Since the English word church is totally unrelated to the Greek word ekklesia, the word the Holy Spirit chose to use in the Scriptures, I will use ekklesia instead of church until we arrive at a definition.
One of the first difficulties in defining the word ekklesia is determining whether there are two different definitions for the word when it is applied to Christians. All agree the word is used for both a secular and a spiritual group. What about when the ekklesia is talking about the people of God? Does the New Testament Scripture use the word ekklesia two distinctly different ways or only one way? Almost all theologians since the time of the Reformation have spoken of the ‘universal’ (or invisible) and the ‘local’ (or visible) ekklesia and given different definitions for both concepts. Different groups have emphasized one or the other of these two ideas.
The Plymouth Brethren magnify the universal/invisible concept. They insist the ekklesia is an ‘organism’ and not an ‘organization.’ They have no church membership (on paper), and no ‘ordained clergymen.’ Roman Catholicism and Landmark Baptists emphasize the local/visible concept of ekklesia. In their view the ekklesia is a visible physical organization, instead of an invisible organism, instituted by Christ and left in control of duly authorized leaders here on earth. Landmark Baptists call the universal ekklesia concept the ‘doctrine of the great spiritual whore,’ and Rome insists that one of the four marks of ‘the one true church’ is that the true church is ‘visible.’ Here are two quotes setting forth the Landmark position:
… the New Testament usage of the term [ekklesia] … denotes an assembly or a gathered group, a congregation. …[1]
… The words “church” and “assembly” are therefore synonymous. It is, therefore, essential for a “church” to “church” before it can be a “church”! That is, an “assembly” must “assemble” before it can be an “assembly.” A “church” which has never assembled or met together in an organized fashion and for a specific purpose, never having been functional, would certainly not be a “church” in the scriptural sense![2]
As you can see, such a definition eliminates any possibility of a so-called ‘universal/invisible’ ekklesia. The ekklesia must be visibly assembled before it is an ekklesia. Any idea of the redeemed people of God bowing their hearts in worship all over the world being construed as the ekklesia is ridiculous to these people. There must be a visible gathering of individuals bound together under some form of constitution with leadership ordained by God and given authority to rule the ekklesia. This same group of individuals is not considered the ekklesia when they finish assembling and go their separate ways. It is only when they are ‘assembled’ that they are considered the ekklesia.
Mr. Downing uses the typical Landmark Baptist caricature of the ‘universal church’ to establish his position.
A “Universal, Invisible Church” could have:
• No address or location, yet every church in the New Testament was located at a particular place…
• No pastor, elders or spiritual leadership that was functional or operational.
• No deacons or property …
• No treasurer …
• No prayer meetings …
• No missionaries…[3]
It may seem strange that the Romanists and the Landmark Baptists are both so adamant against any idea of a ‘universal’ church. However, when we see that their respective concepts of authority are almost identical, it becomes very clear why they are kinfolk. Every group that emphasizes ‘God ordained authority’ for either their particular church practices or the authority of their ‘duly authorized leadership’ will always emphasize the so-called ‘local/visible’ church as the true ekklesia of Christ. Baptists who do this can be just as tyrannical as Roman Catholics. We will say more about this later. For now, I intend to argue that there is only one definition of the word ekklesia in the New Testament Scriptures even though there are two applications of the one definition.
The first question we must ask is, “What is the best way to translate the Greek word ekklesia?” Some people go into the various words used to define the meaning of ‘church’ in many different languages, such as Scottish kirk. This may explain history but it does not help us at all to grasp Scripture. The Plymouth Brethren use the word assembly and some other groups use congregation, but nearly everyone uses the word church which means nothing. I personally, until recently, would have said that ‘assembly’ was probably the best way to translate ekklesia. I would no longer do that. I would now translate it so that it clearly expresses exactly what everyone agrees is the actual meaning of the word. I would translate ekklesia as the ‘called out ones’ since that is precisely what the word means. This is not only the true and accurate translation of the word ekklesia, it also demonstrates the first major truth, namely, that the ekklesia of Christ is they, meaning people, and not it, meaning an organization. If you cannot speak of the ekklesia as ‘they’ but constantly think and speak in terms of ‘it’ you have not totally come out of Romanism!
Usually, the first thing we do in trying to understand a specific doctrine in Scripture is translate the actual meaning of the word itself as clearly as possible into our language. We do that with words like justification, sanctification, and regeneration. However, when we come to the word ekklesia we use the word church instead of actually translating the word ekklesia into its English equivalent. Ekklesia literally means the ‘called out ones’ and should be so translated. In failing to do that we ignore the first basic step that we otherwise always follow when trying to understand any specific doctrine. We always try, whether it is a Greek or a Hebrew word, to translate the word as closely as possible to an English word, or words. We try to stick as closely as we can to the original Greek or Hebrew. If we did that in the case of ekklesia we would say without hesitation, “the word ekklesia means ‘called out (ones)’.”
The reluctance to translate ekklesia as ‘called out ones’ may be an honest mistake, but it may also be that we do not want to destroy the basic concepts that we have, and constantly use the “ekklesia of Christ.” For instance, if ekklesia means ‘they,’ or people, and not ‘it,’ meaning an organization, it has far-reaching implications. If ekklesia is correctly translated ‘called out ones’ there will never, among other things, ever be another unregenerate child sprinkled with water in ‘baptism’ because it is believed that he is a part of the ‘called out ones’ (the ekklesia) by physical birth. That would be seen as an open contradiction, and so it would be. Many men who baptize babies will agree with what I just said. They freely admit their whole view of infant baptism rests solely on their view of the nature of the ekklesia. Here is one example from respected scholar Charles Hodge.
Infant Baptism. 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 a confession; therefore they are not the 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 …[4]
And guess what, by applying logic to his Covenant Theology, Hodge manages to ‘deduce’ a view of the church that will justify baptizing babies. The real difference between a Baptist and a Presbyterian is not primarily over infant baptism per se but over the nature of the ekklesia. This is why the paedobaptist puts such an emphasis on baptizing babies. He is willing to distort Scripture to find what is not there just to have an excuse to include the baby in the ekklesia, even while denying that every ‘covenant’ child is one of the elect or one of the ‘called out ones.’ He admits there are both Jacobs and Esaus among the ‘covenant’ children. Our difference is over defining the ekklesia. If we would just use the correct translation, the ‘called out ones,’ there would be no problem unless you would also believe that every ‘covenant’ child, without exception, is one of the elect by virtue of being born into a Christian home. If the ekklesia, the ‘called out ones,’ are the only biblical objects of baptism, then everything hinges on the nature of the ekklesia.
Infant baptism is the grandmother of many errors. It has disastrous results over a period of time. Its real error is in corrupting the biblical nature of the ekklesia of Christ. The paedobaptist admits that it is not God’s will for the ekklesia, in his definition, to include only believers. He is forced to this absurdity in order to get unregenerate babies into the ekklesia of Christ. Let me again quote Charles Hodge. Notice his use of the phrase ‘visible church.’ As we shall see later, when men like Hodge use the ‘visible/invisible’ concept of the ekklesia they are miles away from what a Baptist means when he may use those same terms.
(2) The Visible Church does not consist exclusively of the Regenerate. There are several indications that it is not the purpose of God that the visible Church on earth should consist exclusively of true believers: …[5]
Hodge, and other Presbyterians, insists that if a Baptist church has one unsaved member then the whole ‘regenerate membership’ concept is destroyed. We respond that an individual’s membership based on a false profession of faith and a membership based on a non-profession of faith are two different things. Accepting a hypocrite (only because we cannot see his heart) who has made a false confession of faith is a totally different matter than knowingly saying unbelievers are truly members of the ekklesia. As I said, the Baptist concept of a ’visible/invisible’ ekklesia is radically different than a paedobaptist’s view. The ekklesia as ’believers only’ and the church as ’believers and their children’ are two totally different concepts that have far-reaching consequences. We will say more about this later.
Nearly all of the problems now being discussed in our chat rooms would be answered differently if everyone involved had a clear view of the true meaning of the ‘ekklesia of Christ.’ Issues like who should take communion, who should be baptized, when and how discipline should take place, the authority of eldership, etc., would all be looked at differently.
Let’s look at the biblical meaning of ekklesia. All agree that the Greek word ekklesia is really a compound of two Greek words. The first word is ek, and means ’out,’ and the second is kaleo (kal-eh’-o) and means ‘to call.’
All agree that the word kaleo means to ‘to call’ or ‘called ones,’ and the word ekklesia literally means the same thing except with the addition of the word ek. This means we merely add the word ‘out’ and it becomes ‘the called out ones.’ As I said, everyone agrees this is the literal meaning of the word kaleo and the word ekklesia. All Reformed and Calvinistic people agree that this calling, when used to describe a Christian, is talking about regeneration or effectual calling. It has nothing to do with ‘calling an individual to join a local congregation.’ In fact, biblical calling is totally spiritual and has nothing to do with the physical. We need only note a few verses where the word is used to clearly understand its meaning. These verses show that the ‘kaleoed’ and the ‘Christians’ are the same people.
Galatians 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel …”
Does joining a local congregation have anything at all to do with being called (kaleoed) into the ‘grace of Christ’?
Galatians 1:15 “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace…”
Did this calling have anything to do with Paul joining a local congregation or in any way coming under the authority of a local congregation?
A shorter form, klesis (klay’-sis), of the same word, is often used. Here are a few instances.
Romans 11:29 “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”
What does that text have to do with membership in a local congregation? What do any of the following texts have to do with anything other than spiritual effectual calling?
Ephesians 4:4 “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling…”
Philippians 3:14 “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”
Hebrews 3:1 “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling…”
Did any local congregation, or any, or all, of the other apostles, or anyone else have anything to do with God calling Paul in the following verse? Remember this is the same word used in ekklesia. Romans 1:1 “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle…”
What does the calling in the following verses have to do with the concept of a local congregation? These verses are talking about regeneration, about being joined to Christ. The word ekklesia is talking about being ‘called out’ of death and being brought into Christ. The word has nothing to do with either defining or joining a local congregation.
Romans 1:6 “Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ…” Romans 1:7 “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints…” Romans 8:28 “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
Is Romans 8:28 assuring us that all is well because we are a member of a local congregation, or because we are part of the ekklesia of Christ? I am sure you know the answer. I am also sure you realize that the two things just mentioned, membership in a local congregation and being a part of the ‘called ones’ (ekklesia) of Christ, are two totally different things. It is in understanding why these two things are so radically different that opens up the biblical doctrine of the ekklesia.
I think it is easy to see that the words the ‘called ones’ are nothing less than another name for a Christian. A child of God is called, a ‘believer,’ a ‘sheep,’ an ‘elect one,’ a ‘brother,’ a ‘saved one,’ etc., and the same person is often labeled or addressed as a ‘called one.’ The above texts are clear. The ekklesia are Christians. All Christians are in the ekklesia and no one but chosen sheep are a part of the ekklesia. All of the ekklesia have been ‘called out’ to Christ himself. It is the experience of being kaleoed out of the world that makes them Christians. They did not join the ekklesia ⎯ they were joined to the ekklesia by the Holy Spirit.
Let’s take that descriptive name, ‘called out ones’, and ask these obvious questions:
(1) Who is included in this group described by the Holy Spirit as the ekklesia, or ‘called out ones’?
(2) Who is the Person who is calling, or has called, the ekklesia?
(3) To where or to what have the ekklesia been called?
(4) From where, or what, have the ekklesia been called out from?
(5) Why have these particular ones been ‘called out’ to the exclusion of others?
(6) What is the exact nature of this calling?
I think all Calvinistic and Reformed people will answer (1) this way: The ‘called out ones’ are the people of God. They are the ‘sheep who hear my voice’ and gladly respond. They are the saved, the justified, and the born again who have been baptized into the living body of Christ. Simply put, the ‘called out ones’ is a synonym for the word ‘Christian.’ The ekklesia is another name for saved people ⎯ all saved people, but only saved people. It is impossible to have a lost person in the ekklesia, or among the ‘called out ones,’ and it is just as impossible to have a saved person who is not a member of the ekklesia. Both of these things would be a contradiction in terms.
Likewise, there will be no disagreement among sovereign grace people concerning, (2) who the Person is who is doing the calling. We need only one glance at the texts above to see it is God himself who is the ‘Caller’ in every case. The calling is directly due to both God’s purpose in unconditional election and his sovereign power in regeneration. It has nothing to do with man’s will or an organization.
As to where they have been called, (3) we can say that ultimately they have been called to heaven itself. We can also say they are ‘called to holiness,’ ‘called to peace,’ ‘called to life,’ and many other things. For our purposes, we insist that the ‘called out ones’ are called into membership in the ekklesia of Christ. Each ‘called one,’ or each member of the ekklesia, has been effectually called out of sin and death into a living fellowship with Christ himself.
(4) All of the ‘called out ones’ were once dead in sin. It was ‘the call’ that brought them out of death and brought them into life. Their calling is spoken of as a resurrection from the dead as well as regeneration.
(5) The ‘called out ones’ are the same as the elect. All of the elect are ‘called’ and all ‘the called’ are the elect. All of the sheep, the elect ones, will always ‘hear’ the voice of their Shepherd calling them and will gladly come. All of the ‘called out ones’ become part of the ekklesia simply because they, and they alone, are the objects of this special ‘calling,’ and they are the special objects because they have been chosen to be sheep. All the chosen are ‘called’ but only the chosen are ‘called.’ That is the same as saying, “All the elect are in the ekklesia, but only the elect are in the ekklesia.” There is not a single exception to this fact, and we must again emphasize that being a ‘called out one’ has nothing to do with birth, baptism, or joining something.
(6) This calling is nothing less than effectual calling. The ‘calling’ extended to the elect sheep is actually regeneration. It is being born again and in no sense whatever is it ’joining something.’ It is 100% spiritual and it is 100% the work of God, and in every case it is successful. The ekklesia, or ‘called out ones,’ will have no missing members. All without exception who are chosen to be in the ekklesia will be effectually called by grace and power and will become a living part of the ekklesia. Again, this fact has nothing to do with any or all visible congregations. Someone has said, “The church will be found in the churches, but the churches are not the church.”
I should not have to make this application, but I do so for clarity. The reality, or actual spiritual entity, that is created by this calling of the ekklesia is the spiritual body of Christ and it cannot possibly have anything to do with a physical organization. We are talking about a spiritual calling. If the kaleo, or calling, that creates the ekklesia of Christ is nothing less than regeneration, then the thing created by that spiritual calling, namely, the true ekklesia, must of necessity be a God-produced spiritual creation. It has to be first of all a living spiritual entity. The words ‘called out ones’ cannot possibly have anything at all to do with the physical organization or assembling of that which we today call a ‘church.’ The spiritual experience of effectual calling (kaleo) creates, in and of itself, the ekklesia of Christ, and since that effectual calling (kaleo) is totally spiritual it follows that the thing created by that calling, the ekklesia, must also be spiritual and not physical.
What we will see as we proceed is that the whole ‘visible/invisible’ or ‘local/universal’ concepts expressed by those terms are simply not biblical ideas. They do express an element of truth but they are also loaded with error. At the most we may say, “The Word of God recognizes that the word ekklesia basically means ‘Christians.’ Sometimes an apostle will speak of all Christians, the elect, or all of the ‘called out ones’ of Christ, and other times he may speak of all the Christians, or all the ‘called out ones’ meeting in a given town or even in a house. However, in both cases the basic meaning of the word ekklesia remains the same. It means the ‘called out (ones),’ or Christians, in both cases.” The difference is not a ‘local/visible’ versus a ‘universal/invisible’ concept where one is an organism and the other is an organization. The only difference is how many of the ‘called out ones’ you are talking about. In both cases the word means ‘all of the Christians’–either all for whom Christ died or all those in a given described area.
Men can, and do, create organizations and call them churches or fellowships, but only God the Holy Ghost can create the ekklesia of Christ. The ekklesia that God creates is the body of Christ. Every person in that ekklesia is ‘in Christ.’ When man creates a physical organization and calls it a ‘church’ it will be a mixed bag. As long as we argue about ‘visible/invisible’ or ‘local/universal’ as a means of distinguishing between a ‘spiritual’ (universal) ekklesia and a ‘physical’ (local) ekklesia, we are missing the real problem. The real question is this: Does the New Testament Scripture conceive of the ekklesia, the ‘called out ones,’ as a spiritual organism created by the Holy Spirit or a physical organization created by men of like mind? Is the body of Christ (which is never spoken of in the plural) ever conceived of as anything less than all of the ‘called out ones,’ or the ‘ekklesia of Christ’?
Let me mention another obvious implication. If any individual person evidences the spiritual marks of being one of Christ’s sheep, or a ‘called out one’ can they be denied total acceptance in a group claiming to be a sheepfold of Christ? Dare we say, “I know that Christ, the great Shepherd, has put his mark of grace on you and sealed you with his Spirit. He has unconditionally accepted you as one of his ‘called out ones,’ however, before we will accept you into this sheepfold, or before we allow you to eat with us at his table, we must put our mark on you also.”
Nothing I have said rules out the need for an organized local congregation of like-minded Christians with a constitution, church officers, church discipline, and a lot of other things. I believe every child of God should be a part of a congregation of Christians and submit to the love and oversight of their brothers and sisters in Christ. However, that does not do away with either my personal responsibility to Christ or to all of my ‘called out’ brothers and sisters in other congregations. What it does mean is that in everything connected with our idea of ekklesia, we have to make sure we do not believe and practice a lot of things that grow out of a totally wrong view of the ekklesia, or the ‘called out ones.’
In the next chapter we will talk about the so-called ‘visible/invisible’ or ‘local/universal’ concepts and where they came from. Their first known use by the Reformers in their fight with Rome is very instructive.