The ‘un-denominational’ church

July 31, 2007 Matthew Keedy Clifton The Church

by Matt Clifton

One of the most misunderstood doctrines of modern times is the doctrine of the church, and how the Lord’s church is not divided into “denominations.” Many insist that different religious bodies can worship differently, and hold different interpretations of scripture, and yet both still be correct. This, of course, cannot be true.

So how are we to understand the church? Can it be divided into denominations? Is “the church” a term that is interchangeable with “the body of Christ,” the “kingdom of God,” the “temple of God,” and other similar terms?

Dr. Rex A. Turner (1989) ably sets out clear arguments showing that the true nature of the church is one that cannot be broken down into smaller subsets (denominations). He also makes good arguments on the purposes of the different terms which are all applied to the church, and what can be learned from those descriptive terms.

Turner begins this section by pointing out that the church has no formal name (p. 275). It is amazing the lengths some “churches” will go to with their names, even as far as creating “new” denominations by combining different manmade names. Hence, we sometimes see names such as “Anytown CME (Catholic-Methodist-Episcopalian) Church.” Goebel Music (1991) relates this amusing, and yet to-the-point story:

A certain religious group was raising funds to build a church building. As they knocked on one door and told the gentleman their purpose and also their plan, he finally said, “All right, I will make a donation to the building program, if you will erect a sign that says, “˜This is the Church of Christ.’” They immediately said, “We cannot do that.” To which the man replied, “Well, I’ll tell you what. I’ll still make a donation if you will erect a sign that says,
“˜This is not the Church of Christ.’” They said, “No, we cannot do that either.” Guess what? They left without a donation (p. 391).

This indeed seems to be the attitude among many denominations. They are quick to place a manmade name on themselves while rejecting the name of Christ only, but certainly do not want people saying that they are not part of the body of Christ.

Turner points out the names used in the New Testament to refer to the Lord’s people: the church, the kingdom of God, the body of Christ, the house of God, the temple of God, and the vineyard of God (p. 276-280). Of all these distinctions, more confusion has been seen on the issue of whether “the church” and the “kingdom of God” are used interchangeably in scripture. Turner affirms that they are (p. 276), and this writer is in agreement with that view.

Part of the confusion stems from the attempt by premillennialists to make “the kingdom of God” into a future occurrence, and “the church” into a temporary, “stop-gap” measure. As Turner describes it:

The dispensationalist will respond by saying: “Yes, Jesus did come to establish his kingdom, but the Jews rejected him and put him to death, and therefore, God took Jesus back to heaven to await the Jews acceptance of him.” The point to be observed is that according to the premillennialist there is no kingdom as of now, and thus there is no person in the kingdom; but how can these assertions be true in light of the fact that Paul wrote: “who delivered us [Paul, and brethren at Collossae] out of the power of darkness, and translated us [Paul and the saints at Collossae] into the kingdom of the Son of his love” (Col. 1:13) (p. 276-277).

The apostle John is also cited as being “in the kingdom” in Rev. 1:9: “I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

But does the phrase “kingdom of God” always refer to the present called out believers? Hodge (1979) was of the opinion that “kingdom of God” could refer to different states:

The phrase “˜kingdom of God’ sometimes means heaven, the future state of blessedness; sometimes the external or visible Church, as consisting of those who profess to acknowledge Christ as their king; and sometimes as the invisible Church, consisting of those in and over whom Christ actually reigns (p. 592).

But although Hodge assigns different meanings to different passages in reference to the kingdom of God, he does not deny the current existence of the kingdom. On the fact that different meanings must be taken of the phrase “kingdom of God,” Jackson (2001) agrees, but notes that the passages where it is taken as a present kingdom are very clear:

Sometimes “kingdom” is a reference to the final phase of the triumphant reign of Christ, i.e., it refers to heaven itself. In his final words of encouragement to Timothy, Paul wrote: “The Lord will deliver me from every evil work, and will save me unto his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim. 4:18). Earlier, in a similar vein, the apostle had declared: “If we endure, we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim. 2:12). Compare this with Christ’s promise that if we “overcome” we will be able to sit down with the Lord in His throne (Rev. 3:21). In one of his epistles Peter announced: “…for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:11). These passages speak of a “kingdom” or “reign” that is “eternal” and “heavenly” in nature. Moreover, they suggest a state that is yet future. They are, in fact, references to a regal existence in heaven. But they do not negate the New Testament teaching concerning the present phase of the kingdom (pars. 4-7).

This confusion on the part of some, interpreting “kingdom of God” to mean a future kingdom, leads to difficulties with many passages in the Bible. As Music points out:

Jesus had taught that the “church” and the “kingdom” were one and the same divine building. During his earthly ministry, he also made the statement: “Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). It was not long, after the ascension (acts 1:9-11; Luke 24:44-49; esp. vss. 47-49), only a matter of a few days, that Jesus sent forth the Holy Spirit upon the apostles just as he had promised (cf. Acts 1:4-5). This day on which the Holy Spirit came was Pentecost (cf. Lev. 23:15-16, as it informs us about the day “when” Pentecost occurred, etc.), yea, it was a day of “power” (Acts 1:8) (p. 385).

Therefore, if the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was the coming of the Spirit in power that Jesus foretold, then it must also be the day the “kingdom of God” spoken of in Mark 9:1 came with power. There is no mistaking that Acts 2:1-6 shows that the Holy Spirit did come in power as a fulfillment of Christ’s words. This means that the kingdom of God must be present, beginning at the time and indefinitely into the future, right up until our present times.

Turner also points out that the people of the Lord are designated “the church,” meaning the “called out” (p. 276). While we’ve already looked at the concept of the meaning of names among denominations, it must also be pointed out that there can only be one church existing due to the fact that there was only one church created.

Roman Catholics like to assert that their organization is the true church. However, Boren (1999) makes the point that how can something be “the true church” if it wasn’t even in existence when the Bible says the kingdom of God—the church–was created?

History informs us that this departure from the faith commenced in the area of “church organization.” It resulted in a hierarchical form of “church government” over a period of some 600 years. Yes, it took that long for the formation of what is known in history as the Roman Catholic Church. After an ongoing power struggle between the so-called “patriarch of Rome” and the so-called “patriarch of Constantinople” for primacy, Boniface III of Rome pronounced himself to be the “universal bishop” (or papa”¦pope) in A.D. 606-07. The “Church” over which he placed himself as head was NOT the New Testament church. It was, and still is, an “apostate Church” (p. 143)

Boren further reminds us that the protestant reformation, from which all denominations sprang, took place beginning in about 1517 A.D., so not only was the Roman Catholic Church not in existence at the time of Acts 2, but neither were any of the denominations we see today.

Much stronger proof need hardly be looked for in this matter. However, many Catholics claim that in Matthew 16:18, the Lord said the church would be founded upon Peter, and that Peter was the first pope. But according to McGarvey (1875) this thought would be impossible due to the imagery used. Jesus refers to Himself as the builder, Peter as the holder of the key, and then an unnamed something as the rock upon which His church will be built. McGarvey says it is very difficult to imagine that Christ would have meant Peter as both foundation and key-keeper at the same time in the same image (p. 144-145), so “rock” must refer to some other object of thought. He concludes that Peter’s confession is that object. Gaebelein (1984) leans more toward Peter being the rock, but denies this gave Peter any special privilege or authority:

But he, along with John, can be sent by other apostles (Acts 8:14); and he is held accountable for his actions by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:1-18); and was rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). He is, in short, primus inter pares (“first among equals”); and on the foundation of such men (Eph. 2:20), Jesus built his church (p. 368).

Boles (1936) disagrees with this view, however, by stating that it is impossible for Peter to have been the rock upon which Jesus would build His church because of the evidence from the original language. He reasons that since Peter’s name in Greek (Petros) means a small stone, and the word translated “rock” is “petra,” meaning a solid ledge of rock, Christ could not have meant He would build His church upon a “small stone” (p. 345).

It seems clear from the context that Jesus by using the term “Petra” referred to the truth that Peter had just confessed, which was the deity of Jesus. The truth that Jesus is the Son of the Living God is the most fundamental and basic of all truths pertaining to
man’s redemption (p. 345).

In summary, Turner lays out a solid definition of what the one true church is, when it was founded, and what terms are used in scripture to refer to God’s “called out.” Culturally, the fact that there is a “one true church,” the one found in the New Testament, means that there are many people today worshipping in an unscriptural manner. The implications for the church are such that we must strive to bring those wanderers into the fold, and also guard ourselves against apostasy. Individuals must weigh the Bible’s teachings in light of a sincere desire to serve God.

When study is done with the intent to follow God’s will, and not that of man and self, one can see the glorious body of Christ described for us in His word clearly, and take positive steps to be sure we are in a right relationship with God.

WORKS CITED

1. Boles, H. Leo. (1936). A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate.
2. Boren, Maxie. (1999). Is There But One True Church? In Maxie Boren (Ed.), Questions of Eternal Consequence, Fort Worth Lectures ““ 1999 (pp. 140-155). Pulaski, TN: Sain Publications.
3. Gaebelein, Frank E. (Ed.). (1984). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
4. Hodge, Charles. (1979). Systematic Theology, Vol. III. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
5. Jackson, Wayne. (2001). Is there a future kingdom? Christian Courier. Retrieved July 27, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.christiancourier.com/notes/futureKingdom.htm
6. McGarvey, J.W. (1875). New Testament Commentary on Matthew and Mark. Des Moines, Iowa: Eugene Smith.
7. Music, Goebel. (1991). Behold the Pattern. Colleyville, TX: Goebel Music Publications.
8. Turner, R.A. Sr. (1989). Systematic Theology. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion.

church of Christ, Denominationalism, Fellowship,