|
Matthew 16:18 - 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. There is a great division today among Baptist concerning the method of church constitution. Some believe it is absolutely necessary to have a chain link-by-link of church succession all the way back to the first church at Jerusalem. Others believe that link is there, but it is not necessary to prove it. Others are beginning to believe that link is not necessary – that churches can spring up without authority granted to them from another church. A key expression of the opposition to church succession is: "Many say that we must be able to prove trace our history link by link to the church in Jerusalem." There are Baptist that believe the link by link must be physically proven in order to prove whether a church is a true Baptist church or not. I do not believe it is necessary, or even possible, to prove a historic link by link, but I believe it is necessary to prove from actions, motives, and works whether a church is a true Baptist church. One thing that is being done in order to prove the new method of self-constitution of churches is a very old method is to use historical documents of how churches were organized in the past. During this process, the meaning of words used by those involved in church organization is disregarded in favor of the meaning of words used in this present day. This is nothing short of revisionist history. Another point to notice is that it really doesn’t matter what has been done in the past, or who did whatever was done. It is more important to know and follow the Bible than it is to know and follow whatever history is before us. It has been truly said, "History is written by the victors, or from the viewpoint of the victors." Today there is a great movement away from the scriptural Baptist position of church perpetuity, coupled with church succession. There are those who are making a difference between church perpetuity and church succession. I am not surprised when universal church people state they do not believe in church succession, but I am surprised and saddened when Baptist church people begin to make the claim of not believing in church succession, while holding to the position of church perpetuity. Definitions of terms:
Our text proves church perpetuity, but what about church succession. How else can church perpetuity work, apart from church succession? God has established time on the principle of perpetuity and succession.
These verses teach limited perpetuity and limited succession. One follows another. Days come in sequence as determined by God. Days do not come to pass spontaneously. One day is supported and brought about by another day. In our text, churches come about the same way. One church follows another. In the grand scheme of things, the church of Jerusalem was first organized, then the church at Antioch from the saints scattered from the persecution that arose from the stoning of Stephen. There is no record of a church vote at Jerusalem, or an organization service at Antioch, but there does not need to be. The Great Commission of Matthew 28 reveals that the stated order was: (1) go into all the world, (2) preach the gospel to every creature, (3) baptize those that believe, and (4) teach the saved baptized believers to observe all the Word of God. Strictly speaking there is no commission to organize churches! There is no scripture that declares we should go about organizing churches! But we do. Is that against scripture, or a fulfillment of scripture? Of course, it is a fulfillment of scripture. The whole point is that the normal process is when people are saved, they immediately are baptized, then they become members of the church that baptized them, and they become very faithful to that church, because they understand that local church is the visible body of Christ on this earth. Animals and people are also perpetual, as well as successive. It is almost ridiculously simple to state that animals come from previous animals and people come from previous people. Everybody naturally knows this principle is true. Days, seasons, animals and people do not self-constitute. It is impossible. Thus the principle holds true for churches. They do not self-constitute, rather each church will have a background from another church. Else they are not churches at all. The Bible doctrine of the local church is not carried about by those that believe in a universal church. Adherents of the universal church carry with them that doctrine, just as adherents of the local church carry that doctrine with them. Some are erroneously using Matthew 18:20, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. The following article by Ronnie Wolfe is a good exposition of these verses. ***********************************************************
Some very serious confusion seems to be rampant in our Baptist groups today concerning this passage of scripture. Who are the "two or three" in Matthew 18:20, and what power or authority do they have? Let’s notice the answer under two topics: A Powerful Pretext and The Proper Context.
A pretext is "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse:" according to Webster’s Electronic Unabridged Dictionary. In theology or Bible study, this would include explanations of verses which do not fit the context, which is "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:" [Ibid]. Matthew 18:20, which reads "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them," is many times taken out of context. The majority of Bible expositors think this verse has to do with the building or starting of a church. They teach that for "two or three" to be gathered together means that a church is born, started, built or otherwise comes into existence. This could not be farther from the truth, and we shall consider this in the last point of this article; but now we must consider some implications of this popular interpretation of this verse. (1) If it is true that "two or three" gathering together in his name constitutes a church, then Peter and John were a church in Acts 3:1 when they went up to the temple to pray. Notice that they were baptized, and they were gathering together in the name of the Lord. If they were not gathering together in his name, then what they were doing here was wrong and would not bring glory unto the Lord. (2) If it is true that "two or three" gathering together in his name constitutes a church, then Barnabas and Saul were a church in Acts 13:1-2 and needed not that the Antioch church separate them unto the work whereunto the Lord had called them. (3) If it is true that "two or three" gathering together in his name constitutes a church, then Peter, James, John and Jesus constituted a church when they were on the mount in Matthew 17:1 where the Bible says, And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart. Certainly they were all scripturally baptized, and they were together, …two or three… of them in the name of the Lord; so they must have been a church separate and apart from the church at Jerusalem or any other church around the area. The fact of the matter is, there were churches popping up all around Jerusalem when Jesus was wandering the earth. They were popping in and out as corn in a popper. They would be a church with two or three, then they would be a church with four or five, then they would be a church with twelve or twenty or a hundred and twenty. (4) If "two or three" gathering together constitutes a church, then two or three people from two or three different churches may gather together to have a Bible study or to do some evangelistic work, and they would constitute a church. (5) If "two or three" gathering together in his name constitutes a church, then several churches meeting together for a Bible conference or revival meeting would constitute one church; and they could carry on church business or baptize people as a single group. There are at least …two or three… gathering together, and they certainly are doing so in his name. (6) If "two or three" gathering together in his name constitutes a church, then associations and conventions could conceivably be scriptural churches, since they gather together "in his name." Matthew 18:20 is taken completely out of context when applied in this way. I would agree that some of these situations are a stretch of the mind; but when our own Baptist preachers begin to interpret scripture the same way as the universalists do, then we see the danger of this interpretation. Universalists believe that this verse teaches church organization, and many of them stretch the interpretation almost as far as I have done with some of the examples above. But I have done so to show the folly of a wrong interpretation. Even some Baptists of old, such as Charles Spurgeon, have taken the universalists interpretation of this verse; and there is no wonder, since Bro. Spurgeon hob-knobbed with many universalists in his day and even served many of them The Lord’s Supper.
Then, what is the proper contextual interpretation of this verse? Does it have anything to do with church organization as such? Is this a verse which gives two people anywhere and at any time who have scriptural baptism to covenant together and be proclaimed by God a church? I think not! To conclude so is ludicrous. To those who so interpret this passage, the question must be asked, "Is it just sometimes, or is it always that a church is constituted when two or three are gathered together in his name?" In the context of Matthew 18, the Lord is dealing with church discipline, not church organization. He is instructing the disciples on how to deal with a brother who has sinned against them. The individual who has been sinned against must go to that brother and tell him of his wrong. If he listens to that individual, then he has gained his brother back into his fellowship; see verse 15. The second step to discipline is for the person who has been offended to take one or two more people so that no doubt will be had as to what is said and that every word will be established; see verse 16. The third step to discipline is that, if he does not listen to the several who come to him, then tell the church; see verse 17. Now at this point we must understand that a church is already in existence. This situation has to do with a church that is already functioning; and the whole ordeal takes place within the bounds of that local church. Nothing is mentioned here that would give us any inclination to believe that a new church is being established, organized, born or built. Speaking of the church that is already in existence, the Lord speaks about the binding and loosing. This is a continuation of the thought on discipline. A church has the authority under the sovereign God to bind and loose a person into or away from membership in a local church. The Greek tense allows us to realize that the binding should be done as it has already been done in heaven, and the loosing should be done as it has already been done in heaven. Binding a person would be placing him under the discipline of the church; loosing a person would be forgiving him and releasing the restrictions upon him and bringing him back into full fellowship of the church. If my friends who are going the way of the universalists are telling the truth, then I have been in church many more times than I ever thought; for, while my cousin and I were at the creek praying for God to bless the muddy water we were about to drink, we were in church. When my brother and I were in trouble so many times and in danger numbers of times and asked God to help us, we were in church. When my wife and I are driving in the car and praising God for blessings and singing the songs of God, we are in church. God forgive me, also; for I have given some very bad advice to people who have moved into areas where they cannot find a church to attend. I should have told them not to worry; because when they awake on Sunday morning and go to the kitchen to worship the Lord and have their devotion at home because there is no church nearby, they are a church. If they need a pastor, they can simply call one to be pastor of this little church. If they want to baptize someone, they can just do it; because they are a church. Remember, our Lord did not say in Matthew 18:20, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there will I start a church." He did not say "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there will I build a church." He said, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in thfse midst of them. He simply means that, when two or three people go about church discipline the way he has just instructed, he will approve their efforts and bless them. He will affirm and confirm their way of conducting this church business. Although it is becoming less and less popular to believe in church succession and proper Baptist perpetuity, this preacher still believes as he has his entire ministry. I base my belief in this doctrine, not on the many historians and theologians who have trod the path of ministry in this world, but in the words of our Lord and the apostles who wrote the Bible. I know of a certainty, however, that many old writers referred to "parent" churches as far back as the 1700's. They spoke about getting authority to transfer members from a "parent" church to a "mission" church. This does not make it wrong or right, but it does give some evidence that it has been done for a lot longer than our "almost universalists" friends pretend it to be. To my friends who still hold these truths to be self-evident, stay with the stuff and stand strong unto the end; for our standing for this truth can make our churches glow and grow to his glory, or our weakness can cause their light to flicker in a dark time which will mirror the times of darkness wherein many of our brethren died for the truth they held. Are we ready and willing to hold up these truths, or will we give in to the "new light" of contemporary doctrine? May God give us the wisdom to put on the armor of God and, when all is done, to stand. ********************************************************* See also http://www.firstharrison.org/mother_church.htm for an exposition of the mother/daughter relationship in church organization, written by Ronnie Wolfe. These people do not believe baptism is the door to the church, rather fellowship is that door. This point is very clearly stated in their literature. They use the scripture concerning the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, who they say was not a member of a church at all. They forget that baptism is a command, just as preaching the gospel is a command, just as going into all the world with the gospel message is a command. They forget that at the beginning, it was considered "normal" to be saved, scripturally baptized, and be faithful to a local church. They seem to believe that the Ethiopian eunuch was not a member of any church, but was involved in "freelance evangelism". What are we going to do about this situation? We are going to stand firm on the doctrine of the local church regardless of what others may do. We have not compromised any doctrine because that doctrine was not accepted in the world, or by our fellow Baptists. I will not knowingly avoid those Baptists that are "leaning toward" dropping the doctrine of church succession. I will preach with them in a conference if asked to do so, but I will also preach anywhere if asked to do so, even in a protestant church. I will not compromise what I believe to preach anywhere, but will preach anywhere if asked. I think it is wrong to let someone other than God direct where I will preach or where I will attend fellowship meetings. I want to follow the Lord in where I go, what I do, and what I preach. I do not want those that compromise the truth to lead me in who I will fellowship with and who I will not. My example is Christ, who preached wherever the opportunity presented itself, yet Christ never compromised any doctrine, but continually did his Father’s will. The preaching of Christ was often a rebuke to those he preached to, yet they continually came back, because they knew he spoke the truth to them, even though they could not answer him. I do not think, however, it is God’s will that these adherents of Protestantism preach in this pulpit. There is a vast difference between preaching to people and allowing those people to preach to us. The false doctrine of self-constitution of churches is surrounding us on every hand. Many of the people we have fellowshipped with in the past are taking up this new doctrine. It will not be long before we must begin to ask a new question, which in reality is the same old question – What do you believe about Scriptural baptism? Does Scriptural baptism go back to John the Baptist in an unbroken line? We might not be able to see that line, or prove to some that it is there, but we know it is. The sailor cannot see the line that connects the ship to the anchor, but knows it is there, because he knows the security and certainty it affords. |