Excerpt from I.K. Cross – ‘Baptist Heritage Abandoned’
Honest historians are aware that the idea of a universal invisible church is a child of the Reformation. The Protestant Reformers were determined they would not be bound again by the universal, visible church with the Pope as its head. Yet they had all been a part of that universal system all of their ministry prior to their rebellion in the Reformation itself. It was impossible therefore for them to free themselves completely of a universal concept of the church. The final outcome, accepted by Protestantism until this day was what is commonly referred to as the universal, invisible church, which, by the most commonly accepted definition, is composed of all the redeemed — no matter what their doctrinal differences may be. The late Roy Mason, author of The Church That Jesus Built and a number of other books, in his book, The Universal Invisible Church Theory Exploded, says on page 7, “I have read rather widely in the writings … of the Christian leaders who lived in the early days of Christianity, all the way from Polycarp who knew John the apostle, on down. In their writings they don’t speak of an … invisible church. Doubtlessly they would have been amazed at such a doctrine.” On page 8 he then quotes these words from Dr. R. K. Maiden, “former editor of the Word and Way of Missouri … ‘Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church — the UNIVERSAL, INVISIBLE SPIRITUAL THEORY.'” Bro. Mason then says of the Reformers, “With what would they replace the doctrine of the Universal Visible Church? They solved the problem by coining the doctrine of the
Universal INVISIBLE Church. So the Universal, Invisible, spiritual theory of the church WAS INVENTED!” Thus it is very clear that the concept of a universal, invisible church is a Protestant innovation, and the concept of a New Testament church exclusively local in nature is still supported by honest scholarship today. In the late Dr. S.E. Anderson’s book, Real Churches or a Fog, he quotes many scholars who support this New Testament concept; among them is Dr. Henry M. Morris. On page 110 he quotes from Dr. Morris’s book, The Bible Has the Answer, page 132,”In the present world, therefore, New Testament usage compels us to recognize that the true church is a local group of Christian believers, not an ‘invisible’ or ‘universal’ entity of some kind with no physical substance. …” This has been a Baptist distinctive through the centuries, a fact clearly stated by Norman H. Wells in his book, The Church That Jesus Loved, page 32, “If the universal, invisible church theory is to be received by Baptists, then we lose our identity.”
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Osea. Koli on Life Lessons from Paul and Sil… sjbjburke on Jacob’s Crisis sjbjburke on Life Lessons from the Unnamed… pete sze on Life Lessons from the Unnamed… Emmanuel Mwavali on Life Lessons from Paul and Sil… Archives
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- July 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- December 2013
- February 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
- August 2011
- March 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
Categories
Meta
Things that seem new can be
1) falsely invented
Or
2) the discovery of our ignorance
Gravitational force was not a new invention. Isaac Newton merely discovered it and ‘systematised’ it to make it understandable for common folk
Many good things would not have arrived if man rejected the idea of gravitational force as a ‘new invention’
This article roused me enough to comment
Things newly discovered can be a result of
1) false inventions
OR
2) a discovery of previous ignorance
Gravity was merely discovered by Isaac Newton, he described it; he did not invent it. It was a discovery of something that was always there, but previously unrecognised.
It is more important to be a biblicist than to lose the identity of being a baptist.
Scriptural examination of this doctrine would be crucial, and would present a stronger argument than a historical one. Surely we should not reject something without demonstrating what the doctrine tries to teach and how it may have erred biblically.
Thank you
The Scripture does not support this theory in any form. This is the point. Please refer to other articles I have posted to view Scriptural arguments.
The purpose of the posted article is to share the names of authors for further study. I agree with you that doctrine must be solely derived from Scripture as opposed to theories read into Scripture.