Baptist History Homepage

The Church: A Critique of the Universal Church Theory
By Roger W. Maslin

CHAPTER I
REPRESENTATIVE UNIVERSAL CHURCH VIEWPOINTS

      Dr. Scofield presents the case for a universal church in its generally accepted form together with its unfledged brood of correlated ideas. In a foot­note on Hebrews 12:23 he outlined his view:

      Church, (true), Summary: The true church, composed of the whole number of regenerated persons from Pentecost to the first resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:52), united together and to Christ by the baptism with the Holy Sririt (1 Corinthians 12:12, 13), is the body of Christ of which he is the head (Ephesians 1:22, 23). As such, it is a holy temple for the habitation of God through the Spirit (Ephesians 2:21, 22); is 'one flesh' with Christ (Ephesians 5:30, 31); and espoused to Him as a chaste virgin to one husband (2 Corinthians 11:2-4). 1
     Along this same line, with the idea of the "True Church," Dr. W. W. Everts says, "Christ's ekklesia, or church, embraces all the redeemed variously described as the mystic body, bride, family, temple, or kingdom of Christ."2
-------------------------
1 C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1917, p. 1304.
2 W. W. Everts, Baptist Layman's Book (Phila­delphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), p. 41.
[p. 9]
     Dr. Henry G. Weston, who holds some of the same ideas as those of Dr. Scofield, defines ekklesia in one sense as "the whole body of believers in Christ, from the day of Pentecost to the end of the dispensation."1

     Dr. A. H. Strong, great Baptist theologian says:

     The Church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole company of regenerated persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth. . . . In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God; both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises actual spiritual dominion (John 3:3, 5)2
     He distinguishes the invisible, universal church from the local or individual church; the latter constitutes a voluntary association of regenerate persons. This local church is a temporal form of the universal, "in which the idea of the church as a whole is concretely exhibited."3

     Dr. Strong rejects any idea of an imperial or provincial connotation of the word ekklesia, and he
------------------
1 E. H. Johnson, An Outline of Systematic Theology and Henry G. Strong, Of Ecclesiology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1895), p. 319.
2 Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1899), p. 494. Proof texts for above statement: Matthew l6:18, Ephesians l:22, 23; 3:10, 5:24, 25; Colossians 1:18, Hebrews 12:23.
3 Ibid., p. 494.

[p. 10]
does this by designating a generic or collective use of the word "to denote simply the body of independent local churches existing in a given region or at a given epoch." A recognition of this principle, if extended further, explodes not only the imperial and provincial theories but the universal, invisible theory as well.

     Dr. F. J. A. Hort, great Anglican theologian, holds somewhat to the invisible, universal church theory, but admits that it is without historial foundation.

     He despairs of finding any such concept in any of the Bibical records with the exception of Ephesians and Colossians. The concept of the "one universal Ecclesia absolutely" is confined to these twin epistles according to Dr. Hort. He says:

      "Here, at last, for the first time in the Acts and Epistles, we have 'the Ecclesia' spoken of in the sense of the one universal Ecclesia, and it comes more from the theological than from the historical side. . . .
------------------
1 Ibid., p. 496.
2 F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillian & Co., 1900), p. 148.
[p. 11]
     Dr. Hort has great difficulty in establishing the conventional Protestant conception of a universal church that is invisible. Most of his testimony rather affirms the persistent local idea. To establish Dr. Hort's theory involves the further difficulty of the Apostle's wavering back and forth from universal to a local significance of ecclesia.1

     George Dana Boardman, in a discussion of "Ecclesia" gives its secular usages and defines, by way of illustration, its meaning as an assembly. He finds these different meanings to the word:

     There is, first, . . . a particular company of Christians banded together in a definite place . . . there is, secondly, the entire aggregate of profes­sing Christians2 . . . . And there is, lastly, the spiritual company or ideal corporation of all Christians — including the saints in heaven and the saints on earth and the saints to come. . . .3
     All of these meanings are supposed to define ecclesia!

     Then Dr. Boardman declares venerably:
------------------
1 Ibid. p. 161.
2 George Dana Boardman, The Church (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1901), p. 162. Proof texts for the second concept: Galatians 1:13, I Timothy 3:16.
3 Ibid. p. 162. Proof texts for the third concept: Matthew 16:18, Hebrews 12:23.

[p. 12]
     Thus this word 'ekklesia', translated 'church', is a noble instance of verbal transfiguration, showing how our King does indeed make all things new, infusing into the originally secular idea of a lawful assembly of Greek citizens the new idea and exalted idea of a universal and celestial society, even Christ's own body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.1
     At best these statements constitute only a theological conclusion and cannot be substantiated by modern scholarship. However, it is safe to say that Christianity gave a new and Christian significiance to ekklesia, but not one contrary to its recognized meaning.

     Dr. A. Dakin, President of Bristol Baptist College in England indentifies the Church of God with the family of God.

     In the absolute sense it means the whole family of God as this is at the moment, and will be at the end. It includes all who have been, or are being, or will be redeemed in Christ. It thus embraces present fact and fut­ure reality, linking the present aeon with the age that is to come. Part of this Church of God is actually in time at any given moment, part of it is in eternity, and part is not yet born.2
------------------
1 Ibid.
2 A. Dakin, The Baptist View of the Church & Ministry (London: The Baptist Union Publication Department, 1943), p. 7.
[p. 13]
     Besides the local, visible meaning that ekklesia conveys, Dr. Harvey, with sufficient looseness, defines another connotation of the word:
     It denotes the entire body of the elect in heaven and on earth - all who are embraced in the covenant of grace and who shall be gathered into the everlasting kingdom of Christ. Here the word is used figuratively, the name of a part designating the whole; and all redeemed souls are conceived as forming one grand assembly.1
     It can readily be seen that there is no agreement among the advocates of this universal, invisible church theory in many of its particulars. There is absolutely no uniformity on the choice of proof texts to uphold the theory. The advocates of the theory can approach agreement only on those texts confined to Ephesians and Colossians. Even then not all of the supporters want to confine all of the instances that refer to the church to either the universal or to the local idea.

     The men who have been mentioned are by no means the only ones who have set forth this theory but they are representative. Some less scholarly individuals
------------------
1 H. Harvey, The Church: its Polity and Ordinances (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1879), p. 27.

[p. 14]
set forth this view practically to the exclusion of the local church.

     These representative viewpoints show clearly the confusion in the ranks of the advocates of this theory. The theological interpretations of these men differ all the way from identifying the church with the family of God, and/or the kingdom of God, to establish­ing it as something distinct from and transcedant of either.

     The selection of these particular quotations from the above men and their writings is made only to show their diverse ideas, and the problems involved in adopting the universal, invisible church concepts.

     No doubt there are other theologians who have presented the theory as clearly and are just as persis­tent in adhering to it. However, these quotations portray the predominant strain of thought concerning the nature of the church and related doctrines.

==========

Part I, Chapter II
Return to Table of Contents


Baptist History Homepage