"The automobile has replaced the ox-cart." Which one? Any and all. "The American family is in crisis." Which one? Many individual families. We use generic terms all the time in many areas, with no apparent confusion. Why are we confused when the Scripture speaks of the (true, local) church generically? There is, of course, the "ultimate, invincible" church, in glory - but even there it will be a local and visible assembly. If Dr. Scofield had not popularized the "universal body from Pentecost to the Rapture"
idea, few would ever have considered it. Even the 1689 London and the Philadelphia confessions, while more influenced by the Presbyterian/
protestant views so strongly held in 17th Century Great Britain, aren't "Scofieldian", and make a strong emphasis on "each particular church," and say (Ch. 26, Art. 14), "As each church, and all the members of it, are bound to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ, in all places, and upon all occasions to further it (every one within the bounds of their places and callings, in the exercise of their gifts and graces) so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advntage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification." That sounds to our ears like "open communion" at the Lord's Table, but Ch. 30, "Of the Lord's Supper,"
calls this "ordinance" and not "communion," and in section 8 closes the Lord's table toward "all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so they are unworthy of the Lord's table . . . ." Note their distinction; communion with Christ comes first, they then call for an acceptable baptism, and then partaking at the Lord's table. Clearly, if we are to exclude "all ignorant and ungodly persons," we cannot allow open communion in the modern sense. That this was a subject of debate in the period I grant immediately; that is (in part) why we have the New Hampshire Confession.
Also, the earlier (usually dated 1646) London confession is even stronger on each particular local congregation being a complete church in itself, with Christ as its Head and the members as members of His body there. "Ecclesia" demands the ability to assemble, as in the governing bodies of the Greek city-states (cf. Acts 19).
We have the universal family of the born-again; why do we also need to use the word which means a congregation or assembly to refer to all believers? Every genuinely saved person (RC, LDS,
etc.) is my brother or sister in the family of God, born again just as I am; only scripturally baptized believers are church members. Ideally, every saved person ought to be also a baptized member of a body belonging to Christ. It is far easier for the Universal Christ to be Head of each (local) body than for those who never see one another, have no acquaintance, never meet, to be an assembly. Clearly, we are speaking in a metaphor, just as with "God's field," "building," etc. - but where the concrete term affects us individually is in the only true kind of church, a local, visible assembly of scripturally immersed believers with Christ as Head and the Holy Spirit as heart and blood stream, pumping life through that body.
Yours for the old "landmarks" - Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28
