Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 3

Part 2 Here

It's critical we define how we mean the word “church” before we go any further. In our day and age we use it mostly in ways that are foreign to the meaning of scripture. I’m going to here give the full definition of the noun church found in our current Merriam-Webster dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church) so you can compare and contrast that with a biblical definition given by Sylvester Hassell. My purpose is to be very intentional about what we may think is meant by church to divorce ourselves from the definitions not considered in the New Testament for the purpose of this study. Like all English words, church has taken its own path in evolving in a living language. The biblical definition, as given by Hassell is the definition of the Greek word used in the New Testament. The Greek language is dead and therefore we have confidence that we understand the full extent of it’s meaning. For future articles, we’ll dive into more details about the biblical meaning to clarify and enhance our understanding of the institution Christ established.

Webster: 

church noun

1: a building for public religious services and especially Christian worship

2 often Church : a body or organization of religious believers: such as

a: the institution of the Christian religion : the Christian religion seen as an organization

b: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body

The word church … is put for the Persons that are ordained for the Ministry of the Gospel, that is to say, the Clergy—J. Ayliffe

c: denomination

the Presbyterian church

d: the whole body of Christians

… the One Church is the whole body gathered together from all ages …—J. H. Newman

e: congregation

… they had appointed elders for them in every church …—Acts 14:23 (Revised Standard Version)

3: a public divine worship

goes to church every Sunday

4: the clerical profession

considered the church as a possible career

Hassell, History of the Church of God, 1886, pg. 291:

The Greek word rendered “church” in the New Testament is “ekklesia”, which is derived from the verb ek-kaleo, to call out, and denotes an assembly called out, a select body separated from the mass of the people. In ancient Greece the ekklesia in each State was the assembly of free-born, native, self-governing citizens, the highest legal body in the land, from which there was no appeal; slaves and foreigners were excluded from the ekklesia. In the Septuagint ekklesia is the usual rendering of the Hebrew word kahal, “the congregation” of Israel or of the Lord, from which were excluded the uncircumcised, the unclean and the “mixed multitude”. Ekklesia occurs in the New Testament 115 times; twice referring to the Hebrew “congregation of the Lord,” three times referring to the Greek assembly, and 110 times referring to the Christian church. In 92 of these last cases the reference is to a special, local, visible society of Christians; in the remaining 18 cases the reference is the entire body of the elect in Heaven and on earth, or what is sometimes called the invisible church (as in Ephesians v. 25, 29; iii. 10, 21; Colossians i. 18, 24; Hebrews xii. 23). The word is never used in the New Testament to designate a universal (or Catholic) visible church, a national church (as the Church of Judea or England), or a denominational church (as the church was not divided into different denominations in the Apostolic Age, and as there was not then any great organization, like the Presbyterian Church of the Methodist Church, including in itself a large number of local congregations). A visible church is always in Scripture a local body; and every local church, acting by a majority of its members (in 2 Cor ii. 6, “ton pleionon” is, literally, not “many”, but “the more” the majority), is invested by Christ with the exclusive and final power of receiving, disciplining, excluding and restoring its members, electing its officers, and transacting all other necessary business (Rom. Xiv. 1; Matt. Xviii. 15-18; 1 Cor v. 4, 5, 7, 11-13; Rom xvi. 17; 2 Thess. Iii. 6; Acts i. 15-26; vi 1-6; 1 Cor. Xvi. 3; xiv. 23).

Part 4 Here

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 2

Part 1 here

Why am I making a point about not being a protestant? If it’s not clear to you, then I want you to understand how radical and distinctive the Primitive Baptists doctrine of the church is from all the major Christian groups. I love the Primitive Baptists, not just as people individually (there are many other individuals and families I also love), but as an institution and fellowship of a distinct character and separate from the world. I have faith based on the promises of God that he has preserved his church through the ages and that we have that inheritance in this time and place and I want it to stay and grow here as we move to the next generation.

We are taught in scripture, including Daniel 2:44 and Mathew 16:18, that Christ established a kingdom on earth, Jesus called it his church, and it will remain true and faithful as a witness of the Truth in every generation. If this function were carried out by the Roman empire-church, then protestants had no right to split it up and were schismatics. By establishing new churches on principles lost for centuries, they couldn’t be the church started by Christ because that shall never be prevailed against. Being identified with Christ is the only reason I’m concerned with church identity.

I’m not saying that the true church has always looked exactly like us, that we can name them by existing historical records, nor that there are no true churches at any other place with another name and language with heritage back to the apostles. My ignorance of them doesn’t mean that they don’t or didn’t exist. But I am saying that no church that is substantially different from us is the true church. Primitive Baptists don’t decide who is or isn’t the church, that’s the work of the Lord—the only head of this church. What we do is try to acknowledge the leadership of God in every matter, and when it comes to worship and spiritual matters, withdraw and reject those things which are incompatible with the truth. This is the only way for true fellowship and unity. Christian fellowship and unity in the church is based on Christ alone and God is not the author of confusion. Identifying other denominations as part of the Church and then maintaining a distinct identity from them is inconsistent. If they are the church then there should be no divisions in it, if they aren’t keeping themselves separate from the world, then they are of the world and we should come out from among them. 2 Cor 6:16-18.

When I get questions about why we don’t invite members of other Christian denominations to our communion table, or why we “re” baptize folks who want to convert, I’ve never been satisfied in my ability to answer them. It’s a major sticking point for many people so I thought it worthwhile to study it for better understanding and the best way I know how to master a subject is to explain it to others as cogently as I can. I want us to get a firm handle on the doctrine of the church and that includes disabusing ourselves of much of the error that comes from the Protestant view of the church that undermines church perpetuity. I don’t see myself as having all the answers here, so as I try to lay my beliefs out, I invite correction in brotherly charity to put my ideas to the test.

Part 3 Here

Church Identity and Perpetuity -Part 1

 There are about 700 organizations in America today, claiming to be churches. Every one of these false churches can be traced to some man as their founder. Every one of these, each and all, have their own man-made creeds or faiths, and they are as conflicting as light and darkness. They can't all be true. But our school textbook writers throw all these conflicting creeds into one pile, and label the whole conglomerated mess: "The Christian Church!" Baptists have been permitting their children to be taught this monstrous falsehood without entering a protest. No wonder confusion, infidelity, atheism and wickedness are stalking rampant everywhere, defying every code of decency. The ONE and ONLY true Church is the Bride of Christ. She walks with him, trusts in him, leans on his arm, and has never strayed off into some spiritual "red light" district and needed reforming.

-Monroe Jones in The Bride and Seven Other Women 1948

I have never viewed myself as Protestant although I constantly get lumped into that pile. I’m a Primitive Baptist and have a heritage of baptism in churches that go back to Christ and the apostles without ever coming out of the Roman Catholic Church.  I have come to find out that that is called “pseudohistory” and that “no reputable church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament”. Should I just submit to the scholarly opinions accepted by even Baptist scholars that all Baptists are protestants?

The realistic truth is, my Baptism doesn’t have some kind of pedigree like a registered Border Collie that certifies and proves the validity of each baptism back to Christ. No one does. If you think a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox has such a pedigree (doubtful), then I would argue that is only a nominal or mechanical succession. I’m not really interested in a succession of the same name, or a perpetuity based on human tradition, but rather interested in perpetuity of the same faith and discipline from Christ.

Before I can jump into history, it’s vital I review my starting point. The first axiom is that the 66 books of the Bible are the infallible word of God and therefore the only authoritative source of light on the subject. But didn’t the Bible come from the church? No. The Bible contains revelation from God to the church, through God’s servants. The church never decided what God’s words were, they recognized them and submitted to him by obeying those words and rejecting anything spurious pretending to be God’s words. I know what they are by tradition, yes. Tradition means to hand down over time. So, in some sense, I am relying on the church while putting that tradition to the test. That’s the only starting point I have at my disposal. First, my church must be judged on the authority we profess to follow. If we pass that, then the protestants are out because we profess the same authority. If we fail the test of the scriptures we hold to, then our tradition does nothing to validate the Bible we profess as the authentic words of God, and I’m left to search for the tradition that kept the oracles as delivered from Christ. I don’t see any consistency in the belief that you can know what the scriptures are and deny the tradition that kept them through the generations. The perpetuity of the church and perpetuity of the scriptures go hand in hand.

From the Bible, I want to go through and carefully review what it teaches about the identity of the church. Then and only then can I judge the history, because we have to subject each historian’s conclusion to the light of the Bible, not the other way around.

Part 2 Here