Baptist History Homepage

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

PART I
CHAPTER II
REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSING VIEWS

      Conversely, the opposition to the universal church theory can by no means be considered harmonious. There is the same breadth of diversity in the opposing views as there is in the expression of the subject theory.

      It would be impossible to present all of the different shades of the opposing viewpoints but three rather definite viewpoints are presented in opposition to the commonly accepted universal church theory.

     The Ideal Concept. - Dr. H. E. Dana, formerly of Central Baptist Seminary, sets out an ideal concept of the church as representing spiritual Israel.1 His ideal concept is somewhat anti-universal in that he maintains that it does not embrace "all churches in some objective form of organization."2 He does not hold to the orthodox
-------------------------
1 Cf. H. E. Dana, A Manual of Ecclesiology (Kansas City: Central Seminary Press, 1944), p. 56.
2 Ibid. p. 56, 57.

[p. 16]
prostestant conception of a functioning universal, invisible church. This view is more or less a figurative conception, which cannot be made the basis for theory of church polity.1

     Dr. Conner, late professor of Systematic Theo­logy in the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, agrees to a large extent with this church concept. He feels that the word church, "seems to be used in the sense of a body of Christians assemblying at a particu­lar place. . . and in the sense of an ideal assembly composed of all Christians on earth at any particular time. . . .2

     Even though he shares this concept, Dr. Conner does not conceal from himself the difficulties that attend the effort to fix upon the invisible idea. He readily admits that "the term invisible. . . is not a happy one".3

     There are two outstanding points of difference between tho ideal concept and the commonly accepted
-------------------------
1 Cf. Ibid., P. 56, 57.
2 Walter T. Conner, The Gospel of Redemption (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1945), p. 270.
3 Ibid.

[p. 17]
universal church theory.

     The universal church theory advocates usually teach that the local church is merely a manifestation of the invisible, but Dr. Dana maintains that:

     This spiritual conception of the ekklesia has no concrete expression in the form of objec­tive existence, for the local ekklesia is a thing of different nature and function.1

     A further departure from the universal church theory is Dr. Dana's sweeping rejection of Matthew 16:18, and all passages except those in Ephesians and Colossians as proof texts. The most important of these is Matthew 16:18, which he does not even use to prove his ideal concept. He defines the use of ecclesia here as "the local significance, used in a generic sense."2

     Although these major differences exist between Dana's view of the church and the commonly accepted universal church theory, it will be observed that the similarity is equally as great. Both concepts of the church constitute the entire number of the redeemed
-------------------------
1 Dana, op. cit., p. 57.
2 Ibid., p. 40.

[p. 18]
for some period of time.

     Dr. E. J. Fish raises an objection that is mutually applicable to both of these views. He says:

     For any one to assume that disciples out of the church as well as those in it are meant when the term church is used, is every whit as illogical as to assume that children who do not attend school as well as those who do are covered by the term school.1
     There are four other serious objections to the concept of an ideal church constituting spiritual Israel:

     1. Paul's identification of the ekklesia with spiritual Israel is never directly stated but is based upon an assumption that the ekklesia must be identified with this Pauline conception. But this is something wholly incongruous with Paul's conception of the church elsewhere; it rather fits the New Testament conception of the kingdom which is expressely spiritual and invisible.

     2. Any idea that Paul had of the congregation of Israel as a great spiritual entity does not fit a spiritual or ideal concept of the church. Ekklesia was used only to describe Israel when they were assembled;
-------------------------
1 E. J. Fish, Ecclesiology (New York: The Authors' Publishing Co., 1857), p. 97.

[p. 19]
to speak of them otherwise requires a designation such as family or kingdom.

     3. Even if the ideal concept were true, the ekklesia would be only imaginative. Whether named the invisible church or the ideal church it would have no more reality than before it was named. "It would still be a mere creation of the brain."1 Any such conception is alien to the writers of the Word. The entities of which these writers conceived such as the Kingdom and spiritual Israel though invisible in nature were not imaginative but declared to exist as reality. Because of the essential visible nature of the ekklesia it would be impossible to conceive of it as something imaginary.

     4. Both of the letters which contain the proof texts for the ideal concept, though encyclical in nature, are "avowedly addressed to a constituency peculiarly strong in Gentile association."2

     Ephesians explicitly proclaims the Gentile constituency that is the recipient of the letter - "ye
-------------------------
1 A. C. Dayton, Theodosia Ernest, (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society), p. 127.
2 Thomas, op. cit., p. 282.

[p. 20]
were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,"1 "the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,"2 "walk not as other Gentiles walk."3

     The recipients of the Colossian letter were probably of Phrygian stock. It seems that all three of the churches which received the letter were charac­teristically Gentiles. Many of the churches mentioned in the New Testament have a strong Jewish element in them, but the churches which Paul is addressing here contained only a minority group of Hebrews.4

     In these epistles both writer and reader are predominately Hellenes or Hellenized and so, "the pre­sumption of conformity to popular Gentile conception naturally increases in force."5

     Dr. Thomas sums up the whole problem and gives the most logical answer when he says:
-------------------------
1 Ephesians 2:12.
2 Ephesians 3:1.
3 Ephesians 4:17.
4 The three churches to which the letter was immediately destined were located at Colossae, Laodicea, and Hierapolis in the valley of the Lycus.
5 Thomas, op. cit., p. 280.

[p. 21]
     It could hardly be presumed that an intelli­gent writer, addressing a Greek constituency would inject into a familiar word a sense not only unfamiliar, but 'repugnant,' to his reader's methods of thought; expecting him to fish out intuitively the idea meant to be conveyed.1
     If the Apostle were identifying the ekklesia with spiritual Israel he would have clearly set it out so that his message would be understandable to all. As it stands, the obvious significance, as understood by the Gentile readers, is that now, as a result of Christ's work on the cross — abolishing the barriers between Jew and Gentile — they could now be members of the same assembly or body as were the Jews. Previously the Gentiles were looked upon as heathen, with no relation to the Jewish nation. There was no common ground on which to unite religously. But now the Gentiles are fellowheirs of the promise and all can work together in the assembly for the promotion of the end of the Kingdom of God.

     It must be recognized that Dr. Dana and other writers have made a valuable contribution in clarifying some of the particulars of the problem of the nature of tho church. But, generally speaking, the ideal
-------------------------
1 Ibid., pp. 280, 281.

[p. 22]
concept is an explanation that does not explain, a solution that does not solve the problem.

      Glory Church View. — The second representative opposing view is set out by Dr. B. H. Carroll, patri­arch of Southwestern Baptists. He accounts for the passages of broader significance as representing a glory church. He describes the ecclesia here as "prospective, not actual."

     This same idea is described by other writers as the "Church Triumphant," "The Heavenly Church," and other futuristic connotations.

     Dr. Carroll's interpretation is a possibility. That is, if his theological assumptions are true, his use of the word prospectively is consistent with its essential meaning, as well as is the generic use.

     It may be then, that in their perfected state all believers shall be presented to Christ as an assembly without spot or blemish. This is future, and so to say that all believers in the aggregate constitute an ekklesia now is a perversion of the imagination.

     Nevertheless, there are plausible objections to this theory. The two passages cited as proof-texts

[23]
are not sufficient to establish a doctrine of the Glory Church. The majority of Christians expositors regard these passages as references to the Bride of Christ, but that is not expressly stated in either case.

     The passage in Ephesians 5:25-27 can only be assumed to refer to the Bride of Christ - an assumption that is extremely questionable as Dr. Dana points out:

     Nowhere in the passage does he call the church the bride of Christ, but says only that a husband should love his wife with the same intense love that Christ had for the Church.1
     The assumption that this passage refers to the Bride of Christ is arrived at by connecting it to the apocalyptic reference to the Bride in Revelation 21:9, 10.

     Dr. Thomas opposes this method of interpretation. He says:

     To interpret a practical letter to living men by the mystic symbolism of the Apocalypse is, at the best, a precarious kind of exegesis.2
     To determine what the Bible actually teaches about the Bride is not a pert of this study. It is only necessary to point out that the figure does not
------------------------
1 Dana, op. cit., p. 59.
2 Thomas, op. cit., p. 284.
[24]
correspond to any idea of a universal, invisible church or a concept of the glory church.
     Indeed, in Revelation "The bride" is not described as 'the church', but the 'holy city': a throne being in its midst; an idea wholly incon­gruous with all representations of the earthly ecclesia.1
     Without being able to completely dismiss the glory church concept, it can be admitted as a possibility. However, the objections against the viewpoint carry enough weight to set it aside as an insufficient and faulty explanation.

     Persistent Local View. — Dr. Jessie B. Thomas, a thorough scholar, sets out the most consistent view of the nature of the church. He maintains that the Scriptures "steadily and consistently" set over against the kingdom, "the 'church' as a present, local, individ­ual, visible organization, capable of indefinite multiplication." 2

     He readily concedes the institutional or generic sense but rejects the idea of universality and invisi­bility, which are pecular to the kingdom, as applying to the church.
------------------------
1 Loc. cit., p. 284.
2 Thomas, op. cit., p. 286.

[25]

     Dr. Fish, after a thorough examination of the Scripture passages containing ekklesia arrives at the same conclusion. He says:

     Thus we have surveyed every use of the term in the New Testament and find not one having reference to our Lord's ecclesia, which does not fall under the local idea or one of its logical derivatives, which are simply the local idea in another form.1

     Dr. J. R. Graves, a prominent Tennessee Baptist of the latter pert of the nineteenth century, rejects the idea of an invisible church. Concerning the ten instances in which ecclesia does not refer to a local organization, he says "it is used figuratively - by synecdoche - where a part is put for the whole, the singular for the plural, one for all."2

     This idea is essentially the same as the generic concept but expressed in different terms.

     Dr. Graves stoutly rejects the idea of even one passage affording "the shadow of a ground for the idea of an invisible church in heaven, any more than a huge universal, national or provincial church on earth."3
------------------------
1 Fish, op. cit., p. 102.
2 J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism (Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1928), p. 39.
3 Ibid.

[26]
He further declares that "a multitude of passages pre­clude the idea."1

     The New Hampshire Confession of Faith, probably more widely adopted than any other by the Baptist churches of America, refers to only one kind of church, and there is no allusion to a universal church unless it be implied by the appellative "visible." It simply defines the church as a "congregation of baptized believers."

     Other objections. — Without attempting to class­ify all of the church concepts attendant, it is profit­able to point out several other objections to the universal church theory. These show how other Baptist leaders have recognized the error of the commonly accepted universal church theory. They should be viewed as representative of those who have stopped to examine the real nature of the church and have found insurmountable difficulties with the universal, invis­ible explanation of the nature of the church.

     Dr. W. R. White, President of Baylor University, expresses his opposition to the actual, present exis­tence of a universal, invisible church when he declares:
------------------------
1 Ibid.

[27]
     There is no actual, functioning universal church, whether invisible, or visible, in existence today. Nowhere is such an idea taught in the New Testament.1
     Dr. Thomas Armitage, the great Baptist historian, is among those who oppose the universal, invisible church idea. He says that "an invisible church is a purely indefinite and mythical idea."2

     Dr. Armitage is probably more in harmony with the idea of a generic use of ekklesia than any of the other mentioned views as indicated by his statement:

     When Jesus is called the Founder, the Head, the Redeemer of his 'Ecclesia', it is clearly meant, that what he is to one Christian congregation he is to all such congregations, the same severally and collectively.
     Dr. Roy Mason recognized the heresy of this concept and writes in descriptive terms:
     This theory, which plays exegetical tricks, employs specious arguments and minimized the im­portance of the true churches of Christ, is a theory that has been and is a curse to the cause of Christ. It is one of the most widespread and hurtful heresies of our day, and yet, strange to say, without foundation and contrary to common
------------------------
1 White, op. cit. p. 53.
2 Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (New York: Bryan, Taylor and Co. 1887) P. 121.
3 Ibid., p. 119.
[28]
sense once it is subject to close scrutiny.1
     No solution to this problem concerning the nature of the church will be without difficulties. All of the previously mentioned writers in this chap­ter have contributed rich insights into the problem, but of necessity one view is more consistent than the rest - the persistent local view which rests solidly upon both historical and theological foundations.
------------------------
1 Roy Mason, The Church That Jesus Built, Sixth Edition, pp. 35, 36.
==========

Part I, Chapter III
Return to Table of Contents


Baptist History Homepage