Baptist Giants of Past Years Speak on the Nature of the Church

I am sometimes reminded of the scientist who had made an intensive study of the rock formation in a certain valley. He decided he had discovered some new things for which the world was waiting and prepared a paper based on the rocks that he had found in this particular valley. When finished preparing his paper, he decided to explore the valley one more time before submitting the paper for publication. To his dismay, he stumbled upon a large rock that did not fit in with what he had written. If his paper were true, this rock should not be here. Instead of withholding his paper, or altering his conclusions, he picked up the heavy rock, carried it to the top of the hill, and threw it over into the other valley. He then submitted the paper, unchanged. He was not about to introduce any evidence that contradicted what he had written.

In this research, I have run into things that I wish I could ignore. But, honesty demands that I not cover it up. I have had that experience in researching J. R. Graves on the nature of the church. From my study of Graves in the past, I never thought he would hold to any doctrine that resembled the doctrine of a universal church. I had him on my list for this study as a definite, unwavering champion of “local-church-only” men. Yet, some brethren have sent me material and pointed me to pages that indicate that Graves did, indeed, have some notions about a universal church.

GRAVES ON THE LOCAL NATURE OF THE CHURCH

Many of our readers are familiar with Graves monumental work, OLD LANDMARKISM—WHAT IS IT? In that work Graves sets forth the marks of a true church. Mark Four, he declares to be the doctrine of the local nature of the church. After discussing different ideas of the nature of the church, Graves procedes to show that it is local in nature. He writes,

3. Ecclesia in the plural.—It is used in the plural thirty-six times, which fact is demonstrative that the universal or provincial idea was not then known. (P. 38-39).

I call your attention to the following in the above statement. Graves says, “. . . nor is there one passage that affords the shadow of a ground for the idea of an invisible church in heaven.” I mention that because of some other things Graves wrote. While he denies the existence of an invisible church in heaven, he does not deny the existence of a visible church composed of all the saved in heaven and on earth. I have no desire to put words in his mouth or writing, but he did believe in more than just the local nature of the church.

Consider the following statement from his book, Seven Dispensations. Concerning the composition of the bride-church he wrote some interesting things. He believed the bride during the millennial reign would be composed of all the redeemed from Abel to the rapture of the saints. He wrote,

It is well to understand clearly what Christians will constitute the Bride of Christ, whom, long espoused, Christ will now take to himself as his wife before the Father's face and the intelligences of the Universe. They will not be all the saved, as is so generally taught, but only those redeemed from among men from the days of Abel until the day of the Rapture. There will be millions saved during the millennial age, but these will not constitute the Bride of Christ during that age, [Emp. Mine, RWC) but, with the saved nations, will constitute the subjects over whom Christ and his Bride will reign for the thousand years. (Seven Dispensations, P. 461).

Please understand that Graves is only speaking of the bride during the millennial reign. The bride, according to Graves, will not be complete and will not be presented before the Father until the last person to be saved is saved. Only then will what he calls the “church-bride” be complete.

Graves wrote a small book which he called The Middle Life. In it he argued that the saved do not immediately go into heaven when they die. They are in paradise, a place of rest. While I disagree with Graves on this, I want to call your attention to some things he said about the bride-church in relation to this. He wrote,

All these—the most illustrious saints that ever lived on this earth—had not ascended into heaven, but had for ages been impatiently waiting in a comparatively depressed state, indicated by their being seen, not at the right hand of God, in the most holy place, but under the altar of sacrifice, which was placed in the court, but never in the holy of holies—the type of ‘heaven itself.’ They were in an imperfect, unglorified, and, consequently, in an unsatisfied condition. This state could not have been heaven. Now, if not one of the most illustrious saints who ever lived on earth—who laid down his life for Jesus—is permitted to be perfected and glorified, or to enter heaven itself at death, can we believe, unless the Scriptures expressly declare it, that those who have never suffered and who deserve so much less, are there, and go directly there now, from earth daily? There is, also, an oft used figure of speech of great significancy, found throughout the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, which, if I understand it, is conclusive in the settlement of this question. The church of Christ, which, in this sense, embraces the whole number of the saved, is spoken of as the (betrothed) bride of Christ, and which he will one day bring into his Father's house and present her before the King complete, perfected and glorified, and after this the marriage will be celebrated and she will become his wife." (The Middle Life, Pp. 26, 27).

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ 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’ [defect of any description]. ‘Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory,’ etc. But this presentation of the church-bride unto Christ by his friend, and of his bride unto his father, when he shall have brought her, in her perfected and all glorious condition, into the King's palace, manifestly cannot take place until she is complete in all the members of her body—until the last sinner is saved and glorified. If a portion of the saved were presented before the Father—brought into the King's palace, the bride could not be said to be prepared—all glorious, without blemish, spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. She would be incomplete, a deformed and disgusting personage. Therefore I feel warranted in the conclusion that no saint has gone, or will ‘go to heaven;’ but, as a component member of the body of that bride, will, with all the members, be presented together with that body, which will be at the close of the millennial age.’ Rev. xix. 7-10. Eph. v. 25. Jude 24.”

It was the position of Graves that there is a sense in which the church is composed of all the redeemed. While I do not agree with him on this, I still consider him to have been a Landmark Baptist.

It was the position of Graves that the bride-church of the millennial reign would be composed of all the saved from Abel to the day of the rapture. While I have never held such a position, I will not mark him off as neither Landmarker nor Baptist.

As much as I wish that Graves had not said these things in Seven Dispensations and Middle Life, he did say them. These are rocks which I would love to throw into the other valley and deny they were ever in my valley. I suppose I could have written about Graves as I had originally intended and have said that he was absolutely, unequivocally a “local” church advocate only and always. But, a couple of dear brethren sent me these references that show that he was not as strict on this matter as I had always thought. Some great Old Landmark Baptists held that in some sense the church is more extensive than the “The ecclesia of the New Testament” which “could, and was required to assemble in one place.” While I disagree with that, I still own them as Landmarkers and Baptists and will continue to quote them from time to time as such.

It was my intention to finish this article in the August 1999 issue of the paper but was unable to include it all. My apologies for spreading it out over three issues.

The issue of the nature of the church set forth in Scripture is very important. Several doctrinal errors grow out of the doctrine of the universal church. As we have seen, and will continue to see, Baptists have not always been agreed on the nature of the church. Some very strong Baptists have held to some form of a universal church. Some only consider it as future. Even B. H. Carroll held to a future “glory church” that will be composed of all the saved though he denied that such an institution existed now. Yet, he is highly esteemed among our brethren for his strict local concept of the church in this church age.

But, that is another subject to be discussed in another article. We will now note some expressions and passages that are used by universalists to advocate a universal church.

A play is sometimes made by Universalists on the portion of the verse in Eph. 5:23 which says; “He is the Saviour of the body.” This is coupled with verse 25 where Paul says that “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

The Lord said “I will build my CHURCH and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It was not necessary for him to build two or three churches (as Universalists claim) for that promise to be fulfilled. That first local visible church died just as that first local, visible man died. The CHURCH institution lives on because out of that first church were constituted many “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16), and not because of the existence of another church which is universal and invisible. The word MAN is used in the generic sense in Gen. 1:26 and in no way suggests a universal man through whom the human race is preserved. The word CHURCH is used in the generic sense and in no way suggests a universal, invisible church through which the church is preserved.

Jesus loved every one if his local New Testament Churches. He gave himself for every one of his local, visible churches of Christ (Rom 16:16). There is no universal, invisible church in Ephesians 5:23-32.

Our universal church authorities part ways a little farther here. Mr. Thayer maintains that this church is the universal, visible church, “the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth.” Mr. Scofield seems to be able to find only a local, visible church in this entire chapter.

The church in Acts 20:28 is the flock over which these elders had been given the oversight. This church is the church that the elders from Ephesus were to watch over. “And from Miletus he sent to EPHESUS and called for the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17). These elders who had the oversight of the church at Ephesus were to feed the “church of God” which was at Ephesus. These Ephesian elders whom Paul had called from Ephesus, who had been given the oversight of the flock at Ephesus were instructed to feed the church of God at Ephesus “which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

One never ceases to be amazed at the extremes people will go to find something in the Scriptures that they can MAKE say what they believe. Mr. Scofield finds two churches in this verse. His references indicate that the local church is mentioned in verses 5, 15 and 16 of this chapter. They also indicate that the universal, visible church is in verse 15. Thayer holds that this church is universal and visible.

Timothy was pastor of the church of God at Ephesus that we have just finished discussing. That was the “house of God” in which he must know how to behave himself. That was the church of the living God at Ephesus just as the congregation at Corinth was the church of the living God in that city (I Cor. 1:2). The house of God at Ephesus, the church of the living God at Ephesus was “the pillar and ground of truth” at Ephesus.

A house is a unified structure of nails, lumber, windows, etc. that have been put together in an organized manner that makes it a suitable place for habitation. It is not a random agglomeration of house parts scattered all over the earth.

The local, visible New Testament church is a congregation, an assembly of scripturally, baptized believers who compose a house and temple of God, a “building FITLY FRAMED TOGETHER” and “BUILDED TOGETHER for an HABITATION of God through the Spirit” (Eph. 2:1-22). Such was the church of God at Ephesus in whose midst Christ walked. What is said of this church of God at Ephesus could be said of “the Church of God . . . at, Corinth.” It could be said of the church of the Thessalonians which is “in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ” (I Thes. 1:1) and may be said of each local, visible scriptural, New Testament church in the world today.

There is no universal church in I Tim. 3:15. That is the local, visible church of God at Ephesus of which Timothy was pastor and in which he must know how to behave. How could anyone misbehave in the universal, invisible church?

Mr. Thayer and Mr. Scofield both held that this is the universal, visible church of which Paul speaks. Here Paul is referring to one single, local church “and at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles . . . as for Saul, he made havoc of the church” (Acts 8:1-3).

It is rather interesting to see the consistency of the universal church scholars. The statement, “As for Saul, he made havoc of the church,” both Mr. Scofield and Mr. Thayer say that this is the local church. When they go to Philippians 3:6 they say that it is the universal, visible church that he has persecuted. Now, dear reader, look at these two statements:

''As for Saul, he made havoc of the church” (Acts 8:3)

“Concerning zeal, persecuting the church” (Phil. 3:6).

How, in the name of common sense, could two learned men come up with such nonsensical hogwash as to claim that there is a different church in Phil. 3:6 from the one in Acts 8:1-23.

Christ is the head of every local church that belongs to him. Here he speaks generically, with a specific application to the church at Colosse.

Mr. Thayer and Mr. Scofield, agree for a third time. Both hold that this is the universal, visible church that is scattered throughout the earth.

Again we must find these men guilty of glaring absurdity? Paul made havoc of the church of God at Jerusalem (Acts 8:1-3). He persecuted no other church as far as is revealed in the Holy Scriptures. Only desperate men in search of a few scriptures to bolster their assumptions about the nature of the church would resort to using Galatians 1:13 and Philippians 3:6 as evidence.

Again, our universal scholars are in disagreement. Scofield advocates that this is his “true” church composed of the whole body of Christians from Pentecost to the first resurrection. The reference leads to I Thes. 4:16-17 and apparently he believed that Christ would sing in the midst of the saints at his return for them in the air. Scofield's slip is showing again. He feels that the “true” church is limited to the saints “from Pentecost to the first resurrection.” Yet he says in a footnote on I Thes. 4:16-11, “Not church saints only, but all bodies of the saved, from whatever dispensations, are included in the first resurrection.” (p. 1269). Consistency, thou art a jewel!

Mr. Thayer says that Heb. 2:12 speaks of the “assembly of the Israelites, esp. when gathered for sacred purposes.” Along with some Old Testament references he gives two New Testament references: Acts 7:38 and Heb. 2:12. Mr. Thayer does not believe this church in Heb. 2:12 to be any one of his three churches that we have previously discussed.

Did Jesus ever sing in the midst of his church? Was it a local, visible church? A universal, invisible church? a universal, visible, church? Or none of the above? On the night that Jesus instituted the Lord's supper we read after this was complete: “And when they had sung a hymn they went out into the Mount of Olives” (Matt. 26:30). This was a local, visible, and assembled congregation and is the only recorded fulfillment of Heb. 2:12.

There is no universal, invisible church here! Jesus sang in the midst of a local, visible assembly!

Scofield holds that the church in this verse is his “true” church.

In the book of Hebrews, Paul has been urging these folk—converted Jews—to realize the better things that were theirs as members of a local New Testament Church and as partakers of new covenant blessings as opposed to the Law of Moses. In this chapter, he is contrasting their Judaism with their new relationships as members of one of the Lord's churches. The “church of the firstborn ones which are written in heaven” is an abstract, generic reference to the church. Notice that the NAMES are written in heaven—he does not say that these first-born ones are in heaven. This is similar to the time when Jesus sent out the seventy. When they returned and were gathered together with him rejoicing, he said to them: “In this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). These folk were members of a local, visible church and their NAMES were written in heaven. This could be said of any local, visible assembly of baptized believers.

It is very obvious that the church in this verse is the church at Jerusalem, a local, visible church. A reading of verses 41 through 47 should make it crystal clear. Note that verse 47 tells us that this congregation was “praising God and having favor with all the people and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

If the “true church” is really composed of all those people then who are these who are ADDED daily? If this church in Acts 2:47 is the universal, invisible church composed of all the elect of all the ages how could any BE ADDED? Can you add to the number of the elect?

Brothers and Sisters, there are many more fundamental and basic doctrines in the word of God than the five points. We must earnestly contend for all the system of faith that was once delivered to the saints (Jude 4). We must not hesitate to declare all the counsel of God, not just the five points. Our Baptist forefathers shed more blood over baptism than anything else in history but today many consider such subjects as baptism, the Lord's supper and the local New Testament Church relatively unimportant.

May God be pleased to open the hearts of those who despise the local church of the living God!

Brazil: I would like to thank you for your studies. I am a pastor of the Batista church in Brasil. I know pastor Calvino of the church of Catanduva, SP. Brasil. I have been studying English for 2 years and I need to improve my English. I am a pastor since 1987. GOD BLESS YOU.

ARKANSAS: I want to say “Thank You” very much for sending me your paper for such a long time. I have Arthritis in my fingers so hope you can read this. I like the big print in the paper. I can see it better. I have been going to write for a long time. I just have to pick a day when I can see and write.

MINNESOTA: Please send me a subscription to your paper. Also, please send me two of August 1, 1999. The article on limited atonement was GREAT!

WWW: It is plain from your articles your opinion of Promise Keepers is to say the least very low... at worst... heretical. My concern is for my Brothers in Christ who persist in using the books and tapes to feed themselves and others and promote Christian Maleness... the Godly Male Image as defined by PK literature... Have you any suggestions when it comes to dealing with use of PK materials in church sponsored Mens Ministries? It appears that a group would like to begin meeting within our fellowship hall for the expressed purpose of teaching men to be men of God... but, using PK materials as a basis. Specifically the Point Man study guide from Steve Farrar published by Multnomah Press... Are you familiar with the text and would you endorse its use in this type of study?