In Defense of Christ's Bride

Introduction: David Miller

David Miller, a long-time evangelist, was one of the trustees for the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in the midst of the Conservative Resurgence when Dr. Albert Mohler came into office as President of SBTS. Each time that I have heard him speak–during some chapel messages at SBTS, during some plenary sessions at the G3 Conference, during some question and answer sessions, and during some interviews–David Miller has displayed godly wisdom and a passion for Christ and His gospel. I have definitely heard David Miller give clear gospel presentations, proclaiming the good news of justification by faith alone in Christ alone in a compelling way, and I am truly thankful for his witness to the Lord. In many ways, David Miller is an awesome man of God. David Miller deserves respect. I do not want the rest of this post to take away from this point.

HOWEVER, I do think that David Miller, within Baptist circles, is an example of someone who has been known to promote what is known as Landmark doctrine, which includes a denial of the universal Church. I believe that it is important for Baptists to understand Landmarkism and to be ready to give a response.

In a sermon preached on September 20, 2007 at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel service (I happened to be in attendance that day, and the audio is available HERE), David Miller ridiculed the idea of the universal church as follows:

Did any of you ever know of a universal, invisible body? Did you ever know of a universal, invisible building? Did you ever know– and may the Lord have mercy upon the poor fellow who marries a universal, invisible bride. I don’t know about you, brethren, but I like something more tangible in a bride. Sophisticated academic credentials just are not required at this point, to conclude that when the Bible talks about the church, it’s not talking about some universal, invisible entity; it’s talking about a local, visible congregation. I like to ask my friends who believe in the universal church: where does your church meet? And who is its pastor? Benny Hinn? And who receives its tithes and offerings? And what are its missionary, educational, and evangelistic enterprises? Oh, no: the church is local and visible.

At the 2014 G3 Conference (which I also happened to attend, and which had "The Church from a Biblical Perspective" as its topic), David Miller delivered similar words against the doctrine of the universal church, arguing that the church is ONLY present in its local expression.

When Miller spoke of “sophisticated academic credentials”– coupled with a statement earlier in his sermon about Baptist thinking concerning the church “now days”– he sought to give the impression that the idea of a universal, invisible church is a modern invention of academics, heretofore unknown in Baptist life. But the doctrine of the universal church has a long history: indeed, one stretching back to the Bible. Baptists should confess the doctrine of the universal church for three reasons: Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine, the Bible teaches this doctrine, and there are serious implications for denying this doctrine.

The Universal Church in Baptist Confessions of Faith

The first reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine. Baptists have historically affirmed the universal Church. This is demonstrated in many Baptist confessions of faith, including the Second London Baptist Confession, the Abstract of Principles, and the Baptist Faith and Message.

1. The Second London Baptist Confession (2LBCF, often called the "1689," for when it was adopted by a Baptist General Assembly of churches in London) was “the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845”, and it is still used by many Reformed Baptist congregations. The 2LBCF begins Chapter 26 (“Of the Church”) with the statement:

The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The Abstract of Principles, used as the doctrinal standard at SBTS (where Miller was a trustee) since 1858 and quoted approvingly by Miller in another venue, declares that the Church is composed of all Christ's true disciples, distinguishing between "the Church" [capital "C"] and "particular societies or churches."

3. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000, the confession of faith for the Southern Baptist Convention, declares that in addition to local congregations of baptized believers: 

The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

The doctrine of the universal church is not just some "now days" invention of an academic elite, it is a teaching that is represented in foundational Baptist confessions of faith.

The Universal Church in the Bible

The second reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that the Bible teaches this doctrine. As important as it is to learn from voices in church history, the Bible was given by inspiration of God, and it is infallible and inerrant, being the sufficient, final arbiter of all disputes concerning matters of life and godliness (2 Tim 3:16-17). Concerning the universal church, all of the Bible texts cited as proofs in the Baptist confessions should be examined, including Hebrews 12:23, Colossians 1:18, and Ephesians 5:23.

1. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of "the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in Heaven."

2. Colossians 1:18 speaks of Christ being "the Head of the Body, the Church."

3. Ephesians 5:23 (coming after the Holy Spirit in the previous chapter- 4:4- had declared that there is "one body") again speaks of Christ as the head of the Church calling the Church "His body, of which He is the Savior."

As noted by the great Baptist theologian J.L. Dagg in Chapter 3 of his Manual on Church Order, none of these verses can carry the meaning of a single, local, visible congregation. Christ is the Savior of His Church alone; He is the Savior of all who are in His Church. Baptists, Presbyterians, or the man on the island who gets saved from a Bible washing up on the beach: anyone who trusts in Christ is a part of His body and His bride.

Miller asserted (on this subject) that the Bible speaks of a “glory church” that “does not yet exist,” but will exist in Heaven. It is this church, he says, that we should understand Ephesians 5:25-27 indicates in speaking of the church as Christ’s bride. Miller states: “Even that glory church is going to be local and is going to be visible.”

To this, I would simply assert that the “glory church” already exists, though it is not yet fully revealed (1 John 3:2). The “glory church” in Heaven is not some different body of Christ, for there is “one body” (Eph 4:4), and all believers are already counted as being seated with Christ in the heavens (Eph 2:6).

Some Implications of Denying the Universal Church

The third reason Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church is that there are serious implications for denying this doctrine. Denying the doctrine of the universal church has implications for the salvation of non-Baptists, for the confidence of Christians scattered due to persecution, and for the faithfulness of Christ to His bride. 

1. Denying the universal church has implications for the salvation of non-Baptists. Miller and others who hold to Landmarkism, denying the universal church, define local churches in a baptistic manner. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that EITHER no-one other than Baptists are saved (I once heard this explicitly proclaimed when visiting a Baptist church in south Georgia that turned out to be a Landmark congregation) OR people who remain in other denominations while believing in Christ ARE saved, but they are NOT a part of the Church. Neither of these positions are tenable.

2. Denying the universal church has implications for the confidence of Christians scattered due to persecution. If universal persecution breaks out and all Christians are scattered, then Christ would have no body or bride upon the earth. NOTE: this is not merely a hypothetical situation. In the apostolic age and during the systematic persecutions of the Church in the Roman Empire, the Church was scattered. But Christ says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. His body and bride remains even if all church doors are closed.

3. Denying the universal church has implications for the faithfulness of Christ to His bride. A denial of the universal Church makes Christ a polygamist. If there is not one single Bride composed of the elect of all ages–if the church only exists as local expressions of various churches–then Christ has brides scattered throughout the globe. Again, this position is untenable.

Baptists are not the only Christians, and Christians outside of Baptist church membership rolls are still members of the Church: Christ's body and bride. Christians scattered by persecution are still part of Christ's body and bride; the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Christ's body and bride. Christ is not a polygamist; rather, He is a faithful husband to a single Bride: His elect from all nations.

Conclusion

Baptists today should joyfully and confidently confess the doctrine of the universal church for (at least) three reasons: Baptist confessions of faith teach this doctrine, the Bible teaches this doctrine, and there are serious implications for denying this doctrine. In his teaching about the church, David Miller has asserted that we do not teach enough about the nature of the church. In this assertion, he is correct. HOWEVER, the appropriate correction for this problem is to turn to 9Marks or some very similar resource. It is NOT appropriate to hyper-correct a lack of ecclesiology by turning to a Landmarkist denial of the universal Church. Landmarkism leads to terrible implications, it is denied by the Baptist confessions of faith, and it is not in line with Scripture.