Does the Bible Teach A “Holy Catholic Church”?
This commonly held view of the church is incorrect
While I have no statistics before me, I cannot imagine I would get much push back to the claiming that the most held view of the church is that it is “catholic.” The word means “universal.” Whether it is popular for believers to accept it or not, I would like to challenge whether it is Scripturally correct. After all, the Bible is our only source of truth, not the popular opinions of even the very best of men.
A history of the doctrine
It seems evident to me that the earliest churches were all independent. While not all the early churches were doctrinally correct, Paul, John, James, and Jude all offer corrections to the original church to whom they wrote, they were all independent of one another.
It was not until the supposed conversion of Constantine that the church was declared to be catholic. Constantine invited all these independent churches to come under the umbrella of his protection and headship. Those churches that did so were then considered to be a visible catholic/universal church. It had many locations but only one head – not Jesus, Constantine.
Centuries later Martin Luther, John Calvin and others began to question to corruption within the, then, Roman Catholic Church. Luther did not voluntarily leave Catholicism. He was excommunicated by the Pope. This left him with a dilemma. Church teaching – the church he was baptized into, and embraced and served these many years, taught that heaven and hell were locked up in church membership. He knew he was not lost, yet he agreed that the keys to heaven and hell were held by the church. The solution was a slight tweaking of doctrine of the church. Instead of it being a visible Catholic Church, he changed it to an invisible catholic church.
Nearly every denomination of church today is a descendant, first of Roman Catholicism and then of the three mainline Protestant churches, all of which avow a belief in the “holy catholic[1] church.”
An exception to the doctrine
While many, perhaps even most, churches accepted Constantine’s invitation for protection under his Christian government umbrella, both logic and history conclude that not all did. One could complain that the evidence is that those groups that did not were radicals, fanatics and heretics. I merely suggest that those sentiments were passed down by their ‘catholic” detractors and may not be reliable. Whatever else you might think of them, one would have to conclude that they were independent. These Christian groups were diverse, independent and, over the years, called by many different identifiers – usually derogatory. The one that came to be most common of them all was anabaptist, due to their insistence that those coming to them from catholic churches must, upon profession of faith, be baptized under the authority of this church. I contest that they were not re-baptized, as the derogatory title anabaptist suggests. I believe that only a Scriptural baptism, in a church independent of the headship of man, is any baptism at all.
What does the Bible teach about church?
Of the one hundred nineteen references to church in the Bible, all but two or three clearly refer to a local congregation of believers. The church at Antioch, the churches of Galatia, the church in Ephesus, for example. There are two or three verses where the reference to the nature of the church is ambiguous, the first reference to the church, for example, in Matthew 16:18.[2] There are two verses where the term is used in reference to something other than a New Testament Church. I believe we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Those passages that provide no understanding whether the church is local or universal must be interpreted according to what we know from other verses to be true of a church. Therefore, the church Jesus said He would build must be a local assembly of baptized believers, united together for the purpose of fulfilling Christ’s Great Commission to His church.[3]
What about the body and bride of Christ?
Given the lack of Scriptural support for the doctrine of the invisible, universal church, many have taken to using the picture of the church as being the body of Christ and the bride of Christ as their supporting texts. Concerning the bride, while this picture is presented in the New Testament, it is too shallow, having far too few texts to give any robust doctrinal support.
Concerning the body of Christ, I will not challenge the picture at all. The church is the body of Christ, He is the head, and believers are the members. My challenge would be, “which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” I’ve spent forty years studying the Scriptures on this subject and have concluded that every passage referring to the body of Christ may be as fairly presented as having to do with a local congregation of believers as it does to a universal one. Whichever one a person reads into those passages is a matter to the preconceived doctrinal position.
Weren’t you taught to let the Bible speak for itself and leave your own ideas out of it? None of us can do that perfectly I know. I am as capable to being influenced by what I want to see as the next person. I’m just saying that, if you hold to the universal/catholic church view, you ought to at least consider those passages that you interpret as catholic and see if they might be more local church than you have previously allowed.
Is there no relationship between all believers of all ages and places?
I believe there is. We are the sons and daughters of God our Father. We are brothers and sisters in the faith. We are joint heirs with Jesus. But being family, we do not all reside in the same house.[4]
Does it matter?
If you have read this far without blowing a steam valve, let me give you another point to ponder. The first three chapters of the book of Ephesians has Paul teaching us on the nature of the church. He likens it to a building in which God fits members. He claims it is a new man made up of two redeemed old men, the redeemed Jew and the redeemed Gentile. I believe the proper understanding of election, especially as it is used in Ephesians is that God has elected the saved, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, to be united in this new man, the local church.
· It's the mystery of chapter one
· It’s the new man and the building of chapter two and
· It’s the reason or the cause for which he was a prisoner of Jesus Christ in chapter three
Paul did not go to prison and to his death for preaching the resurrection. He was a prisoner of Jesus Christ because he believed there was no difference between Jew and Gentile once they were saved. He believed both should put off their old man and yolk up together in the new man – a local, New Testament Church of the living God.
[1] Invisible, universal
[2] Matthew 16:18 (KJV)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
[3] I have written a simple book covering every use of the word church in the New Testament. The Church That Jesus Built: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1706572778/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_4T6T7CZK97MR8VARAQ7N
[4] 1 Timothy 3:15 (KJV)
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Thank you! It is a great joy to me to know we have shared together the lessons God has given me in His word. I would love to hear from you. Please feel free to leave comments.
Learn about our Bible Baptist Church of Puyallup, WA at
http://puyallupbaptistchurch.com.
My books, and other resources, are available at:
https://marvinmckenzie.org
If you have been blessed by my devotional messages, you are able to leave me a small thank you at my Ko-Fi page. Thank you