already considered the origin of the church, and found that it came into existence as far as man and time are concerned during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was founded and organized by Him personally, and not mediately through His disciples, though it had existed in the mind of God since before the world began, we now take up the often misunderstood subject of the nature of the church.

As many and as varied as are the theories concerning the origin of the church, they are surpassed in number and variety by those concerning the nature of the church. We may note in passing some of the theories as to the nature of the church. (1) To some, the church is any society which has a religious atmosphere about it. (2) Some see in the church simply the religious side of the state. This is most common in those countries where the church and state are united. (3) The word "church" is used by some for all the professors of religion within a given state, nation, or locality. (4) The word is used by some in a denominational sense as referring to the adherents of a given denomination in a given area. (5) Many hold the church to be any society which engages in the rectifying of social wrongs. (6) By far the most common theory concerning the church is that it is the totality of true believers of all time without regard to their locality or present state. This list could doubtless be multiplied at great length, but these comprise the more common theories. We would mention one other view of the church, which we believe to be the scriptural one, and that which we will expound more at length later in this chapter. It is (7) that the church is the local assembly of professing believers who have been scripturally baptized, and who have entered into a covenant with one another to do God’s will.

All of the erroneous theories of the nature of the New Testament church, though varied in some ways, have yet some things in common. (1) They generally depart from the original meaning of the word ekklesia, and either willfully or ignorantly apply a meaning to the word which was not originally applicable. (2) They all originated after the First Century of the Christian era, and are therefore not apostolic, but are simply products of human reasoning. (3) Because the foregoing is true, they are all departures from the uniform New Testament usage of the word.

Satan is well versed in the things of Christianity, and he well knows that God has ordained that the wisdom of God is to be made known by the church, (Eph. 3:10-11). Therefore, he seeks with all his power to thwart the plan of redemption by corrupting the vehicle of truth, the Lord’s church. And what more subtle and easy way could he choose than to influence men to teach erroneous concepts of the church so that men might be content with a religious society which bears the name of "church," but which embodies none of the essential principles of the New Testament church?

Church truth is very important, yet there is so little study of it. People have become unconcerned and even lethargic, and are content to take anyone’s word on the subject rather than take the time and trouble to put in some personal study on it. This is a dangerous practice, to say the least.

Perhaps some are negligent of study upon this great subject because it is referred to in the Scripture as a "mystery" (Eph. 3:3; 5:32; Col. 1:24-26). Yet a mystery, in Scripture terminology is not that which is unknowable, but that which has been hidden, but is now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26; Col. 1:26). We find several things in the New Testament which are called mysteries, but they are all things which have been hidden but are now revealed, and hence are subjects for study.

Before getting to the subject proper, it shall be necessary to consider the NEGATIVE ASPECT OF THE CHURCH, and look at some of the erroneous concepts which are held by the religious world.

A view which is current in state churches is that which makes the church to be synonymous with the state. This is the natural result of infant baptism, and since it is generally required by law in such countries which practice this that each child be sprinkled by a minister of the state church, it makes every member of the state to also be a member of the church. To all intents and purposes it brings the world into the church, and breaks down all distinction between the church and the world. Dr. W. G. T. Shedd, in defending this view, says:

Dr. Shedd’s statement is in direct opposition to the word of Christ. Dr. Shedd says that we must not judge a man by his actions, but must assume he is a Christian if he has been baptized as a child. The Lord said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven," (Matt. 7:16-21). The outward actions of a man proves his inward condition generally. But more than this, the Lord declares that even where a semblance of worship is found, it means nothing if not backed up by the substance of true faith in Christ, (v. 21). This is also the heart of New Testament teaching concerning church discipline. The church member must make his life correspond with his gospel profession, or else he is to be purged out of the church, (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

The fact that those sprinkled in infancy generally do not give evidence of regeneration when they come to adult years is practically admitted by the above writer, and it is a condition which commonly obtains in pedobaptist churches. It is too bad that man will shut his eyes to obvious truth in order to hold to a preconceived idea.

Dr. Shedd’s view moves upon several misconceptions, namely: (1) That baptism has superseded circumcision, and partakes of similar requirements, and is to be performed upon the same subjects. But (a) Circumcision was a national ordinance applicable only to the Jews, and still in force for them, while baptism is a church ordinance, and is only to be performed upon those who have met strict requirements. (b) If baptism has superseded circumcision, why then was Timothy, a Jewish believer, circumcised after he was baptized, but Titus, a Greek, was baptized, but not circumcised? (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The answer is, that circumcision is a Jewish ordinance, and has nothing to do with the church, while baptism is a church ordinance and has nothing to do with the Jews, except as they meet the requirements for church membership. (c) The council at Jerusalem declared that circumcision was not binding upon Gentile believers, (Acts 15), but no such decree was made concerning baptism for Jews, because baptism is required for all church members irregardless of their national origin. (2) The second misconception is that infants are proper subjects for church membership. The few Scripture passages which are applied to this purpose are taken out of their context, else they would not apply to this subject. Such, for example is Matthew 19:14: "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." But (a) They are only to be "suffered," or allowed to come. There is to be no compulsion. (b) "Suffer" and "forbid not" both indicate the ability to reason and choose. Infants are not under discussion, but only those who have attained sufficient age to make a personal choice. (c) Baptism is not even under discussion here; only "coming to Christ." (d) Jesus never personally baptized, but delegated that to His disciples, (John 4:1-2), so that it is obvious that these were not brought to Him for baptism.

Acts 2:39: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as he Lord our God shall call." This cannot apply to infants, for the context limits this: (a) To those whom the Lord has called through His Word. (b) To those who are capable of repenting, Vs. 38, or, in other words, those who had attained the age of accountability. And (c) those who were capable of receiving Peter’s testimony and exhortation, v. 40. This is borne out by v. 41: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..."

Other passages are held to teach infant baptism because of the mention of households being baptized, as, for example, Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16. But in each of these, the context bears out and fully proves that none in these households were infants. "And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house," (Acts 16:34). This leaves no doubt but that all the jailer’s house were capable of believing, for they all did so. "And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." Here, the household of Lydia is seen to be composed of "brethren," which seems hardly the proper name to be given to infants. These were also comforted by Paul’s release, which is again hardly predicable of infants. Concerning the household of Stephanas, (1 Cor. 1:16), Paul intimates (in 16:15) that they were adults, since they had "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." This is likewise not predicable of infants. The author, though pastor to three smaller churches during his years in the ministry, has had numerous instances where he baptized whole households, none of which had infants in them. So households without any infants in them is not at all unusual.

(3) The third misconception upon which this view moves is that the church can scripturally form an alliance with the state. This is without Biblical precept or precedent. There is nothing in the whole of the New Testament to excuse an alliance of the church with Caesar. Christ said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things which are God’s," (Matt. 22:21).

State churches are built upon a foundation of the sands of humanity and shall not prosper in the Lord’s sight, however they may in man’s sight. To make membership in a given denomination the means of citizenship in the state is to corrupt both state and church. This view is both unscriptural and unwise, for it makes members of the church those who are still unregenerate, and gives them a false hope.

A second view of the church regards it as the totality of local assemblies within a given area. It is used, now of all the churches in a city, now of all the churches in a province, and again of all the churches in a nation or continent. It is usually referred to as a provincial church when so used. Such an idea appeals to the pride of ambitious men, who are never content to simply be pastor over one congregation.

There is but one passage in the New Testament which would seem to favor such a usage. That one is Acts 9:31, of which some of the oldest manuscripts read, "So the church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being edified; and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, was multiplied."

This is the only usage of the word ekklesia which seems to be applicable to a plurality of churches, or to believers in more than one location. The noun and corresponding verbs here are singular, where we would expect to find a plural noun and plural verbs. Some ancient copies do have the plural noun and verbs, but the majority of the oldest manuscripts read as above. Concerning this passage, Dr. B. H. Carroll has the following to say:

That the above is the true explanation is borne out by the apostle Paul himself, who says, "I persecuted the church of God and wasted it," (Gal. 1:13), of which the record in Acts declares, "And at that time there was great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem," (Acts 8:1). And again, "Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem," (Acts 9:13). Saul’s persecution was directed against the Jerusalem church only, although he pursued its members beyond the limits of Judaea. Thus, there is no universal or provincial church here.

This passage certainly gives no assurance to the advocates of a provincial church, since (i) It stands completely alone in the Scriptures with no other passages to substantiate it. (ii) The theory, if it takes this passage as teaching a provincial church, must not only stand alone, but must also depend upon a contested reading for substantiation. (iii) Even granting the possibility that the R. V. reading is the true one, the passage still admits a plausible and even probable interpretation which applies only to the scattered disciples of the Jerusalem church. (iv) This interpretation seems probable since we do not read of the existence of any other churches at this time, nor indeed, until some six years later when we first find reference made to the church at Antioch, (Acts 11:20-26).

The provincial idea of the church is the figment of a popish mind, and has no place in the thinking of a devout student of the Word, not being in harmony with either the meaning of the word ekklesia, nor with the New Testament usage of that word.

The third, and by far the most common view of the nature of the church, is that which regards it as a vast, worldwide, invisible body comprised of all believers of all past ages, the present, and all future time to the end of the world. As such, it amounts to making the church of God synonymous with the family of God and the kingdom of God, something which is not to be found in the New Testament teaching on the subject.

There is a great deal of difference in the Family of God, the Kingdom of God, and the Church of God, and they are not to be confused with one another. The distinction between these three was set forth in a tract some years ago by H. B. Taylor, and is quoted by Dr. Roy Mason. For the benefit of the reader it is reproduced.

A clarifying statement is in order at this point. It is not to be denied that there is in prospect the "Glory Church" which will be universal in the sense of being comprised of all the saved, but it is not yet assembled, and so does not constitute an assembly as yet. When it is assembled, it will then also be local. However, the church with which we are presently dealing is that institution which Christ ordained and left in the world to be His witness in this present dispensation.

The Scripture clearly distinguishes between the present institution known as the church, and that which shall come to pass in the future. Paul reveals that, "in the dispensation of the fullness of times" God will "gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth," (Eph. 1:10). The time element of this gathering together is further set forth when we compare Hebrews 12:22-23 with Revelation 21:1-3: "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."

Several things present themselves to us here. (i) The holy city, which John saw, is identified with the heavenly Jerusalem, the bride of Christ. (ii) This is identical to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, of which the writer to the Hebrews spoke. (iii) This is the "church of the firstborn ones," or, in other words, of all the saved. (iv) This looks to the future, and is not a present reality, as B. H. Carroll declares:

(v) The "general assembly" (Greek. Panegyris—"an assembly of a whole nation, especially for a public festival" Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon) is generally agreed by scholars to refer to "the innumerable company of angels," and not to "the church of the firstborn." However, the word church (Greek ekklesia) embodies the meaning of assembly in itself. But this "assembly of firstborn ones" has not yet assembled. How then can we speak of it as a present reality?

Too many have assumed without any reason whatever that ekklesia has lost its original meaning of "a called out assembly," yet no proof of this assumption is ever cited. And there is no more dangerous practice than to assume that a word means different than its primary meaning. If we cast away the native signification of a word, we cast away the only standard for right interpretation. And while it is to be granted that words do sometimes develop different shades of meaning, they never completely reverse their meaning, which would be the case if ekklesia means "an unassembled assembly" as commonly held.

The Greek words ekklesia (assembly) and katholikos (general or universal) are mutually exclusive. The former is expressive of locality and a restricted assembly, while the latter is expressive of universality and all-inclusiveness. Not only so, but katholikos is not even a New Testament word, nor is it to be found in the Greek Old Testament. It made its appearance sometime after the First Century when it first began to be applied to the so-called general (katholikos) epistles. It was never applied by inspiration to the church. Dr. Roy Mason observes on this as follows:

But to get back to our consideration of the passages in Hebrews 12 and Revelation 21, we may also note that: (vi) When this obtains, Christ will be seen in His character as Judge, (Heb. 12:23; John 5:22). (vii) Then too will be the perfecting (or making complete) of "just men" (i.e., justified men). That is, at this time their bodies will have been redeemed also, resurrected or renovated as their condition may be, and reunited with their redeemed souls and spirits, thus completing, making perfect, their redemption, (Rom. 8:23). (viii) After this Christ will present this church to Himself, a glorious, spotless, unblemished church, purged of all the imperfections that are part and parcel of every earthly assembly at present, (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:2). This will doubtless be the "congregation of the saints" mentioned in Psalm 149, the whole of which psalm is prophetic.

Some of the passages of Scripture which are pressed into service as proof texts for a present universal church are not applicable as such, but are merely institutional or generic usages of the word. The usage of the definite article with the word is sometimes thought to teach of a greater church than the local assembly, as for instance its appearances in the Ephesian epistle. "The church" as found in Ephesians does not teach that there is a universal church. (i) Since the epistle was written to the church at Ephesus, the definite article refers only to the church concerned in the epistle. (ii) Even granting that there may be a wider application than the Ephesian church, the phrase cannot be construed as a reference to a universal church. It is used in the generic sense; that is, what is true of one, is also true of every other one of the species mentioned. If the phrase "the church" teaches a universal church, then the phrase "the husband," and "the wife," (Eph. 5:23, etc.), must also teach a universal husband and a universal wife. But who would be absurd enough to maintain this. The three phrases are used exactly the same way—generically—applicable to any specific one of the class mentioned. (iii) Ephesians 5:27 does indeed teach of a glorious church which far surpasses any earthly church in this dispensation, but as the "might" declares, this is not a present fact, but is still in prospect; the subjunctive denotes that which is contrary to present fact.

Other passages are held as proof texts for this, when actually the original language teaches the very opposite. "...the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," (1 Tim. 3:15). But this is not the reading in the inspired original, for the definite articles are missing. The translators are often promiscuous in their dealing with the article in the Greek language: they sometimes put it in where it is absent in the Greek, or leave it out where it appears in the Greek. There is no indefinite article "a" or "an" in the Greek language for the simple reason that if something is not definite (that is, if the definite article is missing) there is but one thing that it can be, (providing, of course, there are no modifiers to make it definite,) and that is indefinite. Here the article is missing, and the passage should be translated "a church of the living God, a pillar and ground of the truth." The truth presented here is that it is the local assembly, not the universal, invisible church, which is the pillar and stay of the truth. So Dr. Hort translates it (The Christian Ecclesia, p. 172). He goes on to say:

Another incorrect rendering which is used by universal church advocates is Ephesians 2:21, which reads in the King James Version: "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord," but which literally reads: "In whom each individual building," etc. This teaches quite another thing. (i) This teaches concerning local churches, not a universal church made of several local churches. (ii) The Ephesian church was comprehended as being built up in Christ as a holy temple in the Lord as well as every other congregation. "In whom ye also are builded..." (iii) This makes each separate local church to be a habitation of the Spirit, (v. 22). We cannot do better than to quote again from Dr. Hort on this passage.

The Lord has never had but one house of witness upon earth at a time except in times of transition, and He doesn’t have two now either. "Reason forces everyone to admit that Christ did not found a variety of churches with conflicting ideas or with ideas conflicting with the Scriptures."—R. J. Anderson, Vital Church Truths, p. 1. When the temple was prepared, the tabernacle passed off the scene, and the same was true of the temple when the church was organized. The rending of the temple veil at the time of the crucifixion was God’s signification that the temple had been superseded by the New Testament church, and it gave finality to Jesus’ words, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," (Matt. 23:38-39).

Some say that the "one body" of Ephesians 4:4 is the universal, invisible church, that it could not be applied to an insignificant little local assembly. But let us see if this be so. Advocates of the universal, invisible church are constrained to admit that there were also local churches in the New Testament, and that these were different in kind to the universal church. This means that there two in kind as well as two in number. This hardly harmonizes with Ephesians 4:4. Indeed, Dr. C. I. Scofield has four different kinds of churches in his notes, which only shows the lengths to which this theory will lead one.

Some try to get around this difficulty by saying, "Ah, but the local churches are but parts, and only the universal, invisible church is the whole." But what saith the Scriptures? "Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch," (Acts 15:22). "Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you," (Rom. 16:23). "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place," etc., (1 Cor. 14:23). In these passages we see local congregations viewed as complete bodies of Christ within themselves. The only appearances of the phrase "whole church" in Scripture are applied to the local body, and to it only. For that matter, we have but to consider almost any Scripture which has reference to a church, to see this same fact set forth. The very usage of the plural of the noun refutes this theory also. We read of "the churches of Judaea," the "churches of Galatia," the seven churches of Asia," and many others, which shows that each church is comprehended as a complete entity within itself, and several churches are acknowledged as several, and not as parts of one whole.

On the theory of the universal church, we should read of the "whole church of God," instead of "the churches of God," as in 1 Corinthians 11:16. The same may be said of 1 Corinthians 14:33; 16:1; Acts 15:41; 16:5; Romans 16:4, 16, and every other place where the plural is used. We may be allowed to ask why this is, if, as the proponents of this theory tell us, all believers and all churches constitute one great church. The truth of the matter is that there is no such monstrosity as a "universal church" (whether visible or invisible) known to the Scriptures. It is a figment of the carnal mind. Well has Joseph Cross, an Episcopalian, said of this:

Again, J. A. Seiss, a Lutheran scholar, has rightly recognized the New Testament teaching in this matter concerning the church. He says:

Since the Scripture itself speaks of the church in the plural, it is obvious that the "one body" of Eph. 4 does not refer to number. What then does it signify? We are brought back to the proposition that God has only one house of witness at a time. The "one body" then signifies one as far as kind is concerned—"one" generically not "one" numerically. There is only one kind of body, just as there is only one kind of baptism, although it is manifested many times and in many places. And this one body is the local, visible congregation of called-out believers who are witnesses of Christ’s redemption and glory. But the theoretical universal church does none of the things for which the church was instituted. It does not witness to the world of the crucifixion, resurrection and coming again of our Lord, (Acts 1:8; 1 Cor. 15:1-4, 52-58); it does not observe the ordinances, (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20); it does not edify the saved, (1 Cor. 14:12); it does not watch over and contend for the faith, (1 Tim. 3:15; Jude 3); nor does it do any of those things which make for the glory of Christ, which is the purpose of the church in the first place, (Eph. 3:21). But these things are all the natural and regular work of the local assembly.

Some would endeavor to adduce a universal church from John 10:16: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." This can be applied to a present "flock" only by poor exegesis, for the whole passage looks to the future when both Jew ("this fold") and Gentile ("other sheep") shall indeed become "one flock." This has application in a limited sense to the local assembly, as we see the two united in the Ephesian church, (Eph. 2:11-18), But in its fullest sense this looks forward to when the "fullness of the Gentiles" has come in, and when Israel is no longer cast off, as foretold in Romans 11:12-27. Not until Israel as a nation has been restored will this "one flock" obtain in its fullness.

We may be allowed to ask this question: if there is presently a universal church, when did it become so? If it is an invisible church, when did this come about? For we know that the Jerusalem church was neither universal nor invisible. The same may be said of the Antioch church, the church at Corinth, and indeed, of all the churches of the New Testament. That they were local and visible I think that no one will deny. Nor that there is a great disharmony between them and the present conception of a universal, invisible, unassembled assembly. I leave it to the advocates of this theory whether it is a reasonable theory, or only a pride inflating excuse for compromise.

Perhaps some will ask "Why be so set against the doctrine of the present universal church, when you grant that there is a time coming when there will be such a universal gathering?" Aside from it being unscriptural, the doctrine of the universal, invisible church as commonly taught is positively harmful to the local church. All too many people use their supposed membership in the universal church as an excuse for shirking their duty to the local house of witness. Probably no one doctrine has contributed so much to the disregard and disparagement of the local church as this doctrine has. B. H. Carroll says:

How then can any person honor Christ’s institution when he dishonors the only present manifestation of it? Let the advocate of a present universal church carefully ponder this.

The doctrine of a universal church is a men-pleasing doctrine which allows a man to fellowship with any and every one making a profession of Christianity however heretical or depraved he may be, on the basis of the plea that "we are all members of the universal church." It is the way of the flesh.

This doctrine causes Baptists who embrace it to compromise the principles of the Bible which multiplied millions of our ancient Baptist brethren laid down their very lives to preserve for us. And what does this doctrine give in return? The praise and good will of weak and carnal professing Christians, many of whom are actually heretics, and many others of whom would delight to see Baptists wiped off the face of the earth. This theory promotes: (i) Unionizing with those unsound in the faith. (ii) Doctrinal laxity so as not to embarrass others. (iii) Irresponsibility toward the local church, the place of God’s glory. Is it worth it? I think not! (iv) Pride in one’s membership in that which has no real existence.

Believers’ position is made clear in Hebrews 13:12-13: "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach." If we are not willing to do this, then the Laodicean condition of lukewarmness, pride, blindness to spiritual truth, materialism, and utter repudiation by the Lord is certain to come upon us. God grant that it may not be!

With these negative aspects behind us, we may pass on to a more cheerful and positive consideration of the nature of the church, and we should begin by defining the church. This has two aspects to it: (1) From the human side, it is a congregation of professing believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have been scripturally baptized, and have entered into a covenant to constitute one body in Christ for worship, for mutual edification, for the evangelization of the lost, and for the perpetuation of the faith. (2) From the Divine side, it is a divine institution, purchased by the blood of Christ, indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, subject to the laws of Christ, superintended by the Spirit of Christ, and answerable to its sovereign Head for every deviation from His Word. It is authorized and empowered for the work of exalting its Head, and shall not be overcome by the hosts of evil. It is, and shall continue to be until the end of this age, the place of Christ’s glory upon the earth.

It shall not be our purpose to consider every part of the above definition in this chapter, for some of it comes logically under other chapter divisions. As to the nature of the church we would notice

This has always been one of the distinctive characteristics of Baptist church polity—one which sets it apart from Catholicism and much of Protestantism. Whereas Catholicism and most of Protestantism sprinkle infants and think thereby to make Christians of them, Baptists have always held it to be a cardinal practice to admit to baptism and church membership none but those who give satisfactory evidence of having already become Christians. Contrary to believing that baptism is necessary to salvation, Baptists hold the opposite that salvation is necessary to scriptural baptism. But we shall speak of this more at length in its proper place.

A great deal of confusion has resulted from the theory that the New Testament church is an outgrowth of the Jewish economy. Because there are certain parallels between the church and the Jewish economy, men have sought to make them parallel in all things, but this is an error. In comparing the church with the Jewish state the following things have been overlooked: (1) . Citizenship in the Jewish nation was compulsory. The Lord commanded that the national rite of circumcision be performed upon every male of eight days, (Gen. 17:10-14). But the church is only to receive those who have first been added to the Lord in regeneration. (2) Citizenship in Israel was predicated upon the first or natural birth, but membership in the church is only for those who have experienced the second, or spiritual birth, (John 3:3). (3) Citizenship in the nation of Israel was hereditary, and there were no provisions made for expulsion therefrom, nor conditions which would result in such an expulsion. But in the church, one of the earliest teachings was concerning prescribed conditions of membership, and provisions were made for the expulsion of those who did not meet these conditions, (Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 5;1-7, 12-13). (4) The Jewish economy was preparatory and typical, and as such it passed away when Christ, the substance came. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the church is an outgrowth of the tabernacle or temple. (i) The tabernacle and temple were both typical of Christ and His work of redemption, not of the church. (ii) The temple and tabernacle and all of their sacrifices and ordinances, because they were typical, were done away when the Antitype came, Eph. 2:15. (iii) The church is not the fulfillment of any Old Testament type or prophecy, but is the revelation of that which was formerly hidden, Eph. 3:9-11.

Because of these distinctions, it seems foolish to try to conform the church to the image of the tabernacle or temple, and it certainly is productive of much confusion as the practices of Catholicism and Protestantism abundantly show. All of the Baptist confessions of faith have this article of faith, for a regenerate membership of the church is one of the basic principles of the Baptists. The reader is referred to the chapter dealing with the Doctrine of the Church for a sample of these confessions.

These confessions are in harmony with the Scriptures, for we read the divine requirements for membership in such passages as Matthew 28:19, which literally reads: "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them." A person must be first made a disciple before he is eligible for baptism and church membership. "And the Lord was adding to the church day by day those who were being saved," (Acts 2:47, literal rendering). There can be little gainsaying of this passage, for it emphatically declares that as individuals were saved, they were added to the church, God Himself moving upon them to submit to the church’s ordinance of initiation. In no place is there a clear proof text for infant church members. "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light," (Eph. 5:8), wrote Paul to the church at Ephesus, and the declaration is a plain intimation of regeneracy of all the members of that church.

Vastly different is the requirement as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian), which declares that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." And again it affirms that the church "consists of all those throughout the world that pro fess the true religion, together with their children." Dr. A. H. Strong well says on this that "This definition includes in the church a multitude who not only give no evidence of regeneration, but who plainly show themselves to be unregenerate. In many lands it practically identifies the church with the world."—Systematic Theology, P. 887.

A number of other passages may be considered which plainly teach an adult, believing membership for the Lord’s church. "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," (John 8:31-32). "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples," (John 15:8). "Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men...If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues..." (1 Cor. 14:20, 23).

Of these things, not one is predicable of infants, nor of any but those who have attained sufficient growth and learning to be capable of reason and choice. Indeed, the very opposite is commanded in the latter passage: "in understanding be men (i.e., be full grown or adults)." The only children that are to be admitted to church membership are those which are "believing children," as Titus 1:6 literally reads.

Some of the passages which are held to teach infant baptism, and, consequently, infant church membership, may be considered at this time. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy," (1 Cor. 7:14). This passage has suffered a world of abuse by pedobaptists and even Baptists have not always rightly understood it. We believe the best exposition of this that we have seen is that of John L. Dagg, and though it is somewhat lengthy, we believe it justifies the insertion of it at this place.

Another such passage is Gensis 17:7: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generation for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." This promise was to Abraham and to his posterity as a nation, to be their God, but the difference between this and the church is that: (i) These were born into the nation of Israel and into specified families, but one is not born into the church. (ii) It was not the ordinance of circumcision that made a man an Israelite, but his birth. Conversely, a man may be born into a Christian family, but this does not make him a Christian. He must be born again to be a Christian, and even then, he cannot be a member of the church unless he has been baptized into it. (iii) Even so, this promise goes no further than the physical inheritance of the land of Canaan except for those who are also the spiritual seed of Abraham, for "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called," (Rom. 9:6-7). "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham," (Gal. 3:27, ?). (iv) Even this physical inheritance was not given to the infant children in their infancy. "...and thy seed after thee in their generation," shows that the promise came into effect for the children only after they had come to maturity and succeeded their fathers. In almost every instance where this promise is made, it is modified by the words "after thee." There is nothing in Gensis 17:7 or any related passage which would authorize infant baptism and infant church membership. In the New Testament are to be found many passages which show that no one becomes an heir to the spiritual promises of God in any way except by faith. Nor is it correct to say that an infant can do so through the faith of his sponsor. The Scriptures know nothing of proxy religion. It does declare that "The just shall live by his own faith," (The Greek verb is in the middle voice in all three appearances of this statement, Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38. See also the original statement in Hab. 2:4. The middle voice represents the subject as acting: (1) On himself. (2) For himself. (3) On something belonging to himself).

Well has Schleiermacher, himself a Pedobaptist, said that, "All traces of infant baptism which it has been desired to find in the New Testament must first be put into it."—Glaubenslehre, 2:383, Cited by A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 951. The reader will find infant baptism considered more at length in the chapter on the ordinances.

A second thing we must note in passing is that the church is an assembly of believers. All too many people are content to get their name on the church roll, then never darken its door again. This sad neglect may be illustrated by the tragic but true case of a woman, who after conversing with another for a while, invited her to church only to find that the second woman had already been a member in regular attendance there for some time. So irregular was the first woman in attendance that she didn’t even know the members of her own church.

If everyone in a church was as negligent as part of the members are, there would be, indeed, there could be, no church because no assembling of the members. A church is only able to continue its work so long as its members faithfully attend and support it. Those, therefore, who cease to attend, in effect, vote to close the church doors and disband the membership, and leave the community without a faithful Gospel witness. Conviction about this problem moved the author to write the following poem about this matter many years ago.

I passed a church building just today
That was falling through with fast decay.
What caused this fate? I sought to learn.
Twas caused by Christians’ unconcern.

They voted not with upraised hand,
The membership thus to disband.
But each by staying from its door,
Has closed this church forevermore.

And I wondered as I mused within,
Have I been guilty of this sin?
Does my presence there assure
That my church will yet endure?

Or shall I with thoughtless unconcern
The blood-bought house of Jesus spurn?
If I do this, I cast my vote
For the "Closed forever" church door note.

—Davis W. Huckabee,
Poems of the Midnight Hour

The true register of the saints is that which is recorded in heaven (Heb. 12:23),  the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 20:15). The church roll in no way guarantees that the person whose name is therein is a genuine saint. And that person who contents himself with having his name on the church roll yet who seldom or never attends is probably deceiving himself and living with a false hope.

The scriptural admonition is, "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching," (Heb. 10:25). (i) Even at this time some were guilty of this sin. (ii) The writer to the Hebrews warns against it, and connects it with the willful sin in the case of those who know their responsibility to attend, v. 26. (iii) Instead of forsaking the assembly, each Christian is to seek to edify and exhort and comfort his brother. (iv) "The day" is a short designation for the Day of the Lord, when the works of man are to be tried, and everyone will give account of the deeds done in the body, (1 Cor. 3:13).

Our Lord said, "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another," (John 13:34-35). What then of that individual who professes to love the Lord, but despises the congregation of the Lord’s people? "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death." (1 John 3:14). Or what shall we say of the one who disdains the Lord’s blood-bought. church? "If ye love me, Keep my commandments," (John 14:15).

Mark this, and mark it well: there are no free-lance disciples in the New Testament. Every professed disciple of Christ in the New Testament is soon found in fellowship with one of the Lord’s churches, or else he is soon manifested as a false disciple. Even Nicodemus could not long remain a secret disciple. His love for the Lord brought him out into the daylight to confess his discipleship and claim the body of his Lord. "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels," (Mark 8:38).

This is not to put a blanket condemnation upon all who do not attend services regularly. Certainly there are numerous cases where a person is unable to leave home because of sickness, inability, etc., It has been the writers privilege to know several wonderful saints who were providentially hindered from regular attendance at the Lord’s house. Some indeed were never able to attend; but these were always concerned with the Lord’s house, and were constant in their prayers for the Lord’s work and the Lord’s workers. Not in this category are those who are absent from their post in the Lord’s house simply because they stayed up too late on Saturday night enjoying their own pleasure. Nor those who use the Lord’s day as a time to go fishing, golfing, driving, visiting, etc. This is to claim the Lord’s day as one’s own. Worse still than these sporadic attendees, are those who are "unknown by face to the church" though they are nominal members. Such as these need to take heed to Paul’s admonition to some of the Corinthians: "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in^* the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5).

Church members should be made to realize that the New Testament church is not only an assembly, but is an assembly of believers. Any others within its ranks are there because they have crept in some nefarious and unscriptural way, and are without foundation or hope, and except they repent, they shall as surely perish as any other unbeliever, but their punishment shall be greater because they had greater opportunity for salvation.

Some, who believe that only believers are to be members of the New Testament church, find it hard to believe that the church is always a local institution in the Scriptures. Several things are the cause of such thinking. (i) All persons are prone to be prejudiced in favor of the first teaching which they received on any given subject. Because of this, many, without realizing that they do so, close their minds to any view except their own. Let a person protest to the contrary all he likes, yet this is still true of every person to a greater or lesser degree. But every Christian is honor bound to determine the truth as nearly as he possibly can whatever his previous beliefs may have been. (ii) Others are simply ignorant of the truth of the doctrine of the church because they have never been taught, nor have they ever made a personal study of it. To remedy this situation, there needs to be a greater emphasis put on teaching and studying church doctrine. (iii) A third group favor the universal church theory through pride. That is, they like to have a large, impressive organization behind them-one that will command the attention and respect of the world. Such are prone to disregard and disrespect the local assembly in their zeal for the "big church."

In dealing with this aspect of the church, we believe that it will be well for us to consider individually every one of the 115 appearances of the Greek word ekklesia. This in itself will be enough to convince most unbiased readers that there is no such thing in the New Testament as a "universal" church, whether visible or invisible.

(1) Matthew 16:18: "I will build my church." This is the first usage of ekklesia in the New Testament. It has application to the church as an institution, but this usage is not inconsistent with the local nature of the church, for whenever the abstract, generic or institutional usage becomes concrete, it is always a local assembly. However, this makes nothing for the universal, invisible theory. We will not tarry upon this passage since it is dealt with in other places.

(2) Matthew 18:17a: "Tell it to the church." How could anyone tell anything to a universal church of any kind?

(3) Matthew 18:17b: "But if he neglect to hear the church..." I think that no one will try to apply this to any but a local assembly. He must be a mad man if he does.

(4) Acts 2:47: "The Lord added to the church daily." This was the Jerusalem church—a local assembly.

(5) Acts 5:11: "Fear came upon the church." Again, this was the Jerusalem church—a local assembly.

(6) Acts 7:38: "He that was in the church in the wilderness." Reference here is to Israel while in the wilderness after having been called out of Egypt. Israel being a "called out assembly" is the only resemblance to the New Testament church. It should not have been translated "church" here since that word carries a distinctive idea that is not in the word as used here.

(7) Acts 8:1: "The church which was at Jerusalem. This is self explanatory as referring to the assembly at Jerusalem.

(8) Acts 8:3: "He made havoc of the church." The Jerusalem assembly, the only church in existence at the time, and the one which Saul is specifically said to have persecuted, Acts 8:1; 9:13.

(9) Acts 9:31: "So the church...had peace." This is the reading of several ancient manuscripts. This passage has already been discussed on pp. 46-47, and whether the plural or the singular reading is adopted, it gives no aid or comfort to the theory of a universal church.

(10) Acts 11:22: "The church which was at Jerusalem." Self explanatory as limited to the local assembly.

(11) Acts 11:26: "Assembled themselves with the church"—the Antioch church. No one, so far as we are aware, has ever claimed to have assembled with a universal church. (12) Acts 12:1: "To vex certain of the church." Again the Jerusalem church.

(13) Acts 12:5: "Without ceasing of the church." Again the Jerusalem church.

(14) Acts 13:1: "Now there were in the church." The local assembly at Antioch church, the only kind of a church in which people are ever seen in Scripture.

(15) Acts 14:23: "Ordained them elders in every church." The reference is to the churches in Lystra, Iconium and Antioch in Pisidia, and perhaps in Derbe.

(16) Acts 14:27: "And had gathered the church together." The local assembly at Antioch under whose authority the missionaries had gone out—the only kind of a church that could be "gathered together."

(17) Acts 15:3: "Being brought on their way by the church." The local assembly at Antioch, the only kind of a church that ever aids missionaries.

(18) Acts 15:4: "They were received of the church." The church at Jerusalem where the Antioch church had sent its missionaries to inquire about the basis of salvation, v. 2.

(19) Acts 15:22: "With the whole church." The Jerusalem church. One of only three references to "the whole church," a phrase that many use only of the supposed universal church, but all three of which are used of local assemblies only.

(20) Acts 15:41: "Confirming the churches." The churches in Syria and Cilicia, which included the Antioch church, the church at Tarsus, and others. On the theory of the universal church, the plural should not have been used here, but rather the singular.

(21) Acts 16:5: "So were the churches established." The same thing could be said here as in the reference next above.

(22) Acts 18:22: "And saluted the church." It is uncertain whether this referred to the Caesarean or Jerusalem church. In either case a local assembly.

(23) Acts 19:32: "The assembly was confused." The Greek civil assembly at Ephesus. Here ekklesia is translated literally. It would have eliminated a lot of confusion in the religious world if this Greek word had always been literally translated.

(24) Acts 19:39: "Determined in a lawful assembly." Same as the above.

(25) Acts 19:41: "He dismissed the assembly." Same as the two above.

(26) Acts 20:17: "Called the elders of the church." The church at Ephesus—another local assembly.

(27) Acts 20:28: "To feed the church of God." The Ephesian church—a local assembly, for no other church could the elders feed (shepherd or pastor).

(28) Romans 16:1: "A servant of the church which is at Cenchrea—a localized assembly.

(29) Romans 16:4: "All the churches of the Gentiles." Those assemblies comprised mainly of Gentile believers. Why was the plural used, if the church is universal?

(30) Romans 16:5: "The church that is in their house." The church which met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila. How could a "universal" church could be confined to a house?

(31) Romans 16:16: "The churches of Christ salute you." The local assemblies which belong to Christ. This shows possession only. It isn’t a denominational name.

(32) Romans 16:23: "Gaius mine host, and of the whole church." The church at Corinth of which Gaius was a member, and which he greatly helped. The same thoughts apply here as on "the whole church" in Acts 15:22.

(33) 1 Corinthians 1:2: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth." Clearly a local assembly.

(34) 1 Corinthians 4:17: "As I teach everywhere in every church." Paul had a common doctrine wherever he way. Every church was taught the same faith. Instead of "the Church" being everywhere, "everywhere" has its own independent church. How much clearer than this could it be made that every church is complete and entire in its locality?

(35) 1 Corinthians 6:4: "Least esteemed in the church." The local assembly at Corinth, to which he was writing.

(36) 1 Corinthians 7:17: "So ordain I in all churches." Another of Paul’s teachings which were common to every church in which he taught. On the universal church theory, Paul should have written "in all the church," but inspiration spoke otherwise.

(37) 1 Corinthians 10:32: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." The church at Corinth, to which he was writing. But even if it did not have application to this local body, it still would not have been a proof text for a universal church. Such usages could have no further application than to the church as an institution, if no particular assembly was meant. Again, this shows possession, and is not a denominational name.

(38) 1 Corinthians 11:16: "Neither the churches of God." Those churches which belonged to God by right of purchase, wherever they might be. Where man would try to find the universal church, there inspiration finds local assemblies.

(39) 1 Corinthians 11:18: "When ye come together in the church." The Corinthian church, where the divisions were. No one has ever claimed that the universal church has ever "come together" anywhere at any time.

(40) 1 Corinthians 11:22: "Or despise ye the church of God." The church at Corinth, which these were despising by their ungodly deeds.

(41) 1 Corinthians 12:28: "God hath set some in the church, first Apostles." The Jerusalem church, see Luke 6:12-13. The word "in" is locative, which implies that it is local, not universal.

(42) 1 Corinthians 14:4: "He that prophesieth edifieth the church." The church at Corinth, although doubtless the statement is general enough that the same thing could be said of any one prophesying in any church. This has a secondary generic application.

(43) 1 Corinthians 14:5: "That the church may receive edifying." Paul restricts this to the Corinthian church by the use of "ye"—the ones addressed.

(44) 1 Corinthians 14:12: "To the edifying of the church." Same as above.

(45) 1 Corinthians 14:19: "In the, church I had rather speak..." The church at Corinth. Again the ward "in" is locative. But this may have a secondary generic application.

(46) 1 Corinthians 14:23: "The whole church be come together." The church at Corinth, which actually assembles, and which is considered an entire church, not a part of it.

(47) 1 Corinthians 14:28: "Keep silence in the church." The church at Corinth. All of these instructions are primarily for the church at Corinth, and for other churches only as they harmonize in kind with the Corinthian church.

(48) 1 Corinthians 14:33: "As in all churches of the saints:" "Particular churches, as always, plural."—Louis Entzminger, Studies in the New Testament Church, p. 12.

(49) 1 Corinthians 14:34: "Keep silence in the church." The Corinthian church. See #47.

(50) 1 Corinthians 14:35: "For it is a shame for women to speak in the church." The Corinthian church primarily, but with application to any other church of like kind:

(51) 1 Corinthians 15:9: "I persecuted the church of God. The Jerusalem church. Cf. Acts 8:1-3; 9:13.

(52) 1 Corinthians 16:1: "The churches of Galatia." Inspiration uses the plural where the universal theory would use the singular.

(53) 1 Corinthians 16:19: "The churches of Asia salute you." The same thoughts apply here as immediately above.

(54) 1 Corinthians 16:19: "With the church that is in their house." The church that met in Priscilla and Aquila’s house—perhaps at Ephesus. Same thought as #30, except that this was in a different locality, as this couple moved about.

(55) 2 Corinthians 1:1: "The church of God which is at Corinth." Self-explanatory.

(56) 2 Corinthians 8:1: "The churches of Macedonia." The plural is decisive against the universal church theory.

(57) 2 Corinthians 8:18: "Throughout all the churches." Believers in various localities are in "churches," not "The Church."

(58) 2 Corinthians 8:19: "Chosen of the churches." The different churches which had made up collections to send to the poor saints at Jerusalem chose an unknown brother to travel with Paul’s party to deliver this gift.

(59) 2 Corinthians 8:23: "The messengers of the churches." The men chosen by the different churches to convey their gift to Jerusalem.

(60) 2 Corinthians 8:24: "Before the churches." The same local assemblies as above.

(61) 2 Corinthians 11:8: "I robbed other churches." Paul probably had in mind the Philippian and Thessalonian churches which supported him, Phil. 4:15-18; II Cor. 11:9.

(62) 2 Corinthians 11:28: "The care of all the churches." Paul, being the apostle to the Gentiles, had the care of most of the Gentile churches constantly upon his heart. If there was anywhere that it was appropriate to use "The Church" for a wide area of people, this would have been it, but Inspiration does not use this terminology.

(63) 2 Corinthians 12:13: "What was it wherein ye were inferior to other churches." Other churches of like nature to the Corinthian church.

(64) Galatians 1:2: "The churches of Galatia." Same as #52.

(65) Galatians 1:13: "I persecuted the church of God." The Jerusalem church, Acts 8:1-3; 9:13. No other churches then existing.

(66) Galatians 1:22: ‘Me churches of Judaea." These would have included churches at Jerusalem, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Ptolemais and others.

(67) Ephesians 1:22: "Gave Him to be head over all things to the church." Dr. Entzminger says on this passage:

This passage gives no help to advocates of a universal church because there would be no disharmony to the statement if it were applied solely to the church at Ephesus. But the language is general enough to permit the application of this statement to any New Testament church in any age without the necessity of attributing the meaning to a universal monstrosity. It shall also find fulfillment in the Glory church, yet still without the necessity of a universal church of any kind.

(68) Ephesians 3:10: "Might be known by the church." Again the above three applications of this are legitimate, although it is primarily in the particular churches that the manifold wisdom of God has been so gloriously manifested to the world and to the angelic beings.

(69) Ephesians 3:21: "Unto him be glory in the church." Whether we speak in the abstract, of some particular church such as that at Ephesus, of the church as an institution, or of the coming Glory church, this is the high ideal for the church. Nothing in the language necessitates the thought that the apostle had in mind any such nebulous, will-o-the-wisp thing as a universal, invisible church.

(70) Ephesians 5:23: "Christ is the head of the church." Again this proves nothing toward a universal church, but finds adequate fulfillment in the applications mentioned above.

(71) Ephesians 5:24: "The church is subject to Christ." The same thing applies again.

(72) Ephesians 5:25: Christ also loved the church." This is the motive for His sacrificial death, and applies as above.

(73) Ephesians 5:27: "Present it to himself a glorious church." Literally this is the "in glory church." It looks beyond any earthly church as we now know them. But it proves that this Glory church is not yet in existence, for the tense of the verbs are aorist subjunctive, denoting a condition that is contrary to present fact. No present universal church here.

(74) Ephesians 5:29: "Even as the Lord the church." Whether considered as an institution, abstractly, or as to some particular assembly, we may truthfully say that our Lord nourishes and cherishes the church, but is not this nourishing and cherishing of the church that which speaks of its earthly existence and needs?

(75) Ephesians 5:32: "I speak concerning Christ and the church." The very terms and figures here used to illustrate the relationship between Christ and the church are a refutation of the universal, visible theory, for all of these figures are local and visible. The whole of the apostle’s teaching in vv. 23-32 of Ephesians 5 is aimed at teaching the church to be subject to her Lord and Head. He does this by showing the husband—wife relationship, the husband—wife affection, the husband’s care for his wife, and drawing a parallel in each case. He shows Christ’s supreme love in making provision for the church’s supreme need, and fulfilling that need so that He might present the Glory church to Himself in all her beauty. The husband’s loving care and solicitude for his wife should stir up her love and submission for him. Just so is the apostle’s aim concerning the church.

(76) Philippians 3:6: "Persecuting the church." Paul’s persecution of the Jerusalem church before his conversion.

(77) Philippians 4:15: "No church communicated with me, concerning giving and receiving but ye only." This distinguishes all other churches and believers from this church, and limits the word to each assembly.

(78) Colossians 1:18: ‘The body, the church." This could be taken in an institutional, generic or specific sense, but in whichever sense it is taken it shows that each church is a body of Christ in its own locality.

(79) Colossians 1:24: "For his body’s sake, which is the church." In this and the above reference, the apostle uses a local and visible church to picture the church as an institution. And while some advocates of the universal, invisible theory are outraged that we use the words "the body of Christ" for a particular congregation, their rage should be directed against Paul, for he first set the example when he wrote to the church at Corinth "Now are ye a (not the, as in the A. V., but as the inspired text reads) body of Christ, and members individually thereof," I Cor. 12:27.

(80) Colossians 4:15: "The church which is in his house." A church which met in Nymphas’ house—a household church. I doubt that any theorist would hold that this house was sufficient to confine the universal church.

(81) Colossians 4:16: "The church of the Laodiceans." Confined to a specific location and a definite people.

(82) 1 Thessalonians 1:1: "The church of the Thessalonians." Same truth as the next reference above.

(83) 1 Thessalonians 2:14: "Followers of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus." Again the plural where the universal theory would demand the singular.

(84) 2 Thessalonians 1:1: "The church of the Thessalonians:" Clearly local and distinct from other churches:

(85) 2 Thessalonians 1:4: "The churches of God."

(86) 1 Timothy 3:5: "How shall he take care of the church of God?" It would be exceedingly hard for a single man to take care of the universal church: Only a Pope would claim to do so. But Timothy could, and did do a good job of taking care of the church at Ephesus, to which this in all likelihood alludes.

(87) 1 Timothy 3:15: "The church of the living God." As we have already observed, this reads literally, "A church of the living God," and again is a probable reference to the Ephesian church which Timothy pastored.

(88) 1 Timothy 5:16: "Let not the church be charged." See above. No one has ever claimed that the universal church takes cares of anyone.

(89) Philemon 2: "The church in thy house." Another household church, this one meeting in Philemon’s home.

(90) Hebrews 2:12: "In the midst of the church." An Old Testament quotation which had original reference to the congregation of Israel, but which was accommodated to Jesus’ singing of a hymn in the Jerusalem church at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:30.

(91) Hebrews 12:23: "Church of the firstborn." As v. 22 suggests this is prophetic, and does not become a reality until after the Millennium. It was seen by John also, Rev. 21:1-3. It is the same as the Glory church. But it will be local when it comes on the scene.

(92) James 5:14: "Let him call for the elders of the church." The epistle of James was of a general nature, and was meant to be circulated among the believers of the "Twelve tribes which are scattered abroad," 1:1. Hence, these directions are of general nature to conform to the epistle. This applies to any given assembly. I think no one would endeavor to make this a universal church.

(93) 3 John 6: "Thy charity before the church." This Gaius is thought by some to be the same as the Gaius of Corinth who was host to that church, Rom. 16:23; I Cor. 1:14. If that is so, then the church mentioned here is probably the Corinthian church. It is a local institution in any case.

(94) 3 John 9: "I wrote unto the church." This is the church which Diotrephes tyrannized. Possibly the same as the above church. Did you ever hear of anyone trying to write to the universal church?

(95) 3 John 10: "Casteth them out of the church." See above. Did you ever hear of anyone who thought they had power to exclude anyone from the universal church?

(96) Revelation 1:4: "John to the seven churches which are in Asia." John was inspired to use the plural where he should have used the singular according to the theorists.

(97) Revelation 1:11: "The seven churches which are in Asia." See above.

(98) Revelation 1:20: "The angels of the seven churches." Same truth as above.

(99) Revelation 1:20: "The seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." Each one distinct and local.

(100) Revelation 2:1: "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus." This and all the subsequent references through #114 have to do with these seven local assemblies in the region of Asia Minor.

(101) Revelation 2:7: "Let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(102) Revelation 2:8: "Unto the angel of the church in Smyrna."

(103) Revelation 2:11: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(104) Revelation 2:12: "To the angel of the church in Pergamos."

(105) Revelation 2:17: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(106) Revelation 2:18: "Unto the angel of the church in Thyatira."

(107) Revelation 2:23: "All the churches shall know."

(108) Revelation 2:29: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(109) Revelation 3:1: "Unto the angel of the church in Sardis."

(110) Revelation 3:6: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(111) Revelation 3:7: "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia."

(112) Revelation 3:13: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(113) Revelation 3:14: "Unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans."

(114) Revelation 3:22: "What the Spirit saith unto the churches."

(115) Revelation 22:15: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches."

The reader now has before him the 115 appearances of the word ekklesia in the New Testament, and he may judge for himself whether there is any such thing as a universal visible, or a universal invisible church. Of these references, all but seventeen have reference to some particular congregation. Of these seventeen, four refer to non-Christian assemblies, viz., Acts 7:38, Israel in the wilderness, Acts 19:32, 39, 41, to the Greek civil assembly in Ephesus.

Of the thirteen remaining references which are sometimes thought to teach that the church may be other than a particular, local assembly, we must delete Ephesians 5:27 and Hebrews 12:23, for these are both prophetic of the coming Glory church which is not a present reality.

Of the eleven remaining, Matthew 16:18 is used in the institutional sense, as we have before noted. As an institution, Christ’s church is promised perpetuity until the end of the age. Particular churches may fail, and the gates of Hades may prevail against them, but this in no way affects the promise so long as there is a continuity of churches of the same kind as the first church. However, if this passage is taken in the sense of a universal church comprised of all true churches of every age since the first century, then this promise has failed, for the gates of Hades have prevailed against many particular congregations of the past. Taken in the institutional sense only, this passage is in harmony with the rest of the New Testament, and with history. It cannot be urged as a proof of a universal church.

This leaves the ten references in Ephesians and Colossians, (viz., Eph. 1:22; 3:10-11, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24). Dr. Hort, who was an advocate of the universal, invisible church, makes the following honest admission:

Even this great scholar is compelled to admit that historically, we find no evidence of a universal church, but that it arises from reasonings concerning the place and office of Christ. Indeed, all advocates of this theory are compelled to forsake the Revelation for reasoning in order to arrive at this theory, or else they must take Scriptures out of context.

Concerning the above references in Ephesians and Colossians, we must recognize that not one of them is out of harmony with the view that they apply to the particular congregations at Ephesus and Colosse. That they are broad enough to be applied generically as well, we freely admit, but we cannot see how they could be applied scripturally to a universal church. Dr. B. H. Carroll has the following to say about this:

The generic usage, as found in these references in Ephesians and Colossians, simply refers to others of the same class, yet it does not exclude the church addressed in so doing. Indeed, it includes it, for whenever the abstract or generic becomes concrete it is always a particular church in the New Testament. Not one of these verses in Ephesians and Colossian actually teaches that there is any such thing as a universal, invisible church. If it is taught anywhere, it must be elsewhere than here. Yet this is always the last refuge of the advocates of this theory. We trust that from the things presented here, there is ample proof to convince any unbiased reader, and those who are biased generally are not convinced by any amount of proof.

There are other things which go to prove that the church is a local assembly of believers. The Scriptures abundantly declare the church to be a local institution by the metaphors used of it. (1) It is called a body, (1 Cor. 12:12-14): "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many." The literal rendering of V13 is "in one spirit," as in Philippians 1:27. Notice that: (a) He is speaking to the Corinthian "body." It is one. (b) It has many members, or individual Christians. This church was probably one of the larger churches in the First Century, (Acts 18:8). (c) It takes the "many members" to constitute a church, even as it takes several members of the human body, with their individual work, to constitute a normal human body. (d) Some take the rendering "by one Spirit" as referring to the events of Pentecost but the literal rendering shows otherwise. And the capitalizing of "spirit" is a translators interpretation, and is probably wrong, for as in Philippians 1:27, it refers to the attitude of those who are baptized, all of whom are to have the same frame of mind when they are baptized. A. W. Pink comments as follows:

Any person who has been scripturally baptized into a local church may also say "In one spirit was I baptized into one body," for baptism does not initiate a person into the membership of several churches, but only into the one authorizing the ordinance. (e) If one has been genuinely saved and scripturally baptized, then earthly distinctions cease, whether as to race, to social status, or to sex. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28). This was written to the Corinthian church as a local institution to correct certain schisms within that body, and to show that though every church member did not have the same office, they nevertheless all had an important place in the body. (g) The literal rendering of verse 27 shows that this is not applicable to any but a local body: "But ye are a body of Christ, and members individually thereof."

(2) It is called a building, (Eph. 2:20-22): "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." (a) "Each individual building," which is the literal rendering, can certainly not be interpreted of any but a local church. (b) "Groweth into a holy temple" is parallel to being "builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit," and is limited by the context, to the church addressed: (c) "Each individual building" has the duty to so conduct itself as though it were the only church in existence. There is entirely too much "Let someone else do it" attitude among Christians and churches today, and this has caused a definite let down in all realms of religious duty. (d) "Ye also are builded together" shows the application of the general principle in verses 20-21 to the Ephesian church, so that here we have first the general principle, and then the specific application of it.

(3) It is called a temple. (1 Cor. 3:16-17): "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." (a) There is no definite article in the inspired text, but this reads literally "ye are a temple of God," which clearly shows that the Corinthian church was not exclusively the temple of God, but neither was it only a part of the Temple of God. It was the Temple of God in its locality. (b) The plural "ye" constitutes the Temple (singular). This speaks of it being a local assembly. (c) It was the indwelling of the Spirit of God which constituted this church as the Temple of God. This is what took place in the first church when the Comforter was given to indwell it in accordance with Jesus’ promise in John 14:16-17. And as the human spirit is passed on from the parents in birth, so the Comforter is passed on to a church when it is birthed out of an already existing New Testament assembly. Man cannot manufacture a New Testament Church for this reason. It takes a scriptural organization for any assembly to have the promise of John 16:7-14. This explains why many supposed "churches" are not sound in the faith. They do not have the Comforter in the assembly to guide them into all truth, not having been born out of an existing New Testament Church. (d) As the "habitation of God through the Spirit," (Eph. 2:22), it is a most solemn sin for anyone to do anything that tends to its destruction. (e) "Which ye are" may refer either to "temple" or to "holy," either of which is true according to Scripture. The translators took this to refer to "temple."

A serious mistake that the pride of some believers has brought into this matter of the nature of the church is the idea that it is the Bride of Christ. Yet no where in Scripture is the church ever called a bride or a wife, as it is so clearly called a body, a building and a temple. This idea that the church is presently the Bride of Christ so appeals to human pride that this view is held more strongly and with more heat than some doctrines that relate to one’s eternal destiny. This mistake comes from a misinterpretation of a few passages of Scripture such as Ephesians 5:22-23; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2, etc., where a likeness is drawn between marital love and Divine love. Church history is replete with examples of the danger of confusing a mere likeness with the reality. This is how the heresies of baptismal regeneration and the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper came about. Scripture uses many likenesses to illustrate truth. Logically so, for we only learn the unknown in terms of the known. But no likeness is meant to be taken either literally nor completely. Most likenesses illustrate only one or two things about that to which they are applied, and to try to make them "go on all fours" is rather to darken, than to illustrate the matter. Some of the Scriptures used to try to prove that true churches are the Bride of Christ, not only do not do so, but correctly understood, show that they cannot be.

Every New Testament church is very special in the eyes of the Lord, and he loves each one of them. But the idea that any one, or all of them together, constitute the Bride of Christ is contrary to (1) Scriptural language. (2) Scriptural usage of metaphors. (3) Scriptural prophecy. (4) A Scriptural view of God’s grace. (5) The relationship of God and His people. (6) Normal human relations. (7) The plurality of churches, and the singularity of the Bride. And other things. This theory has only two things to commend it: Ignorance (which may be excusable), and pride (which is inexcusable, Prov. 16:5). See an exposition of "What Is The Bride of Christ?" In the APPENDIX.

All of these likenesses are founded upon objects which are both local and visible, and of which universality and invisibility cannot be rationally predicated. Those who disparage the local assembly for the supposedly universal church forget that for the first century and more, there was not a word written in the New Testament, nor in the writings of the so-called Church Fathers, of any thing other than the local assemblies, which in itself should be enough to warn men of the danger of the "traditions of man." Dr. J. Lewis Smith well states the situation when he says:

Locality inheres in the word ekklesia. (1) this is clear from its derivation. (a) It is derived from ek, out of, or from, and kaleo, to call. It signifies a called out assembly or congregation. Such a meaning is in harmony with the New Testament usage and application of the word. (b) Greek words often have many and various derived forms and meanings, but these never are the opposite of the primary meaning unless there is a modifying prefix which would negate the original meaning.

(c) If the Lord meant for His people to understand the church to be universal, why did He not call it catholic or universal (Greek katholikos) as writers of the Third and later Centuries did.

(2) Locality is also clearly inherent in the word ehklesia as testified by the New Testament usage of the word. As we have already noticed: (a) The word appears 115 times in the New Testament. (b) Of these, all but four refer to the Lord’s church. (c) Of the 111 remaining, all but eleven refer to some particular assembly. (d) These eleven are used in an institutional or generic way, or else apply to some particular assembly, with a secondary generic application as well. (e) In no instance of its usage is it inconsistent with the aspect of locality. Indeed, only by "explaining" or "interpreting" would it ever be understood of any other than the specific local particular church to which it was written.

(3) Locality inheres in the Classic, Old Testament, and Apocryphal usage of the word as well. (a) Liddell and Scott’s Abridged Greek Lexicon gives the classic meaning of ekklesia as: "an assembly of the citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly..." Notice that it is first, "an assembly" which demands locality, for there cannot be an assembling without a locale. Second, the ones comprising the assembly are "summoned by the crier," which is also descriptive of locality. Thirdly, it is the "legislative assembly" which suggests not only locality, but purpose of assembling as well. (b) The word is used in the Septuagint and other Greek versions of the Old Testament about ninety times, yet of the number, not one departs from the original meaning of "an assembly." Some have challenged four of these, (viz., 1 Kings. 8:65; 1 Chron. 28:8; Ezra 10:8, and Ezek. 32:3). But the context in each case settles the matter. There is no derivation whatsoever. (c) In the Septuagint and other versions of the Apocryphal books the word appears over twenty times, and again without derivation. "This makes the Old Testament usage amount to about 114 cases, nearly equal in the New Testament usage. In no one of the 114 instances does it mean an unassembled ecclesia."—B. H. Carroll, Ecclesia—THE CHURCH, p. 53. Hence, since it never means other than an assembly, then it logically follows that there is always locality involved, and if this be so, then a universal church, either visible or invisible, is nothing more than a figment of carnal minds.

This locality is not voided by the use of other words used to describe the church. (1) As we have seen, the word "body" cannot be applied to a nebulous, scattered, partly dead, partly living, partly non-existent, partly visible, partly invisible institution without giving a hideously distorted view to the word. (2) The word "fold" used in John 10:16. Notice that (a) The first "fold" (Greek aules) is a different word from the second (Greek poimen). The first has reference to the place where the sheep are bedded down, hence, a fold, but the second refers to the flock itself. (b) This does not deal with the present time: "they shall become one flock" (literal rendering). (c) This can only come to pass when the calling out is complete, when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, (Rom. 11:25; Luke 21:24; Rev. 7:9), when Israel as a nation has been born again, (Isa. 66:7-8; Zech. 12:9-14; 13:8-9). (d) Yet, even this will be local when it comes to pass. It will be "the church of the firstborn ones," (Heb. 12:22-23). However, this is only in prospect at this time. (3) The "Spiritual house," (1 Pet. 2:5) was not written to a specific congregation, but was meant to be circulated among the various groups of believers "Throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1:1. Because of this, it is not applicable to all in the aggregate, but only to each group individually as they constitute a "spiritual house...to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

The organizational aspect of the church has been denied by some in their zeal to establish the fact of the universal invisible church. It is often said that the church is not an organization, but an organism. However the very word "organism" implies organization. There is no living organism so small or so simple but that it has organization about it. Indeed, organization is an absolute necessity to life. We recognize that the church is an organism—a living thing—but we must also recognize that it is an organization as well.

This attempted pitting of organism and organization against one another results from the desire of some to rid themselves of the local church and its attendant obligations and restraints, but this cannot be done. Those who so vehemently disclaim the church to be an organization would do well to consider that the supposed universal, invisible church is propagated and extended only on earth, and only in direct proportion to the number and faithfulness of earthly organizations. It is the local church which the Lord has commissioned to be His witness, to preach His Word, to administer His ordinances, to teach His people, to guard the faith, to discipline its unruly members, and without the local church, Christianity would fail. The theoretical universal church can do none of these things. This is not to say that the Lord