Universal Church

[Reformed]

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith describes the Church this way:

26.1 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.

English Particular Baptists, like their Presbyterian brethren, viewed the Church as the called-out people of God, with Christ as its head. They looked at verses like Ephesians 5:25-27 as describing the Church, not individual assemblies:

Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

(All emphasis describe the church)

English Particular Baptists also recognized the Church as represented in individual assemblies which they termed particular societies, congregations, or churches:

26.2 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.

26.5 In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calleth out of the world unto himself, through the ministry of his word, by his Spirit, those that are given unto him by his Father, that they may walk before him in all the ways of obedience, which he prescribeth to them in his word. Those thus called, he commandeth to walk together in particular societies, or churches, for their mutual edification, and the due performance of that public worship, which he requireth of them in the world.

Particular Baptists were in agreement with other Reformed denominations that worship and the ordinances (sacraments according to other Reformed denominations) could only be performed in local assemblies.

The Particular Baptist view of the Church is not held by all Baptists. In fact, the issue has been hotly contested and is one of the leading reasons why there have been many schisms and church splits over the past 300+ years.

 

[rlvaughn]

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith describes the Church this way:

26.1 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.

Westminster Confession:

25.I. The catholic or universal Church, which is 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 fills all in all.

Savoy Declaration:

26. 1. The catholic or universal church, which is 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.

Interesting change in the London Confession from the Westminister and Savoy (which are the same but for minor punctuation, caps, etc.). What do you make of the Baptist changes?

 

[rlvaughn]

Keach's Catechism doesn't seem (to me) to help define or explain anything beyond what is already written.

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.

 

[Reformed]

Westminster Confession:

Savoy Declaration:

Interesting change in the London Confession from the Westminister and Savoy (which are the same but for minor punctuation, caps, etc.). What do you make of the Baptist changes?

@rlvaughn ,

I think part of the emendation in the 1689 LBC is to separate from the Presbyterian view of church membership being conveyed to baptized infants apart from saving faith. Both the Savoy and the WCF are paedobaptist documents.

 

[Reformed]

Another way of stating it is that the framers of the 1689 LBC understood that church membership was salvific in nature and rooted in the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TCassidy]

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith describes the Church this way:

One of several reasons I prefer the 1644/46 2nd London Confession.

Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king.
Matt. 11:11; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7; Acts 19:8,9, 26:18; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Rom. 10:10; Matt. 18:19,20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5.

Ephesians 5:25-27 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

Yes. An excellent example of the generic use of the word "church." No church in particular, all churches in general.

I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation.

I use the singular but that does not mean I believe in a universal, invisible, mystical horse. I am just using it in the generic sense.

 

[JonShaff]

One of several reasons I prefer the 1644/46 2nd London Confession.

Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king.
Matt. 11:11; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7; Acts 19:8,9, 26:18; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Rom. 10:10; Matt. 18:19,20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5.
Yes. An excellent example of the generic use of the word "church." No church in particular, all churches in general.

I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation.

I use the singular but that does not mean I believe in a universal, invisible, mystical horse. I am just using it in the generic sense.

Ephesians 1
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

I would say Christ's Church is also in heaven, invisible to me.

 

[Reformed]

One of several reasons I prefer the 1644/46 2nd London Confession.

Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king.
Matt. 11:11; 2 Thess. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1; Rom. 1:7; Acts 19:8,9, 26:18; 2 Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Acts 2:37, 10:37; Rom. 10:10; Matt. 18:19,20; Acts 2:42, 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5.
Yes. An excellent example of the generic use of the word "church." No church in particular, all churches in general.

I believe the horse is the most beautiful animal in God's creation.

I use the singular but that does not mean I believe in a universal, invisible, mystical horse. I am just using it in the generic sense.

The 1644/46 is a good confession but I like the more expansive 1689. IMHO the 1644/46 has been abused by antinomians.

I am not sure Paul was writing a treatise on equines in Ephesians 5. But I could be wrong.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

I am not sure Paul was writing a treatise on equines in Ephesians 5. But I could be wrong.

Is this how you respond when you can't respond?

 

[TCassidy]

I would say Christ's Church is also in heaven, invisible to me.

So, the invisible church only exists on earth for blind people?

 

[rsr]

The difference, I believe, is that the early Particulars had a different understanding of the universal church than the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Matt Ward has done some excellent work explicating the (divergent) views of early Particular leaders on the universal church, baptism and church membership through correspondence between them and John Tombes, a Puritan writer with credobaptist sympathies. Tombes, unlike most of the controversialists of his day, decided to ask the Baptists what they believed instead of making it up.

John Tombes's Answer, 1: The Context

In the 1689 confession, the authors purposely said that the universal church is invisible in the sense that only God knows who are truly members (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace).

I recommend a reading of John Dagg on the topic. Dagg upheld the doctrine of the universal church in disputes with the Landmarkers of his day and debated at length whether ecclesia in its problematic instances could rightly be considered generic. He thought not.

Dagg also maintained that the church universal was (except in that members who had died in the faith) was not invisible.

"The Members of the Universal Church are known by their profession of Christ and their obedience to his commands. The religion of Christ was not designed for concealment. From its very nature, it cannot be hid. It inclines every one who possesses it, to do good to all mankind, and to make known the gospel by which all mankind are to be blessed. At every point of contact with human society, Christian benevolence will exhibit itself. Christ's followers are described as lights in the world.

... The epithet 'invisible' applied to the true church of Christ, is not only incorrect, but it has led into mistake. Men have spoken of this church as a mere mental conception; and they have asked, whether Saul persecuted an invisible church. They seek a church possessing more visibility than proceeds from Christian profession and a life of piety; and they find it, as they think, in some form of organization, which they deem necessary to constitute the church. Such an organized body, they call the visible church. But Saul did not inquire, whether those whom he persecuted, as professed followers of Christ, and devotedly attached to his cause and doctrine, were also members of some external organization. He persecuted them as Christian men and women. But the existence of such men and women, like the persecutions which they suffered, was something more than a mere mental conception. Organization is not necessary to visibility; much less is any particular species of it. Rocks and mountains are as visible as plants and animals."

Manual of Theology, Chapter III

 

[Reformed]

Is this how you respond when you can't respond?

LOL It is how I respond when I am lying in bed and on my smartphone. Unfortunately, my ankle is killing me from working out today, so I am back up and on my computer eating a banana for some potassium.

The "generic" church can be just that; the church without distinction of a local assembly. If we are going to insist that the only true church is a local assembly then there is no such thing as a generic church. We cannot speak of the state of the church in [fill in the continent/country/state] because there really is no such thing. The Particular Baptists understood the universal church as being invisible, a true number of believers that only God knows. This is the church of the firstborn in Hebrews 12:23. I was just going to quote J.L. Dagg and see that @rsr was sharp as a tack and did that in post #11.

The Universal Church cannot exist without local assemblies, which is a fear that at least one Baptist denomination I know has. The American Baptist Association rejects the idea of a Universal Church, which is one reason why they practice closed communion. I encountered this first hand when a former pastor of an A.B.A. church in town visited our church in Maryland a few years back. We practiced weekly communion and he and his wife did not participate. Afterward, he came up to me and another elder and said that his association practiced closed communion and it he declined to participate because he was not a member of our church. When I said to him that he was a member of the Church, he smiled and said he did not believe in a universal church. It was not worth arguing, so I thanked him for his visit.

 

[TCassidy]

If we are going to insist that the only true church is a local assembly then there is no such thing as a generic church.

Of course there is. No church in particular, all churches in general.

We cannot speak of the state of the church in [fill in the continent/country/state] because there really is no such thing.

Correct, for that would be attributing the characteristics of one church, or a group of churches, to all churches in that area, and that would be an unsound attribution.

This is the church of the firstborn in Hebrews 12:23.

Read it in Greek. πανηγυρει και εκκλησια πρωτοτοκων εν ουρανοις απογεγραμμενων και κριτη θεω παντων και πνευμασιν δικαιων τετελειωμενων

To the mass meeting, and the church of the Firstborn.

This is a direct reference to the type of government in the Greek City/State system. Each city had its own governing assembly. But those not represented by a city assembly would gather for the "General assembly" - the "mass meeting" - an entirely different body, to represent the non-City parts of the nation.

The writer of Hebrews is saying when we get to heaven we will see the General Assembly, and the Specific Assembly. Two entirely different entities. Those two different assemblies were called "the Family of God" and the "church" elsewhere in the NT. And, of course, the General assembly never assembled until after the consummation of this present age.

When I said to him that he was a member of the Church, he smiled and said he did not believe in a universal church.

I agree with him. There is no "unassembled assembly." That term is foreign to the bible and is an oxymoron.

 

[Iconoclast]

Many times when people speak in general terms....they are actually meaning the state of the Kingdom of God,rather than the state of the church.
I will support this later.

 

[rlvaughn]

The difference, I believe, is that the early Particulars had a different understanding of the universal church than the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Matt Ward has done some excellent work explicating the (divergent) views of early Particular leaders on the universal church, baptism and church membership through correspondence between them and John Tombes, a Puritan writer with credobaptist sympathies. Tombes, unlike most of the controversialists of his day, decided to ask the Baptists what they believed instead of making it up.

I think this is the best way to understand what these men meant -- try to find what they themselves have said about it. (I have not done so myself.) What we personally think the scriptures teach is a different issue, but these English Baptists would doubtless mean what they say they meant!

I think part of the emendation in the 1689 LBC is to separate from the Presbyterian view of church membership being conveyed to baptized infants apart from saving faith. Both the Savoy and the WCF are paedobaptist documents.

That doesn't seem to track to me, but maybe I'm misundestanding your point. It does, nevertheless, indicate they are definitely watering down (in some way) the Presbyterian & Reformed idea of the invisible church.

 

[Reformed]

I think this is the best way to understand what these men meant -- try to find what they themselves have said about it. (I have not done so myself.) What we personally think the scriptures teach is a different issue, but these English Baptists would doubtless mean what they say they meant!
That doesn't seem to track to me, but maybe I'm misundestanding your point. It does, nevertheless, indicate they are definitely watering down (in some way) the Presbyterian & Reformed idea of the invisible church.

@rlvaughn ,

Paedobaptists believe that baptized infants are members of the New Covenant community, i.e. the church. They remain as such unless, by their behavior, they repudiate their faith at a later time. I cannot speak for all Baptists but as a Reformed (Particular) Baptist, I believe that a person becomes a child of God when they are converted and that also makes that person a member of the universal church, which is the body of Christ.

 

[Reformed]

I think it will be helpful if I quote from a leading Reformed Baptist theologian, Sam Waldron, dean of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and the author of "1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: A Modern Exposition". I normally do not post long, verbose quotes, but given the depth of this discussion, I believe such a post is warranted. This is what dean Waldron has to say about the Universal Church:

I. The universal church (paras 1-2)

These two paragraphs are structured around the distinction between the invisible and visible church.

I. The universal church as invisible (para. I)

There are three key words in this paragraph. The term 'catholic' simply means universal. When we speak of the catholic church, we mean the universal church and not the Roman church which calls itself universal or catholic. The term 'invisible' can very easily be misunderstood as it is used here. You will notice that it is very carefully qualified by the Confession: 'which may be called invisible'. The term 'elect' is the third key word. The universal church as invisible consists 'of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one'. This paragraph, by means of these key words, teaches at least three things. Firstly, there is a universal church. Secondly, this universal church consists of all the elect. Thirdly, as such, this universal church is invisible.

Does the Bible teach there is a universal church? The New Testament uses the word 'church' 115 times. Most of those occurrences do not, in fact, refer to the universal church, but to a local church or churches (2 Cor. 8:23-24; Gal. 1:3). The New Testament does speak of a universal church (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 1:22; 4:11-15; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24; Heb. 12:23). Such passages refute Landmarkism and its denial of a universal church.

Does the Bible teach that this universal church consists of all the elect? Here a distinction is crucial. The church is the final, organized, earthly expression of the people of God. We must distinguish between the church as an institution and the church as the people of God. Such a distinction enables us to do justice to portions of the New Testament which are frequently misinterpreted. There was a very important sense in which the church began as an institution and organism in the complex of events surrounding Christ's first advent. There was a sense in which historically the church began in the vents of Christ's earthly ministry, death, resurrection and pouring out of the Spirit. The apostles of Christ are the historical foundation upon which Christ is now building his church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 12:18-24). The future tense in the statement of Christ, 'I will build my church', may, therefore, be given its natural force. Though Israel was a type of the church (Rom. 2:28-29; 1 Cor. 10:18; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3) and though the church is the new Israel of God and the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16; 15:14-18; 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 6:16; Eph 2:12-19; Heb. 8:7-13), it is true that the church as an institution and organism did not exist in the Old Testament. These truths contradict the tendency of some strains of covenant theology to flatten the difference between the church and Israel in the interests of paedo-baptism.

On the other hand, the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-116; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18; 2:4). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist 'of the whole number of the elect'. These considerations refute Dispensationalism with its church/Israel distinction and its denial that the Old Testament saints are part of the church.

Does the Bible teach that this universal church is invisible? If we use the term, we must, like the Confession, use it very carefully, because there is no invisible church distinct from the visible church. In other words, the universal church is always a visible, organized institution. John Murray says, 'There is no evidence for the notion of the "church" as an invisible entity distinct from the church visible'. The universal church is always visible, even if it is not perfectly or completely visible. The universal church spoken of in Ephesians is visible (Eph. 1:22; 3:10, 21; 4:4, 11-13; cf 1 Cor. 12:28). The universal church could be persecuted and so had to be visible (Acts 8:1, 3; 9:1-2, 31; cf. Gal. 1:13; Phil. 3:6). One may not credibly profess to be a member of the invisible church while despising membership and fellowship in the visible church.

In what sense, then, is the church 'invisible'? It is invisible because we cannot directly see the work of the Spirit which joins a person to Christ. It is invisible because we cannot perfectly judge the truth of another person's grace. It is invisible because the church as a whole is not yet a perfected, earthly reality. Visible churches are only imperfect and partial manifestations of it.

 

[rlvaughn]

Paedobaptists believe that baptized infants are members of the New Covenant community, i.e. the church. They remain as such unless, by their behavior, they repudiate their faith at a later time. I cannot speak for all Baptists but as a Reformed (Particular) Baptist, I believe that a person becomes a child of God when they are converted and that also makes that person a member of the universal church, which is the body of Christ.

Perhaps part of the problem I am having with this is a lack of clear understanding of the universal invisible church, coupled with a perhaps too literal application of "the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one." Seems to me, if this has an immediate and not just future application, that the elect who are already dead, are still living, and are yet to be born would have to include some infants at some point along the continuum, and that paedobaptism would be immaterial to the fact of whether they are elect that have been, are, or shall be.

The difference, I believe, is that the early Particulars had a different understanding of the universal church than the Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Matt Ward has done some excellent work explicating the (divergent) views of early Particular leaders on the universal church, baptism and church membership...

In his 4th part, Implications, Matt writes, "The universal church was a "Baptistdom" in the Anabaptist sense of taufertum." I may not understood all the import of Matt's comment here, but it made me think of something. I don't think I've heard this in years, and my memory of youth may be inexact, but I am fairly certain that some of the old preachers when I was a kid (even though they would have been considered "Landmarkers" in ecclesiology) often spoke of The Church is terms of all Baptist churches (or at least all sound Bible-believing Baptist churches). This is a sort of universal visible Baptist Church. It may have had roots in J. R. Graves's idea of equating the kingdom with the totality of Baptist churches. (But they didn't use the term kingdom, but The Church or The Baptist Church, which, I think, would have been anathema to Graves.)

 

[Reformed]

Perhaps part of the problem I am having with this is a lack of clear understanding of the universal invisible church, coupled with a perhaps too literal application of "the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one." Seems to me, if this has an immediate and not just future application, that the elect who are already dead, are still living, and are yet to be born would have to include some infants at some point along the continuum, and that paedobaptism would be immaterial to the fact of whether they are elect that have been, are, or shall be.

Well, if you are looking at it from a "now and not yet" perspective you can make the argument that elect infants are included in the invisible church. But since most Baptists believe that conversion takes place in time, we can say that becoming members of the body of Christ (the universal church) also takes place in time. Yes. Ephesians 1:4 says that God chose us before the foundation of the world but we are linear creatures and do not see time as God does.

 

[rsr]

That doesn't seem to track to me, but maybe I'm misundestanding your point. It does, nevertheless, indicate they are definitely watering down (in some way) the Presbyterian & Reformed idea of the invisible church.

The Particulars were, in fact, choosing their wording very carefully. The Westminster, Savoy and Second London agree that the universal church consists of all the elect. The Baptists said that its membership is invisible only in the sense that its true membership is known only to God, that is, (and the point will become clearer in the next section) there are people who may be members of Gospel churches who are not regenerate and thus not a part of the universal church.

The Westminster says the visible church "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." The Savoy goes further and says that "The whole body of men throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according to it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are, and may be called the visible catholic church of Christ." The Baptists, while agreeing on the italicized portion, were careful to call such people visible saints and to insist that individual churches should be constituted of such people; but no earthly institution could rightly call itself the visible church because a truly visible church would be made up only of the regenerated and the Particulars knew that it was likely that false professors would be among their ranks — the tares among the wheat.