Truth Magazine

By Harry L. Lewis

The general subject of baptism has troubled the waters called Christianity for many hundreds of years. It has not been a dead issue in any decade since our Savior walked the hills of Palestine.

Areas of Agreement

The Baptist people have nearly spoken with one voice on one who is the subject of baptism. Almost without exception, scholars of the Baptist persuasion have said that only those who had a personal faith could properly receive the ordinance. Believer’s baptism has been the very mainstay of conservative Baptist doctrine for these past three hundred plus years. These people are to be commended for their zeal in holding to this portion of truth against the infant baptizers who have been sweeping the land. The Baptist teachers and preachers have been strong and true to the Book on this point.

The action of baptism has also been gallantly and zealously propounded and protected by those who call themselves Baptists. While great numbers of men and women in other denominations were accepting the sophistry of those who sprinkle and pour, instead of immerse, the Baptists were holding high the banner of truth. They stood firm on a “thus saith the Lord” on immersion in place of the innovations. Such passages as Colossians 2:12, Romans 6:4 and Acts 8:35-39 have been made household words among Baptists and their friends because these passages set forth in words the very picture of immersion. Men and women of this religious movement are to be commended when they stand for the Book of God on any subject, but especially on this one. The reason this subject stands out is because men have had to pay with their life for teaching it. Men have had to suffer the loss of nation and property for its truths.

Area of Disagreement

I am reminded of Galatians 3:1 where Paul referred to the Galatians as foolish because they had stopped listening to God’s word, and begun to listen to the doctrine of men (Matt. 15:9). On the “subject” of baptism the Baptist people have been traditionally right! On the “action” of baptism they have been right on target, but on the cause, need or reason for baptism they could not have been less foolish than the Galatians! Their practice could not be more vain! Their doctrine on this originates in the heart of men. This doctrine must be laid at the feet of those preachers and teachers among the Baptists who reverence the words of their own historical past more than the words of the Book!

Baptist preachers have taught their people to cry “water salvation” when they hear the Bible doctrine of baptism taught. These preachers know, if they would just listen to what we are saying, that we know that Jesus is the only Savior. The question is not one of who saves the sinner from past sins, but the conditions upon which the salvation takes place. The Bible teaches that baptism is one of those conditions, but the Baptists say it is not. Let us enter into a study of the Baptist doctrine of baptism, and see if we can understand why the division exists between us.

The Origin Of Baptist Baptism

The origin of this doctrine is rather difficult to pin down. One group will make their whole case on a line of decent through individual men who taught (?) baptism, while others insist that the connection is through a long line of churches. Most of the reasoning done by Baptists on church decent have included the idea of doctrinal decent as well. The fact is obvious that the doctrine of the Baptist people cannot precede the people themselves. The history of churches known as Baptist churches is recognized to have begun in the seventeenth century even by Baptist historians. This fact is clearly shown in another article in this issue. When this is clearly understood, the conclusion should be obvious that if the Baptist church did not exist in the first century neither did the Baptist doctrine on baptism. We find many statements alluding to doctrine in the New Testament. There was Jesus’ doctrine (2 John 9-Il). Also we find the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). There is even a reference to the doctrine of devils (I Tim. 4:1-4). However, we find not one reference to the doctrine of Baptists or Baptist doctrine. The reason is very simple. Their doctrines did not originate on the pages of the Bible.

Where Did Baptist Doctrine Come From?

Let us look at page 22 of The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches by Edward T. Hiscox. “It is most likely that in the Apostolic age when there was but `one Lord, one faith, and one baptism,’ and no differing denominations existed, the baptism of a convert by that very act constituted him a member of the church, and at once endowed him with all the rights and privileges of full membership. In that sense, ‘baptism was the door into the church.’ Now it is different: (emp. mine, hll) and while the churches are desirous of receiving members, they are wary and cautious that they do not receive unworthy persons.”

Now it is different! Who made if different? Making it different is warned against in Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 John 9-11; etc. If it is different now than it was in the first century, those who changed it must be held responsible for violating what is taught in these passages. The day it became different to Baptists was the day Baptist doctrine began! Now that we can see the origin of Baptist doctrine of this subject, let us learn something about the nature of the doctrine itself.

1. Baptist doctrine on baptism is confusing. “No man can preach the Baptist doctrine of baptism without contradicting both the Bible, other Baptists and himself. I know of no better way for a man to be convinced of that fact than to read Dr. Albert Garner’s tract on Campbellism and W. Curtis Porter’s reply called Dissolving a Few Baptist Aspirins. One of the confusing things about their doctrine has already been alluded to in Hiscox’s manual. These people refuse to see how confusing it is when they claim to follow the Bible only, and admit that the Bible taught baptism as the entrance condition to the church, then turn around and say “Now it is different.”

Another confusing and contradictory thing Baptist’s teach about baptism is that it is not essential and that it is essential. They say that folks are saved by faith alone, before and without baptism. Baptism then, according to them, is not essential to being saved, but it is essential to obedience. The same manual says, (p. 20 article #8), “Baptism is not essential to salvation, for our churches utterly repudiate the dogma of “baptismal regeneration”; but it is essential to obedience, since Christ has commanded it. It is also essential to a public confession of Christ before the world, and to membership in the church which is his body.” It is a shame that the simple doctrine of baptism has been made so confusing and contradictory that the beauty and truth of it is lost. No wonder Paul said he feared that some would be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ (2 Cor. 11:3). The only sense in which Baptists teach that baptism is necessary is that it is essential to a list of things that themselves are not essential. Essential to non essentials, that is the nature of Baptist doctrine on baptism.

2. The effects of Baptist doctrine on baptism are far more far reaching and devastating than may be noted at first glance. There is an evil effect produced by any false doctrine which is contrary to the good produced by truth. There are several effects produced by Baptist doctrine in general, and their doctrine on baptism in particular, which I would like for us to consider.

a. It encourages men to put their trust in men and not the inspired word of God (1 Cor. 2:1-4). When Mr. Hiscox says “Now it is different” that opens the door for others to react the same way about other things the Bible teaches. This attitude toward the Bible breeds more changes and more disrespect for what it says. This doctrine on baptism determines what a faithful Baptist teaches, feels, and does in relation to confessing, and being a part of the church. If baptism is non-essential to salvation, but is essential to confession and church membership, then confession and church membership are not essential to salvation (cf. Acts 20:28; 2:47; Rom. 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32).

b. Baptist doctrine on baptism encourages people not to obey the gospel. By the very nature of this doctrine, obedience is rendered useless or even wrong. If baptism is a work of man as they say it is, and use Ephesians 2:9 to prove it, then no person who trusts Baptist doctrine can also trust what the Bible says about baptism. In Romans 1:16 Paul said the gospel is God’s power to save. In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 we are told by the writer that those who obey not the gospel will reap the vengeance of God. Along comes a Baptist and says obedience is a non-essential. This doctrine will prevent people from going to heaven (Heb. 5:8-9; cf. Mark 16:16).

c. This doctrine taught by our Baptist friends encourages people to remain in their sins. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Ananias came from Christ to teach Saul what he must do. He told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Along come the Baptist preachers and say “You do not have to obey one thing.” Or they might say “Baptism is essential and not essential, it is and it isn’t, you do and you don’t.” These people may very well have told Saul, “now it is different. ” Jesus said “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The Baptist says, “He that believeth and is baptized (for the remission of sins, to wash away his sins) is damned!” According to this doctrine, if you believe baptism is an essential in bringing forgiveness of sins, it condemns instead of saves. Who can believe it, and still believe the Bible?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 4, pp. 14-16
February 17, 1983

By Bob Dickey

The worship of the Baptist Church is generally characterized by the same popular perversions and innovations of modern denominationalism. Clearly, these erroneous practices indicate that such vain worship is in violation of the New Testament order, and reveal that the Baptist Church cannot be the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us examine Baptist thought and worship practices in regard to the following: (1) Observance of the Sabbath; (2) The frequency of Lord’s Supper observance; (3) The question of close communion; (4) The matter of giving; and (5) The use of mechanical instruments of music. While practices vary somewhat among the different Baptist sects, these seem to predominate.

Observance Of The Sabbath

Baptists call Sunday the Sabbath day. But Exodus 20:9-10 says, “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God. . . ” Clearly, that makes Saturday the Sabbath day, and if we were commanded to observe this Israelite holy day (which we are not), we would have to observe it on Saturday – not on Sunday.

It is no wonder that many Baptists are confused about this subject. They meet on Sunday, yet teach that it is the Sabbath day. The truth of the matter is that the day of particular significance for the Christian is the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10) or the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). The Old Testament law, with its Sabbath observance, has been taken away (Col. 2:14-16; Rom. 7:1-7).

Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper

Among Baptists, the frequency of Lord’s Supper observance varies. It may be once a year, twice a year, quarterly, or as often as once a month. “As to the time, place, and frequency of the ordinances, no Scriptural directions are given. These are left optional with the churches. They are usually observed on Sundays, but not necessarily. As to the Supper, our churches have very generally come to observe it on the first Sunday of each month” (Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual for the Baptist Churches, p. 20, note 5). Speaking of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, Hiscox writes: “These ordinances are usually administered on the Sabbath, and more commonly once each month -particularly the Supper. They may, however, be administered at any time or place the discretion of the church as circumstances may require” (The Baptist Church Directory, p. 36).

Like other sectarians, Baptists generally argue that the Lord’s Supper becomes too commonplace if taken every Lord’s Day. But to follow that logic consistently would rule out (1) a coming together each first day of the week, (2) a collection being taken every first day of the week, (3) and the preaching of the Word on that day. Why do not these things become too common, if weekly observance of them continues? The same passage that sets the example for us to come together (Acts 20:7), also teaches us to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

The early church “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42), indicating a regularity or frequency of observance. Acts 20:7 shows us just how frequently this was done: every first day of the week.

The children of Israel had no difficulty understanding the requirement of weekly Sabbath observance. When they were told, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8), they realized they were to keep every Sabbath. The same is true of the Lord’s Day. The New Testament says, “upon the first day of the week. . .”, and every week has a first day just like it has a seventh. The Corinthians assembled to eat the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20), and the frequency of their assembly was “upon the first day of the week” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Let any who practice the weekly passing of the contribution plates explain why they do it each first day of the week as commanded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, but fail to partake of the Supper on that same day. Consistency, thou art a jewel!

Where in the Scriptures has anyone learned that it ought to be observed monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually? As Christians, we practice that which Paul received of the Lord and has delivered unto us (1 Cor. 11:23); we remember the instruction of 1 Corinthians 11:26: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death til he come”; we observe this memorial as early Christians did – on the first day of every week.

Close Communion

“Baptists believe in close communion. Jesus Himself was a close communionist. He did not invite His mother, or the man in whose house He instituted the Lord’s Supper to be present at that supper. How could you have closer communion that that?” (H. Boyce Taylor, St., Why Be A Baptist?, p. 13).

Certainly, it should be remembered that only those who belong to Christ have the privilege of receiving the memorial feast. It is the Lord’s Supper, and only those who are in His kindgom can benefit by eating it (Matt. 26:29). However, no man or religious group has the right or ability to judge who is worthy to partake (any more than to vote on the salvation of another). This understanding prompted the restoration motto: “We neither invite, nor debar.” The self-examination of 1 Corinthians 11:28 (“But let a man examine himself. . . “) clearly places the responsibility on the individual, and condemns the notion of close communion. True worshippers practice neither close communion nor open communion. It is an individual act of worship done in communion with Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 10:16) in the presence of other Christians.

The Matter Of Giving

Baptist worship practices regarding the matter of giving involve a number of errors. The practice of tithing, collections taken too frequently, and solicitations of various forms are worthy of note.

Most Baptist churches teach and practice the tithing of Judaism instead of the free-will offering of the New Covenant of Christ. We are taught: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him . . .” (1Cor. 16:2), and “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7). If we tithe because we want to follow the law of Moses, we are debtors to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3) and are fallen from grace (5:4). The frequency of the free-will offering should be the same as the Lord’s Supper: “Upon the first day of the week . . .” (1 Cor. 16:2), not every time we feel like “passing the hat.”

Also we note that only Christians are commanded to give. That is the reason why churches of the Lord do not beg businessmen for money, or ask listeners of a radio broadcast to support their work as the Baptists commonly practice. Carnivals, suppers, bake sales, and other fund raising drives are neither authorized nor necessary when divine directives are followed. The New Testament plainly teaches that Christians are the ones who are to give to support the work of the church – they are not to beg others to do it for them.

Mechanical Instruments Of Music

Like most denominations of today, the Baptists use mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. This is an innovation even among the Baptists: “In my earliest intercourse among this people, congregational singing generally prevailed among them . . . Staunch old Baptists in former times would as soon tolerated the Pope of Rome in their pulpits as an organ in their galleries, and yet the instrument has gradually found its way among them . . .” (Benedict, Fifty Years Among Baptists, pp. 204-207).

The New Testament contains no authority for worshiping God by playing on a mechanical instrument of music. There are nine passages in the New Testament that reveal that the church of God is to worship in song. In each of these passages we find the word “sing” or its equivalent:

Matt. 26:30 – “sung an hymn”

Acts 16:25 – “singing hymns”

Rom. 15:9 – “sing unto thy name”

1 Cor.14:15 – “1 will sing”

Jas. 5:13 – “sing psalms”

Eph. 5:19 – “singing”

Col. 3:16 – “singing”

Heb. 2:12 – “I will sing”

Heb. 13:15 – “fruit of lips”

When we have examined these passages, we have the sum total of what the New Testament says about mechanical instrumental music: Absolutely Nothing! That is why we do not use it.

The instrument that God commands we use in worship to Him is not a mechanical one, but is spiritual – the heart: “Speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord” (Eph. 5:19) and “singing with grace in your hearts unto God” (Col. 3:16).

The fact that mechanical instruments were used in Old Testament times will not authorize their use today under the law of Christ (Col. 3:17; 2 Jn. 9-11). Jesus and His apostles never taught or authorized such; they were never used by the early church. They were introduced into religious worship in the seventh century by Pope Vitalian of the Catholic church. Leading scholars of many prominent denominations, including those of Baptist persuasion, opposed them. Charles Spurgeon, a well-known Baptist preacher, wrote: “What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartet, bellows, and pipes! We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it . . . We do not need them. They would hinder rather than help our praise. Sing unto him” (Commentary on Psalm 42:4).

Conclusion

Other innovations (aliens and women who lead public prayers, choirs, youth worship, etc.) and errors of Baptist worship could be mentioned. These and the popular perversions mentioned above clearly reveal that the worship practices of the Baptist Church mark it as a man-made religious organization that does not belong to Christ (Matt. 15:8-9, 13).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 108-110
February 17, 1983

By John A. Gibson

The mission of the church belonging to Christ has been divinely given and sufficiently revealed in the Scriptures. Those who have an attitude of respect for that divine revelation will be content with that arrangement and strictly adhere to it. But those who are lacking in this respect will resort to the only other alternative, man’s wisdom, to activate the church in a mission. The subject of our consideration in this article is the Baptist Church and how it distorts the divine mission of the church by its involvement in various social programs.

A Distorted Mission

The Baptist Church has rejected God’s design for the mission of the church by refusing to accept the church as a totally spiritual organization. This rejection has resulted in their belief that the church is a social institution. Listen to their own words.

It is plain that Christ, in providing for the formation of churches, recognized and sanctified the social principle. A church is a society – a social institution.(1)

To what extent should a church relate itself to the various movements for civic and social betterment which are found in practically every area? They include such groups as temperance societies, organizations for world peace, movements against gambling, and bodies concerned with the welfare of children, youth, the aged, or minority groups. A church is a society emphatically concerned with carrying out God’s will for a better community, both locally and throughout the world.(2)

This acceptance of the church as a social institution has paved the way to involve the church in many activities. Whether it be a recreational program to fulfill a physical need, a retirement home to fulfill a social need or a university to fulfill a mental need, the Baptist Church has expanded itself in all areas regarding man, yet without scriptural authority to do so. In a manual written exclusively to aid in building a church recreational program, the following statement is found.

A church, recognizing its responsibility to the whole man physical, social, mental, and spiritual – will include in its program a ministry of recreation to help meet these needs – recreation has a positive role to play in helping a church do its work.(3)

This distorted mission of the Baptist Church is wide in scope involving colleges, theological seminaries, hospitals, retirement homes, children’s homes, recreation and such like. In order that all of these might exist and function throughout, the Baptist Church had to act universally. This was accomplished through various associations and conventions. For example, notice this quote concerning the Southern Baptist Convention.

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest Baptist organization in the world. It has more than 12,751,000 members. The convention has more than 34,000 churches in 50 states, but most of its members live in the South and Southwest. The Southern Baptist Convention has 29 state conventions that operate 38 senior colleges, 15 junior colleges, 7 academies, 6 seminaries, and 4 Bible schools. The state conventions also operate hospitals, children’s homes, and homes for the aging. The conventions also support about 2,300 missionaries in other countries and about the same number in the United States .(4)

It is clear to see that the Baptists had to abandon the local autonomy of the church to accomplish their social aims.

Since the Bible is rejected by the Baptist Church as the sufficient revelation of the mission of the church, thus, it is also rejected as the only means by which men are drawn to Christ. In place of the gospel the social programs are used as the most profitable and reasonable means of drawing individuals into their memberships and maintaining them. In the area of recreation they have this to say:

Unsaved persons, unenlisted Christians, and inactive church members can be reached through a properly conducted sports program. Church sports can provide a setting to enlist the unreached in other church activities where the gospel will be proclaimed . . . A common interest point – sports – can be the key to unlock the door in allowing the Son of God into one’s heart.(5)

What ever happened to the old-fashioned gospel being the key to unlocking one’s heart to the Son of God (Jn. 6:44,45)? It is obvious that the Baptist Church has forsaken the authority of the Scriptures by enlisting itself in a social mission.

When men become discontent with God’s arrangement for the church, they naturally turn to their own wisdom to determine what the church should do. This is demonstrated by the following quote which indicates that at one time the Baptists considered the church to be complete with simply a spiritual goal. But their thinking changed.

At one time many churches and denominational leaders believed it was no job of the church to care for the aged. This, they said, was the responsibility of the community and the government. The church was concerned with evangelism, the winning of individuals to personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Later, however, this thinking changed, and there began an evangelism of the total person in all stages of life. These changes have played their part, of course, in the establishment of Baptist homes for the aged.(6)

Upon what basis was this change made? It certainly was not the Word of God. It is not until man begins rearranging God’s perfect plan that the church is burdened with the care of man’s social needs.

A Perfect Mission

The church is spiritual in its purpose, nature and design (Jn. 18:36). Therefore the work of the church is spiritual consisting of preaching the gospel (1 Tim. 3:15), relieving needy saints (Acts 4:32-35), and building itself up (Eph. 4:11-16). By the design of God, the church is fully capable of doing this work within the framework of the local congregation (Eph. 3:10-11). The church does not have to act through any conventions or associations to fulfill the Lord’s mission for the church. If the church does what God commands in the area of evangelism, benevolence, and edification then there won’t be time or money for anything else. The church is not to be burdened with meeting recreational, retirement, secular educational or other social needs. These needs must be dealt with individually.

Many of our brethren fostering liberal attitudes toward God’s word have this lesson yet to learn. Far too many are involving the church in social programs for which there is no Bible authority. This makes them no different than the Baptists. They are following the Baptists along the same road, drifting away from God’s rule of order. Instead of relying on God’s word to draw individuals into the church our liberal brethren are providing fellowship halls, gymnasiums, kitchens, retirement homes, youth retreats and other physical attractions to gratify carnal desires and increase their numbers.

Just as the Baptists at one time did not feel it was the work of the church to care for the aged but changed to care for man’s social needs, so also have many among us changed. This change comes as a result of a dwindling respect for God’s wisdom to the increase in man’s wisdom.

The Baptists have not hesitated to state that their social programs are aimed at drawing people into their memberships and for keeping them there. Our liberal brethren are not usually that bold in their statements. Yet, the fact remains that growth is often the objective of social programs in the church. Carnal-minded disciples may be won as a result but when the programs fade away so will the disciples. True growth can never be attained by physical allurements. It can only occur when the gospel, without alteration, comes to rest upon good and honest hearts.

How far will our brethren travel in the direction of the denominations? None of us can forecast the likes of this digression. But as long as the social gospel continues to be heard in the pulpits and practiced as the mission of the church they will not be far behind.

Endnotes

1. J.M. Pendleton, Church Manual Designed For Baptist Churches, p. 147.

2. Edward T. Hiscox, The Hiscox Standard Baptist Manual (Pennsylvania: Judson Press, 1975), pp. 110-111.

3. Ray Conner, A Guide To Church Recreation (Convention Press, 1977), pp. 8, 11.

4. “Southern Baptist Convention,” The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 18, p. 546.

5. Bob Sessoms, A Guide To Using Sports and Games in the Life of the Church (Convention Press, 1976), p. 10.

6. Gerald 1. Gingrich, “They Look After When Age Comes,” A Way Home; The Baptist Tell Their Story, ed. James Saxon Childers (Atlanta: Tupper and Love, 1964), p. 129.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 4, pp. 107-108
February 17, 1983

By Mike Willis

As we continue to consider the Baptist Church, we also need to study the pattern of organization which is found in the New Testament to contrast it with the present organization of the Baptist Churches in America. By so doing, I shall demonstrate that the Baptist Church cannot be the church of the New Testament because it is unscriptural in organization.

A Pattern Of Organization

Either one of two things is true; either God has revealed a pattern of organization for the church or He has not. In the event that God has revealed a pattern of organization, men are obligated to find the pattern of organization of the church and to abide within the revelation of God for the organization of the church. In the event that God has not revealed a pattern for the organization of the church, there can be no violation. Where there is no law, there can be no violation of law (Rom. 4:15). In this case, any form of church organization is just as scriptural as any other. The papacy in Rome is just as scriptural as elders ruling over a local church, in this case.

It is my contention that God has revealed a pattern of organization for the church. He has ordained that elders be appointed over every congregation (Acts 14:23 – “. . . they had ordained them elders in every church . . . “). The authority of elders is limited. They have no legislative authority (Jas. 4:12). Their authority is limited to making judgment decisions in administering and executing the law which is revealed by God. In these decisions, the authority of elders is limited to the local church (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). Elders have no authority over any congregation other than the local church of which they are members. A plurality of elders was always appointed in the local church (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim. 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:1-3). There is no authority for one elder to rule over a local church. Those who serve as elders are designated as elders (Acts 20:17), overseers (Acts 20:17, 28), bishops (Tit. 1:5, 7), pastors (Eph. 4:11), presbyters (I Tim. 4:14). The qualifications of these men are given in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9.

The local churches were never tied together in any form of association or higher organization. The universal church of the New Testament had no earthly organization. Its Head is Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:21-23) and, therefore, the headquarters of the universal church is heaven. It seems preposterous to think that the Holy Spirit would give such detailed instruction regarding officers in the local church but remain silent regarding the offices and qualifications of officers on a district, state, national or universal level. Inasmuch as the Scriptures are silent regarding the offices and officers of the universal church, we conclude that there is no Bible authority for appointing officers in the universal church. Therefore, we conclude that any attempt to organize congregations together is unscriptural.

The Organization of the Local Baptist Church

The local Baptist Churches are organized with a preacher who is designated as “the Pastor” and with deacons. “The officers are the pastor and deacons, who, with such other persons as the church may elect, constitute a church committee, usually called the standing committee, and have general care of the affairs of the church, but no authority, except as it is specifically delegated to them by the church” (Religious Bodies: 1926, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, p. 83).

The local church is primarily ruled over by the preacher who is known as the “pastor.” There are several things wrong with this organization, including the following: (1) The New Testament always had a plurality of elders serving the church (see Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; etc.). The doctrine of one elder ruling over the church and known as “the pastor,” “the bishop,” “the elder,” etc. is unscriptural. (2) The preacher frequently does not meet the qualifications for elders as given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Many Baptist “pastors” are younger men who have not lived long enough to have raised a family, with Christian children. Many “pastors” in the Baptist Church would insist that they are “young” men, not elderly men.

Hence, the first thing that is wrong with the organization of the Baptist Church is that it is under “pastor” oversight wherein the local preacher rules the local church. Such is a violation of the organization of the New Testament church. Preachers do not rule the church.

Majority Rule In The Local Baptist Church

Baptist Churches have been described as “one of the most democratic religious bodies in America” (Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations, p. 27). “All members have equal voting rights in church matters, except that in some churches they are restricted to those over a certain age” (Religious Bodies: 1926, p. 83). My personal preference for democracy makes me appreciate democratic rule in politics. However, the church is not a democratic form of government. It is a monarchial form of government ruled by King Jesus (1 Tim. 6:15). Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords. Whatever laws have been legislated by Him must be obeyed by His subjects.

In matters of judgment, democratic vote is not the means authorized by God for making decisions. God has ordained that qualified men be appointed as elders and that they are to rule the flock of God (1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:7). In carrying out the affairs necessary to accomplish the legislated will of God, decisions must be made and God has ordained that they be made by elders.

Even in the absence of elders, majority rule is a poor means of governing the church. There are several weaknesses, including the following: (1) the most recent convert with his ignorances and weaknesses has the same say as a mature Christian; (2) voting tends to polarize the church into parties in favor of and against certain opinions, sometimes creating situations in which political men use underhanded methods to obtain majority vote (such as by encouraging men and women who do not usually attend to be present for a business decision). This method of governing the church is not revealed in the New Testament.

Universal Baptist Church Organization

Baptist Churches insist that they are locally autonomous (Mead, op. cit.). However, they are bound together in associations.

Baptist churches are commonly found grouped into associations, local and state, for purposes of fellowship. National conventions are established among many of them to carry on educational and missionary work. Most state conventions meet annually, with delegates representing all Baptist churches in the given area. They receive reports and make recommendations, but they have no authority to enforce their decisions (Ibid., p. 28).

The decision of the local church cannot be overruled by these associations.

On the New Testament theory of church government, the action of the individual local church is final. There is no power, either civil or ecclesiastical, that can reverse its decision or punish it for wrong-doing. It may make mistakes, but no human tribunal has authority to compel it to confess or correct them (Edward T. Hiscox, The Standard Manual For Baptist Churches, pp. 37-38).

Hence, the Baptists insist that the associations have no domination or rule over the local church. (I have reproduced this material in order for our brethren who make similar statements regarding the sponsoring churches and church supported human institutions to consider. Both the Baptists and our brethren repudiate the idea that their associations and church supported institutions have any dominating influence over the churches. Both are equally unauthorized in the Scriptures.)There is no Bible authority which authorizes tying two local congregations together into any kind of association, much less tying ten, one hundred, one thousand, or all of the Baptist Churches together into associations. The creation of these associations is sinful, inasmuch as no Bible authority can be found to authorize them.

These associations which have been created by men stand under the same condemnation as the church supported human institutions among us. Consider the chart below regarding these associations, conventions, and missionary, benevolent and educational associations of the Baptist Churches. The associations of the Baptist Church constitute another unscriptural organization of the Baptist Church.

Conclusion

Inasmuch as God has given us a pattern for the organization of the church, Christians are obligated to follow that pattern in their association together in the local church. The organizational arrangements followed by the Baptist Church violates the pattern of God’s word in many points. Consequently, the Baptist Church cannot be the church of the New Testament. It is an apostate religious group condemned by God.

The Church	Church Associations
1. Originated in the mind of God (Eph. 3:10-11)	1. Originated in the mind of men
2. Is blood-bought (Acts 20:28)	2. Another, separate organization not blood-bought
3. Money raised through contributions of its members	3. Money raised through church contributions
4. Divinely revealed organization: Elders, Deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-14; Tit. 1:5-9)	4. Organization: Board of Directors, President, Vice-President, Secretary, etc.
5. Does its own work (Eph. 4:12)	5. Does the work in place of the church
6. Local church-only functioning unit (Phil. 1:1)	6. Organization larger than local church, smaller than universal church, yet trying to function for local churches
7. Creed & By-Laws: New Testament (Jas. 1:25)	7. Makes own creed and By-Laws
8. Competent to accomplish its mission   (Eph. 1:23; 3:10-11)	8. Designed to give church greater efficiency in accomplishing its mission
9. Oversees its own work (Acts 20:28)	9. Oversees churches’ work
10. Local church – functioning unit (see no. 6)	10. Considered official functioning organ of an universal association of churches
11. Can accomplish its own mission (see no. 8)	11. Proposes to do what local churches alone cannot do
12. No universal structure, organization, mission, etc.	12. Seeks to activate a universal association of churches

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 4, pp. 105-106
February 17, 1983