The mark of a true church?

J.M. Carroll is the author of Trail of Blood, a book which documents the claims of Baptist successionism. While the historical errors of this book are worth a few blog entries, his claims about the marks of the true church are even more shocking. The complete list can be read here. In particular, I want to focus in on numbers 5 and 9 in that list.

First, number 5 declares that the members of the church are only saved people. Well, this is the natural conclusion to denying the universal, or invisible, church. If the church is only a visible building, then how can anyone be unsaved in it? The argument goes that since Christ promised perpetuity to the church, the church can't have unsaved people in it (Matt. 16:18). Of course, Christ also told us that there would be tares sown in amongst the wheat (Matt. 13:24-53) and that there would be wolves out there in sheeps' clothing (Matt. 7:14-16). Likewise, Paul said that there would be false apostles that masquerade as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:13-15). It is clear that sinners and saints will attend church side by side, sometimes totally indistinguishable from each other. So, logically, the church cannot be the mere visible building if we are to believe what Christ said about the perpetuity of the church. While the visible church is made up of saints alongside false Christians, the universal, invisible church is made up of only believers. So, in a sense this point is right, but Dr. Anderson does not mean it in the correct way. I'd also want to know why, if there are only saved people in the physical church building, so many Baptist congregations have "invitations" to the unsaved. Not that Mr. Carroll's church does, but this is yet another glaring inconsistency. It is not the mark of a true visible church to consist of only saved people, that is the mark of the universal, or invisible church.

The 9th mark of a true church is even more absurd. Notice what is being quoted from 1 Corinthians 9:14:

"Even so (tithes and offerings) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

Now here is the verse, as it actually appears in the King James Bible (which is generally what Landmark Baptist churches use):

"Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

There is a clear twisting of scripture here for many reasons, amongst which are:

- This verse is not about tithes and offerings, nor is any verse in this entire chapter, nor is any verse in this entire epistle.

- Paul is speaking about being a partaker of the gospel, and even pronounces a woe upon himself if he fails to preach it (v. 16). This is because the job of all Christians is to "live of the gospel" as the King James puts it, not to literally receive money for it but rather to be partakers of it, to preach it, and to spread it to all nations.

- Paul makes a point to mention that the gospel isn't for sale (v. 18).

- To read this verse as Mr. Carroll puts it, we would have to assume the gospel is tithes and offerings, not the forgiveness of sins and resurrection from the dead.

- Nowhere in the New Testament are tithes and offerings ordained for any reason, and although this is certainly a way for a church to support itself we find that Paul supported himself through other work while preaching the gospel (2 Thess. 3:8). It seems odd that no epistle outright tells us to follow the Jewish tithe or that offerings are the only means which a minister can live off of, especially if it is a mark of a true church.

If we are to believe Mr. Carroll, then the marks of a true church include a contradiction to scripture and scripture twisting. Well, that may be true of his church but it is certainly no church I'd want to attend.

Does the church need a building?

Dr. S.E. Anderson is a prominent proponent of Landmark Baptist theology. He has cited 27 reasons why he does not believe in the invisible church, the denial of which is one of the main tenants of Landmark Baptist theology. You can read these 27 points in their fuller context here. A lot of the points are saying the same exact thing, so I will not be giving a response to all of them. However, I would like to post a series on some of the more valid ones. In this post we will be discussing Dr. Anderson's first point: the invisible church has no address, location, or building.

First, we should try to understand where it is folks like Dr. Anderson are coming from. To a Landmark Baptist, the physical church IS the church. The logical problems this presents are not a part of their thinking, so if I say I am a member of the body of Christ - they would assume I mean a local church congregation. So, if a church has no physical mailing address then it is not a church.

This belief is perpetuated by the idea that the kingdom of God (which would be where all us non Landmark Baptists fit in) and the Bride of Christ are two separate things. So while they accuse others of believing in two churches, they seem to believe in two bodies of Christ. This is the sort of logical fallacy I referred to in the previous paragraph. To a Landmark Baptist, the thief on the cross may have been saved but he is no longer a member of the church because the church is located spatially in time and space where you can see it. Likewise, the thief on the cross would only be a member of the kingdom of God or a guest at the wedding feast because the thief on the cross was not baptized or attending a Baptist church (which to a Landmark Baptist, would have been the church started by John the Baptist). This distinction between the Bride of Christ and the body of Christ is not something scripture even attempts to make, neither is the distinction between these and the citizenry of the kingdom of God ever made by scripture.

So, the question is does the church need a physical mailing address to be a church? I think the best way to answer this is to go to scripture. How does scripture talk about the church?

Well, we first hear talk about the church in Matthew 16:18 when Peter makes the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus then declares that upon this rock (Peter's confession of faith) He will build His church. He also promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. At this point, the Landmark Baptists are correct in stating that Christ promised perpetuity of the church (a very important point in their theology). However, notice that Christ said He WILL build His church on this confession of faith...not that the church already existed as a result of the baptism of John, or that John the Baptist had anything to do with the future building of the church.

We also see another problem for the Landmark Baptist in this passage, because Christ does not say that His church will be built on bricks and stones or Peter himself - but rather on the confession of faith received through the power of the gospel. Faith has no mailing address, and yet this is how Christ will build the church.

Another difficulty for Dr. Anderson would be something Paul said about his life prior to conversion in 1 Corinthians 15:9, "For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Now, Paul was not persecuting a physical building. He did not go to the local Baptist congregation (assuming there was one) and begin ripping apart the steeple. What Paul did was persecute people, and partook in their murders. So, Paul seems to think that the church of God is made up of believers and not a building with a physical address.

You also find queer, non-building related language from Paul in his letter to the Ephesians such as Ephesians 5:23, "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior." The Christ I know did not die for some buildings with mailing addresses.

Certainly, there are many passages that speak of the physical church and the physical works it is to do. The church is to have leaders, the church is where believers go to be edified, and the church is where we administer the sacraments. But, if there is only a physical building which is a church then we have to assume that it was not Peter's confession of faith upon which Christ would build His church - but rather, Christ literally meant "upon this rock" as if He were pointing to a particular stone. Likewise we would have to assume that when Paul speaks of Christ dying for the church, he meant the individual stones which he had previously been a persecutor of.

Scripture seems to think that there is more to the church than just a physical mailing address, and why Dr. Anderson cannot also see this connection is a mystery to me. So, it is not that I disagree totally with Dr. Anderson - because I gladly concede that many a visible church has a mailing address, but scripture would seem to suggest that there is an aspect to church which cannot receive letters or be built with concrete. With my sincerest apologies to Dr. Anderson, this point is totally absurd.

What is the church?

Before we can really dig into the claims of the Landmark Baptists, we should define the church. First, what do other Baptists say? The 1689 London Baptist Confession has this to say:

"The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit of truth and 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 fullness of him that filleth all in all. (Heb. 12:23, Col. 1:18, Eph 1:10, 22, 23, Eph. 5:23, 27, 32)"

This is essentially what is taught by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, of which I am a member:

"Since it is by faith in the gospel alone that men become members of the Christian Church, and since this faith cannot be seen by men, but is known to God alone, (1 Kings 8:39, Acts 1:24, 2 Tim. 2:19) therefore the Christian Church on earth is invisible till Judgment Day (Col. 3:3, 4)."

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession explains this more completely:

"But the church is not only the fellowship of outward objects and rites, as other governments, but it is originally a fellowship and of the Holy Ghost in hearts. (The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outward signs, but it consists especially in inward communion of eternal blessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of the fear and love of God); which fellowship nevertheless has outward marks so that it can be recognized, namely, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. (Namely, where God's Word is pure, and the Sacraments are administered in conformity with the same, there certainly is the Church, and there are Christians.) And this Church alone is called the body of Christ, which Christ renews (Christ as its Head, and) sanctifies and governs by His Spirit, as Paul testifies, Eph. 1:22, when he says: And gave Him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is His body, the fullness of Him which filleth all in all. Wherefore, those in whom Christ does not act (through His Spirit) are not members of Christ. "

We see a similar position held in the Westminster Standards, ch. 25:

"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 fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

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

This is the definition I will be operating under, when speaking of the church.

Landmarkism?

There is a small, but troublesome, view amongst certain Baptist congregations called landmarkism, or Landmark Baptists. A lot of you probably never heard of it, or if you have then maybe you were unsure of how to respond to their arguments. One of the key methods of argumentation employed by landmarkists is that of Rome: to supply you with a plethora of church history that, often times, is misrepresenting an individual or relies on mere anachronistic interpretation.

The purpose of this blog is not to tear down my brothers and sisters in Christ, simply because they are in error. However, it cannot be denied that they are in error and it is my hope that this blog will serve as a good collection point for all the information out there regarding this false teaching.

So, with that in mind, here is a very simple definition of Landmark Baptist belief as found on gotquestions.org:

Landmark theology, or heritage theology, is the belief among some independent Baptist churches that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. They believe that all other groups, and even most other Baptists, are not true churches because they deviate from the essentials of landmarkism.

Those essentials are 1) church succession—a landmark Baptist church traces its “lineage” back to the time of the New Testament, usually to John the Baptist; 2) a visible church—the only church is a local (Baptist) body of believers; there is no such thing as a universal Body of Christ; 3) opposition to “pedobaptism” (sprinkling of infants) and “alien immersion” (any baptism not performed under the auspices of a landmark Baptist church)—all such baptisms are null and void.

Those are some of the key errors I plan to focus attention on. It is also my hope that this can be done with gentleness and reverence, without needing to resort to verbally hostile arguing. God bless.