In Search of the
Elder Milburn Cockrell
THE MEANING OF ‘EKKLESIA’
all Protestant Christendom there prevails the teaching that the word church has
a twofold meaning in the New Testament. They say at times it is used in the
local sense and at other times in the sense of a universal, invisible church
consisting of all believers. They make the word to have a literal sense and a
Universal church people are not agreed on just what this invisible church really is. The strict dispensationalists would give this definition: "The true church, composed of the whole number of regenerate persons from Pentecost to the first resurrection (I Cor.
Strict covenant theologians have a much larger church than dispensationalists. They say: "The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all" (Confession of Faith of the United Presbyterian Church, Chap. 25, Article 1, p. 36, of the 1961-62 annual).
For 117 years of its existence the Southern Baptist Convention had no article of faith about the universal, invisible church. In the 1950s and 1960s the liberals ceased power, and in 1962 a revised confession was adopted which said: "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages" (Article VI). This is essentially the strict covenant view of the church.
The dispensationalists make the church to be the whole number of regenerate persons from Pentecost to the first resurrection. They would exclude the Old Testament saints from being in the church and all New Testament saints before the day of Pentecost. The covenant theologian has a much larger church consisting of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one. Nevertheless, both schools have a universal, invisible church. This view is so generally believed that any person who dares to reject it is branded as a "misguided fanatic."
In this booklet I shall not inquire any more as to what theologians and creeds say about the church. There is no such thing as an inerrant creed or an infallible theologian. The final court of appeal is the Bible. What men may say about the Bible is unimportant. The great question is: What is the New Testament idea of a church? Does the New Testament authorize only the local idea of the word church, or does it authorize the universal, invisible idea, or both? It will be my purpose to prove that when we are shut up to the New Testament alone, only one definite idea of the church rules the field. In the New Testament the true and actual church is a local, visible body of baptized believers.
A limited reading of the New Testament will prove that a church made disciples (Matt. 28:19), baptized these disciples in water (Matt. 28:19), and taught them what Christ commanded (Matt. 28:20). A true New Testament church received members (Rom. 14:1), elected officers (Acts 1:23; 6:5), sent out missionaries (Acts 13:1-4), observed the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11), had regular and stated meetings (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:1-2), settled disputes (Acts 15:1-41), excluded the disorderly (I Cor. 5:9-13; II Thess. 3:14), restored the penitent (II Cor. 2:1-10), and condemned false doctrine (Rom. 16:17-18). None of these things could have been done by a universal, invisible church.
Since the term "the universal, invisible church" is no where found in the New Testament, I must say that we do not have much to go on in our search. But in order to make sure the word church never has any meaning other than a local church, we must examine every passage in the New Testament on this important subject. Let us look into the Book and see what God has been pleased to reveal. If the universal, invisible church is of the great importance which some attach to it, surely the Bible will set this doctrine forth in plain language for all to see. Otherwise, there is no need nor place for the universal, invisible church.
The word "church" found in our KJV is a translation of the Greek word ekklesia. In the Greek New Testament it occurs 115 times. In our KJV church is found 114 times. However, two of these times should be excluded from our study. In Acts
THE NON CHRISTIAN USAGE
to discover the primary and literal meaning of the Greek word ekklesia, let us look carefully at its non-
Christian usage in
Wickcliff (1380) translates these three passages "church." Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), and the Rhemish Version (1582) all translate the word in Acts 19 "congregation." The New International Version, the New English Bible, The New Testament by Charles Williams, the Twentieth Century New Testament, the Centenary Translation, the Judaean New Testament, the Weymouth Version, Moffatt's version, and the Emphasized Bible all translate all three verses in Acts 19 as "assembly." The Amplified New Testament translates verse 39 and 41 "assembly," but in verse 32 it is "gathering." The New Berkeley Version translates verse 32 and 39 "assembly," but in verse 41 it is "gathering." The New Testament in Basic English has "meeting" and so does the Good News for Modern Man (a version which is so bad it ought to be called bad news for any man).
None of these translate ekklesia "the called out." If as our opponents claim the word means "the called out," why did not any of these scholars so translate? Yet they say all scholars agree with them! The word ekklesia does not mean "the called out." It means "assembly," "congregation," "gathering," or "meeting." This literal and primary meaning precludes the so-called universal, invisible church. There is no such thing as an assembly which cannot assemble, or a congregation which never congregates. The meaning of the word prohibits such a meaning. The universal, invisible church has never assembled and never will on this earth in this gospel age. Hence such a thing is a mere concept of the mind, having no real existence in time or place.
One time in the New Testament the word church ekklesia is applied to the congregation or assembly of
ITS PLURAL USAGE
The word Ekklesia in the plural form occurs 36 times in the
Greek New Testament (Acts 9:31; 15:41; 16:5; Rom. 16:4,
16; I Cor. 7:17; 11:16; 14:33-34; 16:1,19;
II Cor. 8:1, 18, 19, 23-24; 11:8, 28;
12:13; Gal. 1:2, 22; I Thess. 2:14; II Thess.
1:4; Rev. 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 11, 17,
23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16). So far
as I know no one has yet invented the doctrine of the universal, invisible
churches. Therefore, the plural tolerates nothing but the local idea. It leaves
no place for either the universal, invisible church of the Protestants, or the
universal visible church of the Catholics. These 36 plural usage's
confirm the literal and primary sense of the word is correct. This leaves 75
Some make a big to do over Acts
THE CHURCH IN A CERTAIN PLACE
times the word church is used in the singular number, and it points to a church
which meets in a certain place. These passages are as follows:
"The church which was at
"The church which was in
"The church that was in
"The church at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1).
"The church that is in their house" (
"The church which is in his house" (Col. 4:15).
"The church of the Laodiceans" (Col. 4:16).
"The church of the Thessalonians" (I Thess. 1:1).
"The church of the Thessalonians" (II Thess. 1:1).
"The church in thy house" (Phile. 2).
"The church in
"The church at Pergamos" (Rev. 2:12).
"The church in Thyatira" (Rev. 2:18).
"The church in
"The church in
"The church of the Laodiceans" (Rev.3:14).
These verses most certainly refer to a local church, an assembly of people who meet in a given locality, a body of baptized believers. There is no such thing as a universal, invisible church which meets in a certain place. A church which gathers in a certain place is both local and visible. This leaves 55 more verses to consider.
LOCATION IN THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT
other passages the word church is located in a certain place in the immediate
context. These verses are as follows:
"The Lord added to the (
"Fear came upon all the (
"As for Saul, he made havock of the (
"His hands to vex certain of the (
"But prayer was made without ceasing of the (
"And being brought on their way by the (
"They were received by the (
"He ... saluted the (
"Called the elders of the (Ephesian) church" (Acts
"The church that is in their house" (
"Least esteemed in the (Corinthian) church" (I Cor. 6:4).
"Despise ye the
"He that prophesieth edifieth the (Corinthian) church" (I Cor. 14:4).
"The (Corinthian) church may receive edifying" (I Cor. 14:5).
"The edifying of the (Corinthian) church" (I Cor.
"In the (Corinthian) church I had rather speak" (I Cor.
"Let him keep silence in the (Corinthian) church" (I Cor.
"For women to speak in the (Corinthian) church" (I Cor.
"Let not the (Ephesian) church be charged" (I Tim.
"In the midst of the (
"Thy charity before the (Ephesian) church" (III John 6).
"I wrote unto the (Ephesian) church" (III John 9).
"Casteth them out of the (Ephesian) church" (III John 10).
IN CONNECTION WITH COMING TOGETHER
We are now
going on to consider the remaining 32 passages. Three times the word church is
connected with a coming together. This precluded a universal, invisible church
in the strongest possible manner. They also demonstrate what a church really is
in the New Testament sense. These verses can mean nothing but a local, visible
body of baptized believers.
First, consider Acts
Second, look at Acts 14:27: "And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles." Please note the words ''gathered the church together.'' A church in the New Testament sense can be gathered together in one place. In this one place the things of God can be rehearsed. Such can never be said of some supposed universal, invisible church.
Third, I Corinthians
have 29 passages left. Thus far we have not found even one thing which in the
least resembles the universal, invisible church. To the universal church people
the whole church consists of "the whole number of the elect,
that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one." But in the New
Testament "the whole church" is always used to refer to a local
church. Then why do they use the expression "the whole church" to
mean all the elect? Where is their Scriptural authority for doing so?
I shall prove what I have said. "If therefore the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" (I Cor. 14:23). The whole church here could be assembled into one place. The meaning is the whole membership of the Corinthian church. Note Romans 16:23: "Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you." This is the church which met in Gaius' house, the church which could salute the Roman Christians. The same usage can be seen in Acts
COUPLED WITH OTHER WORDS
We are now
down to 26 passages yet to be studied. Two times the word church is accompanied
by the word "every."
"And when they had ordained them elders in every church" (Acts
"I teach in every church" (I Cor.
One time church is coupled with "no."
"No church communicated with me" (Phil.
These verses point also to a local visible body of baptized believers. These churches had elders and sent offerings. The universal, invisible church has no elders and sends no offerings, seeing it is a conception of the mind, having no existence in time or place, and is not a historical fact, being only an ideal multitude without organization, without action, and without corporate being.
We have already seen that 92 out of the 115 times the word ,ekklesia(church) occurs in the Greek New Testament it means a local body as well defined as the legislative assembly of a Greek Free City. This makes it certain that the local idea commonly and exclusively rules in the New Testament. Ninety-two verses out of 115 favor my position - a very strong argument in favor of the Landmark position. Unless there are good reasons contained in the Scriptures themselves to make the word have a new meaning, we must always understand the word church to refer to a local body of baptized believers.
FIVE OTHER SURELY LOCAL
takes a close look at five other passages, he will see that they
also point to a local body.
I Timothy 3:5 says: "For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the
Three other passages need not claim our attention long either.
"I persecuted the
"Concerning zeal, persecuting the church" (Phil. 3:6).
Any person knows that Paul did not persecute the elect of all ages, some dead, some alive, and some not born. According to Acts 8:1-4, Saul or Paul persecuted the
THE MEANING OF 'EKKLESIA
I went to
great length to examine the usage of ekklesia in the
Greek New Testament. Ekklesia is the Greek word
translated church in our English Bible. My examination revealed that in 97 of
the 115 passages the word has the primary and literal meaning of a local,
visible assembly. In none of these 97 verses did the word church mean a
universal, invisible church consisting of all the elect.
There remains 18 more verses to be examined. These are the debatable passages. Most theologians maintain the word church takes on a new meaning in these verses. They say that the 18 remaining passages use the word church in the larger sense, meaning a big universal church. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of ekklesia, and this new meaning is contradictory to the local idea which permeates the entire New Testament. The big church idea has been invented from theological necessity, not from etymological requirement.
But do these remaining 18 verses authorize a new meaning of the word church? Or, does the word retain its primary meaning of a local, visible body of baptized believers? From what we have already seen the odds are 97 to 18 against such a new meaning. Nevertheless, the Biblical answer can be discovered only by a careful examination of these remaining 18 verses. If the word church has a new meaning the text and context should give sufficient evidence to warrant this new meaning. On the other hand, if such a meaning is not required, then we have every reason to reject the universal, invisible church theory as totally without scriptural warrant.
THE GENERIC USE OF A WORD
that in a number of the remaining 18 verses the word church is used in the
generic sense. In such a case the word may be singular and yet not refer to any
particular object of the class but to every object of that class. Let me
illustrate what I mean by a word being used abstractly, or generically.
"The home is a Divine institution." The word home is used generically
or abstractly in this sentence. The definite article with the word does not
mean there is one particular home singled out from the rest. The word home has
not taken on a new meaning; it retains its common meaning. There is no such
thing as a universal, invisible home.
The word church is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution. When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere. Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words. Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church. ekklesia never had such a meaning in the Greek writings. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of ekklesia. If I can give a word a new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense, then I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the same!
I shall take these verses in the order in which
they occur in the books of the New Testament. The first one to be considered is
Jesus spoke here to His disciples (Matt.
The ordinary sense makes perfectly good sense in Matthew 16:18. First, the words were addressed to a local, visible body of baptized believers. They were not addressed to the elect of all ages. Second, those who heard these words would have understood ekklesia in its primary and ordinary sense. I say this because I cannot believe the Master Teacher would have intended a common word to have a new meaning without some word of explanation. Third, by reading the Gospels and the Book of Acts, we see the kind of church which Christ built. He personally built the church which later became known as the
The fourth reason I believe 'ekklesia must be understood in its primary sense is because Jesus used this word 23 times, 3 times in Matthew and 20 times in Revelation. Twenty-one of these times the word is admitted by most as having the common meaning. Then why give it a new meaning in Matthew 16:18? Remember, the odds are 22 to 1 that Christ used it in its primary meaning. It seems to me to be the height of folly to assume that our Lord announced He would build a universal, invisible church, and then he never mentioned this church again while speaking 22 other times about a church He never promised to build!
to think the big church is referred to in
But an objector will say, "This church was purchased by the blood of Christ. This must mean all the elect for whom Christ died." Not so! The Scriptures elsewhere limit the death of Christ to
An objector will say, "But this is the church in the broadest sense, which embraces the whole number of the elect. This must be so for the passage speaks of Jews and Gentiles." This reasoning ignores the fact that many churches had both Jews and Gentiles in their membership. Also the offense mentioned in this verse was to individual Jews and Gentiles. Hence it must have referred to those living in the community where the Corinthian church was located. Paul is merely telling the
passage is I Corinthians 12:28 which says: "And God hath set
some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers,
after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of
Universal, invisible church contenders maintain that the apostles were not officers of a local church. They affirm that the ministry of the apostles was for all believers. But in what sense can it be said the apostles were ministers to the elect in the Old Testament time? Remember, the universal, invisible church "consists of the whole number of the elect, that HAVE BEEN, are, or shall be gathered into one."
This contention ignores the fact that Jesus only personally set apostles in one church, the first church known as the
church men consider the Book of Ephesians their stronghold. One passage they
rely upon to teach their doctrine is
Some attempt to make the word church to mean in this verse the totality of all the redeemed of all ages. The context will not allow such a broad meaning of the word church in this verse. Christ was made the head of the church following His resurrection from the dead (Eph.
When you hear someone say, "The husband is the head of his home," no one understands such a speaker is referring to a big universal home made up of all the little homes. They know the speaker has used the word home in the institutional sense. Then why can't they see that the word church is used in the institutional sense in Ephesians 1:22? The head of the church is locally and visibly present in Heaven at the Father's right hand. Likewise, His body on earth is local and visible; otherwise, you have a visible Head and an invisible body - a monstrous thing, a spooky church!
call attention to
Verse 21, of Ephesians Chapter 3, goes on to say: "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end." This is another generic usage. God receives glory through the church as an institution. This means He receives it in each local assembly of baptized believers. Everything done in the church according to God's revealed will is to His glory. Preaching, teaching, praying, singing, giving, ordination of officers, and the administration of the ordinances are all to God's glory by Jesus Christ (I Cor. 14:23-24; II Cor. 8:19-23). God can receive no glory from an invisible church. But He can and does receive glory from the institution He founded "unto all generations of the age of ages."
One of the chief proof texts of universal
church men is said to be
In this portion of Scripture Paul's primary object is to expound marriage. To do this he uses the relationship between Christ and the church as an illustration of the relationship which ought to exist between husband and wife. (See especially verses 23-25). What is said in these verses is as applicable to one church as another, just as what is said of the marriage relation is equally applicable to all husbands and wives.
Paul does not in Ephesian 5 introduce a new teaching about some universal, invisible church. It would be exactly as sensible to argue from this verse for the existence of a universal, invisible wife as a universal, invisible church. One is just as Scriptural as the other.
Look at the verse: "The husband is the head of the wife."
Does this mean that there is a great big universal, invisible wife who includes all the little wives? Our opponents would say no. But then they turn around and say that the rest of the verse, "even as Christ is the head of the church," means that there is a universal, invisible church. They ignore the word "even" which means in the same way. To be consistent our opponent should believe in both a universal, invisible church and a universal, invisible wife. However, it would be much more sensible and Scriptural to see that the word wife and church are used generically in this verse.
Some Baptists contend the word church is used in Ephesians 5 in a broad sense and not to a particular church. They say such a church has no real existence now except in the preparation of its members. They say it is not yet a church except in purpose, plan, and prospect. They say it is a church by anticipation. Then they go on to make this church in prospect include all the saved. Such Baptists have two kinds of churches in the Bible just as much as the Protestants.
I do not believe in the so-called glory church of the future any more than a universal, invisible church at present. First, the apostle does not speak here in the future tense. "Christ is (not shall be) the head of the church." "The church is (not shall be) subject to Christ." There would have been no point in using the relationship between Christ and the church to illustrate the relationship which ought to exist between husband and wife, unless the relationship between Christ and the church already existed and was fairly well understood by the
urged by some that
To understand a symbol we must first understand the reality of the symbol. The body of a man is something both local and visible. The same may be said of the bodies of both plants and animals. Never does the word body mean a universal, invisible nothing. There is no such thing as a scattered, invisible, mystic, non-functioning body. A heap of heads, hands, and hearts do not make a body. Miscellaneous, scattered, unattached units do not make a body. Neither can invisible members scattered throughout the world and divided by centuries make up the body of Christ.
Every local church in the apostolic age was the body of Christ in that place. The
According to Ephesians 4:4, "There is one body" as to kind in this gospel age. If it is the universal, invisible body, then there is no local and particular body. On the other hand, if it is the local body (a thing which harmonizes with the Bible's definition of the body of Christ in I Corinthians
debatable verse is I Timothy
Beginning at chapter 1 of the Book we can see the church of the living God is the church at
proof text for either the universal, invisible church or the glory church is
supposed to be
Many are absolutely sure the word church means something quite different than its common meaning in these verses. Here they say it definitely means a universal, invisible church. Others would refer it to a future glory church consisting of all believers. A brief examination of the verse excludes both ideas. This cannot refer to the universal, invisible church of all believers, for the writer says, "Ye are come." The invisible church has not come together as some of its members are unborn. Nor can it point to some sort of a visible glory church to be gathered in Heaven at some future day. "Ye are come" militates strongly against the glory church idea. The writer does not speak in Hebrews 12:22-24 of a future church, but of a present church.
This section of Hebrews 12 contrasts the Old Testament dispensation with the New Testament dispensation, the earthly
understand this to mean these Jewish Christians had literally come to
All these things were so because they were come into the church of the firstborn. Those in the church in the Hebrew Epistle were registered in Heaven, but they were not yet in Heaven. "God the Judge of all" shows how God is the qualified Judge of all, especially those in the church (I Peter
Thus we have concluded our examination
of every one of the 115 verses in the New Testament dealing with the church.
Out of the entire 115 we have not found one single verse which teaches the
universal, invisible church. Therefore, I conclude the term
"invisible" church is most appropriate as the big church is no place
found in the New Testament. In the New Testament there is no reference which
does not fall under the local idea or one of its logical derivatives, which is
simply the local idea in another form. The Bible is utterly innocent of the
inward conflict of the theory of a universal, invisible church. It is
everywhere self consistent. The Landmark position is overwhelmingly affirmed by
the Word of God.
The common sense impression made by reading texts in which the word church occurs and a critical examination of doubtful passages demonstrate the actual church of the New Testament is a local society and never anything but a local society. The real
The Evils Of The
all Christendom people speak of the blessings of belief in the universal,
invisible church theory. Most of these are imaginary. Really there is neither a
need nor a place for such a church. Belief in this theory has resulted in great
disobedience to Christ and untold harm to true New Testament Baptist churches.
I shall point out a few of these evils.
1. This theory teaches an imaginary church. This is not something affirmed by some lone Landmarker. Our opponents freely concede such is the case in their own writings. Edward T. Hiscox defines the universal, invisible church he believed in as "a conception of the mind, having no real existence in time or place, and is not a historical fact, being only an ideal multitude without organization, without action, and without corporate being" (The New Directory Of Baptist Churches, p. 24). This is a most noble confession. It admits the big church exists only in people's minds, and that it is not capable of literal manifestation at the present time.
2. This false teaching discredits the local church of the New Testament. Universal church men apply such terms as the body, the house, the building, and the bride of Christ to the big church. Hence they miss the great lessons being taught concerning the local, visible body of baptized believers. These metaphors of the church are perverted and abused until they lose their practical teaching. Great stress is laid upon "the true church" (universal, invisible mythical church) as being Divine while a local church is "man's church."
Some of these universal church theorists look upon the local church as a "necessary evil." Others see no need of attending or being a member of a local church. They watch TV or go to the golf club while the "unimportant" local church meets on the Lord's Day. Their tithes and offerings are sent to some evangelistic association, mission board, Christian foundation, or Christian college. The universal church teaching has robbed local churches of active members. If people took the invisible church teaching to its logical conclusion, they would close the doors of all local churches and leave God's preachers without a church in which to preach.
On page 1299 of the Scofield Reference Bible there is found this note: "Church (visible) Summary: The passages which speak of the Church of God (here and I Cor. 10:32) refer to that visible body of professed believers, called collectively 'the church,' though it exists under many names and divisions based upon differences in doctrine or in government. For the most part, within this historical church has existed the true Church, 'which is his body'. It is plain from this note that Mr. Scofield does not look upon the local church as "the true church." This implies each local church is a false church and not a true
3. The universal, invisible church robs God of His glory. The Bible teaches that God receives glory in this age through the church (Eph.
4. This theory is responsible for much of the disobedience with regard to the ordinances. Why are there so many professed Christians not church members? Why so many nominal believers living without New Testament baptism? Why is there little or no desire to remember the Lord's death? It is because vast multitudes have been convinced they are already members of the big imaginary church which is the real important thing. These unbaptized, disobedient, misguided souls pride themselves as being a part of "the true church." To many of them the ordinances are "non-essentials" which greatly divide the body of Christ. It would be below their dignity to concern themselves with such "minor details." They feel they have the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that is all that really matters. Any system of teaching which causes men to fail to be baptized as Christ was does not honor the Head of the church.
5. This theory is responsible for much of the inter-denominationalism and non-denominationalism of this generation. According to modern thinking, to be "unsectarian" is to become an angel among devils! Heretical preachers and union revivalists have founded their whole movements upon the premise that all Christians are in "the true church." They say Christians should drop their "petty differences" and work together to advance the "cause of Christ." Down with the little local church which stands in the way of "church unity." Invite all to the "Lord's table" regardless of their faith or lack of saving faith. Take anyone's immersion regardless of what they teach. Doctrine is not important. We have no creed but Christ. This is the cry heard from universal, invisible church men in this generation even in so-called Baptists ranks.
Baptist churches have nothing to gain from a union meeting and everything to lose. By such meetings Baptists declare that man-made churches are equally churches of Jesus Christ, although many of them teach just the opposite of what Christ taught! With the pleasing pretense that there is "no difference," Baptist churches are affectionately requested to surrender the doctrine of God's sovereignty, salvation by grace, and believer's baptism. The reason they must do this we are told is because we are all members of the big church, the mystical body of Christ made up of all believers. For Baptists to unite with heretics is to say that error is as good as truth, disobedience is as good as obedience, unrighteousness is as good as righteousness. All know that this is not so. The truth is a sacred truth that we Baptists have no right to betray for any cause or under any circumstance.
6. This theory promotes the Ecumenical Movement which is destined to become the Great Whore (the apostate church) in the Book of Revelation. Those familiar with the writings of ecumenical leaders know these liberals plead a visible union of all churches on the basis of the fact that all believers are in the universal, invisible church. These super church men know that so long as a Christian makes the true church the local church which is sound doctrinally, he will never become a part of the Ecumenical Movement.
Liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention have been laboring for years to get rid of Landmarkism, or the belief in a local, visible church to the exclusion of a universal, invisible church. They know that Landmarkism must go before the Southern Baptist churches will be willing to enter the National and World Councils of Churches.
W. 0. Carver (1868-1954) taught for years that the word church is used in the New Testament primarily to refer to "the universal, invisible spiritual church, regenerate believers, constituting the body of Christ." This teaching can be found in an article on "Baptist Churches" written by Carver for the book, edited by R. Newton Flew, entitled: The Nature Of The Church. Mr. Carver's paper on "Baptist Churches" was a part of a "group of papers, prepared as material for discussion at the Third World Conference on Faith and Order At Lund, Sweden, (which) gets down to specifics in hope for church unity in Christendom" (inside front jacket).
You want more proof that the universal, invisible church teaching is preparing Southern Baptist for entrance into the Ecumenical Movement? E. Glen Hinson, Professor of Church History, Southern Baptist Seminary,
Mr. Hinson declares on page 33 that if we consider the Bible infallible and inerrant in all its parts, "we will apostatize from what it teaches by letting bigotry create an excuse of zeal to make everyone believe what we believe." On pages 110-111 he justifies the ordination of women to the ministry and pleads with churches to push for ERA. On page 140 he says, "To affirm evolution is not to deny God ..." On page 145 he says the job of the church is not "winning the lost to Christ" but to make "a wholesome, well integrated person within the context of the society in which he or she lives."
Please consider that this liberal has no problem with belief in a universal, invisible church. All liberals hold to the big church idea. Ye not one single person who believes in the local church only can be found who is a liberal theologian. This fact alone should open some people's eyes. If liberals and the leaders of the Ecumenical Movement were deprived of their invisible church, they would lose their chief argument for the super church they seek to build. This also should open some people's eyes. Furthermore, I would ask can a system of teaching which fits perfectly with liberal theology and fosters the Ecumenical Movement be of God?
7. This erroneous view greatly confuses Christians. It would have them to believe there are two different kinds of churches in the world today, one local and visible while the other is invisible and universal. When they read the Bible and come across the word church, they must pause and ask themselves, "Which church is this?" To ascertain the answer they must not consult the Holy Spirit but books written by universal church men to know the answer. To teach that Christ has two different kinds of churches in the world today is contradictory to the Bible. Ephesians 4:5 says: "There is one (as to kind) body." Universal, invisible church people have two bodies!
According to I Corinthians 4:5, a church must be assembled to carry out its business. Paul said it must "gather together." This can only be so of a local church. The universal, invisible church has never yet assembled as some of its members are not yet born. Nevertheless, invisible church theorists insist a person must believe this never assembled church is the "true church" of Jesus Christ. This is most confusing to any intelligent person who can see from I Corinthians 5:4 that what can't gather together cannot properly be considered a church in the New Testament sense.
The Bible teaches disorderly church members are to be disciplined (Matt.
8. This theory is utterly impractical in preaching the gospel to a lost world. If such a thing as the universal, invisible church exists, its membership is known only to God. It has never met or assembled in all the history of the world. Hence it furnishes no place for believers to engage in public worship (Heb.
Since the organization of the
Even the most pronounced advocates of the invisible church are forced by stark realities to organize multitudes of congregations to meet the need of their religious programs. From the practical stand point, none of them want to preach in an invisible church to invisible members who sit in invisible pews. No universal, invisible church preacher wants to pastor an invisible church nor draw an invisible salary. Isn't it strange that they make so much over the supposed invisible church!
9. This theory ruins young preachers. Often some young Landmark preacher will begin to read the Puritans who were universal church men. He will become so engrossed with their writings that he embraces their ecclesiology, never knowing that the Puritans were bitter persecutors of their Baptist forefathers. At other times some young Land mark preachers will hear some silver-tongued, Reformed Baptist preacher bring a great message on justification. He becomes so carried away with such a person that he jumps on the Reformed (I prefer the term "Deformed") Baptist bandwagon. I personally know of some who did this and became scarcely less than immersed Presbyterians.
In my lifetime I have seen this theory ruin the ministry of young preachers in our ranks. Some very promising young ministers were widely used in revival meetings and Bible conferences. Others were successful pastors. Then they jumped on the universal, invisible church bandwagon. Some lost their churches, had their revival work terminated, and ceased to be used on Bible conference programs. At least two ended up having to go to work in a store to support their families. It grieves me to see our young men fulfill the prophetic Scripture (II Tim. 4:3-4). I, for one, long to see them be recovered from their errors. The universal, invisible church took much away from them and gave them nothing in return.