New Testament Baptists and

The Nature of the Church

Chester E. Tulga, 1959


FORWARD


The nature of the Church has always been a crucial issue with the people called Baptists.  As other fundamental doctrines of God's Word are involved in the question concerning the type of Church that was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that this vital issue be clearly revealed to the people of God.

The nature of the church is explicitly revealed in this booklet, and our desire is that it may be a blessing to God's people wherever it may be read.

     Harry J. Simms, President
     Mountain State Schools,
     Pastor, Rosemont Baptist Church
     Winston-Salem, NC



NEW TESTAMENT BAPTISTS AND THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH

• "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18)

• "There is no actual functioning universal church - whether invisible or visible - in existence today. Nowhere is such an idea taught in the New Testament. All redeemed men and women of all ages, whether on earth or in heaven, belong to the family of God (Eph. 3:15). Every born-again believer is in the Kingdom of God (John 3:5). But only baptized believers in the fellowship of a local body, having the Now Testament as its law and only law, belong to a functioning New Testament church." (W. R. White, Baptist Distinctives, p. 53-54)

• "Is it not an historical fact that since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea of a now-existing invisible, universal, spiritual church to offset the equally erroneous Romanist ides of a present visible, universal church., reverence and honor for God's New Testament particular church have been ground to fine powder between them as between the upper and nether millstones?  Today when one seeks to obtain due honor for the particular assembly its ordinances, its duties, is he not in many cases thwarted in measure, or altogether in some cases, by objections arising from one or the other of these erroneous views?"  (B.H. Carroll, Baptists and their Doctrines, p. 56)

One of the most perplexing problems in the theological world today is the worldwide confusion concerning the nature of the church. It is a pressing problem in the World Council of Churches, and a commission was appointed to study this question and publish the various views of its constituent bodies.

The question of the nature of the church underlies the differences between Romanists and Protestants. The Roman idea of a visible universal church with an earthly head is unacceptable to most Protestants who in theory at least, accept the headship of Christ and reject the pretensions of the Pope.

The doctrine of the nature of the church underlies the differences between New Testament Baptists and those who hold to the Reformed Theology. This was made clear in the time of the Reformation in the wide rift between the Anabaptists and the leaders of the Reformation.  A casual study of the doctrine of the church as held by Calvin will indicate the wide rift between his views and the beliefs of New Testament Baptists.

The question of the nature of the church underlies the difficulties of many denominations achieving union with the Church of England (Episcopal) and its notion of itself as the universal church, composed of regenerate and unregenerate, and its absurd claim to be in direct succession from the apostles through its bishops and episcopally ordained clergymen.

The Biblical teaching concerning the nature of the church is involved in the present tensions between New Testament Baptists and interdenominational fundamentalism, which because of its contradictory theological mixture, cannot take the New Testament position on the nature of the local church without destroying the thread which binds this strange mixture together,

Interdenominational fundamentalism must have as a basis of unity a speculative invisible church, a  church not found in the New Testament but invented and used by Augustine, Luther and Calvin as a useful device for holding a contradictory mixture together. It is also forced by its nature to consider some doctrines essential and some non-essential, the essential ones being the ones upon which they can agree and the non-essentials the ones upon which they cannot agree - a strange "orthodox" form of rationalistic selectivity.   This makes for a strong show of piety, but it is a piety not squarely based upon the Word of God.

The question of the nature of the church is involved in the current debate over separation from apostasy and the founding of true New Testament churches. Those who oppose this separation actually embrace the Reformation principle of the true church within a corrupt church and the hope of influencing and reforming the visible church - a  hope which has always been disappointed.

In our day many Baptists have abandoned the historic Biblical position of New Testament Baptists and have adopted the very Reformation principle against which their forebears protested. This often places the invisible church within a corrupt visible church and involves true believers in compromise with apostasy a false ministry, corruption and a support of doctrines which contradict their own professed faith - an intolerable position for a true believer.
It is time for a restudy of the New Testament teachings concerning the nature and the doctrine of the church. New Testament Baptists., faced with the churchless "Christianity" of much undenominationalism, the unimportance of the local church in the minds of many of its leaders, its exploitation for churchless ends by many of its promoters, and the equating of all churches (every type) in popular evangelism, must look again into the Word of God and find there the pattern of the true church and its ministry. This New Testament pattern of the church is almost universally rejected today. Romanists,, Reformed theologians, interdenominationalists with their exaltation of agencies and men above the local church,, inclusivists who insist that believers and unbelievers can worship and fellowship together, and denominationalists who see no reason why true churches cannot fellowship false churches in the name of denominational fellowship - all of these ideas must be rejected by those who would found and maintain true New Testament churches.

1. PREVAILING IDEAS OF THE CHURCH

"A church is a congregation of believers in Christ, baptized on a credible profession of faith, and Voluntarily associated under special covenant for the maintenance of the worship, the truths, the ordinances, and the discipline of the Gospel."  (H. Harvey, The Church, p. 29)
"Three ideas are now seeking supremacy on scriptural grounds - the Catholic, or universal, the invisible or Protestant universal and the local.  Nearly all others are but modifications of these, having them as their base and involving no essentially different principles."  (E. J. Fish, Ecclesiology, p. 747)
"All teaching in the direction that there now exists a general assembly which is invisible, without ordinances, and which is entered by faith alone, will likely tend to discredit the particular assembly, which does now really exist and which is the pillar and ground of the truth.  More than once when I have inquired of a man., are you a member of the church? the reply has been, I am a member of the invisible, universal, spiritual church.  To make faith the exclusive term of admission into the general assembly is more than questionable and naturally generates such replies." (B. H. Carroll, Baptists and their Doctrines, p. 48)

E. T. Fish, (Ecclesiology) says truly, "We believe the manifest use of the term church, in the local sense, ninety-two times out of a hundred and fifteen times of its occurrence in the New Testament, is significant of a precise and ascertainable meaning."  He then proceeds to classify the ideas of the church under four heads: the non-defining period; the universal church period; the invisible church period; and the present period of confusion. We follow his outline in part.

The Non-defining period. The period following the passing of the Apostles was not characterized by any exact definitions of the church since the churches were local. No hierarchy had yet developed, and there was no necessity for creating elaborate rationalization to meet current situations. This period is said by Fish to extend to about the middle of the third century. The phrase "Holy Catholic Church" developed during this period, but it did not have the meaning attached to it in subsequent years.
The Universal Church period. Changes were underway which would change the nature and the structure of the church., changes which led to universal pretensions. The elevation of bishops; above presbyters, the confederation of churches under synods, the emphasis laid upon metropolitan bishops and other causes were slowly but surely working a revolution which would abandon the New Testament simplicity of the churches in favor of an authoritarian hierarchy which arrogantly assumed the authority of the apostles, claimed dominion over the faithful and corrupted the doctrines of the churches to serve its own ends. Eventually the bishop of Rome was accorded a primacy which he enjoys to this day. This period, until the Reformation, was the great day for the idea of a universal church until that universality was shattered by the Reformation. It had been challenged for centuries by small groups who demanded a return to the purity of the New Testament, but without avail. Then came the shattering events of the Reformation.
The Invisible Church period. Charles E. Brown (The Church, Edited by Warren C. Roark, p. 67) says, "For hundreds of years the ancient church taught the idenity of the visible and invisible church.    The records of those days are incomplete, but so far as is known, Augustine in the fourth century was the first Christian leader to make a sharp distinction between the visible and the invisible church. The reason Augustine did this was because he was bishop of the Catholic Church in Hippo in North Africa, and the majority of Christians in that district belonged to what was called the 'Donatist church.' These Donatists bitterly assailed the Catholics as not being the church of God because, they said, the  Catholics were sinners, and as sinners they could not be members of the church of God.  This was the place where Augustine was driven to make the famous distinction between the visible and the invisible church. He conceded that many of the Catholics of his day were not spiritually minded Christians, but in effect he said, 'These people were merely members of the visible church. Nevertheless the invisible church is found within Catholicism and its members are holy.' So taught  Augustine."

The conception of the invisible church does not rest upon clear New Testament teaching for it isn't there, it rests upon the necessity for reconciling the New Testament teachings concerning the church with an existing visible church which violates those teachings.  William Robinson, (The Biblical Doctrine of the Church, p. 224) supports our contention when he says, "Luther's doctrine of 'the invisible church' which later was halfheartedly adopted by Calvin, was a necessity of the times. It was 'legislation for a particular instance' which is rarely a happy expedient.   For him, it was necessary as a defense against the 'great church' which had cast him out.  Later it became easy to read it back into the New Testament. Thus, it became a normal Protestant doctrine. In the sense in which he propounded it, it is no part of the New Testament."

So Augustine, Luther, Calvin, historic Presbyterianism and interdenominational fundamentalism find it a convenient substitute for the New Testament insistence upon sound local churches. This view offset the corruption of the Catholic church in the days of Augustine.  It rationalized the relationship between the true church and the state church for Luther and Calvin as it provides a refuge today in fundamentalism and evangelicalism for those who are members of unsound churches. The doctrine of the invisible church was primarily devised to provide a plausible compromise for a contradictory situation and serves that purpose today. It was the Reformer's alternative to the Anabaptist insistence that the church return to the New Testament pattern.

We have reached the day of confusion in the doctrine of the nature of the church.  We have the absurd claims of Rome, the notion of apostolic succession held by the Church of England, the denominational pretensions of superiority seen on every hand, the confusion of interdenominationalism and the pleas of ecumenical evangelicals for an inclusive church. There is also the growing ecumenical movement with its notion that the visible churches of the world regardless of doctrine and life constitute the body of Christ, a Protestant version of Romish foolishness.  It is time to restudy the doctrine of the nature of the church.

2. SOME ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE INVISIBLE CHURCH

INVISIB IE

• "The term (invisible church) was first used by Luther, and afterwards by Zwingli." (Reinhold Seeberg, History of Doctrine, p. 293)

• "The idea of an invisible church is foreign to the Bible."  (Theodore A. Wedel, Theology Today, April, 1945)

• "The Romish figment of an impersonal and invisible church never existed until the fourth century, when it was created in order to bring local churches under the yoke of an irresponsible and arbitrary power, at the utter sacrifice of those divine rights, with which Christ, the rightful Head, had endowed the local churches."  (Thomas Armitage, History of the Baptists, p. 121)

1. It was not born in the days of the New Testament churches, but after New Testament simplicity had been abandoned and corruption had entrenched itself in the churches.  Augustine could hardly deny that in the New Testament, the churches were composed of believers, and those who were unsound in the faith or corrupt in life were subjects of discipline.  He could hardly deny the existence of wide corruption in the Catholic Church, for this was generally acknowledged to be flagrant. He would not take the New Testament stand, for that would put him outside the pale of his church.     He could not abolish the corruption, so he needed a device for harmonizing the two concepts of the church, hence the doctrine of the invisible church. This has been its chief value to this day. It provides an escape from the problem of the difference between the true churches of the New Testament, and the false churches of today. Franklin H. Littell (The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision, p. 22) says., "This teaching (the invisible church) which is spiritualizing in effect and perhaps in origin, has been from the 36th century to the present day the major underground tunnel by which leaders of established Protestant churches have been able to escape from the position to which their Biblical insurgency at first had led them."  Today it is the refuge of those who, refusing to separate from false churches and join true ones, nevertheless feel that they possess a certain orthodoxy and have resolved the contradiction in their favor.

2. Luther's doctrine of the invisible church.  Luther not only took over the idea of Augustine but also applied it the same way, for he faced the same problem, the contradiction between the state churches of the Reformation and the churches of the New Testament. Luther rejected the idea of a believer's church as held by the Anabaptists and held it to be a sectarian error.  Again, like Augustine, Luther makes the doctrine of the invisible church serve an unscriptural purpose. John H. Yoder (The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision pp. 98-99) calls attention to this.  "The Constantine synthesis had merged the institutional church, as an historical phenomenon., dispenser of the sacraments, with society; but the true church, formed of true believers, is another thing. Since only God knows true faith, the true church is invisible, not an historical reality at all. The Reformers formed a persecuting state church; but at the same time they were protecting themselves against any criticism which might have objected that their church was not what a church should be by the fact that their church, being visible, could never be the true church anyway.   Since our church is not the true church, they said in effect, the state is free to organize and administer it as it seems best. This concession to Hellenism, the admission that the invisible and timeless is more real than the visible and historical, has avenged itself a hundred fold in occidental piety, ethics and social responsibility." The doctrine of the invisible church has been and is productive of much mischief and a real hindrance to a return to the New Testament church.

3. John Calvin's doctrine of the invisible church.  Calvin's break with Romanism was far more radical than Luther's.  His conception of the church was higher, but he would not embrace the New Testament pattern. His view of the visible and invisible church left large latitude for corruption in the visible church.  Writing of the visible church., he says. "In this church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearances of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impure lives, who are tolerated for a time either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed.  (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, LV, 19-20)  Calvin had some unfortunate experiences in trying to discipline the mixed company which he called the church.  Concerning the invisible church, he said, "But as they are a small and despised number (that is those who belong to the Church), concealed in an immense crowd, like a few grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must be left the knowledge of His church, of which His secret election forms the foundations."  One does not have to look at these two conceptions very long to realize that they do not represent the New Testament pattern of the church.  Again, Calvin needed the doctrine of the invisible church to meet a practical situation - the state church which he helped to create. The doctrine of the invisible church was a working compromise which, while it was a departure from the New Testament, enabled him to reconcile the New Testament church with a corrupt state church by uniting them in one visible organization which he glorified as THE CHURCH.    It was also an effective weapon against the Anabaptist separatists who were insisting on a return to the New Testament church.  Calvin did not teach the New Testament doctrine of the church but a doctrine which continued the union of the church and the world with its resulting corruption.

4. The Church of England doctrine of the invisible church.  Article XIX, Church of England, reads, The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. 

• W.E. Griffith-Thomas (The Principles of Theology, pp. 268-269) gives the viewpoint of the evangelical in the Church of England. He writes, "There are two aspects of the Church: visible and invisible.    In regard to the Church visible., the Article is clear about the fact. What are we to understand by a 'visible' Church?    The adjective cannot possibly be regarded as otiose, and yet we are not to understand two disconnected churches, visible and invisible; but rather, one Church viewed from different standpoints. The one having regard to its spiritual nature, the other to its ecclesiastical organization - does not mean in the literal sense a Church that is 'invisible' but that which constitutes the membership of the Church is invisible." So Griffith-Thomas, the evangelical premillennialist, could stay in the state Church of England with all its apostasies, heresies and corruptions, and refuse to become an evangelical separatist. However, Anglican opinion on this is by no means unanimous.
• Leonard Hodgson (The Nature of the Church, Edited by R. Newton Flew, p. 133) says, "The significant thing about the article, when compared with contemporary Reformation literature, is its omission of any reference to the invisible Church. The opening words, when taken in conjunction with the title, imply that there is only one Church, the visible.    Moreover., Article X shows that 'faithful' must mean professed believers, not those whose faith is known to God alone."
• Leicester C. Lewis, writing on the Anglican Church (The Nature of the Church, edited by R. Newton Flow, pp. 310-311) says, "Anglicans feel that a society appeared in history as a result of the life and teaching of Christ, In so far as the New Testament reflects the life of this society Anglicans find it a fellowship or Church organized and functioning under leadership of the Apostles and perpetuating their teaching worship and prayers.  We feel there is no evidence whatsoever in the New Testament that anyone would be considered a Christian who was not a member of this visible society, the Church. Those who were to be saved (Note: departure from NT statement Acts 2:47b. 'And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.' CET) were added to the church, and over all its members the fellowship exercised definite and sometimes striking authority. It is for this reason that among Anglicans the term 'invisible' Church seems quite meaningless. They do not see how the New Testament attitude of 'telling it to the Church' could be rational if the Church were invisible and, equally would they find it difficult to 'hear' an invisible Church. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that for Anglicans, the Church is a society of people, primarily here on earth.  When Anglicans use the term 'invisible Church,' they mean by it that larger part of the visible Church which has passed from this life to the life beyond."  This writer also feels that the doctrine of the invisible church is an escape from the problems of the visible church.  "Anglicans feel that historically the doctrine of the invisible Church has generally been the expression of discouragement and frustration in efforts to reform the Church. With the failure of such efforts in regard to the Visible Church, an escape was developed by the thought of the Invisible Church." The judgment of this writer is illustrated in the case of Augustine, Luther, Calvin and the fundamentalists of today who take an inclusive position in a liberal or corrupt church or denomination.

5. The Church of Christ and the invisible church.  William Robinson, (The Nature of the Church, edited by R. Newton Flew, p. 216), writing on the Churches of Christ of Great Britain and Ireland, says "They have always denied the doctrine of the invisible church, in the sense that Christ's institution was not meant to have a definite visible organization on earth, and in the sense that the invisible Church is the True Church and the visible Church the false Church. They have seen clearly, what is now generally recognized, that this doctrine is not found in the Now Testament and have waved it as a subtlety which does not really get rid of the existing state of division in Christendom." He also says, "They have rejected the branch theory of the Church, by which different denominations are regarded as branches of the true Vine. Historically this is quite an inaccurate exegesis of John 15 - for the branches are the individual members of the Church, not competing denominations. This branch theory has sometimes been advocated in the form of a regiment theory, the different denominations being regarded as regiments in the one army. But this breaks down, for every army is an organized unit, and it is obvious that in the present state of Christendom the different denominations are in no sense units of one visible denomination."

6. Interdenominational fundamentalism.  Interdenominationalism, by its very nature, cannot have a doctrine of the true church, for it would destroy the fragile cord which binds it together. Fundamentalism, concentrating on the defense of the great doctrines of the Christian faith and rallying all who would to join together, could not afford a doctrine of the true church.  The doctrine of the true church began to emerge when fundamentalism ceased to be a reform movement in the denominations and produced separatist churches. This movement back to the New Testament pattern of the church is still in a tentative stage but attracting more and more attention.

7. The Ecclesiology of the Scofield Bible.  (Our comments on the ecclesiology of the Scofield Bible cover this area only, for we are deeply indebted to the great ministry of the Scofield Bible and share many of its convictions) Interdenominational fundamentalism has been deeply influenced, in its view of the nature of the church, by the Scofield Bible. Let us notice in detail the ecclesiology of the Scofield Bible.

1. The Definition of a Local Church.  "A local church is an assembly of professed believers on the Lord Jesus Christ, living for the most part in locality, who assemble themselves together in His Name for the breaking of bread, worship, praise, prayer, testimony, the ministry of the word, discipline and the furtherance of the Gospel.  Such a church exists where two or three are thus gathered. Every such local church has Christ in the midst, is a temple of God, and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When perfected in organization, a local church consists of saints, with the bishops (elders) and deacons." (Summary on Phil. 1:1)  Here is a curious omission. No mention is made of baptism in connection with a true local assembly. Yet in the Acts of the Apostles there is a constant connection between salvation and baptism, and baptism and the churches. In no case is it suggested that baptism is essential to salvation, but in no case is there the suggestion that baptism is optional for the believer. The Scofield definition is not that of a full New Testament church.

               The Definition of the Invisible Church.  Hebrews 12:23 notes, "The true church composed of the whole number of regenerate persons from Pentecost to the first resurrection (1 Cor. 12:12-13), is the body of Christ of which He is the Head (Eph. 1:22-23)  As such it is a holy  for the habitation of God through the Spirit (Eph. 2:21-22); is 'one flesh' with                                                                                 

Christ (Eph. 5:30-31); and espoused to Him as a chaste virgin to one husband (2Cor. 11:2-4)." Scofield follows Augustine, Luther and Calvin here. Again, there is no mention of baptism in connection with the church.

The Definition of the Visible Church.  Note on 1Tim. 3:15.  Paul here refers to "the church which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. "  In the margin, Scofield indicates that this refers to a local church. Scofield defines the visible church as follows: "The passages under this head (I Cor, 10:32; 1 Tim. 3:15) refer to that visible body of professed believers called collectively, 'the church,' of which history takes account as such, though it exists under many names and divisions based upon differences in doctrine or in government. Within, for the most part, this historical 'Church' has existed the true Church, 'which is His body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all' (Eph. 1:22-23, Heb. 12:23 note) like the believing remnant within Israel (Rom. 11:5, note)  The predicted future of the visible church is apostasy (Luke 18:8, 2Tim. 3:1-8; of the true church glory (Matt. 13;36-43; Rom. 8:18-23; 1 Thess. 4:4-17)."
Scofield seemingly finds no place for baptism. Yet we are told, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." (Acts 2.-43.) It seems evident that the Lord added only baptized persons.

Also, his definition of the visible church is wide enough to include almost anything or everything,      a loose interpretation of the visible church which the New Testament does not support; with little or no distinction between true visible churches and false churches, and with the intimation that all visible churches will go into apostasy at the end, evidently allowing for no true visible churches which refuse to drift into apostasy.

In omitting baptism from his definitions of the church, Scofield breaks with historic Protestantism and comes near to the position of the Quakers and their elimination of baptism entirely. No church, apostolic, Lutheran., Presbyterianp Episcopal or any of the well known denominations in Protestantism, thinks of the church entirely apart from baptism. They may disagree on the mode, but to all of them baptism is an ordinance to the church and inseparable from the church.

How different the early church. H. Lacey (The Church - A Symposium , edited by J.B. Watson) says, "The history of the Acts shows that early believers faithfully discharged their Masters commission. They made disciples. They baptized them.  And they taught them assiduously the ways of Christ. Baptism was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, and those who believed were baptized (Acts 2:38-41).       When the Samaritans believed Philip's preaching, they, too, were baptized (8:12). The seeker from Ethiopia having found the Savior, desired immersion, and Philip was not slow to grant a request so evident of the health of the new-born soul" (Acts 8-.36-38).  When Saul of Tarsus was saved, Ananias was sent with the instructions 'arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins' (22:16) . Thus was he urged to act for himself and to be baptized in such a way as to repudiate the sins of his past life which had already been cleansed by Christ.   As there was no lack of evidence of a genuine work of God, and as there was no Scriptural objection, Peter commanded those of the household of Cornelius to be baptized, and they were baptized, and they were baptized at once (Acts Acts 10:47-48). With Lydia and those who believed, and with the jailer and his household who heard the Word and believed, it was not otherwise (16:15 and 31:34), and many of the Corinthians heard, believed and were baptized (18:8). So faithfully did these believers obey their Master, that irrespective of sex, race or color, every convert was baptized. The New Testament epistles take this for granted and never envisage an unbaptized believer."     Not so with C.I. Scofield.

SUMMARY: THE INVISIBLE CHURCH

"The New Testament shows no distinction between a visible and an invisible church. The Christian community is as visible and as bodily as the individual Christian." (K.L. Schmidt, A theological Word Book of the Bible , Edited by Alan Richardson, p. 49)

"The theory that is most commonly relied upon., by those who belong to apocryphal institutions and do not wish to admit the truth of Baptist claims, is the 'Universal, Invisible Church' theory. The theory has variations, but in the main the holders of it maintain that the church mentioned in Matt. 16:18, the one that Jesus said He would build was not the local assembly, but consisted of all believers of every church (or no church, as the case may be) everywhere.  According to this view, one becomes a member of the church automatically when he becomes a Christian. To believe this, one must believe that side by side today exists two churches, one local and visible consisting of man and women organized for the carrying out of Christ's commands, the other unseen and invisible and entrusted with no work or mission. Moreover, this involves that these churches have a different membership, since some presumably belong to the universal, invisible Church who have never joined the local, visible church." (Roy Mason,The Church that Jesus Built, pp. 35, 36)

The New Testament does not define or identify an invisible church. There is no hint in any of the epistles to the local churches, or in the messages to the seven churches that an invisible church exists in a visible church and not identical with it.
The doctrine of the invisible church did not originate in the days when the church was in its primitive simplicity and purity, but after its corruption.
The doctrine of the invisible church was devised when many of the visible churches were no longer true New Testament churches.
Augustine defined the true church as the ideal church within the corrupt and known only by God. He devised this as a defense against those who insiow on the formation of true New Testament Churches.
Luther defined the true church as the spiritual core within the visible church which was then a state church and often an unregenerate church.
Calvin identified the true church as the invisible church within the larger visible church., even a corrupt church. His language indicates that the true church is often a minority in a corrupt visible church.
The Church of England (Episcopal) in its articles did not endorse the idea of an invisible church within a visible church.
Interdenominationalisim has largely accepted the idea that the true church is the invisible church - often within a liberal church or a corrupt church and sometimes outside the visible church entirely thus violating the Word of God and setting aside the Scriptural teachings on separation from heresy and apostasy.
This unscriptural theory permits the true believer to remain in an organization untrue to the Word of God, supporting a ministry that does not preach the whole counsel of God, contributing to a denominational program which undermines the Word of God and a guilty party to the policies of the visible church to which he belongs, contrary to the word of God
The Pre-Reformation groups and the Anabaptists did not deny that there were true believers in the corrupt or apostate churches., but they did not identify them as a true church. They insisted that the true believers who had separated from the corrupt churches and formed believing fellowships were the true churches. Their conception of the true church was decisively rejected by Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.  It is also rejected by much of the fundamentalism and evangelicalism of our day.
We affirm that the true churches of today are not invisible churches within or independent of visible churches, but churches of true believers formed after the New Testament pattern and separate from apostasy heresy and the world.


THE CHURCHES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT


"The popular teaching that all of the saved compose the church of Christ is a man-made theory  without Bible proof.  We recognize every saved person as a brother or sister, but not every saved one is a member of a gospel church." (J.T. Moore, Why I am a Baptist )

"We have a hundred and ten cases which will require a careful examination. The very large number of ninety-two (92) are so manifestly in the local sense, there can be no controversy about them. Thirty-six of them are in the plural, which tolerates nothing but the local idea, neither the universal nor invisible admitting the plurals and the remaining fifty-six are singular uses as explicit as the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, the church in Rome or the church in Corinth.  But ninety-two cases out of a hundred and ten in which the church is a local body as well defined as the legislative assembly of a Grecian free city or the Athenian democracy we deem to be an immensely strong argument in favor of our position.   It renders it absolutely certain that the local idea commonly rules in the New Testament, and if there be no equally explicit use in a conflicting sense, exceedingly probable, (if we ought not to say certain,) that it rules exclusively."  (E.J. Fish, Ecclesiology, pp. 81,82)

The meaning of "ekklesia." In the Greek, Trench says, "Ecelesia, as all know, was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the rights of citizenship , for the transaction of public affairs. That they were summoned   expressed in the latter part of the word, that they were summoned out of the whole population, a select portion of it, neither the populace, nor yet strangers, nor those who had forfeited their civil rights, --this is expressed in the first. Both the calling and the calling out are moments to be when the word is assumed into a higher Christian sense - for in them the chief part of its adaptation to its more august use lies."

The meaning of a local church. In the New Testament we have local churches composed of baptized believers, meeting for worship and fellowship, and observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.  All were professed believers, and there is no record of unbaptized believers in the fellowship of the churches or observing the Lord's Supper. Epistles are addressed to local churches, and the seven churches of Revelation are local churches. There are no synods, presbyteries, associations, conventions or overhead organizations of any character.

The Church viewed generically, or as an institution.  It is so used in Matt. 16:17-18.  "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."  The church is here conceived of as an institution, an institution to be built.  It cannot mean a local church, and the context forbids its interpretation as an invisible church.

The Church viewed prospectively.  "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn which are written in heaven." (Heb. l2:23)  Here are the elect of all ages.   This is not the visible assembly on earth, neither is it an invisible assembly but the assembly in glory of the saints of God.

The Church viewed as the Body of Christ.  To many liberals. the body of Christ is equated with the visible world wide aggregation of churches, true and false; sound and unsound; pure and corrupt, a visible church with all its doctrinal and moral impurities. This is a radical perversion of the true doctrine of the church. To many others, the body of Christ, is an invisible body, with invisible members, with no visible functions of a body, sometimes in a true church, sometimes in a false church and with no doctrinal consistency. The New Testament does not teach the doctrine of the invisible church as held today.

The New Testament teaches that the body of Christ is a church and not a miscellaneous collection of men of various doctrines, governments, labels and practices, involved in compromises with heresies and apostasy. This is the creation of the human imagination for the purpose of rationalizing an unscriptural situation. This must be rejected.

The New Testament very definitely refers to the local church as the body of Christ. This is seen clearly in 1Cor. 12:27-28, the language indicating that it is a visible local church.  It is also clear that if the Corinthian church was the body of Christ so is every other true local church. Paul does not mean that the Corinthian church was the body of Christ to the exclusion of the other churches as the Romanists and others would claim, but it was the body of Christ as each other true local church was also the body of Christ. If one retains the figurative meaning of this term, there is no difficulty. If one insists upon a stark literalism which was not intended, then difficulties arise. The body of Christ is a figurative expression, expressing relationship, not a literal entity excluding all other entities. To say that the body of Christ represents the corrupt church of today is to prostitute its meaning. To say it represents a miscellaneous collection of spiritual individuals., holding all varieties of doctrines and practices, is to rob the term "church" of all consistent meaning and to predicate an assembly which has never assembled and cannot assemble. Neither could they agree or even worship together if they did assemble.


SUMMARY

The New Testament church is, first of all, a local company of baptized believers who have made a credible profession of salvation in Christ, organized for worship, fellowship, the proclamation of the Word and the observance of the ordinances. It is also viewed as an institution and as the prospective assembly of the saints in the coming glory.

The New Testament does not teach the existence of an invisible ideal church, above, within or apart from a true local assembly of baptized believers.

The doctrine of the invisible church arose as a practical necessity for reconciling the corrupt visible church with the New Testament teachings concerning a true church.  It was not based upon the clear teachings of the Scriptures but an expediency for the existing situation.

The doctrine of the invisible church has been unwholesome in its effects, for it has blocked reform of existing visible churches. It has often been the enemy of true separated churches., often apart from each other, a situation not taught or envisaged in the New Testament.

The doctrine of the invisible church involves its members in corrupt and apostate churches, in innumerable compromises and even betrayal of true Christian doctrines when these members support a visible church which in its nature and ministry contradicts the true local church of the New Testament.

The doctrine of the universal, visible church (Rome) is to be rejected, because it is not supported by the Word of God. The doctrine of the invisible, universal church of Reformed Protestantism is to be rejected for the same reason.   We must affirm the true visible churches of the New Testament and give ourselves to a return to the New Testament church, separate from apostasy and apostate denominations - separate from heresy and denominations which condone and teach heresy.