The Church's Spotless Nature
Olen Holderby

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some thoughts on the above topic. This writer is convinced that this topic has been greatly overlooked; so, let us go directly to our subject.

Our theme comes from Ephesians 5:27; therefore, there can be no doubt that God intends for the church to be glorious. The Random House dictionary defines glorious as, "exalted praise, resplendent beauty..." Vine says it means, "held in honor, of high repute"; and, in this context he used such words as "splendid" and "gorgeously"

The word is used in the New Testament in reference to other things (nature, the eternal state of the redeemed, etc.); but, we are here concerned only with the church. What do we think when we hear the word "glorious"? It may be that we need to re-mold our thinking along these lines.

Our text says, "...a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Take a careful look at the words, "without blemish", "holy", no "spot", and no "wrinkle". Perhaps these terms need no comment; but, they do show good reason to think of the church as "glorious". However, we need to carry this further.

What has God done, how has He designed the church so as to make it "glorious"?

First, the church is glorious because of the equality found therein. This begins with the "every creature” of Mark 16:15, and the "every one that believeth” of Romans 1:16. The gospel terms of pardon apply, absolutely, to every one alike; for, there is no respect of persons with God (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11). The man of the ghetto or a king on the throne must all obey the same terms in order to be a part of His church. Then, in Ephesians 2, Paul argues the equality of Jew and Gentile in the church. In verse 14, he says, "For he is our peace, who hath made both one…” This equality most certainly exalts the church.

Secondly, the church is glorious because of what holds it together - a bond of love for God, for Christ, and for one another. This gives emphasis to the fact that the church is composed of people, of individuals, individuals who first have a right relationship with God. Perhaps John gives us the best reason for our love of God and of Christ, "We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Jesus said that we are to love God with all our heart (Matthew 22:37). He who does this will not find it too difficult to love his brethren. Paul said, "the love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Corinthians 5:14); it compels or controls us, and that it should. In Colossians 3:14, Paul refers to love as a "bond”; and the same author says, "love never faileth” (1 Corinthians 13:8). Faith, itself, is to work by love (Gal. 5:6). A while back I read where someone quoted a first-century writer as saying, in reference to persecuted Christians, "Behold how they loved one another!" This love for brethren, of all ranks in life, is wonderful to behold and to experience. Indeed, how wonderful it is to deal with people who no longer lie, steal, cheat, deceive, are envious. or hurtful; but who's love for the truth abounds in their lives and relationships with brethren. Jesus said, "This is my commandment, that ye love one another, as I have loved you.” This bond of love certainly can be seen to give greater honor to the church.

Thirdly, our eternal hope is to be found in the church. "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Corinthians 15:19). Let it be understood, that the church is not the Saviour; Christ is that Saviour. However, Christ saves all accountable people, only through the church. Paul tells the Ephesian Christians that in their past they had no hope and were without God is this world (Ephesians 2:12); but, he goes on to point out that they are now "made nigh by the blood of Christ" and their hope is secure. This hope, which they had heard through the preaching of the gospel, is laid up in heaven (Colossians 1:5). We are urged to put on for a helmet, "the hope of salvation" (1 Thess.5:8). What wonderful hope! It is an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast (Hebrews 6:19)!

Fourth, the church is glorious because the wisdom of our God can be seen, by the world, in observing the church. "To the intent that now unto principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph. 3:10). This is not just referring to the preaching of the gospel by the church; but, to all functions and relationships in the church. As God's people go about in doing the Will of God, the wisdom of God is clearly seen. It is God's wisdom, the wisdom from heaven, that directs the church; and, in doing so it gives glory to the church.

The glory of the church is not something merely to be seen. I well recall the first time I flew over the state of Alaska. A small plane was taking us from Anchorage to our destination on the peninsula. The scenery from a few hundred feet up was absolutely gorgeous, unbelievably so. I recalled the statement of Isaiah, "...Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3). I did not really appreciate this scene until I was on the ground, walking about, and sharing in these beauties.

So it is with the church! It gives one a feeling of awe just to observe this glorious church; but, the real enjoyment comes from getting down off our "observation posts" and sharing in those things that make it a glorious church. Each participant is assisting in demonstrating God's wisdom to the world. What a glorious arrangement God has given!

Many do not recognize and appreciate this aspect of God's church. And, this may well be the reason why some are unhappy in the church; and, it may be the reason many see no difference between the Lord's church and the denominations. Let us all labor to remove every spot and blemish (sins), from this great and glorious church, beginning with ourselves.

I think I understand what Paul meant by a "glorious church". Do you?

Are We Teaching the Whole Truth About Baptism?
Gary Henry

Baptism is an important subject. Popular misconceptions about the who, what, and why of baptism occupy a great deal of our attention as we discuss the Bible with our friends and neighbors. Very often it is necessary to emphasize the scriptural teaching that baptism is for the remission of sins (Ac. 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pt. 3:21). We frequently find ourselves stressing the importance of the fact that for baptism to be scriptural, it must honor the purpose of that act as taught in the Scriptures.

But what is the purpose of baptism in the Scriptures? What must be understood by the candidate in order for baptism to be what God intended it to be? The baptism that culminates one's initial obedience to the gospel and completes what must be done to be "in Christ" (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:27; Col. 2:12) is an act that looks forward as well as backward. In that it is for the remission of past sins, it certainly does look backward; but in that it is a commitment to live for Christ, it also looks forward. Paul wrote plainly, "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4). In studying with others, do we emphasize this forward-looking commitment of scriptural baptism as much as we emphasize the backward-looking truth that it is for the remission of sins? Are we teaching the whole truth about baptism?

Given the high mortality rate of new Christians among us, one might wonder whether we are doing a very good job of imparting to others a full-orbed understanding of what baptism is all about. In many places, those who have been "baptized" fall away at an alarming rate. The pattern is all-too-familiar: a person who seems very "receptive" is quickly taught, and after only a study session or two, the individual seems eager to be baptized. Lest the person rush into baptism with unscriptural ideas in mind about it, we take the time to emphasize that baptism is for the remission of sins. We may go so far as to insist that, just prior to the act, whoever does the baptizing say the actual words that baptism is "for the remission of sins." But very little is said, and very few questions are asked of the candidate, to make sure he or she understands the commitment that is involved in scriptural baptism. Certainly nothing is said about the disciplinary action that must take place if the person ever repudiates that commitment (2 Thess. 3:6-15). So, after attending only a few of the assemblies of the church, the person is never seen again. After a few months go by, someone suggests that we simply "delete his name from the directory." Easy come, easy go. And all of this among a people who have virtually majored in the study of what baptism is supposed to mean. However much we may understand about Rom. 6:4, the evidence suggests that we are not communicating it very well to others!

Let us be reminded that there is no true "conversion" to Christ if no real commitment is made as one takes the familiar steps that are required by the gospel (Ac. 3:19; Rom. 6:17,18). Not only is commitment a part of scriptural baptism, it is also a part of scriptural faith, repentance, and confession. Each one of these actions (when done from the heart and for scriptural reasons) implies the making of a pledge of faithfulness to Christ, a promise to live for Him forever afterward (Heb. 10:23). In encouraging Timothy to be strong and not allow his commitment to weaken, Paul wrote, "Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses" (1 Tim. 6:12). Why remind Timothy that he had publicly confessed Christ? Surely it was to say, "Timothy, don't ever go back on the pledge of fidelity you've made each time you've confessed Christ before others. Remember your public promise -- and don't ever go back on it!"

When we say that someone has become "unfaithful" to the Lord, do we understand what we are saying? "Unfaithfulness" is virtually the same word as "infidelity." Both words describe the situation of one who has "broken faith" with a previous pledge. They have to do with far more than the changing of one's mind at the theoretical level; more importantly, they have to do with the violation of one's commitment at the practical level. They mean that a person has gone back on a "bona fide" agreement that was made. And nothing less than this takes place when one becomes "unfaithful" following baptism. The promise that is broken is the most serious promise a human being is capable of making, and the violation of one's commitment at baptism is the most serious breach of faith possible in this world (2 Pt. 2:20-22).

These truths, sobering as they are, need to be clearly enunciated when we are teaching the gospel to the lost. Commitments lightly entered into are lightly broken. How much better it is for those ready to rejoice in the remission of their sins to be candidly advised of the commitment they are about to make. To teach the whole truth about baptism, we must help people to count the cost of their discipleship. We dare not leave out "first principles" passages like this one: "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Lk. 9:62).

CHURCH HISTORY: A BIBLICAL VIEW
Part IV - No. 23 Compiled and written by Gary Eubanks

The Middle Ages: Different Religious Approaches

Scholasticism is the name given to the theological philosophy of the Middle Ages. It is so called because it had its origin in the schools which were being more formally organized in this period of history. Consequently, the leaders in this movement have been known as the "Schoolmen." Scholasticism was essentially an attempt to harmonize reason and religion. The Schoolmen felt that logic could be used to resolve theological problems and demonstrate the reasonableness of Scriptural or Church dogma.

Thus, the approach of the Scholastics to the Scriptures was very philosophical or intellectual. More of the writings of the Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle, had been discovered and this led to a renewal of interest in ancient philosophy and an application of its methods to discover and support Scriptural truth. Reason alone was not felt to be sufficient to attain knowledge of God. Revelation had to be added. The Scriptures were deemed to be the final source of authority but they were to be understood in the light of the interpretations of the councils and the "Fathers" - in other words, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Two prominent Scholastics were Anselm (1033-1109), who developed the ontological argument for God's existence, and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who was considered the prince of the Scholastics. Anselm believed that all the truths of the Scriptures could be substantiated by philosophy, but Aquinas only believed that philosophy could only show the inadequacy of objections to truth and that there were no contradictions between philosophy and theology, since both were from God.

By the Thirteenth Century Scholastics had begun to lose their confidence in reason to settle all theological questions. It was during the Scholastic period that the idea of seven sacraments — baptism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and matrimony — was set forth. The sacraments were supposedly the means of conveying grace from Christ to the members of His body. Particularly, several new or important thoughts about the Lord's Supper were beginning to take hold at this time. The term, "transubstantiation," used in reference to the supposed change of the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper into the literal flesh and blood of Christ, came into vogue. The doctrine of transubstantiation itself was given full dogmatic status by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The use of the cup of the Supper was beginning to be avoided by the laity due to fear of its misuse. At this time this practice was given impetus by the view that both elements of the Supper contained the whole body and blood of Christ. Infant communion, which had been universal up to the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries was discontinued in the West. It was also taught that the Lord's Supper was a repetition of the Lord's incarnation and sacrifice.

Contemporary with Scholasticism, but quite different from it, was mysticism. Mysticism was the quest for truth and wisdom that lies within the soul. Its goal was union with the divine or sacred. Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, puts it well when he says: "Mysticism aims at the immediate personal communion of the soul with the Infinite Spirit, through inward devotions and spiritual aspirations, by abstraction rather than by logical analysis, by adoration rather than by argument, with the heart rather than with the head, through the spiritual feelings rather than through intellectual prowess, through the immediate contact of the soul with God rather than through rites and ceremonies. The characteristic word to designate the activity of the mystic is devotion; of the scholastic, speculation. Mysticism looks less for God without and more for God within the breast. It relies upon experience rather than definitions. Mysticism is equally opposed to rationalism and to ritual formalism (Vol. V, p. 637).