THE DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
T. P. Simmons
When one is saved the next
consideration that should claim his attention is the church. Gratitude to God for
salvation should make him as conscientious about church
affiliation as about matters pertaining to salvation.
I. THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH
1.
VARIOUS FALSE CONCEPTIONS OF THE CHURCH
(1) The Roman Catholic
Conception.
Roman Catholics believe that
the church is a world-wide, hierarchal organism under the visible headship of
the pope at Rome. J. F. Noll, editor of "Our Sunday Visitor,"
of Huntington, Indiana, in "The Fairest Argument," likens the church
to a tree, and says: "The leaves represent the Catholic laity throughout
the entire world. They are in direct communion with their respective parish
priests (the smaller branches of the mystic tree). The priests, in their turn,
are in direct communion with their bishops, that is, the larger branches. And
all the bishops are in direct and constant communion with
the Sovereign Pontiff, that is, the trunk, or stem, of the entire tree."
Sometimes Roman Catholics
expand their conception of the church so as to make it include "all the
faithful who have existed from Adam up to the present day, or who shall exist to the end of time" (Catechism of the Council,
as put forth in 1566).
(2) The National Conception.
This is exemplified in the
"Church of England," a national institution with the King of England as its head.
(3) The Denominational
Conception.
We hear of the "Methodist
Episcopal Church," Then there is the "Presbyterian Church
in the United States." And some people, ignorant of Baptist polity, speak
of the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention as the "Southern
Baptist Church."
(4) The Universal Conception.
A very
popular notion is that the church is composed of all the saved throughout the
world at any given time or of all saved people that have ever lived, whether
now living or dead. Thus the church is conceived of as being universal and
invisible.
(5) The Aggregate Conception.
All churches and religious
groups, taken in the aggregate, are sometimes spoken of as "the
church" in distinction from the world.
2.
THE SCRIPTURAL CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH
All the foregoing conceptions
of the church are false and unscriptural.
The scriptural conception of
the church may be seen by noting-
The Greek word for
"church" is "ekklesia." The English word "church"
is not a translation of the Greek word; it is a substitution.
"Ekklesia"
comes from "ekkletos" and this latter word comes from
"ekkaleo," to call out or forth. But "ekklesia" does not
mean "the called out."Let this statement be pondered well. Usage, not
etymology, determines the meaning of words. For instance, "prevent,"
by etymology, means to anticipate or precede. But usage has made that meaning
archaic. By usage, "prevent" means forestall, frustrate, circumvent, hinder.
"Ekklesia" had its
original application to "a gathering of citizens called out from their
homes into some public place (Thayer). Then it came to mean any assembly of
people or gathering or throng of men, even when gathered by chance or tumultuously. See Acts 19:32, 39, 41. The resultant meaning is
"assembly." The word never did mean simply "the called
out." It always implied that the called out ones would gather or assemble.
Thus, according to culmination, the word always did mean "assembly,"
and later came to mean this alone.
In this
sense, after Aristotle's day, according to Hatch, in Organization of the Early
Churches, it came to be applied to local, self-governing secular clubs and
associations.
Nor is the simple meaning of
"assembly" contradicted by the use of "ekklesia" in the Septuagint. Sometimes in the LXX "ekklesia" is
used to translate the Hebrew "qahal." From this fact some have
"inversely and most illogically inferred that, since qahal sometimes means
the whole Israelitish people and is sometimes translated by ekklesia, therefore
ekklesia must always take on a like breadth of meaning. Reference to the LXX,
however, will show that the Greek translators of the Old
Testament, so far from encouraging such an implication, have carefully
precluded it. For when qahal has the broad sense it is never translated by
ekklesia, but by another Greek word" (Thomas, The Church and the Kingdom,
p. 200).
This fact is borne out by B.
H. Carroll, who made a collation of all the occurrences of
ekklesia in the LXX, finding them to be ninety-two; and finding that in not a
single case was there given to ekklesia a broader meaning than an actual,
literal, bonafide assembly.
2. The Distinction Between the
Church and the Kingdom.
Those who believe the theory
of the existence of a universal, invisible church, for all practical purposes
confuse the church and the Kingdom. But the Bible never confuses the terms or
uses them interchangeably.
"It
will be readily inferred ... that the word ekklesia would call up, in the mind of
an ordinary Greek, or Greek-speaking person, a conception not only not
identical with, but in every particular the antithesis of, that suggested by
basilcia" (Thomas, The Church and the Kingdom, p, 213).
That this
distinction is maintained in the New Testament is manifest from the following
contrasts between the church and the kingdom:
(1) The church is an assembly;
the kingdom is the domain of the King.
(2) The
church as an assembly is necessarily local; the kingdom is universal.
(3) The church is spoken of as
that which was to be built (Matt. 16:18); the kingdom is never thus spoken of.
(4) Christ
said: "Tell it to the church" (Matt. 18: 17); no such command is ever
given concerning the kingdom.
(5) The church is called a
body (Eph. 1:22,23; Col. 1: 18; 1 Cor. 12:27); the kingdom is never thus spoken
of.
(6) The church is a democracy
under the headship of Christ, as we shall presently note; the kingdom is a
monarchy.
(7) Therefore the church has
organic character, being visible and having officers (1 Cor.
12:28); the kingdom is neither organic or visible (Luke 17:20).
(8) Church membership is
subject to the democratic action of the body (Rom. 14:1; Acts 9:26; 1 Cor. 5:5;
2 Cor. 2:6); while God, purely independent of church action, puts men in His
kingdom by the new birth (John 3:5; Col. 1:13).
(9) The kingdom was preached
and, at one time, was announced as at hand (Acts 20:25; 28:31; Mark 1:15); but
such language is never used with reference to the church.
(10) We
read of the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1: 14; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14); but
never of the gospel of the church.
3. New Testament Usage of
"Ekklesia."
It is
rashly unreasonable to assume that Christ and the apostles took up a Greek word
that had a well-established meaning and gave to it another meaning without one
word of explanation. Consequently we find that in every passage in the New
Testament where ekklesia occurs it can be taken in its true sense of assembly.
There is not a passage that demands a broader sense. We find in the New
Testament, in full harmony with the common use of words, a
three-fold use of ekklesia, viz.,
(1) The Abstract or Generic
Sense.
Terms that are commonly
concrete in an abstract or generic sense. Such is true of home,
marriage, and man.
We find such a use of
"ekklesia" in Matt. 16:18; Eph. 3:10,21; 1 Cor. 12:28, and possibly
in some other passages.
The church
as thus represented is conceived of as an institution similar to the home in
the expression, the American home, and similar to marriage in the sentence,
Marriage is a divine institution. "Church" in Acts 9:31, the better
manuscripts have the singular instead of the plural, either refers to the
members of the church at Jerusalem that had been scattered, or it refers in a generic
sense to that church and various others that may have been
established in Judea.
(2) The Prospective Sense.
There are two passages of
Scripture where "ekklesia" refers to a future assembly. We refer here to Eph. 5:25-32 and Heb. 12:23: In Eph. 5:25-32
the church embraces the elect of all ages; but, according to the etymology of
the original word, the church in this sense cannot be conceived of as actually
existing at the present time. The word is thus used prospectively. The same is
true of Heb. 12:23.
(3) The
Present Concrete and Particular Sense.
Of all the 113 cases in the
New Testament where "ekklesia" refers to the institution founded by
Christ, in all except the cases already noted, and a few others where there is
possibly a mixed use, it refers to a particular, concrete, local church, or a plurality of such churches; such as "the church which was
at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1); "all the churches of the Gentiles"
(Rom. 16:4); "the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1); "the
church in thy house" (Philemon 2); and "the churches of God" (2
Thess. 1:4).
4. The
Fact that the Church is Called "the Body of Christ."
A body is a compact, living,
working association of parts. It is a medium through which action is obtained.
It is a functioning entity. The human body exists to perform the functions
determined by the mind working through the brain located in the
head. It is manifestly because of the relationship between the human head and
the rest of the body that the church is called the body of Christ. just as the
human body carries out the purposes formed in the head, so the church exists to
carry out the purposes of its head, Christ Jesus.
Now the
imaginary universal, invisible church never functions collectively. It holds no
services, observes no ordinances, sends out and supports no missionaries. It is
simply a colossal nonentity, without function, purpose, or reason for
existence.
It is the local church that
functions for Christ. And it is the local church alone that can
rightly be called the body of Christ. See 1 Cor. 12:27.
The author, therefore, affirms
emphatically that the universal, invisible church theory is without foundation
in the Greek outside the Bible, it is without foundation in the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, and it is without foundation in the New Testament usage. It is primarily the product of wishful
thinking, and it is the mother of a motley array of heresies. It is appropriate
to close this portion of our study with these words from Armitage: "The
Romish figment of an impersonal and invisible Church never existed until the
fourth century, when it was created in order to bring the local Churches under
the yoke ... The local Church was the only Church known to
the Apostles themselves, the only body which they ever addressed, and which they
knew collectively as the 'Churches scattered abroad"' (History of
Baptists, p. 121).
II. THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
1.
TWO ERRONEOUS CONCEPTIONS
(1) The notion that the church
was founded on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2.
There is not the slightest
hint of the founding of anything on this day. The church that existed at the
close of the Day of Pentecost, existed before Pentecost. Before Pentecost the
church had the gospel and had preached it. It had baptism and the Lord's Supper.
It also had a ministry and held services. Before Pentecost the church was a body of baptised believers, banded together to carry out
the will of Jesus Christ. That is what a church is.
(2) The notion that Matt.
16:18 marks the time of the founding of the church.
This is
quite a general notion among those who reject the Pentecost theory of the
founding of the church. But Jesus did not say: "Upon this rock I will
found my church." He used the word "build" instead of the word
"found." And the Greek word here translated "build" means
to build the superstructure. The same word occurs in Acts 9:31, and is
translated "edified." Christ was then still building His church just as He said He would do in Matt. 16:18. This
explains the future tense (I will build) in Matt. 16:18.
What we have said of the Day
of Pentecost, we may also say of the day that Christ uttered the words of Matt.
16:18. The church that existed at the close of that day, existed
before that day. There is nothing that can be called a church that came into
existence on that day, so far as the inspired record informs us.
2.
THE TRUE TIME OF THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
In
locating, the founding of the church we must find a time when something that
answers to the description of the church came into existence. This rule points
us to the time, when, after a night of prayer, Christ selected the twelve
disciples. With this selection, these twelve men, for the first time, became a
body. They had a head-Christ. They had a treasurer-Judas. They were supposed to
be baptized believers. They were banded together to carry
out Christ's will. What more than this did they become on the day that their
Master uttered the words of Matt. 16:18?
III. THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH
There is
much controversy regarding the meaning of "rock" in the words of
Christ, "Upon this rock I will build my church."
The Roman Catholics and others
take the rock to be Peter. But the
difference in gender and exact meaning between "Petros" translated
Peter, and "petra" translated rock makes this
idea untenable. In classical Greek the
distinction is generally observed (see "petra" in Thayer's Lexicon),
"petra" meaning "the massive living rock," and "petros"
meaning "a detached, but large fragment."
Others take "petra"
as meaning the faith of Peter; still others Peter's confession.
We regard Christ here as using
a play upon words. We take
"petra" as referring to Christ divinely revealed and implanted in the
hearts of men (Col. 1:27). We think this
interpretation is borne out by 1 Cor. 3:11.
This passage speaks of the foundation of the church at Corinth. This
foundation had been laid by the preaching of the gospel and
the divine revelation and implanting of Christ in the heart.
IV.
THE ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH
In the
broad sense an ordinance is merely a commandment, and any commandment is an
ordinance. But common usage of the
present day limits the term ordinance in religious parlance to special forms
and ceremonies that belong to the church and are observed under its jurisdiction. In this sense we find but two church
ordinances in the Bible. The are-
1.
BAPTISM
Baptism, which is the
immersion in water of a penitent believer in the name of the Trinity or of
Christ upon proper authority and for the purpose of showing the believer's death to sin and resurrection to walk in newness of
life, was the initiatory rite of New Testament churches. None were received without this rite. Paul says that it is the mode by which
believers are made a part of Christ's body, the church (1 Cor. 12:13).
Baptism is
such a broad subject that an entire chapter will be devoted to it later
on. Further consideration, therefore,
is reserved for that chapter.
2.
THE LORD'S SUPPER
The Lord's
Supper is the memorial instituted by Christ in which His churches are
commanded, by the use of unleavened bread and wine, to show forth His death.
Further consideration of this ordinance will come in a later chapter wholly
devoted to it.
V. THE ORDAINED
OFFICERS OF THE CHURCH
The New Testament mentions only
two ordained officers in the church. They are:
1.
ELDERS OR BISHOPS
The title "elder" or
"bishop" designated the chief officer in New Testament churches. The
occupants of this office presided over the services, taught and led the people
in Christian doctrines and duties, and took general oversight of the churches.
These two
titles are used interchangeably in the New Testament, and, therefore, designate
the same office. Their interchangeable use may be seen in Acts 20:17 and verse
28 of the same chapter. In the first passage it is said that Paul sent for the
elders of the church at Ephesus, and in the second passage he calls then
"overseers," which is the literal translation of the word which is
elsewhere translated "bishops." Cf. Phil. 1:1.
The interchangeable use of the two titles under discussion may also be seen in
Titus 1:5, 7.
The term "pastor" is
another term, used only once in the New Testament (Eph. 4:11), which seemingly
designated the same office as elder and bishop.
It seems to have been the rule
in New Testament churches to have a plurality of elders, as is plainly seen in
the case of the church at Ephesus (Acts 20:17), and in the case of the church
at Philippi (Phil. 1:1); and as seems to be indicated in the case of other
churches from Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5.
The chief reason, perhaps, for
having a plurality of elders in New Testament churches is that it was customary
to have only one church in any city, with this one church likely having a
number of preaching places over the city.
A graded
ministry is unknown in the New Testament. A bishop was an officer in a
particular church, and not an overseer of the churches of a given district, as
is the case today in some denominations.
2.
DEACONS
Cf. Acts 6:1-8; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim.
3:8-13.
There is so much to be said
with reference to the deaconship that we reserve further treatment for a later
chapter devoted exclusively to this subject.
VI.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH
New Testament churches were
independent and democratic in government. This fact is seen in-
1.
THE SELECTION OF MATTHIAS
While the method used in the
selection of Matthias is not the usual method of voting employed today, Luke's
account (Acts 1:23-26) implies that the entire church participated
in his selection. "They appointed" (vs. 23), "they prayed"
(vs. 24), and "they gave forth their lots." The entire group of one
hundred and twenty (vs. 15) is the most natural antecedent of the pronoun
"they" in these expressions.
2.
THE SELECTION OF THE SEVEN DEACONS
When the need arose for these
seven servants of the church, the apostles did not assume the authority of
appointing them, but "called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and
said, "It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve
tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business" (Acts 6:2, 3). "And the saying pleased the whole
multitude, and they chose" the seven men whose names are given. The
multitude of the disciples, that is, the church, did the choosing.
3. THE SETTING APART OF BARNABAS AND SAUL
In this we see the
independence of New Testament churches. The church at Antioch, although it was
much younger than the church at Jerusalem, acted in this matter independent of
the church at Jerusalem and without so much as consulting the church
at Jerusalem. Cf. Acts 13:1-3. Neither did the church consult the apostles.
4. THE EXCLUSION AND RESTORATION OF THE
INCESTUOUS MAN AT CORINTH
Paul
addressed the church as a whole about this matter. Cf. 1 Cor. 5. And in his
recommendation concerning the restoration of this man (2 Cor. 2:6) he speaks of
his punishment as having been inflicted by "many," literally, the
greater part or majority. This distinctly implies that the church was
democratic in the exclusion of the man. It was not done by the elders, nor by
the deacons, but by the many or the majority.
5.
THE SELECTION OF TRAVELING COMPANIONS FOR PAUL
Cf. 1 Cor. 16:3; 1 Cor. 8:19,
23. Paul recognized the right of the churches to have their
own representatives accompany him in his travels among the churches in making
up the offering for the saints at Jerusalem. We, no doubt, have these
"messengers of the church" mentioned in Acts 20:4. Thus Paul was not
a lord over God's heritage, but recognized their right of self-government. He
speaks of these brethren as having been selected of the churches. This implies
that the churches acted as bodies in their selection. They
were not appointed by the elders. The only way a church can act as a body is by
some method of voting. Any proper method of voting is an expression of
democracy.
6
THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE WHOLE CHURCH TO-
(1) Maintain Unity of Action.
See Rom. 12:16; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2
Cor. 13:11; Eph. 4.3; Phil. 1:27; 1 Pet. 3:8. Strong very justly remarks on
these passages that they are not "mere counsels to passive submission), such as might be given under a hierarchy, or to
the members of a society of the Jesuits; they are counsels to cooperation and
to harmonious judgment."
(2) Preserve Pure Doctrine and
Practice.
1 Tim. 3.15; Jude 3. See also
the exhortations to the churches in Rev. 2 and 3.
(3) Guard the Ordinances.
And we may conclude by saving
that in no instance in the New Testament do we see the independency and
democracy of the church contradicted.
VII. THE MISSION
OF THE CHURCH
The mission of the church is
clearly outlined in the parting commission of our Lord as recorded in Matt.
28:16, 20. There are three elements in this commission.
The phrase "teach all
nations" may be translated "disciple all nations," and this is
its meaning. From Mark's rendering of the commission we find that the disciples
are to be made by the preaching of the gospel. In the light of other passages
it cannot be held that the discipling was done through the
act of baptizing, as some would have it. We find that the Master, the author of
the commission and our perfect example, "made and baptized" disciples
(John 4:1); which implies that the disciples were made and then baptized, and
not made by or through baptism.
We need to
note that this commission authorizes world-wide preaching of the gospel. We are
to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15),
making disciples of all nations. Nor can it be sensibly held that this
pertained only to the apostolic age. The promise of the presence of Christ to
the end of the age (Matt. 28:20) implies a continuation of the commission to
the end of the age, by which is meant the end of the
present dispensation which will come at the return of Christ.
2.
BAPTIZING THEM
While
baptism has nothing to do with the making of disciples and has no saving power,
yet it is commanded of our Lord, is, therefore, important.
Christ's commission expressly
forbids the baptizing of infants and other unaccountable persons. The
antecedent of "them" is the ones who are discipled. No one is entitled to baptism unless he can be taught, and then
he is not entitled to it until he has been taught and has received that
teaching. Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:36, 37; 19:1-5.
3.
TEACHING THEM
We are not through when we
have made disciples and baptized them. We are enjoined to teach them, and to
teach them all that Christ has commanded.
We have already referred to
the promise of Christ's presence that is attached to this commission.
The promise not only indicates that the commission has a perpetual application
to the end of the age, but it also indicates that Christ addressed the
apostles, not as individuals, but as constituting the church. These apostles
are long dead, and yet the end of the age has not come. Christ, therefore, must
needs have been speaking to them as a body that would perpetuate itself to the
end of the age. The commission, therefore, was committed to
the church. The carrying out of it, then, is primarily a church responsibility.
VIII. THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH
Of what
kind of persons did New Testament churches consist? Was there such a thing as
infant church membership? We may answer this latter question with an emphatic
negative. Every word in the New Testament that in any may touches the matter of
church membership is wholly against the idea of infant church membership. We
find not even the slightest hint that there was ever received into a New Testament church any unaccountable person. New Testament
churches were composed of supposedly regenerate persons only. Those who have
departed from this have departed from the Word of God, and their institutions
are unworthy of being called New Testament churches.
IX. THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH
Discipline may be defined as
treatment suited to a learner or disciple, or the training of one to act in
accordance with established rules.
From the
great commission we have seen that the teaching or training of the disciples of
Christ has been committed to the church. This teaching or training must needs
be suited to the needs of different classes of disciples, and it must needs
consist of more than a mere announcement of the truth. We find this to be true
according to the epistles to the churches and according to Christ Himself. We
note, therefore-
1.
THREE KINDS OF DISCIPLINE
(1) Formative Discipline.
This is
the primary and simplest form of discipline. It consists in teaching,
instructing, and guiding the willing-hearted in the ways of truth and
righteousness.
Churches should engage themselves diligently in this form of discipline. It is the best and most satisfactory method. If it is faithfully used, other less desirable forms of discipline will not be so much needed.
(2) Corrective Discipline.
But the most diligent
formative discipline will not prevent lapses from the straight and
narrow path on the part of all believers. Some are sure to be overtaken by sin.
This class is spoken of in
Gal. 6:1. These are not the stubbornly and persistently sinful, but such as
live righteously in the main but are overcome by some temptation or habit and
thus fall into sin. They are to be restored by the spiritually minded in the church. The spiritually minded in the church should go to
those who have erred and, in meekness, seek to recover them from their sin. If
this plan is followed out, many will be saved from greatly injuring themselves
and the church.
Another instance of corrective
discipline is found in Matt. 18:17. Here we have the case
of one brother offending against another. After the offended one has taken the
first two steps and they have been of no avail, he is to bring the matter to
the attention of the church. The church is then to judge the case and seek to
reconcile the two estranged brethren. This is corrective discipline.
By excisive discipline is meant
the cutting off or excluding of a member of the church for some wicked offense
or for a persistent course of sin. No matter how well a church may acquit
herself in the use of both formative and corrective discipline, she will find the necessity,
now and then of withdrawing from some person the hand of church
fellowship. May we note-
A. The purposes of excisive discipline.
(a) The
good of the excluded. Whenever the one excluded seems to be a saved person,
this should be the uppermost thing. And even when it is clear that the
offending person is lost, we should hope that his exclusion will help to bring
about his salvation.
Paul recommended the exclusion
of the incestuous man at Corinth first of all for "the destruction of the flesh," i.e., the carnal nature.
We should pray for the excluded that God will use the discipline for their own
good.
In the
case of the man at Corinth we see that the discipline accomplished its desired
purpose. From 2 Cor. 2:6-8 we see that this man repented. Many a disciple has
been awakened and brought to his senses by exclusion from the church.
(b) The good of the church.
Paul assigned another reason for the exclusion of the man
at Corinth. He tells them to purge out the old leaven because "a little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump." Cf. 1 Cor. 5:7, 8. The church must
exclude the wicked in order to protect the rest of her membership. The example
of the wicked, if they are left in the church, will tend to corrupt the entire
church.
(c) The
glory of Christ. Even though the church did not need to exclude the wicked for
the sake of the wicked themselves and as a protection to the rest of the
membership, she would need to do it for the glory of Christ. The church is His
body. It represents Him in the world. It dishonors Him for His body to be
defiled with wickedness. Paul argues against divisions in the church on the
ground that Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13). Likewise
we may argue against the permission of wickedness in the church on the ground
that there is no wickedness in Him.
B. Offenses worthy of excisive
discipline.
These
offenses may be divided into three kinds; viz.,
(a) Personal offenses. This
class of offenses is referred to in Matt. 18:15-18, and the method of dealing
with them is indicated. A church should not allow one of its members to bring
before it a grievance against another member until the two preceding
steps prescribed by Jesus have been taken.
(b) Doctrinal offenses. Cf.
Rom. 16:17; 1 Tim. 6:3-5. From each of the foregoing passages excisive church
discipline, in the case of the persistent teachers of error, is a reasonable
inference. Those spoken of in Rom. 16:17 evidently were not members of the church. But suppose they had been. Could the membership
of the church so avoid them as to prevent them from doing much harm without
excluding them from the church? Would it be in good order to retain in the
church persons that the membership as a whole would need to avoid? And suppose
these false teachers insisted on speaking their errors in the meetings of the
church? Answer these questions sensibly, and you will see
the clear inference that such characters as referred to in Rom. 16:17, if in
the church, must needs be excluded from the church in order that Paul's
instructions be carried out in an orderly and effective manner.
And would it be right for
Timothy to withdraw himself from members of the church?
Would not such a course produce schism in the body, which should never exist in
the body of Christ? Thus we have the same inference from this second passage.
But note that in both cases
the false teachers are spoken of as propagating their errors
and causing division in the church. Such conduct calls for discipline. However,
the case is different with those who do not understand the truth as they
should, but are teachable and do not conduct themselves so as to cause division
in the church. It is of this class that Paul speaks when he says. "Him
that is weak in the faith receive ye" (Rom. 14:1).
(c) Moral offenses. Cf. 1 Cor.
5:1-7; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14.
2.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON DISCIPLINE
(1)
Appointment of committee not obligatory.
Let it be noted that nothing
is said in any of the Scriptures referred to, nor is anything said in any other
passage, as to the necessity of sending a committee to see an offending member
before disciplinary action is instituted.
We do not say that this should
never be done. But we do wish to emphasize that the Scripture in no wise binds
the church to do this in any case. In fact the Scripture never once mentions
the appointment of a committee in cases of discipline. The church is left free
under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to decide when a committee
is needed.
Some seek to use Matt.
18:15-17 to prove that a committee must always be appointed to see the
offending person. But there is here no mention of a committee appointed by the
church. In this passage we have directions for personal offenses. This has nothing to do with other offenses.
(2) Personal visitation not
obligatory.
It is not said in the
Scripture that some one must labor privately with the person guilty
of a doctrinal or moral offense before the case is brought before the church
for excisive discipline. Again we do not say this should not be done. In the
case of ordinary doctrinal and moral offenses we are not bound to this
procedure in all cases. And in the graver and grosser offenses, it should not
be followed. In such cases, only immediate exclusion can accomplish the desired
results. Notice that Paul recommended immediate exclusion,
without any intermediate steps, in the case of the man at Corinth. Cf. 1 Cor.
5:1-7.
(3) Church trials unnecessary
and unwise.
Nothing is
said anywhere in Scripture about a church trial for an offender.
In the matter of personal
offenses, there may come occasions when the accused should be heard in his own
defense. And in such cases, he should be heard, unless the facts concerning his
guilt are too well known to admit of any doubt. But in such cases
it is better that his defense of himself be brought to the church by a
committee rather than by the accused person himself. And in other offenses, if
the church deems it well, it may permit the accused to defend himself; but
then, likewise, it is much better that his defense be made through a committee.
Otherwise much evil may be wrought by bitter words being spoken and improper
matters being presented to the church.
In any case where a church is
sure of the guilt of the accused, she need not permit him any defense. A church
should never exclude a member, however, without being sure of the grounds. She
should always take the necessary steps to ascertain the facts.
But she is not bound to any stereotyped form of procedure. The church is not a
court, and cannot be forced to act under the rules of a court. We call
attention to these matters because they are some of the things which the Devil
uses to block discipline and injure churches in various ways. In most churches
a matter of discipline will always call some traditionalist to his feet to
insist that the church follow certain steps that were
customary in the backwoods when he was a boy. If the church allows herself to
be brought under such tradition, she will seldom ever fulfill her duty in the
matter of discipline. Committees to see offending parties seldom function, and
are continued from one business meeting to another until the matter wears
itself out and is forgotten. If the church will refuse to be made a slave of backwoods tradition and follow the Word and Spirit of God
instead, she will find herself much better off.
X.
THE PERPETUITY OF THE CHURCH
The author
holds that Matt. 16:18 guarantees the perpetuity of local churches. He believes, as already, indicated, that
"church" in this passage refers to the church as an institution,
expressing itself in local bodies.
The word translated
"build" (oikodomeo) means "build up," and is often
translated "edify." Christ was here talking, we
believe, about the perpetual building up of His church, by means of which it
would be kept alive; just as the human body is kept alive by being constantly
built up, worn out cells being replaced.
"Hades" (which is
the Greek word brought over into English) does not allude distinctly
to the place of torment; but to the realm of the dead or abode of the departed.
"Gates" signify entrance. We take it therefore, that Christ was
saying, that His church would not be swallowed up in the realm of the dead,
would not die, in other words; because he would build it up perpetually.
The author
believes this promise has been carried out. In the second century many churches
drifted away from the New Testament pattern. A break between these and most of
the true churches came about the middle of the second century. The true
churches came to be known mainly as Montanists. Later these true churches were
known by such other names as Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigenses, and Waldenses. As early as the third century the general name of
Anabaptists was given to these churches. This name means
"rebaptizers." It was given because these churches refused to
recognize the baptism administered by the false churches. Finally the prefix
"ana" was dropped and the simple name "Baptist" was left.
It is not
maintained that any of the churches under the various names given were perfect,
or that there were not some called by these various names that were false. But
it is maintained that these groups, in the main, held the essentials of New
Testament faith.
XI. THE IDENTIFYING
MARK'S OF THE CHURCH
If, as we believe, the church
of Christ has been perpetuated then it is in the world today and been in the
world since its founding. By what means, then, are we to identify this church
in any age? In order to have a church, there must be-
1. A
LOCAL INDEPENDENT BODY
The Roman Catholic Church
cannot qualify as the church of Christ. Neither can any branch of the Methodist
Episcopal persuasion. Nothing such as these existed in New
Testament times. New Testament churches were local, independent bodies. No
hierarchal institution can qualify as a church.
2.
HOLDING THE TRUTH AS TO THE WAY OF MAKING DISCIPLES
The
primary purpose of Jesus in putting the church in the world was that His gospel
should be preached. No institution that preaches a false gospel is recognized
of him who even threatened the church at Ephesus with the removal of its
candlestick because it had merely lapsed in its zeal and grown negligent
concerning the work He had committed to His churches.
No institution that teaches
any form of salvation by works is holding to the truth about the way of making
disciples. A church must teach salvation wholly by grace through faith.
3. HOLDING THE TRUTH AS TO BAPTISM
Scriptural baptism is
essential to a true church because it is the door into the church. Cf. 1 Cor. 12:13. Hence there
can be no church without baptism. An organization that practices anything but
immersion, or that does not hold to believers' baptism, or
that baptizes people in order that they may he saved, surely is not recognized
of Christ as one of His churches.
4.
RECOGNIZING CHRIST ALONE AS ITS HEAD, AND SEEKING TO CARRY OUT HIS WILL AND
COMMANDS
The church is a mystical body.
Consequently it belongs to its head. If its head is Christ, it is His church.
If its head is the pope, it is the pope's church. If its head is a conference,
then it is the conference's church. If its head is a presbytery or synod, then
it belongs to the presbytery or synod instead of to Christ.
Wherever is found a local body
possessing all of the attributes, there is a church. Without all of them there
can be no church.
And we do not hesitate to say
in closing that, as regards the regular denominations, at
least, only Baptist churches today can, by the foregoing tests, be identified
as New Testament churches.