========================================================================
  THE DOCTINE OF THE CHURCH IN THESE TIMES
  by Chester E. Tulga
========================================================================

Chester Tulga's study tracing the doctrine of the church from its Old Testament
origins through the founding of the New Testament community at Pentecost.

  Chapters: 9

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 000 - Introduction
    2. 01 - The Old Testament Background of the Church
    3. 02 - The Church Described
    4. 03 - The Church Identified
    5. 04 - The Ministry of the True Church
    6. 05 - The Holy Spirit and the Church
    7. 06 - The Church and the Churches: The Problem of Christian Unity
    8. 07 - The Developing Catholicism of Liberal Ecumenicity
    9. 08 - Summary

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 000 - INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION A true New Testament witness will always deny “Apostolic
succession” of individuals and will always affirm “Apostolic succession” of the
institution of the local Church. JESUS said, “Upon this rock I will build my
Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Ecumenicity in ecclesiology and liberalism in theology are today walking hand in
hand producing One Big Universal Church and preaching “another gospel” by which
its members for salvation are learning lessons from the life of JESUS, instead
of salvation by faith from the death of JESUS!

If the present-day New Testament Christians are descendants from the
“ana-baptists” of the middle ages as history indicates, let us remember that it
was the doctrine of “believers’ baptism” that distinguished the “ana-baptist”
from the pedo-baptist”; and it was the doctrine of “scriptural immersion” that
distinguished the New Testament witness from other species of “ana-baptists”;
and it was the doctrine of absolute “religious liberty” for the individual
preached and taught by the independent and “sovereign local Church” that
infuriated the Roman Catholic Church into such bitter and cruel persecution of
these New Testament Christians. The Roman Catholic Visitor in 1946 was
explaining how the “Protestant Reformation” happened: This official organ of
Rome declared that the Reformation was not religious in its nature; it happened
at a time when the Roman Catholic Church was weak politically! All of the
leading Reformers, who so heroically freed the Church from the Roman Catholic
Church and the Pope, fastened a State Church upon the people wherever they went,
and the true New Testament sovereign local Church that stood for absolute
religious liberty was persecuted by these State Churches of the reformers: This
was true of - Luther, who fastened a State Church upon Germany.

- Zwingli, who fastened a State Church upon Switzerland.

- John Knox, who fastened a State Church upon Scotland.

- Henry VIII, who fastened a State Church upon England.

These all became persecutors like Rome before them! John Calvin’s Consistory, a
bold-faced inquisition, in Vienna condemned Michael Servetus as a heretic to be
burned at the stake June 17, 1553; Servetus fled, was apprehended in Geneva, and
was burned at the stake October 27, 1553.Liberalism in all of its nature is
today more political than it is religious, and by the strain and stress of
“pressure tactics,” directly and indirectly, by its ecclesiastical power, is
striving to force its unbiblical principles especially upon those persuasions
standing staunchly and separately in sovereign local Churches!

We know of no chapter and verse in the Bible to justify an “associate member” or
“probationary member” of the body of Christ, and the local earthly Church is the
pattern of that heavenly body.

J. D. Murphy’s definition for a local New Testament Church cannot be shortened:
“You have believers, baptized, joined, and hence, ’Church.’“ THE BIBLE DENIES
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

1. Apostles should have seen JESUS CHRIST and been eye and ear witnesses of what
they testified to in the world concerning Him.

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the
beginning” (John 15:27) “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all
the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us” (Acts 1:21-22) “Am I not
an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my
work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1) “That which was from the beginning, which
we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and
our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 John 1:1) 2. Apostles were
chosen and appointed to their offices by CHRIST Himself, and with the exception
of Matthias, who was appointed by lot, there were no exceptions “And when it was
day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he
named apostles; Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James
and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus,
and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot,
which also was the traitor” (Luke 6:13-16).

“But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to
bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel... And
he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his
will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth” (Acts
9:15; Acts 22:14).

3. Apostles had the gift of plenary inspiration “Behold, I send you forth as
sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as
doves... For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you” (Matthew 10:16, Matthew 10:20).

“If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit
of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I
will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:15-18).

“For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of
him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which
the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the
Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in
Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth” (Acts 1:5-8).

“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not
after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the
revelation of Jesus Christ..

. “ (Galatians 1:11-12; cf 1 Corinthians 2:4-16).

4. Apostles had the gift of tongues and the power to work diverse sorts of
miracles. These were their credentials cf. Acts 3:1-26; Hebrews 2:4). From these
Bible qualifications which in turn becomes premises, it is obviously impossible
that the apostles could have successors in office.

ECUMENICITY DISSOLVES THE NEW TESTAMENT LOCAL CHURCH

SUCCESSION

1. The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of
America is becoming the voice of GOD to many denominations (Constituting
Convention, Cleveland, 10:59 a.m, November 29, 1950).

2. The voice of the denomination is becoming the voice of GOD to many pastors
and local Churches.

3. The voice of their pastor and their local Church is becoming the voice of GOD
to many Church members.

4. The voice of the Church members and professing Christians is becoming the
voice of GOD to the unregenerate and godless world, who themselves have no
knowledge or Bible background of Christian things.

5. Perhaps the paramount danger in all of this is a point of similarity between
the Liberal Protestant Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church: Neither of
these accept the Bible as a final authority for all matters of Christian faith
and practice! Both are more political than religious!

Because of their age-long belief in Apostolic Succession, the Roman Catholic
Church feels that they have authority in themselves to make changes they wish in
Church Government or Church Doctrine!

Because Liberal Protestantism does not believe in “the faith once for all
delivered to the saints,” they feel that the reinterpretation of this faith
should be made by each successive generation of Liberals for each successive
generation of Christians.

- If Miracles insult Reason, leave them out or interpret them away.

- If Regeneration insults Education, leave it out or interpret it away.

- If Creation insults Evolution, leave it out or interpret it away.

Recently a leading Liberal in Baptist circles has written a book Interpreters
Needed! A better book would be “Declarers Needed!”

CONDITIONS AND COMPULSIONS FOR LOCAL CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

1. All who would become members of the local New Testament Church must be
renewed or begotten by the Holy Spirit through the Word of Truth “Jesus
answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of
God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter 1:23).

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many
fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1
Corinthians 4:15).

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of
firstfruits of his creatures” (James 1:18).

2. They must also believe on the name of the Lord JESUS CHRIST as the Way, the
Truth, the Resurrection, and the Life “He that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (Acts
8:12).

“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and
thy house” (Acts 16:31).

“And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all
his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized”
(Acts 18:8).

3. They must love CHRIST more than they love even their own lives and their most
dear and cherished earthly relations “If any man come to me, and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his
cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-27).

“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I
am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of
prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all
faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And
though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be
burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

4. They must repent of their sins “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38) “Repent ye
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times
of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

5. They must turn from Satan to God and become humble and meek as little
children.

“And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3).

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when
the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3:19).

6. They must call on the name of the Lord in humble and earnest prayer and
supplication.

“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16).

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans
10:13).

7. They must confess CHRIST as the Son of GOD and Saviour of sinners “For with
the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation” (Romans 10:10).

“Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art
also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses” (1
Timothy 6:12).

“Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession” (Hebrews 4:14).8. They
must be baptized by the authority of CHRIST in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the HOLY SPIRIT. WHEN WE LOSE OUR FREEDOM

Chief Justice, John Marshall of the Supreme Court said at the age of 75, “The
Judicial Department comes home in its effects to every man’s fireside. It passes
on his property, his reputation, his all. Is it not to the last degree important
that he should be rendered perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to
influence or control him but God and his conscience?” In this great country of
separation of Church and state we enjoy dual liberties: political and moral. Our
political liberties are based on our democracy, but our moral liberties are
based on the declaration “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...” We will lose these two
freedoms when we lose our sovereign local Churches, that under God are, “The
pillar and ground of the Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). In Hitler’s day some thirty
thousand state Churches, tax supported were the tools of and supported by the
German government. About the time that Hitler’s government took over the
Churches of Germany, Albert Einstein made the following statement, “Being a
lover of freedom when the revolution came in Germany, - I looked to the
universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their
devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities were immediately
silenced.

- I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in
days gone by had proclaimed their love for freedom; but they like the
universities, were silenced in a few short weeks.

- I looked to the individual writers, who, as literary guides of Germany, had
written much and often concerning the place of freedom in modern life; but they
too were mute.

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for
suppressing truth. I never had any great interest in the Church before, but now
I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the
courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am
forced to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly,” Our
author, Dr. C. E. Tulga, generously and kindly dedicated a previous volume, The
Independence of the Local Church to me and this great Fourth Baptist Church,
which I have been privileged to serve as pastor for so many years. By a like
kindness I am now writing an Introduction to The Local Church of the New
Testament. Our author has with painstaking care in this volume given us the
historical, biblical pattern and purposes of the God-ordained “pillar and ground
of the truth,” the Local Church. If our freedoms are lost in this great
nominally Christian nation, it will be because as enslaved citizens we can look
back to the losing of the pattern and purposes of the local New Testament Church
herein described.

CONCLUSIONThe New Testament Local Churches that have continued since the days of
the apostles are easily identified in four different ways, 1. These local
Churches stood for three distinct Bible truths. a. The Bible alone was.accepted
for faith and practice. b. The priesthood of believers made man accountable to
God alone. c. Every regenerate Christian was allowed to interpret the Bible for
himself.

2. These Churches stood for three distinct principles and beliefs. a. Autonomy
and democratic government of the local Church. b. A regenerated membership
responsible for the local Church. c. The two ordinances of the local Church were
inside and inviolate.

3. These local Churches had three distinguishable connections. a. With the
history of the New Testament Churches from the beginning. b. In any given age
these local Churches had the closest connection with the true New Testament
Churches of all ages. c. These New Testament Churches sustained the closest
connections with the New Testament Gospel: repentance, faith, confession,
obedience.

4. These local Churches in all ages had three distinguishable characteristics.
a. Their accomplishments have been the most astonishing. b. Their persecutions
have been the most severe. c. Their contributions to both Christianity and the
governments of the world have been the most fruitful.

Dr. R. V. Clearwaters, Fourth Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota ~ End of
Introduction ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01 - THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH
========================================================================

Chapter 1 THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE CHURCH “If we are to understand
the nature of the Church we must begin with the Old Testament,”

Clarence T. Craig (Man’s Disorder and GOD’s Design, Amsterdam Report, p. 32)
“The rootage of Christianity in Hebrew history is deep, and undoubtedly a
continuing purpose of GOD runs through both,” W. E. Garrison (A Protestant
Manifesto, p. 95) “Since the time of Marcion, in the second century, until the
present, Christians have to a large degree preferred to remain aloof from
Judaism and assert that the Christian Church is original and independent of
previous influences.” J. R. Nelson (The Realm of Redemption, pp. 3, 4).

“Professor Dodd (The Bible Today, p. 70) notes how the New Testament writers
take up the ideal attributes of Israel and apply them to the Church. In
Galatians, the Church is the ’Israel of God’ (Galatians 6:16) In I Peter, it is
’the people of God’ (1 Peter 2:9-10), whose members are a kingdom of priests
(Revelation 1:6). To Paul, Isaiah’s righteous remnant (Romans 9:27), Jeremiah’s
people of the new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:5-6), Daniel’s saints of the Most
High (1 Corinthians 1:2). This is not enthusiastic rhetoric. It is a deliberate
reapplication of prophetic language. It amounts to an assertion that the people
of GOD have now passed through its supreme crisis, and reached its complete and
final form.”

“The first Christian believers, as their words and actions in the accounts of
Acts decisively portray, were thoroughly Jewish in thought and emotion. The
religion and history they have received, to whatever degree of knowledge, were
those of the chosen Israel. Therefore, they could not have known at the outset
that their new faith in the risen CHRIST would eventually necessitate a divorce
from the religion of their fathers, a break which none of them really desired.”
J. Robert Nelson (The Realm of Redemption, p. 9).

“While it is true that the Church, in the strict sense of the word, and as a
corporate institute was not founded while the Lord was on earth, in another
sense He was laying the foundations during the whole of His ministry.” W. B.
Pope (Compendium of Christian Theology, 3:262) 1. The Church was formed of the
remnant of Israel. In considering the Old Testament background of the Church and
the early Christian Jews, we must consider the Old Testament doctrine of the
remnant which Paul carried over into the realm of grace. “Even so then at this
present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace” (Romans
11:5). The doctrine of the remnant is set forth in Amos, Micah, Malachi and
especially in Isaiah. The remnant is the Father’s “little flock” in Israel, as
the remnant was JESUS’ “little flock” (Luke 12:32). The little flock of JESUS is
the saved remnant, those who were looking for the MESSIAH, and formed the
nucleus of the new community which would be constituted on the Day of Pentecost.
It is clear from the New Testament that the early Christians considered
themselves the believing remnant in fleshly Israel, the real Jews (Romans
2:28-29). While JESUS did not directly connect the remnant of Israel with the
Church He promised to build, the Apostles undoubtedly did (Galatians and
Romans).

2. The Church was composed of the new people of GOD, in which there are no
distinctions of race and nationality.

Throughout the Old Testament there is the concept of a people whom GOD has
chosen to be His own in a peculiar sense. The Hebrews traced this election to
the covenant which GOD made with Abraham, a covenant which included his
descendents (Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:7-8). They were to be a holy nation, a
religious community faithful to the one true GOD, Jehovah. They were redeemed
out of Egypt by the blood of the lamb and the outstretched arm of GOD. They were
the people of GOD. The New Testament clearly teaches that the Church is the new
people of GOD (Acts 15:14; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9). It is
significant that Jesus, in gathering the nucleus of His Church, chose twelve men
to be the patriarchs of the new people of GOD. In Romans 11:1-36 we see that GOD
has not cast off His ancient people, Israel, but He has taken unto Himself a new
people, redeemed by the blood of His Son and kept by His power. The background
of the Church as the people of GOD, is the ancient people of GOD, and the Church
has much to learn from their history.

3. The Church is a new fellowship, not based upon a common blood, but upon a
common love for JESUS CHRIST.

“If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple” (Luke 14:26-27; Matthew 10:37, 38). Here JESUS announces Himself
as the center of a new allegiance which would transcend all human loyalties of
kindred and home, an allegiance that would upset old traditions and create new
patterns of human and religious fellowship. This new allegiance was radical,
transforming, revolutionary, and would in time create a new fellowship around
it. The ancient people, Israel, lost their spiritual pre-eminence. John the
Baptist said to the Jews, “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). Paul said, “For he is not a Jew, which is one
outwardly... but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly” (Romans 2:28-29). The
spiritual standards of the new fellowship became the criteria by which the
ancient people were judged, putting them under the Messianic judgment. So even
before the Church was formed, we see the outline of the spiritual ascendancy of
the new people of GOD, to the disparagement of Israel.

4. The Church, the new fellowship is to be motivated by a more radical ethic
than the law, the inward ethic of the heart. This inward ethic was prophesied by
Jeremiah: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to
the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: but this shall be the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the
LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and
will be their God, and they will be my people” (Jeremiah 31:31-33). The early
Christians believed JESUS to be the mediator of this new covenant (Hebrews
12:24).

JESUS gathered together the believing remnant as a nucleus for His Church, with
twelve disciples to lead it. What kind of lives were they to live? By what rules
were they to live? In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord made it plain that He
expected His men to live beyond the humanly possible, thus requiring divine
assistance which was promised through the HOLY SPIRIT. The disciple must live
beyond the law, he must not only do no murder, he must not hate.

He must not only refrain from adultery, he must be free from lust in his heart.
JESUS intended to build a holy Church, composed of holy people, whose lives
would be holy. The ethic of this new fellowship would go far beyond the ethical
demands of the law; reaching into the hidden springs of life and demanding truth
and holiness in the inward parts.

5. These people who were to form the new Church were given two ordinances and
the charter and commission of the Church. The ordinance of baptism, practiced by
John the Baptist and later by the apostles, was given by example and precept
before the Church was formed (Matthew 28:18-20). The institution of the Lord’s
supper had its beginning in the solemn meal of JESUS and His disciples (Matthew
26:26-29) before the Church was formed. The charter and commission of the
Church, defining its power and authority, its world-wide field, its mission and
its enduring assurance of divine aid, was given before the Church was formed
(Matthew 28:18-20).

W. B. Pope (A Compendium of Christian Theology, 3:262) sums up this
pre-Pentecostal period, “While it is true that the Church in the strict sense of
the word, and as a corporate institute, was not founded while the Lord was upon
earth, in another sense He was laying its foundation during the whole of His
ministry.

“He left a large body of instruction concerning it which waited only for the Day
of Pentecost to disclose its fulness of meaning. The germs and principles of all
that is to follow in this branch of theology are to be found in the Gospels:
indeed, we may be more bold, and say that nothing on this subject, or any other
subject, can go beyond the meaning of the Lord’s own words. He spoke of the
Comforter as the future Divine Presence in the congregation; but His office was
only to glorify, expound and expand the sayings of the Redeemer Himself. We
shall find that this holds true in a very remarkable degree concerning the
doctrine of the new Church or kingdom. A large part of the Saviour’s teachings
in the four Gospels treats of its nature, of the methods of its spread, of the
character of its subjects, of its relations to the world, and of the principles
of His own government in it.”

~ end of chapter 1 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02 - THE CHURCH DESCRIBED
========================================================================

Chapter 2 THE CHURCH DESCRIBED

“The visible Church is the Church in so far as it enshrines the invisible. Hence
the ground of its unity is not to be found in its maintenance of a common order
of ministry or profession of a common form of creed, but in its being the locus
of that faith-relationship to GOD which constitutes its invisible essence.
References to the Church universal include all Christian bodies of which this is
true, and exclude those of which it is not.” Leonard Hodgson (The Nature of the
Church, Edited by R. N. Flew, p. 289) “The Church... the whole number of
spiritual regenerate believers, constituting ’the body of Christ’ in this world,
expounded particularly in Ephesians. This Church, for Baptists, is not, and
cannot be, ecclesiastically organized; and it has no local seat nor any
administrative human head or headship.” W. O. Carver (The Nature of The Church,
Edited by R. N. Flew, p. 289) The nature of the Church is not primarily defined
by a particular name, a particular creed, a form of organization, a doctrine of
ordination or any view of ecclesiastical authority. This does not mean that
these things are unimportant, but it does mean that in themselves, they may or
may not define a true Church. The nature of the Church is set forth in the
Scriptures under various figures.

1. The Church is a building. This does not refer to the edifice in which the
congregation meets, for the apostolic Churches had no edifices to which the name
of Church was attached. The Church is regarded as a structure and several
aspects of truth are set forth under this figure.

CHRIST used this figure and said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church”
(Matthew 16:18).

Paul uses this figure a number of times. “Ye are God’s building” (1 Corinthians
3:9). In Ephesians 2:20-22 we find this description of the Church: “And are
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Peter makes use of the same figure, saying, “Ye also, as lively stones, built up
a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). The Church is a spiritual
temple in which all believers are priests unto GOD, and they are to offer
spiritual sacrifices to GOD. The apostles indicate that JESUS CHRIST, as the
Foundation and Corner Stone, is essential to the structure of the building and
any successful attempt to disprove His deity, destroy His integrity or question
His teachings would fatally impair the soundness of the structure. This has
happened many times in Christendom, producing false Churches. The stones of the
building are individual Christians, each in his place and each contributing to
the strength and the beauty of the structure. These stones are not to consider
themselves autonomous, or “Church tramps” but they are to be part of the
structure, the living temple, members of a “true” Church of CHRIST. The Church
building in the New Testament is built of believers, not bricks.

2. The Church is a body - the body of CHRIST.

“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all
things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in
all” (Ephesians 1:22-23).

“And he is the head of the body, the Church” (Colossians 1:18). “For as we have
many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Romans
12:4-5). “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Corinthians
12:13). There are a number of distinctive truths here which give us a full
picture of what is involved in the phrase, “body of Christ.” (a) CHRIST is the
Head of the Body, the Church. “The head, even Christ” (Ephesians 4:15).

“Christ is the head of the Church” (Ephesians 5:23). CHRIST is called the Head
of the body He is the very center of its organic life and growth. The whole
concept of the Church, of its life and ministry, membership and destiny, is
linked to the Person of Christ, without whom there is no Church. The final
authority over any Church is JESUS CHRIST, and all authorities which conflict
with this authority must be rejected. This means that no human being, or
organization of human beings, can become the head and authority over a Church of
CHRIST. What a sweeping judgment upon the conflicting loyalties, the rival
leaders and the apostasies of Christendom! (b) The HOLY SPIRIT is the life of
the body, proceeding from both the Father and the Son. W.

H. Griffith-Thomas says, “There are at least twelve references to His Divine
grace and work in relation to the body of Christ. From the moment of conversion
He is everything to the individual Christian and to the whole Church.

It is the Spirit who seals the believer as belonging to CHRIST (Ephesians 1:13;
Ephesians 4:30). By the Spirit we are, - introduced to the Father(Ephesians
2:18).

- We are indwelt by the Spirit(Ephesians 2:22).

- We are taught by the Spirit (Ephesians 3:5).

- The Spirit is the secret of inward strength (Ephesians 3:16), - of outward
unity (Ephesians 4:3), - of inward sensitiveness (Ephesians 4:30),- and of
spiritual fullness (Ephesians 5:18). The Word of GOD is described as ’the sword
of the Spirit’ (Ephesians 6:17, and prayer is to be offered ’in the Spirit’
(Ephesians 6:18).

Thus, in every way, whether we think of the individual or the community, the
Spirit of GOD actuates all.” (The Spirit of GOD, pp. 174,175) The Church without
the HOLY SPIRIT, is a body without life. A religious body, apart from the HOLY
SPIRIT, is not a Church. A Church which has disobeyed the Word of GOD, grieved
the Spirit of GOD, and questioned the deity of the Son of GOD is a false Church
undwelt by the Spirit of GOD. (c) The body of CHRIST is a unified diversity (1
Corinthians 12:12, 1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:5). A body has many members
and these have different functions. Yet it needs them all if it is to be truly a
body. A body is a whole which needs all its differing parts. Unless there is
unity in this diversity, there is no co-ordination and all is confusion and
schism. In the New Testament we find a wide variety of persons, gifts,
functions, but one Head, one faith.

Here is the integration produced by the Spirit of GOD, not the religious
synthesis produced by the blending of differences on a minimal doctrinal basis
such as the present ecumenical movements and many of the great denominations. In
the body of CHRIST there is diversity, but it is a unified diversity controlled
and dominated by the Spirit of GOD under the Lordship of CHRIST.

3. The Church is a bride. This concept of the Church has a strong Old Testament
background.

- Hosea represents GOD as saying to his people Israel: “And I will betroth thee
unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in
judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto
me in faithfulness: and. thou shalt know the LORD” (Hosea 2:19-20).

- Isaiah says, “For thy Maker is thine husband: the LORD of hosts is his name”
(Isaiah 54:5).

- Jeremiah 3:14 says, “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am
married unto you.”

Modern theologians have little to say about the Church, the bride of Christ, in
spite of the rich biblical teachings concerning the mystical relationship
between the Lord and His people, revealed in both the Old and New Testaments.
Rejecting the marriage of the Lamb to His bride at His second coming, they have
little use for the figure of speech so rich in spiritual significance, and so
rebuking to the modern Church guilty of spiritual adultery with other lovers.
The classical passage in the New Testament is found in, Ephesians 5:25-32 :
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave
himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water
by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having
spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.

He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hateth his own
flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are
members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man
leave his father and mother, and be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be
one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church.” This union is not only a mystical union, it is a holy union, requiring
from the Church a character corresponding to this holy relationship. Here is
required the highest fidelity to Christ, the deepest loyalty, the most
transcendent love, so unlike the Churches today. The spiritual marriage between
CHRIST and His Church will be consummated when He comes in glory and gathers His
true people to Himself. “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for
the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready... And he
said unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper
of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7, Revelation 19:9).

All these metaphors imply the spiritual unity of the Church, but that of the
temple suggests its dignity and sanctity, that of the body its co-operation,
that of the bride its purity.

Four Characteristics of the Church 1. The Church is one. “There is one body, and
one spirit” (Ephesians 4:4). “We, being many, are one body in Christ” (Romans
12:5). The unity of the Church has but one ground, that of a common union with
Christ; and every reference to it makes this prominent. In John 17:21 JESUS
makes this clear: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me.” This is spiritual oneness, more profound and more spiritual than
external organization can effect.

External oneness is never alluded to beyond an individual congregation. The
constant tone of apostolic doctrine points to the maintenance of a spiritual
unity rather than organizational unity.

Paul warns of divisions within the local congregation (1 Corinthians 3:1-23).
The principles upheld in the case of local congregations must of moral necessity
apply to divisions between groups of GOD’s people, but the remedy suggested is
not federation or amalgamation.

Nowhere are Christians exhorted to maintain unity with heretics or apostates
but, on the contrary, they are not to maintain unity with them. The Church is
one, but it is not the oneness of the modern Church union movement, with its
disregard of the fundamental teachings of the Word of GOD.

2. The Church is holy. The holiness of the Church is an idea inherited from its
predecessor, the congregation of Israel.

Israel was called to be a holy nation, in the sense of separateness from
idolatry and sinful practices. The GOD of Israel was portrayed as the Holy One
(Isaiah 6:1-13). Places where GOD revealed Himself became holy ground and all
the elements of worship in Israel were said to be holy. The prophets, and the
apostles after them, labored to impress upon Israel and the Church the
conviction that God wants holy people. Local assemblies of believers are to
express in their lives and conduct that holiness which God expects in His people
and provides for through His Spirit.

J. C. Ryle (Holiness, p. 217) describes the Church in these words: “The Church
of our text (Matthew 16:18) is made up of all true believers in the Lord JESUS
CHRIST, of all who are really holy and converted people.

- It comprehends all who have repented of sin, and fled to CHRIST by faith, and
have been made new creatures in Him.

- It comprises all GOD’s elect, all who have received GOD’s grace, all who have
been washed in CHRIST’s blood, all who have been clothed in CHRIST’s
righteousness, all who have been born again and sanctified by Christ’s Spirit.

All such, of every name, and rank, and nation, and people, and tongue, compose
the Church of our text. This is the body of CHRIST. This is the flock of CHRIST.
This is the bride. This is the Lamb’s wife.”

Needless to say Ryle is describing a holy Church, not the religious
organizations that often go by the name of a Church. A true Church is a holy
Church. By appropriate disciplines it will endeavor to maintain both holiness of
life and purity of doctrine. The necessity for a holy Church does not arise
entirely from the demands of GOD, but also upon holiness as a necessity for the
tasks assigned to the Churches. The history of the Church indicates that the
holiness of the Church is the best means of convincing a sinful world of its
divine character and the best credentials for its message. The ability to
produce saintly people is a prime necessity in our world. If the Church is to be
accepted as holy, it must be holy. True New Testament Churches will have this
distinguishing mark. If this mark is absent, there is no authenticity in name,
organization, creed, or historical succession.

3. The Church is apostolic.

E. T. Hiscox (The New Directory for Baptist Churches, pp. 33, 34) says, “It is
the claim of the Roman, and of some other prelatical and High-Church communions,
that they have an unbroken succession of ministerial gifts and ordinations
direct from the apostles - what is sometimes termed ’the historical episcopate.’
And if a succession in the ministry, then a succession largely in Church order,
and sacramental efficacy. This claim is historically groundless, and doctrinally
useless. But the true apostolicity consists not in succession but in possession,
for they who possess and exhibit the doctrines, the spirit and life of the
Apostles, have right to claim this mark of a true gospel Church.” We are told
that the early Church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42).W. H.
Griffith-Thomas (The Spirit of GOD) states the true substance of apostolicity
when he says, “The Church received the Scriptures from the Lord JESUS CHRIST by
the HOLY SPIRIT through His apostles and prophets, and now the function of the
Church is to witness to the fact that these are the Scriptures of the apostles
and prophets which she has received and of which she is also the keeper and
their preserver through the ages for the use by the people of GOD.”

Again, he says, “We believe that the Church is apostolic, because it is built on
the foundation of the apostles and prophets. The succession is that of truth,
and the Church founded by the apostles is still guided by them in their writings
as found in the New Testament. So that any apostolic succession cannot be
personal, because as apostles the men were unique and had no successors. But
there can be apostolic succession by adherence to doctrine and life.” (p. 261)
Adreas Rinkel says, “The Church of CHRIST is apostolic that is to say, she
preaches through the ages the same gospel, fills the same functions and
administers the same sacraments, as in the days of the apostles.” (The Nature of
the Church, Edited by R. N. Flew, p. 151) “The Church is sup posed to teach, not
the clever guesses of its pastors or the messages demanded by a halfconverted
laity, but the truth as it is in JESUS, the truth about GOD and man which He
taught to the apostles... That faith the Church must hold if it is to be
effective. It is the thing the apostles taught, and they were taught by JESUS
CHRIST Himself.

Some sections of CHRIST’s Church have veered away from it. They thereby become
ineffective to win the man in the street, just as all Christian groups in days
past which have forsaken it have lost their hold on seeking people. Every sort
of misstatement, half-statement, and warping of the faith has been seen from
time to time during the nineteen centuries of Christendom... The Churches today
which fail to teach it are lapsing into vague generalities which mean little.”

Bernard Iddings Bell (Religion for Living, pp. 89, 91).

If apostolicity is a mark of the true Church, then the liberal Churches of our
day which have departed from, or denied the apostles’ doctrines, are not New
Testament Churches and should not be recognized as such. The old doctrine of
apostolic succession should be dusted off, given a scriptural interpretation,
and Churches which have departed from this succession of doctrine and life
should be disfellowshipped. The Church is apostolic, and local assemblies which
are not apostolic in doctrine and life are not true Churches.

4. The Church is universal.

Unlike the Jewish religious community, and unlike religions which are definitely
racial or national, the true Church is universal in its membership, doctrines
and objectives. It has no race, nationality or color barriers. Its truths are of
universal value, because they are derived from the one true God. They are
capable of universal application, hindered not by their limitations, but by
sinful man’s unwillingness to accept and practice them. The Church by its nature
is and must be universal if it is to meet the need of the whole world.

Thiessen (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 407) says, “In the universal sense
the Church consists of all those who, in this dispensation, have been born of
the Spirit of GOD and have by that same Spirit been baptized into the body of
CHRIST” (1 Peter 1:3, 1 Peter 1:22-25; 1 Corinthians 12:13). The universal
Church is a conception of the mind, having no real existence in time or place,
and not a historical fact-without organization, without action, without
corporate being, and without any human head or government. The universal Church
has never had a business meeting, nor issued any pronouncements, or encyclicals.
The Church is universal, but there is no universal Church.

~ end of chapter 2 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 03 - THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED
========================================================================

Chapter 3 THE CHURCH IDENTIFIED

“The reformers defined the marks of a true Church (local or regional) as: (1)
the pure preaching of the word of GOD (2) the administration of the sacraments
according to CHRIST’s ordinance (3) discipline so administered that the evil
surviving in believers should be purged out and the good in them fostered and
strengthened.” (The Nature of the Church, Edited by R. N. Flew p. 282).

“A visible Church of CHRIST is a congregation of baptized believers, associated
by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the Gospel; observing the ordinances
of CHRIST, governed by His law, exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges
invested in them by His Word.” (New Hampshire Confession Article 16).

“Properly speaking New Testament Christianity knows nothing of the word
’sacrament,’ which belongs essentially to the heathen world of the Graeco-Roman
empire and which unfortunately some of the Reformers unthinkingly took over from
the ecclesiastical tradition. For this word, and still more the overtones which
it conveys, is the starting point for those disastrous developments which began
soon to transform the community of JESUS into a Church which is first and
foremost a sacramental Church.” Emil Brunner (Misunderstanding the Church, pps.
72, 73).

“The Church, almost unnoticed becomes a ’public institution,’ which expresses
and satisfies the people’s ’religious needs,’ instead of being CHRIST’s
instrument of salvation.” K. E. Skydsgaard (The Nature of the Church, Edited by
R. N. Flew, p. 88).

“Whether we have sought to expand our organizations in the Church through the
direct political measures which create state Churches, or have as free Churches
entered into competition for popular support with other Christian organizations
and also with secular institutions, in any case, we have managed to bring into
our Churches many who have made no personal commitment to the Lord and His
cause.” H. Richard Niebuhr (Man’s Disorder and GOD’s Design: Amsterdam Report,
p. 81).

“What is the trouble with the visible Church? What is the reason for its obvious
weaknesses? There are perhaps many causes of weakness. But one cause is
perfectly plain - the Church of today has been unfaithful to her Lord by
admitting great companies of non-Christian persons, not only into her membership
but into her teaching agencies. It is indeed inevitable that some persons who
are not truly Christian shall find their way into the visible Church; fallible
men cannot discern the heart, and many a profession of faith which seems to be
genuine may really be false. But it is not this kind of error to which we now
refer. What is now meant is not the admission of individuals whose confessions
of faith may not be sincere, but the admission of great companies of persons who
have never made any really credible confession of faith at all and whose entire
attitude toward the Gospel is the very reverse of the Christian attitude. Such
persons, moreover, have been admitted not merely to the membership, but to the
ministry of the Church, and to an increasing extent have been allowed to
dominate its councils and determine its teaching.” J. Gresham Machen
(Christianity and Liberalism, p. 54).

“All too many preachers have walked out of Churches brokenhearted and feeling it
to be the part of humility to bear their sorrow in silence, only to have another
and another minister endure the same sorrow at the hands of the same wicked and
perverse organization that goes by the name of a Church.” Fredrick K. Stamm (If
This Be Religion, p. 54) How can the true Church be identified? How does the
Church remain the same Church and yet not the same? If any Church today is a
true Church, it is because there is a well established and identifiable
continuity with the apostolic Church What is that identity?

- Can it be identified by its name? Not always. Scriptural names are preferable,
but Churches which have long ceased to be New Testament Churches may have New
Testament names.

- Can it be identified by its form of government? There are Churches with New
Testament forms of government which are not New Testament Churches.

- Can it be identified by its Head, the Pope, or by its succession of
ordination? Hardly, for a Church may or may not acknowledge the Pope, and this
does not constitute apostolic identity.

One may be ordained correctly according to any ecclesiastical rule and still not
be a true minister of CHRIST. How can a New Testament Church be identified?

1. A New Testament Church is marked by the true preaching of the Word of GOD.

New Testament Churches were biblical; New Testament preaching was biblical; the
New Testament on every page indicates that it is rooted in the Old Testament,
the Word of GOD. The Scriptures were authority in the New Testament Churches (1
Corinthians 15:3-4). The New Testament abounds in instructions and admonitions
to preach the Word of GOD. Paul exhorts Timothy, “Preach the word; be instant in
season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2-3). The writer to the Hebrews tells us that “the Word
of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing
even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrows,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).
Paul asserts that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good
works” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Paul writes to Titus as he does to Timothy exhorting
him to speak the things which become sound doctrine (Titus 2:1).

R. Newton Flew observes, “It is the undoubted duty of the Church to protect and
propagate Christian doctrine in its integrity and incorruptness.” (The Nature of
the Church, p. 21) The true preaching of the Word of GOD in its fullness, as
recorded in the Scriptures, is a mark of the true Church and sharply
distinguishes the true from the false. This does not mean that a true Church
must be correct in every detail of doctrine, but it does mean that it wants to
be, that it endeavors to be, and that it is sufficiently sensitive to the HOLY
SPIRIT to be molded into the kind of Church that GOD wants it to be.

There is a limit beyond which a Church cannot go in the misrepresentation or
denial of the truth, without losing her true character and becoming a false
Church. This is what happens when the Fundamentals of the faith are denied and
holiness of life disappears. Miner Raymond, an old Methodist theologian says,
“An association of individual persons that ignores or contravenes the
requirements of GOD’s Word, no matter by what name it may be called, is not a
Church of GOD, can not claim His sanction, nor expect His promised blessing. It
is essential to a divine institution that it be fashioned after the divine
pattern in all respects wherein the divine will is revealed. In matters
concerning which there is no revelation, the discretion of the Church, in
determining what the exigencies of the case require, is the authorized tribunal;
and to its authority the individual member is bound to submit.” (Systematic
Theology, 3:241, 242) The true Church acknowledges and preaches the Word of GOD
in its purity.

2. The New Testament Church is known by its scriptural administration of the
ordinances. The ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordained of GOD,
taught in the Word of GOD, and the manner of their administration clearly set
forth. These ordinances, based upon the Word of GOD, are not mere religious
traditions, hallowed customs, but ordinances significant with meaning and
pregnant with spiritual blessing. The ordinances should never be divorced from
the Word of GOD, for they derive their meaning from the Word of GOD. The
tendency of the modern Church to reduce them to the level of ritual, and little
more, is to depart from the Scriptures, to disobey God and disregard the
commands of CHRIST. There are some fundamental principles concerning the
ordinances which must be re-emphasized in this day when the Word of GOD
concerning these matters has come to have little influence. (a) The number of
the ordinances. There are two ordinances ordained of CHRIST our Lord in the
Gospels: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The five commonly called sacraments:
confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not the
commands of our Lord but the inventions of men. Many institutions and practices
of the Church may be spiritually helpful, but they are not ordinances of the
Gospel. (b) The ordinances are commanded (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians
11:23-34). Since these ordinances have been commanded by divine authority, their
observance is not optional for a true disciple of CHRIST, they are mandatory.
The rejection of the ordinances is not simply a refusal to follow religious
customs but the serious sin of disobedience to GOD. The fact that some have
attached too much meaning to the ordinances or permitted them to become empty
ritual is not sufficient justification for disobeying God in this respect.(c)
These ordinances are Church ordinances. The Report of the Theological Commission
on Intercommunion, World Council of Churches, says: “Nothing must be done to
obscure the truth that it is Churches and not ecumenical committees or
conferences that have the right to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.”
(lntercommunion, p. 39) Again, it says: “There appears to be general agreement
on the principle that a body like the World Council of Churches or the World’s
Student Christian Federation must not, as such, hold its own Communion Services,
because such a body is not a Church,” (p. 35) We do not agree, however, with the
Committee in its suggestion that the Churches can arrange such a communion for
the visiting convention, which seems to violate the very nature of the
prohibition just laid down. (d) New Testament Churches are alone qualified to
conduct the observance of the Lord’s Supper, not for the benefit of hundreds
whose spiritual state and doctrinal views are unknown, but for its own people
and those whom they may permit to share their fellowship. The ordinances are
ordinances of the true local Church of CHRIST, and not to be observed in
conferences, conventions and vague gatherings of what not. The above Commission
observes: “Thus even the ecumenical gatherings (especially conferences of
Christian youth), while deeply inspiring to some people, have made a very
different impression on others, because they seemed to present the distressing
spectacle of a diverse crowd, from many varied Churches and traditions,
gathering together at the Lord’s Table without any sufficient unity of belief
about what they were doing there! This criticism could be offered concerning
many highly advertised united communion services in the liberal groups of our
day. The ordinances are ordinances of the local Church, and the local Church has
no authority in the Scriptures to extend the hospitality of the Lord’s Table to
a great host of visiting strangers of whose beliefs and life they know nothing.
(e) The ordinances were given to New Testament Churches which bear the marks of
a true Church of CHRIST, Churches may be defective in some respects, hold
erroneous interpretations of the Scriptures (in all good faith) and still be
used by the HOLY SPIRIT for the salvation of men. These Churches which have the
fundamental marks of the true Church are qualified to administer the ordinances.
In our day we have another type of Church, A Church which does not accept the
final authority of the Word of GOD, doubts the virgin birth of CHRIST, questions
or perverts the doctrine of the deity of CHRIST, rejects His atoning blood,
questions His bodily resurrection, refuses the promise of the second coming of
CHRIST - such are not true Churches and have no authority to administer the
ordinances of the Gospel. A true Church is marked by the scriptural
administration of the ordinances.

3. The true Church is marked by the faithful exercise of scriptural discipline
(Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 1 Corinthians 5:13; 1 Corinthians 14:33,
1 Corinthians 14:40; Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:15, Revelation 2:20). The
doctrine of the external sanctity of the Church is a lost doctrine, and a futile
effort is being made to give to the Church a standing in the world which its
degree of holiness does not deserve.

There is an attempt being made to give a holiness to the Church which does not
involve the holiness of the people in the Church. Scriptural disciplines are
necessary to purity of doctrine in the Church, a godly testimony to the world,
and a proper observance of the ordinances. To have no rule of doctrine and no
rule of life as conditions of membership or participation in the Lord’s Supper,
is to corrupt the meaning of both, and destroy their spiritual usefulness.Every
organization which proposes to work smoothly, and yet efficiently, must have
certain rules and regulations to be followed; certain laws for the individual
members to obey. There is no society to which these remarks apply more
appropriately and with more emphasis than the local Church of Christian
believers who profess before the world to have found a Saviour from sin and a
superior way of life. When these laws fall into disuse, the message of the
Church is corrupted and the lives of its members cease to inspire confidence.

These disciplines can be applied wisely or unwisely. E. T. Hiscox (The New
Directory for Baptist Churches, pp. 101, 102) says, “To some the word discipline
has an unpleasant sound. It seems punitive. It savors of transgression, conflict
and punishment. But Church discipline is not to be taken in this narrow sense
alone; nor does it develop these unlovely features, except, where, by the
culpable neglect of pastors and others it has fallen into decay, good order and
the well-being of the body have been long disregarded, and the Church has become
a lawless and disorderly company.

Then a very hasty, and possibly an intemperate effort to make matters right,
without sufficient prudence and precaution, may develop difficulties... Whatever
the difficulties, in many cases the disciplines of the Word of GOD must be used
to restore the Church to health and the Lord’s Table to holiness. Hiscox says,
“Many a Church has found serious trouble in re-establishing a healthful order
and discipline, after long continued neglect and disorder. But many a Church has
also found that a thorough course of Christian labor, and the reestablishment of
a healthful scriptural discipline, has brought back to the body order. and
harmony, reinvigorated its wasted energies, has produced a better tone of
practical piety, and became the precursor of a revival of religion,” A true
Church uses scriptural disciplines lovingly and wisely.

~ end of chapter 3 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 04 - THE MINISTRY OF THE TRUE CHURCH
========================================================================

Chapter 4 THE MINISTRY OF THE TRUE CHURCH

“It is well to bear in mind that the distinction which has for ages prevailed in
Christian society between clergy and laity is not primitive; was not known in
the apostolic age. There was an apostleship and a discipleship, but no clerical
caste, separated by a wide gulf of sacramental ordination from the common
people... The Churches chose for their pastors and teachers such of their own
members as exhibited the needed qualities which fitted them for the positions.”
E.

T. Hiscox (The New Directory for Baptist Churches, p. 282) “The Jewish and
Catholic antithesis of clergy and laity had no place in the apostolic age.”
Phillip Schaff (History of the Christian Church, 1:131) “The New Testament never
uses the word ’priest’ to describe the minister. Indeed, in the singular number
it is found of CHRIST, and His Priesthood is said to be ’undelegated’ or
intransmissible’ (Hebrews 7:24]. When it is used of the Church it is always in
the plural, ’priests’ (Revelation 1:6), or collectively, ’priesthood’ (1 Peter
2:5). The truth, therefore, is that Christianity is, not has, a priesthood. The
silence of the New Testament on this point is a simple and yet significant fact.

It is what Bishop Lightfoot calls ’the eloquent silence of the apostolic
writings.’“ W. H. Griffith-Thomas (The Principles of Theology, p. 316) “It seems
unlikely that modern scholarship, after the closest scruting of the documents,
can do more than establish two statements as to the place of the Twelve in the
Primitive Church. First, they were accorded a certain pre-eminence in the
counsels and leadership of the community; second, the exact nature of their
authority was undefined.” R. N. Flew, JESUS and His Church, p. 130, 131) “There
is no more exalted, honorable and responsible calling among men than that of the
Christian minister. He is an ambassador from the King of Heaven to the sons of
men [II Corinthians 5:20]. He is a watchman unto GOD’s people (Ezekiel 3:17).

- He is a husbandman, in charge of the Lord’s estate (2 Timothy 2:6).

- He is a steward of the mysteries of GOD, and of the manifold grace of GOD.

- He is a shepherd of the flock of GOD which He hath purchased with His own
blood (1 Peter 5:1-4).” Wilson T. Hogue (The HOLY SPIRIT, p. 301)”Hopefully he
looks, as the more intelligent of human beings have not looked for many a long
year, to the Church and its ministers; but what he hears from them somewhat
bewilders him. Can it be that the official proponents of GOD fail to understand
the inner need that moves, the hunger that impels him? If often seems to him,
from what he sees of Churchmen and from what he hears of what they say that
they, too, have slipped their moorings, and are perhaps more adrift than he. Can
this be so?... Why do the pulpits resound with lectures on almost every
conceivable subject except those deeply spiritual ones which alone can
strengthen him for life?... Why must he listen to well-worn minor platitudes, as
though the preachers were twittering birds, almost unaware of the swift coming
hurricane?” Bernard I. Bell (Religion for Living, pp. xii, xiii) “And my speech
and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Corinthians 2:4).

“Even in the ordination of ministers the historic creedal standards are evaded
with ingenious rationalizations and are almost wholly disregarded.” Charles
Clayton Morrison (The Unfinished Reformation, p. 45) “A great change has come
over the whole of Protestantism in the past half century... A significant clue
to the nature of this change is seen in the virtual passing of the heretic.”
Charles C. Morrison (The Unfinished Reformation, p. 189) 1. The ministry of the
true Church is not valid because it is in human succession, but because it has a
direct call from GOD. The special call to special service for GOD is well
established in both the Old and New Testaments, from Abraham to Paul. It is
rooted in the divine election, not in the gifts of the individual.

It depends for implementation on the HOLY SPIRIT in that person, rather than the
attractiveness of the natural personality. No ordination, no show of numerical
success, no amount of ecclesiastical prestige, no peacock show of scholarship,
is a substitute for that elective call of GOD to Christian service. The call may
come in various ways, but it must come as a compelling pressure from GOD upon
the heart of the believing Christian or he is not a true minister.

2. The ministry of the true Church is not valid because it is in human
succession or the recipient of ecclesiastical authority, but because it is based
upon a living evangelical experience of GOD in CHRIST.

He must have in his own heart and life what he expects his Gospel to produce in
other hearts and lives. Samuel M. Shoemaker, says, “I believe that if the Church
is to be re-made and to take hold again in our day, the primary necessity is the
conversion of the ministers to a full experience of the Lord JESUS CHRIST.” (The
Conversion of the Church, p. 45) - It is entirely proper to ask whether any
minister has been born again, or if he is living in fellowship with GOD, for if
this is not true, he has no credentials. He himself needs healing before he can
become a healer of souls. - It is entirely proper to ask whether any Bible
scholar, or professor has been born again, for the natural man is not a proper
interpreter of Holy Writ (1 Corinthians 2:14). The religious world is too much
impressed by the religious views of unregenerate Bible scholars who, without the
new birth, have no spiritual discernment into divine truth. A true Church will
have a ministry which shares the apostolic experience of GOD which gave the
apostles their strength and spiritual authority. No human succession, no
ecclesiastical ordination, no scholarship, will atone for this lack. One may be
deprived of ecclesiastical credentials, one may be discredited by a human
organization and be in apostolic succession, if they have suffered loss for
CHRIST and His truth.

3. The ministry of the true Church is not valid because of its ecclesiastical
sanctions, but because it preaches the apostolic Gospel.

Gordon Poteat, a liberal writer, observes, “Our Reformation forbears stood
behind the Holy Bible and claimed a ’Thus saith the LORD’ when they preached
their sermons. They were certain that the ’Book’ infallibly proclaimed the
Lord’s injunctions and those who listened shared that conviction. The thunders
of the pulpit reverberated in the souls of the people just as Sinai’s thunders
made the children of Israel tremble in awe. There are still vestiges of this
sort of preaching which are fairly widespread but mostly among those who refuse
to come to terms with modern biblical scholarship. However, preachers who have
received a modern theological education, though they still stand behind the
pulpit Bible when they speak, are unable honestly to preach as if they had in it
unquestionable support.” (We Preach Not Ourselves, p. 2) Poteat acknowledges
that there is a ministry which no longer preaches the apostolic Gospel, and that
the acceptance of biblical criticism has robbed liberalism of its spiritual
authority. As a result of the work of the higher critics, the rise of scientific
thought, and the destruction of all religious authority, the ministry is
confused and uncertain concerning its message. Leland P.

Bechtel (Eastern, Eastern Baptist Seminary, 12-1947) reporting on the North
American Interseminary Conference said, “In the student discussion group to
which I was assigned there was little agreement as to the exact nature of the
Gospel... Lack of agreement as to the Gospel was evident not only in the student
interpretation of the platform lectures... but also in the Bible study periods
when the nature of the Gospel was discussed.” The liberal ministry of our day,
rejecting the Gospel as set forth in the New Testament, has lost its way and
lost its divine credentials. Uncertain of its authority, uncertain of its
Gospel, the liberal ministry has an uncertain message.

Many who consider themselves evangelicals have watered down the apostolic Gospel
until it is only a pale imitation of the real thing. Much that passes for
“Gospel preaching” in our day lacks the rich content of the New Testament
Gospel, often given to harmless and inoffensive generalities, and, providing an
“invitation” is given at the end, will pass for “Gospel” preaching. The
evangelical world must restudy the content of apostolic preaching if it expects
to be in apostolic succession. A modern writer Daniel T. Niles, calls attention
to the evangelical tendency to weaken the presentation of the Gospel, saying,
“Often, particularly for the evangelist, the temptation will be strong to make
modifications in the Gospel which will make it more acceptable and more
reasonable, modifications that will take out of the Gospel its offense. But this
temptation must be resisted.” (That They May Have Life, p. 80) Many
evangelicals, preaching a shallow Gospel, are credited with being orthodox, but
their orthodoxy is superficial indeed. The mere absence of modernistic denials
is too often taken as an evidence of orthodoxy. As a result of liberal confusion
and evangelical “trimming” the world is largely ignorant of the true meaning of
the Gospel. Vincent Taylor (The Apostolic Gospel, p. 3) says of our world, “A
generation has arisen which is ignorant of our Gospel and contemptuous of what
it believes it to be. It has followed the false gods of materialism, and
although the shaking events of our times has left it bewildered and skeptical,
it does not believe we have anything relevant to offer.” How can the world take
the Gospel seriously when a large portion of the ministry no longer preach it,
while others offer only an abridged edition of the Gospel, lacking spiritual
power? The ministry of the true Church preaches the apostolic Gospel with
certainty and without abridgement.

~ end of chapter 4 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 05 - THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH
========================================================================

Chapter 5 THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH

“Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and the Lord would put His
Spirit upon them” (Numbers 11:29)!

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of
the Holy Ghost, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

“There is nothing mechanical, automatic, or self-sustaining about the Church,
however; it either lives by the constant supply of power from on high, or it
ceases to exist.” J. R. Nelson (The Realm of Redemption, p. 178).

“The HOLY SPIRIT is the very life of the Church as a spiritual society. He is
the Spirit of life; and where He is not energetically present, spiritual life is
utterly impossible. Exclude the HOLY

SPIRIT from a so-called Christian assembly, and, though it may remain strictly
orthodox, absolutely loyal to its early traditions, and may retain the punctual
observance of the New Testament forms of worship, spiritually it will be as dead
as an Egyptian mummy. Even accession to such an organization only increases the
bulk of the carcass.” Wilson T. Hogue (The HOLY SPIRIT, pp. 284, 285).

“The danger of the older, larger, and more thoroughly organized Churches is
always in the direction of usurping the place of the Holy Spirit.” W. H.
Griffith-Thomas (the Spirit of GOD, p. 263).

“Is it not sad to see the extent to which the equality and priesthood have been
lost sight of in the Church of CHRIST? Instead of gathering immediately to
CHRIST and seeking the light and power of His Spirit, to qualify us to worship
Him aright, we must still look - virtually, if not actually - to some human head
or leader, pope or bishop, priest or minister, to do our worshipping for us. We
must have buildings, splendid in their architecture and costly in their
decorations; we must have beautiful attractions for the eye, and artistic music
for the ear; and the time of the public worship must be taken up largely with
seeing, and hearing, and doing certain things which have been prescribed and
prearranged by others.” Dougan Clark (The Offices of the HOLY SPIRIT, p. 206).

“The HOLY SPIRIT is our only Saviour from the perils of machine administration.
Only when He is the motor is the machine worth while.” John Humpstone (The HOLY
SPIRIT in Life and Service, by A. C. Dixon and others, p. 115) 1. The Church was
formed by the HOLY SPIRIT (Acts 2:1-47). The New Testament records the
constituting of the Church on the day of Pentecost by the HOLY SPIRIT (1
Corinthians 12:13), and thereafter the Spirit abides in every Church composed of
true believers, governing it, providing for its spiritual needs and blessing its
efforts for CHRIST.

2. The HOLY SPIRIT abides in the true Christian Church. Every believer is a
temple of GOD (1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Each believer is joined
with other believers in a true Christian fellowship which becomes a habitation
of the Spirit of GOD. It is idle to talk of fellowship in the Church, or
fellowship between the Churches, apart from the Spirit of GOD. Christian
fellowship is not simply the expression of common interests, but love for a
common Lord and CHRIST, and indwelt by the same Spirit. Religious organizations
not composed of true believers possessed of the HOLY SPIRIT are not true
Churches.

3. The HOLY SPIRIT builds up the Church. “By one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). “They that gladly received his word were
baptized: and the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls”
(Acts 2:41). “And the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved”
(Acts 2:47). By adding believer to believer to CHRIST and the Church, the Church
is enlarged and the local assembly strengthened. It is clear that the New
Testament Church is a gathered Church, consisting of those who are saved and
baptized. The New Testament knows nothing of any other pattern. When Churches
are built up by purely human means, apart from the Spirit of GOD, a worldly,
compromising Church is created which dishonors the Lord and corrupts the
Christian faith.

4. The HOLY SPIRIT administers the true Church. “As they ministered to the Lord
and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work
whereunto I have called them” (Acts 13:2). “He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the Churches” (Revelation 3:6). The HOLY SPIRIT has
been called the “Executive of The Godhead” and He is the One who makes the
Lordship of CHRIST real to the local assembly and effective in its affairs.
Liberal groups of our day, denying the personality of the HOLY SPIRIT and
consequently His sovereignty, have only an idealistic conception of the Lordship
of CHRIST over the Church which lacks effectiveness.

Evangelicals acknowledge the personality of the HOLY SPIRIT, but too often
refuse to accept His sovereignty and proceed presumptuously to expect His
blessings on their humanly devised schemes. The history of the Church is filled
with the wrecks of men’s ideas, ill-conceived projects which failed and the
religious notions of men which have no divine sanction. The true Church
acknowledges JESUS CHRIST as Head and the HOLY SPIRIT as Administrator.

5. The HOLY SPIRIT maintains the unity of the Church. The family of the redeemed
have a spiritual unity because of their relationship, but local groups of
believers must depend upon the HOLY SPIRIT in their midst to give and keep them
in spiritual unity with CHRIST and each other. W. H. Griffith-Thomas says truly,
“He who unites each believer to CHRIST and to his fellow-believers undertakes
the work of maintaining those believers and communities united in CHRIST as the
prime secret of blessing and power.” (The HOLY SPIRIT of GOD, p. 171)Paul writes
to the Ephesians: “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye
walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and
meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one
Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith,
one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, through all, and in
you all” (Ephesians 4:1-6). The unity here is not organic but spiritual; it is
not based upon compromise but truth - it is a unity of obedience to one Lord, of
people holding one faith. Local assemblies of believers who follow human leaders
instead of one Lord; who become a collection of self-willed individuals instead
of obedient children; who do not seek and follow the leadership of the HOLY
SPIRIT, will not enjoy this unity which is the privilege of every group of true
believers. The HOLY SPIRIT unites the Church on one faith. Any other unity is of
man and will not have the blessing of GOD.

6. The HOLY SPIRIT preserves the Church from apostasy. Churches lose the
presence and the fellowship of the HOLY SPIRIT before they lose their orthodoxy.
Wilson T. Hogue (The HOLY SPIRIT, p. 294) says, “Those who quench the Spirit,
grieve the Spirit, resist the Spirit, vex the Spirit, by following after carnal
things, by the indulgence of fleshly dispositions, by manifesting unholy
tempers, words, or actions, by any kind of compromising with iniquity, cannot
enjoy the immunity from being corrupted, or led astray by error, of which we
have been speaking. He is preeminently the HOLY SPIRIT; and to enjoy His
ministry in the heart whatsoever is known or believed to be unholy must be put
away forever from our lives.” The HOLY SPIRIT properly recognized and honored is
the best security against false doctrine and apostasy. The HOLY SPIRIT grieved,
neglected, sinned against weakens the defenses of the Churches against apostasy.

Today the professed Church is filled with a collection of believers, heretics,
apostates, and worldlings of various shades and degrees, and spiritual
discernment seems to have sunk to a new low in Christendom. Even many
evangelical believers have a strange blindness which prevents them from
detecting the false and identifying the true. The cults of the day have drawn
their strength from the Churches, Churches of low spiritual state and
doctrinally untaught. The rapid spread of heresies and the prevalence of
apostasy in religious circles is undoubtedly related to the low spiritual state
of the Churches. It is the HOLY SPIRIT who preserves Churches from apostasy,
more effectively than creeds and the soundest of confessional documents, for
there is no affinity between the HOLY SPIRIT and the prevailing unbelief in
religious circles. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed
unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30).

~ end of chapter 5 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 06 - THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES: THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIAN UNITY
========================================================================

Chapter 6 THE CHURCH AND THE CHURCHES: THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIAN UNITY

“The fundamental problem of the Church is the existence of the Churches.” (Man’s
Disorder and GOD’s Design: Amsterdam Report, p. 17).

“There are two opposite errors on the whole subject which, always observable,
are very prominent in modern times. One is the overvaluation of the importance
of unity, as uniformity. This is rebuked by reason, Scripture, and the evidence
of the fact that the HOLY GHOST does administer the work of CHRIST by sects and
divisions. Much of the progress of the Gospel, and many of its most glorious
achievements, at home and abroad, may be traced to the labors of Christian
societies to a great extent independent of each other.

“But undervaluation of it is equally wrong. Though variety is ordained of GOD,
the nearer to uniformity, or at least to thorough mutual recognition, the estate
of Christendom can be made the better will it be for its peace and dignity and
prosperity.” W. B. Pope (A Compendium of Christian Theology, p. 275).

“The Almighty has always preferred union when men were disposed to do right, but
disunion when they were engaged in wickedness.” Thomas W. Phillips (The Church
of CHRIST, p. 305) “Though divisions have tended to obscure the ideal oneness of
the Church and divert attention from it even as - an ideal, the very fact of
division is an evidence of the seriousness with which Protestants take the
concept of the Church. Every division has been the result of an effort to purify
the Church or restore to it some precious element of its heritage that seemed to
have been lost.” W. E. Garrison (A Protestant Manifesto, p. 120) “Among the
suggested remedies for the present ills of Christianity one which finds many
advocates today is Church union. The suggestion merits serious and indeed
favorable consideration. The fact should not be overlooked, however, that the
heightened interest in ecumenical Christianity with a view to the promotion of
Church union is in part, and perhaps in the first instance one of the symptoms
of the present debilitated condition of the various branches of the Christian
Church... It is one of the more constructive phases of a strategic retreat,”
Douglas Clyde Macintosh (Personal Religion, p. 238).

“Luther did not want to form a separate Church; he was a monk and at first
intended to remain a monk, reforming the Church of his faith from within...
Calvinistic Christians in England, impatient with the general strategy of
waiting for reform within the Church of England, separated themselves out of the
general group of Calvinists, for which they received the name of Separatists,
eventually named Congregationalists... Methodism, not originally intended to be
a separate Church, was founded by John Wesley,” Robert S. Billheirner (The Quest
for Christian Unity, pp. 14, 18, 19).

“My soul has been chilled by a decadent ecclesiasticism,” Fredrick K. Stamm (If
This Be Religion, p. 25) In the early centuries of the Church, denominations did
not exist, consequently there is no New Testament basis for denominationalism.
In the larger sense, there was unity, and heresy and heretics played only a
minor part in the Church life of those early centuries. The seeds of division,
however, are seen in the New Testament where men were prone to follow human
leaders, where heresies arise which, farther removed from the apostles, would
flourish and gain many adherents. It can be said that, while there were emerging
schools of thought, there were no recognized denominations.

Eventually, divisive factors became important and the first great division
occurred between Eastern and Western Catholicism, a division which exists to
this day. The Reformation under Luther and others produced a number of new
groups which were separate from the Roman Church. The march of denominationalism
had begun!

Many reformatory movements such as Methodism and others eventually crystallized
into separate religious groups. The (now) strongly ecumenical Congregationalists
began as Separatists, or Independents, now a term of disapproval in liberal
circles. Many denominations had their beginnings in national or racial groups.
Other groups owe their existence to some human leader, wise or unwise. The
differences between some denominations are vital and to be respected; the
differences between others are unimportant and there is no reason for their
separate existence.

Denominational names, even scriptural names, have largely lost their meaning in
our day and must be supported by adjectives or carefully distinguished to avoid
confusion - they are more of a nuisance than a blessing in the religious world.
Church leaders can hardly claim to have a cure for the disorder of the secular
world when they have no solution for the problem in their own small
ecclesiastical households of faith. The Christian world is cluttered up with
religious antiques, needless divisions and a Babel terminology. The need for
Christianity unity is great and beyond dispute, but the problems are many. The
Need 1. The primary reason for unity is that our testimony for CHRIST might be
more effective. “That they may all be one as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they may also be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast
sent me” (John 17:21). This prayer is not for oneness of organization as it is
commonly interpreted by liberal leaders of the ecumenical movement, but a
spiritual oneness that defies explanation or definition, the oneness of GOD and
Son. Believers who are hid with CHRIST in GOD (Colossians 3:3) are the ones for
whom this unity is desired by CHRIST, not the worldly mixture which is found in
the Churches today.

While this prayer does not primarily refer to the organic unity of the Churches,
which at best can never approximate the unity described here, yet there is every
reason to think that our Lord desired the outward unity of His people when that
unity is based upon the Word of GOD, loyalty and devotion to our Lord, and
fidelity to the fundamental doctrines of the faith.

Churches of like faith should not permit mere human differences to keep them
apart. The purpose of such unity is not that men may believe in the Church, nor
extend the power of the Churches, but that men might believe in the Lord and
CHRIST whom we preach. One does not have to be an advocate of the modern
ecumenical movement, to assert that the 148 groups which form the World Council
of Churches have no scriptural right to continue as separate bodies. One does
not have to be an “ecumaniac” to assert that the hundreds of denominations in
this country have no justification in Scripture or logic. Unity, however, must
not be purchased at the cost of sacrificing fundamental doctrines of the faith,
for the resulting unity would be unblessed of GOD. God prefers disunion for the
rebellious (Genesis 6:1-22).

2. Division breeds its own evils, however justifiable the original causes may
have been. There is an immense amount of wasted time and energy spent in trying
to understand the minute doctrinal and organizational differences between these
groups. These divisions confuse an already confused world. It is very difficult
for the average man to understand the differences between General Baptists,
Regular Baptists, Conservative Baptists, North American Baptists, Southern
Baptists, American Baptists, Bible Baptists, Free Will Baptists, United
Baptists, primitive Baptists and many others. The same could be said of
Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Mennonites and others. The economic waste
of such endless divisions is enormous, with their separate ecclesiastical
structures, their separate publishing enterprises, separate Church structures,
separate mission societies and many other forms of waste. Again, we agree that
waste is preferable to the surrender of precious convictions of truth, but in
many cases these separate convictions do not exist. We are not pleading that
truth and principle be sacrificed to unity, but we do assert that, where these
differences are not vital, that the Spirit of GOD leads toward unity.

3. Divisions among GOD’s people hinder the accomplishment of Christian tasks.
Some communities are over-Churched, while others are under-Churched. Many home
mission tasks are not being done, many orphanages are not being established,
many slum areas have no missions, many things too numerous to mention are not
being done for which the Churches are responsible to GOD. Divisions between
GOD’s people that hinder the work of GOD are not justified.

There are divisions which forward the work of GOD. Many over-Churched
communities will be invaded by new organizations preaching the Gospel, because
the Churches of that community have substituted religious notions for the Word
of GOD. Such conditions both produce and perpetuate separation. It is always the
duty of GOD’s people to enter into any community regardless of the number of
Churches if the Churches are not preaching the true Gospel. Care should be taken
however, that this be the true motive for the new organization and not the
enlargement of a denomination.

Liberal congregations which no longer have any doctrines to divide them might
well unite. Just why liberals, with few convictions and no theological
differences to divide should cling so tenaciously to their separate
denominational identities has always been a puzzle to Biblebelieving people. The
amazing unanimity among liberals on the ecumenical movement, and the few unions
among them are hard to explain. Liberals with nothing to divide them might as
well unite. Evangelicals of the same faith and not separated by vital
convictions owe it to their Lord to be one in the sight of GOD and man. The
Scriptural Basis of Unity 1. The basis of Christian unity. “All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16). “The faith
which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). Thomas W. Phillips says
truly, “The basis for the union of Christians must be a Christian basis. Among
all the conventions that have been called for the union of different sects and
parties they have never adopted a Christian basis. They have always attempted to
form a human platform on which to unite, and, consequently, have always failed.”
(The Church of CHRIST, p. 311) He says further, “The Christian Church is a
divine institution, and therefore it must have a divine constitution.” (p. 311)
The true basis of Christian unity must be the final authority of the Scriptures
in faith and practice. There will always be permitted a reasonable latitude of
interpretation due to the frailties of the human mind and the difficulty of
exact interpretation, but this latitude of interpretation must not be used to
deny the Fundamentals of the faith, to pervert the doctrines of the faith, or to
rob the Christian faith of its original content as in the case of modernism,
liberalism, neo-orthodoxy and other cults.

2. The basis of Christian unity must be the acceptance of the full New Testament
stature of CHRIST as recorded and interpreted by the four evangelists and the
apostles. Since CHRIST is the very Son of GOD (John 3:16), the Head of the
Church (Colossians 1:18), the One who, with authority, gave the commission to
the Church (Matthew 28:18-20), the position that unity must rest upon a full
conception of His deity and authority is inescapable. To take any other
position, or to allow too much latitude of interpretation here, is to be guilty
of treason to our Lord. True Christian unity cannot compromise on the New
Testament teachings concerning our Lord.

3. The basis of true Christian unity must include the autonomy of the local
congregation of true believers, rejecting hierarchies and ecclesiastical
authority over the Churches of CHRIST. The local government and final authority
of the New Testament Churches is not an accident of history, but a divine
provision against ecclesiasticism, the lessening of local responsibility to GOD
for doctrine and practice, and total apostasy. New Testament congregations were
independent, local assemblies, associating together voluntarily, with their
group decisions advisory in nature (Acts 15:1-41). Christian unity must include
this independence and direct responsibility of GOD for doctrine and life. (See
The Independence of the Local Church by the author.) 4. The possibility and
shadow of apostacy constantly threatens the peace and purity of the Churches.
Paul, in the days of the early Church, warned against these things and even
predicted their coming. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of demons” (1 Timothy 4:1-2). “This know also, that in the last days
perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves... having
a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2
Timothy 3:1, 2 Timothy 3:5). Peter and Jude sound the same note of warning and
justify the rejection of heretics and apostates who threaten the peace and
purity of the Churches.

True Christian unity cannot include apostasy, even though it is cloaked in
religious language and enjoys ecclesiastical sanction. The modern ecumenical
movement has no safeguards against apostasy and no testimony against apostasy,
and its latitudinarianism may lead it into apostasy.

Christian unity, beyond all question, must be thoroughly Christian in the
biblical sense.

Four Types of Religious Unity The new emphasis upon the Church has brought into
being four types of movements toward religious unity.

1. The one true Church type. The Roman Catholic Church, and certain other groups
take the position that they have the true form and doctrines of the Church, a
valid ministry, and those who desire the unity of the Church should unite with
them. Robert S. Billheimer (The Quest for Christian Unity, pp. 5, 6) says, “The
Roman Catholic Church is not a party to the present ecumenical movement. She is
not by her own choice and by virtue of her own position. From her viewpoint she
is the only true Church on earth, CHRIST having passed His authority and His
work exclusively to her. Union with Rome is possible, and can be discussed, only
on the basis of a return to her basic position. She cannot and will not talk
with Churches which demand that they be recognized as Churches. She can only as
the true and righteous talk with the schismatic and heretic, with a view to
their correction. For this reason the Roman Church does not appear in ecumenical
discussion.” Churches which believe they are the only true Church may be very
close to the New Testament pattern, but will have little success in getting
others to leave all and follow them.

2. The liberal universal type. The World Council, the various national councils,
the state and city councils, are based upon the idea that all Church groups are
a part of the universal Church, which they conceive to be the body of CHRIST,
regardless of differences in belief or manner of life. The basis of membership
in such unions is vague and plausibly simple to secure harmony. The underlying
basis of fellowship is not a common faith in the fundamental doctrines of the
Christian faith but a common task. The organization is generally indifferent to
belief or unbelief.

3. The inclusive evangelical type. Such evangelicals think there is a real need
for a united evangelical front against modernism, for united action in certain
fields of service, and a united testimony on certain issues. They are commonly
organized on a confessional basis, professing faith in the Fundamentals of the
Christian faith as held by true evangelicals through the years. In the interests
of a united front, Churches and individuals can subscribe to these Fundamentals,
and at the same time serve and support denominational organizations which do not
subscribe to these Fundamentals, and even deny them. Churches and individuals
can give a portion of their income to the evangelical cause, while the rest of
their contributions are used to support the very thing against which the
evangelical fellowships are organized, making for confusion. This basic
contradiction is seen in every department of the work of such fellowships. The
inclusive evangelical fellowships, attempting to hold consistent evangelicals in
the same fellowship with inconsistent evangelicals, are continually in a state
of tension between principle and practice. It cannot be thoroughly inclusive, it
dare not be consistently exclusive in harmony with its theological confession.
Unable to unite evangelicals on the basis of truth consistently applied, it
appeals for love to overlook the violation of truth.

4. The exclusive evangelical type. These groups extend membership to such
Churches which subscribe to their confession of faith and refuse fellowship to
those who deny the Fundamentals of the faith, thus making religious fellowship
confessional rather than experiential or expedient. This makes for consistency
between profession and practice; between principle and policy.

~ end of chapter 6 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 07 - THE DEVELOPING CATHOLICISM OF LIBERAL ECUMENICITY
========================================================================

Chapter 7 THE DEVELOPING CATHOLICISM OF LIBERAL ECUMENICITY

“We must not overrate the position and importance of the Church. It is only too
possible to do this. But it will mean spiritual loss and disaster. If we exalt
the Church we are likely to forget CHRIST. High views of the Church often mean
low views of CHRIST. If we emphasize the Church as the depository of Grace
between the sinner and the Saviour we may easily shut CHRIST out of the sinner’s
view. But if we exalt CHRIST the Church finds her proper place. If we honor
CHRIST, we shall value the Church aright.” W. H. Griffith-Thomas, (The Catholic
Faith, p. 128) “The moment form takes precedence over content religious faith
begins to expire. And if preoccupation with form becomes so complete that it
results in form being mistaken for content, then faith is already dead. This
happened on a wide scale in Europe during the latter part of the fifteenth
century, and produced the Protestant Reformation. It is happening on a wide
scale now.” Francis P. Miller (The Church Against the World, by Niebuhr, Pauck
and Miller, p. 80).

“Another suggestion, innocent enough and even valuable as a subsidiary measure,
is that we need an ’enriched ritual’ of public worship. But if it be supposed
that the one great need of our Protestant Christianity is to have a more
aesthetic service of worship, there hardly could be a greater mistake. What is
needed is new life and motivation from within, rather than the putting on of an
artificial show of piety and zealous devotion. Let the typical, spiritually
anaemic Church of today paint her cadaverous countenance with the rouge of an
’enriched ritual’; she will scarcely for all that hide from the world or from
herself, not to speak of hiding from GOD, the melancholy fact that through her
own folly she has lost her health and vigor, that she is in a serious state of
decline, and that if her malady be not arrested, her sickness may indeed prove
to be unto death. The mask of an ’enriched ritual’ will not be enough.” Douglas
Clyde Macintosh (Personal Religion, pp. 239, 240).

“Feeling its way, and lacking in precise terminology, the Amsterdam Assembly
defined these different viewpoints as the ’Catholic’ and ’protestant: Those at
the Assembly and many since have expressed their dissatisfaction with these
terms, but for want of better ones they must be used.

They are meant to indicate not two distinct Churches, nor in a wholly precise
fashion even two groups of Churches. They are rather meant to indicate two
typical, coherent ways of looking at the Christian faith, which are roughly
adopted by different groups of Churches.” (Robert S.

Billheimer (The Quest for Christian Unity, p. 66).”A Protestantism which
survives as a pale and broken shadow of Catholicism has lost its reason for
existence. For a while it will go on with its pious liturgies, dishonest
’orthodoxy’, vague and inane moralism, and its ludicrous bid for power in
society. Then, it will either become truly Catholic or die in disgrace.” Joseph
Haroutunian (Wisdom and Folly in Religion, p.22).

“The opinion that the institutional Church is the incarnation, that is, the
’concretely historical form, the form of a servant in which JESUS CHRIST is
historically manifest, amounts to nothing less than a denial that the apostolic
Ecclesia is a real fact of history. The New Testament writings with their
picture of the Ecclesia shows that the Lord created for himself a body which was
certainly not a Church, but a spiritual communion of persons. The opinion that
to take seriously the incarnation requires that one should vindicate
ecclesiasticism and allow the historical Church to be the necessary embodiment
of the exalted Lord, overlooks the fact that He was truly embodied in the
Ecclesia, but that this embodiment, the Ecclesia, had not the character which it
later assumed: the character of an institution.” Emil Brunner (Misunderstanding
the Church, pp.

85, 86).

“The Church, as we have conceived it, includes all men. Men do not come into it,
because they are in it. The possession of humanity is possession of redeemed
humanity, in an age of redemption, in a redeemed world.” (p. 62) “... For two
thousand years now it has been recognized that the whole world has been
redeemed. Any other idea with its ensuing conduct is out of date.” (p. 63) “...
There is a Church because all mankind is newly created. This new folk is the
Church. ’Christians’ are merely those who recognize the new mankind. Jews and
Pagans belong to it, but their subjective participation is defective. They are
belated and premature.” (p.

65, 66) Clifford 1. Stanley (Christian Faith and Social Action, Edited by John
A. Hutchinson).

“The ecumenical movement is like a team of wild horses: motion is assured, the
problem being which direction it will take.” Robert S. Billheimer (The Quest for
Christian Unity, p. 103) Liberalism, formerly indifferent to the Church and,
forgetting the dangers to the Christian faith and to the human spirit from an
organized Catholicism, is now steadily moving toward a Catholic, ritualistic,
sacramentarian, hierarchical Churchism, with a minimal doctrinal positionliberal
Catholicism. This liberal Catholicism is a synthetic unity of human opinions,
rather than a unity based upon the acceptance of all the truths of divine
revelation. It is inclusive, not the inclusivism of a common faith, but an
inclusivism based upon the premise that all truth is relative, and without final
authority. It is based upon the new idea that differences concerning the
interpretation of the Christian faith, formerly considered vital and exclusive,
are not vital and should not exclude.

Liberal Catholicism is developing a Catholic doctrine of the Church which will
give it an authority over the human spirit based upon a sanctity which it does
not actually possess. It is a false sanctity because a worldly, compromising,
half-believing Church cannot be the medium of grace and the voice of GOD to the
human spirit.

1. The body of CHRIST is now said by many to be the universal, visible Church
with all its doctrinal and moral impurities - a nonethical conception of the
Church. Gustaf Aulen of the Lutheran Church of Sweden says, “When the Church is
called the body of CHRIST, that means first of all that CHRIST and the Church
belong together as an inseparable unity. Where CHRIST is, there is also His
Church: and where the Church is, there CHRIST is found also... CHRIST is
incarnate in His Church.” (Man’s Disorder and GOD’s Design: Amsterdam Report, p.
19). An American liberal, Charles Clayton Morrison (What is Christianity, p.
156) presents the same idea, which he erroneously attributes to Paul. “Paul’s
conception of the incarnation as the body of CHRIST is thoroughgoing. He
completely identifies CHRIST with the Church, the Church with CHRIST. He knows
no Church apart from CHRIST and no CHRIST apart from the Church.” The New
Testament teaches no such thing, Morrison and all others, notwithstanding! Such
a high view of the Church, and consequently, a low view of the CHRIST, is
spiritually pernicious and socially harmful as history attests. In pulling the
Church up to the level of CHRIST, CHRIST is reduced to the level of the Church!

2. The new Catholicism would make the experience of being “in CHRIST” a Church
relationship rather than a covenant relationship between CHRIST and the
individual. Paul undoubtedly thought and taught that the phrase “in CHRIST” was
descriptive of an individual experience received directly and not mediated
through a sacramental Church or “redemptive fellowship.” This was certainly true
in his case. To him being “in CHRIST” described an individual relationship
between the believing individual and His redeeming Saviour. Liberal Catholicism
would have it otherwise. J. Robert Nelson (Realm of Redemption, p. 86)
commenting on this development of ecclesiastical thought, says, “Instead of a
union between the individual and CHRIST, we now see the individual in relation
to the community, which is the body of CHRIST. In short, Paul’s phrase ’in
Christ’ is said by many to be equivalent of ’in the Church.’“ But the new
liberal Catholicism marches on!

3. The new Catholicism makes the Church “the extension of the Incarnation.” John
A. F. Gregg (Man’s Disorder and GOD’s Design, p. 59) says, “The Church is the
extension in time and space of the Incarnate Word of GOD, crucified, ascended,
glorified, operating among men through the indwelling in them of His HOLY
SPIRIT.” J. S. Whale asserts that the “Church is rightly known by all Christians
as an extension of the Incarnation.” (Christian Doctrine, p. 140).

Karl Barth was reported as warning delegates at Amsterdam to “fear such phrases
as the Church ’the continuation of the Incarnation.’ We must ever distinguish
between CHRIST on high and our Christian ecclesiastical life.” (Southern
Presbyterian Journal, 9-15-1948) Yet a Southern Baptist scholar (W. O. Carver in
The Nature of the Church, Edited by R. N. Flew. p. 293) says, “As a rule we do
not think of the Church as a local ’continuation of the Incarnation.’ Nor do
most Baptists conceive of the Church (the entire body of believers) as the
’continuation of the Incarnation.’ But it is the conviction of an increasing
number of us that this is a thoroughly scriptural and highly important way of
conceiving the Church.” Here is an illustration of the drift toward Catholic
views of the Church among liberal Baptists.

There are objections to this view of the Church, even among the liberals. As
Karl Barth expresses this relationship, JESUS CHRIST is the heavenly Head of the
Church; but the Church is, “as His earthly body, bound to Him as such, and yet
as such distinct from Him, who possess the Church in Himself, but not the Church
Him in herself, between whom and her there is no reversible, interchangeable
relationship, as certainly as the relationship between master and servant is not
reversible.” (The Doctrine of the Word of GOD, p. 113)J. Robert Nelson says, “As
Head of the Body, then CHRIST is both distinct from the Body and inseparable
from it. He unites the body in Himself, and is yet not to be identified with it.
His Spirit gives the Church life and direction, but He is not the soul of the
Church. Again the paradoxical relationship of CHRIST to the Church, the Head to
the Body, becomes manifest.”

Again he says, “However much CHRIST may need the Church as the instrument of His
redemptive work in the world, therefore, it remains subordinate to Him in
nature, drawing whatever meaning and value it has from its relation to Him. The
Body lives only because it draws power from the Head, but it is not identical
with the Head.” (The Realm of Redemption, pp. 93, 95) The concept of the Church
as the “extension of the Incarnation” leads back to Rome!

4. The new Catholicism defined. Walter M. Horton, (Realistic Theology, pp. 142,
143) who thinks his theology is realistic (whatever that means) says of the
Church, “All that we have said of the work of CHRIST applies, therefore, to the
work of the Church except that the Church can have only one founder, one ’chief
corner-stone:’ (1) The Church continues CHRIST’s work of mediation between God
and man; it makes the life of GOD more and more immanent and actual in human
life. (2) The Church continues the work which was so important a part of his
Galilean ministry, that of bringing new power and forgiveness to individuals who
are bound in fetters of evil habit. (3) The Church continues the work which led
him to the Cross, that of defying and breaking the power of evil social customs
and institutions.

One might go on, indeed, to note that all theological concepts which apply to
CHRIST, so also apply to the Church. If GOD becomes manifest and incarnate in
CHRIST, so also in the Church; if CHRIST has two natures, divine and human, so
has the Church, if he has power to forgive sin, make atonement, and bestow
saving grace, so has the Church. For the Church is the body of which he is the
head, the organism through which he continues to live and act, ’even unto the
end of the world.’ The view just defined undoubtedly has more affinity with
medieval Catholic realism than with Protestant individualism and nominalism.”
This is a strange doctrine for those who trace their ancestry back to the
Reformation.

Again, a professor in a Baptist Seminary (of all places) voices the Catholic
view of the Church.

C. G. Rutenber, professor of the Philosophy of Religion, Eastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, says, “To remind ourselves that the Church is the present
body of CHRIST His continuing body in history, is inevitably to invite
comparison between His then-body and His now-body. The same divine love and life
and wisdom which became flesh in the biological body of JESUS

CHRIST is now flesh in His present body, the Church. The Church as the body of
CHRIST is the continuation of the incarnation, and of the atonement and of the
resurrection. Its life and love and mind are CHRIST’s life and love and mind.
The resurrection and ascension of CHRIST does not mean that He has abandoned the
world.

Rather through His body, the Church, He is reaching out to mend and heal and
save. The love that redeems (the atoning event) must be love which is seen and
revealed anew through His present body, the Church (imitating and reenacting
community).” (The Dagger and the Cross, p. 61) Here is the new Catholicism, not
from the pen of a Roman priest as the words might indicate, but from the pen of
a Baptist professor in a Baptist seminary. The drift toward Catholicism is on in
all liberal groups.

5. The new Catholicism tends to make the Church the medium through which the
gift of the HOLY SPIRIT is received. Herbert W. Schneider (Religion in Twentieth
Century America, pp. 150-155) calls attention to the growth of liturgy and
ritualism in Protestant Churches. He refers to the liberal Catholic trend in
theology, “which implies an acceptance of modernism in the field of historical
criticism and ritualism in the art of worship,” a trend which is very noticeable
in those Churches which seem to be moving into the new Catholicism. Speaking of
the Episcopalians, he says, “In their Catholic zeal some of the Episcopalians
have exceeded the Roman Catholics in championing the ’corporate’ channels of
grace or sacraments.” He quotes Theodore Wedel (The Coming Great Church, p. 60)
as saying, “The HOLY SPIRIT is henceforth a corporate, not individual
possession. Church and HOLY SPIRIT are from this point on inseparable... Apart
from the corporate community, there is no gift of the HOLY SPIRIT.”

Men who call themselves “evangelicals” among liberals, are becoming Catholic
rather than evangelical, for these tendencies will destroy the evangelical faith
unless checked. Christendom is well on its way to the great apostasy, embracing
the heresies of Romanism, while rejecting its orthodoxy. A cold, high-Churchism
threatens Protestantism, as sterile as all high-Churchisms have been in the
past. The New Testament doctrine of the Church stands in deadly peril in the
house of its professed friends.

~ end of chapter 7 ~

***


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 08 - SUMMARY
========================================================================

SUMMARY “During the Boxer Rebellion hundreds, probably thousands of Chinese
Christians were martyred.

There they knelt, with their heads on the block, the knives trembling in the
hands of their executioners. All they needed to do was grunt out a Chinese word
that meant ’I recant’ and their lives would be saved. Now, what should I have
done under these circumstances? And I speak not simply personally, but in a
representative capacity, for I think the rest of you are very much like myself.
With my head on the block I suspect I would have said, ’Hold on! I think I can
make a statement that will be satisfactory to all sides.” F. J. McConnell.
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly
contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are
certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:3-4).

1. The Church of the New Testament was a Messianic community claiming the
spiritual promises to Israel, and professing to be the fulfillment of many of
its prophesies. In spiritual heritage, in original membership, it was vitally
related to Israel.

2. The Church is presented in the New Testament under many figures of speech,
thus giving to the people of GOD a rich description of its nature and character.

3. True Churches can be identified by certain marks of spiritual authenticity,
so that men may know the true Churches from the false Churches. A true Church
preaches the pure Word of GOD, properly administers the divinely given
ordinances, and applies the doctrinal and moral disciplines of the Word of GOD,
keeping its doctrine pure and its life consistent.

4. The ministry of a true Church is called of GOD, has a truly evangelical
Christian experience, preaches the apostolic Gospel under the anointing of the
Spirit of GOD, and seeks to get men to prepare to meet their GOD by salvation of
their souls through the atoning CHRIST.

5. True Christian unity, based upon a firm and clear acceptance of the great
doctrines of the Christian faith should be the hope and prayer of every
Christian heart, and encouraged by every Christian leader. At the same time
unscriptural unity must be rejected, dangerous compromises refused, and human
schemes examined critically, keeping in mind the possibility of apostasy.

6. The liberal theological movement with its stress upon religious unity
independent of acceptance of fundamental Christian doctrines, seems to be
leading to that predicted apostasy of the Church against which we are warned in
Holy Writ. The new Catholicism, giving a sanctity to an institution apart from
sanctified individuals, giving spiritual authority to an ecclesiastical
organization composed of fallible and sinful men, leads inevitably to a cold,
sterile, highChurchism, whose perils are illustrated in the coldness of
Unitarianism, the emptiness of ritualism, the moral impotency of a corrupt
Catholicism. True believers must not accept a false unity, unknown in Scripture
and potential in apostate tendencies. The doctrine of the Church in our times as
set forth in the New Testament is in peril in the house of its professed
friends.

~ end of book ~


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/tulga-chester-e-the-doctine-of-the-church-in-these-times/
========================================================================