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 Macedoma" (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.