carnal church on record) was divided into four groups. Each group was following a particular man instead of God and labeled himself accordingly. God does not want the body of Christ divided. The unity of the body is so important, and disunity so common, that there is something about unity in almost every one of Paul’s Epistles.
I was recently grieved when I ran into a fellow pastor in our area who would barely even speak to me when I tried to strike up a conversation. I actually had to force him to speak. Why? Because I am not “a Baptist,” when in reality I am undoubtedly more historically Baptist than he is. I’ve encountered that attitude many times over the years and wonder how such folks are going to get along in Heaven. How sad it is that we have built so many walls between us!
The bottom line, therefore, is that we should stay away from denominations. While they have been founded for various reasons, such as power for political lobbying, sending out missionaries, maintaining doctrine, and so forth, they are not the New Testament precedent. More often, in fact, they actually make churches weaker through compromise. And if that is not enough, it is historical fact that far more denominations have gone the way of liberalism than have stayed true to the Word of God. Is that what we should defend? Mark it down: denominations are the seed of dead orthodoxy.
Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: . . . Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
Christ told the church at Sardis that it needed to do four things.
Our Lord uses the odd phrase, I will come on thee as a thief, but those in Sardis immediately understood the image. Robbers were common and lurked in the surrounding hills and caves. As mentioned earlier, the city had also been captured twice by conquerors while the people slept in overconfidence. Likewise, the church had lulled itself into such a deep sleep that it was dead to the realities around it. But how could something that was dead wake up? Jesus could raise it from the dead! The Lord Jesus could indeed resurrect that church if it would just obey. That is a joyous principle because it tells us that it wasn’t too late, that there was still hope.
The word things is neuter in the Greek, so it refers not to people but things, that is, spiritual realities. This church needed to reemphasize, strengthen, and build up spiritual truths, and the only way it could do that was by going back to the Word! Oh, how this is needed today as well. It never ceases to amaze me how may many Christian leaders today say they believe in Biblical authority but then turn right around and start their own organizations, create their own methods and ministries, and just do anything they want to do and do their own way. Do we question their sincerity or doubt their pure motives? Absolutely not! We merely question their method because it simply does not plumb with Scripture. We also wonder whether they truly understand the doctrine of biblical authority and it implications. How we need to get back to the Word!
These words are similar to those Christ wrote to the Ephesians. In short, “Go back to the beginning.” If we may repeat, may we not go back simply to the Reformation; may we go back to the Word of God. To illustrate, many today want to “trace their roots.” Well, that is what the Church needs to do, trace her roots back to the New Testament model. Our roots are not in the Reformation, rather in the New Testament. These words of Christ are also similar to what He said to Thyatira. In both letters we find the words hold fast, but the Greek here is different; it is tēreō, “to guard as with a fortress.” Oh, that we would guard the Word of God!
Once again we find this all-important word. Here the word vividly shows that believers must change their minds from man’s opinions, ideas, and traditions to that of the Word of God. It needs to be said that the majority of what we see in Christianity today is a result of Reformation Theology and tradition. What we desperately need to do is “chuck” it all and return to the book of Acts and the Epistles.
Thou hast a few names even in 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.
There are two things to see here.
As mentioned earlier, “Sardis” means, “Those who have escaped, a remnant.” Thankfully, there were a few in Sardis who had not defiled their garments, those who stayed faithful to the Word. The word few is the Greek oligos, from which we get the English “oligarchy,” government by the few, such as a small group exercising control. Only a small number of people, therefore, remained untainted by the lifelessness that surrounded them; they had not defiled themselves. Defiled is molunō, which literally means to “besmear or soil, as one does by applying mud or filth.” This would have been familiar to those in Sardis because of the wool-dying industry that existed there. The metaphorical meaning, then, is clear: to demean and pollute oneself morally or ethically.[5] Garments is himation, which literally, of course, refers to clothing. Figuratively, however, it pictures “spiritual dress,” such as actions and attitudes. So the remnant in Sardis had not polluted their spiritual clothing but had remained true to the Word. What a statement coming from Jesus Himself!
Without question the Reformers were part of this remnant in Church History. They had not polluted themselves with the filth of Roman Catholicism. To read the Reformers, in fact, is to be profoundly struck by the strong denouncements of the apostasy and wretched wickedness of the Roman system.
There are others, however, who are perhaps even more dramatic examples of this remnant. One historical example was the Anabaptists of this period, who were actually the ancestors of today’s Baptists. While there was some radicalism among Anabaptists that discredited them (just as there sadly is today by their successors) and even some heresy (such as polygamy and mysticism), there were many sound Believers in their ranks. They insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture, and rejected such things as state churches and the totally unscriptural practice of infant baptism. Tragically, these believers were outcasts, even among some of the Reformers. They rejected some of the teachings of the Reformers and were in some ways actually closer to New Testament truths of the Church than any believers had been since the first century. While not perfect, the Anabaptists formed a large contingent of the remnant of that era of Church History.
For its obedience, the Lord offered the church at Sardis three rewards.
The color white had several meanings in ancient times and how significant these meaning are in showing this reward!
First, white pictured purity. This emphasizes that we are clothed in the righteousness of Christ (II Cor. 5:21).
Second, white pictured glory. This reflects the promise that Christ is our only hope of glory (Col. 1:27).
Third, white pictured victory. When a Roman triumph was celebrated, all the citizens word white. Those who were victorious at the Greek games also wore white. We likewise know victory over death through Christ (I Cor. 15:57).
Fourth, white pictured festivity. Honored guests at feasts and weddings wore white, and how this reminds us of the bliss and festivity there will be at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:7–9).
Here is an often overlooked, and sometimes misunderstood, truth of the Word of God. The Book of Life is referred to in several other places in Scripture (Ex. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Dan. 12:1; Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 13:8; 17:18; etc.). The point here is that in every one of these references the idea presented is that a name is being removed not entered. The often sung chorus, “There’s a New Name Written Down in Glory,” is simply unbiblical. In truth, our names were in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. Only when an unbeliever dies is his name removed from the book. So, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:12-15) the Book of Life contains only the names of Believers. This is the reason an unbeliever’s name is not found in the book; it used to be there but was removed because of unbelief. It is also at that time that the name of the book will become “The Lamb’s Book of Life” (21:27), for only those who are “of the Lamb” are written therein.
Now, those today who disagree with this presentation of the Book of Life do not understand ancient history. The people at Sardis understood this principle because it paralleled the governmental census of that day. If a person committed a crime against the state, moved away, or died, his name was erased from the registry. So, our Savior is saying, “Those who are Mine will never be erased from the Book!” What a blessed proof this is of the security of the believer. This leads to one other reward.
The Greek used in this context, according to one noted Greek authority (Thayer), means, “To declare the name (written in the Book of Life) to be the name of a follower of [Christ].” This matches what our Savior said in Matthew 10:32, “Whosoever, therefore, shall confess [declare] Me before men, him will I confess [declare] before My Father.” Think of it! Because of our faithfulness, because of our love for the Savior and His Word, He declares us to be one of His own. HALLELUJAH! There is no clearer statement of the security of the believer than Romans 8:28-39:
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Once again Christ’s letter closes with the admonition, listen (v. 6). Like our last chapter, this chapter has been strong, but that is only because Christ composed a strong letter. May we not be a part of dead orthodoxy, dead denominations. Let us build our churches today only upon the Word of God, not man’s ideas, traditions, organizations, methods, or programs.