In chapter one we established that the Greek word ekklesia is best translated the ‘called out ones.’ All agree that this is the basic meaning of the word. The moment we begin to think and talk about the ’ekklesia of Christ’ as the ‘called out ones,’ we have established the first essential truth about the subject, namely, that the ekklesia of Christ means people, and not an it, meaning an organization. The ekklesia is somebody not something. If you cannot speak of the ekklesia as ‘they’ but instead you constantly think and speak in terms of ‘it,’ then you have not totally come out of Romanism! The ekklesia of Christ is people, the ‘called out ones,’ and not an organization. 

The question is not, “Is there both a universal/invisible and a local/visible church in the New Testament Scriptures?” We have already seen that ekklesia has only one definition even though it has two different applications. Actually, the question is not “which of the two concepts of ekklesia is the one spoken of the most often in the New Testament Scriptures (NTS)?” It is obvious that there is an ekklesia for which Christ died that includes all believers in all ages. It is just as obvious all of the living believers in a given place are called the ekklesia of that particular place. The ekklesia that includes all of the ‘called out ones’ is identical to Christ’s body which includes every believer as a living part; it is the true temple that includes every believer as a living stone. It is the true nation of God where every citizen is born of God. We could go on and on. This is beyond question the aspect that the NTS emphasize. Theologians have labeled this ekklesia the ‘universal/invisible’ ekklesia. Sometimes they use the word organism to describe this ekklesia. Webster defines organism this way:

Organism noun

1.  An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

2.  A system regarded as analogous in its structure or functions to a living body: the social organism.

As J.C. Ryle said so clearly, “This is the true church to which a man must belong, if he would be saved.”^[1] This ekklesia is synonymous with the mystical but real body of Christ. 

The Landmark Baptists, along with Rome, insist there is no such thing as a universal/invisible ekklesia. They are convinced the only ekklesia in the NTS is the local/visible ekklesia. If we ask the question another way, the Landmark Baptist and the Romanist miss the boat. Instead of asking whether the visible or invisible ekklesia is the most used concept in the NTS, let’s ask this question: “Do the NTS emphasize union with Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit, which all agree is true of all Christians, or do they emphasize membership in a local congregation of professing Christians?” That is bottom line in the discussion. The moment you try to make the ’local/visible’ ekklesia to be an institution, or physical organization, which is supposed to be Christ’s vicar on earth, as opposed to the ekklesia being an invisible/universal spiritual organism, you are half way back to Rome.

My contention is that the NTS do not give us two different definitions of the ekklesia of Christ. There is not a spiritual ekklesia where all who are in it are saved, and a physical ekklesia made up of both saved and lost. The moment we allow these two different kinds of ekklesias, we have denied and changed the basic meaning of ekklesia as being the ‘called out ones.’ The difference between the so-called ‘universal’ ekklesia and ‘local’ ekklesia is not that one is a spiritual organism made up of regenerate people and the other is a physical organization with both saved and lost in it. There is only one ekklesia, and the different uses of the word are only referring to how many of the ‘called out ones’ you are talking about. In one instance you are talking about all the called out ones, or the ekklesia for whom Christ died, and in the other instance you are talking about all those living in Corinth, or wherever, for whom Christ died. The Bible does not talk about the difference between an organization and an organism. The so-called visible ekklesia does not take on a life of its own independent of a living relationship with her Lord. The ekklesia of Christ does not have an ounce of authority on her own. She speaks for Christ only when she speaks his words. She represents Christ only when she repeats what her Lord has spoken. She cannot say, “Christ has made me his vicar on earth therefore you must obey me without question.”

I repeat, the ekklesia emphasized in the NTS is not an institution, or organization that you join, but itis a spiritual body into which the Holy Spirit has baptized you. Everything is determined by the phrases “Christ in you” and “you in Christ.” It is this truth that the NTS emphasize. 

Should Christians today join a group of Christians and live under the love and discipline of that group as it has defined itself and its beliefs in its constitution? Absolutely! But not because that is the way the early church did it. Where is there a single instance in the NTS of any individual being examined and then joining a ‘local church’? Should a group of believers write out their beliefs and rules of conduct and require everyone who wants to join their church to promise to live under those rules? Absolutely! But again, not because that is the way the early church did it. Where do the NTS say that each group of believers wrote a constitution? In the nextchapter, I will attempt to demonstrate why there is such confusion about church polity in our day. We must deal with problems for which we have no clear answers. We struggle with situations that not only did not exist in the apostolic age but also could not have been anticipated in that age.

Some people refuse to be a vital part of a congregation of Christians. They feel they are ‘giving up their liberty’ when they officially join a group of Christians and submit to their love and discipline. What liberty do they give up? Do they have the liberty to divorce themselves from ‘the people of Christ’ in their locality and not meet and worship with them? I don’t think so. I am spiritually joined to all those who are also joined to Christ our common Lord. Every member of his body is my brother or sister. Do the NTS tell me to do certain things that can only be done by my being a member of a gathered group of his sheep? Yes. Do I have the liberty to be a spiritual lone wolf responsible to no other human beings? Where do the NTS give me the liberty to think and act as if I owe nothing to the ekklesia of Christ in my area? What do the many ’one another’ passages mean unless I am associated with other sheep?

Should a group of Christ’s sheep, if they grow in numbers, call a man to act as their pastor? I would say, in most cases, “Yes,” even though we do not have any examples in the NTS of any ekklesia either calling or ordaining a pastor. I remember the first Baptist ordination service that I attended. The chairman kept waving the Bible and saying, “We Baptists go by the Book.” However, the man never once opened the Book to justify a single thing that we did. Should believers organize into a ‘visible’ group, write a constitution, vote to receive people into their fellowship who show evidence of conversion, and vote to dismiss members who live in deliberate disobedience to the beliefs of the group? I would say ‘yes’ to all of these things. However, I must add, I do not have a text of Scripture to prove any of those things and the fact I do not have a text does not bother me at all. 

I can hear the institutionalist cocking his guns. You see, his whole position is built on believing that the NTS give us a clear outline of how to organize a true ekklesia, how it should be operated, what kind of government it should follow, who should be in charge, and how it should worship. In this person’s mind it is inconceivable that there is no clear form of church government in the NTS. I believe there are clear principles but few absolutes. One thing I am sure about—there is no role model institutional ekklesia in the NTS. Such a statement is viewed as “doubting the sufficiency of the Word of God.” I call this the ‘true church syndrome.’ It is a giant myth. There simply is no one clear role model institutional church in the NTS. A lot of the things that every group of believers does “in their church” is based on pure pragmatism and there is nothing at all wrong with that as long as none of it contradicts Scripture. 

We make a great mistake when we do not use the material we have in the NTS when trying to establish a system of worship and procedure for a group of people wishing to be a real part of each other’s lives. However, we make just as big a mistake when we try to make the NTS say things it simply does not say. Independents and inter-denominationalists have a tendency to neglect clear Scripture, and the institutionalist has a tendency to make the NTS say far more than they do. Both groups emphasize a different aspect of the ekklesia of Christ, and consequently, one tends toward legalism and the other toward antinomianism. 

The visible/invisible and local/universal concepts of ekklesia originated when the Reformers argued with Roman Catholics over the charge that Protestants could not possibly be a true church with a valid ministry since they had no authority. Rome claimed that she alone was the only “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic [meaning universal]” church.” The Reformers responded by saying they were also part of “one, holy, apostolic, and catholic” church but it was ’invisible.’ All of its parts were joined to Christ himself by a living faith and the gift of the Spirit. Rome rejected any idea of an ’invisible’ church and insisted the only church in the Scripture is the visible church built on Saint Peter, the first pope.

It is easy to see both how and why the argument was raised and why there could be no answer that satisfied both sides. Rome wanted the church to be a physical organization over which the pope had absolute control. He viewed himself as the vicar of Christ. The reasoning was quite simple: (1) Christ established, or founded, one institution, or church. This was not an invisible organism; this was a visible organization. (2) Christ gave that one organization the total authority to represent him on this earth. (3) That authority is passed down through the ages from pope to pope. (4) Because she is the one true church [meaning organization] on this earth, she alone can dispense the grace of God, meaning the sacraments, through the holy men that she ordains and gives priestly authority. (5) There can be no salvation apart from being in this one true visible church.

I am sure we see the tremendous difference between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics on their view of the ekklesia of Christ. However, the Reformers were not consistent. When arguing with Rome, they insisted that personal union with a risen and invisible Christ was the only essential thing. The ekklesia, in their argument, was first of all a spiritual organism. They used this approach to establish their claim to be part of “one holy, apostolic, catholic church.” When they argued with the Anabaptist they insisted on a visible ekklesia with authority over all those within its geographical territory. They wanted two different kinds of ekklesia. Rome saw the ekklesia of Christ as purely a visible organization, or institution, that was the vicar of the absent Christ. We can also see why statements like “Christ instituted a church” must ultimately lead straight to Rome. If we compare Webster’s definition of the word institution with the word organism, it will help us to see the different views. It will clarify why I keep insisting that the ekklesia is people and not an “it.”

Institution noun

1.  The act of instituting.

2.  a. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family. b. Informal. One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.

3.  Abbr. inst., Inst. a. An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture. b. The building or buildings housing such an organization.

Men can, and do, create institutions, or organizations, and call them churches or fellowships, but only God the Holy Ghost can create the ekklesia of Christ. The ekklesia that God alone can create is the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit. Every person in that ekklesia is ‘in Christ,’ baptized into his body, a part of his house, a living stone in his temple. When man creates a physical organization and calls it a ‘church’ it will always 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: Do the New Testament Scriptures speak of the ekklesia, the ‘called out ones,’ as a spiritual organism created by the Holy Spirit in regeneration or a physical organization created by men of like mind? Is the body of Christ (which is never spoken of in the NTS as plural) ever conceived of as anything less than all of the ‘called out ones,’ or the ‘ekklesia of Christ’?

As noted above, the struggle to define the ekklesia was at the heart of the Reformer’s struggle with both the Roman Catholics on one hand and the Anabaptists on the other hand. The bottom line in both cases was the definition of the ekklesia of Christ as it related to authority.

In the case of the Reformers versus the Anabaptists the issue was church and state. Leonard Verduin has stated the case clearly:

The Stepchildren [Anabaptists] believed that the Church of Christ is by definition an element in society, not society as such. Their opponents, the Reformers as well as the Catholics,^[2] were unwilling to go along with this; they continued to look upon the Church as coextensive with society.

It has been said of late that Luther was faced with a dilemma, the dilemma of wanting both a confessional Church based on personal faith and a regional Church including all in a given locality. It was this dilemma that gave rise to the Second Front [Anabaptists deserting Luther].

This dilemma was a cruel one. He who thinks of the Church as a community of experiential believers is bound to oppose him who thinks of it as a fellowship embracing all in a given territory; he who operates with the concept of the Church as a society embracing all in a given geographic area must of necessity look askance at him who restricts the Church to the believing ones. The two views cannot be combined; one cancels out the other. In the one view the Church is Corpus Christi, the body of Christ, which consists of believing folk and of them solely; in the other view the Church is Corpus Christianum, the body of a “christened” society. As we shall see, attempts have been made to combine these two, but without success.

Upon the horns of this dilemma Luther was impaled. And not only Luther—all the rest of the Reformers were torn between the same two alternatives. They one and all halted between two alternatives. They one and all tried to avoid an outright choice. All tried to ride the fence.^[3]

The Anabaptists, apart from a lunatic fringe group, were not anti-government. They were law-abiding citizens. They did not deny the secular government had both the responsibility and authority to rule and govern society nor were they unwilling to submit to the authority of secular government. Their fight was over the right of government to rule their conscience in religious matters. They said, “You have no right to use the steel sword to force me to have my child baptized.”

The basic difference between the Anabaptists and both the Reformers and the Roman Catholics was the true nature of the ekklesia. In the case of the Anabaptists, they insisted on defining the ekklesia as an organism that you entered by spiritual birth. However, in the Reformer’s and Roman Catholic’s view, you could be a member of two different ekklesias. You were in the ‘visible’ ekklesia of Christ by being part of the ’Christian’ nation or Christian home. If you were born in a Catholic country then you were baptized a Catholic. If you were born in a Lutheran or Presbyterian country then you were baptized a Lutheran or Presbyterian. If you were born again and a true believer in Christ then you were also a member of the invisible ekklesia made up of all the elect.

The Anabaptists objected to the fence riding and insisted that there was one ekklesia of Christ and it was made up of only true believers who had been born again. The refusal of the Anabaptist to have their children baptized in the state church was sufficient grounds to put them to death. A denial of the authority over the conscience by the ‘visible’ church approved by the state was viewed as a sin against both Christ and the stability of the nation itself. There was only one church and it was the state church.

We do not have time to go into to all the problems created by the wedding of church and state. My only point here is to demonstrate that most of the blood shed by both Catholics and the Reformers was brought about by the logical application of an unbiblical doctrine of the ekklesia of Christ. The national, visible, state ekklesia was the only ekklesia. There was no being a part of Christ unless you were part of the visible national ekklesia. Unfortunately, this very bad view of ekklesia was continued by the Reformers themselves. When they killed Catholics and Anabaptists they were consistently following their conscience and their theology of the church. Unfortunately their conscience was trained with a very defective doctrinal view of the ekklesia. They never left the Roman Catholic view of the ekklesia.

As noted earlier, the ’visible/invisible’ and ’local/universal’ view of ekklesia was first posited by the Reformers. The Roman Catholics hated any idea of an ’invisible’ church. They would have agreed one hundred percent with Landmark Baptists on that point. 

William Cunningham rightly emphasizes that when Rome entered into controversy with the Reformers, Rome always wanted to start the discussion by defining the church. Rome felt she could win the argument of the ’true church’ since she pretended to be able to trace her institutional existence back to Saint Peter and Christ. Once you agree that “Christ established one true church on earth” then Rome appears to have a good case for making the claim that she is that church. When you start tracing the true institutional church to which, supposedly, “Christ has given his authority on earth,” then some of Rome’s arguments seem convincing. Begin by insisting that the ekklesia Christ established is a spiritual organism which is entered only by the new birth, and it is a different ball game. 

The primary reason Rome wants to start the argument regarding the nature of the church is the clear implication as it relates to authority. If Christ has indeed ’established’ a church, meaning institution, and I can identify that church today, then all further discussion on any subject relating to the church or Christianity is totally governed by that true church. Everyone must recognize and submit to that one true church that Christ has established and given the authority to speak for him. We must listen to and obey Christ by listening to and obeying what his church says. In other words, the real question is authority. I am sure you can see that both Rome and the Landmark Baptists use the identical arguments about authority to prove they are the one true church. Cunningham has stated it well:

…were the views which they [Rome] generally propound on the general subject of the church, and their application to the Church of Rome [or a Landmark Baptist], established, this would supersede all further discussion of individual doctrines; for the practical result of them is virtually to put the Church in the room of God as the immediate revealer of all truth, as well as the dispenser of all grace, or at least to put the Church in the room of his Word as the only standard of faith,—and the conclusion, of course, is, that men should implicitly submit their understandings to whatever the church may promulgate to them.^[4]

This reminds me of the conversation between a Roman Catholic and a Protestant neighbor:

Protestant: “Exactly what do you believe?” 

Roman Catholic: “I believe what the church believes.” 

Prot: “And what does the church believe?” 

RC: “It believes what I believe.” 

Prot: “And exactly what do both you and the church believe?” 

RC: “We both believe the same thing.”

I can remember many occasions discussing the gospel with a Roman Catholic priest. All would go well until we would come to a Scripture, usually in Hebrews, that he just could not handle. I would ask him, “What do you honestly think that verse means?” He would smile, close the Bible, and say, “John, the real difference between you and me in our beliefs is the question of authority. My church, instituted by Christ, tells me what that verse means and you think you have the right to understand it on your own.” The name of the game is authority and liberty of conscience.

It is essential to see what Rome was actually teaching. We can only understand the Reformers on this subject as we see the specific arguments to which they were responding.

“The substance of Romish doctrine upon this subject is that Christ has established on earth the church as a distinct society, which is not only to continue always indefectible [meaning incapable of having any flaws] or without ceasing to exist, but to stand out visibly…not liable to error, but will always continue to promulgate the truth, and the truth alone.”^[5]

Rome’s first shot was aimed at destroying any foundation except itself as the final authority. This was their first argument:

Where there is not a valid ministry, there is no true church. Protestants have not a valid ministry, and therefore they are not a true church.^[6]

You can see how your definition of ekklesia determines everything. The Landmark Baptist says, “Amen,” but he insists his church, instead of the Roman Catholic, is the one true church that Christ established. The Landmark Baptist, like Rome, is the only church to which Christ has given authority to baptize and organize churches. All other baptisms are ’alien baptisms.’ If you have no ’valid ministry,’ one that has been given authority by the one true Church that Christ established on earth, then the next step, which Rome readily took, was to believe there could be no salvation outside their church because there is no authorized individual to dispense the holy sacraments of grace. 

You can see how the idea of ’valid ministry’ became a pivotal issue. What gives any ministry validity before God and before man? Who alone has the authority to establish or verify that a given ministry is truly valid? The Roman Church, and most Protestants want to locate the source of authority in the church, and since an unseen invisible church cannot give visible authority it follows it must be the local or visible church that alone can give authority. Any ministry not authorized or validated by the church that Christ authorized cannot be of God. One thing is certain, the moment you start discussing the subject of authority, the institutionalist is ready to denounce the invisible church and insist on only a local church. 

The real problem is not separating the socalled ’universal’ church from the socalled ’local’ church. That particular argument is really only an outgrowth of another and more serious difference. The real error is thinking of the church only in purely institutional terms instead of seeing it as redeemed people who are all bound together in Christ whether they act like it or not. The church surely has clearly defined institutional functions and responsibilities, but that is not the primary emphasis in the New Testament Scriptures. 

Every duty enjoined on a believer in the New Testament Scriptures is always based on the fact that he is joined to Christ and therefore joined to every other believer. No one is urged to any given behavior toward another believer because they both ’joined the same local church.’ The exhortation is always because both are members of the ‘body of Christ.’

The real danger in institutionalizing the church is the view of authority that must inevitably follow. Instead of being a means of grace the church soon becomes the agent of grace. The next step makes the ’ordained clergy’ to be the only people ’duly authorized’ to dispense that grace. It is impossible for such a view to keep the church from becoming an essential intermediary between God and the souls of men and women. 

B.B. Warfield has put this point in focus. He shows that there are only two basic views one can take of the nature and authority of the church. The first is Romanism and the other is biblical. This is the difference between sacerdotalism and evangelicalism. The basic difference is the way God brings his saving grace into a soul. Does God work upon men immediately or does he only deal with men through appointed (duly authorized) instrumentalities, namely, a visible, ’true’ church with appointed (duly authorized) elders or priests? Is the primary concern to have the right institutional church order and authority structure, or is the primary concern seeing the marks of the work of the Holy Spirit in the personal experience of individuals? How do we judge what is a ’true church’? 

I suggest that you check the view held by your church and pastor with the two views set forth by Warfield in the following quote and see whether you are biblical or Romish:

The issue concerns the immediacy of the saving operations of God: Does God save men by immediate operations of his grace upon their souls, or does he act upon them only through the medium of instrumentation [the local church] established for that purpose?^[7]

This is the heart of the institutionalist’s theology. The visible organization is the only God-ordained agency with ’authority’ to do God’s work on earth, and the elders, or priests, are the only duly authorized leaders to rule that agency. This Roman rubbish is accepted whenever you totally institutionalize the church as many are doing today. Warfield continues:

The typical form of sacerdotalism is supplied by the teaching of the Church of Rome. In that teaching the church is held to be the institution of salvation, through which alone is salvation conveyed to men. Outside the church and its ordinances salvation is not supposed to be found; grace is communicated by and through the ministrations of the church, otherwise not. The two maxims are therefore in force: where the church is, there is the Spirit; outside the church there is no salvation…^[8]

Let me give the above quotation again and substitute the word “authority” for the word “salvation” and see whether it fits your view of authority. The emphasis is mine.

The typical form of sacerdotalism is supplied by the teaching of the Church of Rome. In that teaching the church is held to be the only institution given authority by Christ, it is through the church [visible/local] alone that authority is conveyed to men. Outside the church and its ordinances authority is not supposed to be found; authority is communicated by and through the ministrations of the [visible/local] church, otherwise not. The two maxims are therefore in force: Where the Church is, there is Christ’s authority; outside the [local] church there is no authority …

I am sure we can see that many Baptist churches have a Roman Catholic view of authority! It amazes me that men who will repudiate Rome’s doctrine of exclusive salvation will still hold rigidly to Rome’s system of exclusive church authority when both things rest on the same premise. Let us continue with Warfield:

Over against this whole view evangelicalism…sweeps away every intermediary between the soul and its God, and leaves the soul dependent for its salvation on God alone, operating upon it by his immediate grace. … In direct opposition to the maxims of consistent sacerdotalism, he takes therefore as his mottoes: Where the Spirit is, there is the Church; outside the body of saints there is no salvation.”^[9]

A consistent institutionalist must demand far more than the presence of the Holy Spirit applying the truth of saving grace in order to accept a group of people as ’a true NT church’ or as a valid mission work born of God’s Spirit. He must see that work under the direct authority of a local church. Some men will also insist on a correct creed, the right officers, proper procedure, precise worship format, etc. The basic assumptions of a true institutionalist are far closer to those of Rome than they are to the evangelicalism of the New Testament Scriptures. Certain groups of sincere believers in Christ may be considered real Christians, but they are merely a ’religious organization.’ They are not a ’church of Christ’ until they obey God by following his clearly revealed (in our books and history) church order. A mission work or para-church ministry may appear to be blessed of God but it definitely has not been established by Christ’s orders unless it is under the authority of a local church. A Baptist missionary paper recently illustrated this view when stating, “If a man is called of God to preach the Word, he must never allow himself to be severed from the body of Christ. Only within the church will he find the experience, guidance, and support to fulfill his calling. Apart from the church he has no calling from the Lord of the church.”

This author has totally confused the ’body of Christ’ with a ’local congregation.’ He is talking like a Roman Catholic. You can be severed from a local church without being severed from the ’body of Christ.’ This statement reveals the root error in the typical Reformed Baptist doctrine of the ’local’ church. We dare not take the properties of the body of Christ (which is always singular and is synonymous with ’the elect’) and apply those properties to a local congregation. The above author is saying that the thousands of believers (including William Carey, Hudson Taylor, etc.) who have gone to the mission field under an interdenominational mission board were never called by ’the Lord of the church’ simply because they were not under the authority of a local church. This is the Roman Catholic view of authority.

In this Roman view, the only criterion that establishes who is truly called of God is the individual’s relationship to the authority vested in the local church. This mentality cannot help but treat the local church as Christ’s true and only vicar on earth. Since this view usually insists that the ’authority’ is in the elders (often only one, the pastor), the end result means the pastor is Christ’s vicar. In such a system the ’lord of the church’ is really the pastor.

The New Testament Scriptures will not allow us to separate the work of the Spirit and the church of Christ in this way, but the institutionalist is often forced to do this very thing. It is local church order and authority that concerns him. He is more concerned with the ’church’ (institution) than he is with the obvious and genuine work of the Holy Spirit (the reality of God’s presence in people). 

In the eyes of the institutionalist, the worst sins are those that challenge the ’duly authorized’ forms, ceremonies, traditions, or leadership of ’Christ’s duly authorized church.’ It does not matter how powerfully the Holy Spirit of God is applying the truth to hearts, the institutionalist only recognizes the outward form and order. It is easy to see why an institutionalist must become a legalist regardless of how hard he tries to avoid it. What the Scriptures call love and tolerance, the institutionalist must view as compromise with clear truth (his system). It is tragic but true. It is tragic because some great and godly men have sincerely shed their blood and destroyed churches over secondary principles and thought they were doing God a favor even while they swung the sword in ’holy zeal’ for the ’cause of truth.’

An illustration of the inability of the institutionalist to accept the work of God’s Spirit outside the ’duly authorized’ local church was the ’scandal’ created by George Whitfield when he had communion in the open field and many pastors from various denominational backgrounds helped to serve it. Thousands attended and revival took place in the fields but many said, “It cannot be of God,” because it was not under the control and authority of any institutional church. A true institutionalist had no choice but to denounce Whitfield and refuse to have anything to do with his ’free lance’ ministry. Would to God that he would raise up some more freelance rebels like Whitfield and William Carey in our day. John Bunyan was hated and denounced by the Baptists because he refused to make baptism necessary for church communion. Baptist publishers are still condemning his article “Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism No Bar To Communion.”

If you had been a hostage several years ago in Iran and once a month all of the Christians had been allowed to get together for one hour, would you have considered it proper to take bread and wine and have a remembrance service of the blessed Savior? Or would you have refused because some of those participating had never been immersed? Would you have insisted that the Lord’s Table is really the local church’s table and since this group of believers was not a ’duly authorized’ church you therefore could not participate? Would such a service be un-biblical if there had been no ’ordained elder’ present to ’consecrate’ the elements?

Some institutionalists cringe at the clear implications of their position when it is worked out in real life, but the true institutionalist will say without shame, “Amen!” I might say that the latter is the one being honest with his presuppositions. All ’true’ Reformed Baptists hold that there is no authority outside the local church. They would never say there is no salvation outside the church, but their basic mentality and view of authority is Roman Catholic. As already mentioned, all you have to do is replace the word salvation with the word authority in the quotation from Warfield and you have the view vehemently preached and practiced by many Baptists today. Often I have heard young zealots denounce what appeared to be a real movement of God’s Spirit simply because the group or man was not ’under the authority of a local church.’ If Christ established a clear institutional role model church, then the young zealots may be correct and I am fighting against God’s clear truth in this book. However, if…

---