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
When Did This Protestant View of the Church Begin?
Baptist churches have long rejected the Catholic ecclesiastical view of the church as corpus Christianum today. However one must understand that the current debate of Baptist with the Protestant Corpus Christi of the church question has been ongoing and is now more than 400 years old. As with many other groups throughout history all have eventually by name corrupted their gospel in compromise with false religion and hence new names were chosen or given to those who would not succumb to popular accepted teaching. It is probable if the Lord delays His coming with Baptists now melting into Protestantism a new name for the Lord’s churches will surface again taken by those holding to the purity of the gospel message and baptism as a true symbol of that gospel.
The Protestant view has gained greater acceptance over the last 400 years mainly by controlling the translations of the Bible. With the Reformation and open publication of the Bible to the masses the Protestant reformers needed Scriptural justification for their religious views and practice to the common people. As Bibles were published in English the laity could read the Scriptures for themselves. Before this time in the State approved church traditionally only the priests were allowed to read and interpret God’s Word. Thus leaders such as the Popes, Kings, Bishops and others saw the need to control the translation to be sure such did not contradict their will upon the people.
Understanding the natural influential bias of the translators to protect their views of their religious and social world helps to see the resulting modern confusion over the church and the proper mode for baptism. Early translations[i] by the reformers translated the Greek word “ecclesia” as “congregation” or “assembly” correctly. However the translators[ii] when influenced by the State Churches, mainly Catholic or Church of England, were uneasy with the translation because their view and practice did not fit with that rendition. The Introduction by the translators to the Authorized King James Version speaks of their care to follow the Kings instructions in this matter of protecting their practice and beliefs. The State churches could not assemble together as a congregation. Further translation as “assembly” or “congregation” would give credence to the arguments of the Anabaptist[iii] they so opposed[iv] and persecuted even to death. Such bias is seen also with the word for “baptism”. It meant to “dip” or “plunge” showing the religious rite as an action of placing one under water to properly place baptism as a symbol of one’s faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The problem was these translators had been sprinkling infants as a custom for centuries.
Thus by order of King James, these men to reflect their chosen theology, improperly translated the words. The State churches continued preferred ecclesiastical terms they had chosen for their own translations in the past several decades. They wanted preservation of the invention of previously unknown terms in the English language we know today as “church” and “baptism”.
The word “church” was a transliteration (close to letter to letter equivalent – not a total lie or subversion of truth, only a disguise to be able to change the meaning of it to one’s own view) of the Greek “kuriakos[v]” meaning “belonging to the Lord” since no form of “ecclesia” made a good sounding English word. The Greek word “Baptisma” was transliterated to “baptism” by drooping the letter “a”. This great deception continues to help maintain the Protestant universal invisible Body of Christ view of all believers existing today to do kingdom work.
More modern translations must maintain the trickery of translation to obtain financial aid[vi],[vii] in publication, to sell in the market place, and appeal to popular Christianity. Who would buy a Bible that contradicts ones current faith and practice?
Anabaptist[viii] before them and Baptist in the nineteenth century rejected this idea[ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii] of universal invisible church maintaining separation from these groups. They did not recognize them as true churches of Christ due to corruption of the gospel. The Scriptural model for this rejection and opposition is seen in Paul’s attitude[xiv] toward the believers who corrupted the gospel with works of circumcision. Baptist ministers, even Southern Baptist[xv],[xvi], taught a local assembly of all believers would exist future in heaven as fulfillment of the ultimate unity of Christ but that no universal assembly of believers existed today that was responsible for the work of the kingdom in disciple – baptize - teach. Baptist held while a matter of mind or positional membership the general assembly as described in Scripture would not exist until fulfilled future in the unity of Christ when truly all believers past, present and yet to be born would actually assemble together in a local general assembly as one body in Christ at the end of the age.
In the last half-century the Protestant ecumenical influence of the universal invisible spiritual Body of Christ existing today to do kingdom work has grown to become popular Christian theology. It strongly influences Baptist. Almost all marketed and promoted Christian literature, radio, and television teaches from this view to enhance acceptance, offerings and sales. Disagreement with this idea is extremely unpopular and considered divisive. Society demands a tolerant diverse world and popular religion constantly attempts to commonly unite all Christians regardless of the purity of their gospel.
In the last twenty years other factors have greatly escalated pressure in Baptist churches for the acceptance of ordination, baptisms, and other religious rites of other groups who claim Christ regardless of gospel purity. Foremost is the open marketing for profit of popular Christianity in books, literature, music and ministries. As a matter of business and gain these must be inclusive for market share and profitability. Another source of pressure is the measure of success by numbers and wealth in mega churches proclaiming formula success based Christianity. Here broadmindedness is essential for numerical growth and recognition as successful by the world’s religious standards. “…for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam…” Jude 11 NASB
Second, is the proliferation of religious para-church organizations in specialized ministries who mainly specialize in some limited function of the kingdom work. They may deal with the family, finances, music, discipleship, crisis pregnancy, or other specific needs yet do not claim to be churches that do complete kingdom work of baptism or ordination of ministers. In order to gain greater importance and support it is popular for many of these to claim to simply be another functioning diverse special part of the whole of the Body of Christ or “the church”. In this elevation apart from functional local churches that Jesus designed for His kingdom work these follow “…in the rebellion of Korah…” Jude 11 NASB
Finally is the social pressure for tolerance and diversity of all religion as acceptable to God. The tragic event of September 11th 2001 in terrorist destruction of the World Trade Towers in New York brought this pressure for acceptance of all religious rites as “politically correct”. “…they have gone the way of Cain…” NASB Jude 11 These all have brought great influence against the traditional Baptist position of preserving a pure gospel causing many to flee it due to its unpopularity.
[i] Early Reformers transliterated the Greek word ‘ekklesia’ as “congregation”.
John Wycliff is known as a reformer and translator of the first Bible into English consistently used “congregation”. He was born in the city of Yorkshire, England, in 1329. He attended Oxford University and finished doctorate in theology in 1372. Also he was one of the professors at the University of Balliol. For being the most distinguished theologian of his days, he had opportunity to be the King Richard II’s Chaplain who had access to the Parliament, and to translate the Bible, along with his associates, from Latin, using Jerome's Latin Vulgate, into English.
William Tyndale, in his New Testament in English, first published in 1526, consistently translates "ekklasia" as "congregation". Tyndale, an AnaBaptist, was strangled and his body burned for translating the Bible into English. The Tyndales were also known by the surname 'Hychyns'. It was as William Hychyns that Tyndale went to Magdalen Hall, Oxford, now part of Hertford College. He was admitted to the Degree of Bachelor of Arts on 4 July 1512 and to Master of Arts on 2 July 1515. Fluent in at least 7 languages, he translated much of the Bible into English from the original Greek and Hebrew sources. In doing so he gave the English language many of its best-known phrases. Much of his work appears, unchanged but unacknowledged in the 'Authorized' (or 'King James') version of the Bible possibly since he was Ana-Baptist. At that time, translating the Bible was considered heretical. Tyndale fled to Germany in 1524, later to Belgium. He continued his work, translating the New Testament in 1526 and again in 1534. Eventually, he was betrayed to the authorities. He was strangled, and his dead body was burnt, on 6 October 1536.
The heading to 1st. Corinthians chapter 11, in the Geneva Translation of Holy Scripture, is;- “He blameth the Corinthians for that in their holy assemblies men doe pray having their heads covered and women bareheaded and because their meetings tended to evil.” Notice the terminology. The Reformers, who translated and annotated the Geneva Translation of Scripture, refer to assemblies and meetings, in a chapter heading; in the Geneva Bible Notes we read “Church signfyeth Congregation”; this was what King James and the High Church Bishops vigorously objected to; resulting in the strict rules given to their translators and the legal banning of the Geneva Translation of Holy Scripture. Those who criticise us for using the terms already mentioned are also criticising the Reformers; well, it is most probable that the meticulous John Calvin and the fearless John Knox are, on this issue, right. (Paragraph from www.the-faith.org.uk/church.html with full reference to work of John Cargill to follow)
[ii] Cargill, John, in CHURCH, CHAPEL, OR WHAT?Extracts from THE CONGREGATION, THE HOUSE OF GOD, at www.the-faith.org.uk/church.html
“A few comparative readings can show the difference between the Translations of Holy Scripture opposed by the State Religions and those Bibles sponsored by the State, and Supra-State, ‘Churches’, on this issue.
Acts.8;1. Using original spelling, but modern alphabet, as printed in the 1841 English Hexapla. The comparison is clear.
TYNDALE 1534
“And at that tyme there was a great persecution agaynst the
congregacion
which was at Ierusalem”
CRAMNER 1539
“And at that tyme ther was a great persecution agaynst the
congregacion
which was at Ierusalem”
GENEVA 1557
“and at that tyme, there was a great persecution agaynst the
Congregation
which was at Ierusalem”, Reformer’s Bible.
RHEIMS 1582,
“And the same day there vvas made a great persecution in the
church
vvhich vvas at Hierusalem.” Roman Catholic Bible.
KJV 1611, (original)
“And at that time there was a great persecution against the
church which was
at Hierusalem,” Church of England Bible.
Extract from King James Instructions to Translators, actually drawn up by the High Church Bishop, Bancroft;- “Rule 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.” So, this Rule, plus the fact that all the ‘translators were Anglicans, with a preponderance of Anglo-Catholics who predominated the proceedings, is why, without any doubt whatever, the word ‘church’ got into the King James Bible and, hence, into common English usage.
Extracts from Bagster’s 1841 English Hexapla,
Historical Account, Page 159
“ --- but still it is to be observed that the early English printed
versions (of the Bible) used Congregation as the
representative of Ekklesia [Here anglicised] and thus the
introduction of the word Church into printed Bibles and New
Testament had been an innovation. --- such words should be so rendered
as to give the most intelligible meaning in the language of the version.”
That is, the word Church is an introduced term which
downgrades the meaning, and significance, of the Greek word ecclesia
and could only have come to be used in our English language Bibles at the
insistence of an Anglo-Catholic pressure group, i.e. King James, Archbishop
Bancroft and his acolytes.”
[iii] Schiemer, Leonhard, 1527, on the true church.
“Ecclesia, or the church, is an assembly of people which is grounded on Christ and not on Popes, emperors, and so on. Nor does it consist of stones or high towers.”
[iv] Cargill, John, in CHURCH, CHAPEL, OR WHAT?Extracts from THE CONGREGATION, THE HOUSE OF GOD, at www.the-faith.org.uk/church.html
“William Tyndale correctly translated ekklesai as congregation and for this his Bibles were burnt by the Papists and, more to the point, so was he. Tyndale’s Martyrdom was not just due him having translated the Bible into English, but because he didn’t use the terminology of the established State Religion, especially his use of the word Congregation instead of the Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical word Church. For evidence of this see the writings of Bishop Tonstall and Sir Thomas More.”
[v] Cargill, John, in CHURCH, CHAPEL, OR WHAT? Extracts from THE CONGREGATION, THE HOUSE OF GOD, at www.the-faith.org.uk/church.html
“The Anglo/Saxon/Germanic word Church, Kirk, Kirke, Kirkja, Kirsche, etc. can in fact be traced to the Greek word Kuriakos, from which it is a transliteration (a representative word in the, more or less, corresponding characters of a different language) or Anglicisation. Now the word Kuriakos does actually occur in the New Testament where it is properly rendered The Lord’s. as in “The Lord’s Supper.” 1Cor.11;20 and “The Lord’s Day.” Rev.1;10. The real meaning of Kuriakos is Belonging to the Lord, it never means a gathering or assembly. The word ‘Church’, or ‘Kirk’, is a transliteration of Kuriakos but, in many English Bibles, it is used as a technical rendering of Ekklesia which actually means Called out ones. However, ekklesia is rendered Assembly in the KJV in Acts 19;32,39,41, where it is not used in an Ecclesiastical setting and could not be given an Ecclesiastical distinction; elsewhere, by the unspiritual king’s edict, Ekklesia is incorrectly rendered ‘Church’ in the king’s bible and has been transmitted to many English language Bibles since and has found its way into Christian terminology.”
[vi] Vedder, Henry C., in A Short History of the Baptists, 1907, CHAPTER XVII. THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, at http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/contents.htm
“The great work of Carey, as we have seen, was the translation of the Scriptures into the Eastern tongues, and a multitude of others followed in his footsteps. In 1804 a large number of evangelical Christians, of some and Foreign Bible Society, for the circulation of the ten or more different denominations, formed the British Scriptures in all lands, without note or comment. It was due to the activity of Rev. Joseph Hughes, a Baptist minister of Battersea, that this society was formed, and he was its first secretary. Baptists generally were active in the support of the society, and for a generation grants were freely made from its treasury to aid the printing of Carey’s translations. This was done with full knowledge of the fact that Carey and others translated all words, including baptizo and its cognates—official correspondence left no question possible regarding this point. In 1835 Messrs. Yates & Pearce had ready for publication a revised copy of Carey’s Bengali Bible, and applied to the British and Foreign Bible Society for aid in printing it. This application was refused, unless they would guarantee that "the Greek terms relating to Baptism be rendered, either according to the principle adopted by the translators of the authorized English version, by a word derived from the original, or by such terms as may be considered unobjectionable by other denominations composing the Bible Society." The demand was, in plain English, either that the Baptist missionaries should not translate baptizo and its cognates at all, or that they should make a wrong translation!
More than six hundred Baptist ministers presented to the society, in 1837, a protest against its unjust, Uncatholic, and inconsistent action; and in January, 1840, a final remonstrance was addressed to the society by the Baptist Union. Nothing, of course, came of these protests, and therefore on March 24, 1840, the Baptists of England formed the Bible Translation Society, in order to "encourage the production and circulation of complete translations of the holy Scriptures, competently authenticated for fidelity, it being always understood that the words relating to the ordinance of baptism shall be translated by terms signifying immersion." This society is still in existence, and enjoys the distinction of having printed and distributed over six million copies of the Scriptures, at a cost of one million five hundred thousand dollars.” (Emphasis mine)
[vii] Adams, John Quincy, in BAPTIST THOROUGH REFORMERS, 1858, LECTURE VIII THE FIFTH FEATURE OF THE REFORM AT WHICH BAPTISTS AIM – THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE OF BIBLICAL TRANSLATION, at www.reformedreader.org/history/adams/btrtoc.htm
“II. This Principle has been
Generally Abandoned. There is no Bible Society, supported by
Pedobaptists, that is pledged to the faithful translation of the Word of God
from the inspired originals. In England and America the English version,
which is acknowledged to have many defects, is made the standard, instead of
the original. Nor is this all. Even this is not translated fully into the
heathen tongues – some words are transferred, not translated. They are
perfectly incomprehensible to those who read them until some one comes and
explains them, and he may explain them just to suit his own views.
The British and Foreign Bible Society of England, composed of all
evangelical denominations, passed a resolution, on the 1st July, 1835,
virtually declining aid to translators of the Bible in foreign languages,
unless "the Greek terms relating to baptism be rendered, either according to
the principles adopted by the translators of the authorized English version,
by a word derived from the original, or by such terms as may be considered
unobjectionable by the other denominations of Christians composing the Bible
Society."
It had been the practice of the missionaries to translate
these words, as well as all others. Now you perceive the resolution does not
charge them with unfaithful translation, neither does it charge them to
faithfully render the words into the language of the heathen; but it
requires them to adopt the principle of the English translators, which was
to transfer and not translate certain words, which, if
translated, would not yield that support to infant baptism which the
transfer of them does.
The American Bible Society, composed of all evangelical
denominations, in February, 1836, passed the following preamble and
resolution: – "As the managers are now called to aid extensively in
circulating the sacred Scriptures in languages other than the English, they
deem it their duty in conforming with the obvious spirit of their compact,
to adopt the following resolution as the rule of their conduct in making
appropriations for the circulation of the Scriptures in all foreign tongues:
"Resolved, That in appropriating money for the translating, printing or distributing the Sacred Scriptures in foreign languages, the managers feel at liberty to encourage only such versions as conform, in the principles of their translations, to the common English version; at least so far, as that all the religious denominations represented in this Society can consistently use and circulate said versions to their several schools and communities." 1 (Emphasis mine)
Here, again, you perceive there is an abandonment of the correct principle. That principle requires a faithful translation from the original. But the resolution just quoted requires that the English version, which, as I have before stated, is acknowledged to contain errors of translation, be made the standard. And even this is to be conformed to, only so far as that "all the denominations represented in the Society" can consistently use the versions made from it. These two societies represent pretty nearly the entire Protestant world in England and America. Now any one will perceive, that while such resolutions were in force, no missionary, who was governed by them, could attempt to faithfully translate from the original into the languages of the heathen. Consequently if a word occurred in the Greek which, if translated, would not suit all denominations, it must be transferred, and then the heathen could not understand it till it was explained by a missionary, and he might explain it just to suit his own creed. Instead, then, of having God's Word, which they would have, if the original was translated, they have in every instance, only the word of man.” (Emphasis mine)
1 These resolutions still govern the Society in its appropriations.
[viii] Nelson, Stanley A. Dr., A Believers' Church Theology, 1994, Senior Professor of Theology at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Mill Valley, California in writing on the “fall of the church” shows how Anabaptist were viewed as radical by Protestants and Catholics alike because they felt both Protestant and Catholic needed to be baptized to obtain a regenerate membership and the whole system of Protestant and Catholics was diseased to the roots from their beginning. At www.hccentral.com/nelson1/
“Where Luther and Zwingli opposed the abuses of the medieval concept of the church, the Anabaptists attacked the concept itself. Where Luther and Zwingli looked upon Constantine as a positive period, the Anabaptists did not. For the Anabaptists it was the illicit union of church and state that caused the fall of the church. The Anabaptists will date the Fall of the Church at AD 313--Constantine's Edict of Milan. It was at that point that Christianity received official recognition and acceptance, even though Christianity did not become the official religion of the Roman empire until AD 380 under Theodosius I. Because of the union of church and state and the developed rite of infant baptism, the church was flooded with hordes of nominal Christians and unregenerate peoples. For the Anabaptists, the need was the removal of the historic perversions that came from the union of the church with the state. This removal was to be accomplished by the practice of believers' baptism. The concept of believers' baptism as a covenant would remove the unregenerate membership from the church. It was this concept that became the organizing principle around which the Anabaptist sought to restore the "Ancient Church."
To illustrate the issue, the Christian church in the sixteenth century may be compared to a tree. There were several opinions as to what should be done with the church at that time. The Roman Catholics wanted to keep the tree just as it had grown, even though some of the branches were withered and some rotten. The tree was sacred--it should not be touched. Reform-minded Catholic humanists, of whom Erasmus would be the best example, wanted the tree pruned of dead wood, so that it might bear better fruit. Major tree surgery was called for, said the Protestant Reformers. The only way to save the tree was to cut off whole limbs in order to get back to the healthy trunk. Finally, there were the Radical Reformers--the Anabaptists--who contended that the entire plant above ground was sick and the only solution would be to cut it back to the healthy roots and let new life spring up from them. Franklin Hamlin Littell,, The Anabaptist View of the Church. Boston: Starr King, 1958, 48-65. (Emphasis mine)
Most likely the Radical Reformers were influenced by humanism in speaking of the church's fall. Renaissance people were fond of speaking of the golden period of Greece and Rome, followed by the dank, dark, and dismal Middle Ages. This widespread interpretation of secular history helped the Anabaptists come to their understanding of church history.
When Emperor Constantine began to favor Christianity, and was himself baptized shortly before his death, the church started on a downward path. Unlike the traditional Christian view which, since Eusebius, has seen Constantine's conversion as the beginning of the glorious period of Christian influence and dominance, the Anabaptists saw that event as a tragedy of tremendous proportions.”
[ix] Carroll, B.H., Ecclesia, the Church, no date, at http://www.reformedreader.org/ekk.htm
“But while nearly all of the 113 instances of the use of ecclesia belong to the particular class, there are some instances, as Hebrews 12:23, and Ephesians 5:25-27, where the reference seems to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual. That is to say, there is not now, but there will be a general assembly of Christ's people. That general assembly will be composed of all the redeemed of all time.
Here are three indisputable and very significant facts concerning Christ's general assembly:
(1) Many of its members, properly called out, are now in heaven.
(2) Many others of them, also called out, are here on earth.
(3) An indefinite number of them, yet to be called, are neither on earth nor in heaven, because they are yet unborn, and therefore non-existent.
It follows that if one part of the membership is now in heaven, another part on earth, another part not yet born, there is as yet no assembly, except in prospect.
And if a part are as yet non-existent, how can one say the general assembly exists now?
We may, however, properly speak of the general assembly now, because, though part of it yet non-existent, and though there has not yet been a gathering together of the other two parts, yet, the mind may conceive of that gathering as an accomplished fact.
In God's purposes and plans, the general assembly exists now, and also in our conceptions or anticipations, but certainly not as a fact. The details of God's purpose are now being worked out, and the process will continue until all the elect have been called, justified, glorified and assembled.
When the calling out is ended, and all the called are glorified, then the present concept of a general assembly will be a fact. Then and only then actually, will all the redeemed be an ecclesia. Moreover, this ecclesia in glory will be the real body, temple, flock of our Lord.
But the only existing representation or type of the ecclesia in glory (i.e., the general assembly) is the particular assembly on earth.
And because each and every particular assembly is the representation, or type, of the general assembly, to each and every one of them is applied all the broad figures which pertain to the general assembly. That is, such figures as "the house of God," "the temple of the Lord," "the body," or "flock." The New Testament applies these figures, just as freely! and frequently, to the particular assembly as to the general assembly. That is, to any one particular assembly, by itself alone, but never to all the particular assemblies collectively.
But as the Scriptures represent these two assemblies, one existing now on earth, the other prospective in heaven, if a man on earth and in time, not qualified by either sanctification of spirit or glorification of body for the heavenly assembly, shall despise membership in the particular assembly because claiming membership in the general assembly, is not his claim both an absurdity and a pretext? Does he not hide behind it to evade honoring God's existing institution, and the assuming of present responsibilities and the performing of present duties? Yet again, if one believes that there are co-existent on earth and in time, two churches, one only visible and formal, the other real, invisible and spiritual, is there not danger that such belief may tend to the conviction that the form, government, polity and ordinances of the inferior church are matters of little moment? Has not this belief oftentimes in history done this very thing? And is it not an historical fact that, since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea of a now-existing, invisible, universal, spiritual church, to offset the equally erroneous Romanist idea of a present visible, universal church, reverence and honor for God's New Testament particular church have been ground to fine powder between them as between the upper and nether millstones? Today when one seeks to obtain due honor for the particular assembly, its ordinances, its duties, is he not in many cases thwarted in measure, or altogether in some cases, by objections arising from one or the other of these erroneous views?
And when some, endeavoring to hedge against the manifest errors of both these ideas, have invented middle theories to the effect that the church on earth is composed either of all professing Christians living at one time, considered collectively, or of all real Christians so living and so considered, or of all existing denominations considered as branches of which the church is the tree, have they not multiplied both the absurdities and the difficulties by their assumed liberality of compromise?”
[x] Eaton, T. T, Defense of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, From Pillars of Orthodoxy by Ben M. Bogard, originally published by Baptist Book Concern, Louisville, KY 1900, Republished as Life and Works of Ben M. Bogard Vol. III by Foreman-Payne publishers, undated, pp. 194-197. T.T. Eaton was a Southern Baptist leader of the caliber of John Broadus and B.H. Carroll. He was a professor of Union University (formally Southwestern Baptist) at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, now relocated to Jackson, Tennessee, where his father, Dr. Joseph H. Eaton, had been president. In 1907, Dr. T. T. Eaton, a trustee at Southwestern Baptist in Jackson (formally Union University in Murfreesboro) from its beginning, bequeathed his 6,000 volume library to the college. These schools in their beginnings were among the earliest to later link with the Southern Baptist Convention.
“The Philadelphia Confession of Faith is not responsible for the wild interpretations put upon it, any more than the Bible is responsible for the same thing. That Confession is a venerable and, in many respects, a noble document, and we hope the wild interpretations some are seeking to put on it will not bring it into disrepute.
The attempt is made to make it appear that the Philadelphia Confession declares that Christ built “the universal invisible church” on the Rock, which “universal invisible church” should exist in all ages; and also that this Confession opposes the view that Baptists have existed in every age since the Apostles. This is a gross and a groundless misrepresentation of that venerable document. It says:
“The Catholic or universal church which, with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace, may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof, and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.”
Let this language be noted. The Romanists claimed that their hierarchy was “the Catholic or universal church,” and these Baptists in Philadelphia contradicted that claim by declaring that only “the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one” can rightly be called “the Catholic or universal church.” It takes ALL the elect of all ages to make “the catholic or universal church.” Of course, then, the little fraction of them alive at any given time cannot be called the church. Of course, then, this church cannot exist in every age, because its material, except a part of it, and perhaps a very small part, had not come into existence when our Baptist fathers adopted that language. If the world shall continue ten thousand years longer, the last man saved will be part of the “universal church,” which this document declares to be composed of “the whole number of the elect that have been, are (A.D. 1742, ed) or shall be gathered into one,” etc. To talk about all the elect as existing through all ages, is ridiculously grotesque. It is likely that only a small fraction of them have even yet (A.D. 1899) come into existence; and certainly those born since 1742 could not have continued in existence before that date. What, pray, have men born in the 20th century to do with resisting the “gates of Hell” in the 10th century? Let it be remembered that, according to the Philadelphia Confession, it takes ALL the elect of all ages to make “the catholic or universal church” – not the part of them alive in one age.
Let it be noted also that this Confession makes not the slightest hint that Christ meant this “Catholic or Universal church” when He said; “On this rock I will build my church.” Matt. 16:18 is not quoted at all.
This “universal church” is “invisible” only with respect to the “internal work of the Spirit.” It will be visible when it is “gathered into one.” Of course, the internal work of the Spirit is invisible.
There is also in this entire Confession not the slightest suggestion that there has been a day since the Apostles when there were no Baptists in the world. On the contrary, all that is said on the subject assumes their continued existence. But since that was not then a matter of dispute, the document is not full on that point. Thomas Crosby had just issued his great history in which he distinctly claimed, and argued at length to maintain the claim, that Baptists had continued in the world from the Apostles to his day; and these Baptists in Philadelphia took for granted that this was generally admitted among their brethren, and needed not to be specially declared. Nevertheless, this Confession does say:
“The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless, Christ always hath had, and ever shall have, a kingdom in this world to the end thereof, of such as believe in him and make profession of his name.”
In spite of the fact that “the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error,” and some have gone so far astray as to become “synagogues of Satan,” yet all of the churches have not thus gone astray, but “Christ always hath had and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, of such as believe in him and MAKE PROFESSION OF HIS name,” i.e., of pure churches which do not become “synagogues of Satan.”
Again, this Confession declares:
“A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers, appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church so called and gathered for the peculiar administration of ordinances and execution of power and duty which he entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops, or elders, and deacons.”
Then there have been, according to this document, particular churches “gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ,” “for the peculiar administration of ordinances,” etc., in all ages; since “according to the mind of Christ” they were “to be continued to the end of the world.” And yet we are asked to believe that the Philadelphia Confession is opposed to the idea of the continuity of Baptists through the ages since the Apostles!!!!”
[xi] Ford, Samuel.H., D.D., LL.D, The Universal Church – It’s Real Meaning, From Pillars of Orthodoxy by Ben M. Bogard, Published by Baptist Book Concern, Louisville KY, 1900, Re-published as Life and Works of Ben M. Bogard Vol. III by Foreman-Payne Publishers, Little Rock, AR, undated, pp. 239 – 248
“There is no one word in Christian literature whose primary meaning is so fully agreed upon as the term translated church; and yet there is no word in that literature (not excepting baptism) whose meaning has been so perverted and made the basis of subversive error.
Ecclesia – from the Greek word exxalew to call together or convene – simply means a public assembly or congregation. Any one reading the account of the Ephesians gathered in the theater – especially if the word had been rendered as it is when a gospel congregation is spoken of – will at once see the real meaning of ecclesia; as correctly and clearly as though he or she had consulted a pile of lexicons. We read (Acts 19:32): “Some therefore cried one thing and some another, for the (ecclesia) assembly was divided.” Suppose it had been rendered, “for the church was divided” (a church of maddened idolaters!), would this have been as correct as the translation of the same word “the church in thy house” or “tell it to the church?” Yes. It is the same word; it has the same meaning and is in every other case rendered church in the versions of the New Testament.
But no elaborate proof of the meaning of this word translated church is necessary. That its primary or literal meaning is an assembly, is undisputed. And it should have been so rendered wherever it occurs – especially when Stephen said; “This is he who was in the (ecclesia) assembly in the wilderness,” – not church in the wilderness. And also in the quotation from Psalms 26:12 and 68:2: “In the midst of the church will I sing praises unto thee.” In the version of the Old Testament the same word ecclesia occurs, and in our English version this is rendered “in the midst of the congregation.” Why was it not rendered congregation in the New Testament? The translators were forbidden to do so for a purpose. The revised version puts congregation in the margin, while the American revisers insisted on having it in the text.
But, we repeat, it is settled that ecclesia means an assembly, and that a gospel church is a called out assembly of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. This description of a church is given in unmistakable language in the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England: “A church is an assembly of faithful men where the word of God is preached and the sacraments rightly administered.”
And now, let it be remembered, that nowhere in God’s word is such ecclesia (church) distinguished by any appellation distinguishing it as a universal or general or local church, except the place where it is assembled. Thus is mention made of “all the churches of the gentiles” (Romans 16:4) which included nearly all the churches then on earth, but they are not called the universal church to distinguish them from the one which Paul immediately mentions: “Greet the church which is in thy house.”
But while assembly is acknowledged to be the primary or literal meaning of ecclesia the question occurs, has it other meanings? Does it mean the aggregate of believers or the saints of all ages – “a universal, invisible assembly?”
Let us calmly, in the light of scripture and fact, examine and answer these questions.
The language of that great philologist, William Carson, in regard to the meaning of the word baptize, will apply with double force to the meaning of the word church. He says: --
“Parkhurst gives six meanings to the word baptizo. I undertake to prove it has but one; yet he and I do not differ as to the primary meaning of this word. I blame him for giving different meanings when there is no real difference in the meanings of this word. He assigns it figurative meanings; I maintain that in figures there are no different meanings when there is no real difference in the meanings of this word. It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the word is always the same. Not that any one need to have a figurative application explained in any other way than by giving the proper meaning of the word.”
In other words, baptism has but one meaning. It always means dip. But it has a figurative application, such as baptized in the Holy Spirit, in which figurative application there is a resemblance to an immersion. Now church has but one meaning – an assembly. But it has figurative applications, such as the “church of the firstborn whose names are written in heaven,” in which figurative application there is a resemblance to a church or called out assembly. It is not a church in FACT, no more than the bestowment of the Holy Spirit was an immersion in FACT. It is a figurative application of the word to an ideal gathering of the redeemed.
This will appear more evident and edifying if we turn to the meaning of other words or things which are figuratively applied to the aggregate of believers and also to the “whole number of the elect that have been or shall be gathered in one assembly under Christ” (London Confession of Faith). They are called:
THE BRIDE – THE LAMB’S WIFE
When John the Baptist was told of the increase of the Lord’s disciples he answered: “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom.” Having direct reference to those who believed on the Son and had everlasting life. Paul, addressing the Corinthians, wrote: “For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” And then in Ephesians, where he uses the word church in its figurative application more than it is used in all the New Testament besides, he changes the figure abruptly (we may say) from a woman to an assembly. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it.” He compares the redeemed to a wife, and then to an assembly, or church. He drops the personal figure, and says, “that he might present it a glorious assembly without spot or wrinkle.” The basis of these figures are the redeemed – an ideal bride, wife, assembly.
And so, in Rev. 19:7: “Let us be glad and rejoice and give honor to Him, for the marriage of the lamb is come and His wife has made herself ready.” An ideal bride, as John A. Broadus called the invisible church, “an ideal assembly of real Christians.”
Now a bride, a wife, a virgin, each means a woman, and means nothing else. Literally, that is really, believers in the aggregate, or “the whole number of the elect,” are not a bride, a wife, or a woman. They are individual persons. These terms have not two meanings, the one a woman, the other meaning the believers or the elect. Not; it is simply and plainly a figurative application of the word church. The believers in the aggregate, the elect of all ages, are no more a universal church than they are a universal bride, and making this figure a fact as Rome has done, using the term Mother Church, and representing the imaginary thought as SHE with personal individual attributes and actions, is a monstrous error. But we have just as much right and warrant to call the redeemed the universal bride or wife as we have to call them the universal church. They are neither in fact, but only in figure.
THE REDEEMED ARE COMPARED TO A HOUSE
“In whom ye also are builded for an habitation (dwelling house) of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:22. The imagery of a building or house runs through the New Testament scriptures.
Wherever our word edify is met with, the idea of a building is represented. And we venture the remark that “the aggregate of believers” and “the whole company of the elect” are more frequently represented as a building or house, than they are as an assembly that is church. But we know that a house is a material structure. The redeemed or believers are not a house in fact, they are only so by a figurative application of this word or thing. And to build a theory or draw a distinction, or teach a doctrine on the ground that “all believers” or “the elect” are called a “spiritual house” is a mischievous perversion.
We might go on to mention the many other figurative applications of liberal terms to the redeemed. They are called a city, as in some respects they resemble one, with its walls, its watchmen, its gates, and its towers.
They are called a garden, a flock, an army. But surely it need not be urged that they are in fact none of these. A universal garden, a universal flock, a universal army, or a universal house, or bride, is no more a figure of speech than is a universal church – that is, a universal assembly. There is no such thing in fact. It is a figurative application.
It is frequently said the church is compared to a bride. We deny this, and challenge the production of a single instance where the church is compared to any of these objects to which the redeemed are likened. It is the saved who are compared to an assembly, or ideal church, and to a bride, and to a building, not the church or a church. But by a strange deception, (we might say) a mental strabismus, the redeemed are compared to an assembly, and then this figurative application of an assembly (as though it were literal) is made the basis of another figure of speech, as bride or house; that is one highly-wrought metaphor. We repeat it: God’s redeemed are figuratively likened to an assembly, but that assembly is never compared to a bride or a wife or a house. It is the redeemed ones themselves that are so compared; and not one figure compared to another figure.
As well might we take the metaphor of a lamb as figuratively applied to the Lord Jesus, and make this the basis of like figurative application of another. He is called the Lamb of God; but the Lamb is never called the door. He has these various figurative names – the Lamb, the Lion, the Shepherd, the Vine. But to say that the lamb is compared to a Lion, or a vine, or a Door, is like calling by a metaphor the redeemed a bride and then calling the bride an assembly or church, or a house, or a garden. It is Jesus PERSONALLY who is figuratively, not really, a Lamb, a Door, a Vine, is Bread. It is the redeemed personally who are figuratively, not really, called a bride, a house, a church. And it is misleading, as it is wrong to make the figure a fact and build a theory on the perversion.
THE REDEEMED ARE CALLED CHRIST’S BODY
This image assumes the form or thought of a reality more frequently than any of the other collateral figures by which believers are pictured to the mind.
This word, like all others, has but one literal or ground meaning – a material organized substance. But it has many figurative applications, which are called definitions. One of these is a reality as opposed to representations, as “the shadows of things to come, but the body is Christ.”
Not that those shadows had a body – that is, a material substance by which a shadow was cast, but just as a shadow must have a substance to cause it, so Christ was the substance or cause of “the shadows of things to come,” and as literally rendered “but the body is Christ.”
But especially is this word used to describe the redeemed of all ages. We read in 1 Cor. 12, “For as the body is one (that is of course, the physical body) and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also Christ is one.”
Here is simply taught the oneness of Christ and His redeemed. The language is addressed to the members of the church of Corinth, “the sanctified in Christ Jesus.” They were in Him and are therefore pictured as a complete body. But surely it is but a picture – a figurative application of the word body; and stripped of its figurative language is simply this: “All believers are one with Christ.” But not a real, universal body, no more than a real universal church.
The Apostle says: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” But first the Spirit does not literally baptize the believer; and secondly, we cannot be literally immersed into a body, especially as it is a human, or real body, that is figured.
The body of the Lord Jesus is at the right hand of God. That glorious body is distinct from anything else in the universe. No being can become an actual or real part of it. It is impossible. And yet the believer is said to be a member of “His body, His flesh, and His bones,” and the redeemed are said to be a body of which He is (not the body itself), but the head. Surely any one who will exercise the reasoning power God has given him will see and know that the “aggregate of believers,” or “elect of all ages,” are not A BODY, are not the LORD’S BODY – that there is no such a body as that in all God’s universe; but it is a figurative application of the term bride, or building, or vineyard, or city, or flock, or church.
The term MYSTICAL applied to body or church is also misleading. It is (to use an obsolete word) mystigogical. It properly means “obscure,” and then unrevealed, and then emblematical or figurative. It is in this last sense that it is applied to the body of Christ. We speak of the mystical body of Christ, we do not (or cannot properly) mean the Lord’s body really, but something else which His glorified body represents. So that when we use, or see used, the term mystical before body or bride or church, let us at once understand that it is a supposed or figurative body – something that does not really exist at all – that is presented, but which is an illustrative picture of the redeemed of all ages.
In conclusion we hope to be pardoned for repeating with all the emphasis we can give, that: A “church” like a body, is a literal, actual thing. It is a real assembly. To speak of a universal assembly or church – having the supposed functions or “notes” of it, as of a real literal church, is just as illogical and as unwarranted as to speak of the universal body having the supposed functions or “notes” of it as of a real literal body. Body when applied to the redeemed is a figure, not a reality. Church when applied to the redeemed is a figure, not a reality. There never has been in fact anything of the kind. A church is a company of baptized believers joined together for the service of God – a real, actual, veritable assembly, and nothing else is a church.
In view of these facts, and of the mischievous errors into which the perversion of the meaning of church has led, surely when men of discrimination – teachers of the people – are speaking of the aggregate of believers, of all times and climes, and of all the elect of all ages, they should use these terms and not the misused words, “Universal Church.””
[xii] Hall, J. N., The New Issue, 1899. Dr. Hall was considered by many to be the successor to J. R. Graves as the leader of the Landmark movement. This article was part of the Third Edition of J. M. Pendleton’s famous work, An Old Landmark Re-set. This Third Edition was called, Landmarkism, Liberalism, and the Invisible Church, published by the National Baptist Publishing House in Fulton, KY. In this article, written against the “invisible church idea,” we find:
The word “Church” means an assembly; most generally a small assembly that can conveniently meet together. But always an assembly considered as in convention. In a few passages in the Scriptures, like Heb. 12:23 “The General Assembly and church of the First Born,” the aggregate of the saved is considered as being collected in one meeting, and they thus constitute a church. But there is not a passage in the Bible where the word “church” is so used as to embrace all the saved, in their divided, scattered, uncollected dispersion. When all the saved are included they are considered as assembled together. When they are scattered they are never spoken of as a church. There is, therefore, no such a thing known in the Bible as an “invisible, universal church.” This fiction is of modern creation, and is designed to include all those who are supposed to be saved, so as to allow them to have some sort of ecclesiastical fraternity in church matters. But Jesus Christ, the founder of New Testament churches, never gave us such an imaginary body, and no inspired writer ever makes mention of such a church. All the churches we read of in the Scriptures were local bodies, with local meeting places, for visible assemblies of men and women. (Emphasis added)
[xiii] Broadus, John A. Dr., Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew 16:18. On May 1st, 1858, Broadus attended the Educational Convention in Greenville, South Carolina and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was formally established. Four professors were named: John A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce, Basil Manly, Jr., and E.T. Winkler.
The Greek word ekklesia signified primarily the assembly of citizens in a self-governed State, being derived from ekkalew, to call out; i.e., out from their homes or places of business, to summon, as we speak of calling out the militia. The popular notion that it meant to call out in the sense of separation from others, is a mistake. In a secondary sense ekklesia denoted any popular assembly {Ac 19:39} This Greek term seems to have been applied directly to an actual congregation or assembly of Christians, what we now call a local church, as in Mt 18:17, and usually in the Acts and Epistles, sometimes to an (apparently) informal, unorganized meeting. {Ro 16:5 Col 4:15 Phm 1:2} But in the Septuagint it is often used to translate the Hebrew qahal (for example, De 18:6 23:1 ff.; Jud 21:8 Ps 22:22, etc.), which is also derived from a root meaning to call, to convoke, and so signifies a convocation, a congregation, assembly. This and another Hebrew word of equivalent meaning are used in all parts of the Old Test. to denote the congregation of Israel. {comp. Ac 7:38 Heb 2:12} In the New Test. the spiritual Israel, never actually assembled, is sometimes conceived of as an ideal congregation or assembly, and this is denoted by the word ekklesia. So in Eph 1:22, and often throughout that Epistle, in Col 1:18,24 Heb 12:23, etc. This seems to be the meaning here. All real Christians are conceived of as an ideal congregation or assembly, and this is here described as a house er temple, built upon Peter (and the other apostles), as in Eph 2:19-22, it is a temple "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." There is a third use of the term ekklesia, widely diffused throughout Christendom, in which it is made to denote the aggregate of all formally professing Christians, or all outward organizations of Christians, or else some one outward organization which is alone recognized by the persons using the term as being really "the church." This aggregate of professed Christians is in modern parlance called "the visible church," as distinguished from "the invisible church," which denotes as above, the ideal assembly of real Christians. But the word is not used in the New Test. to denote a congregation, actual or imaginary, of all professed Christians, unless it be in Ac 9:31 (correct text), and in 1Ti 3:15. In the former the word probably denotes the original church at Jerusalem, whose members were by the persecution widely scattered throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings wherever they were, but still belonged to the One original organization. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, nearly twenty years later, these separate meetings had been organized into distinct churches; and so he speaks, {Gal 1:22} in reference to that same period, of "the churches of Judea which were in Christ." In 1Ti 3:15, "the church" is naturally the particular local church with which one is connected. If these two passages be not relied on for the purpose, there is no New Test. authority for the sense of "the visible church," and therefore the word ought not to be so understood here. (Emphasis mine)
[xiv] The Apostle Paul would not settle for any corruption of the gospel by believers as seen in this issue in the early churches. Believers had added to the gospel of faith works of circumcision and Law of Moses.
Galatians 2:1-7
2:1 Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3 But not even Titus who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 But it was because of the false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5 But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. 6 But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)-- well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised NAS
Acts 15:5-11
5 But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses." 6 And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are." NAS
[xv] White, W. R. Dr., Baptist Distinctives, 1946. Published by the Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. On pp. 53-54, Dr. White writes:
“Baptists have given the word “church” the dominant significance it has in the New Testament. Ecclesia had a very fixed meaning in the Greek mind. It meant a local assembly. It was called out and together for a specific purpose and had distinct functions. It was independent and autonomous. Of the 117 times it appears in the New Testament, at least 92 times it is used in this primary sense. The other uses are not inconsistent with this idea. There is no actual, functioning universal church, whether invisible or visible, in existence today. Nowhere is such an idea taught in the New Testament. All redeemed men and women of all ages, whether on earth or in heaven, belong to the family of God (Eph. 3:15). Every born again believer is in the kingdom of God. (John 3:15) But only baptized believers in the fellowship of a local body, having the New Testament as its law and only law, belong to a functioning New Testament Church. It is true that all Christians are numbered with that accumulating body of Christ which is unassembled....that congregation of Christ which is not yet congregated. After the resurrection it will assemble and will then becoming a functioning church of Christ. All Christians are members in prospect of that coming Church. (Heb. 12:23, Rev. 19:6-8) This seeming contradiction is a paradox. There is a sense in which Baptists both exclude and include others as related to the church of Christ. Others are in the forming but not the functioning body.” (Emphasis mine)
[xvi] Carroll, B.H., Ecclesia, the Church, Southern Baptist and founder of Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, at http://www.reformedreader.org/ekk.htm
The object of the gospel, committed to the particular assembly in time, is to call out or summon those who shall compose the general assembly in eternity. When the calling out is ended, and all the called are glorified, then the present concept of a general assembly will be a fact. Then and only then actually, will all the redeemed be an ecclesia. Moreover, this ecclesia in glory will be the real body, temple, and flock of our Lord. But the only existing representation or type of the ecclesia in glory (i.e., the general assembly) is the particular assembly on earth. And because each and every particular assembly is the presentation, or type, of the general assembly, to each and every one of them is applied all the broad figures which pertain to the general assembly. That is, such figures as "the house of God," "the temple of the Lord," "the body," or "flock." The New Testament applies these figures, just as freely and frequently, to the particular assembly as to the general assembly. That is, to any one particular assembly, by itself alone, but never to all the particular assemblies collectively. There is no unity, no organization, nor gathering together and, hence, no ecclesia or assembly of particular congregations collectively. So also the term ecclesia cannot be rationally applied to all denominations collectively, nor to all living professors of religion, nor to all living believers collectively. In no sense are any such unassembled aggregates an ecclesia. None of them constitute the flock, temple, body or house of God, either as a type of time or a reality of eternity. These terms belong exclusively either to the particular assembly now or the general assembly hereafter. (Emphasis added)
© 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
|
|