Heaven Past Present Future Ministries
ENCOURAGEMENT TO ETERNAL FOCUS IN UNITY AND FELLOWSHIP OF THE GOSPEL
The Right Hand Of Fellowship
Previous Section
Next
Section
Table of Contents 
Homepage
Email Article
Printer Friendly Version
What is the Popular “Church” Design View Today?
This brings us to the thrust in Baptist at the other extreme held now by possibly a majority of Baptist and popular Christian writers[i],[ii],[iii],[iv]. In this teaching “the church” is viewed as a spiritual invisible universal non-assembling Body of Christ existing today instead of future. Also functioning “church” membership is by the Holy Spirit baptism into the Body of Christ at salvation rather than water immersion into a local church. The infiltration of this teaching causes the Baptist distinctiveness that preserved the true gospel of Christ to be absorbed as simply a part of a greater spiritual whole of Christianity. Further, the position of local church responsibility under the authority of Jesus Christ as Head and the Holy Spirit power in kingdom work of disciple – baptize - teach is logically becoming unnecessary. The common application of this fashionable view among this plethora of churches and para-church organizations of popular Christianity brings an over emphasis on “believer’s baptism” and acceptance of all variances of faith and practice considered as differing “members of His Body.”
Here local church responsibility as administrators of the pure gospel message, of the proper symbol of that gospel message in the rite of baptism, and of ordinations of only men who preach a pure gospel is completely disregarded and unimportant. It only matters that there was baptism of a believer or one claims the ministry without regard to the purity of content of the gospel presented. This dilution of responsibility away from Bible based faith and practice has even led to ordination of women[v], acceptance of homosexuality in ministry, or other errors in ordination to preach an impure gospel and administer a corrupted symbol of that gospel they call baptism.
This universal “church” idea of all believers together in kingdom work was present in the early centuries after Christ. From the fourth through fifteenth century with State support, it was the corpus Christianum[vi]or literally ‘body Christians’. In this view it was believed visible consisting of all Catholics as the visible body of Christ. This system forced all citizens to participate in the State approved religion regardless of differing views to maintain a Christian social and political order. All other groups that opposed the State view, especially those in faith and practice of the gospel like unto Baptist[vii] today were persecuted heavily and often even to death[viii]. It was this reason over the past centuries that those like Baptist today were seldom found in large cities, most often living in remote areas where there was more freedom from forced religion.
Protestants and Pedobaptist reformers of the Reformation in the early sixteenth century in attempting to purify the established corrupt corpus Christianum changed the church ecclesiastical concept to a Corpus Christi or ‘popular-church’ position by spiritualization of only the true saints as the body of Christ. The reformers were concerned about the unsaved in the Catholic church. They rejected the clerical control of church matters and wanted the church to be controlled by popular will of the people collective under Christ. Thus the church concept was changed from a visible Body of Christ of all the people to a spiritual invisible Body of Christ of only the true saints existing today to justify their existence apart from the Catholicism claim of visible antiquity. Anabaptist[ix] correctly rejected this idea teaching only baptized believers were members of the current visible Body of Christ and each church as a congregation was a ‘free-church’ without control of outside authorities.
[i] Dr. John MacArthur on website of Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California:
“We believe that all who put their faith in Jesus Christ are immediately placed by the Holy Spirit into one united spiritual Body, the church, of which Christ is the head. The purpose of the church is to glorify God by building its members up in the faith, by instruction of the word, by fellowship, by keeping the ordinances, and by advancing and communicating the gospel to the entire world. The formation of the church, the Body of Christ, began on the Day of Pentecost and will be completed at the coming of Christ for His own at the rapture.” At www.gracechurch.org
[ii] David Jeremiah, former president of Christian Heritage College in San Diego, California, but resigning in 1999 for health reasons, now the senior pastor of Shadow Mountain Community Church of El Cajon since 1981 (formerly known as Scott Memorial Baptist Church and where he also succeeded Tim LaHaye), and perhaps best known as Bible teacher on the "Turning Point" radio and television programs. Doctrinal statement at www.shadowmountain.org\smcc.htm
“I. The Nature and Organization
of the Church
All who have placed their faith in Christ are united together immediately by
the Holy Spirit in one spiritual body, the church, of which Christ is the
Head. In addition, the members of this one spiritual body are directed to
associate themselves together in local churches.
(Matthew 16:18; Acts 2:46-47; I Corinthians
12:13; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; Hebrews 10:25)
These local independent churches have been given the needed authority and
scriptural guidelines for administering that order, discipline, and worship
which Christ, the sovereign head, had appointed. The biblically designed
officers serving under Christ and over the church are pastors and deacons.
(Acts 6:1-6, I Corinthians 14:40; Ephesians
4:11-12; I Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; I Peter 5:1-5)”
[iii] Chuck Swindoll is a 1963 graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS). He was senior pastor of the First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, California for 23 years (1971-1994). Swindoll resigned the Fullerton pastorate 1994 to take the post of president of DTS, the sixth largest seminary in the world in 1994 until 2001. He is author of many books of popular Christian theology. Statement of faith from First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton, California, noted below. Statement of faith of DTS does not mention any view on the church question.
“The true church is composed of all such persons who, through saving faith in Jesus Christ, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the body of Christ of which He is the head.”
[iv] Tim LaHaye, a member of the Reformed Church of America, popular author of The Left Behind Series.
“Believers are people who accept that Jesus Christ is God's Son, who believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead, and who do their best to follow his teachings and example. Together they form the church, which is called Christ's body on earth, and which has a responsibility to continue Christ's work.” (Emphasis mine)
[v] Broadus, John A. D. D., L.L.D., SHOULD WOMEN SPEAK IN MIXED PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES?, 1880, At http://www.geocities.com/baptist_documents/women.speaking.html
“There is at present a strong tendency in some parts of our country to encourage women in the practice of public discourse to mixed assemblies. This connects itself more or less, with the movements for female suffrage, though some strongly favor the one who are opposed to the other. Christian civilization has by degrees greatly elevated the female sex; and now the demand is, in many quarters, that women shall be encouraged to do, if they like, anything and everything that men do. On the other hand, many of both sexes are persuaded that the Holy Scriptures, which have been the chief cause of the elevation of women, place certain restrictions about their public activities, and enjoin some kind of subordination of wife to husband. The question arising in connection with these movements of opinion and practice are many and various, and some of them appeal to powerful human prejudices and sentiments. It is by no means proposed that this tract shal1 take the wide range thus indicated. It will be confined to the question raised at the outset, and to the limitations with which that question is stated; and will be chiefly occupied with an attempt to explain the passages of scripture which appear to forbid women speaking in mixed assemblies. No thoughtful person would like to profess that in our country at the present moment he can make this investigation in a completely impartial and dispassionate manner; but it is obviously very desirable that writer and readers in such a case should earnestly strive to deal fairly with their own minds and with the truth of God.
In 11 Corinthians 14:34f, the apostle Paul says: "Let the women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the apostle has been speaking of public worship, directing that "the men (i. e., the men as distinguished from the women, the Greek having a special term) pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing." He then directs that women "adorn themselves in modest apparel," etc. The amount of this seems to be that in public worship the men, who do the public praying, shall see that the hands they solemnly lift are not stained with sin, and that in their mutual instruction and exhortation there shall be no angry disputation. These are two special dangers with men. And the women are warned against one of their special dangers, viz. that in attending on public worship they will have too much of showy personal adornment. He then proceeds: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled. but the woman being beguiled, hath fallen into transgression; but she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."
The passages are here quoted from the Revised English Version, according to the English form, from which the American form makes only one not very important variation in each passage. The Revised Version does not materially differ in either of these passages from the Common Version, but several expressions are plainer or more exact. For instance, in I Corinthians the term "subjection" is used, the Greek having the same word that is translated subjection in the other passage, and in 1 Peter 3:1, which shows the three passages to be exactly parallel in this respect. It may be observed that many apparently slight variations in the Revised Version arise from the desire to translate the same Greek word by the same English word wherever possible. Many alterations which superficial critics have denounced as trifling, thus become important to the careful comparison of similar passages.
Now it does not need to be urged that these two passages from the Apostle Paul do definitely and strongly forbid that women shall speak in mixed public assemblies. No one can afford to question that such is the most obvious meaning of the apostle's commands. All that can be Said in opposition to the view that this is what he intended to teach, must rest either upon a supposed unusual sense of some one of the terms employed in the passages, or upon the connection, or upon some other source of information about the persons the apostle's aim.
…So the apostle's clear and consistent prohibitions stand unshaken, in their obvious sense. But consider just what he prohibits. Is it not this? He says a woman must not speak in mixed assemblies -- those in which men are present; because she is thus undertaking to "teach" men, to "have dominion" over them; and this is inconsistent with that "subjection" of the woman to the man which both passages enjoin, and which the Bible so often asserts. Then he does not forbid a woman to "speak" or to "teach" where women only are present. There is no prohibition of feminine discourse in female prayer-meetings or missionary societies. Only keep the men out. And beware of some "entering-wedge" in the shape of an editor or masculine reporter. As to crying out against the Bible for teaching "the subjection of woman," leave that to Ingersoll. The precise nature and proper limits of this subjection may not be generally understood, and would be an appropriate subject for earnest inquiry. But that the Bible does teach subjection, and that the apostle makes that his special reason for the prohibition before us, would seem to be quite beyond question.” (Emphasis mine)
[vi] Mahoney, Edward J., Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Religious Studies, St. Michael's College, Great Britain in An Overview of the Medieval Roman Catholic Model of Christianity.
“The focus of this paper is an examination of the Medieval Roman Catholic Model of Christianity. The Medieval period covers nearly one thousand years of history, …but our emphasis will be on the period known as the High Middle Ages. It is here that we find the best synthesis of the Corpus Christianum or the notion of Christendom being played about most fully - that is, a society that is marked by Christianity in all its aspects: religious, cultural, artistic, social and political.”
[vii] Jürgen-Goertz, Hans in The AnaBaptist, 1996, pg. 86.
“The term ‘free church’ suggests a community which arises from the voluntary association of the faithful and which on principle administers its own affairs without the aid or the interference of the temporal government. The free will of the individual and liberty from the constraints of the authorities were thus the distinct marks of the free church, is it first appeared among the Anabaptists. This was a concept of the church which was radically opposed to the corpus Christianum, in which, through baptism in infancy, people were incorporated without having any conscious say. Given the dominance of the notion of the corpus Christianum, any attempt to from a breakaway community could not fail to be seen as an attack on the foundations of society.”
[viii] Carroll, J.M., The Trail of Blood, 1931, at http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm
"Baptismal regeneration" and "infant baptism." These two errors have, according to the testimony of well-established history, caused the shedding of more Christian blood, as the centuries have gone by, than all other errors combined, or than possibly have all wars, not connected with persecution, if you will leave out the recent "World War." Over 50,000,000 Christians died martyr deaths, mainly because of their rejection of these two errors during the period of the "dark ages" alone--about twelve or thirteen centuries. (Emphasis mine)
[ix] Jürgen-Goertz, Hans in The AnaBaptist, 1996, pg. 72, 73, 86.
“Baptism certainly remained cognitio salutis, but it was enhanced by the fact that through it the baptismal candidate was incorporated into the visible congregation of Jesus Christ…. Baptism was therefore twofold in nature: both an action and a symbol. It was an action in so far as it incorporated the baptized person into the body of Christ; it was a symbol in so far as it revealed to the baptized person the source of salvation and trust: the redemptive act of Jesus Christ on the cross. It was a symbol of Christ because it derived from an action of Christ. The subject of baptism was God in Jesus Christ.”
“…For them baptism was an initiation which opened up to the baptized persons the congregation of Jesus Christ as a reality in which their faith could grow and be proven and in which their life would be sanctified.”
“…This contrast in ecclesiological position has usually been cited as the reason for the divergence between Anabaptism and the mainstream Protestant Reformation, a point on which both the defenders of Zwingli’s popular-church reforms and those sympathetic to the Anabaptist’s free-church route to Christian renewal could agree.”
© 2002-2010 Heaven Past Present Future Ministries.
Operated by William Henry Publishing, LLC PO Box 2651, Batesville, AR 72503-2651 williamhenry@heavenpastpresentfuture.com Email Response Form Permissions
|
|