» Ch1. Autonomy

PDF Print Version
Chapter 1
AUTONOMY


The Nature Of The Church                              35
     Meaning of "ekklesia"                                35
     The characteristics of the church                37
     The marks of a true church                        39
     Differences on "ekklesia"                           43

The Principle Of Autonomy                              48
     The unity of the Bible                                 48
     Progressive revelation                                50
     The one body of Christ                               51
     Visible congregations                                 52
     The final court of appeal (Mt. 18:15-20)      54
     Independent congregations (Rev. 1-3)         57

Summary                                                       61

References And Notes                                      62


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Chapter 1
AUTONOMY


One characteristic of Independency is the autonomy of the local Congregation. The principle of "autonomy" means that each Congregation is to be self-ruling. There is no individual, no body of individuals, and no institution on earth outside the congregation of God's people which has the right and power to exert rule over that congregation. Civil and ecclesiastical authorities of all and any sort are meant. Civil authorities are further excluded from interfering with the government of the church by the principle of "the Headship of Christ" over the church.

The principle of "autonomy" may be proven by three considerations: first, from the pattern of rule established by God for His people in biblical times; second, from the direct teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ on church government in Matthew 18:15-20; and third, from the definitive teaching found in the first three chapters of the book of Revelation. The nature of the church must be discussed before all else because of its great relevance not only to the principle of "autonomy", but also to the whole subject of church government. It will also help to clear a lot of the confused thinking and irregular activities among Christians today which arise from defective views on the nature of the church.


The Nature Of The Church

Meaning of "ekklesia"

The Greek word ekklesia is used 115 times in the New Testament. It is translated mostly as "church", and sometimes as "assembly". The word


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

ekklesia is derived from the Greek prefix ek (out) and kaleo (call). Thus ekklesia originally meant "a called out assembly".¹ In three instances it is used in the "heathen sense" to refer to the disorderly crowd at Ephesus (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). In two cases this word is used in the "Jewish sense" to refer to ancient Israel as God's chosen and separated people (Acts 7:38; Heb 2:12 quoting Ps. 22:22).² In the rest of the more than one hundred times, the word is used in reference to a Christian assembly.

Our interest lies in the use of the word in the "Christian sense". Of the 110 times that the word ekklesia is used in reference to a Christian assembly, more than ninety are applied to a visible, local, congregation or company of baptised disciples in a given area who are covenanted together. We read, for example, of Paul calling for the elders of the church (Acts 20:17), of the church of God which is at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2), of the churches of Galatia (Gal. 1:2), of the seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:11), and of the church of Ephesus (Rev. 2:1).

The word ekklesia is also used to refer to the universal invisible church consisting of all the elect of God in the past, present, or future. For example, we read in Ephesians 5:25 and 27, "...Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, .... that He might present it to Himself a glorious church..." Similarly, in Matthew 16:18, "...on this rock I will build my church..." Other examples are Ephesians 3:10 and Colossians 1:18.

The universal church is sometimes considered as consisting of two groups: the glorified saints in heaven, known as the "church triumphant", and the believers on earth, known as the "church militant". This makes for convenience in discussion, the biblical basis of which may be found in such passages as Ephesians 4:11-12 and Hebrews 12:22-23. In Ephesians 4:11-12, apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors-teachers are given "for the edifying of the body of Christ". Here, the reference is to a portion of the body of Christ, namely that which is on earth. Similarly, in Hebrews 12:22-23, the "church of the first born" may be a reference to that portion of the universal church on earth.³ The well-known Baptists, John Gill (1697-1771) and Arthur Pink (1886-1952), were of the view that this Hebrews passage is a reference to the totality of the universal church. The 1689 Confession quotes this as the first Bible reference in support of the doctrine of the universal church. What is certain is that this passage does not refer to the local church, nor to any other "visible church".

Membership in a local church is not always coincident with


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

membership in the universal church, neither is membership in the latter always coincident with membership in the former. Professed believers who are unregenerate may be unwittingly admitted into the membership of the local church, as was the case with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). Also, true believers may be precluded, by circumstances or through ignorance, from membership with a local congregation for a time, as was the case with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8). This means that all the local churches in the world taken together do not make up the invisible universal church, neither do they form a visible universal church (as the paedobaptists claim, see below).

The characteristics of the church

The church of Jesus Chnst is characterised by the following qualities:⁴

(i) Unity: This is taught in such passages of Scripture as Ephesians 4:3-6; 5:23-27; and 1 Corinthians 12. The Ephesians passage says, "...endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." There is one head - Christ. There is one body - the church. The unity of the church is spiritual in nature, and not organisational. It exists among all who are born of God, regardless of ecclesiastical differences. No man can create this unity by mere external organisation or human activity. Every Christian, and every local church, should endeavour to maintain this unity by upholding the truth and expressing fellowship around the truth, for "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:5-7)."

(ii) Sanctity: The universal church of Christ is made up of only regenerate people: a people that is set apart as holy unto God. The local congregations of Christ ought also to be made up of regenerate people. Believers are a "new creation". They are called "saints", or sanctified ones. They are the "elect of God, holy and beloved" (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 3:12). "You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 2:5)." This holiness may not be perfect or absolute in any believer, and therefore in the church. But that does not mean that no attempts should be made to be separate from the world (2 Cor. 6:11-18).


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

(iii) Catholicity: Various ecclesiastical bodies have called themselves the only true universal, or catholic, church. Such claims, however, can never be supported by history or the teachings of the Bible. The only true catholicity taught in the Bible is the unity of faith among all who are redeemed by Christ's blood. The holy, catholic church is not the Church of Rome, not the Church of England, nor any other organisation in the world. It is the universal church of Christ, which is invisible as far as the work of God's grace in the hearts of the members is concerned. "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you (Lk. 17:21)." "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35)."

(iv) Apostolicity: It is the claim of the Church of Rome and other prelatical communions that they have an unbroken succession of ministerial gifts and ordinations that came directly from the apostles. To them, a succession of ministry implies also a succession in church order and sacramental efficacy. Such claims are historically groundless, and doctrinally useless. True apostolicity consists not in succession but in possession, not in historical pedigree but in spiritual identity. Only those who possess and exhibit the doctrines, the spirit and the life of the apostles have the right to claim this mark of a true gospel church. "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11)." "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-20)."

(v) Perpetuity: The church of Jesus Christ will continue to the end of time. Strictly speaking, only the invisible church is spoken of as perpetual in the Bible. "And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed (Dan. 2:44)." "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom, forever, even forever and ever (Dan. 7:18)." "On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18)." "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20)." Since the invisible universal church manifests itself as local churches on this earth, we may expect that there will be local churches that remain faithful to God in every period of history. Some local churches may decay, but others will be raised up. Some lampstands may be removed, but others will be planted to replace them. The cause of Christ is imperishable, and the foundations


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

shall never be removed.

The marks of a true church

Since the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the question had been raised, "By what signs, notes, or attributes may a true church of Christ he known?" To this question the Roman Catholic Catechism answers: "Unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity, and perpetuity." These five basic characteristics of the church are exactly what Protestants hold to, except that they are given different definitions by the Roman Catholic Church. To these, Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and others, from the ultra Roman Catholic standpoint, added various others.

The Roman Catholic belief is that the church is one monolithic visible entity which will continue on for all time. This indefectible (i.e. never ceasing to exist) church is tied up with the Church of Rome, the mother and mistress of all churches. The bishop of Rome is the head, the vicar of Christ, of this indefectible church. Historical succession in ministry and ordination is traced to Peter the apostle.

Protestants reject all these claims of Rome, believing them to be unfounded historically and doctrinally. Only the invisible universal chinch, made up of believers of every age, is indefectible or perpetual. The Roman Catholic Church makes the fatal mistake of defining an external visible church and claiming all who come into it as saved. Protestants correctly define the church by the believers who constitute it. True faith in Christ makes the true Christian, and true Christians make up the true church.

Since the universal church manifests itself on this earth as local congregations, the marks of the true church may rightly be expected of them as well. The local church is a microcosm of the universal church. Unity, sanctity, catholicity, apostolicity, and perpetuity should be reflected in the life of the local congregation. This is possible only when the local church upholds the truth of God's word. God's word must be faithfully preached, and symbolically proclaimed by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. There are those who would add to these church discipline, which is assumed as included.

For this reason, Protestants define the local church as one that possesses the five characteristics already mentioned, plus "the preaching of the pure word of God, and the right administration of the sacraments". Edward Hiscox has correctly pointed out that preaching and the administration of the ordinances are merely references to the


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

action of the church's life rather than to the substance of that life. In other words, they have reference to what is done in the church rather than to what constitutes the church.⁵ The five characteristics - namely unity, sanctity, catholicity, apostolicity and perpetuity - must therefore be seen to underlie these actions of a true church.

The Particular Baptists of seventeenth century England, in common with other Protestants, held to this view of the visible church. Two signatories of the 1689 Confession, William Collins and Benjamin Keach, were assigned to draw up a Baptist Catechism, which was published in 1693.⁶ In this catechism, often known as Keach's Catechism, is found this question and its answer:

Q. 105. What is the visible church?

A. The visible church is the organised society of professing believers, in all ages and places, wherein the gospel is truly preached and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper rightly administered.

Since the days of the Particular Baptist, William Carey (1761-1834), the "father of modern missions", many missionary bodies have arisen. The earlier missionary bodies were run directly under the auspices of local churches. Very soon, missionary bodies and Christian organisations of all sorts that were autonomous in administration began to appear. Today we have the phenomenon of the "para-church organisations": organisations that are created to supplement and complement the works of local churches. The objectives of these organisations are limited in scope: either to send out missionaries, or to evangelise the cities, or to work among students, or to publish tracts or Bibles, or to train up pastors and missionaries, etc.

In view of this, the definition of the visible church as given in Keach's Catechism is no longer adequate. For example, a para-church organisation devoted to the evangelisation of students may claim itself to be a church, since the common definition given of a church is "any gathered body of believers". If it is claimed that there must be the regular preaching of the gospel and the administration of the Lord's supper, that organisation may take it upon itself to do just that and, therefore, qualify to be called a church. But is such an organisation a church? Are para-church organisations the idea of the visible church that our spiritual forebears had?

The Bible knows of only two uses of the word "church": the invisible


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

universal church, and the visible local church. Para-church organisations do not qualify as local churches because they exist for objectives that are rather limited in scope and are organised in ways that are less than biblical. A missionary organisation may have most of its members scattered all over the world, with only a small number gathered at home-base. This is hardly a local church. How are they to worship together, and conduct the Lord's supper together regularly? By the use of the radio, and the fax-machine? A seminary may hold a weekly chapel service, but all its Christian life revolves around teaching and learning theology. No doubt this is some form of Christian activity, but it is hardly the idea of the local church taught in the Bible.

Ideally speaking, all gospel work should flow out of local churches. Practically speaking, however, there are situations in which Christians have to co-operate together for their mutual edification, the maintenance a gospel witness, or the accomplishment of some gospel enterprise. This, however, bespeaks more of the fellowship that exists between Christians than of their constituting together as churches. Towards arriving at a more accurate definition of the visible church, it is here proposed  that three factors must be considered: the basic purpose of its existence, its foundational organisation, and its characteristic activities. These three factors should be such that they show the church to be a "called out people" of God.

The basic purpose for the existence of the visible church should be to glorify God by upholding the truth of His word. One key text is 1 Timothy 3:15, "I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." Truth is upheld in two basic ways: first, by its proclamation to the world in order that the elect may be called out (Mt. 28:19); and second, by the instruction of the converts so that they may be built up in the faith (Mt. 28:20; Eph. 4:11-16). Both the evangelisation of the world as well as the edification of the saints should be seen in any biblical church. A defective church concentrates on one or the other. A healthy church concentrates on both.

Having established the purpose or objective of the church's existence, we need to determine the vehicle or organ by which this objective is to be accomplished. The Bible reveals that the local church is central and unique in die purposes of God. It is the instrument of God in the evangelisaiion of the world and the edification of the saints. A church is formed the covenanting together of believers in a given area in mutual care, regular worship, and continual service to God. It must


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

have Christ as its head, the Bible as its law, and the New Testament church order as its polity. These constitute the foundational organisation, or basic structure, of the church. No other organisation has been ordained by God to achieve the purpose of glorifying Him through upholding the truth.

The activities that differentiate a local church from all other organisations are gospel proclamation, baptism and the Lord's supper. In addition, we would expect to see some basic measures of discipline exercised to maintain the purity of the membership. Baptism and the Lord's supper are ordinances given to the local church. They are visible symbols of inward spiritual realities: of regeneration and fellowship. What is given to the visible church may not be carelessly transferred to para-church organisations, and other gatherings of Christians, to express the unity of the universal church. Baptism should normally be carried out with the purpose of incorporating the individuals into the local church. The Lord's supper should normally be carried out in the context of the local church.

The definition of the visible church given in Keach's Catechism will have to be modified as follows:

"The visible church is the biblically organised society of professing believers, in all ages and places, engaged in mutual care, worship, and service to God, wherein the gospel is truly (i.e. faithfully) preached and the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper rightly administered."

Hezekiah Harvey gives a definition of the church that is even more precise:⁷

"A (visible, local) church is a congregation of believers in Christ, baptised on a credible profession of faith, and voluntarily associated under special covenant for the maintenance of the worship, the truths, the ordinances, and the discipline, of the gospel."

This definition effectively identifies a local church and differentiates it from para-church organisations. It also does not prevent a Christian organisation from evolving into a true local church when that is necessary or feasible. The present author knows of one clear case of this happening to a Christian fellowship in an institution of higher studies in a Buddhist country. That group of Christians is gathered for mutual edification of its members, meets for weekly worship, and seeks to bear


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

witness to others in the campus. No local church exists in the immediate vicinity. The fellowship has over the years become more formally constituted, with some  of the permanent members now as elders (five in number at the point of writing). What started off as a loose fellowship, in effect a para-church organisation, is now effectively a local church!

Harvey was right when he said, "Since a church is entrusted with power so grave and responsible, no body of believers should be constituted a church unless it possesses the intellectual capacity, knowledge, and gifts adapted to the wise exercise of such powers; and in the absence of these, the body should not take on it a church organisation, but should remain a mission station under the care of some well-organised church."⁸

Particular Baptists were once known for their readiness to form local churches wherever they were scattered. This has been attributed largely to the tremendous freedom and flexibility of their church polity.⁹ Theirs, however, was a freedom that was tempered by orderliness: an "orderly freedom" one might say. This contrasts greatly with the rigidity of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism on the one hand, and the chaos of fully-fledged Congregationalism on the other.

Differences on "ekklesia"

The Particular Baptists of seventeenth century England saw clearly that the word ekklesia is used in only two ways in reference to the people of God: the universal church, and gathered congregations. In the chapter on the church, the 1689 Confession devotes only the first paragraph to the definition of the universal church, stating:

"'The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

The Confession immediately moves on to discuss the "particular congregations", or local churches. Keach's Catechism also has a clear statement on the invisible church. That this "invisible church" is one and the same as the "universal church" spoken of in the 1689 Confession is clear from the similar words employed to describe it. It says:


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Q. 106. What is the invisible church?

A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

As in many other issues, the Particular Baptists had worked out a doctrine of the church that was more biblical than other communions. All paedobaptists - whether Episcopalians, Presbyterians, or Independents - believe also in another "church" additional to the two held by the Particular Baptists. Episcopalians hold to the idea of a national church, while Presbyterians and Independents hold to the idea of a visible universal church. Since the 1689 Confession was based largely on the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration, it is useful to consider how they differ among themselves.

The Westminster Confession identifies that portion of the universal church on earth, i.e. the church militant, with the visible catholic church. Chapter 25, paragraphs 2 and 3 state, respectively, that:

"The visible church, which is also catholick or universal under the gospel, (not confined to one nation, as before under the law,) consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

"Unto this catholick visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto."

It seems obvious that these statements on the visible catholic church were framed so as to accomodate the Presbyterian beliefs that infants of believing parents are members of the church and that some form of government beyond the immediate congregation is necessary. Later Presbyterians continued adamantly to hold to the baptism of infants and their membership in the church. Their view of the church necessarily had to be tailored to accomodate these beliefs. Charles Hodge (1797-1878), for example, wrote:

"The difficulty on the subject of infant baptism is that baptism


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

from its very nature involves a profession of faith. It is the way in which Christ is to be confessed before men. But infants are incapable of making such confession; therefore they are not proper subjects of baptism. To state the difficulty in another form: The sacraments belong to the members of the Church, i.e.. the company of believers. Since infants cannot exercise faith, they are not members of the Church and consequently ought not to be baptized.

In order to justify the baptism of infants, we must attain and authenticate such an idea of the Church as to include the children of believing parents..."¹⁰

Independents denied the existence of any form of government beyond the local congregation, but continued to uphold infant baptism. They had, therefore, to uphold the idea of the visible universal church. The Savoy Declaration states that:

"The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called the visible Catholique Church of Christ, although as such it is not intrusted with the administration of any ordinances, or have any officers to rule or govern in, or over the whole Body."

When ihe Bible references cited to support the idea of a visible catholic church are examined, it will be found that none of them uses the word ekklesia. The Westminster Confession has the references 1 Corinthians 1:2; 12:12, 13; Psalm 2:8; Revelation 7:9; Romans 15:9-12. All these references are directly concerned with people who areconverted or will be converted. Converted people are "visible" in the sense that they may be known to have become believers. They become members of the invisible universal church, and they should also join themselves to visible local churches. Those Bible references cited in the Westminster Confession say nothing about all believers, together, forming a church of any sort. The 1689 Confession calls such converts by the biblical name of "saints". The statement in the Savoy Declaration was thus changed, in the 1689 Confession (chapter 26, paragraph 2), to:

"All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted."

The 1689 Confession thus restricts the use of the word "church" to its two biblical senses, at the same time rejecting infant membership in the visible local congregations.

Acts 9:31 has been quoted to support the idea that there are more than two senses to the use of the word ekklesia.¹¹ It is claimed that the correct reading of the verse should be, "Then the church (singular) throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace..." In reply, we must say that it is precarious to build a doctrine on a controverted text. A safe principle of interpreting the Scripture is that we must proceed from what is clear to that which is unclear, and not vice versa. By comparison with uncontroverted passages such as Galatians 1:2 and Revelation 1:4 ("To the churches in Galatia," and "to the seven churches which are in Asia"), we are inclined to accept the plural, "churches," in Acts 9:31 of the Received Text. Even if it is granted that the variant reading is right, the text does not show a different sense in the use of the word "church". If indeed the singular were correct it would merely be an adaptation and specialized application of the universal sense. Just as the universal church may be referred to in the limited scope of the saints on earth (that is, the church militant), so also it may be referred to in the limited scope of those in a region.¹²

Presbyterians like to quote the parable of the wheat and tares to justify the inclusion of unregenerate members in the church.¹³ It is explained in the parable, however, that the field in which are found the wheat and the tares is actually the world, and not the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 13:38). Moreover, verse 41 confirms that the kingdom, i.e. the universal church, is made up of regenerate people only, from which the unregenerate must be excluded: "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practise lawlessness." A parable that teaches the regenerate membership of the universal church is made to teach the opposite by the Presbyterians! Similarly, the parable of the dragnet (Mt. 13:47-49) and the metaphor of the true vine (Jn. 15:1-8) exclude the unregenerate from the kingdom.¹⁴

Sensing the weakness of their case, when confronted with the Baptists' insistence that there are only two biblical senses of the word


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

"church", Presbyterians are wont to broaden the meaning of the word. James Bannerman went beyond the Westminster Confession by positing an additional two uses of the word "church", bringing the total to five!¹³ Thomas Witherow broadened it further, not by multiplying the number of senses of the word, but by making the word take on just one extremely general sense: namely, "an assembly of the people of God, a society of Christians".¹¹ By so doing, he was able to make the word fit as many uses as he liked. His lack of precision in the definition of the word will please modem-day advocates of para-church organisations!

One can become extreme by going too far to the right, or too far to the left. In the nineteenth century there arose in America a view of the church which went too far in the direction opposite to that of the paedobaptists. This was the view of Landmarkism, which rejected the doctrine of the universal church and held to a strict view of the local church. The term "Landmarkism" itself was derived from a tract published by J. M. Pendleton in 1854, called "An Old Landmark Reset", in which he dealt with the question of whether Baptists ought to recognise paedobaptist preachers as true gospel ministers. The movement actually began with two men: A. C. Dayton and J. R. Graves.

The latter, in particular, promoted the idea that the true church was the local Baptist church. The claim was made that Baptist churches could trace an unbroken succession of believer's baptism through the centuries to the time of John the Baptist, very much in the same way that Roman Catholics trace an unbroken succession of ordination to Peter. The theory was introduced that the church which Jesus promised in build, in Matthew 16:18, is not a spiritual body consisting of all Christians, but a local visible institution. Here we find for the first time a categorical denial of the universal church and an attempt to identify every usage of ekklesia in the New Testament with the local church.

Through the influence of Landmarkism, the doctrine of the universal church became very unpopular in many Baptist circles. Other peculiarities popularised by Landmarkism included the non-recognition of those who are not Baptists, closed communion (limiting the participants at the Lord's table to members of the local church), rejection of alien immersion (immersion not authorised by a certain type of Baptist church), and adherence to the theory of church succession. These views are all related to the basic strict local church theory.¹⁵


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

On the fringes of the Reformed Baptist movement today are certain Baptists who have embraced Calvinistic soteriology but whose view of the church is coloured by their background of Landmarkian and fundamentalistic influences.¹⁶ The church polity that they practise is consequently affected accordingly.


The Principle Of Autonomy

The unity of the Bible

We have deliberately dwelt on the nature of the church because of its importance not only to the principle of Autonomy, but also to other principles bearing on the form of church government. Presbyterians recognise this and, therefore, strive to wrest the Scripture off its natural sense to make it support their preconceived idea of a church that is made up of believers and non-believers. James Bannerman, for example, wrote:

"Admit the narrow position taken up by the Independents in regard to the true meaning and nature of a church as defined in Scripture, restrict the term to one or other of the two significations of either the invisible church at large, or a single congregation of believers in a particular locality, and you, in fact, concede every principle that is necessary for them to establish their views as to the form of the church, and the nature of its government."¹⁷

Important as the nature of the church is, we would not rely upon our understanding of it alone to support our assertion that Independency is the biblical form of church government. Each principle that contributes to the establishment of the biblical form of church government must itself be capable of being proven from Scripture.

Towards this end, the whole of the Bible must be appealed to. The Old and New Testaments together constititute the total revealed will of God. They speak with one voice, and not a multitude of contradicting voices. Any matter, including the biblical form of church government, must be determined from both the Old and the New Testaments. This is the doctrine of "the unity of Scripture".

Episcopalians and Presbyterians make much of this doctrine. Along the way, they emphasize the continuity between the Old and New


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Testaments to the point of equating the two.¹⁸ In reaction, dispensationalists emphasize the discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. The truth, however, lies somewhere between the two extremes. There is a sense in which the teachings of both Testaments are continuous, and there is a sense in which they are discontinuous.¹⁹

When countering the false claims of Episcopalians and Presbyterians, it is impoiiant not to treat the Old Testament as "less authoritative" than the New. This is  what has been done by Baptists of the Congregational persuasion. For example, E. T. Hiscox makes the remarkable statement:

"The Now Testament is the constitution of Christianity, the charter of the Christian Church, the only authoritative code of ecclesiastical law, and the warrant and  justification of all Christian institutions. In it alone is life and immortality brought to light, the way of escape from wrath revealed, and all things necessary to salvation made plain; while the messages are a gospel of peace on earth and of hope to a lost world."²⁰

K. H. Good referred to the above quotation from Hiscox with approval.²¹ He further made the statement that, "..we must also accept the principle that the New Testament thereby becomes the sufficient auihority for a complete ecclesiology."²²

W. R. Estep, in reference to the Anabaptist view of the Bible, made this statement: "Therefore, to hold that the Old Testament was equally authoritative for the Christian was to fail to recognise the difference God's preliminary word to man and His final word to him."²³

Apart from the incorrectness of treating the Old Testament as inferior to, or less authoritative than, the New Testament, such remarks are not likely to commend themselves to paedobaptists. The whole of Scripture, including both the Old and New Testaments, is the complete, all-sufficient and authoritative word of God - not just the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Both the Old Testament as well as the New must be appealed to when establishing church principles - but by giving proper credence to the progressive nature of biblical revelation. It is perhaps better not to look upon the word of God as continuous or discontinuous, but rather to look upon it as a unity in which is progression and fulfilment.


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Progressive revelation

Dunng the Reformation, Zwingli and Luther argued their case for infant baptism and a sacral concept of the church from the Old Testament. They had earlier agreed with the Anabaptists that there is no biblical warrant for infant baptism.²⁴ Refusing to go all the way with the Anabaptists in following the teachings of Scripture, they had to come up with some biblical justification for retaining their beliefs. It was then that they began to turn to the Old Testament for help. Latching on the idea of the unity of the covenant of grace, they began to work out a theology in which Abraham was regarded as the federal head of the household of God. By this means, they attempted to justify infant baptism and the sacral concept of the church. Calvin was to develop this federal theology further, and to give it some semblance of credibility.²⁵

In reaction, some Anabaptists appealed only to the New Testament for their teaching on believer's baptism. The Old Testament was treated as obsolete and superceded by the New. The vast majority of the Anabaptists, however, did not reject nor disparaged the Old Testament. The Waterland Confession of 1580, for example, stales in Article 29:

"The doctrine which ordained ministers propose to the people ought to be or to agree with that which Jesus Christ brought from heaven, which He taught the people by word and work, that is, in doctrine and life, and which the apostles of Chnst, at the mandate and according to the Spirit of Christ, announced. It (as much as is necessary to us for salvation) is contained in the books of the New Testament to which we join all that which is found in the canonical books of the Old Testament and which is consonant with the doctrine of Christ and His apostles and in accord with the administration of His spiritual kingdom."²⁶

Of the beliefs of the Anabaptists on Scripture, Estep writes:²⁷

"Even though there are differing emphases among the various Anabaptist writers in regard to the Scriptures and their use, there are significant areas of agreement. For all the Anabaptists the Bible was the only rule of faith and practice for discipleship and the church. Biblical revelation was held to be progressive. The Old Testament was preparatory and partial, whereas the New Testament was final and complete. All the Scriptures, they insisted, must be interpreted Christologically, that is, through


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

the mind of Christ. The Holy Spirit alone can illuminate the letter of the Biible and give it convicting power in the life of the seeker. The Bible is the living Word of God, that can give us new life in the power of the Spirit."

What the Anabaptists insisted upon was that there must be a proper appreciation of the progressive development in the revelation of God, from the Old Testament to the New. Pilgrim Marpeck (c. 1490-1556) was to contribute most to Anabaptist thought on the interpretation of Scripture. While holding the entire Bible to be the word of God, he made a distinction between the purpose of the Old Testament and that of the New. As the foundation must be distinguished from the house, so the Old Testament must be distinguished from the New. The Old Testament was promise; the New, fulfilment. Failure to place the Old and New Testaments in proper sequence and relationship, Marpeck held, was disastrous. For to make the Old Testament normative for the Christian life was to seriously misinterpret the biblical message. In Marpeck's eyes the pope, Luther, Zwingli, and the "false Anabaptists" were all guilty of this fundamental error.²⁸

Today, the idea that revelation was given by God to man progressively and cumulatively is recognised in the new discipline of Biblical (or Chronological) Theology.^29,30 Paedobaptists have begun to appreciate this field of studies, and have even contributed to its development.³¹ Our appeal to them, however, is that they be more consistent throughout, and not begin to hedge when the results of biblical studies do not favour their preconceived ideas. We will have occasion to say more of this in relation to their belief on infant baptism. Suffice to say at this point that paedobaptists err by equating the New Testament with the Old, while dispensationalists err by exalting the New above the Old.³²

The one body of Christ

This leads us to the controversial question - Did the church begin in the Old Testament or the New? Paedobaptists would answer, "In the Old." Dispensationalists would answer, "In the New." With Thornbury, and the older generation of Particular Baptists, the present author believes that th truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Wrote Thornbury:

"Viewed as a congregation spiritually gathered at the feet of Jehovah in worship and praise, we must say that there has


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

always been a church from the time that men began to call on the Lord. In this respect we would agree with the Reformed (i.e. paedobaptist) position. But viewed as "the body of Christ," a mystical organism created by the death of Christ and actually formed by the work ot the Holy Spirit, we would say the church never had an actual existence until the redemptive achievements of Christ the Head became a historical reality. It is our belief that the body of Christ existed only in the purpose of Christ as a mystery before Christ actually came, but in the age of grace, which is founded on the work of Christ and the coming of the fullness of the Holy Spint, the church came into being as the "one body." In this respect we agree with the dispensationalists, i.e. that the body of Christ did not exist in the Old Testament in actuality. We differ in one respect from the dispensational interpretation, however, in that we believe that the Old Testament saints are now in the body, the church, which includes all the saved - past, present, in heaven, and earth. This is necessarily so, for if the church is a body in vital union with Christ, created by His death, then it must include all who share in the benefits of His death. But Christ died for the saints of the Old Testament period as well as those of the New. This means, in short, that they are a part now of that body created in Christ, consisting in fact the first members of that organism historically."³³

One way of looking at it is to regard the church as already conceived and developing in foetal form in the Old Testament period, ready for birth in embryo form during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ, actually born on the day of Pentecost with the full outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon it, and developing from infancy to maturity during the New Testament period. It is significant that the most developed teaching on church life is given in the Pastoral Epistles, the last writings of the apostle Paul. 1 Timothy focuses on the public worship and proper organisation of the church, Titus on the sanctified life or conduct of the church, and 2 Timothy on the sound doctrine of the church.³⁴ Significant also is the fact that the last book of the Bible devotes three chapters (Rev 1-3) to teaching on the church.

Visible congregations
We are now ready to offer some proofs for the principle of Autonomy. The first proof is that God's people have always been governed as visible entities, or congregations. Before the Flood, and after that as well, the worship of God was performed in large families. The case of


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Abraham and his iarge household is an example. Abraham and his family and servants numbering hundreds of souls (Gen. 14:14), were accustomed to worshipping God as one household.^{35, 36}

The nation of Israel was a congregation. In Leviticus 4:13-15, we read, "Now if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, ...And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of bull before the Lord." They were a people separated from other nations, and specially holy to the Lord. They met in one place called "the tabernacle of meeting",   or   literally,   "the tabernacle of the congregation", and offered their sacrifices at one altar (Lev. 1:3, 4; 17:4, 5). Three times in the year all the males appeared together at Jerusalem, both when the tabernacle was around and after, when it was replaced by the temple. Besides, there were priests and Levites stationed permanently at Jerusalem, acting as representatives of the nation and offering sacrifices on behalf of the congregation.

The synagogues also were congregations. Although we have no record of its divine institution, we do know that our Lord honoured the worship in the synagogue.  The word translated "assembly" with reference to Christians in James 2:2 is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint (i.e. the Greek version of the Old Testament) for the gathering of the Jews.

The New Testament churches were divinely instituted as separate congregations, as we have discussed at some length above. John Gill pointed out that the formation of New Testament churches, consisting of separate congregations, is actually prophesied of in Ecclesiastes 12:11 and Isaiah 4:5.³⁶ The first passage reads, "The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of the masters of the assemblies are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." The second passage reads, "...then the LORD will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For all the glory there will be a covering." This understanding of the said passages has a lot to commend itself.

It has been argued pragmatically that the church in Jerusalem must have been too large to worship "under a single roof" in view of the thousands who were converted on the day of Pentecost and subsequently (Acts 2:41; 4:4).³⁷ This, however, is only an assumption that fails to take into account two facts: one, that the early believers actually met in one wing of the temple of Jerusalem called Solomon's Porch until they were scattered by persecution (Acts 5:12; 3:1, 11; 8:1); two, the


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

converts included a great number of visitors from all over the Roman empire who came to celebrate the passover feast plus others from the vicinity of Jerusalem (Acts 2:5-13; 5:16). This vast number of converts would have returned to all parts of Judea and beyond to form congregations that we read of later in Acts 9:31. The persecution recorded in Acts 8:1 would have further scattered the believers. It was not impossible for the church in Jerusalem to gather as one congregation. The rulers were opposed to them, but the favour which they had among the people stayed the hand of persecution (cf. Acts 2:47).³⁸ The testimony of Scripture is that the church in Jerusalem was indeed one congregation (Acts 14:27; 15:4, 12, 22). The church historian, Eusebius, indicated that at the time when Jerusalem fell in AD 70, the church in Jerusalem was still meeting as one congregation, saying, "The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt in a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella."³⁹

From all the above considerations, we come to the clear conclusion that God dealt with His people as congregations. Each congregation was dealt with independently. Each congregation was, therefore, autonomous. There was never any individual ruling over many separate congregations, such as is found in Prelacy. There was never a church of presbyters or elders, who ruled over a number of congregations, such as is found in Presbyterianism.

Presbyterians like to appeal to Acts 15 in support of their system. That passage, however, records the meeting of representatives of one church with the members of another church. It was not a gathering of representatives of many churches (Acts 15:4). Moreover, the decree sent out to all the Gentile churches was more a declaration of truths than an edict demanding compliance. The apostles, despite their authority over the churches, acted merely as elders in the church of Jerusalem, in which James appeared to be the pastor (1 Pet. 5:1; Acts 15:13ff; cf. 12:17). As apostles, they spoke the words of God with authority to the churches. As elders, they merely gave their advice to other churches and did not dictate over them (2 Cor. 8:8; 1 Pet. 5:1). Local churches were left alone to exercise their own rule, as in the case of the expulsion of the immoral member in Corinth (1 Cor. 5:1 ff.).

The final court of appeal (Mt. 18:15-20)

That the Lord anticipated the formation of churches according to the pattern revealed in the latter part of the New Testament is clear from a


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

number of passages in the Gospels:

Matthew 9:36-37, "But when He saw the multitudes, He was moved with compassion for them, because they were weary and scattered, like sheep having no shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, 'The harvest truly is plentiful, but the labourers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into His harvest." Here, the Lord is looking ahead, beyond the immediate space and time, to the multitudes who would be called out of the world to believe in Him.

Matthew 28:19-20, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." The reference to future disciples is clear. And if baptism is taken to include the idea of incorporation into a local church, which surely it does, there is here the anticipation of the founding of local congregations. The further teaching to be given the disciples make sense only in the context of the local church.

John 13:34-35, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." To limit these words to only the immediate disciples will be to bleed "the new commandment" of its abiding significance. The question is, how is the love between Christians to be known by all if they are not gathered into visible congregations?

John 17:20, 23, "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; .... I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." Again, future converts are in mind. The question is, how is the world going to know that they are disciples, and loved by the Father, if they are not gathered into visible congregations?

Matthew 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." The Lord is here anticipating the founding of His church. Here, of course, the reference is to the universal church. But the universal church is to manifest itself as local congregations, as the subsequent teachings of the New Testament reveal. We have already discussed this at some length above: under the section on "the nature of the church".


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Matthew 18:17, "And if he refuses to hear them tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." The reference here surely cannot be to the universal church. The context shows that the sinning brother is to be restored by definite, tangible, efforts of private admonition followed by admonition in the presence of one or two witnesses, and finally by bringing the case before the church. If there were any authority higher than the local church, we would expect this to be clearly stated, since the Lord has taken the trouble to mention the three initial steps. The natural understanding of the passage is clearly that the church is the final authority. It will not do to read into the passage and say that the word "church" here is used in the abstract sense with the meaning of "all that is involved at higher church levels". It is wrong also to assume that the word "church" is a reference to presbyters gathered in a synod. A text must be understood according to its plain meaning. It must also be understood in its context. These are basic principles of biblical interpretation.

The argument that the Christian church was not in existence at the time when the Lord uttered the words of Matthew 18:15-20 is really begging the question.⁴⁰ Due allowance must be made for the progressive nature of revelation. The Lord did anticipate the formation of the Christian church, as we have shown above. We have noted also that Ecclesiastes 12:11 and Isaiah 4:5 predicted the formation of New Testament congregations. If Pentecost is regarded as the time when the New Testament church was born, the disciples of Christ in the period before that time may be regarded as the church in embryo. It consisted of the apostles at first, but included others later (cf. Acts 1:12-15). The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, if in actuality spoken only to the eleven apostles, was in effect a commission to the churches in subsequent ages. If the Lord's supper was in actuality given to the eleven apostles, it was in effect given to local churches in subsequent generations. This is clear from 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

If there is no higher authority to appeal to in so serious a matter as church discipline, leading to the expulsion of a church member, we conclude that the church has to be autonomous. This strong argument based on Matthew 18:15-20 to prove the autonomy of the church has yet to be effectively rebutted by Episcopalians and Presbyterians.⁴¹ The same passage is used by Congregationalists to prove that the power of rule resides in the membership of the church. To this we will not comment at the moment. Here, we are interested to know what type of rule should subsist in the church and not where the power of rule should


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

reside, nor who should exercise the rule. With regard to the type of rule, we say the church is autonomous or self-ruling.

Independent congregations (Rev. 1-3)

The relevance of the book of Revelation to ecclesiology has long been overlooked. The first three chapters of the book in particular have much to teach on the church: its nature, government, discipline, purity, and much more. What reasons are there for this neglect? In my opinion, there are three.

Firstly, there is the widely held idea that Revelation is a book that is hard to understand. It is primarily a book of prophecy, and there appears to be so many opinions held with regard to its interpretation.⁴² That being so, no conclusive doctrine may be drawn out of it. The book is therefore avoided because of its apparent difficulty.

Secondly, since the Reformation Presbyterians and Independents alike have been countering the claims of Episcopacy that biblical precedent for the superiority of the bishop may be found in the angel of each of the churches mentioned in Revelation 3. Since the angel is singular, and taken to mean the bishop, while the church is taken to mean many congregations under one and the same rule, the case for Prelacy is built up. In reaction, Presbyterians and Independents have avoided basing their ecclesiology on the book of Revelation.

Thirdly, Presbyterians appear to have an added reason for playing down the importance of the book of Revelation to the subject of  Ecclesiology. If attention is focussed on the book, it will be revealed that Independency is clearly taught there!

The book of Revelation is important to the subject at hand for the following reasons: First, it is part of the Bible. If the Bible is the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, if it is the final and and sufficient word of God to us, then neglect of the book would leave us that much the poorer. However difficult the book may appear to be, it is still God's revelation to us and should therefore be capable of being understood, at least in its basic outline or main thrust. Only, extra care must be exercised in approaching the book so that the well-established rules of biblical interpretation are not violated and no violence is done is done to the overall teaching of the Bible. While acknowledging that there are some parts of the book that are hard to understand, the difficulty of the book as a whole has perhaps been exaggerated.


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

The vision of Revelation 12, for example, is quite easily understood for the reason that it is self-explanatory in its basic outline. The identity of the fiery red dragon described in verse 3 is revealed as the Devil in verse 9. The woman who gave birth to a male child and who was persecuted by the dragon is described as having other offspring "who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ (v. 17)." Since her other offspring are clearlv the followers of Christ, we may safely conclude that the woman is actually the church. The identity of the male child born by the woman is also clear. He was to rule all nations with a rod of iron, and he was caught up to God and to His throne. Who could He be apart from the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Ps. 2:9)? Once the identity of the main characters and the outline of the vision are clear, the message and the applications are quite straightforward.

This leads us to the second reason why the book of of Revelation is so important to ecclesiology. The first three chapters of the book is a vision that directly concerns the church and its relationship to Christ. Just as with the vision in the twelveth chapter, this vision is also self-explanatory in its basic outline. The main characters are identified. The apostle John saw seven lampstands which are identified as seven churches (Rev. 1:20). The person described in the first chapter is also identified. He is "like the Son of Man" (v. 13), "the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last" (vs. 11, 17). He is the One who lives, and was dead, and is alive forevermore. And He has the keys of Hades and Death (v. 18). Clearly, He is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ! The subsequent account of the vision in chapters 2 and 3 is couched in plain language which should pose no problem in its interpretation, except perhaps for the meaning of the angel of each ol the churches.⁴³

There is a third reason for the relevance of the book to ecclesiology, which has to do with the discipline of Biblical Theology. Since God's revelation came to man progressively and cumulatively, the later revelation must be regarded as the fulfilment or ultimate development of all earlier types, precepts, principles and teachings The book of Revelation is the final instalment of God's word to man, written by the last surviving apostle in the year AD 96. It, therefore, speaks with finality to us. If ever there is a norm set for the form of church government, it is to be found in the book ol Revelation. Our understanding of any doctrine in the book of Revelation must, of course, not contradict what is found in the earlier revelation. If a truth is established by the careful application of "the analogy of Scripture" (that is, the principle that Scripture must interpret Scripture) as well as the careful exegesis of the texts, the case is as good as proven. If,


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

further, the principles of Biblical Theology are shown to have been properly applied, the case is invincibly proven.

How does the last book of the Bible prove Independency? We consider first the lampstands recorded in chapter 1. It must be carefully noted that the word is in the plural (vv. 12, 13, 20). This is not the plural of the word "lamp" (luchnos), which is a portable lamp usually set on a stand.⁴⁴ Instead, it is the plural of the word "lampstand" (luchnia). There were seven individual lampstands that John saw, not one single lampstand with seven branches on top of which were seven lamps. The lampstands that John saw were different from the lampstand found in the Old Testament Tabernacle. Clear as this is, commentators continue to make the mistake of assuming that John saw a lampstand like the one in ihe Old Testament Tabernacle. For example, the Presbyterian, Patrick Fairbairn,⁴⁵ boldly asserted that, "In the first chapter of Revelation the image occurs in its original form, 'the seven golden lamps' (not candlesticks, as in our version, but the seven lamps on the one candlestick), which are explained to mean 'the seven churches'."

In verse 13 it is written, "and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man,..." The word "midst" (mesos) is an adjective denoting middle, in the middle.⁴⁶ In Luke 22:55, for example, we read that "Peter sat in the midst of them", or literally, "a middle one of them". If Fairbairn were right about the lamps, Christ would have to be floating above the ground in order to be in the midst of them! This would be an unwarranted assertion which amounted to "eisegesis" (reading into the text) instead of "exegesis" (reading out of the text). If Christ were not floating above the ground, it would not be possible for Him to be "in the midst" of a single lampstand. Either way, Fairbairn could not be right. No difficulty is encountered if we note that Christ is not in the midst of the lamps but in the midst of the lampstands.

We are expressly told that the seven golden lampstands are seven churches. What is the significance of these lampstands? While modern commentators have nothing to say about this, the older generation of commentators did not hesitate to state its obvious significance. Matthew Poole, commenting on Revelation 1:12, says, "In the Jewish tabernacle there was one golden candlestick, and seven lamps, to give light against it; so Numbers 8:2; Zechariah 4:2. John here sees seven. God had but one church of the Jews, but many among the Gentiles."⁴⁷

The difference between the Old Testament church and the New Testament church is clear. In the Old Testament, the church was an


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

organic entity, in the form of a nation: the nation of Israel. Any non-Jew who wished to worship the God of Israel had to become a "naturalised Jew" by adopting the culture, getting circumcised, and being absorbed into the nation (Ex. 12:48; Num. 9:14; Ezra 6:21). The New Testament church, however, is to be made up of individuals from all nations who are united to Christ by faith, and gathered into local churches. In this way, the church universal manifests itself physically and visibly on this earth as local churches, which are united to one another by their spiritual union with Christ. The churches are not united together in a visible organisation.

Intimation of this change as revelation progressed is seen in the fact that the lampstand of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:31-40, 37:17-24) was replaced by ten lampstands in the temple in the time of Solomon (1 Kings 7:49). These lampstands were modelled after that which was in the tabernacle, each having seven lamps on top of the branches (2 Chron. 4:20 cf. 1 Chron. 28:15). Matthew Poole commented perceptively on 1 Kings 7:49: "...ten, according to the number of the tables; whereas Moses made but one; whereby might be signified the progress of the light of sacred truth, which was now grown clearer than it was in Moses' time, and should shine brighter and brighter until the perfect day of gospel light."⁴⁷

As revelation was progressively given in the Old Testament dispensation, prophecies on the advent of Christ (e.g. Isa. 9:1-7; 52:13-53:12), the calling of the Gentiles (e.g. Isa. 60-66; Amos 9:11-15), the replacement of ceremonial worship with spiritual worship (e.g. Jer. 31:33-34), and the change from one national congregation of God's people to many congregations of gathered believers (Eccl. 12:11; Isa. 4:5), became clearer and clearer.

When we come to the book of Revelation, the number of lampstands is seven. It is widely recognised that the numbers seven and ten are symbolic of perfection and completeness. What Fairbairn said of the Ten Commandments may equally well be said of the church as represented by the ten lampstands in Solomons temple, "the number ten, to indicate its perfection as one complete and comprehensive whole."⁴⁸ The numbers "seven" and "ten" were not arbitrarily chosen.

We may quite safely say this much: the single lampsiand with seven branches in the tabernacle, and the ten lampstands in Solomon's temple, represented the people of God in the Old Testament dispensation. There is a progression in revelation of gospel light. There is also a progression in the preparation for the New Testament dispensation,


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

when the people of God will be gathered into separate congregations, as represented by the seven lampstands of the book of Revelation. The seven churches of Asia in the book of Revelation symbolically represented all Christ's churches from His advent until His return to judge the world.

That the seven churches in Revelation 1 were independent of one another, and therefore autonomous, is further confirmed in Chapters 2 and 3. They were each held directly accountable to the Lord for their purity and faithfulness. The significance of the "angel" of each of the churches will be discussed in a subsequent chapter.⁴⁹ We conclude by saying that the New Testament local church is autonomous.⁵⁰


Summary

1. The Greek word for church (ekklesia) is used 115 times in the New Testament. It is used in only two senses:
(i) The visible local congregation of baptised disciples in a given area who are covenanted together.
(ii) The invisible universal church consisting of all the elect of God in the past, present, or future.

2. The universal church is characterised by the five marks of unity, sanctity, catholicity, apostolicity, and perpetuity. Since the local church is a microcosm of the universal church, these five characteristics may rightly be expected of it as well.

3. In view of the proliferation of para-church organisations today, it is necessary to define the church accurately so as to distinguish it from such organisations. A good definition is as follows: "A visible or local church is a congregation of believers in Christ, baptised upon a credible profession of faith, and voluntarily associated under special covenant for the maintenance of worship, the truths, the ordinances, and the discipline of the gospel."

4. Apart from the invisible universal church and the visible local church, paedobaptists of the 17th century believed also in a visible universal church. Presbyterians of later generations attempted to broaden the meaning of ekklesia further in order to accommodate infant baptism and the synodical form of church government.

5. The Landmark Baptists went to the opposite extreme of denying the existence of the universal church. The claim was made by them that the


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

local Baptist church was alone the true church, which could trace an unbroken succession of believer's baptism through the centuries to the time of John the Baptist.

6. Our understanding of the nature of the church determines to a great extent the form of church government that we believe to be biblical. However, each principle that contributes to the form of church government must itself be capable of being proven from Scripture. Towards this end, one must take into account the unity ot the Bible as well as the progressive nature of biblical revelation. Presbyterians tend to err by equating the Old Testament with the New, while dispensationalists tend to err by exalting the New Testament above the Old.

7. The principle of Autonomy may be proven from:
(i) The pattern of rule established by God for His people in biblical times. God's people have always been governed as visible entities, or congregations.
(ii) The direct teaching of our Lord on church government. Matthew 18:15-20 shows that the church is the final court of appeal in disciplinary matters. There is no authority or power on earth that is higher than that given by Christ to His church.
(lii) The final teaching of the book of Revelation. The vision of the lampstands in Chapters 1 to 3 show that congregations should be independent and autonomous.


References And Notes:

1. J. Thornbury, pp. 8-22.
2. E. T. Hiscox, pp. 22-26.
3. J. Thornbury, pp. 91-105
4. E. T. Hiscox, pp. 31-35.
5. Ibid. p. 31.
6. EDT, p. 197.
7. H. Harvey, The Church, p. 29
8. Ibid., p. 43.
9. S. Waldron, Baptist Roots, pp. 5-8.
10. C. Hodge, p. 484.
11. T. Witherow, The Apostolic Church, pp. 20-25.
12. J. Thornbury, p. 108.
13. J. Bannerman, Vol. 1, pp. 6-14.
14. The term "kingdom" speaks of a sphere of sovereignty. Strictly speaking, the church is the people who make up the spiritual kingdom of Christ. See J. Thornbury, p. 147.


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

15. J. Thornbury, pp. 169-174. In Asia, the type of local churches founded by Witness Lee is also an aberration. Each geographical/political district may have its own church: the local church of the Witness Lee variety.
16. The word "fundamentalist" was once used to mean "orthodox, sound in doctrine". With time it began to take on a narrower meaning and is today associated with that group of evangelicals who are characterised by a tendency to be over-literal in their interpretation of Scripture, the practice of aggressive separation, holding tenaciously to dispensational premillenialism, and a lack of patience with Christians who use Bibles other than the King James Version.
17. J. Bannerman, Vol. 1, p. 17.
18. D. Kingdon, Ch. 3.
19. D. Bigg, RT 60. See also the helpful article on covenant theology by E. Hulse in RT 54.
20. E. T. Hiscox, p. 11.
21. K. H. Good, p. 197.
22. Ibid., p. 212.
23. W. R. Estep, Renaissance, p. 217.
24. E. H. Broadbent, pp. 148, 168, 173
25. J. Calvin, Vol. 2, pp. 529-554.
26. W. L. Lumpkin, p. 59.
27. W. R. Estep, Anabaptist Story, p. 145.
28. W. R. Estep, Renaissance, pp. 218-219.
29. Robert Sheehan has helpfully suggested this alternative name. See RT 125.
30. A helpful series of studies on Biblical Theology, by Don Garlington, is found in RT 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 83, and 85.
31. See, for example, J. Edwards, Vol 1, pp. 532-615; and G. Vos, Biblical Theology.
32. We use the word "dispensationalist" in the commonly understood sense of those who hold to the idea that the history of the world may be divided into different periods, or dispensations, in each of which God saves His people by a different means - such as by works, the keeping of the law, by faith in Christ, etc. Among the exponents of this erroneous view are C. I. Scofield and L. S. Chafer. Note, however, that there is a sense in which it is right to refer to the Old Testament and New Testament periods as different dispensations.
33. J. Thornbury, p. 52. That the Particular Baptists were of the same view may be seen from their use of the word "church" in the Appendix to the 1677 Confession of Faith.
34. W. Hendriksen, Survey, p. 408.
35. JO, Vol. 16, pp. 3-4.
36. J. Gill, Vol. 2, p. 568.
37. J. Bannerman, Vol. 1, p. 13.
38. J. L. Dagg, p. 78.
39. Eusebius, Bk. 3, Ch. 5.
40. J. Bannerman, Vol. 2, p. 311.
41. J. Bannerman asserts without prove, "The argument from this passage


............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

in Matthew, so far from being in favour of Independency, is, on the contrary, conclusive in support of the Presbyterian theory." Two references are given, one of which is Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 3, chapters III-V. Gillespie's arguments, although intended to support Presbyterianism, actually support the Independent system of elders ruling by congregational consent. Gillespie's burden was to counter, on the one hand, the Erastian claim that "the church" of Mt. 18:17 is a reference to the civil magistrate, and on the other hand, the Congregational idea of "a greater number". This author has no recourse to the other reference in Bannerman, which is likely out of print.
42. The NIV Study Bible (Zondervan Bible Publishers), for example, lists four main views - Preterist, Historicist, Futurist, and Idealist.
43. A helpful commentary, although somewhat sketchy, on the book of Revelation is More than Conquerors, by W. Hendriksen.
44. Vine, Vol. 2, p. 308.
45. P. Fairbairn, Vol. 2, p. 324.
46. Vine, Vol. 3, p. 65.
47. Matthew Poole's Commentary on the whole Bible.
48. P. Fairbairn, Vol. 2, p. 79.
49. See chapter 4 of this book, "The Priority of the Ministry".
50. Differences on the principle of "autonomy" will be considered further in chapter 11, on "The Communion of Churches".

| Bookmark