Author: Art Davison

ECCLESIOLOGY-A STUDY OF THE CHURCH
By: Jarrell E. Huffman

(1-7 LESSONS)

Many books have been written concerning the church which Jesus established. Many of these books are good. As one investigates this field, however, there is always room to elaborate and expand.

Church truth has been greatly minimized in this present age. Only true Baptist Churches hold to the doctrine of the local, visible church. All others, including many “so-called Baptists,” accept the universal-invisible church “theory.”

Satan attacks the cardinal truths of the Word. He seeks to pervert, confuse, and minimize the fundamentals of the Scriptures. He has so successfully blinded the eyes of the masses, that only a very few know church truth.

The author was reared in a Missionary Baptist Church in Oklahoma. Early in life I heard church truth. During my studies at the Missionary Baptist Seminary of Little Rock, Arkansas, church truth was driven home. Having pastored five of the Lord’s churches in three states, I have become even more aware of the need for church truth to be believed and taught.

The past four years the author has instructed in the Illinois Missionary Baptist Institute of Washington, Illinois. At first, Ecclesiology was taught in connection with Bible Doctrine. Later, both of these courses were enlarged and divided.

The church which Jesus built is the greatest institution on earth. Founded by the Lord Himself, this institution is guaranteed perpetuity (Matthew 16:18).

It is both an honor and a privilege to be a member of one of the Lord’s churches. This book is sent forth to aid both the teacher and the student to better understand and appreciate the institution which Jesus purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28).

INTRODUCTION

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Ecclesiology is a specialized study of the doctrines of the church. The study included the origin, the continuity, the nature, and the ministry of this blood-bought institution.

Etymology of the Word “ecclesiology”:

1.Ecclesia–assembly; congregation; church

2.Logos–word; study of

This study comprises one of the most important, yet sadly neglected, doctrines of the Bible.

THE NEED FOR THIS STUDY.

Never before in the history of the church has there been such a need of the Bible meaning of the Lord’s “church.”

G.D. Boardman, of last century fame, stated, “What is the church? Is the great problem of this century.” (Ekklesia The Church, Bob Ross, p.3).

Satan has chosen a few doctrines to specifically concentrate his energies on to pervert: Genesis account of creation, inspiration of the Scriptures, virgin birth and deity of Christ, salvation by grace, perseverance of the saints, and the church of the New Testament.

Tulga says, “The fundamentalists knew very well that many other spiritual movements had cooled off and departed from the faith, and they adopted many careful doctrinal confessions and required many signings, forgetting at times that eternal vigilance is the price of orthodoxy…they did not foresee that schools which they founded would be infected by the culture of their day, the natural tendency of the human mind toward philosophical theology, and the adoption of the popular notions of the hour. Many movements are lulled to sleep with the conviction that ‘it can’t happen to us’…church history records that every movement eventually diminishes in vigor and strength of conviction; that the truths held dynamically in the beginning eventually come to be held formally.” (Fundamentalism of Yesterday, The Evangelicalism of Today, and the Fundamentalism of Tomorrow, Chester Tulga, pp.7,8).

The controversy centers around the question: “What is the nature of the church?” “Is it local or universal, visible or invisible?” IT CANNOT BE BOTH.

The ordinances of the church—baptism and the Lord’s Supper–can never have their full meaning, if the nature of the church be not properly understood.

Scriptural exhortations:

II Timothy 4:3,4–“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Matthew 24:12–“And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.”

II Timothy 3:1–“This is known also, that in the last days perilous (difficult) times shall come.”

I Timothy 4:1– “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.”

Rev. 3:14-22– the whole spirit of this Laodicean age is characterized by apathy, indifference, luke-warmness, non-concern, and looseness–both morally and doctrinally.

SUGGESTED READING FOR THE COURSE.

The meaning of Ecclesia in the New Testament–Edward Overbey

The Church That Jesus Built–Roy Mason

The Origin of Baptists–S.H. Ford

Theodosia Earnest–Volume II–A.C. Dayton

Baptist Succession–D.B. Ray

Concise History of Baptists–Orchard

The Church and the Ordinances– Buell H. Kazee

Alien Baptism and the Baptists– Nevins

The Baptist Story–A. A. Davis

The Church–L.L. Clover

Brief History of the Baptists–Edward Overbey

John’s Baptism–J. R Graves

N. T. Baptists and Infant Sprinkling–Chester Tulga

Case for Dispensationalism–Chester Tulga

Seven Dispensations–J .R Graves

Independence of the Local Church–Chester Tulga

Southern Baptist Convention-A Study in the Development of Ecclesiology–William Wright Barnes

The Baptist Heritage–Holliday

History of the Baptists–Thomas Armitage

The New Great Iron Wheel–J. R Graves

Truth About Conventionism–I.K. Cross

World System and the Social Gospel–G .E Jones

Trilemma –J. R Graves

Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power–Paul Blanshard

American Freedom and Catholic Power–Paul Blanshard

First Baptist Church in America–Graves and Adlam

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History

The Letters to the Seven Churches–Ramsay

The Patmos Letters–Tatford

The Churches of the New Testament–McDaniel

Repent or Else–Vance Havner

Seven Churches of Revelation–Ford

Why Be a Baptist–Boyce Taylor

Pillars of Orthodoxy–Ben Bogard

Ecclesia–the Church–B. H. Carroll

Ekklesia–the Church–Bob Ross

The Glorious Church–Roy M. Reed

God’s Plan With Man–A. J. Kirkland

Seven Questions & Answers as to Church Authority–Baptist Examiner

Origin and Perpetuity of the Baptists–Baptist Examiner

The New Testament Church–A Local Body–A. J. Kirkland

Biblical Proofs for Identifying the True Church–L. D. Foreman

The Trail of Blood–J. M. Carroll

LESSON 1

The Word Defined.

Overbey says, “According to most scholars the word church comes from a Greek word meaning “the Lord’s with the word house usually understood.” (The Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. –Overbey, p.7)

The Greek “kuriakos”:

From the word “kurios,” meaning “Lord.”

Thayer says, “A Biblical and ecclesiastical word– of or belonging to the Lord, or relating to the Lord.” (Lexicon, p. 365).

Hobbs says, “The English word ‘church” in the sense of a church building comes from the word kuriakos. Thus, a church building is a “lordly house’ or ‘ the Lord’s house'” (Preaching Values From the Papri, Hershel Hobbs, p.78).

Overbey asserts, “Time and the peculiarities of each language had its effect on the word (kuriakos) but the word still remained recognizable. In English it is church, in Old English cirice, in German kirche, in Scottish kirk, and in Old Scandinavian kyrka.” (Loc. Cit.)

Scriptural usage’s of kuriakos:

Revelation 1:10–” I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day (kuriake hemera), and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.”

I Corinthians 11:20–“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper (kuriakon deipnon).”

In the papri (Greek records of tax records, marriage and divorce contracts, birth and death records, grocery bills, etc.) the word kuriakos is translated “Imperial.”

Thus, the pagan custom of observing a “kuriakos day” or “Emperor’s Day” in honor of the emperor Augustus.

Church buildings as such did not come into use until the 3rd or 4th centuries.

Thus, the usual treatment of usage of the word “church” is foreign to the Scriptures, and has become one of the most controversial subjects in the religious world.

LOUIS MAPLE has said, “It is against this type of interpretation (the allegorical method), which makes certain words as putty in the hands of the interpreter, that our author writes so effectively. Once the interpreter abandons the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which pays strict attention to the meaning of words, he has no regulative principle to govern his exegesis. Interpretation: Thus the word for church, ecclesia, has become a wax nose to be twisted and turned into many shapes and meanings” (Overbey, op. Cit., p.3)

SUGGESTED READING.

Ecclesia–the Church–B. H. Carroll

Ekklesia–the Church–Bob L. Ross

Theodosia Earnest, Vol. II–A. C. Dayton

LESSON 2

THE MEANING OF ECCLESIA

Definition of Terms.

As previously stated, most scholars agree that the English word “church” comes from a Greek word (kuriakos) which means “the Lord’s ” with the word house usually understood.

The Etymology: “Literal Sense of the Word”

Ek—out of

Kaleo—to call

Hence, a “calling out.”

Overbey says, “Since the word church is a very broad term having many possible

meanings and ekklesia is a much narrower term we must be careful in our study least we bring the present meanings of church into ekklesia as found in the New Testament” (meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. , Overbey, p.E).

Quoting F. J. A. Hort, Overbey says, “The reason why I have chosen the term ecclesia is simply to avoid ambiguity-two or more-meaning vague. The English term church, now the most familiar representative of ecclesia to most of us, carries with it associations derived from the institutions and doctrines of later times, and thus cannot at present without a constant mental effort be made to convey the full and exact force which originally belonged to ecclesia” (Ibid).

Overbey again, “The word church should not be in our English versions today to represent ecclesia. Its appearance in the N. T. , we believe, has obscured the true meaning. The word church was not used in Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, and Crammer’s Bible” (Bid).

Hort says, ” ‘Congregation was the only rendering of ekklesia in the English New Testament as it stood throughout Henry VIII’s reign, the substitution of ‘church’ being due to the Genevan revisers; and it held its ground in the Bishop’s Bible in no less primary a passage than Matthew 16:18 till the Jacobean revision of 1611, which we call the Authorized Version” (Ibid.).

Overbey again, ” In fact it is very likely it would not have appeared in the King James Version were it not for the 15 rules King James sent to the translators which were to guide them in their work. Rule 3 states, ‘The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word church not to be translated congregation” (Ibid., p.9).

I.K. Cross says, “In Acts 19:39-41 the term is used twice. Once to refer to the ‘lawful assembly’ which was called out to the citizens of Ephesus to handle legal matters in the city. The other to refer to the assembly that had been called together to run Paul and his companions out of town. In either case the assembly, or ecclesia (for this is the word used here), was a called out group, called together for a specific purpose, and local in nature. This was the common usage of the term and always the proper definition of an ecclesia. THIS IS WHAT OUR LORD SAID HE WOULD BE BUILDING.” (Canadian Baptists, Cross, p.7).

Cross continues, “If Jesus Christ had intended to build another kind of company there were other words in the language He could have used. He could have used the word ‘Synagoga’ a term without such limitations and yet designating an assembly. It would certainly have been more fitting for a ‘universal company’. He could have also used the word ‘panagris’ if he had a solemn assembly in mind of a massive and festal nature. But these were rejected in favor of the most limiting term in the Greek language with reference to an assembly; a term that can only be properly interpreted as an assembly local in nature” (Ibid.).

Cross in another place says, “The word ‘ecclesia’ is more than a mere assembly. The word is really a compounding of two words. ‘Kaleo’, to call; and ‘ek’, meaning out, or literally ‘to call out’. Thus, and ‘ekklesia’ is a Called out assembly, implying some conditions. The Lord did not call all Christians in the area that cared to assembled into His ‘ekklesia,” but he was very selective about it in Matthew 4:17-22; Matthew 9:1; John 1:43-44 and on until he had 120 in that assembly by the time he went back to the Father. I Cor. 12:28 says that ‘God hath set some in the church (ekklesia)…,’ not all. The same passage states that He wet the apostles in the ‘ekklesia,’ and on the occasion when the apostles were chosen there was quite a congregation of disciples present of whom he chose the apostles–and Paul says the apostles, not the crowd, were set in the ‘ekklesia'”(Landmarkism on Trial, Cross, p.7).

Overbey concurs, “To change the meaning of a word you must have good evidence that the speaker or writer of that word intended it that way. A basic principle that all scholars recognize is that a word must retain its usual meaning as long as the word used makes good sense that way. Only when it will not make good sense are we allowed to give it a new or rare meaning. If we apply this principle in this passage (Matthew 16:18), we will see that ‘assembly’ makes good sense so we cannot agree with those who would try to change the meaning here” (Brief History of the Baptists, Overbey,pp.26,27).

Roy Mason asserts, “…I submit the proposition that the church that Jesus founded was the local assembly, and that to use the word ecclesia to designate a ‘universal’ or ‘invisible’ church is to pervert its meaning, and to fall into serious error” (The Church That Jesus Built, Mason,p.26).

Mason also says, “The word ecclesia rendered ‘church’ in English translations, was not a new word coined by Jesus, but a word already in current use at that time and moreover a word the meaning of which had become definitely fixed and established” (Bid p.27).

A.C. Dayton said, “The Greek ‘ekklesia’ consisted of certain individuals, who, when assembled and organized, constituted an official body for the transaction of such business as might come before them. It was not merely an assembly, but an official assembly, consisting of persons specifically qualified, and who had each his specific rights and duties as a member of the ekklesia. It was not every resident in the city who was, strictly speaking, a citizen; nor was it every citizen who was a member of the ekklesia to which was intrusted the management of public business; but the ekklesia were called out from the mass…Every assembly was not an ekklesia, nor was every ekklesia and ekklesia of Christ” (Theodosia Earnest,pp.72,73).

Again, “The Greek ‘ekklesia’ was an assembly of called and qualified citizens, invested with certain rights, and registered in the city records” (Bid, p.129).

IMPROPER MEANINGS ATTACHED TO ECCLESIA.

The worship service (in contrast to Sunday School).

The clerical profession ( so used in most modern terminology).

Building in which Christian assemblies meet:

Dayton says, “…history informs us that the Christians had no such buildings (church-houses) for some two hundred years after this, (the time of the apostles), but continued to meet from house to house, or in the Jewish synagogues, or wherever they might. And the word (ekklesia) is never used in the New Testament, or any other Greek book written before of during the time of the apostles, to signify a house or building” (Bid, p.81).

This usage, so common even among those who know the truth, has come about by an original misconception of the word ekklesia.

All of one denomination:

That each denomination is a “branch” off the one big church.

Thus, the “Methodist Church,” the “Presbyterian Church,” etc.

Historical sense–the whole field of ecclesiastical activity in history since the days of Jesus here on earth–“the church in history.”

Model sense:

Terms like “a scriptural church” “church of the N. T. ,” etc.

These terms are not unscriptural as far as teaching, but the terms themselves are found nowhere in the Bible.

Universal, invisible sense:

That all the saved are in the mystical body, the church.

This theory is dealt with thoroughly in a further lesson.

From the modern usage of “church” one can easily see that the vast majority of those who use the word are totally ignorant of the Greek ekklesia.

QUOTES FROM RECOGNIZED SCHOLARS.

Liddell and Scott (lexicon)–“An assembly of people called together; an assembly called out.”

Dean Trench–“Ekklesia, as all know, was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the rights of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs” (Synonyms of the N. T. , p.17).

Edward Robinson–“Ekklesia, a conviction, assembly, congregation. In the literal sense a popular, or rather assembly, composed of persons legally summoned” (Lexicon)

H. Strong—“Ekklesia signified merely an assembly, however gathered or summoned. The church was never so large that it could not assemble” (Systematic Theology).

Vincent—“Originally an assembly of citizens, regularly summoned” (Word Studies in the N. T. )

Thayer—“Take the entire range of Greek literature in all its dialects, secular and sacred, and there is not one passage in which ecclesia means an invisible and universal spiritual assembly” (Lexicon).

Alexander Campbell—“Ekklesia literally signifies an assembly called out from others and is used among the Greeks, particularly the Athenians, for their popular assemblies, summoned by their chief magistrates and in which none but citizens had a right to sit. By inherent power it may be applied to any body of men called out and assembled in one place. If it ever loses the idea of calling out and assembling, it loses its principal features and its primitive use” (Ekklesia–The Church, Ross, p.7).

LESSON 3

THE MEANING OF ECCLESIA IN THE CLASSICAL GREEK

Definition Of Terms.

The New Testament was written in the KOINE or “common” Greek.

The Koine differs in many respects to the modern or classical Greek.

Classical Greek refers basically to the ancient Greek tongue which found its roots in the Indo-Germanic family of languages.

The Koine age is approximately 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Classical Greek is thought of as preceding the Koine; modern Greek is thought of as succeeding the Koine.

TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS.

Dana says, “In classical use ekklesia meant ‘an assembly.’ It was derived from a combination of Greek root and prefixed preposition, the resultant meaning of which was ‘to call out.’ It was commonly used reference to bodies of qualified representatives ‘called out’ for legislative functions” (Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. , Overbey, p.10).

Ewing writes, “In every case, the word means an organized body, in opposition to a casual meeting…” (Bid).

Liddell and Scott–“An assembly of the citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly” (Bid).

Seyffert’s Dictionary: “The assembly of the people, which in Greek cities had the power of final decision in public affairs” (Bid).

Thomas: “It was the organized assembly of the authorized voters of the local community met to transact business of common concern. It corresponded to the town-meeting of New England of later days” (Bid).

Overbey says, “A distinction should be maintained between the etymology of a word and its meaning at some particular time in history. Sometimes the two are the same; many times they are quite different. ‘Hussy’ came from ‘huswife’ which means housewife; today it means a worthless woman or girl, or a pert girl. ‘Constable’ came from ‘comes stabuli’ which means attendant of the stable; today it means a peace officer. ‘Ekklesia’ came from ‘ekkletos’ which means called out but in the times prior to the New Testament it meant assembly or called out assembly. To say it means the called out is not correct” (Bid, p.11).

Broadus writes, “The Greek word ekklesia signified primarily the assembly of citizens in a self-governed state, being derived from ekkaleo to call out; i.e., from their homes or places of business, to summon, as we speak of calling out the militia. The popular notion that it meant to call out in the sense of separation from others, is a mistake” (Bid, p.11).

F. J. A. Hort says, “There is no foundation for the widely spread notion that ekklesia means a people or a number of individual men called of the world of mankind” (Ibid,p.11).

Prof. Royal of Wake Forest College said, “I do not know of any passage in classical Greek, where ekklesia is used of unassembled or un-assembling persons” (Why Be A Baptist, Taylor,p.45).

SUGGESTED READING.

Ecclesia–the Church by B. H. Carroll

Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. by Overbey

LESSON 4

THE USE OF ECCLESIA IN THE SEPTUAGINT

Definition Of Terms.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

This translation was made approximately 285-246 B. C. by 72 Jewish scholars living in Alexandria.

The notation (LXX) is used extensively in referring to this translation.

TESTIMONY OF SCHOLARS.

In the Septuagint ekklesia is used about 100 times.

In the Hebrew (language of the O. T. ) two words were used to refer to the gathering together of the people of Israel–‘edhad and qahal.

Of these two words Hort says, “Neither of the two Hebrew terms was strictly technical: both were at times applied to very different kinds of gatherings from the gatherings of the people, though qahal had always a human reference of some sort, gatherings of individual men or gatherings of nations. The two words were so far coincident in meaning that in many cases they might apparently be used indifferently; but in the first instance they were not strictly synonymous. ‘edhad (derived from a root y’dh used in the Niphal in the sense of gathering together, specially gathering together by appointment or agreement) is properly, when applied to Israel, the society itself, formed by the children of Israel of their representative heads, whether assembled or not assembled. On the other hand qahal is properly their actual meeting together: hence we have a few times the phrase qehal ‘edhah the assembly of the congregation” (The Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. , Overbey, p.12).

Vitringa says, “Synagogue always means an assembly gathered together, but not necessarily joined by any bond of union. Ecclesia, kahal, always denotes some multitude which constitutes a people bound among themselves by law and obligation” (Pillars of Orthodoxy, Bogard, p.410).

Dana says, “In it ekklesia was used to translate the Hebrew word qahal which means an assembly, convocation or congregation” (Overbey, Op.Cit., p.13).

Dana also says, “The Old Testament and Jewish literature nowhere use ekklesia where it may justly be construed as ‘spiritual Israel'” (Op. Cit.).

Carroll says, “By an inductive study of all the ecclesia passages, you will see for yourselves that in the Septuagint it never means ‘all Israel whether assembled or unassembled, but that in every instance it means a gathering together, as assembly” (Ecclesia–The Church, Carroll, p.44).

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

Because of the fact that the Hebrew word “qahal” sometimes means the whole Israelitish people and is sometimes translated by ekklesia, it has been mistakenly concluded that ‘ekklesia’ must have the same breadth of meaning as ‘qahal’.

Ecclesia never translates ‘edhah, the broad term.

Carroll says, “The testimony here is univocal. It is as solid as the Macedonian phalanx.” (Bid, p.52).

THE LOCAL VISIBLE CHURCH

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The word “ecclesia” is used 115 times in the Greek N. T.

The ways it is translated:

Church—112 times

Assembly—3 times

A mistranslation occurs in Acts 19:37 where “churches” should be “temples”. The Greek word here is hierosulos.

The word “church” in I Peter 5:13 is supplied by the translators, and is not in the original Greek.

Of the 112 times the word ecclesia is translated “church” or “churches” it definitely applies to the N. T. organization, except in one case—Acts 7:38. Here the reference is to Israel assembled in the wilderness.

The following breakdown will prove:

That 93 of the 111 times ecclesia definitely refers to local congregations.

That the remaining 18 times ecclesia refers to the Lord’s church in the institutional, generic, or abstract sense (lesson 6).

SURVEY OF THE REFERENCE TO LOCAL CHURCHES.

The church at Jerusalem:

Acts 8:1; Acts 11:22; Acts 15:4

Acts 12:1; Acts 15:22—proved by the passage.

The church at Antioch (Syria)

Acts 11:26; Acts 13:1; Acts 14:27

Acts 15:3—by context.

The church at Cenchrea:

Romans 16:1

The church at Corinth:

I Cor.1:2; II Cor. 1:1;

Romans 16:23—written from Corinth.

The church at Laedicea:

Col. 4:16; Revelation 3:14

The church at Thessalonica:

I Thess. 1:1; II Thess. 1:1

The church at Ephesus:

Revelation 2:1; Acts 20:17

The church at Smyrna:

Revelation 2:8

The church at Pergamos:

Revelation 2:12

The church at Thyatira:

Revelation 2:18

The church at Sardis:

Revelation 3:1

The church at Philadelphia:

Revelation 3:7

Churches in houses

Romans 16:5;

I Cor. 16:19;

Philemon 2; Col. 4:15.

Plural usages:

In Syria and Cilicia:

Acts 15:41

In Galatia:

I Cor. 16:1;

Galatians 1:2

In Asia:

I Cor. 16:19; Rev. 1:4; Rev. 1:11; Rev. 1:20 (twice); Rev. 2:7;

Rev. 2:11; Rev. 2:17; Rev. 2:23; Rev. 2:29; Rev. 3:6; Rev. 3:13; Rev. 3:22.

In Macedonia:

II Cor. 8:1

In Judea:

Gal. 1:22

In Judea, Galilee, Samaria:

Acts 9:31

In Lystra, Iconium, Antioch:

Acts 14:23

Of the Gentiles:

Rom. 16:4

Proof by context:

Jerusalem:

Acts 2:47; Acts 5:11; Acts 8:3; Acts 12:5; Acts 18:22 (not at Caesarea);

I Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6.

Corinth:

I Cor. 11:18; I Cor. 11:22; I Cor. 14:4; I Cor. 14:5; I Cor. 14:19;

I Cor. 14:23; I Cor. 14:28; I Cor. 14:35; I Cor. 6:4; I Cor. 14:12.

Asia:

Acts 16:5; Rev. 22:16

Judea:

II Cor. 8:19; II Cor. 8:23; II Cor. 8:24; I Thes. 2:14

Macedonia:

II Cor. 11:8

Churches at any given place:

I Cor. 4:17; Phil. 4:15; James 5:14; II Cor. 8:18; III John 6; III John 9; III John 10; Matt.18:17 (twice); Romans 16:16; I Cor. 7:17; I Cor. 14:33; II Cor. 11:28; II Cor.12:13; II Thes. 1:4; I Tim. 3:5; I Tim. 5:16; I Cor. 11:16; I Cor. 14:34

QUOTATIONS BY SCHOLARS.

These previous parts have covered 97 ( 4 plus 93 ) of the 115 times ecclesia is used in the Greek N. T. ( the remaining 18 will be covered in the next lesson— the generic use of ekklesia). Kind, class “makes sense”.

Overbey says, “Every time ekklesia appears in the New Testament it makes sense translated according to its common meaning of assembly” ( The Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. , Overbey, p. 44).

Again he says, “In approaching the N. T. we see that the word is admitted by all to have this meaning (assembly) in about ninety places. The other times it is used there is a difference of opinion. Some contend for assembly, others for a new meaning best described as the universal invisible church. How can we tell which is correct? The principle is used that says the common meaning must be accepted in every place it makes sense. Only when the common meaning will not make sense are we permitted to assume it has a new meaning. Following this principle we find that the word assembly makes sense in every contested passage so that any new sense must be rejected” (Bid, p.46).

I.K. Cross says, “We here charge that there is no such thing known in the New Testament as a church that includes every saved man on earth. This is the family of God, but never the church of the New Testament” (Canadian Baptists, Cross, p.5).

A. C. Dayton declares, “Each church was complete within itself—independent of all earthly control, and subject only to the law of Christ” (Theodosia Earnest, Vol. II, p. 116).

J. R. Graves said, “The proof given that the very word Ekklesia (an assembly) denotes a complete church, equally implies its independency, i.e., that it is dependent upon no other body for its existence of self-perpetuation, or the discharge of all the functions and trusts of a church of Christ” (The New Great Iron Wheel, Graves, p.134).

Graves again, “I have shown that the idea of a great Universal Invisible Church, or a Visible Universal Church composed of all the visible churches, or, as some claim of all baptized, independent of local churches, can not, by any fair exegesis, be found” (Seven Questions and Answers to Church Authority, Baptist Examiner, p. 37).

S.H. Ford asserts, “It should be remembered that by church, Baptists mean what the New Testament teaches–a local, real congregation of baptized believers united together for God’s service” (Bid).

H.E. Dana says, “This matter of qualification for citizenship was quite important, for many residents of such a city had no place in the Ekklesia…The term referred to a body of persons having definite qualifications, assembled to carry out certain organized aims on democratic principles. So there were elements pertinent to its (Ekklesia) New Testament meaning. (1) the assembly was local; (2) it was autonomous; (3) it presupposed definite qualifications; (4) it was conducted on democratic principles” (The church, L. L. Clover, p. 94).

Overbey says, “Jesus used the word ‘church’ twenty-three times, twenty times in Revelation, and three times in Matthew. Twenty-two times there is agreement among all that the word means assembly. It is either plural or the context is very clear so that there can be no doubt in any mind that he is speaking of a local, visible body. Matthew 16:18 is the only place where some think it has a new meaning. But if Jesus used the word twenty-two times and there is no question concerning its meaning then it seems that we must believe that the one remaining place has the same meaning” (Brief History of the Baptists, Overbey, p.26).

Boyce Taylor asserts, “…The Etymology of the word ekklesia makes it of necessity a local church” (Why Be a Baptist, Taylor, p.47).

Armitage concurs, “In the apostolic age the church was a local body, and each church was independent of every other church. The simple term ecclesia designates one congregation, or organization assembly, this being its literal and primal meaning…It follows, then, that the New Testament nowhere speaks of the ‘Universal, Catholic, or Invisible Church,’ as indicating a merely ideal existence separate from a real and local body…A local church fully expresses the meaning of the word ‘ecclesia’ wherever it is found in Holy Writ” ( History of the Baptists, Armitage, pp. 118-120).

Suggested Reading.

Ecclesia—the church—B. H. Carroll

Why Be a Baptist—Boyce Taylor

Ekklesia—the Church–Bob Ross

Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T.—Overbey

Seven Questions and Answers as to Church Authority—Baptist Examiner

The Church–L. L. Clover

The Origin of Baptists–S. H. Ford

Theodosia Earnest, Vol. II–A. C. Dayton

LESSON 6

Introduction.

We have before shown that 97 of the 115 times which “ecclesia” is used in the New Testament refer to the local, visible church.

The remaining 18 will be taken up individually in this lesson to show that the same meaning is retrained, and to suppose that a new meaning is to be attached to ecclesia is wrong.

Overbey says “Generally all scholars accept these ninety-two uses as meaning assembly. It should be stated here that the word ekklesia refers to a group of people organized to carry out some purpose that assemble from time to time. To be an ekklesia is need not be a continual assembly. Carroll well stated this when he was asked: ‘But if church means assembly does not that require it to be always in session?’ No ecclesia, classic, Jewish, or Christian, known to history, held perpetual session. They all adjourned and came together again according to the requirements of the case. The organization, the institution, was not dissolved by temporary adjournment'” )The Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T., Overbey, p. 20).

Overbey again, “The common meaning of a word must stand in every place it occurs as long as it makes sense. When it fails to make sense then a new meaning or a rare meaning must be found in the context for the word. If a new or rare meaning will make sense in a given context we cannot accept it as long as the common meaning will also make sense” (Ibid., p. 22).

Warfield says, “The question is, after all, not what can the word be made to mean, but what does it mean…only if the sense thus commended to us were unsuitable to the context would we be justified in seeking further for a new interpretation” (Ibid., p. 23).

The principle is this: A NEW OR RARE MEANING IS NOT TO BE GIVEN TO A WORD JUST BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE SENSE IN CERTAIN PLACES. THE OLD MEANING MUST BE RETAINED.

THE GENERIC OR INSTITUTIONAL USE EXPLAINED

Three terms:

Generic–Relating to or characteristic of a whole group or class; general.

Institutional–an organization as differentiated from other kinds of organizations.

Abstract–disassociated from any specific instance.

These terms illustrated:

Overbey says, “A word may be used generically. In such cases the word may be singular and yet not refer to any particular object of the class but to every object of that class. It is as if some object of the class were taken as a representative would apply generally to each object…In such cases the definite article with the word does not mean there is only one particular automobile singled out from the rest or that there is only one automobile in the world, but the article is called the generic article and distinguishes one class from another class rather than one object in a class from another object in the same class. We use words generically all the time and never think of it” (Ibid., p. 24,25).

He continues, ” ‘The’ with a singular noun sometimes indicates a class or kind of object. The scholar is not necessarily a dryasdust. The elephant is the largest of quadrupeds. The airplane is a very recent invention. Resin is obtained from the pine…The singular number with the generic ‘the’ is practically equivalent to the plural without an article” (Ibid., p.25)

Buell Kazee declares, “In this sense (generic or institutional) the word indicates a type of institution as differentiated from other kinds of institutions. Thus we speak of ‘the church’ as we do ‘the home’ or ‘ the school’…a good example of the Biblical use of a word this way is the word ‘ man’ in Genesis 1:26. Here God says, ‘Let us make man in our image.’ Although Adam was the first specific example of this being, we understand the term ‘man’ to mean man in general, including all his race, rather than just the one individual man… Thus, by the word ekklesia Jesus could have been speaking of the type of institution He would build” (The Church and the Ordinances, Kazee, p. 1,2).

Roy Mason concurs, “The word (ekklesia) is used fourteen times to denote an institution. When it is used in this way it is, according to Dr. Carroll, used in either an abstract or generic sense. ‘This follows,’ he says, ‘from the laws of language governing the use of words. For example, if an English statesman, referring to the right of each individual citizen to be tried by his peers, should say: ‘On this rock England will build her jury, and all the power of tyranny shall not prevail against her,’ he uses the term jury in an abstract sense, i. e. , in the sense of an institution. But when this institution finds concrete expression or becomes operative, it is always a particular jury of twelve men and never an aggregation of all juries into one big jury'” (The Church That Jesus Built, Mason, p. 29).

A.C. Dayton declares, “Christ did not refer to any particular individual local organization when he said ‘my Church’. He did not mean the Church at Jerusalem of the Church at Corinth. Much less did he refer to all the churches combined in one great Church. But he simply used the word as the name of his institution.” (Theodosia Earnest, Vol. II, p. 100).

He continues, “…let me illustrate. You are a lawyer. A client comes to you for legal information. You tell him that the law is thus or so; and so ‘the court’ will instruct ‘the jury’. What do you mean by the court? And what do you mean by the jury? Not any particular individual judge whom you may have in mind, much less all the judges in the world comprised in one gigantic ‘universal’ judge; but you mean any one of all the judges before whom the suit might be tried; and not any particular set of jurymen, much less all the jurymen in the world united in one wast conglomerate ‘universal’ jury; but simply that jury, whichever or wherever it may be, who may chance to be empanelled on the case. ‘The court’ is the name or title given to a certain official personage, when engaged in the performance of certain official duties.

‘The jury’ is the name or title given to a certain official body or assembly, when employed in a certain official capacity. Now, as the courts and juries in the British empire transact, business and administer justice by the authority of Queen Victoria, and in her name, they may very properly be called her court, and her jury, meaning thereby simply her institutions, organized by her authority for the transaction of this specific business, in her name.

The first courts and juries which were organized may have been dissolved; others may have followed, and, like them, have disappeared; but still the institution continues: the jury is still an essential part of the apparatus for the administration of justice…And if I should say that the jury is ‘built’ upon the ‘rock’ of the constitution, and that the councils of tyrants can never ‘prevail against’ or overthrow it, I should speak of it just as Christ did about his Church” (Ibid., p. 100,101).

Dayton further explains, “The principle…is the same as that on which the name of an individual is every day applied to the species, genus, or family, t which it belongs. As when we say of the oak that it is the most majestic of forest trees, we do not mean any one oak, nor do we mean all the oaks in the world comprised in one ‘universal’ oak. Each oak is still a separate and individual tree; but we apply the name of the individual to all the species–not considered collectively, as one great oak, but separately, as hundreds and thousand of trees, each having the same name.” (Ibid., p. 105).

Simple illustrations:

The “horse” is rushed into battle.

The “lion” is the king of beasts.

The “husband” is the head of the wife.

The “home” is the basis of society.

The “dog” is the most lovable of all pets.

The “oak” is the most majestic of all trees.

The “jury” is used in all Western courts of justice.

Suggested Reading.

Ecclesia–the Church–B. H. Carroll

The Meaning of Ecclesia in the N. T. –Overbey

Theodosia Earnest, Vol. II, –Dayton

The Church That Jesus Built–Roy Mason

The Church and the Ordinances–Buell Kazee

Ekklesia–the Church–Bob Ross

LESSON 7

THE EIGHTEEN DISPUTED PASSAGES EXPLAINED

MATTHEW 16:18.

Here speaking of the “kind” of institution He would be building

Jesus used “ecclesia’ twenty-three times-twenty times in Revelation and three in Matthew. Scholars agree that twenty-two of these refer to local churches. Why should this verse be thought to have a different meaning?

Here Jesus guarantees the perpetual existence of His Church in the institutional sense.

A play in the Greek by Jesus on the words “petros” (pebble, small stone) and “petra” (massive ledge, boulder) is seen. The church is built upon the “petra” (Jesus and His doctrine), not on “petros” (Simon Peter as the Catholics teach).

Overbey says, “If man would say today, ‘I shall build by grocery store’ there would certainly be no misunderstanding as to what he meant by grocery store. To every mind a local, visible, building where food stuffs are sold would come to mind. A new meaning would certainly not be considered by any person. If the person who said it had in his mind of building a store incorporating some of his own ideas that would make it a distinct kind from all the other kinds of grocery stores in the world and planned to have a chain of them throughout the area eventually his statement would still make good sense” (Meaning of Ecclesia in N. T., Overbey, pp. 38, 39).

ACTS 20:28

Speaking specifically to the church at Ephesus.

This expression could be said of any local assembly.

Overbey says, “The reason for finding a new meaning here would be due to the fact this church is said to be ‘purchased with his own blood,’ a statement thought by many to be too great to be said of any local church….Why can’t it be stated that Jesus purchased with His blood an organized group of professed believers in the Lord Jesus Christ? This does not exclude other churches of believers or individuals from making the same statement…’Purchased by His blood’ can be stated of every New Testament church and every individual believer…” (Ibid, p. 30).

Ross says, “…Paul’s statement is addressed to the elders of the church of Ephesus (Acts 20:17). He tells them to take heed unto themselves and ‘to all the flock.’ That could possibly be a universal, invisible flock…” (Ekklesia–The Church, Ross, pp. 20, 21).

I CORINTHIANS 10:32

Specifically spoken to the local church at Corinth.

This can be said of any local church; thus, a new meaning cannot be given here to Ecclesia.

I CORINTHIANS 12:28.

Again, the verse is addressed to the local church at Corinth.

Ross says, “Prior to 12:28, the word ‘ekklesia’ is used in the epistle eight times and the meaning is clear in every instance (see 1:2; 4:17, 6:4, 7:17, 10:32, 11:16, 18, 22). Why should it be thought that the apostle suddenly gave a new meaning to the word never before heard of, in 12:28, and that without any notice or explanation? (Ibid, p. 21).

Overbey says, “The argument as usually stated is that apostles were not officers of a local church but their ministry was for all of the churches. So the word church cannot refer to a local group but must refer to something much bigger, a universal church that would include all believers. The idea that this passage is relating (to) the officers of the church is completely without basis. The context indicates that these various things set in the church are best described as gifts. These gifts were necessary for the work of the Lord’s church. Some were only necessary for a short time, others for the entire history of the church…Apostles were needed t establish them and give them initial direction that was not needed later…We believe the word church is used generically in this passage and the Scriptures are telling us of the gifts the Lord placed in that institution that its work might be properly carried on…These gifts were placed in that kind of institution rather than in every particular church for the benefit of all” (Overbey, op. Cit., p. 31).

I TIMOTHY 3:15 Paul has here in mind the local church at Ephesus.

Dana says, “The figure ‘household of God’ can be regarded in two ways. It may be considered from the viewpoint of its consistuency, or from the viewpoint of its function. The former would require it to apply to all children of God; the latter to any group of God’s children. The function of a household is to offer support and fellowship to its inmates. Any local ekklesia did this for its members” (Ibid, p. 29).

EPHESIANS 1:22. Ephesians and Colossians both speak of the church as the “Body.”

Paul again is writing to the local church at Ephesus.

Ross says, “Paul clearly uses the figure ‘body’ to exemplify the unity of a church and the importance of every member, even the most feeble. He was not intending to give a meaning to ‘ekklesia that the word did not posses.” (Ross, op. Cit., p. 23).

Joseph Cross asserts, “The church is a body; but what sort of a body is that which can neither be seen nor identified? A body is an organism occupying space and having a definite locality. A mere aggregation is not a body; there must be organization as well. A heap of heads, hands, feet and other proper place and pervaded by a common life” (Ross, p. 24).

Christ is the Head of every one of His churches, just as He is the Head of every individual man (I Corinthians 11:3).

We have here the generic use of the word and the definite article.

COLOSSIANS 1:18. The same argument here as for Ephesians 1:22.

Christ is the Head of the church institutionally which means that He is the Head of every local church.

COLOSSIANS 1:24. The same argument as previously.

Paul speaks of the “body” which belongs to Christ by purchase.

EPHESIANS 3:10. Again, the verse is addressed to the local church at Ephesus.

Dayton says, “Suppose a friend in England should write to me that he is about to publish a new history of the steam-engine, ‘ in order that unto kings and princes, in their palaces and on their thrones, might be known through the engine the manifold skill of the inventor:’ what would you think of that man’s common sense, even though he were a Doctor of Mechanics, who should insist upon it, that though the steam-engine was a definite and well-known machine, and there were a vast multitude of separate and distinct steam-engines, yet there must also be, in some way or other, a vast conglomerate ‘universal’ engine, consisting of all the steam-engines in the world united into one…” (Theodosia Earnest, Dayton, Vol. II, pp. 120, 121).

EPHESIANS 3:21. Written to the local church at Ephesus.

Word ecclesia used generically and truth fits each local assembly.

Dayton says, “I take up a book written by some great admirer of the drama, and read, ‘Let the poetry of Shakespeare be honored in the theatre by managers and actors even to the end of time…’ the term ‘ the theatre’ used in this connection, can mean no less than this great world-embracing establishment…” (Ibid, p. 121).

EPHESIANS 5:23, 24, 25, 27 (four). Addressed to the local church at Ephesus.

The truth can be applied to each local assembly.

Primary thought here is marriage, not the church.

If “church” is universal, so must be the “man” and “woman”.

The words “man” and “woman”, and “church” are used abstractly or generically; thus, no particular husband or wife is named, and no certain church is named.

Dayton says, “As the ‘wife’ does not here mean all wives in one, so ‘the church’ cannot mean all Churches in one.” (Ibid., p. 126).

EPHESIANS 5:29-32 (two).

The local church at Ephesus is meant; however, the truth is applicable to every true New Testament church.

The same arguments fit here as in the previous verses in Ephesians.

HEBREWS 2:12.

Reference here is to Jesus singing in church-Matthew 26:30.

Jesus sang in the church when He gave to it the second ordinance.

Done on the night of the institution of the Lord’s supper; thus, the church was local and visible.

HEBREWS 12:23.

Overbey says, “We do not deny that all the saints will assemble together in Heaven at times for various purposes but only deny that the word ekklesia is ever used to refer to such” (Overbey, op. Cit., p. 41).

Some such as B. H. Carroll take this to mean the “Glory Church,” that is, the “church in prospect.” However, this is not the case.

Terms here used:

Ecclesia–assembly

Paneguris–festal gathering of large proportions.

Take the whole passage–Hebrrews 12:22-24: “But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly (paneguris) and the church (ecclesia) of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.”

THE R.S.V. has this verse, “…But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born…”

THUS, ECCLESIA IS HERE AN ABSTRACT REFERENCE TO THE CHURCH AND THE PANEGURIS IS REFERRING BACK TO THE INNUMERABLE COMPANY OF ANGELS.

Quotes from scholars:

Berry (Interlinear Greek-English New Testament) says, “And to myriads of angels, (the) universal gathering (paneguris); and to (the) assembly (ekklesia) of the firstborn (ones) in (the) heavens registered.”

Alford (New Testament for English Readers) says, “The difficult question of punctuation has been dealt with in my Greek Testament. The matter would be unintelligible to the English reader. It is enough to say that the writer begins with the innumerable company (literally myriads), in order afterwards to say of what these myriads consist. Adopting then this arrangement, the verse will stand- and to myriads (the word commonly used of the angelic company surrounding Jehovah), the festal host (so the word imports) of angels, and the assembly of the firstborn which are written in heaven.”

Vincent (Word Studies) says, “…to myriads or tens of thousands stands by itself, and festal assembly goes with angels.”

Ironside, “The expression translated ‘general assembly’ undoubtedly refers to this angelic company and not that which follows, and is better rendered ‘ a full gathering'” (Hebrews and Titus, p. 163).

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: “…The jubilant full company (such as were the Olympic games, celebrated with joyous singing, dancing, etc.)applies better to the angels above, ever hymning God’s praises, than to the church…”

W. Pink (Hebrews) says, “It is clear, then, that the ‘general assembly’ has no reference to the church; rather, it refers back to the angels.”

Concluding remarks:

The overwhelming evidence stands with those who accept ecclesia as always meaning an “assembly” or “congregation.” The burden of proof lies with those who would make it to mean a universal assembly in certain disputed passages.

If all scholars admit that Jesus meant a local assembly in twenty-two of the twenty-three times He used the word, why should anyone presume that the one place (Matthew 16:18) means something different?

In all of these 18 disputed passages the meaning of a local assembly fits. These are simply the generic usage of the word which is common in everyday speech.

AFTER ALL, IT IS NOT WHAT CAN A WORD BE MADE TO MEAN, BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN!

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

BY THE LATE NORMAN H. WELLS

The history of the ancient churches is very obscure. Much of the early-recorded history was either lost or destroyed. A great part of the history that remains was changed to suit the interests of the Roman Catholic Church. All of church history has been involved in much controversy and was subject to the whims and fancies of each particular age. In a very broad outline we want to look at the history of the church.

The First 300 Years of Church History

Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, founded the first church in Jerusalem in approximately the year 30 AD. This first church was commissioned to go forth preaching the gospel, winning the lost to Christ, baptizing and teaching the converts and establishing new churches. On the pages of the New Testament we find the record of the growth of Christianity and the founding of many New Testament churches.

Nero, the Roman Emperor, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rome in 64 AD and began the first of ten persecutions the Christians were to receive at the hands of the Romans. Despite all the persecution, Christianity grew. At the end of the first 300 years the religion of Jesus Christ was established all over the then known world. There were churches in every town and community

The Progress of Error during the First 300 Years

In the first two centuries the individual churches rapidly multiplied and some of them became very large. The church at Jerusalem had possibly as many as 50,000 or more members! These large churches each had several preachers or elders. Some of these bishops or pastors began to assume authority over smaller churches. This corrupted the original democratic policy and government of the churches and led to the kind of hierarchy we see in the Roman Catholic Church today.

In the first two centuries the false teaching of “baptismal regeneration” began to spread. This error led to infant baptism and many other errors. It has to be remembered that these changes did not come about all in a day, nor within a year. They came about slowly and never within all the churches. Some of the churches vigorously repudiated these errors.

About the middle of the third century the lines were clearly drawn. Those churches that remained loyal to the Scriptures were now clearly separate from those that had gone into error and apostasy. Constantine ruled as Emperor of the Roman Empire from 306 to 337A.D. and his reign was to mark one of the great turning points in church history.

During a battle in 312 AD Emperor Constantine believed he had a vision of a flaming cross and above it the words, “By this sign thou shalt conquer.” He decided to fight under the banner of Christ and Christianity came into favor in the Roman Government.

In 313 AD Constantine gave a call for all the churches to come together and pronounced himself as the head of the churches. Many, but not all, of the churches came. The true churches would have no part in this error.

This hierarchy or body of church rulers that Constantine formed was the definite beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Many of the errors of Catholicism had already had their beginning but now they were organized into a definite system. Constantine made “Christianity” the “State Religion.” Up until this point the persecution of the Christians had been done either by Judaism or Paganism. Now came a change. Christians (in name) began using the law to compel all Christians to join the organization. The true churches that refused were persecuted.

The division was now complete. The true churches refused to line up with the errors of the “state church.” The church of Constantine became what we know as Roman Catholicism. Baptists were never part of Roman Catholicism. They remained true to the Scriptures and rejected the error.

After the organization of the churches into a hierarchy and their acceptance as a “State Religion” the true, loyal churches that rejected this error were identified by various names.

It is not to be understood that each of these groups was entirely free from error or entirely embraced the truth. Through these groups can be traced the people called Baptists. In these groups is to be found the true church — not in Catholicism.

Montanist … Paulician … Novationist … Paterines … Donatist … Albigenses … Anabaptists … these were some of the names used to identify those who refused to identify with Rome.

The Dark Ages

The period from 426 AD to 1628 AD is called the “Dark Ages.”

With the establishment of the new Catholic temporal power a bloody persecution began. Loyal, New Testament churches, by whatever name they were called, were hunted and hounded to the utmost limit by this new Catholic power.

The now established Catholic Church began a war of extermination upon all that opposed her. It is reliably reported that 50,000,000 died of persecution during the Dark Ages.

During the bloody times of persecution, as Catholicism tried to exterminate the true churches, many of the false doctrines of the Catholic Church of today began to take place.

The Inquisition 1198-1700

The Inquisition was instituted by Pope Innocent lII and perfected under Pope Gregory IX. It was a “Church Court” established by the popes for the trying and punishing of “heretics” … a heretic being anyone who did not agree with Roman Catholicism. The lnquisition lasted for 500 years and was a time of indescribable horror. During all this persecution Baptist churches continued to exist.

The Reformation

The conditions within the Catholic Church had become so corrupt that many voices were raised within the church in protest. Among these voices was that of John Wycliffe (1320- 1384), John Huss (1373-1415), Savonarola (1452-1498), Zwingli (1484-1531), John Knox (1505-1572), John Calvin (1509-1564), and Martin Luther. The combined effort of these men, along with many others, brought about the Reformation.

All these Reformers started new churches. This was the beginning of Protestantism. All Protestant churches had their beginning in the period of the Reformation or since that time.

Baptists continued to exist through the Reformation as they had since the time of Christ. Since the Reformation the Baptists have had a glorious history. There are over 23,000,000 Baptists in the United States and they are also found in over 100 different countries.

Available as a printed tract from:

Landmark Independent Baptist Church

P.O. Box 847

Archer, FL 32618-0847

BAPTISTS NOT PROTESTANTS

BY C. C. CARROLL

Questions to be answered in this article:

1. Show what were the different origins of Baptists and the Protestant denominations.

2. Show how a Baptist church is an executive rather than legislative body. What does this imply as to God’s Spirit in church administration?

3. Show how this church is adequate for all ages.

4. Show how the Gospel refuses to be bound by ecclesiastical decrees or interpretations.

5. Give the first requisite to a New Testament church.

6. Why do Baptists hold baptism as the second requisite?

7. Show that the Lord built John’s disciples into His church.

8. Show the lack of New Testament ground for a “church” of churches.

9. Show how the Catholic claim of the “church’s” right to change Scripture requirements was followed by Protestants arguing that the changed requirements are Scriptural.

10. Tell how the Holy Spirit guides and provides for the needs of the New Testament type of church.

11. Should Baptists seek those advantages that result from centralized ecclesiastical authority? Can church growth through other than the revealed divine pattern be acceptable to God? Should we seek to catch the world by conforming to worldly wisdom?

12. Show that Baptist principles and the Baptist church pattern must be the same in the twentieth century as they were in the first.

Beginning with the idea of the “Kingdom of Heaven” as invisible, unorganized, and destined to become universal, and reckoning the church as only another name for the same thing, Christianity has by many been, reduced in conception, to a kind of atmosphere of sentiment; a vague effluence too ethereal to be formulated into a doctrinal form, or to find concrete expression in a visible organization. Such Christianity usually contents itself with the current revelations of the “Christian consciousness” in lieu of the written Word . . . The often urged notion that a “united front of Protestantism” against Romanism, or of Christianity against heathenism, will be irresistible, is itself a relic of heathenism. It is the old “trusting in horses and chariots,” which the Scripture condemns. No massing of inherent weakness can bring strength. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” —Jesse B. Thomas, in The Church and The Kingdom.

The nature of the church. Back of the question why Baptists are not Protestants lies that of the nature of the church which Christ built. It is important that we understand what is His divine pattern for the church and that we frequently bring our own churches to the test of conformity to this pattern. The term “Protestant Church” is derived from the Reformation which bears the name of Luther. In that Reformation Christians broke away from the Catholic dogma of salvation by works, and everywhere preached the great truth of salvation by faith. Yet different church groups organized out of the Reformation in varying degrees held on to conceptions of Roman Catholic teachings that were basically inconsistent with salvation through faith alone. Most of them, for instance, held to infant baptism and practiced for baptism the substitution of sprinkling or pouring, in principle conforming to the claimed right of substitution which had been exercised by Roman Catholics. These bodies were and are known as “Protestant Churches,” from the fact that their origin is coupled with Luther’s protest against the Roman Catholic hierarchy. On the other hand, Baptists have always from the earliest days appealed directly to the New Testament as their only authority for the form, power and purpose of church organizations.

Scriptures give the church pattern. Baptists contend that there can be no proper standard for the Bible-believer of what constitutes the church other than that set forth in Scriptures. They claim that the Scriptures themselves determine in principle the laws that govern the church of Christ throughout all ages until the Lord shall come again. In conformity to this principle they insist that the church is not a legislative body. What it shall do and the power by which it shall live and act are truths of divine revelation. Its nature and the methods by which its life is replenished and strengthened are revealed in the Scriptures alone. Also it has the promise that the Spirit of Christ, in response to the constant prayers of the church for guidance, will guide it and give it power and wisdom to do the work for which it was established. Thus it is an executive body, equipped and empowered by God to carry out His will for it in its witness in the world to the Gospel of Christ.

Its adequacy for all ages. If it is said that men in the first century, however devout and wise, could not co-ordinate an institution that would be adequate and adapted to all of the changes that would ever come in the world, it is granted that this is true. But it is our claim that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself organized the church and that He endowed it with all of the powers it would require to accomplish its ordained work. In Colossians 2: 13-20 Paul set forth our Lord’s headship over the church and His authority over all created things in heaven and on earth in these words:

“Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.”

Gospel not bound by men. Baptists cannot accept as authoritative any centralization of power in hierarchy, arch-episcopacy, council, synod, convention or consistory, claiming the right of interpretation. The Gospel is not bound. No principle of interpretation that requires any post-Biblical additions to teachings or methods of reaching the meaning of the teachings in the New Testament about the church has any weight with Baptists. Any claim of apostolic succession that would take to itself authority to make decrees is as devoid of authority to bind

Baptists in their doctrine of the church as would be the claims of a sect of the Jews that they sat in the seat of Moses. The law of the Spirit of Life in Jesus Christ, which has set us free from the law of sin and death and from the spirit of bondage, operates to teach the children of God in the right interpretation for themselves of the Word of God. Therefore, Baptists hold that the New Testament is the sole authority on the laws that govern the churches. It is their constitution and bill of rights, their constant court of appeal and end of all controversy.

An assembly of Believers. In the search to find what the church is, what it should know and do, and how it is to accomplish its mission, we first discover that it is an assembly of believers associated with Jesus Christ and spoken of as His body and bride. The assembly is so related to the Holy Spirit as to be called His tabernacle, and so related to God the Father as to be called the house of God. The New Testament church was composed of members who had received the glad tidings of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, and who had made confession of their sins in repentance toward God, and of their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and were baptized. It is with definiteness that leaves no room for argument taught that the preaching of the glad tidings and the initiation of the ordinance of baptism were established at the hands of John the Baptist, nor is there any doubt that God had given John his authority to preach and to baptize. It is taught that he was set apart for his work from his mother’s womb. His forerunner work had been foretold in Old Testament prophecy, which presented Him as a herald of God’s new dispensation of grace in the redemption of lost men. From John until the consummation of all things in Christ the administration of God’s grace is declared to be in the hands of the King to whom and through whom and for whom the church assembly is the authorized witness to mankind from the time of its enduement by the Holy Spirit. This new dispensation was to fulfill the old through the coming of the prophecy-announced King according to God’s unchanged plans.

Christ placed baptism in the church. The fact that Jesus was baptized by John separates baptism from the actual sacrifice of the Lamb, and leaves it forever as an ordinance to picture the likeness of His death and burial, and of His resurrection. Later, as the head of the church assembly of baptized witnesses, Jesus expressed His sovereignty over the act and its perpetuation, but did not Himself baptize the disciples resulting from His preaching. That the authority to perpetuate the act was His alone is made clear in the fact that John never sought to organize his disciples into any kind of organization, nor did he authorize any of them to baptize others. To the contrary, John pointed his disciples to Jesus as the person in whom they had been planted and to whom they had been joined in the likeness of His death and the promise of His resurrection. Jesus committed the stewardship of baptism to the church assembly and authorized and directed its perpetual observance. This He did in the Great Commission to His assembly. The authority for the act, therefore, inheres in the stewardship of the church and its perpetual observance is guaranteed in the perpetuity of the church–which in turn is guaranteed to His disciples in the promise of the ever-living and ever-reigning Christ.

John’s disciples built into the church. It is the writer’s purpose to show that the Lord Jesus called out the baptized disciples of John and built them into an assembly upon the sole foundation rock of His being the Christ, the Son of the living God. At Caesarea-Philippi He explained to His disciples what was the foundation basis of edification of the church. It was himself, and the God-imparted power given to men to receive Him. Vast credulity is required to enable one to imagine that the Lord Jesus turned away from explaining this one and sufficient foundation, that He might follow a tangent of explanation about Peter that would in effect leave out the foundation. That is to say, it would require that one of the living stones to be built upon this foundation (Peter) should himself become that foundation and able to bear the whole superstructure. Peter himself had no such illusion concerning the matter, nor did any of the other Apostles or disciples. Neither did Paul, the Apostle born out of due season, but personally indoctrinated by the Lord Himself. For Paul wrote of the Lord Jesus as the foundation of the church and explained the relationship of the Apostles to that foundation. Paul was in thorough accord with Peter’s testimony in doing this. Only the Anointed One, the Christ, could be the Head of the Church, and the Rock upon which the Church is built. John the baptizer saw the anointing of the Christ, saw the Lord coming up out of the water, and the Holy Spirit descending upon Him as a dove, and he heard the confirmation of His anointing in the words of the Father, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.”

No authority for a “church” of churches. The setting up of a centralized authority that presumes to speak for and pass out laws to the local church assembly which Christ built, is entirely without New Testament authority. But it is in consonance with the material power by which men seek to secure impressive world results and it has therefore not failed to seduce many groups of professing Christians. The papal system, with headquarters in Rome, and with a multiplicity of officials down the line between the pope and individual members of the flock, is an impressive world spectacle and vehicle of material power among men and nations. But it is utterly at variance with the church that Christ built and over which He alone was ever to be the Head, Himself empowering and guiding each church through the Holy Spirit dwelling within it. Protestant bodies in varying degrees have sought to set up centralized instrumentalities of power that would authoritatively function for and direct the local assemblies within their spiritual body. Insofar as they have done this, they have held on to principles of the Roman body out of which their forebears came in the protest of the Reformation.

Other Errors from Hierarchical Assumptions. When vaulting human ambition changed the New Testament pattern of the church into the papacy, it was inevitable that it would be followed by other unwarranted assumptions of authority in church organization and life. This exhibited itself, contrary to the New Testament teaching, in the change of ordinances, doctrines, terms of discipleship, and in entangling alliances between Church and State. It is unfortunately true that not all of the Christian fellowship that came out by way of protest from Romanism, cleared their skirts at all points in relation to world-conforming heresies. In the New Testament we find in the churches certain officers and servants, whose functions are clearly exhibited. Some of these were to be in perpetuity under the setting apart by the assembly. But we find no provision for this except for pastors and deacons, the service of which two classes of ministers is definitely prescribed. Baptists have brought themselves into grief and confusion whenever they have failed to confine the work of pastors and deacons to that which is exampled and prescribed for them by the Holy Spirit in the written Word. Most Protestant bodies, following the Roman example, have numerous ecclesiastical officials with recognized ecclesiastical authority, all of which is without New Testament authorization. Baptists place individuals in places of responsibility and honor them for faithfulness in spirit and service, but none of these has any ecclesiastical authority over the church. Roman Catholics, claiming authority under God to change whatever “the Church” wants to change, turns from New Testament baptism–which was always by immersion–to the sprinkling substitutes therefor. Catholics did not and do not claim that this is Scriptural. Therefore Protestant bodies, influenced by the Catholic change, yet refusing to claim authority to change the Scriptural requirements, found it necessary to claim that their substitutes for Scriptural baptism were valid on the ground of sound scholarship. They have done so and a sorry mess they have made of it. The matter is mentioned here for its light upon our thesis that Baptists are not Protestants. Aside from their personal spiritual weaknesses, which they share with other Christians, Baptists are without reason, temptation, or even excuse, for turning away from the New Testament pattern in order to conformity to whatever happens to have popular vogue in the world about them.

Churches are built and grow under the Holy Spirit. Witnessing power came to Christ’s assembly in the baptism of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Churches were rapidly multiplied under the direct jurisdiction and empowering of the Holy Spirit. He guided them in indoctrination, polity, comity, stewardship, spiritual understanding and knowledge, and in the scope and method of their witness. It is vital to understand that the multiplication of churches was the direct result of the increasing number of believers. The believers increased through the preaching of the Gospel by the church, which in its witness bearing was honored and sustained and guided by the regenerating and sanctifying Holy Spirit. Thus each believer had in himself the witness and life of an incorruptible seed. When he became a disciple, he also became a tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. The assembly of baptized believers became the house of God, the tabernacle of the Holy Spirit. Both the believer and the church became capable of receiving spiritual communications from God through His Son, by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit measured the gifts to those whom He set in the church for its edification as a witnessing body. Thus order and not confusion resulted in the early churches, through gifts of the Spirit which Paul enumerates in 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28: “Now are ye the body of Christ and members in particular. And God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” The use of the gifts is explained in the preceding context, and it is later shown how they pass away when their purpose is accomplished.

The Two Church Ordinances. Our Lord has set two ordinances in the church. Baptism precedes church membership, but it is administered under the authority of the church to those who profess repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Credible profession of faith in Him constitutes discipleship and follows next in the order of the Great Commission. Disciples are next taught to observe all things whatsoever Jesus has commanded His church. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Him, and committed to the Apostles to deliver to the church for its observance. It was so committed to Paul, and how he delivered it to the churches is illustrated in the case of the church at Corinth. The supper is explained by the Lord to be a memorial to His death, and a prophecy of His final assembling of all of the redeemed to be forever with Him. Its observance on earth is put into the hands of the churches until He shall come in glory, and it is not subject to be changed in any way. It was not given as a means of salvation, for those who received it did so on the basis of their already having eternal life. They received it, too, because He was in them and they were in Him and in God through Him, in a mystical union of regeneration and adoption by the Holy Spirit. It is thus a memorial of His death, in which He was offered once for all as the sacrifice for sin. The Priesthood of Jesus is set forth in Hebrews, where we read that the sin-offering of His blood was made once and forever and cleansed forever all who believed in His name, so that repeated crucifixions would put Him to open shame. There is absolutely no authority in the New Testament for changing either of the two ordinances.

We should avoid man-made patterns and follow the divine. Baptists acknowledge their obligation of obedience only to churches of Christ that He has patterned in the New Testament. Yet they need to be watchful lest by imperceptible processes they shall be found seeking the apparent advantages of ecclesiastical hierarchy and centralization. These advantages are on the side of worldly appearance and not of inner spiritual reality. The church of Christ, the only church He built, antedates in origin every hierarchical and centralized ecclesiasticism. Christ’s church differs from them fundamentally. The difference is in the means of growth, in doctrines, and in fidelity to the ordinances. The two groups also differ in devotion to New Testament order and faith. But Baptists today need to examine themselves in regard to the danger of internal inconsistencies and in regard to comity and methods of co-operation. If they do not, the danger is real that they shall increasingly exchange the revealed church pattern of God for expediency. And they shall also be in danger of neglecting the Scriptures of Truth while they mistakenly seek to profit by adopting systems that appear to catch the world-mind and that in spectacular results seem to work better than God’s revealed plan. These world-pleasing devices are being mightily pressed among many Protestant churches today, and many Baptists are already being caught in the net of over-organization or that of unscriptural alliances made in the fair name of unity. Baptists must hold firmly to the standards clearly set out for them in the New Testament in regard to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and they must not become enamoured or be seduced by the world’s standards of knowledge and education or their worldly notion of what constitutes proper religious comity, which carries with it the demand that Baptists reject their deepest principles, in order to conform, not to Bible principles, but to the false teachings of men.

Baptist principles in the first century and the twentieth. The successors of those disciples whose testimony was empowered at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, and which rang throughout the Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, continued to multiply until the wilderness period described in the Book of Revelation. Faithful churches went into that wilderness period which through their testimony left many spiritual descendants and from these other churches were formed of the New Testament order. Baptists hold that we have received from this succession of churches that bore faithful witness to the New Testament church pattern and teaching of continuity. We contend that it is only by the distribution of the Gospel through such assemblies that the blessed hope of the resurrection may be maintained on earth and religious liberty kept alive within the human race. We also hold that this true church testimony to the field and nature of civil government is essential to the preservation of civil liberty. We have faith to believe that the multiplication of these New Testament churches will continue, for we find in the closing Book of the New Testament that the enlightenment of the world is through the shining of the Lord’s face. He continues to shepherd that light into the assemblies as lampstands, and into their pastors as His angels or messengers as stars. This He does through the work of the Holy Spirit who brings to life and to life more abundant preachers and churches to bear the witness Christ has commanded them. We believe that God’s call to Baptists for this consistent ministry of His Word shall not be eclipsed nor cease. For the Son of God walks in the midst of the lampstands, and He holds His stars in His hands.