THE CHURCH
This page deals with the doctrine of the Church
which is known as Ecclesiology. There is much misunderstanding of what
is the church.
The main problem is the confusing the nation Israel with
the Church. This problem first arises due to the method of
interpretation which was previously discussed.
The problem also arises by ignoring that terms, though
having similar meanings, may apply differently to different groups. A case
in point is the word elect; this term is used of both Israel and the
Church (and incidentally of angels). This does not,
however, make the Church and Israel the same (any more than does it
make angels part of the Church). Both the nation Israel
and the Church are ultimately saved by the grace of God. This
likewise does not make them one and the same.
There is much that could be said about the differences
which will be considered in the proper place. 1 Corinthians 10:32 clearly
distinguishes the Church from Israel and also from the Gentiles.
Introduction
The revelation concerning the Church was primarily given to the Apostle Paul. This is primarily the Church as an organism which is the first major division of this subject. Chafer put it well (Systematic Theology, IV:27):
Apart from the right understanding of this subject there can be no conception of the heavenly purpose of
God in and through the Church in contrast to His earthly purpose in Israel, no conception of the divine purpose
in the present age, no basis for a true evaluation of all those new realities and relationships which were made possible and established through the death and resurrection of Christ, no worthy comprehension of the present ministries of the Spirit of God, and no sufficient basis of appeal for the God-honoring life and service of the believer.
The Church has a particular relation to each Person of the Trinity.
As to the First Person, He is the Father. In regard to the Son,
He sustains a sevenfold relation set forth in seven figures which will be
discussed in due time. The Third Person has an active part in the Church
which will also be discussed later. There are other relations which
need to be considered in their proper place such as the kingdom and the nation
Israel.
The next division of the doctrine of the
Church is that of the organized
church. That individual churches existed in New Testament
times is evident even by a casual reading of it. This writer
will not be concerned here with individual denominations, but rather with
the organization as a whole. Some of the denominations are due
to differences of government; some are due to definite doctrinal differences;
others are a result of nationality differences. Here, this writer is
mainly concerned (although those differences may touch upon) with leadership
(those who exercise authority), the ordinances, the order of the
church, the gifts, and its ministries.
The final division of this doctrine has to do with the
order of the church, that is, its daily life
and service of the Church. This has to do with the individuals that
are saved and constitute the Church. This writer will touch on the
Mosaic system, the teachings govern believers in this age of grace,
and that rule which will exist in the Messianic millennial kingdom. This
area is too often neglected in the systematic study of Biblical truth.
The term church is used as individual, local
assemblies and as the Church as a whole. The English word "church"
is derived from the Scottish word kirk. In both cases, however,
it is a rendering of the Greek word ecclesia.
This section deals with the Church as a whole. This
aspect of the doctrine of the church has largely been neglected.
Part of it is due to the failure of the Reformation (with
due respect to the Reformers who recovered much truth) to deal completely
with the doctrine of the church, but rather having carried over some
of the errors of catholicism instead of returning to the truth
held by the early church; part is also due to a sticking by theological systems
and/or denominations without extensive restudy of the doctrine of
the church. This is not meant to be a criticism of the
Reformers, for they had their hands full defending the doctrine of
justification by faith alone.
The Apostle Paul clearly set forth the doctrine of
justification by faith alone; but he also set the wonderful revelation
of the Church. That Christians today are indebted to J. N. Darby for
much of the recovery of this truth goes without saying. It does not
follow, however, that the truth of the Church must be abrogated because
he was a prime mover of this doctrine. Nor does it follow
that no one before his time had this truth. His work was that of
recovery of truth that had long been neglected.
One must keep in mind that though the reformers were
great theologians, they did not have the final word on all doctrine.
Believers today are indebted to them for the recovery of the
doctrines of the Bible and of salvation; but they nor Darby nor
any other Bible teacher had the final word (the same can be said of this
writer also) on all doctrine. This writer is in no way implying that
the reformers did not deal with the doctrine of the church,
but only they did not carry it through far enough.
1. General considerations. There are some general matters
that need to be considered in regard to the Church.
a. The meaning of the term. The term
"church" as stated is a translation of the Greek word ekklesia.
The word basically is a compounding of two words, ek,
meaning "out of"; and kaleo, meaning "to call." Thus, the word
means "to call out" referring to a group of people called out for
a certain reason. The Septuigent (LXX) does use the word in reference
to the nation Israel, but this is no reason to make the Church and Israel
one in any sense. Likewise, the use of ekklesia in Acts 7:38
to refer to Israel does not make it part of the church. The same
term is used of a mob assembly of Gentiles in Ephesus (Acts 19:32),
but this does not make them a part of the church.
As is always the case, the context
determines the final meaning of a term. In most cases the word
applies to the group of people (whether Jew or Gentile) who have
been called out into a new group. That group as whole wherever
located constitute the church universal. Those who are assembled in
one particular place constitute a local, organized church. Both concepts
are clearly taught in the New Testament.
b. The fact of a new entity. The
fact is that God has undertaken to do a new thing. Even the apostles
were at first slow to comprehend this new entity.
To the Apostle Paul it was revealed that
God was making a new group in which the Jew and Gentile were on equal footing
before God. Ephesians 2:11-18 set this forth clearly. The Apostle
Peter declared it in Acts 15:9. The Church program is in time a separate
period from God's program for Israel. The presentation of the
Church as a new creation would be in vain if the Church is just
a blossoming from the Israel root. This is not to say that the
Church does not come under the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.
Nevertheless, the Church is a new thing, and the proper understanding
of this harmonizes all the Bible.
One can see, therefore, that the church
is God's present purpose. The rejection of Jesus Christ as Messiah
opened the door to providing of a bride for the Lord which bride
consists of both Jew and Gentile. The gospel is the offer of
salvation through simple faith in Jesus Christ; it is not the offer of a
kingdom either earthly or heavenly.
There appear to be three major aspects
of this present age which are set forth in the parables of
Matthew 13 as well as elsewhere in the New Testament. These three
aspects are the reception of the truth, the blindness of
Israel, and the presence of evil.
c. The terms of the church. The word
"church" is first used by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18, "I will build My
church." The word I shows that the Church is the Lord's work,
not ours. The term will shows a determined future (a simple future
would use "shall"). This precludes the church being in the Old Testament
(even in an incipient form). The word build stress the gradual
process as well as certainty of completion. The word My
amplifies the personal relation that Jesus Christ has with the Church (Consider
Ephesians 5:25). The church is His. The word church
emphasizes the called out nature of it as well as its distinctiveness.
Other terms used of the
Church include "My sheep", "Christians", "saints", "believers", the "elect",
and the "body of Christ." Believers are also classified as witnesses,
ambassadors, strangers and pilgrims. Believers are the "household of
faith" and the "children of God." There are two other
distinctive terms. The one is the "Bride of Christ" which is
a future aspect; the other is the truth that the church is a "new creation."
There may be others, but these represent the main terms that refer
to the Church. There are types of the Church in the
Old Testament, but there are few prophetic pronouncements of it.
d. The beginning of the church. Besides
the clear statement by Christ in Matthew 16:18 that it was yet future
(as of the time He spoke), there are four reasons why the Church began at
Pentecost.
1) The death of Christ.
The first reason is that the death of Christ was necessary to
the formation of the Church. Several Scripture indicate this fact:
among them are Acts 20:28, Romans 3:24ff., and Colossians 1:14.
2) The resurrection of Christ.
The second reason should be obvious, namely, the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. Romans 4:25 as well as others set this forth.
3) The ascension of Christ.
Thirdly, the Church could not exist until the ascension
of Jesus Christ as suggested by Ephesians 1:20. Furthermore,
how could believers be blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in Christ" if He were not ascended--Cf. Ephesians 1:3.
4) The coming of the Holy
Spirit. Lastly, the Church could not exist until the
coming of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 4:30 and 1 Corinthians
12:13 shows this necessity; and Acts 1:5 shows that it was soon to be.
2. Contrasted to Israel. As previously indicated the Church
and Israel are not the same. Unfortunately there is much confusion in this
regard.
a. God's purpose. First of all
God's purpose for the two groups is different. Everything for Israel
is earthly: their covenant, their promise, and their provision. On
the other hand, those things are heavenly for the Church. The Church
does have a part in the earthly reign of Christ here on earth, but
their whole realm is heavenly.
b. The seed of Abraham. Secondly,
in regard to the seed of Abraham the nation Israel is the natural seed
of Abraham having been generated by him. In contrast the Church is
the spiritual seed of Abraham generated by God. Paul makes the
distinction between the two in Romans 9:6. The use of these passages
in Romans to prove that Israel and the Church are identical is to ignore
what the passages are actually saying. As a corollary to this, Israel
is the result of a physical birth; the Church is the result of a
spiritual birth.
The covenants for the Israel are
unconditional, and God will yet fulfill them to the letter. He has
given a new covenant (Cf. Jeremiah 31:31-33) of which the Church partakes
in this present age.
The Church has no citizenship here, but
rather are strangers and pilgrims; it is also composed of people
from all nations. The nation Israel belongs to the earth, and all their
promises are earthly blessings.
Though the nation Israel was to be an
example and influence to all nations, there was no missionary command. In
contrast, the Church was commanded to "go into all the world and make
disciples."
c. Relation of the Trinity. The Trinity
sustains a different relation to the two entities. Israel knew God
by His main titles, such as Jehovah, Elohim, and Adonai; but neither individually
or nationally was He ever the Father. Because we have been begotten
of Him, we can rightly call Him Father, and even "Papa" (the meaning
of abba). As for Jesus Christ, He is Messiah, Immanuel, and King to
Israel; whereas He is Savior, Lord, Bridegroom, and Head to the Church. In
regard to the Holy Spirit, He came upon the Israelite for special service
and freely left when the service was complete. The believer in this
age, however, is indwelt by the Holy Spirit as well as sustaining other relations
to Him.
d. Two different positions. The two groups
have two different positions. Israel sustains the position of a
servant. The individuals of the Church, on the other hand, are
friends, and even members of the household of God. These
two positions are also evident during Christ's reign on earth. The
nation Israel will be subjects of King Jesus. The Church, however,
will reign with Him as His consort.
e. Different priesthood. One of the
most important distinctions is in regard to the priesthood. "The
nation Israel had a priesthood. The Church is
a priesthood." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV:52; italics are
his.)
f. The contrast of marriage.
Another marked contrast is that of marriage. The nation
is the wife of Jehovah; granted she has been unfaithful and will
yet be restored. The Church, however, is the Bride of Christ.
These are just a few of the contrasts between the
two. There are many more. It is therefore, wrong to confuse the two
groups.
3. The seven figures. The number "seven" in the Scriptures is
the number of perfection or completeness. Thus, it is appropriate
that there be seven figures of the the Church. The seven parables
of Matthew 13 deal with the Church by implication if not
actual interpretation. The seven letters to the churches in Revelation
2 and 3 clearly set forth truth of the Church. In general, they teach
the condition of the particular church addressed. They
are also applicable to local churches in any time period. Finally,
they may represent periods of church history. Here we discuss
the seven figures of the Church. These are true of the Church
universal.
a. The Shepherd and the sheep. This figure
is found in John 10. Jesus Christ is set forth as the Good Shepherd
Who gives His life for the sheep. The main features of this figure
are that Christ came the appointed way which is by the door. He is the true
shepherd who goes before His sheep, and they listen to no other. Yet
He is the door which a person must enter by faith. He provides their
salvation as well as food for the new life in Christ through His Word.
All other possible shepherds are hirelings who have no real care for
the sheep. There is fellowship as the sheep know the Shepherd and the
Son and Father know each other. Finally, there is but one fold (or
flock) setting forth the Church universal. This is not true of any
particular church group even if they claim to be the universal
church.
b. The Vine and branches. This figure is
also found in the Gospel of John, namely, chapter 15. This passage
does not teach in any way the lose of salvation. This figure
has to do with fruit bearing and fellowship on the basis of the believers'
union with Christ (being in Him). There are several results
of abiding in Christ. There is pruning (v. 2) for the purpose
of producing more fruit; there effectual prayer (v. 7); there is heavenly
joy (v. 11); and continuing fruit (v. 16). This writer has only
touched on the truths presented in this figure.
c. The Cornerstone and stones. This figure
is that of a building or a temple. Herein is another contrast
with Israel which had a temple whereas the Church is a temple
(Cf. Ephesians 2:21). This figure is set forth in Ephesians 2:19-22.
Peter also mentioned it in 1 Peter 2:5; and the truth is also spoken of in
Hebrews 3:6 and 1 Corinthians 3:9-11. Again there is much truth here
which can't be cover at this time. This building which is currently
being built, however, has three aspects: 1) each stone is
a living stone in being a partaker of God's nature (1 Peter 2:5);
2) the Chief Cornerstone and its foundation is the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians
2:20-22, 1 Corinthians 3:11; 1 Peter 2:6); and 3) the entire building
is "an habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:22).
d. The High Priest and priests. The priesthood
of Christ is clearly set forth in Hebrews in several passages. Yet
it is clearly taught in the New Testament that each believer is a priest
(Cf. 1 Peter 2:5-9). Consequently, believers have the services of
being a priest.
1) Sacrifice. First, there
is sacrifice. This is not the sacrifice of blood as in the Old
Testament nor a duplication of Christ's sacrifice. It is the presentation
of our bodies for His service (Romans 12:1). The sacrifice
is fourfold toward God. The first was just mentioned. The second is
the sacrifice of the lips in thanksgiving (Hebrews 13:15). Then
there is the sacrifice of giving set forth in Philippians 4:18.
Finally, there is also the sacrifice of good works (Hebrews
13:16). Believers are not saved by good works, but they are saved
unto good works.
2) Worship. Second, there
is worship. This includes thanksgiving and praise to God as well as
giving. This worship is to be "in Spirit and truth" (John 4:24; This
writer capitalized the word "spirit" because true worship must be in the
Holy Spirit). Likewise the presenting of oneself (Romans 12:1,
2) is a form of worship.
In the Old Testament
two things were prohibited. The first was no "strange" incense.
Incense speaks of prayer, and the strange incense of the
mere formality in worship. This is the danger of repeating the
so-called Lord's prayer. The other was no "strange" fire. This
may speak of fleshly emotion in worship. Emotion in itself is
not wrong, but there is much today that is put forth as spiritual worship
which is nothing more than fleshly emotion. True devotion is always
by the Holy Spirit; but this does not result in bizarre actions (which this
writer will not discuss at this time).
3) Intercession. There is intercession.
It is the believer's privilege as a priest to pray for others. The
nature of intercession is a study all of its own. Believers have
access to God to uphold various needs before God.
e. The Head and body. The figure of the
Head and the body is an important one for the Church as an organism.
It is patterned after the human which is itself an organism.
The key verse concerning the individual believer is 1 Corinthians 12:13
which shows that each believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the
one body. Three aspects of this figure will be consider
1) Ephesians 4:11-16. In
Ephesians 4:11-16, one finds that the Body (the Church) is self-developing.
This follows the analogy of the human body which is self-developing.
The passage in question shows that the ministry is NOT the pastor
(or the pastors), but rather the ministry is the individual members of the
Body. What is being said here is concerning the universal church, but
it also applies to a local assembly. The key word here is
katartismos (verse 12), translated "perfecting" has the meaning
of "equipment." The offices mentioned in verse 11 are for the
equipping of the saints for the ministry. "The objective of
this general witnessing on the part of the whole company of
believers is to accomplish a specific task in a prescribed time: [here
he quotes Ephesians 4:13]" (Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV:70). The
phrase "perfect man" has to do with the Body as a whole, not perfect
men. It should be clear that "the body" can not refer to any one local
church although it is applicable to it.
2) 1 Corinthians 12-14. Like
a human body, the members of the Body have specific services. Paul
deals with this to some extent 1 Corinthians 12, with a continuance
in chapter 13 as to the "more excellent way" of love and a continuance
in chapter 14 where the main issue is speaking in tongues.
The Body is one, but
has many members. One member (Paul uses the illustration of the
foot, eye, ear, and the nose) can not say that it has no need of another
member. The full realization of this truth would keep local churches
from splits and battles among members. God has set each member by the
Holy Spirit into the Body "as it has pleased Him." (1 Corinthians
12:18) The only problem the individual member has is determining his
place in the Body. It may also be said that no other person has the
right to determine an individual's place in the Body. If he is
to be a foot, he should not try to be an eye, etc.
It is imperative that
the Body operate under the direction of its Head, Jesus Christ. No
earthly individual is the head; Jesus Christ and He alone is the Head as
set forth in such passages as Ephesians 1:22, 23 and Colossians 1:18. It
is because men for various reasons usurp the Headship of Christ that
division exists in the Body particularly in its organizational aspect.
3) The unity of the church.
The unity of the Body has already been stated briefly. The
Book of Ephesians is the main text on this unity. Jesus in His
high priestly prayer (John 17) prayed that believers may be one even as the
Father and He were one. This prayer has not gone unanswered, for Christ
was not praying for organizational unity, but organic unity.
a) The theme of the
one Body of which Jesus Christ is Head is introduced in Ephesians 1
(verses 22, 23).
b) In chapter 2
(verses 14-16) the theme is expanded to show that
the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile
was broken down, and that now both are part of the one Body, the
Church. The full force of this passages is beyond the scope of
this web page.
c) Chapter 3 sets
forth that the Church as this unique Body was a secret
not previously revealed. This mystery is simply stated in verse
6, "that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and of the same, and partakers
of His promise in Christ by the gospel." The local church in
Jerusalem was slow to recognize this, but they did nevertheless when Cornelius
was saved (Acts 10). The Jerusalem council (Acts 15) was convened
for this very purpose to demonstrate that the Gentiles did not have
to become Jews in order to be saved.
d) Chapter 4
(verses 12-16) stresses the truth that the Body
is one. This oneness is not an absolute oneness, but is similar
to the oneness of husband and wife. However, it is a single organism
just like a human body is a single organism (though made up of many
parts).
e) Finally, Ephesians
5:30 again stresses the relation of the believers as a Body to its
living Head, Jesus Christ.
f) Although chapter
6 does not speak of the Body as such, it does give some
practical relations that should exist in the Body as well as the warfare
of the individual believers which certainly has application to the
Body.
f. The Last Adam and new creation. This
figure covers the idea of the Church as a new creation. At
its head is the Lord Jesus Christ. This figure is closely associated
with the previous one. This figure is a vast one and can only be covered
very partially.
1) The importance of the
resurrection. The resurrected Christ is important as to application
to this figure. In fact the resurrection of Jesus Christ is important
to every Christian truth. The truth of the resurrection is
indisputably proven to those who are willing accept the evidence. It
is not the place of this page to go into those proofs which will be
considered in connection with
Jesus Christ.
Again one could discuss the reasonableness of the resurrection,
but again it will be discuss that later. There were Old Testament
prophecies concerning the resurrection as shown in Psalm 16. The
important matter is that it was really a resurrection. Every explanation
by unbelievers has failed to meet the criteria of the facts. Here
again we will not examine those facts and ideas.
2) The new creation. The
new creation involves our position in Christ. This position is set
forth in several Scriptures among them Colossians 1:13.
a) The term
involved. The primary term is "in Christ." 2 Corinthians
5:17 shows believers are new creatures in Christ. This passage and
others set forth a new humanity that results from the resurrection of
Christ. Just a few of the passages that speak of this new
humanity which sets forth the uniqueness of the Church are Galatians 3:27,
28; 6:15; Ephesians 2:15. Chafer states it well, "To be in Christ, which
is the portion of all who are saved, is to partake of all that
Christ has done, all that He is, and all that He will ever be. It is
to have died in His death, to have been buried in His burial, to have been
raised in His resurrection, to have ascended in His ascension, and to be
seated now with Him (because he is in Him) in glory."
(Systematic Theology, IV:97; italics are his). Great is this
wondrous position in Christ.
b) The two days
involved. There are two days to commemorate the two creations.
The distinction is between law and grace. The Law required the
observation of the Sabbath which is generally the seventh day
of the week. Grace sets free from the Law. The believer
freely observes the day of resurrection, the first day of the
week. This question will not be discussed in detail here. Suffice
it to say that all the ten commandments are repeated since the Cross except
the Sabbath. The crux of the matter is that Jesus Christ
arose on the first day of the week. This why Christians observe
that day. There are definite Scripture that also show this to
be the case. Notice Acts 20:6, 7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 among
others.
c) The
consummation. There is, in regard to this new creation, a final
consummation. Positionally, Believers are already sited in the
heavenlies (Cf. Ephesians 2:6). This is yet to be made actual in our
lives. At that time there is the freeing from the sin nature.
Believers will actually occupy their heavenly home of which they
have been citizens since receiving Christ. He is now preparing
that place for them (Cf. John 14:1-3). They will be with Him here on
earth when He reigns (Cf. Romans 20:4). Furthermore, believers will
have a changed body. No longer be subject to physical limitations and
their bodies (they will be real physical bodies) will not have the physical
defects which are experienced now like reduced eyesight, loss of hair,
impaired hearing, etc. Romans 8:21-23 sets forth this idea as does
1 Corinthians 15:51-53. All these things will be the final outcome of
being a part of the new creation.
g. The Bridegroom and bride. The seventh
figure of the Church is that as the Bride of Christ. Here
again the problem arises in confounding this figure with that pertaining
to the nation Israel.
1) Regarding Israel. Israel
seemingly is spoken of as a bride (Cf. Isaiah 49:18; Jeremiah 2:32;
and others) but always in a context of that as a faithless wife who
needs to return to the purity of the bride. Several passages clearly
delineate Israel as the wife of Jehovah. Such passages as Isaiah
54:5 and Jeremiah 3:1, 14, 20 are indicative of this fact. Repeatedly
Israel is pictured as an unfaithful wife.
2) Regarding the Church. In
contrast to this the Church is pictured as a bride, not a wife. 2
Corinthians 11:2 presents this fact as does the longer passage of
Ephesians 5:22-33. At first this passage may seem to picture
the Church as a wife, but verse 27 clearly shows that the Church is to be
presented in the future to Christ. It is not until Revelation19:7,
8 is the Church pictured as a wife, for here the marriage is taking place.
There are other such passages that set forth this truth as well.
There are also several types in the Old Testament that speak of this
relationship of which this writer will not discuss at this time.
3) Regarding Christ's love.
Christ's great love for the Church is also pictured in this figure.
Ephesians 3:18, 19 strongly suggests this, while Ephesians 5:25 states
it clearly. The endearing term "beloved" is used repeatedly of
believers (Cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:13). There is also that grand
chorus at the end of Romans 8 (verses 38 and 39) that speak of this
great love.
4) As being His consort. As
believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, believers have as the bride of Christ
a glorious position that is above every other created being. John 14:3
shows this superior position as does John 17:24. Jesus Christ has this
high exalted position (Cf. Philippians 2:9ff.), and believers are His consort
to sit and reign with Him.
There are several other aspects of this
figure which this writer can't deal with at this time. This figure
includes in it much of the grand truth of the believer's union with
Him. One could only barely touch upon it. Each of this
notions constitute a study in themselves. The attempt has been to paint
the broad picture. The relation of this grand figure to an earthly
marriage is covered in the discussion of
Marriage.
Unfortunately, when the Church is
discussed, it centers around some denomination or local assembly. The
main body of truth in the New Testament is about the Church as an organism
which was previously discussed. To relegate all references concerning
the Church to the organism is as wrong as placing all passages
as pertaining to the organization. Both are clearly taught in the New Testament;
and, therefore, attention must be paid to both.
The organization is clearly seen in Hebrews
10:25 (where the word "church" is not used but the idea presented). The very
fact certain officers are named and their duties expressed shows that the
Church as an organization is of God. Chafer stated, "There is,
. . ., no record of an enrollment of church members, or
is there any example in the New Testament of a person joining a church."
(Systematic Theology, IV:145) It seems to this writer that this
is an overstatement. In the light of Acts 2:41, 47, there must
have been some sort of enrollment or joining.
On the other hand, there
is entirely too much emphasis on church membership where
often it is equated (at least in many minds) with salvation. This
writer considers the organized church primarily from the standpoint of a
local assembly. There are some passages that speak of a group of
churches as well as the church at large without reference to locality.
1. The local assembly. The simplest concept of the local
church is where two or three believers are gathered together and perform
the various functions of a local church. These local churches
are clearly delineated as "the church that is in their house" (1 Corinthians
16:19); "the church which is at Cenchrea" (Romans 16:1) and like statements.
There are nearly 45 such passages about the local church.
a. Doctrine. The first feature a local church
is its doctrine. That doctrine has often divided men into sectarian
groups is doubtlessly true, but it has generally been the result of
failure to understand the New Testament teaching on various doctrines
and in particular the nature of the church. The discussion
here is, however, concerned with the doctrine of a local assembly.
This writer once again remind you that Paul spent about half of his
epistles on doctrine.
A local church needs to have unity in
doctrine, at least in the major ones. Thus, it behooves a church
to have a doctrinal statement which can only be changed by a vast majority
(like 3/4 of all members). Some churches have in their
constitutions that the doctrinal statement can not be amended. This
is as harmful as having no doctrinal statement.
On the other hand, too often churches
exclude believers over some petty matter. Also, some cases exist that
there has been a concentration on the minor matters to the neglect of
basic fundamental truths. It must be maintained, however, that
there is only one body of revealed truth, and it behooves the believer
to study the Word of God to see what that truth is. "When men
disagree over doctrine it is because one or both are wrong." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, IV:148; italics are mine).
The admonition of Philippians 2:3
should be the key note: "Let nothing be done through strife
and vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than
themselves." It is because men get puffed up and refuse to "let
this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 2:5)
that division comes. It is this attitude (letting the mind of Christ
be in you) that cures the problem of disunity, not the joining
of churches in a super organization. In fact, the latter
would do away with true doctrine in the interest of unity.
b. Service. The second feature of the
local church is its service. This writer is not speaking here of the
order of the worship service, but rather its task.
When you read the New Testament you find
a lack of instruction of the church's task. Its main task
is to build up the members to minister. In other words, the service
of the church is what individuals accomplish in the use of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon them. Even the command to evangelize
the world is largely individual not the church itself.
The local church is only what it is because
of the individuals which comprise it. It does not follow,
however, that the church local has nothing to do. It is the collective
cooperation of the individuals in a local church which makes it a church
work.
Some may argue that it was a church who
"ordained" Paul and Barnabas to a missionary work (Cf. Acts 13:1-3).
However, it was the Holy Spirit that ordained them. The members
of the church at Antioch concurred in that ordination. There are numerous
examples of men called of God who were refused by a local
assembly. They went forth anyway and did a great work for God.
c. Organization. The church's organization
is another aspect of this doctrine. There are basically three
forms of church government which claim more or less Scriptural authority.
It is obvious that all three can not be correct. To say the form
of church government is immaterial is as wrong as to claim it is all
important.
1) The Episcopal system. The
Episcopal system centers its government in a ruling bishop (or in the case
of Romanism, the Pope). Its claim to Scriptural authority is 1 Timothy
3:1ff. and Titus 1:7ff. This writer will deal with this further later.
The Episcopal is flawed because of its historical origin
which that system, when challenged, is hard pressed to prove it
existed in New Testament times. They rely upon a so-called apostolic
succession of which there is no proof in the Bible. In fact, Peter
calls himself an "elder" only. The argument based on the
term
(episcopos) rendered "bishop" is flawed because
Titus 1:5 tells of elders and then uses the term "bishop" in the next
verse.
2) The Presbyterian system. The
second system is that most common in Presbyterian churches. The rule
here is by a representative body called "elders." They, too, use
1 Timothy 3:1ff. and Titus 1:7ff. as well as 1 Timothy 5:17-19. Now,
to consider these very forms, The Presbyterian system is based on the
term
(presbuteros) generally rendered "elder." The
pastor is consider the ruling elder and the others lay people elected to
that office by the congregation. The various local churches form a
synod (no Scriptural basis for that term) which sort of rules over
the local churches. Here again such a extra local church organization
would be difficult to prove from the Bible.
3) The Congregational system.
The third system is generally called the "congregational" form of
government. In this case the congregation is the ruling body
presided over by a pastor. This form uses the above passages also,
but the basis of the congregation being the ruling body is a little
harder to establish. It seems to be based on the fact that it is
individuals that do the service of God and not the church itself.
Generally, the elder is considered to be the pastor. The closest
statement is the election of the first deacons in Acts 6:4 where the
"they" has as its antecedent the "multitude." The multitude chose the
deacons not the apostles. The apostles only approved them and set them
apart for that ministry. Other than this passage, there is no direct
statement (to this person's knowledge) of congregational government.
In most Baptist churches,
the pastor is considered the one and only elder. This position is tenuous
in the light of 1 Timothy 5:17f. where the ruling elders are distinguished
from the teaching elder (pastor). It seems to this writer (and there
are Baptist churches, although mostly independent churches, that concur)
that the best church government, which conforms most accurately to the
Bible, is where you have multiple elders (whether they be associate
pastors or lay people) with one elder--the pastor--having the general
oversight (bishop if you wish since that term means "overseer).
It seems evident in
1 Timothy 2:1ff., the bishop is spoken of in the singular
whereas elders are spoken of in the plural. It is understandable
that in a very small church that there may not be enough men to be elders,
whereupon the pastor would be both teaching and ruling elder.
This writer have said
little about deacons (except in reference to Acts 6). 1 Timothy 1:8ff.
explains the qualifications of deacons, but little is said about their
duties. Acts 6 is the chief passage dealing with the duties. We have
touched upon this aspect, yet more could be said of elders and
deacons; in particular we have not discussed the duties of
these offices, but enough has been said to give the general picture.
This writer has not distinguished between the office and the ministry
although there is a distinction.
d. Ordinances. The fourth aspect of the
local church is its ordinances. These two are ritual baptism
and the Lord's Supper.
1) Water baptism. There is
probably more controversy over ritual baptism than any other matter. This
writer has already dealt to some extent that water baptism (whatever mode
one uses) is not essential for salvation. He will
not discuss that matter further.
a) What baptism
represents. Which mode one adheres to boils down to what does it
represent. Real baptism is by the Holy Spirit. If water
baptism represents real baptism, then one tends to pour or sprinkle. If
one holds that it represents the results of real baptism, then
one tends to immerse.
b) The meaning
of the words. Besides to what it represents is the plain
meaning of the words and context. The Greek words involved are
bapto and baptizo, meaning "dip" and "immerse" respectively.
It is argued that the LXX uses baptizo as the rendering
of five Hebrew words. Chafer states "Some of these actions could not
include an intusposition and none of them require it." (Systematic
Theology, VII:38). This statement seems to this person a begging
of the question. Of the five words only three (used only
once in each case) could not be used in the sense of immerse. The
other two words "to dye" (three times) and "cleanse" (sixteen times) are
most appropriate for immerse. It is only the attempt to defend
a position that forces the conclusion that "none of them require it."
c) The Scriptures
used. There are several Scriptures that are used. The main
passage is Romans 6:1-10 where baptism is a picture of the death,
burial, and resurrection of the believer IN Christ. Colossians
2:11-13 does compare the death of Christ as a circumcision, but
the burial and resurrection aspects are connected with baptism. To
refer to 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4 in this matter is erroneous; that passage
does refer to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, but
there is no reference to baptism in that passage.
Those
who argue against Romans 6:1ff. referring to water baptism say it is
a thing to believe, not to be done. No one argues that matter. It is
granted that it is to be believed (Cf. verse 11), but water baptism
pictures this identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.
The fact that many times the distinction is not made clear is the fault
of improper teaching, not improper doctrine or mode of baptism. On
this same basis we could accuse the sprinklers of equating that with salvation
of infants (which many unfortunately do).
The argument
against immersion based on amount of water (John 3:23) or the number
of people being baptized (Acts 2:41) is skating on thin ice to
say the least. Likewise, the rebaptism of John's disciples (Acts
19:1-7) or Paul standing up and being baptized (Acts 9:18) is grasping
at straws. A careful reading of these passages will show that
there is absolutely no argument against immersion.
Furthermore, the
non-immersionist must also resort to secondary meanings of the prepositions
in order to deny the plain meaning of "in water", "out of the
water", and "into the water."
The weakest
argument of all is that two-thirds of non-catholics practice
sprinkling or pouring and only one-third practice immersion (as if the
majority rules in doctrinal matters). It can also be noted that the
same two-thirds persecuted the one-third whereas the reverse was not the
case.
d) Infant
baptism. Another critical matter is that of the baptism of
infants. It is the non-immersionists that largely practice
infant baptism. The issue here is not the mode but that of baptising
infants. Those rejecting infant baptism (largely confined to those
who practice immersion) insist that the ritual of baptism is only
for believers. Some of those who practice infant baptism
do so on the basis that there is saving merit in it.
The
biggest reason given is some supposed connection between circumcision
of infants in the Old Testament and baptism. "To be consistent,
those who baptize infants because of an assumed covenant relationship
should baptize only male children and only on the eighth day."
(Chafer, Systematic Theology, VII:42; a strange comment
from one who apparently believed in it)
The
third argument for infant baptism is the five households in the Book of
Acts that were baptized included infants. Even if infants
were present (of which there is no evidence other than the word
"household"), it is presumptuous to assume that infants (or even small children)
were baptized.
Some refer to 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 as to the sanctification (a
setting apart) of children as suggesting that baptism is a sign
that the parents have faith as to their children's future salvation.
However, this passage has to do with the case of one saved spouse
and one unsaved and has absolutely no reference or implication
to baptism. This is is just another grasping at straws.
2) The Lord's Supper. The
other ordinance, the Lord's Supper, is witness to the believer's trust in
the death of Jesus and His coming again.
a) 1 Corinthians
11:23-34. The key passage is 1 Corinthians 11:23-34. There
is nothing in this passage or in the institution of it by the
Lord that leads to either transubstantiation (Romanism) or real presence
(Lutherism). It is a memorial feast like the passover.
b) The frequency.
As to how often it should be observed is a local church matter for
verse 26 says, "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup" showing
that there is liberty in observance.
c) The elements.
Nothing is said about the bread as to being leaven or unleaven. It
could be argued that leaven bread symbolizes Jesus taking our sins
into His body; those opting for unleaven bread say it symbolizes
His sinless body.
As
to the cup, many argue for wine; but others (and this writer concurs) that
the original Lord's Supper used unfermented grape juice for Jesus refers
to it as the "fruit of the vine" instead of "wine" (Greek:
oinos).
2. The group of churches. Some passages in the New Testament
refer to a groups of churches. Acts 9:31 speaks of the
churches in "all Judea and Galilee and Samaria." In Acts 15:41 tells
of churches in Syria and Cilicia; whereas 16:5 refers to churches (plural)
without reference to region. Romans 16:4 speaks collectively of "all
of the churches of the Gentiles." (Notice that individual churches
are implied.) 1 Corinthians 11:16 refers to "the churches [plural,
not singular] of God"; and 14:34 states it in plural form, while 16:1,
19 refer to churches in a particular region and always in the plural. 2
Corinthians 8:1, 18-19, 23-24; 12:13 speaks of churches (plural) as
does Galatians 1:2, 22 collectively of a region but again using the
plural word. 1 Thessalonians 2:14 again speaks of "the churches
[plural] of God." In Revelation 1-3 churches are referred to in
the plural except when an individual local church is addressed;
the same is true of Jesus'
statement in Revelation 22:16.
"However, in no passage is there an
intimation that these churches were federated or under the authority
of a super-government." (Chafer, Systematic Theology , IV:152)
The emphasis seems to be on the local assembly which may or
may not join into an association of churches. We have already
mentioned some passages the set forth the visible church without referring
to a locality. Some of the other passages include Acts 12:1;
Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 4:17 and 7:17; 2 Corinthians 11:28; Galatians
1:13; among others.
It should be obvious that there is a visible church which is always in a certain locality. The only thing that exists as "The Church" is the organism which is the Body and Bride of Christ. In the New Testament there is no visible "The Church"; it is always churches, the singular being used when it is speaking of a certain local assembly. Some will argue against this statement by quoting Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18, but this verse clearly refers to the organism and not the organization.
In discussing the church as an order is not meant a group,
but rather the manner of life that the believers which make up the
church should have. In this present age believers are under grace not
law. It is needful to consider briefly (more can be said than
can be said) two rules of life which differ from the rule of life
for the believer in this age. At the start this writer must make it
clear and plain, "The law was never given as a means of salvation
or justification." (Chafer, Systematic Theology,
IV:162; bold type is this writer's for emphasis).
Also, it must be made clear that though
this present age is the age of grace, it does not follow that divine
grace was not exercised previously. God is always gracious in every
age. Although there was a pre-mosaic era, we are concerned mostly with
the Mosaic dispensation and the present age of grace. The rule
of life of the future millennial kingdom will be also briefly
considered. One must also keep in mind that the word "law" does not
always refer to the Mosaic Law or parts thereof.
1. The rule of life under the Mosaic Law. As this writer
begins this discussion, one must be reminded that the Law of Moses
was never intended for the Gentiles. Also, as all ready indicated,
the Law was never intended to be the means of being made right with
God. The sacrifices did provide the means of restoration.
a. The relation of the Law. That the
Scriptures teach that the Law was given by Moses to the nation Israel is
clear to anyone who is not prejudiced by some system of thought.
Galatians 3:19 clearly shows that the Law was "added because of
transgressions", until the Seed (Jesus Christ) came. "Apart from
the Man Christ Jesus, there was universal failure in the keeping of the
law." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV:161) The failure
to keep the Law which was holy was due to the sinful nature of man.
Romans 8:3 clearly indicates this. The purpose of the
Law is set forth in Galatians 3:24 to make mankind realize that only Jesus
Christ could save. One sees that the Law had a limited existence.
It began with Moses receiving the Law on Mount Sinai. Deuteronomy 5:1-3
shows that it was given to Israel. In a real sense the Jews place
themselves under the Law; up to its being given they were under grace and
could have craved God's mercy and remained there. The Law ended with
the death of Christ. This is clear from Galatians 3:19 as well
as the verses that follow.
b. The application of the Law. "The
law was given only to the children of Israel." (Chafer, Systematic
Theology, IV:165) Repeatedly, the passages dealing with the Law
of Moses shows this to be the case. Mark 12:29, 30; Deuteronomy
4:8, 5:1-3 among others demonstrate this fact. Even Romans 2:14 suggests
it. It should be clear that the Law of Moses was peculiarly for
the nation Israel. It may be true that some of the principles
of this law existed prior to the giving of it, and it may
be true that some of the principles carry over to the church
age; but in general it was primarily and foremost for Israel.
2. The rule of life in the future millennial kingdom. Too
often throughout church history the blessings of the kingdom have been
wrongly applied to the church. Many will dispute this, but it is an
ignoring of the distinctions that the Scriptures themselves make.
The Old Testament as well as some passages in the gospels blend the
first and second advents. Peter pointed out that the prophets
of old were puzzled over the sufferings of Christ and the glorious
reign to follow (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10, 11). Several passages speak of
the kingdom such as Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:1-5; Jeremiah 23:3-8; Hosea 3:4,
5 and numerous others.
a. The kingdom in the Gospels. When the
kingdom is spoken of in the gospels, it has often been ignored that
the message was for the nation Israel only (Cf. Matthew 10:5,.6; 15:24).
The phrase "the kingdom of heaven" is exclusively used by Matthew
and has to do with God's rule on earth. That there are some similarities
to the "kingdom of God" which pertains to His universal rule should
not be surprising, but this does not make the two terms synonymous. Even
a casual reading of the synoptic gospels and Matthew in particular clearly
shows that Jesus was presenting Himself as the King of the Jews. It
was no accident that Pilate had the accusation placed on His cross, "This
is Jesus the King of the Jews."
The matter of whether there was
a bonafide offer of the kingdom to the Jews has been argued, but whether
or not it was, it was rejected by the Jews. To say it was not a bonafide
offer "is to accuse God of trickery and deception" as well as a gross
misinterpretation of many Scriptures in applying that message to this
present church age. What has been said here does not preclude a rule
of God is the believer's heart in this church age. This does
not mean that there is no future kingdom of God on earth.
The King was rejected and of necessity
His kingdom was rejected. Rejection of the kingdom does
not imply the demise of the kingdom. It has been merely
postponed until the return of the King. Several of the
parables imply this as does Acts 1:6, 7. This writer is looking
forward to returning with the Lord to reign with Him here on earth.
b. The kingdom in the future. As already
suggested, just because the King and His kingdom was rejected does not in
any way imply that there is no future kingdom. Jesus Christ is to return
after the Great Tribulation to set up the millennial kingdom here on earth.
More about that will be covered on the web page
Last Things.
3. The rule of life in this present age.
Salvation is by grace through faith alone
and not of any works one can perform. Works are the outcome of
salvation. As a person is saved by grace so he lives by grace.
That is why this is called "the age of grace." "The
classification of the present age as the age of grace
does not imply that divine grace has not been exercised in past ages. This
age is thus designated because of the revealed truth that God is now
making a specific and supreme demonstration of His grace through
the outcalling of the Church from both Jews and Gentiles." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, IV:181; italics are his.)
a. The aspects of grace. There are
three features of grace.
1) Its character. Its character
is uncomplicated. One hears about things being complicated; and when
a simple solution is given, it is said to be "simplistic." Basically,
the matter can be stated that the grace of God is without anything
added. There is no law or rule that needs to be added to the grace
in order to live the Christian life. It does not follow, however, that
the believer is lawless.
2) Its requirements. Its
requirements is in accord with the supernatural nature of
the Christian life. 2 Corinthians 10:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Ephesians 4:1
and many others illustrate this truth. Believers are commanded to love
one another as Christ loved us (Cf. John 13:34,15:12; 1 John 3:16). This
love is not the wishy-washy love that is expressed so much these days;
but rather it is a love which is willing to rebuke wrong and error. The
wishy-washy kind can be humanly generated; true love for the brethren can
not.
3) Its scope. It is supernatural
in scope. Thus, it is done by divine enablement. "A supernatural power
is provided for the exact and perfect execution of the superhuman rule
of life under grace. . . . . Under grace, the all-powerful, abiding,
indwelling, and sufficient Holy Spirit of God is given to every saved
person." (Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV:188) This fact is
abundantly established by numerous passages such as John 7:37-39; Romans
5:5, 8:9; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 1 John 3:24, 4:13 and a host of
others.
The indwelling of
the Holy Spirit is paramount to this enablement. All believers
are indwelt, but not every believer is filled with the Spirit; hence, there
is the necessity of the exhortation in Ephesians 5:18. Believers
are the temple of the Holy Spirit, a relationship which no Israelite
had under the law.
Two complementary
truths are involved here. The first truth sets forth the nature of
the conduct that a believer in Christ is to have; the second is the
fact that the life is to be lived in solely by the enabling power of the
Holy Spirit Who indwells a believer. Several Scriptures point out this
truth such as John 7:37-39; Acts 1:8; Romans 6:14, 8:4; Galatians 5:16;
Philippians 2:13 to mention a few.
b. The relationships of grace. The
relationship of believers to the Godhead should be obvious.
1) Relation to the world. There
is the relationship with the world system. Believers are citizens of
heaven, not of this world. We are in the world but not
of the world. However, all too often the church today
seems to walking hand in hand with the world. The Laodicean church
(Revelation 3:144-22) is typical of the church today.
a) The
archenemy. In connection with world system the relationship
is in regard to Satan and his hosts. He is the believers' arch
enemy, and to him they are subversive agents. This battle
is on the basis of reliance upon the Holy Spirit as evidence in Ephesians
6:10ff. (Also see 1 John 4:4). The relationship is also in regard
to the system itself. 1 John 2:15-17 makes this abundantly clear as
does other passages.
b) The
government. Then there is the believers' relation to human government.
One must understand that all government (including our beloved USA)
is under Satanic control (Cf. Matthew 4:8-9; Luke 4:5-7). This country
was basically founded on Christian principles, but it has departed greatly
from it. (The blame can be laid to the church's departure from the
Book as much as anything else.) Though believers have a warfare against
the world, they are to be subject to government (Romans 13:1-7
and others), even that with which one may disagree.
In
the United States believers do have a unique situation (but for how long
is only a guess) in that they can in a godly way resist the government
by speaking out against error. Nevertheless, they must remain submissive
to laws except when those laws violates the truth of God. Several
current issues are in this category.
On
the other side of the coin, believers can rightly use
government for lawful defense of their rightful and
lawful activities. Paul used the Roman government rightly in his appeal
to Caesar, the supreme court of his day. The final relation in
regard to the world system is that to the unsaved can be seen in
2 Corinthians 5:14-16 as believers endeavor to be witnesses
to them.
2) Relation to the body of
Christ. The second relationship of the believer is
to the body of Christ.
a) In love.
The first and foremost relationship to other believers is love. This
is clearly seen in John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:14; Ephesians 5:2 and others.
However, this love is not the wishy-washy love that is so prevalent
today that considers a believer unloving because he rebukes another for deviating
from the plain teaching of the Word of God.
Along
with this principle of love is the need to recognize the union of
all believers (not in an organization) by the baptism of the
Holy Spirit (Cf. Ephesians 4:1-3). As an adjunct to love is that
of Christian kindness as evidenced by Ephesians 4:31, 32; James 4:11
and others. It should be noted here that the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is not some second work of grace, but it is true of all
believers
One of the
biggest problems today which is an aspect of this principle is that
of submission to one another (Cf. Ephesians 5:21).
Also needed
today is the exercise of Christian gifts to meet the need
of other believers. This is seen in Galatians 6:10 and other
passages.
Finally,
in the principle of love is praying for one another. Even
if one disagrees with another believer, he needs to pray for them.
b) As to
authority. Another principle involved in the relationship
of the believer to the body of Christ is in regard to those
who have authority in the local assembly. Hebrews 13:7, 17 both show
this to be so. That authority is first to the pastor who breaks the
bread of life to believers in the local assembly. Then it
is to the ruling elders of the church.
c) In certain
relationships. Another principle is that between husbands and wives.
Here in Ephesians 5:25 the primary responsibility of the husband
to one's wife is set forth. A wife's submission to her husband is directly
related to that responsibility. The relation of parents to their
children is often overlooked. Passages such as Ephesians 6:1-4 clearly
set forth this aspect. Then there is the relationship of a believer
to his employer (and the employer to his employee) shown in Colossians
3:22-24.
d) To a sinning
brother. Another overlooked area is the believer's duty to a brother
in sin. Galatians 6:1 sets this forth clearly. "A sharp distinction
must be drawn at this point between a disorderly brother who is a busybody,
shirking his honest toil, and careless in matters of Christian conduct,
on the one hand, and a sincere believer who may disagree with another on
a matter of interpretation, on the other hand." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, IV:200). In other words, though
one may need to rebuke a brother, one needs to have the attitude of
Colossians 4:6.
e) To a weaker
brother. Finally, the believer has a duty to a weak brother.
This truth is clearly set forth in Romans 14:1ff. Believers
need to be charitable toward the weaker believer while maintaining liberty
in Christ.
This writer has endeavored to set forth in this part
of the web page the rule of life for believers. Much more
could be said but space does not permit. The contrast between law and
grace could be examined in great detail.
Suffice to say here that the two systems
(together with that of the kingdom) are independent (although not mutually
exclusive), sufficient, and complete. There is the statement, "The
law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John 1:17).
It does not follow from this that there was no grace under Moses nor
that there is no law under grace.
Interestingly, each of the 10 commandments
are expressed in different words the New Testament (in particular after the
death and resurrection of Christ) except the commandment
about the sabbath.
Besides the contrast between law
and grace, it can be shown that the law system and Judaism has been done
away. Many passages teach this such as Galatians 5:18. Strictly speaking,
"it may be concluded that the written Law of Moses is not intended
to be the rule of the believer's life under grace. Yet, on the
other hand, the abiding principles of the law which are adaptable to
grace, are carried forward and restated under the teachings of grace,
not as law, but reformed to the mold of infinite grace." (Chafer,
Systematic Theology, IV:243)
This clearly shows (as do several
passages) that there is no room for the "do your own thing" attitude. The
two are uniquely different. Christianity is not the blossom
springing from the bud of Judaism. They both had features in
common, but the differences are paramount. In the final analysis God
is doing something new in this present age. The failure to recognize
that only leads to confusion.
If you came from the second web page on Christ, click on it; otherwise, click below.