Churches of
God
A.W. Pink
"For ye,
brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ
Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as
they have of the Jews" (I Thess. 2:14).
The ignorance which
prevails in Christendom today concerning the truth about the Churches of God is
deeper and more general than error on any other Scriptural subject. Many who
are quite sound evangelically and are well taught on what we call the great
fundamentals of the faith, are most unsound ecclesiastically. Mark the fearful
confusion that abounds respecting the term itself. There are few words in the
English language with a greater variety of meanings than "church."
The man in the street understands by "church" the building in which
people congregate for public worship. Those who know better, apply the term to
the members in spiritual fellowship who meet in that building. Others use it in
a denominational way and speak of "the Methodist Church" or
"Presbyterian Church." Again, it is employed nationally of the
state-religious institution as "the Church of England" or "the
Church of Scotland." With Papists the word "church" is
practically synonymous with "salvation," for they are taught that all
outside the vale of "Holy Mother Church" are eternally lost.
Many of the Lord's
own people seem to be strangely indifferent concerning God's mind on this
important subject. One from whose teachings on the church we differ widely has
well said, "Sad it is to hear men devoted in the Gospel, clear expounders
of the Word of God, telling us that they do not trouble themselves about church
doctrine; that salvation is the all-important theme; and the establishing of
Christians in the fundamentals is all that is necessary. We see men giving
chapter and verse for every statement, and dwelling upon the infallible
authority of the Word of God, quietly closing their eyes to its teachings upon
the church, probably connected with that for which they can give no Scriptural
authority, and apparently contented to bring others into the same
relationship."
What constitutes a New Testament church?
That multitudes of professing Christians treat this question as one of trifling
importance is plain. Their actions show it. They take little or no trouble to
find out. Some are content to remain outside of any earthly church. Others join
some church out of sentimental considerations, because their parents or partner
in marriage belonged to it. Others join a church from lower motives still, such
as business or political considerations. But this ought not to be. If the
reader is an Anglican, he should be so, because he is fully persuaded that his
is the most Scriptural church. If he is a Presbyterian, he should be so, from
conviction that his "church" is most in accord with God's Word. So,
if he is a Baptist or Methodist, etc.
There are many
others who have little hope of arriving at a satisfactory answer to the
question, What constitutes a New Testament church? The fearful confusion which
now obtains in Christendom, the numerous sects and denominations differing so
widely both as to doctrine and church-order and government, has discouraged
them. They have not the time to carefully examine the rival claims of the
various denominations. Most Christians are busy people who have to work for a
living, and hence they do not have the leisure necessary to properly
investigate the Scriptural merits of the different ecclesiastical systems.
Consequently, they dismiss the matter from their minds as being one too
difficult and complex for them to hope of arriving at a satisfactory and
conclusive solution. But this ought not to be. Instead of these differences of
opinion disheartening us, they should stimulate to greater exertion for
arriving at the mind of God. We are told to "buy the truth,"
which implies that effort and personal sacrifice are required. We are bidden to
"prove all things."
Now, it should be
obvious to all that there must be a more excellent way than examining the
creeds and articles of faith of all the Denominations. The only wise and
satisfactory method of discovering the Divine answer to our question, What
constitutes a New Testament church? is to turn to the New Testament itself and
carefully study its teachings about the "church." Not some
godly man's views; not accepting the creed of the church to which my parents
belonged; but "proving all things" for myself! God's people have no
right to organize a church on different lines from those which governed the
churches in New Testament times. An institution whose teachings or government
are contrary to the New Testament is certainly not a New
Testament "church."
Now if God has
deemed it of sufficient importance to place on record upon the pages of
Inspiration what a New Testament church is, then surely it should be of
sufficient importance for very redeemed man or woman to study that record, and
not only so but to bow to its authority and conform their conduct
thereto. We shall thus appeal to the New Testament only and seek God's answer
to our question.
Now the kind of
church which is emphasized in the N.T. is neither invisible nor universal; but
instead, visible and local. The Greek word for "church" is ecclesia,
and those who know anything of that language are agreed that the word signifies
"An Assembly." Now an "assembly" is a company of people who
actually assemble. If they never "assemble,"
then it is a misuse of language to call them "an Assembly."
Therefore, as all of God's people never have yet assembled together,
there is today no "universal Church" or "Assembly." That
"Church" is yet future; as yet it has no concrete or corporate existence.
In proof of what
has been said above, let us examine those passages where the term was used by
our Lord Himself during the days of His flesh. Only twice in the four Gospels
do we find Christ speaking of the "church." The first is in Matthew
16:18 where He said unto Peter, "Upon this Rock I will build My church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." What kind
of a "church" was the Saviour here referring to? The vast majority of
Christians have understood it as the great invisible, mystical, and universal
Church, which comprises all His redeemed. But they are certainly wrong.
Had this been His meaning He had necessarily said, "Upon this Rock
I am building My church." Instead, He used the future tense, "I
will build," which shows clearly that at the time He spoke, His
"church" had no existence, save in the purpose of God. the
"church" to which Christ referred in Matthew 16:18 could not
be a universal one, that is, a church which included all the
saints of God, for the tense of the verb used by Him on this occasion
manifestly excluded the O. T. saints! Thus, the first time that
the word "church" occurs in the N. T. it has no reference to a
general or universal one. Further, our Lord could not be referring to the
Church in glory, for it will be in no danger of "the gates of
hell"! His declaration that, "the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it," makes it clear beyond all doubt that Christ was
referring to His church upon earth, and thus, to a visible and local
church.
The only other record
we have of our Lord speaking about the "church" while He was on
earth, is found in Matthew 18:17, "If he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican." Now the only kind of a
"church" to which a brother could relate his "fault" is a
visible and local one. So obvious is this, there is no need to further enlarge
upon it.
In the final book
of the N. T. we find our Saviour again using this term. First in Revelation
1:11 He says to John, "What thou seest, write in a book, and send it
unto the seven churches which are in Asia." Here again it is plain
that the Lord was speaking of local churches. Following this, we find
the word "church" is upon His lips nineteen more times in the
Revelation, and in every passage the reference was to local
churches. Seven times over He says, "He that hath an ear, let him hear
what the Spirit saith unto the churches," not "what the
Spirit saith unto the Church"-which is what would have been
said had the popular view been correct. The last reference is in Revelation
22:16, "I Jesus have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things
in the churches:" The reason for this being, that as yet, the Church
of Christ has no tangible and corporate existence, either in glory or upon
earth; all that He now has here is His local "churches."
In further proof
that the kind of "church" which is emphasised in the N. T. is a local
and visible one we appeal to other facts of Scripture. We read of "The
church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1). "The church that
was at Antioch" (Acts 13:1), "The church of God which is at
Corinth" (I Cor. 1:2)-note carefully that though this church is linked
with, yet is it definitely distinguished from "all that in every place
call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,"! Again; we read of
"churches" in the plural number: "Then had the
churches rest throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria" (Acts
9:31), "The churches of Christ salute you" (Rom. 16:16), "Unto
the churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2). Thus it is seen that, that which
was prominent and dominant in N. T. times was local and visible churches.
Let us turn first
to the last clause of Acts 2:47: "And the Lord added to the church
daily such as should be (the V. R. correctly gives it "were")
saved." Note carefully it does not say that "God," or
"the Holy Spirit," or "Christ," but "The Lord
added." The reason for this is as follows: "The Lord"
brings in the thought of authority, and those whom He "added to
the church" had submitted to His lordship. The way in which
they had "submitted" is told us in vv. 41-42: "Then they that
gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto
them about three thousand souls," etc. thus, in the earliest days of
this dispensation, "the Lord added" to His church saved people
who were baptized.
Take the first of
the Epistles. Romans 12:4-5 shows that the saints at Rome were a local church.
Turn back now to Romans 6:4-5 where we find the apostle saying to and of these
church members at Rome, "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been
planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness
of His resurrection." Thus, the saints in the local church at Rome
were baptized believers.
Take the church at
Corinth. In Acts 18:8 we read, "Many of the Corinthians hearing
believed, and were baptized." Further proof that the Corinthian saints
were baptized believers is found in I Cor. 1:13-14; 10:2,6; I Cor. 12:13
rightly translated and punctuated (we hope to deal with this passage separately
in a future article) expressly affirms that entrance into the local assembly is
by water baptism.
Ere passing to the
next point let it be said that a church made up of baptized believers is
obviously and necessarily a "Baptist church"-what else could
it be termed? This is the name which God gave to the first man whom He
called and commissioned to do any baptizing. He named him "John the
Baptist." Hence real "Baptists" have no reason to be
ashamed of or to apologise for the scriptural name they bear. If someone askes,
Why did not the Holy Spirit speak of the "Baptist church at
Corinth" or "The Baptist churches of Galatia"? We answer,
for this reason: there was, at that time, no need for this distinguishing
adjective; there were no other kind of churches in the days of the apostles but
Baptist churches. They were all "Baptist churches"
then; that is to say, they were all composed of scripturally-baptized
believers. It is men who have invented all other "churches"
(?) and church-names now in existence.
Again, the figures
used by the Holy Spirit in connection with the "church" are pertinent
only to a local organization. In Romans 12 and in I Corinthians 12 He employs
the human "body" as an anology or illustration. Nothing could
be more unsuitable to portray some "invisible" and
"universal" church whose members are scattered far and wide. The
reader scarcely needs to be reminded that there is not a more perfect
organization on this earth than the human body-each member in its appointed
place, each to fulfil its own office and perform its distinctive function.
Again, in I Timothy 3:15 the church is called the "house of God."
The "house" speaks of ordered relationships: each resident
having his own room, the furniture being suitably placed, etc.
Further proof that
a New Testament "church" is a local company of baptized believers in
organized relationship is found in Acts 7:38, where the Holy Spirit applies the
term ecclesia to the children of Israel--"the church in the
wilderness." Now the children of Israel in the wilderness were a
redeemed, separated baptized, organized "Assembly." Some may be
surprised at the assertion that they were baptized. But the Word of God is very
explicit on this point. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should
be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed
through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the
sea" (I Cor. 10:1-2). So, too, they were organized; they had
their "princes" (Num. 7:2) and "priests,"
their "elders" (Ex. 24:1) and "officers"
(Deut. 1:15). Therefore, we may see the propriety of applying the term ecclesia
to Israel in the wilderness, and discover how its application to them
enables us to define its exact meaning. It thus shows us that a New
Testament "church" has its officers, its "elders"
(which is the same as "bishops"), "deacons" (I Tim.
3:1,12), "treasurer" (John 12:6; II Cor. 8:19), and
"clerk"--"number of names" (Acts 1:15) clearly
implies a register.
A N.T. church is to
do all things "decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:40), and its
only authorative guide for "order" is the Holy Scriptures. Its one
unerring standard, its final court of appeal, by which all issues of faith,
doctrine, and Christian living are to be measured and settled, is the Bible,
and nothing but the Bible. Its only Head is Christ: He is its Legislator,
Resource, and Lord.
The local church is
to be governed by what "the Spirit saith unto the churches."
Hence it necessarily follows that it is altogether separate from the State, and
must refuse any support from it. While its members are enjoined by Scripture to
be "subject unto the higher powers that be" (Rom. 13:1), they
must not permit any dictation from the State in matters of faith or practice.
The administration
of the government of a N. T. church resides in its own membership, and not
in any special body or order of men, either within or without it. A majority
of its members decide the actions of the church. This is clear from the Greek
of II Corinthians 2:6, "Sufficient to such a man (a disorderly
brother who had been disciplined) is this punishment, which was inflicted of
many." The Greek for the last two words is hupo ton pleionon."
Pleionon is an adjective, in the comparative degree, and literally
rendered the clause signifies "by the majority," and is so
rendered by Dr. Charles Hodge, than whom there have been few more spiritual and
competent Greek scholars. Bagster's Interlinear renders it "by the greater
portion," and the margin of the R.V. gives "Greek the more."
The definite article obliges us to render it "by the more" or
"by the majority."
To sum up. Unless
you have a company of regenerated and believing people, scripturally baptized,
organized on N. T. lines, worshipping God in the ways of his
appointing-particularly in having fellowship with the apostles' doctrine and
fellowship, maintaining the ordinances, preserving strict discipline, active in
evangelistic endeavour-it is not a "New Testament church,"
whatever it may or may not call itself. But a church possessing these
characteristics is the only institution on this earth ordained, built,
and approved of by the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, next to being saved, the
writer deems it his greatest privilege of all to belong to one of His
"churches." May Divine grace increasingly enable him to walk as
becometh a member of it.
(Studies in the
Scriptures, Dec. 1927, pp. 277-281).