False assumptions. — Besides trying to base the universal church theory on certain proof texts there are two arguments from reason that are sometimes used as accumulative evidence for this theory. In reality they are nothing but false assumptions.

     The first of these arguments is, that since the majority of Christians believe in a universal church, therefore, there must be one.

     The weakness of the arguments immediately appears, but J. B. Moody answers it more fully:

     All the world, in all the ages, could not change the meaning of the word of God, not even by universal usage and legislation. Nay, let them seal their perverted meanings with the blood of millions of martyrs, yet the true meanings are written in heaven, and were written from heaven, and they will judge us at the last day.¹

     The decisions of the mob can not be rightly interpreted as the voice of God.

     There was a time when the greater part of
----------------------------
¹ J. B. Moody, My Church, pp. 66, 67.

---

[p. 123]
Christendom injected into its theological dogma the theory of evolution, but now the facts of science have accounted for its abolishment in conservative circles.

     Likewise is the postmillenial view of eschatology:

     The postmillenial view has prevailed through the centuries since Augustine. . . . Most of the old­er theologians taught it, e, g., Strong and Hodge. It was believed by many sincere and earnest Christ­ians, who were earnestly striving to bring in the Kingdom of Christ. The great missionary movement of the early 19th century was largely postmillen­ial in its outlook.¹

     This decay of the postmillenial view in favor of premillenialism and amillenialism illustrates the possibility of the masses being wrong.

     A second false assumption is that since the greatest Bible teachers, theologians, and expositors teach the existence of a universal church, therefore, there must be one.

     This is a ridiculous assumption because no mortal man is competant to determine who is the great­est. Some "little" preacher laboring in relative obscurity may be just as great as those exalted by
----------------------------
¹ H. C. Tenney, "The Second Coming." Faculty Bulletin of Wheaton College, X, No. 9, (May 1947), p. 28.

---

[p. 124]
the praise of men. In fact, some who are unknown may have better theology and be better teachers and exposi­tors than those who extolled, yet, the Lord has kept them thus in order to produce some choice fruit for His glory.

     The anti-universal church school, however, is not devoid of great scholars. Dr. Jesse B. Thomas is probably the most outstanding in this field. He was a professor of Church History in the latter part of the nineteenth century at Newton Theological Seminary and was as nationally known as Henry Ward Beecher and others. Furthermore, he is noted for his conservative stand aginst the inrushing tide of modernism. Thor­oughly scholarly, logical, and fundamental is his work The Church and the Kingdom.

     Dr. E. J. Fish has promulgated his convictions on the nature of the church in his great work Ecclesiology. He was one of the great leaders of Michigan Baptists, being "three times elected President of the Michigan Baptist State Convention, and was for many
----------------------------
¹ One of the best books ever written on the nature of the church.

---

[p. 125]
years a valued Trustee of Kalamazoo College.¹

     It is significant that both of those men were prominent Northern Baptists, although Southern Baptist are usually associated with the anti-universal church concept. And there have been some great Southern Baptist scholars who have reacted against the universal church theory, such as B. H. Carroll, formerly of Baylor University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

     He throws light on this subject when he says that "all the intelligence, piety, sincerity and schol­arship of the world are not monopolized by any one age, nor by any one denomination."²

     Destructive Implications. — The destructive implications of the universal church theory are bound to produce a serious effect upon Christianity and es­pecially the work of the churches.

     Dr. B. H. Carroll observes:

     All teachings in the direction that there now exists a general assembly which is invisible,

----------------------------
¹ Cf. M. E. D. Trowbridge, History of Baptist in Michigan (Published under the auspices of the Michigan Baptist State Convention, 1909), p. 248.
² Carroll, op. cit., p. 37.

---

[p. 126]

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.¹

     The theory of a universal church encourages disloyalty to the local church. Since the local church is subordinated, the only logical outcome is a sub­ordinate interest in it. J. B. Moody illustrates the disaster of this position when he says:

     Introduce your wife as your local wife, and see what will happen. She would think that she was the contemptible, little wife, while the big one was somewhere else. And mind you, every time a man speaks of the 'local church,' he has in his mind a big church, compared with which the local is a contemptible, little thing. Hence, all such must despise the Church of God, because they sub­ordinate it to another, which is not another. No error ever did more to destroy Church Loyalty.²

     F. J. Huegel expresses it quite well when he says, "It unhinges"³ a believer in his relationship to the church as a visible organization. Being an advo­cate of this erroneous theory, he feels it justificable for a believer to assume such an attitude. He says:
----------------------------
¹ Carroll, op. cit., p. 48.
² J. B. Moody, My Church, pp. 68, 69.
³ F. J. Huegel, Bone of His Bone (5th American ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), p. 109.

---

[p. 127]

     His attachment to the true Church, which is the mystic - Body of Christ, becomes so deep and so real, that he feels himself somewhat detached from the visible Church as it has been organized (perhaps I should say disorganized) by man.¹

     Such an attitude is charasteristic of those who are enrapt in the universal church theory. The local church becomes meaningless and of little or no significance in the economy of God.

     An observation of the churches where this theory has been propagated shows how the error can set aside the work of the church and in its stead, "societies," "leagues," "clubs" etc., have sprung up to take the place of the church.

     Dr. Thomas observed of his day:

     A noteworthy phenomenon of the times is the rapid multiplication of newly invented schemes for the prosecution of work alleged either to have been left undone by, or not to be within province of, the individual church.²

     That was thirty seven years ago. The situation is much worse today and the present trend will proba­bly continue.

     Actually, there is no phase of mission work
----------------------------
¹ Ibid.
² Thomas, op. cit., p. 303.

---

[p. 128]
which the churches cannot carry out either cooperatively or independently. Some have tried to improve upon the method inaugurated by Christ, but the net effective­ness of their work cannot be determined. The church was the choice of Christ as an agency for promoting the ends of the kingdom and it has not failed but rather has stood the test of time. Should a church deteriorate into being only an agency for social good, it does not mean that the church is not the best method for the work of evangelism. Instead of in­venting novel contrivances, other scriptural churches should be organized to carry on the work.

     If our Lord intended the local church to be the normal object of personal affection and field of personal activity, we must look with jealousy upon any actual rlval, whether or not rivalry be admitted or disavowed.¹

     The propagation of this theory has laid the groundwork for the ecumenical movement. Now liberal ministers have adopted this concept, so long considered evangelical, for their own ends. This has afforded them a powerful tool so that in less than 50 years the prospect of a super church organization is plainly
----------------------------
¹ Ibid.

---

[p. 129]
indicated on every side.

     Once this becomes a reality, true New Testament Christianity will be swallowed up. Since the early beginings of modern ecumenical movements, Dr. Thomas was gifted with an insight into their erroneous assumptions and fervently denounced them. He says:

     The often urged notion that a 'united front' of Proteatantism against Romanism, or of Christi­anity against heathenism, will be irresistible, is it­self a relic of heathenism. It is the old 'trusting in horses and chariots,' which the Scripture condemns.¹

     Critical observations. — Some people will dis­miss this whole controversy as "a play upon words," or a striving "about words to no profit." Some ack­nowledge this distinction between the church and any broader significations but can see no harm in using a false name.

     This argument may seem plausible but it is not very respectful of divine revelation. Christ said: "If a man love me, he will keep my words."² This peculiar expression does not leave room for sen­timentality to decide the issue.
----------------------------
¹ Thomas, op. cit., pp. 308, 309.
² John 14:23

---

[p. 130]

     We cannot suppose that our Lord, or his apostles under his guidance, selected loosely the terms which were to be of so large significance in directing the development of the new movement. . . . If we can be certain what words he used, and the precise idea he inteneded to convey by them, it will be presumptous and hazardous to substitute new names or intrude new meanings into the old.¹

     Just such a misuse of titles brought about the outstanding evils of the heirarchical system. In the New Testament, the leader of a local church was called a "bishop." Through the appropriation of new titles such as "priest," "high priest," and "lord bishop" the orig­inal duties of the office have been preverted and destroyed.

     Dr Thomas truly observes:

     The Pope's claim to be Pontifix Maximus is the logical outcome of the reckless disregard of authorative Scriptural precedent in the use of titles.²

     A consideration of these facts will remove any flippant attitude toward the problem. A study of the history of baptism brings out the same truth, so that at the conclusion of its long history baptism "no longer suggests to the average pedobaptist the
----------------------------
¹ Thomas, op. cit., p. 290. ² Ibid. p. 291.

---

[p. 131]
faintest hint of its New Testament meaning."¹ And this controversy which has so divided Christianity is the outcome of a misnomer.

     Either the theory of a universal church or the doctrine of the unity of the Scriptures will have to be abandoned in order to reach a consistent position. This theory is actually opposed to the unity of the Scriptures. It proposes that both Christ and Paul glided from the "universal" to the "local church" meaning without even projecting a differentiating adjective into the text. Dr. Fish points out in this connection:

     The New Testament is utterly innocent of the inward conflict of those theories which adopt both the invisible, or universal as it is now more commonly called, and the local ideas. It is everwhere self-consistent.²

     He goes on to affirm:

     . . . It must be apparent to everyone that ideas so different from the local cannot dwell harmoni­ously with it in the same system. We know how the Catholic or universal has warred against the local, staining centuries with the blood of the contest.³

----------------------------
¹ Ibid.
²Fish, op. cit., p. 102.
³Ibid., pp. 75, 76.

---

[p. 132]
     Edward P. Marshall also shows how the prominance of a universal church brought great evils and determined to a large extent the course of history. He says:

     It was the degradation of the local church and the exaltation of the Universal Church body politic that has been the cause of the death of thousands of the choicest Christians men and women that ever graced the annals of the world's history.¹

     The universal church theory is used as a weapon for proselytes, who say that the universal church is the important church — thus attempting to substitute a unity of Christendom for the unity of the local body mentioned In the Scriptures. By so doing, these proselytes have so depreciated the local church institution that they fail to have respect for it.

     And is it not an historical fact that, since Protestant Pedobaptists invented this idea of a non-existing, invisible, universal spiritual church, to offset the equally erroneous Romanist church, of a present visible, universal church, reverence and honor for God's New Testament par­ticular church have been ground to fine powder

----------------------------
¹ Edward P. Marshall, A Treatise Upon Baptist Church Jurisprudence (Washington, D.C.: The Columbian Publishing Company, 1898), p. 103.

---

[p. 133]

between them as between the upper and nether millstones?¹

     Too many people have bent over backwards to introduce mysticism into the practical teachings of Jesus and the Apostles where the Scriptures context does not allow it.

     It is obvious that an adoption of this persis­tent local use that has been presented will set aside the theories of the church which have mainly ruled the Christian world, to fall back upon that which rules throughout the New Testament.

     It would also "put a strong hand upon that conflict of the times and materially modify many current opinions and usages."¹ This is sorely needed to restore respect to the glorious institution — the church, an assembly of immersed believers.

     With all respect for the scholarship of the men who have held otherwise, in fidelity to an omniscient Saviour the "universal invisible church the­ory must be set aside as a human theory. All such theories must be regarded only as the cobwebs which
----------------------------
¹ Fish, op. cit., p. 117.

---

[p. 134]
truth brushes away in order to prepare the church as a suitable habitation for God through the Spirit. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen."
==========

Appendix
Table of Contents

---

Baptist History Homepage