10250 North Freeway @ West Road
Houston, Texas 77037
Tel: (281) 447-8484
10250 North Freeway @ West
Road
Houston, Texas 77037
Tel: (281) 447-8484
Peculiar
Misunderstandings
Written by Dr.
Lester Hutson
Copyright
- Lester Hutson - 1989
This material is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced
without the express written permission of Dr. Lester Hutson.
Message #13
MISUNDERSTANDING THAT THE LORD'S CHURCH IS LOCAL
Text * I Corinthians 14:23
Ideas about the church are about as prolific and diverse as insects. Nearly everywhere one goes, he'll find ideas about the church: what it is, when it started, what its mission is, who constitutes its membership, and much more. This is especially true regarding the nature of the Lord's church.
I. MANY VERY FINE BELIEVERS OF THE HIGHEST CHARACTER AND DEEPEST SINCERITY BELIEVE THE LORD'S CHURCH TODAY IS ONE LARGE ORGANIZATION MADE UP OF ALL THE SAVED:
A. Like General Motors vehicles, the concept of all the saved belonging to one true church comes in a multitude of shapes, forms, and fashions; but it is usually a concept of a universal membership of all saved people in one big church:
1. Catholics have long propagated this concept. The traditional Catholic position for centuries has been that the one true church is the Catholic church. This "church" has its headquarters in Rome and the pope is its head. There are not many Catholic churches; there is only one Catholic church. Wherever Catholics are, they are members of this one church. For logistic purposes, they meet in small groups regularly world-wide; never all in one assembly. This concept is called the "universal visible church" concept. The church is universal in that it is made up of all Catholics everywhere, and it is visible in that it is made up of all "living" Catholics.
2. Many, who reject the Catholic version of what constitutes the church, embrace a version very similar to it. They say the church is universal, but not visible. They reject the Catholic claim that the true church is made up only of Catholics, and in its place claim that the true church is made up of all believers or saved people. It is not a visible church because it has no earthly headquarters nor centralized membership as in the Catholic case. Many of those embracing this position have the idea that all saved Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, or whoever else, even those who have never identified with any particular church are members of this universal church, whose membership is kept only by God. Many who hold this position also believe all the dead believers are members of this true church; although others limit the true church to only those believers living at any given time. Because of its general nature, this position is commonly known as "the universal invisible church" theory.
3. There is another recently developed and growing concept, which is not too different from the universal invisible church concept. Called by many the "one body concept", this concept seeks to differentiate between positional truth and practical truth. Those embracing this position argue that positionally all believers are in the body of Christ which is in heaven today. Thus, they reason that since the body is the church of Christ, and his body is in heaven; then the true church with all the saved in it is really spiritually in heaven today. An unavoidable corollary to this position is that the real or true church is in heaven, and all the saved are in it; and that congregations on earth are not real or true churches at all, but rather just models or facsimilies of the true church in heaven. Since it is a true universal church position in view of the claim that all saved people are in it; and since biblically, baptism must preceed church membership, then the one body concept people must spiritualize baptism. Thus, to them, baptism is not water baptism; it is Spirit baptism, which they contend each person receives at the point of faith. To them, this Spirit baptism is the true baptism which adds one to the true body or church of Christ in heaven; and water baptism is merely a picture of that baptism, and adds one to the model of the true, which to them is all a local congregation on earth is.
4. Some people do not feel comfortable with either of those positions. They do not fully deny the church to be universal; but neither will they deny it to be local. So, they say it is both universal and local. This is the position advocated in the marginal reference notes of the popular Scofield Reference Bible.
B. When many people encounter those of us who deny all these concepts and any of their kinfolks; and who claim that the church is not in any sense universal, but always local; they really think we're peculiar:
1. We take the position that the Lord's Church always consists of a local congregation of baptized believers. We say it is not universal in that some believers never are baptized and never become members of any local congregation. We say the church is visible because the members of local congregations are identifiable and visible.
2. Our position that only believers can be a member of the church contradicts the Catholics, and all those who baptize babies or other non-believers into "their" church.
3. Our position that the word "church" demands local assembly contradicts the position of universality, whether visible or invisible.
4. Our position that churches on earth today are real churches, and not just models of a true or real church in heaven contradicts the one body concept. If churches are made up of believers and believers are on earth, then the church is on earth today; not in heaven.
5. Our position that the true baptism of the scriptures is water baptism says that the believers who reject baptism are saved but not members of the church. If there are some saved people (like Abraham, David, Daniel, and the thief on the cross) who never were baptized, thus never became members of any church, then the idea that all believers are in a true church is not valid.
6. And, we maintain that to say the church is both universal and local is a contradiction of terms. It is either universal or local, but not both; and we believe it is local.
7. Our position is simply that during his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ established one local congregation in Jerusalem, Israel. From that church and since that church thousands more just like it have come on the scene; not some new type with a new founder, but local churches or congregations carrying on the same heritage of that one in Jerusalem.
Just as the invention of the first car established an institution which we refer to abstractly as "the car"; likewise, Jesus' establishment of the first church established an institution we refer to abstractly as "the church". A reference to the Lord's Church should cause no one to conjure up ideas of universalism any more than a reference to the car should cause someone to think of one big universal car. We believe thinking men should be able to recognize that any time there is a reference to the church, "the church" can only exist in the real or concrete world as a local congregation of baptized believers, just as "the car" can only exist in the real or concrete world as some specific car. It is just as absurd and unreasonable to believe in a universal church as it is to believe in a universal car. In reality, any one of us can see that there is neither a universal car or church. In both cases, they're always local.
8. Now sometimes when good men encounter this kind of talk, they're taken aback and think we're peculiar. But, we believe many have misunderstood what the Lord's Church is. And, we also believe that when our position is examined in the light of God's Word, one will see that it is not peculiar at all; but is very much the position taken in scripture.
II. NOW, LET US TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE BIBLE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE NATURE OF THE LORD'S CHURCH:
A. The word "church," which is translated from the Greek word "ekklesia," means "to call out":
1. Every time the word "church" occurs in the English Bible, it comes from this Greek word ekklesia. In fact, ekklesia occurs 115 times in the Greek version of the New Testament, and of those occurrences, the King James translators translated it into English as "church" 112 times and as "assembly" three times.
2. The word ekklesia literally means "a called out assembly." Check any Greek dictionary, biblical or otherwise for verification of this definition. By the very nature and definition of the word, it is clear that the church can be no more than local. Inherent in the definition is "assembly". If a group can not assemble, it can not meet the criteria necessary to be called a church, for to be called a church, a group must be able to assemble. This fact alone undermines the foundations of all universalist groups. They can't assemble; and if they can't assemble, they can't rightfully use the word church to speak of themselves.
B. During his earthly ministry and the ministries of the apostles, Jesus imposed other requirements before an assembly could rightfully be called his assembly or church:
1. He said members would have to be scripturally baptized to qualify for membership in his church. The scriptures say in I Corinthians 12:13 that members are baptized into the body. Since Ephesians 4:5 says there is "one baptism"; and the common baptism of scripture is "water baptism," we believe the baptism which the Lord requires for membership into the body (or church, Colossians 1:18,24) is water baptism. (For a look at water baptism being the common baptism of scripture, see Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:16, the Ethiopian's baptism in Acts 8:38, and the Philippian jailor's baptism in Acts 16:33.)
Furthermore, biblical example shows the Lord adding believers to his church in Jerusalem at the point of their water baptism. Acts 2:41 says, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
2. Furthermore, no person is a scriptural candidate for baptism until he has first believed. When the Ethiopian man of Acts 8:36 requested baptism, Philip told him in Verse 38 that he must be a believer first. That same order stands out in Acts 2:41.
3. When in Matthew 16:18 Jesus spoke of "My church", he set his assembly apart from all other called out assemblies. And, as we look biblically at what it takes to be a part of his local assembly, we see that one must be a baptized believer. These can assemble together in one place each Lord's day to worship him and carry out his commission.
4. So, what is the nature of the Lord's Church? Its nature is both local and visible, and its composition is baptized believers. That's what one quickly sees in the Bible. All the churches in the Bible were local and visible. They could all assemble in one place regularly. They were all made up exclusively of believers who had been baptized.
Surely, if we want to see in truth what the nature of the Lord's Church is, the Bible is the place to see it. And, if we stay true to the Bible we can not believe there is any such thing as a universal church, visible or invisible. Neither can we believe a church belongs to the Lord which accepts members without scriptural water baptism or which knowingly baptizes people who have not yet believed.
The embracing of this position really shouldn't be regarded as peculiar at all in view of its harmony with the Bible. To the contrary, the thing that seems so peculiar and hard to understand is why people got away from this local church concept in the first place.
C. The examples of scripture verify what has been stated here to be true:
1. Time and again, the scriptures make clear references to specific congregations or churches; never to some universal body. When Acts 13:1 refers to "The church that was at Antioch," there can be no doubt that a local, visible assembly is under consideration. Likewise, when reference is made to the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 1:2), the church of the Thessalonians (I Thessalonians 1:1), the church of Ephesus, (Revelation 2:1), the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:8) or other such references.
2. Who could conceive the church to be anything other than a local assembly in view of statements such as "Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house," Colossians 4:15. Who could imagine Paul referring to a universal church when he wrote to Philemon of "The church in thy house"?. Philemon 2. If the church is anything more than one local body, how could Paul have written to the Corinthians of "The whole church come together in one place."?. I Corinthians 14:23.
3. If the church is not a reference to local assemblies meeting in various locations then we would have an impossible time explaining the repeated use of the word "churches". For example, Acts 9:31 says, "Then had the churches rest." Romans 16:4 refers to "All the churches of the Gentiles." I Corinthians 7:17 says Paul ordained elders in all the churches. He wrote a letter to the church at Corinth (I Corinthians 1:2) and said to them "The churches of Asia salute you," I Corinthians 16:19. This kind of listing could go on for a long time before all scriptural examples would be exhausted.
4. Note well, that not one time is there a reference to a church in a universal sense; nor is a church ever referred to as if it were not a true church, but rather a model or facsimile of the true church in heaven.
5. What is a church when viewed in scripture, which is the source from which we should develop our concept of what the church is? In scripture, a church of the Lord was always a local assembly of baptized believers. They met regularly upon the first day of the week to give tithes and offerings (I Corinthians 16:2), observe the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7), and to celebrate his resurrection (Colossians 3:16). They had pastors (Hebrews 13:7), conducted business meetings (Acts 1:15-26), supported missionaries (Philippians 4:14-15), and even disciplined reproachful members (I Corinthians 5:11-13).
In the Bible, churches were always local assemblies. That's what we still think they are. The fact that we do should really not be considered peculiar by anyone.
"It Does Make a Difference What You Believe"