Upon
This Rock
The
Foundation and Perpetuity of New Testament Churches
“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.” – Mt. 16:18
by
Mark W. Fenison
Table
of Contents
Upon This Rock
The Roman Catholic Interpretation
The Baptist Interpretation
The Building Line of Thought
The Building Rock Characterized
Positive Proof for the Baptist
Interpretation
Quotations from the
What is the Church?
The Roman Catholic View
The Protestant View
The Historical Baptist View
Reasons Given for another Kind of Church
Misapplication and Misunderstanding of Metaphors
What is Church Perpetuity?
Inspired History
Secular History
How Other Denominations View Historical
Baptists
Are True Churches Identified by the Name
“Baptist”?
The Error Factor
Where to draw the Line?
Conclusion
Sample
Churches You May Contact
Upon
This Rock
The Foundation
and Perpetuity of New Testament Churches
“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.” – Mt. 16:18
There is presently a massive effort by the Roman Catholic Church to
bring Protestants back to
Another advancement for
One major emphasis of
On the other hand, historical Baptists have always claimed that text for
themselves. Baptists do not believe
Matthew
A. The Roman Catholic Interpretation
The following quotations are taken from Catholic websites in order to
fairly represent the position of the Roman Catholic Church in regard to Matthew
16:18-19.
“Scriptural Evidence for the Papacy
and the Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter as the Rock (Matthew
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will
build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Catholics contend that the "rock" is Peter himself, not his
faith, or Jesus (although arguably his faith is assumed by Christ in naming
Peter "rock" in the first place). This interpretation is found in
the Church Fathers at least as early as Tertullian (d.c.230). The next verse (16:19) is in the
singular, which supports this view, which is in fact the consensus of the majority of biblical
commentators today, according to the article on Peter in the Encyclopedia
Britannica (1985 edition). (13)
It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter petros (literally, "stone"), not
"And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as
These quotations correctly represent the Catholic position. The Catholic argument is quite simple and
clear. They believe the original gospel autographs were written in Aramaic and
then later translated into Greek. They also believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic
and therefore He used the Aramaic term “kepha” in
Matthew 16:18 for both Peter and the rock. Since “kepha”
means a large rock, they argue that there is no difference between the name
given to Simon and the “rock” upon which the church is built. They also argue that at the time of Christ
there was no difference between “petros” and “
B. The Baptist Interpretation
Baptists have always argued that the intent of Matthew
First, we admit that Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic as John 1:42
implies this. However, we deny that the gospels were first written in Aramaic
and then later translated into Greek. There is no evidence for such a
conclusion and there is sufficient evidence against it.[1][1]
Second, if Matthew intended for the readers to understand that “kepha” was in the background of his thinking, he could have
included it as John did in parenthesis. However, he carefully avoided any
reference to the Aramaic. Why? Baptists believe that the contextual intent of
Matthew was different than that of John. John’s intent was simply to tell the
reader that Simon’s new name meant “a rock.”
The Aramaic “kepha” satisfied John’s intent.
However, the intent of Matthew was to go further than merely defining Simon’s
new name as “a rock” but to inform the readers as to the exact character and
nature of that rock. This required Matthew to avoid any mention of the Aramaic
“kepha” because the Aramaic term could not convey his
intent. His intent could only be
conveyed by the historical and grammatical distinctives
found between the Greek words “petros” and “
This interpretation is confirmed by a careful consideration of the Greek
grammar. The grammar provides much evidence that a contrast was in mind rather
than the Catholic view of common identity. For example, the first noun (“petros”) is
without the definite article (“the” in the Greek) while the second (“
“but this would have distorted the
unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!” - Mirror of Truth
Yes, it “is the whole point.” However, are we to believe that the whole
point consists only in a “play” on words or is there a POINT to this “play on
words”? Baptists believe there is a point to this play on words and that point
is to make a clear contrast between these terms in order to complete a
contextual line of thought. Catholics believe that the only point being made by
the Greek is nothing more than can be found if he had used the Aramaic as follows: “Thou art Kephas and
upon this Kephas I will build…”
If that were the point it could have been better expressed by simply
following John’s parenthetical formula and saying:
“Thou
art Peter (being interpreted “a rock”) and upon YOU I will build my church.”
The Catholic point makes any Greek word play redundant and pointless.
Not only so, but the change from a masculine to a feminine gender does not help
convey such a point.
Roman Catholic exegetes clearly see the potential of such a contrast and
vigorously attempt to explain away all historical and grammatical contrasts.
However, any interpretation that depends upon explaining away the obvious is a
weaker interpretation than one which incorporates the obvious. The most obvious contrast that Roman Scholars
vigorously attempt to explain away is the historical distinction between “petros” and “
“As Greek scholars--even non-Catholic
ones-- admit, the words petros and
However, there is more error than truth in this statement. It is true
that in ancient Greek these terms were not synonyms and they were contrasting
descriptions. However, the Catholic assertion that the “one time” distinction
was only found in “some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before Christ, but
that distinction was long gone by the time of Matthew’s gospel” is an
assumption that cannot be proven. Indeed there is evidence to the contrary.
As late as 150 BC in the accounts of the Maccabees,
the masculine “petros” is used to describe small
stones.[3][3] The accounts of the Maccabee’s
were well read and known in the days of Christ.
Roman Catholic exegetes feel the weight of this argument and therefore
try to establish their position by appealing to the context to demonstrate that
their interpretation is a better fit.
“Catholics contend that the "rock" is Peter himself, not
his faith, or Jesus (although arguably his faith is assumed by Christ in naming
Peter "rock" in the first place)….The next verse (
However, the mention of a singular pronoun only brings to light more
problems for the Roman Catholic exegete. It is the pronouns of this context
that demonstrate the error of the Catholic position. When Jesus refers to Peter
He uses a second person pronoun (direct address) but when He refers to the
“rock” upon which the church is to be built He changes to a third person
pronoun (indirect address) proving that the feminine “rock” cannot
grammatically refer to the masculine
“Peter.”
“YOU
(2nd person) are Peter but upon THIS (3rd person) rock…”
Clearly the grammatical antecedent for “this rock” cannot be
Peter but must refer to the third person singular “it” in verse 17 which in turn refers
to the content of Peter’s profession in verse 16 – “Thou art the Christ the
Son of the Living God.”
Indeed, this interpretation is confirmed by
Catholics themselves in The Confession of the New Vatican Catechism. Sections
424 and 442 make this very clear:
424 Moved by the grace on the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we
believe in Jesus and confess: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
God." (Mat
442 ... And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus,
saying, 'He is the Son of God.'" (Acts
Hence, their own catechism supports the Baptist point of view. What about the Catholic argument concerning
the singular pronoun “thee” in verse 19? Doesn’t this pronoun prove that Peter
holds the keys and therefore has a special place of authority? This singular
pronoun harmonizes perfectly with the Baptist position once the contextual line
of thought is made clear.
1. The Building Line of Thought:
It should be easy to see Matthew 16:18 outlines a building context and
line of thought:
There is a builder “I
will build”.
There is something to build “my church” and
There is something to build on “upon this rock”.
These points clearly demonstrate a building line of thought.
However, apart from the name given to Simon, there is an obvious missing
ingredient in this line of thought. The ingredient missing in this line of
thought is the material out of which Jesus builds His church. The builder is
named. The building is named. The foundation for building is named. However,
apart from “petros” the material Christ uses to build
the church is not named?
How does the noun “petros” supply this missing
ingredient? Significantly, the noun “petros” is found
without the definite article (“the”) in the Greek text. This often indicates
that the speaker or writer is intentionally trying to emphasize the character
or quality of the term. What would be the impact of such a characterization in
a building line of thought? Such a characterization would define the character
of rock as suitable for building material.
For example, the characterization would amplify the contrasting word
play by distinguishing the kind of rock Jesus builds the church with from the
kind of rock He builds the church upon. What contextual evidence is there for
such an interpretation? (1) The preposition “upon” clearly demonstrates
that “
Both “Petros” and “
2. The building “rock” characterized?
When the historical and grammatical context
is all considered there is a clear picture of what kind of building rock “petros” is intended to characterize.
a. A Derived Kind:
Grammatically the masculine “petros” is a
derivative from the feminine “
“Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for
flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven.” – Mt. 16:17
Spiritually, Simon was a derived product from a greater heavenly source.
In essence he was a chip off the old rock.
b. A Prepared Kind: The builder would not only have the rock cut
at the quarry but he would have it cut to the precise measurement to fit the
exact place intended for it in the structure.
This was the job of the Master cutter or rock mason. The rock mason was
responsible to make ready such a stone prepared for the use of the Master
builder. John the Baptist had been sent ahead of Christ to “make ready a
people prepared for the Lord” (Lk.
c. A Representative Kind:
In the immediate context it is clear that Jesus was not directing his
questions to Peter. He was addressing all his disciples. Impetuous Peter simply
responded in behalf of all the rest. His response represents the kind of
response that Christ would require from one and all of those whom His church
would consist.
It is in this representative capacity that he is addressed in verse 19
as “thee” in conjunction with the keys. Positive proof of this is that only two
chapters later the authority of the keys is said to be given to the church
where the plural pronoun “ye” is used (Mt.
3. Positive Proof for the Baptist
Interpretation:
Who could be a better judge to determine whether the Roman Catholic or
the Baptist interpretation is correct other than Peter himself? How did Peter understand Christ words in
Matthew 16:18-19?
It is clear from Peter’s own epistle that He understood the Baptist
interpretation to be the correct one.
How is this so? Peter clearly describes the material out of which Christ
builds His churches as spiritual building stones:
“Ye also, as LIVELY STONES, are BUILT
up a spiritual house…” – 2 Pet. 2:5
Here is a spiritual “house” that is built out of living
“stones.” Where did Peter get such an
analogy for the church if it wasn’t from Christ’s use of Peter’s own name in
Matthew 16:18?
If more proof is needed to prove that Peter understood Christ as
Baptists interpret Him, then, Peter goes on to provide it by his use of the
disputed term “
“To whom coming, as unto a living STONE, disallowed indeed of
men…..Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner STONE…the
STONE…..a STONE of stumbling…a ROCK (petra)
of offense.” – 1 Pet. 2:4,6,8
The intent of this context is that this “rock” is the object of faith
and therefore correlates perfectly with the profession of faith metaphorically
described as a “rock” in Matthew 16:16-18.
The characterization of church members as “lively stones” combined with
identifying Jesus Christ as the “
“…whom am also an elder…Neither be lord’s over God’s heritage…” –
2 Pet. 5:1,3
Here would be the optimal point to assert his OFFICE of primacy if
that was intended by Christ in Matthew 16:18-19 and yet he denounces such an
idea.
The point is namely this. Every point of the Catholic interpretation of
Matthew 16:18-19 is categorically denied by Peter. On the other hand, every point of the Baptist
interpretation is confirmed by Peter.
If the Catholic position were the correct one, then, the question of the
context in Matthew 16:13-19 would have been, “Whom do men say that Peter is?”
However, the question is about Christ rather than Peter. The confession of
Peter is not only the answer to this contextual question but it provides the
only BASIS for salvation which must be the FOUNDATION or beginning point upon
which Christ builds His church. Any other foundation or beginning point is
unreasonable, as it would give
prominence to Peter over Christ and salvation.
It is interesting to note that Peter uses one term (lithos)
in 2 Peter 2:4-8 for two distinct subjects.”[5][5]
4. Quotations from the
Catholics usually argue that all the Church Fathers believed that Peter
was the rock Jesus built His church upon.
However, there is a speech by Bishop Strossmayer's
presented in The Vatican Council Of 1870
and a paper presented at this council by Archbishop Kenrick
that demonstrates differently. Strossmayer’s speech
is taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia online at New Advent.
“St. Cyril in his fourth book on the Trinity, says, 'I believe that
by the rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles.'
St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, in his second
book on the Trinity, says, 'The rock (petra) is the
blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of St. Peter;' and in
the sixth book of the Trinity, he says, 'It is on this rock of the confession
of faith that the church is built.' 'God,'
says
After him St. Chrysostom says in his
fifty-third homily on St. Matthew, 'On this rock I will build my church—that is,
on the faith of the confession.' Now, what was the confession of the apostle?
Here it is—'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
Ambrose, the holy Archbishop of
Of all the doctors of Christian antiquity
Archbishop Kenrick
(1806-1897)
This next item is from a speech prepared by Archbishop Peter Kenrick of
“[p. 107] The rule of Biblical interpretation imposed upon us is
this: that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted contrary to the unanimous
consent of the fathers. It is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous
consent is to be found. But this failing, the rule seems to lay down for us the
law of following, in their interpretation of Scripture, the major number of the
fathers, that might seem to approach
unanimity. Accepting this rule, we are compelled to abandon the usual modern
exposition of the words, “On this rock I build my church.”
In a remarkable pamphlet “printed in fac-simile
of manuscript,” and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find
five different interpretations of the word rock, in the place cited; “the first
of which declares” (I transcribe the words) “that the church was built on
Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers—among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great,
Augustine.
“The second interpretation understands from [p. 108] these words, ‘On
this rock I build my church,’ that the church was built on all the apostles,
whom Peter represented by virtue of the primary. And this opinion is followed
by eight fathers—among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome,
Augustine, Theodoret.
“The third interpretation asserts that the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc.,
are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed—that this faith,
this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the
living God is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all,
since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa,
Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact;
from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.
“The fourth interpretation declares that the words, ‘On this rock,’
etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is,
Christ—the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by
sixteen fathers and doctors.
“The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of the
rock, the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are
constituted living stones out of which the church is built.”
Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the
words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.
From this it follows, either that no argument at [p. 109] all, or one
of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, “On this rock
will I build my church,” in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by the rock is to be
understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for
them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of
papal infallibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
If we are bound to follow the majority
of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood
the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.”
What
is the Church?
“I will build
my church”
This question would be simple to answer if it were not for all the
modern confusion attached to the English term “church”. Some versions of Webster’s dictionary give as
many as nine different conflicting definitions for this term. Nearly all of
these definitions have arisen after the writing of the New Testament. However, there is no such confusion over the
Greek term used by writers of the New Testament. The term “ekklesia”
translated “church” in our English Bibles had only one historical and well known meaning until the writing of the New Testament. The unanimous opinion
of scholars is that it had no other meaning than a “local visible body of
qualified people gathered together in order to conduct some kind of
business.” Even the use of ekklesia in the Septuigent
verifies this meaning.[6][6]
All scholars acknowledge that the historical meaning clearly represents at
least 97 out of the 115 times it is found in the New Testament. However, the remaining 18 uses have given
rise to much argument. On the basis of
these 18 uses many have contended that Jesus introduced a brand new definition
for this term which was not only
previously unheard of but directly opposite in meaning to the well known
historical usage.
In our first section we have demonstrated that the church was built out
of material characterized by the name of Peter as found in a building context.
Our conclusion was that “petros” represented the kind
of material that was prepared by John the Baptist for Christ to build His
church. This means that the church that Jesus built was built out of BAPTIZED
believers. This kind of membership is consistent with the historical meaning
and the admitted majority usage of ekklesia in the
New Testament. A New Testament ekklesia would be a
“body of baptized believers habitually gathering together in one place in order
to carry out the Lord’s business.”
However, the new definition would reject this
kind of membership or redefine it. The new kind of church that some imagine
Jesus built in addition to the historical idea is one that includes all the
saved whether baptized or unbaptized. The only
exception to this view are those who view salvation as including baptism.
Nevertheless, the new kind of church would consist of all the saved (however
that term might be defined) and at no time on earth would all the members of
this kind of church ever assemble together.
In the following pages the new kind of church as defined first by Roman
Catholics and then by Protestants will be contrasted to the well known
historical view of the church.
1. The Roman Catholic View of the church
The official position of the
CCC 846 - Outside the Church there is no
salvation. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes
from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on
Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on
earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way
of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself
explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at
the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as
through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to
enter it or to remain in it. LG 14
Hence, the Roman Catholic view of the church interprets it to include
all members of the Roman Catholic denomination. They see salvation and the
church as co-equal and co-extensive with each other. Salvation is in their church and damnation is
to be outside their church.
However, the Roman Catholic Church gives itself a way out by going on to
say that there is an exception to the rule of church salvation. They allow
salvation for those who are sincere but ignorant of the Catholic Church. Hence
they provide TWO ways for salvation:
CCC 847 This affirmation is not aimed at
those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or
his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by
grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates
of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation. LG 16:
The Roman Catholic concept of the church and salvation are evidently
inseparable. Salvation is dependent upon being either a member of their church
or being completely ignorant of their church but yet a sincere religious
person.
Does the Bible support this view of church salvation and/or the second
gospel salvation of sincere but ignorant?
The Scriptures clearly teach that the church and its foundation and
first officers had no existence prior to the earthly ministry of Christ (Mt.
2. The Reformation View of the
Church
Under the heading “The Protestant conception” of the church, Dr. Berkhof , a well
known Protestant scholar defines it as follows:
“The Reformation was a reaction
against the externalism of
Berkhof evidently saw a problem in this
definition as it seemed to imply two kinds of churches because he goes on to
say,
“The Church universal, that is, the
Church as it exists in the plan of God, and as it is realized only in the
course of the ages, was conceived as consisting of the whole body of elect, who
are in course of time called unto life eternal. But the Church as it actually
exists on earth was regarded as the community of the saints. And it was not
only the invisible Church that was so regarded, but the visible Church as well.
These are not two Churches but one, and therefore have but a single essence.”
– ibid. p. 564
Protestants have a tremendous problem trying to define their concept of
the church as one in essence when one aspect is essentially invisible
while the other is essentially visible.
One includes lost professors while the other excludes lost
professors. One includes all the saved while the other includes only the
baptized professors. How can such diverse characteristics be interpreted to
define only one kind of church in essence?
However, this theory has many more problems. How could Christ speak of
building a church upon a foundation that originated in the New Testament (Eph.
Other Protestants recognize that the church is a New Testament concept
and therefore deny that Old Testament saints are part of their big universal
invisible church. This concept is known as dispensationalism.
Although the dispensational view of the universal church seems to avoid Berkof’s problem by denying membership to Old Testament and
tribulation saints, however, such denial actually creates more problems than it
solves. Why? Dispensationalism
teaches that to be saved is to be in their big church and to be lost is to out
of that church. If to be in the dispensational church is to be saved and to be
out of the dispensational church is to be lost then how can such a church
exclude any saint in any age without changing the essentials of salvation and
the gospel? The scriptures condemn any other gospel than the Old Testament gospel (Acts
Therefore, both the Catholic and the two Protestant definitions of the
church cannot be right as they oppose the clear statements of Scripture and
confuse the church with salvation. When
it is seen that salvation precedes the origin of the church then it is impossible to confuse one with the
other. If the prerequisites for church membership are salvation and baptism as
characterized by the name of Peter in Matthew 16:18, then, the only kind of
church that can fit that description is the common historical meaning of the
term.
3. The Historical Baptist View of the Church
When Jesus used the Greek term “ekklesia” it
had already a well known meaning that was established for hundreds of years. It
simply meant a local visible congregation. Indeed, out of the 115 times it is
found in the New Testament, there is no argument that at least 97 uses all by context demand this age old
definition. All the fuss is over the
remaining 18 times. The basis for the so—called “universal invisible” church is
founded upon these 18 uses. Matthew
“ECCLESIA IN
MATT. XVI, 18.
’Editor of the Western Recorder: Will you not give, briefly and clearly,
your reason for believing that the word ecclesia, in Matt. xvi. 18, means the
local assembly?
Fraternally,
A
Constant Reader’
Most readily. We have seven reasons, but here we will take space for
only three, either of which we believe to be decisive.
1st. It is conceded that, according to the usage of classic
Greek, the word, ecclesia means a local assembly. It is also conceded that it
means the same thing according to the usage of the Septuigent,
which is the Greek version of the Old Testament, in use in
2nd. The usage of our Lord Himself compels us to believe that
He meant local assembly when He said: ‘On this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ Christ used the word ecclesia,
so far as the record tells us, just 22 times. We will set aside, for the sake
of argument, this passage, Matt. Xvi. 18, as doubtful, and look at the 21
passages, to determine our Lord’s usage of the word. Whatever that usage is,
must be applied to this passage. In Matt. Xviii, 17, Jesus says: ‘Tell it to
the church, but if he neglect to hear the church.’ This is the local assembly. In Rev. I, II,
III Christ uses the word ecclesia 18 times, e.g., ‘the seven churches,’ ‘to the
angel of the church at
Thus in every one of the 21 instances in which Christ uses the word
ecclesia, there can be no question that He meant the local assembly. The
probabilities, therefore, are twenty-one to nothing that He meant local
assembly in Matt. Xvi. 18 – the passage which, for the sake of the argument, we
set aside as doubtful. A probability of twenty-one to nothing is a certainity. Hence, it is certain that Christ meant the
local assembly when He said: ‘On this rock I will build my church.’
3rd. Christ in Matt. Xvi. 18,
promised to build His church, which certainly was very dear to His
heart. He did not promise to build but
the one. If He meant anything else than the local assembly, then we have this
result, viz: He promised to build His church and then
never made the slightest reference to it afterwards; but in speaking on the
subject of church twenty-one times, He, in every case, referred to something
entirely different from what He promised to build. That He should speak
twenty-one times about the church He did not promise to build, and never make
the slightest allusion to the church He did promise to build, is simply
incredible. Can there be a reasonable doubt that the church Christ spoke of
twenty-one times, and the only one He spoke of, is the church He promised to
build?
These are three of our reasons, each one of which, by itself, we think
is decisive. We have four others we will not now give. ‘A threefold cord is not
easily broken.’” (quoted in My Church by J.B. Moody, pp. 69-71
4. Reasons Given for Another Kind of
Church
Why do many think Jesus referred to another kind of Church in Matthew
16:18 other than the kind He refers to the next 21 times? They offer two basic reasons.
First, the word “ekklesia” in Matthew 16:18
occurs in the singular with the definite article (the) in the Greek text.
Second, the context does not give any geographical location of the church He
intends to build. For many, this is
enough to suggest that He had in mind another kind of church, one that has no
geographical location because it involves all Christians. Those who believe
this theory are not agreed about the membership of their church. Some believe
it involves all believers from Genesis to Revelation (although it seems late to
think about building a church that included saints in the Old Testament who are
already departed and in heaven?) while others believe it only includes
believers from Pentecost to the rapture excluding tribulation saints.
However, does this theory have merit because of those two things
mentioned? The second time Jesus uses
the term “ekklesia” is in Matthew 18:17. There are no scholars that deny the local
assembly is being referred to in Matthew 18:15-17. The context makes this certain
as it would be impossible for an offended brother to take his case before all
Christians in all ages or before all Christians living in the entire
world. How could such a church
administer discipline to such a person?
The local assembly can be the only meaning here and yet the term ekklesia is found exactly as it was in Matthew 16:18. It is
found in the singular just as in Matthew 16:18. It is found with the definite
article just as in Matthew 16:18. In both cases there is no geographical
location identified. In both cases the
keys of the kingdom are mentioned. Hence, there is no more reason to assume
that Jesus built another kind of church in Matthew 16:18 than to assume He is
speaking of another kind of church in Matthew 18:17. Indeed, if the criteria
used in Matthew 16:18 is proof of another kind of church, then, whatever that
church is, the church in Matthew 18:17 must be the same as it too has the same
criteria for such an opinion.
The only church in existence when Jesus used the term “ekklesia” in these two passages was the local visible
assembly at
Thus, in Matthew 16:18 when Jesus says “I will build my church” He is
referring to the church at Jerusalem from which all other New Testament
Churches originate through the Great Commission practice.
For example, in the Great Commission the first church is commanded to
reproduce after its own kind. They are commanded to “go” with the SAME gospel
that Jesus preached, administer the SAME baptism that Jesus submitted to and
administered and to teach the same faith and practice that Jesus “commanded”
them. In obeying this command they would reproduce churches of like faith and
order.
Secondly, there is a natural cycle of reproduction found in this
command. Going with the gospel precedes baptism and baptism precedes teaching
them to “observe all things whatsoever I have commanded.” This last command introduces the first “go”
and so on. Hence, there is a natural cycle of reproduction of churches of like
faith and order. Of course, if there is only a “natural” reproductive cycle
then it could fail.
However, there is a divine promise of enablement to reproduce like faith
and order. Literally, Jesus says, “I will be with you all the days of the age”
or in keeping with the idiom as one Greek scholars translates “I will be with
you day in and day out” as they obey this command.
Finally, this commission cannot possibly be obeyed apart from actual
membership in a local visible church. Those commanded to do this are only those
who have already obeyed this command. Hence, Christ never authorized the lost
to gospelize themselves or others, the unbaptized to baptize themselves or others, the untaught to
teach themselves or others. Those commanded are those who are saved, baptized
and previously assembled under sound teaching. Only these kind of “disciples”
are authorized to “go” make disciples. Those being made disciples are being
made by this same process which requires they assemble in order to be taught
how to observe all things commanded. Hence,
the new disciples are either being added to a previous church of like faith and
order as on the day of Pentecost OR they are being organized into such a church
as on the missionary journeys of Paul (Acts 14:22-23).
5. Paul’s Church different than Christ’s?
Many believe that Jesus built another kind of church other than the
local assembly because of the way Paul used this term primarily in his prison
epistles. How did he use it? He used it the very same way Jesus did in Mathew
16:18. Paul uses the term church in the singular with the definite article
without naming a specific geographical location in such instances. Hence, many conclude that another kind of church
is intended by Paul other than the local visible kind. However, in all of these instances if either
the abstract or the common generic use of
nouns are recognized, then the supposed problem vanishes.
It is significant that most of these cases are found in what scholars
call Paul’s prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, etc.). When Paul was free he would make it his
practice to return to each and every local visible church he organized (Acts
“And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also
in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise
read the epistle from Laodicea.” – Col. 4:16
How would you write a letter that you intend to be read by a
number of churches so that what you say has direct application to each church
that reads it? How would you teach the Biblical concept of such a church, its
internal relationship between members? It’s relationship with Christ? It’s
relationship to the world around it? The grammatical way to do this is to
employ the use of abstract and generic terms.
A generic term is a term used in the singular, with a definite article
without applying it to any specific person or thing. For example, when Paul
wanted to address the responsibilities of each husband that read his letter he
spoke of “THE husband.” No specific husband is named as that would restrict it
to just one of many husbands. But by saying “THE husband” then each and every
husband reading his letter would understand that it applied to each and every
one of that fit that description. Likewise, he employed the same type of
generic language in regard to wives, laborers, servants or churches. When Paul wants to teach them what is the
Biblical concept of such a church he would use the term “ekklesia”
abstractly for instructive purposes. For example, the following use of “church”
in the next sentence demonstrates the abstract use.
“We will teach you the Biblical
nature of THE CHURCH and what are the ordinances of THE CHURCH and how many
types of offices there are in THE CHURCH and what is the mission of THE CHURCH
and who is the head of THE CHURCH.”
Indeed, one must use the term “church” abstractly if we are to teach
about it or its Biblical relationships, nature and ordinances. In these
circular church letters Paul gave them abundant instruction about the
Significantly, each New Testament church is metaphorically described as
a “body of Christ” (I Cor.
6. The Laws of Logic
Whatever truth relates to that kind of church can be applied to each
individual church that reads his letter. The scriptures never use metaphors of
the church that go beyond the limits of a local visible institution.
Another reason that this new kind of church theory should be rejected is
because it violates the basic law of logic.
The basic law of logic says that “A” cannot be both “A” and the opposite
of “A” at the same time. Another way of
saying this is that the term “wet” cannot be understood or defined to mean both
wet and dry at the same time or else words lose all value and meaning. A term
cannot mean something and its opposite at the same time. This is exactly the problem encountered by
those who give this new definition to the term church. The historical usage of ekklesia
defines it as a (1) local (2) visible (3) assembly. The new definition defines it as (1)
non-local (2) in-visible (3) un-assembled kind of church. Yet, some like Dr. Berkhof,
want us to believe that such a dual definition describes only one church in essence.
This is the height of nonsense if words have any meaning.
7. The
Another reason the universal invisible idea should be rejected is
because it confuses salvation with service.
This new idea states that if you are in this church you are saved and if
your outside this church you are lost. Hence, just like the Roman Catholic
concept of the church, salvation is inseparable from this concept of the
church. However, the scriptures teach that the church had no existence before
the ministry of Christ and that it is wholly a New Testament concept. The
foundation of the church is New Testament in origin as well as its first
officers (Eph.
Our conclusion is that the kind of church that Jesus built in Matthew
16:18 is the same kind He goes on to claim and talk about the next 21 times He
uses that term – the local kind consisting of baptized believers. Our
conclusion is that the kind of church that Paul speaks of is the kind that
Jesus built – the local kind. This kind
is built with the kind of material that is characterized by the name of Peter
in the context of Matthew 16:18 – scripturally baptized believers. Hence,
membership into the kind of church Jesus built requires that a person be first
saved and baptized or else they are not qualified for membership.
All saved both departed and living are in the same family of God by new
birth (Eph.
8. The Misapplication and Misunderstanding of
Metaphorical language?
Another reason why many have embraced the concept of a universal
invisible church is due to the misunderstanding and misapplication of simple
metaphors. The most common metaphor used
to describe this idea of the church is “the body of Christ.” However, does this metaphor support such an
idea?
First, we must define what is a metaphor. The word “metaphor” simply
means “to cross over” or “to transfer.”[7][7] The key to
understanding the right application of a metaphor is to understand how a
metaphor can and cannot be used. E.W. Bullinger in his book Figures
of Speech Used in the Bible defines a Metaphor by comparing it to a simile:
“The Simile says, ‘all we LIKE
sheep,’ while the metaphor declares that ‘we ARE the sheep of His pasture.’
While, therefore, the word ‘resembles’
marks the simile: ‘represents’ is the word that marks the metaphor”
- p. 735
The simile uses terms such as “like” and “as” whereas the metaphor uses to
be verbs such as “am” and “is” or “are.”
The simile conveys resemblance’s
whereas the metaphor conveys representation.
What type of representation is intended by the metaphor? Bullinger defines
the limits placed upon metaphorical representations when he says;
“Let it then be clearly understood
that a Metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one thing is another
thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of
anything expressed or understood. The two nouns themselves must both be
mentioned, and are always to be taken in
their absolute literal sense, or else no one can tell what they mean.”
- Ibid., p. 735 (emphasis mine)
This means that the intended representation is restricted to those
inherent qualities or attributes found in the term as understood in its most
literal sense. Deny the literal sense
and the metaphor is destroyed. For example, the church can only represent
a bride in areas that are characteristic of a literal bride. Faithfulness and purity and commitment to an espousal covenant are some characteristics that
can be metaphorically transferred to the
church because they are literal qualities found in a literal bride. However,
deny these literal qualities and the metaphorical relation ceases.
I am certain that the doctrine of the church has been completely
distorted into something it is not, simply because of the misuse and abuse of
metaphors. For example, when Paul told
the church at
However, an example of this metaphor being distorted beyond its limits
is the concept of a “universal invisible” body of Christ. Such an
interpretation violates the limits of a metaphor by expressing ideas that are
impossible for a “body” to express metaphorically simply because such
characteristics cannot be found in a literal body. When such concepts are tied
to the metaphor “body” concept they are oxymoron’s or contradictions. The body
and head metaphors cannot possibly be
used to express or teach such concepts. These metaphors clearly express a
working unity of individual members together under one final authority.
For example, every man is said to have Christ as his metaphorical head
(I Cor. 11:3) so likewise each and every New Testament Church has Christ for her
metaphorical head. If Christ is the metaphorical head of each New Testament
Church then obviously each church is also His metaphorical body (I Cor. 12:27). To argue that Christ cannot be the head of
many bodies is not only a failure to grasp the metaphor but is a complete
replacement of the metaphor with a literalism not intended. These are
metaphorical descriptions and therefore they are not to be taken literally or
else we have a monstrosity of countless bodies sharing one head and countless
brides sharing one groom. Such metaphors express relational concepts
between Christ and His churches and therefore can be applied to each church in
its particular relationship with Christ.
Let’s conclude by summarizing the intent of the above three metaphors.
The “head” used as a metaphor REPRESENTS Christ as the final authority over the church. The “body” used as a metaphor
simply means that each church REPRESENTS the unity and working relationship
between its members under the direction of one head (final authority). The “bride” used as a metaphor REPRESENTS the
idea of church members in covenant faithfulness to that authority. The bridal
relationship with Christ is simply faithfulness to the terms of the espousal
covenant (the Great Commission).
When all the metaphors that are used to describe the church are
carefully considered there is no evidence to support a “universal invisible
unassembled” church.
What
is Church Perpetuity
“the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it”
In ancient times, the walls of the city were its protection and the gate
was the place where all of its forces gathered inside before attacking the
enemy without. Hence, the gates
metaphorically represented the strength of the city as all of its power would
be marshaled through those gates at its enemy. Jesus claimed that all the
gathered forces of hell would never be able to prevail against His church.
Since the church is a local institution what does that mean? Certainly
the gates of hell have prevailed against individual churches throughout the
ages. It has prevailed by leading them into apostasy. It has prevailed by
completely removing them from existence on earth.
Remember that Jesus is using the word “church” in the generic sense in
Matthew 16:18 and He is therefore not referring to any particular church but to
the church as an institution.
He is promising that MY KIND of church shall never vanish from the face
of this earth. This means that somewhere
on earth there would always be His kind of churches continuing the work that He
gave them until He comes again. The
scriptures clearly teach the perpetuity of the church as an institution:
“Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
Jesus throughout all ages world without end. Amen” – Eph. 3:21
“…and lo, I will be with you always,
even unto the end of the world. Amen” – Mt. 28:20
“For as often as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he
come.” – I Cor. 11:26
How would Jesus accomplish this promise of perpetuity? The great commission provides the principles
to perpetuate the church that Jesus built.
“Go teach all nations baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you
always even unto the end of the world. Amen” – Mt. 28:19-20
There is a cycle of reproduction found in the Great Commission.
Disciples were first made by going with the gospel, then baptizing and teaching
them. Once discipled, the cycle of reproduction
begins all over again. This cycle of reproduction is not only a self
perpetuating cycle but a cycle of like faith and order. They were to “go” with
the same gospel He preached (Mk. 16:15) and then disciple those who had
been gospelized by administering the same
baptism He submitted to and teaching the same doctrine he taught and
then the process begins all over again for those new disciples – “go”. Significantly, Christ did not authorize
anyone to preach another gospel than what He preached, nor administer another
baptism than what He administered nor teach another faith and order than
what he commanded. The authorized limits are spelled out by the words “whatsoever
I have commanded you.” What He
promised always to be with are those
that were of like faith and order with Himself.
Churches do not evolve out of nothing.
They are made through the duly authorized process of the Great
Commission. The ungospelized cannot gospelize, the unbaptized cannot
baptize and the heretic and ignorant cannot teach others to “observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded.” When the
blind lead the blind, the ditch is the only option.
Hence, the genesis principle of reproduction after its own kind is built
into the Great Commission. The gates of hell cannot stop this cycle of
reproduction simply because Jesus promised its continued perpetuation by the
words “and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
The literal Greek of this phrase is “and lo, I am with you all the days
even unto the end of this age. Amen.” Therefore unlike the reproduction
principle in Genesis where specific species have died out and disappeared, the
divine promise makes certain that churches of like faith and order will never
disappear from the face of the earth until Jesus comes.
However, like the Genesis principle, individual ones come and go but not
before new ones are reproduced so that the specie does not die out altogether.
Individual oak trees come and go but not before other oak trees are reproduced.
Likewise, so it is with the
Can the Great Commission be carried out apart from link by link
succession? The answer should be obvious.
How is it possible that new disciples can be made apart from actually
physically going to them, physically baptizing them and physically assemblying together with them in order to teach them by
both precept and example to observe all things commanded? The Great Commission
cannot be carried out by proxy there must be a tangible link between the old
and new.
Churches do not evolve but are made. The text literally says “go MAKE
disciples.” Neither is there any
vertical authority being given in this commission and thus churches are not
direct creations by God. In the Great Commission there is a clear and distinct
difference between those being authorized “ye” and those being discipled “them.” Only
the “ye” is being given authority as only they have been through this process
as He “commanded.” The Great Commission is HORIZONTAL authority whereby
disciples are being made by the “ye” and thus any church that originates apart
from such authorized “ye” is not a
To be more precise, the commission cannot begin apart from the existence
of a church of like faith and order and cannot be completed without reproducing
a new church of like faith and order. Why? First, because it requires a church
of like faith and order to produce the disciples being sent out. These
missionaries are the tangible link between the sending church and the newly
constituted church.[8][8]
Second, the missionaries cannot teach the newly baptized believers to observe
all things without organizing them into a church of like faith and order. For
example how could they be taught to observe Matthew 16:15-17 apart from actual
membership in a local church??? Third,
the missionaries themselves cannot observe “all” things without being a member
of such a church. The Great Commission is the authorized tangible link between
a sending church and a newly reproduced church.
Even those Baptists in America during the 1800’s that are often quoted
as denying link chain succession in
theory, observed it in practice and called that practice “regular church
order.”[9][9]
Regardless, whether or not one likes or dislikes it, the Great
Commission cannot possibly be observed or perpetuated apart from a link
chain reproduction of churches that originate with Christ and reproduce
after their own kind until He comes again. To deny link chain historical
succession of like faith and order is to invalidate the very processes
authorized in the Great Commission. Those who object to
what they call “chain rattling” link by link back to Christ often demand
historical proof that such link by link succession exists. However, do they
ever demand such verification of dogs, people or any other thing that
reproduces after its own kind? No! They simply observe the present processes and
the identical characteristics of what is being reproduced and by faith believe
the Biblical record. Why? Because no such record exist for anything that
reproduces after its own kind. However, the lack of records do not invalidate
the processes. Any person that denied that oak trees have reproduced themselves
link by link back to the first oak tree just because no historical records
could confirm it would be considered an idiot. Likewise it is not necessary to
provide historical data to prove link by link
that a New Testament church has ultimately come from the first church at
If a certain church preaches the same gospel, administers the same
baptism, teaches the same essential doctrine and claims to be in historical
succession through the great commission with the first church in Jerusalem,
then, that is all the proof one needs as no other kind of church will fit those
characteristics.
However, there is sufficient historical evidence to demonstrate that
there has been a succession of New Testament churches in every generation from
the time of Christ to the present.
Inspired
History
The book of Acts provides inspired historical evidence for this
position. In the very first chapter of
the book of Acts, Luke takes the reader back to the 40 days of instruction
preceding the ascension of the Lord. In
Acts
The Greek verbs translated “continued
steadfastly” are found in what
grammarians call a periphrastic
construction. By using this grammatical
construction, Luke is saying that the
aspects of Acts 2:41-42 define an established Apostolic custom or pattern that
had begun somewhere in the past and was still being practiced at the time Luke
penned these words.[10][10] The obvious point of origin would be the
Great Commission and the obvious point of destination would be the same as the
final words of the commission, “until the end of the world.”
Consequently, after having once clearly defined this as the Apostolic
pattern, the next time Luke merely says “the Lord added to the church” (Acts
2:47) assuming that the reader would understand that this addition was in
accordance with the pattern just previously spelled out rather than in
opposition to it. This is a valid assumption as any other kind of assumption
would not only be contrary to what has been just grammatically spelled out as
the Apostolic pattern but would also be contrary to the Great Commission
according to which that pattern was established. Hence, in Acts 2:47 when Luke
says, “And the Lord added to the church”
he expects his readers to assume that the Lord added to the church in the very
same manner as defined immediately above; (1) gospelized
(2) baptized (3) congregationalized and that this congregationization included (4) continuance in Apostolic
doctrine, (5) fellowship, (6) breaking of bread and in (7) prayers. The next time this phrase is used is
in Acts
Beginning in Acts 6:1 the additions were too numerous to give the exact
number. Prior to this time the exact numbers were given (3,000, 5,000 ). Luke
refers to these greater additions in terms of multiplication. Instead of
repeating the words “were added” Luke simply says “the number....multiplied” which means the same thing with the
exception that too many were “added” to
give an exact number.[11][11]
“And
in those days, when the number of disciples was multiplied.....And the word of
God increased and the number of the disciples multiplied...” - Acts 6:1,7
This multiplication refers to those that “received the word” and were
“baptized” and “added” to the church at
This first usage of “the faith”
by Luke is significant as it indicates that Luke understood and introduced “the
faith” to imply that the whole Apostolic pattern was embraced by faith
and that this faith was a commitment not only to the gospel but also to baptism as well as congregationalization
characteristics (indoctrinatization, fellowship,
breaking of bread and in prayer). Hence,
the continuation or perpetuation of the Great Commission promise is being
carried out in the Church at
The next two times “the faith”
occurs in the book of Acts it is applied
to those who have already experienced
salvation and church membership.
“Confirming the souls of the disciples, and
exhorting them to continue in the
faith...” Acts
“And
as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep,
that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at
Neither personal subjective salvation nor mere gospel essentials are in
view. Indeed the very term “to continue” (Acts
In regard to Acts 16:4-5, the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem provided Paul with some doctrinal decisions (“decrees”) to be
delivered to these same churches. Personal faith in the subjective sense of
salvation is not the issue of Acts 16:4-5 but rather the embracing of objective
Apostolic doctrine and practice. These decrees comprehended both the doctrine
of salvation and service.[12][12]
From the beginning to the end, the book of Acts is characterized by the
Apostolic pattern found in Acts 2:41-42. Only in the case where there was an
obvious departure from this Apostolic pattern would Luke be obligated to
clearly indicate the pattern had been violated or departed from. Such an instance occurs in Acts
18:24-19:1-6. The context makes it clear
that personal salvation is not an issue (Acts
If the Great Commission is considered to be the only authorized pattern
for making disciples until the end of the world, then the grammar in Acts 2:42
must be considered intentional in order to set forth the apostolic pattern
throughout the book of Acts. Any other
assumption would require outright disobedience to the Lord’s commission by the
apostles and early churches.
Some believe that there is a departure from this pattern in the case of
Philip in Acts 8 and in the case of Ananias in Acts 9
and in the work described in Acts 11. However, in each case, the church at
Secular History
When all churches are thus tested by this Great Commission principle
there are only two kinds that attempt to claim such an historical
identity. Those two are the Roman
Catholic Church and historical Baptist churches. All others deny this Great Commission
principle. Some claim to originate from
apostate Christianity through reformation (Protestant and sub-protestants who
originate from the Roman Catholic Church). Others claim to be restored by some
kind of special prophet while many others claim that the Bible is all the
authority they need to justify their existence (however, the Bible identifies
the authority and source of origin to be through the great commission
principles).
“If the truth of religion were to be judged by the readiness and
boldness of which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and
persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of the Anabaptists since
there have been none for these TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS PAST, that have been more
generally punished or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and
even offered themselves to the most cruel sorts of punishment than these people.”
This high ranking Roman Catholic official dates the Anabaptists back to
at least A.D. 350. Since this council
was called in part to condemn Anabaptists this should be considered to be a
very reliable witness to their antiquity.
Another famous reformed Catholic priest writes of the Anabaptists in
A.D. 1525:
“The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for THIRTEEN
HUNDRED YEARS have caused great disturbance in the church [Roman church], and
has acquired such strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it
appears futile for a time.” -
Zwingli
The great Methodist Historian John Clark Ridpath,
author of the monumental work “Ridpath’s History of
the World” says in a letter to Dr. W.A. Jarrell,
“I should not readily admit that there
were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there
were Baptists then, as all Christians were Baptists.”
Sir Isaac Newton considered by many the greatest scientist that ever
lived and unquestionably a great student says of the Baptists:
“The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never
symbolized with Rome.”
Alexander Campbell, founder of the “Christian” church or “
“I would engage to show that baptism
as viewed and practiced by the Baptists, had its advocates in every century of
the Christian era…and independent of whose existence (the German Anabaptists),
clouds of witnesses attest the fact, that before the Reformation from popery,
and from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists,
and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public
monuments of their existence in every century can be produced.”
Dr. Dermont, chaplain to the King of Holland,
and Dr. Ypiej, professor of theology at Graningen, some years ago received a royal commission to
prepare a history of the Reformed Dutch Church. This history, prepared under
royal sanction, and officially published, contains the following manly and
generous testimony to the antiquity and orthodoxy of historical Baptists.
“We have now seen that the Baptists,
who were formerly called Anabaptists…were the original Waldenses,
and have long in the history of the Church received the honor of that origin.
On this account, The Baptists may be considered the only Christian community
which has stood since the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has
preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages.”
Joseph Belcher, the author of “Religious Denominations” says of the Baptists;
“It will be seen that the Baptists
claim the high antiquity of the commencement of the Christian Church. They can
trace a succession of those who have believed the same doctrine and
administered the same ordinances directly, up to the Apostolic Age.”
Finally, the ancient Baptists themselves boldly proclaimed that they
were the true church in the face of persecution by the church at
“They affirm that they alone are the
As late as the fiftheen hundreds they still
made this claim in so much that the Protestant leader Bullinger
says this of them:
“The Anabaptists think themselves to
be the only true church of Christ and acceptable to God; and teach that they
who by baptism are received into their churches, ought not to have any
communion with those evangelical, or other, whatsoever, for that our churches
are not true churches any more than the churches of the Papists.”
Are
true Churches identified by the name Baptist?
No. It’s not the name on the label that makes a church a New Testament
church but it is the content inside that determines what it is. The name
“Baptist” is a common generic name that all kinds of people choose to place over
their door who are not related historically or doctrinally with New Testament
Churches. However, New Testament
Churches have always historically identified
with the name “Baptist” in some form or another (“Anabaptists” “Catabaptists” etc.) and in particular with John The
Baptist. Why? Because John The Baptist was sent to “prepare a people made
ready” for the Lord to organize into the first church at
The
Error Factor
Are churches of like faith and order without any error? How much
error does it take to become a harlot church? There is no church without some
kind of error. Even the first church had a Judas and apart from Christ all
other members of the first church were not perfect.
However, all denominations draw a line somewhere. Some draw that line
when it comes to what they define as a “cult.”
Others draw a line when it comes to what they consider a damnable
error. There are very very few churches that would embrace all denominations and
flavors of Christianity as New Testament churches.
On the other hand, some point to the church at
Let’s begin with the church at
However, the letters were written in order to put a stop to such
heresies. If such heresies were left unchecked the leaven would eventually
leaven the whole and invalidate them as New Testament churches. In the book of
Revelation, the Lord threatens to remove the candlestick if certain churches
continue in such errors. At what exact point does a church cross over the line?
Only Christ knows that exact point. We
are not qualified nor authorized to determine at what specific point in time a
church ceases to be a church.
However, today we have a final authority, a
finished New Testament. We know what the Scriptures clearly condemn as error.
Although we cannot draw the precise line where a church becomes a false church,
we can and should draw Biblical lines that if crossed will cause us to cease
recognizing such as churches of Christ. I would dare say that if the church of
Corinth were existing in the same city as your church today with all of its
immoral and irregular excesses that you would not RECOGNIZE it as a New Testament
Church nor fellowship with it as one.
Every denomination draws such a line of recognization.
Baptists draw this line where the Bible draws it.
Where
to Draw the Line?
On one of the official Roman Catholic web sites the writer raised the question
as to what are the marks of the true church. His answer was as follows:
“What is a Mark?
We need to keep in mind there are two
aspects to a mark: First, it must be an outwardly visible sign. If it's not,
it's useless as a means of identification. Your house number is useful only
because it's on the outside of your house and visible from the street. If it
were posted on a wall of the living room, it wouldn't be a sign that this is
your house. In short, a mark must be evident to everyone. It can't hide under
the bushel basket (cf. Matt.
The second is that the mark must be an
essential characteristic, one without which the Church couldn't even exist as
Christ's Church. Marks of the Church don't exist only as a means of
identification, as does a watermark on paper, but must be parts of the very
nature of the Church.”
Historical Baptists openly and unashamedly profess to be New Testament
Churches. They do not try to hide it. They place it out front for everyone to
see. Those churches who claim to be “baptistic” but
hide behind protestant names (e.g. “community church” etc.) are usually not
historic Baptists in faith and practice.
Historical Baptists believe that the Great Commission provides four
essential marks of New Testament Churches. New Testament Churches must (1)
preach the right gospel, the same gospel preached by Christ. It must be a
gospel of eternal security through faith in the person and work of Christ (Jn.
(3) Baptists believe that New Testament Churches must teach “the all
things” commanded by Christ. These “things” characterize what is later
identified as “the faith” and consist of those things that are essential to New
Testament Christianity. Such things can be identified under three
principles.
a. All Doctrines that are stated as
non-negotiable: Every doctrine and practice that the Bible explicitly or
implicitly demands or limits by definition or forbids to transgress must be
considered part of the “all things” and
an essential of “the faith”.
b.
All Permanent and Unique Features of Original Christianity that distinguish it
from other World Religions. All
Christians should agree that there are permanent and abiding features of
Christianity that separate it from all other “ways.”
c. All Doctrines that are necessary to preserve “the faith.” Every
doctrine or practice that the Bible requires for the continued existence of
“the faith” unto the end of the age must be considered as an essential of “the
faith.”
Last of all, (4) Baptists believe that New Testament Churches are
only those who are in direct succession to the church at Jersualem
through the Great Commission process of organic
link by link succession. Churches
that do no possess these marks should not be recognized or treated as New
Testament Churches.
How
Do Historical Baptists View other Churches?
We believe that many good and godly saved people are found in most all
denominations. We believe that many who are mighty in the scriptures and
eloquent preachers abound in such churches. Like the “Apollos”
of old they know much in regard to salvation and other practical truths for
godly living but they need instruction in the church and its ordinances. Moreover, salvation has nothing to do with
the church. We believe that such assemblies of saints are outside the will of
God as revealed in the Scriptures. How is that so? They are not products of the
authorized process of bringing churches into existence as outlined in the Great
Commission. If they were they would be of like faith and order with churches of
the New Testament. Such churches are a product of schisms as predicted by the
New Testament (Acts
The Scriptures clearly teach that as we enter into the “last days”
before the coming of the Lord that a revival of apostasy will abound (2 Thes. 2:3). Of
course the religious world will view this as a spiritual revival rather than an
apostasy. New Testament churches will dwindle
and be scarce. Apostate churches will abound.
Professions will dramatically increase in this miracle age of apostasy
(Mt. 24:24-25; 2 Thes. 2:9) but true believers will
be fewer and fewer (Mt. 13:2 Pet.
Conclusion
The conclusion of our study is that Jesus built the local church
institution out of material characterized by Peter’s name in the context of
Matthew 16:13-19. He promised this kind of church that the gates of hell shall
never prevail against it. This promise is carried out by means of the
authorized processes in the Great Commission. The Great Commission is the authorized
process of reproducing churches of like faith and order after their own kind.
This commission is the link between the sending church and the church being
organized. The church as an institution
is promised perpetuity. This promise of perpetuity is accomplished through the
Great Commission cycle of “after its own kind” until the end of the age.
What “kind” of church do you belong to? The Catholic “kind”? The Protestant “kind”? If you are interested in finding and joining
the “kind” that Jesus built and promised age long existence to, then seek out
the church that claims the very things described in this book and your search
will be over.
A Sample of Churches You May Contact
The Lord’s
North
South