The Head of the Church: Christ Alone

From Kevin DeYoung, Daily Doctrine (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 338: 

"There is only one king and head of the church: the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other rock (Isa 44:8)."

Re: Church Discipline

From Kevin DeYoung, Daily Doctrine (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 328: 

"Four basic steps. (1) Go to the person alone. (2) Take one or two others with you. (3) Tell it to the church. (4) Treat the person as an outsider. These steps should not be understood or undertaken woodenly. They deal with person (as opposed to public) offenses, and do not envision situations where someone's safety may be in jeopardy. The general rule of thumb us to keep the circle as small as possible and give the guilty party every opportunity to repent and change. As a last resort, the unrepentant sinner is excommunicated. The New Testament language of treating as a pagan (Matt 18:7) or removing from your midst (1 Cor 5:2, 13), or handing over to Satan (1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:20) is the spiritual and ecclesiastical appropriation of the Old Testament's civil penalty of putting someone 'outside the camp' (Deut 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:24; 24:7).

"Three promises. God promises to those who properly exercise church discipline: (1) Heaven will stand by you (Matt 18:18). (2) God will act for you (18:19). (3) Jesus will be in the midst of you (18:20). God gives his church the keys of the kingdom so that the heavenly membership of God's kingdom above might be reflected in the earthly membership of his church below.

"Two big ideas. (1) Discipline is what we do as followers of Christ. Mutually correct, rebuke, repent, discipline, bind, and loose are not optional for the church (Gal 6:1). (2) Discipline is what we do as the family of God. Notice the deliberate familial language in Matthew 18. We are dealing with siblings (18:15), and the discipline ultimately comes from our Father (18:19). Discipline is the merciful act of a Father who loves his children too much to let us go our own way.

"One overarching goal. Discipline is for the purity of the church and for the honor of the Lord Jesus. We must never overlook these ends. And yet the New Testament emphasizes a complementary goal: the restoration of the sinner. We do not want to punish our brother; we want to win him back. We want to see our friends return to the right path (James 5:19-20). Anytime the church delivers someone 'to Satan,' it is in hope and in prayer that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:5)."

Who Should Receive the Lord's Supper?

From Kevin DeYoung, Daily Doctrine (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 325-326:

"Those who come to the Lord's Supper must be sincere, instructed, and accountable believers. Note several points from Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: 

1. Partaking in Communion requires an act of remembrance on the part of the recipient (11:24-25).

2. In eating the bread and drinking the cup, we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (11:26). This implies a personal and self-conscious intention.

3. The elements can be consumed in an unworthy manner (11:27). This suggests an active participation in the Supper, not a merely passive reception.

4. The person who eats and drinks must examine himself (11:28). This is why most older liturgies call for a due season of self-reflection in advance of the sacrament.

5. Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body brings judgment upon himself (11:29).

"We recognize and honor the nature of the Lord's Supper when we welcome to the table only those who feast on Christ in repentance and faith."

The Lord's Supper As a Commemoration and Communion

From Kevin DeYoung, Daily Doctrine (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 323: 

"Clearly, the Lord's Supper is a memorial. We remember Christ's Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23). We remember his sacrifice and proclaim his death (1 Cor 11:26). But the Lord's Supper is not just a commemoration; it is also a communion... When we drink the cup and eat the bread, we participate in, and have fellowship with, the body and blood of Christ. We are joined to him and experience a deep, spiritual koinonia with him. When we feast in faith, Christ is our nourishment and strength."

Proper Administrators of the Ordinances

Should a believer who has not yet been baptized partake of the Lord's Supper? Should a church accept 
unbaptized believers into membership? Should a candidate for baptism be baptized by a friend or family member, rather than a church officer? When thinking through baptism, the Lord's Supper, and church membership, these and a myriad of other practical questions come to the minds of church leaders and church members. At a recent "9 Marks at 9" event in Orlando, FL (at 9PM on June 8, 2026), Jonathan Leeman, Greg Gilbert, Aaron Menikoff, and Ben Lacey presented "12 Propositions: Getting the Ordinances and Membership Right." Overall, these were helpful, well-thought-out, and to-the-point statements. For the most part, I believe that every part of each proposition is demonstrably biblical. However, I would like to slightly amend Proposition 11. This proposition states: "Baptism and the Supper should ordinarily be administered by an elder, not a parent or best friend." My suggestion is that the phrase "an elder" should be replaced by "a church officer." This phrasing would allow the ordinary administration of the ordinances to be led by both elders and deacons. Deacons (as well as elders) should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances for at least three reasons: administration of the ordinances by deacons is biblical, administration of the ordinances by deacons is principial, and administration of the ordinances by deacons is practical.

The first reason that deacons as well as elders should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances is that administration of the ordinances by deacons is biblical. Acts 8:26-40 records the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip. From Acts 6:1-6, we see that Philip is not an elder; rather, he is one of the seven original deacons. If the Holy Spirit could lead Philip to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch, and if the Holy Spirit saw fit to record this baptism by a deacon in Scripture, then it seems likely that deacons as well as elders should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances.

The second reason that deacons as well as elders should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances is that administration of the ordinances by deacons is principial. This is to say that the administration of the ordinances by deacons follows the principles about the ordinances that can be discerned from the New Testament. In explaining Proposition 11, the presenters from "9 Marks at 9" highlighted the fact that the ordinances are given to the church as a body, and not just to individual Christians. Greg Gilbert noted:

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not personal acts... They are church acts. They are the primary means by which the church formally identifies itself and its members... [The person administering an ordinance ] is acting as a representative of the whole church. That’s why elders are usually the appropriate administrators.

These corporate principles are equally upheld if deacons as well as elders are understood as proper administrators of the ordinances.

The third reason that deacons as well as elders should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances is that administration of the ordinances by deacons is practical. Few churches have enough elders to handle all the steps involved in preparing and distributing the Lord's Supper. Deacons should feel appropriately empowered to step up and help with this ordinance. As preparing and distributing the Lord's Supper are practical matters, it may be even more fitting that deacons take charge of administering this ordinance rather than elders. There may likewise be instances (especially in small congregations) where elders are involved in leading worship and in preaching in such a way that would prevent them from being in the baptismal pool, and it may be practical for deacons to administer baptism in such situations as well.

Some may object to the idea that deacons as well as elders should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances. A possible point of objection may spring from the observation that elders are responsible for the teaching ministry of the congregation, and the ordinances are a form of teaching. This objection may lead to the conclusion that elders should regularly have close oversight regarding the administration of the ordinances. However, this objection does not negate the points made above, and under normal elder oversight, deacons may still be seen as proper administrators of the ordinances.

Deacons (as well as elders) should be understood as proper administrators of the ordinances because administration of the ordinances by deacons is biblical, administration of the ordinances by deacons is principial, and administration of the ordinances by deacons is practical. This matters to the smooth, orderly worship and practice of the church, under the lordship of Christ.

General and Special Revelation

God is transcendent: infinitely above and beyond all creation. The only way people have accurate knowledge of God is for God to condescend to reveal Himself to us. God reveals Himself in a general way and in a special way. 

General Revelation

General revelation is God's revelation of Himself to all people at all times. General revelation comes:

1. Through nature, revealing God as the powerful and wise Creator;

2. Through conscience, revealing God as the Moral Lawgiver.

The doctrine of general revelation is reflected in Romans 1.

Special Revelation

As Dr. George Martin explains, special revelation is "God's particular communication of Himself to particular persons at particular times." Special revelation is necessary for obtaining spiritual life. There are two major categories of special revelation: external special revelation and internal special revelation.

External special revelation refers to the Bible: God's written Word of self-disclosure, external to the individual.

Internal special revelation refers to the way that God specially reveals Himself within the individual soul. Internal special revelation comes through the vehicle of external special revelation (Rom 10:17). Internal special revelation can be considered in two stages:

1. Preparatory internal special revelation: the work of the Spirit in applying Scripture's commands and Scripture's revelation of God's holiness to our hearts in such a way as to bring conviction to the conscience and to humble us before God.

2. Effectual internal special revelation: the work of the Spirit in granting spiritual life to the sinner so that sin is seen as detestable and Christ is seen as lovely.

Effectual internal special revelation is the concept to which John Bunyan refers in the Ninth Stage of The Pilgrim's Progress, when he has Hopeful and Christian tell Ignorance (who gives evidence of knowing many biblical facts, but who lacks saving faith): "Christ is so hid in God from the natural apprehensions of the flesh, that he cannot by any man be savingly known, unless God the Father reveals him to him... no man can know Jesus Christ but by the revelation of the Father."

Daily Doctrine by Kevin DeYoung: An Appreciation and Critique

DeYoung, Kevin. Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024. 

Kevin DeYoung presently serves as the senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and as an associate professor of systematic theology in Charlotte, North Carolina. In 2008, DeYoung's book Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, written with Ted Kluck, brought him to national attention within Reformed and evangelical circles. Since then, DeYoung has written books for children, adults, and academics, including Just Do Something, Impossible Christianity, and The Biggest Story Bible Storybook. DeYoung has been a blogger for The Gospel Coalition website, and he was one of the featured speakers at the biennial Together for the Gospel Conference from 2012-2022.

The unique contribution of Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology is its format: this systematic theology is broken into 260 daily readings, each between a page to a page-and-a-half in length. (DeYoung intentionally made the number of readings less than the days of a calendar year, so that readers could skip weekends or otherwise catch up on missed entries to still complete the book in a year.)

Summary

On pages 8-9, DeYoung writes:

Traditionally...systematic theology has been comprised of seven main topics: prolegomena (literally "first words," where ground rules and the doctrine of Scripture are usually covered); theology proper (covering the doctrine of God, the Trinity, the decrees, creation, and providence); anthropology (the doctrine of man's creation and fall); Christology (the person and work of Christ); soteriology (how we are saved and how saved people live by the Spirit); ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church); and eschatology (the doctrine of last things, both personally and cosmically).

DeYoung follows this traditional structure, except that he adds a section on Covenant Theology after his section on Anthropology, and he divides Christology into two sections: one for the person of Christ, and one for the work of Christ. So the parts of Daily Doctrine are:

• Prolegomena: Preliminary Considerations and Doctrine of Scripture

• Theology Proper: The Being of God and the Works of God

• Anthropology: Man as Created and Fallen

• Covenant Theology: How God Relates to His Creatures

• Christology 1: The Person of Christ

• Christology 2: The Work of Christ

• Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation

• Ecclesiology: The Nature, Mission, and Ordering of the Church

• Eschatology: Last Things

Critical Evaluation

DeYoung does an excellent job presenting a systematic study of theology in a clear and concise manner. Though intended to serve "pastors, students, leaders, and laypeople" alike, in this book, DeYoung does not shy away from using technical language, including distinctions like anhypostasia versus enhypostasia (terms I did not learn until I was in seminary) and archetypal theology versus ectypal theology (terms I did not learn until well after I left seminary). Because it is both brief and technical, this book may be of better service to those who have had at least a survey of systematic theology, rather than complete beginners to the subject.

Though intended to serve the church as a whole (and–in many ways–accomplishing this goal admirably), DeYoung's teaching in Daily Doctrine is from a specifically Presbyterian perspective. This is especially evident in certain entries within his sections on Covenant Theology and Ecclesiology. Unsurprisingly, a Reformed Baptist reader will have objections with some statements in these sections.

In his section on Covenant Theology, DeYoung devotes two daily readings to views that differ from his own: Dispensationalism and Baptist Covenant Theology. From a Reformed Baptist perspective, the entry explaining and critiquing Dispensationalism is commendable. A Reformed Baptist may also express thanks to DeYoung for the entry on Baptist Covenant Theology, at least for his acknowledgment of the existence of Baptist Covenant Theology–often overlooked by paedobaptist covenant theologians–and his fairness in using terms that Baptist covenant theologians would accept when explaining our position. DeYoung spends half of his entry on historic Baptist Covenant Theology–the theology following the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith–and the other half of that entry on "progressive covenantalism," and uninformed readers might not be able to understand the nuances between these views from DeYoung's brief entry, but this is understandable considering the significant overlap in the two Baptist views, especially in considering the newness of the new covenant.

In offering a critique to Baptist Covenant Theology's view of the new covenant, DeYoung writes:

[W]e might ask whether the establishment of the new covenant moves us, in God's redemptive economy, from a mouse to a cat or from a puppy to a dog. The nature of the covenant community, the recipients of baptism, and the way in which the church becomes visible...are all related to the question of whether the new covenant is fundamentally different or the same essential thing brought to fullness and completion. [Paedobaptist] Covenant theology answers this question by seeing the new covenant as a grown-up dog, not a different animal entirely.

Notice that if in DeYoung's analogy dog = covenant, then there is no new dog in his analogy. If a parent told a child with a puppy, "We're going to get you a new dog in three years," then–after three years–the parents pointed to the grown-up dog and said, "There's the new dog we promised." The child would rightly feel deceived. DeYoung is basically saying that the new covenant is not a new covenant.

But notice how Scripture describes the new covenant. In Jeremiah 31, the LORD says that the new covenant is "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer 31:32a). Explaining Jeremiah's prophecy, the author of Hebrews does not only call the new covenant "new," but also "second" and "better," since the new covenant is "enacted on better promises" (Heb 8:6). The Spirit-inspired author of Hebrews does not say that the old covenant simply matures, but that it is faulty, obsolete, and vanishing away (Heb 8:7-13). The text could hardly be clearer about the essentially different nature of the new covenant.

Conclusion

In many ways, Daily Doctrine is a helpful resource for those who would like daily help to grow in loving the Lord with all of our minds. It would be a great resource to give to graduates of a Christian high school or Bible college: those who have received some theological education and would benefit from having that doctrinal consideration sharpened. However, a Reformed Baptist giving this book as a gift would want to make sure that the recipient is quite clear on the nature of the new covenant, so that DeYoung's paedobaptist Covenant Theology would not have a negative effect on church membership and future family decisions.

Open Communion: A Move Toward the Subjective

[This post was originally published on this blog 9/26/16.]

Along with considering the proper subjects of baptism, re-establishing (we believe) the apostolic practice of baptism being a church ordinance reserved for believers [those demonstrating credible evidence of repentance and faith], Baptists through the ages have also had to consider the proper subjects of the second ordinance. That is: in our worship services, whom should we invite to partake of the Lord's Supper with us? As I mentioned in a previous post: some Baptist congregations practice open communion, inviting anyone who is a believer to the table. (I've heard that some liberal churches invite all people to the table regardless of faith, but according to Dr. Greg Wills, all Baptist congregations have historically seen faith as a prerequisite to the table.) Some congregations practice close communion, inviting any baptized believer to the table. A few congregations (including the famous Metropolitan Tabernacle in London) practice closed [or strict] communion, only inviting their own members to the table. 

I was raised in the close communion tradition, and I believe that this tradition is best reflective of biblical teaching. I have been surprised to find some Baptist brothers recently arguing for the open communion position. I believe that the practice of open communion is attended by a number of problems: biblically, historically, and practically. In this post, I would like to consider one problem with open communion: namely, the move toward subjectivism.

Our culture is characterized by a focus on the subjective. By subjective, I mean the personal (individual), opinion and experience-based aspect of perceived reality; rather than the objective: the universal (communal), facts-based aspect of reality, focused on what takes place regardless of the individual's perception. The practice of open communion elevates the subjective in two ways: 1. regarding the definition and nature of baptism; 2. regarding the presence of faith.

First: based on New Testament evidence, Baptists agree that "baptism" is properly defined as "the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" [BF&M 2000]. We also agree, based on the Great Commission, Peter's Pentecost sermon, and other New Testament texts, that baptism is to be an initiating ordinance into the church. By inviting the unbaptized to the Lord's Table, even if (according to their own understanding) the individuals involved have been "baptized" as infants, those who advocate open communion are making the definition and nature of baptism a matter of opinion rather than of fact.

Second: as mentioned in the first paragraph above, Baptists who affirm open communion typically invite believers alone to the Lord's Table. But here is an important question: how does a person know if he or she is a believer? In a healthy church situation, a person who comes to faith in Christ will be interviewed by the pastors/elders of the church. Upon finding that the person gives reasonable evidence of conversion, that person will then be baptized before the congregation. Baptism, then, is both a public witness for the one being baptized and to the one being baptized. In baptism, part of what is happening is that the congregation (through the church officer administering the baptism) is confirming that the one receiving baptism has given evidence of true conversion. Apart from baptism, properly administered, the question of whether a person is a believer is entirely subjective. In an open communion scenario, each individual in the congregation, without the confirming testimony of any local church, is invited to determine whether he or she has come to faith. Due the deceitfulness of our hearts, I believe that we need the formal counsel of our brothers and sisters in this matter. Whereas no congregational act is absolutely fool-proof, the close communion tradition, properly articulated, places an additional check upon individual self-deception.

The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace

The following are some notes from Richard Barcellos, “The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace,” ARBCA General Assembly, 2011.

“The Lord’s Supper is a means of grace at which Christ is present by His divine nature and during which the Holy Spirit nourishes the souls of believers with the benefits wrought for us in Christ’s humanity, which is now glorified and in heaven at the right hand of the Father.”

I. The Biblical Data

A. 1 Cor 10:14-22

1. Emphasis on the “vertical” communion in the Lord’s Supper, as expressed in the contrast against fellowship with demons.

2. This passage speaks of a present communion with the body and blood of the living Christ.

B. Ephesians 1:3

1. The Spirit is the one Mediator between Christ and men. 

2. We have already begun to experience God’s blessings in the heavenly realm through the Spirit bringing treasures from the age to come to our souls. 

II. The Confessional Formulation

A. Bases for the Confessional Witness

1. The words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel accounts .

2. The words of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 10-11.

3. The grace of faith, and how it grows and develops through the use of means.

4. Union with Christ;

5. The mediatorial work of the Spirit in bringing the benefits of Christ to believers.

B. The Confessional Witness (2LBCF 30:7)

1. “The Supper confirms the faith of believers in the benefits of Christ’s death.”

2. “The Supper is a means through which spiritual nourishment and growth in Christ occurs.”

3. “The Supper is a bond and pledge of communion with Christ.”

III. Final Thoughts

A. The Supper is not ONLY a memorial meal.

        B. In taking the Supper, our focus should be less introspective and more Christ-focused.

        C. The Lord’s Supper is directly connected with Lord’s Day worship in the Bible and sub-apostolic            tradition.

        D. We must highlight the past, present, and future work of Christ in taking the Supper.

Some Reasons to Deny the Physical Presence of Jesus' Body in the Elements of the Lord's Supper

And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:19-20 NASB)

In general, the faithful Christian should be cautious about taking any kind of "just me and my Bible"
approach to forming convictions concerning the Faith. The Lord Jesus established a community of believers and He appointed teachers within that community. We should have humility to learn from the past generations of the faithful.

On the other hand, Christians who self-consciously hold to the principles of the Protestant Reformation must declare that the Bible is necessary, authoritative, sufficient and clear: Scripture alone is the final authority regarding matters of faith and practice. Other authorities are composed of men who are fallible and subject to error, while God's Word is perfect (cf. Psa 19:7): infallible and inerrant.

And so, though major streams of religious tradition that self-identify as "Christian"–and, indeed, perhaps the majority of actual followers of Christ throughout the ages–have believed that the physical body and blood of the glorified Christ are somehow present in the elements of the Lord's Supper, the first and foremost examination regarding this issue should not take place on the basis of human history books or opinion polls, but on the basis of the biblical data.

In regard to the words from Jesus, quoted above, one must note:

1. Jesus does not use the verb "become," but the simple verb "to be" [in this case, "is"].
2. In other passages, Jesus uses the verb "to be"in ways that are clearly metaphorical–ways in which "become" clearly cannot be supplemented to it–no one, for example, argues that Jesus became a literal door when He declared "I am the door" (John 10:9).
3. Likewise, in Luke 22:20 (repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:25), the words “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” cannot be taken literally, “for clearly the cup itself is not actually the new covenant;” “Paul means, rather, that the cup represents the new covenant inaugurated by Christ’s blood. Similarly, when Jesus says that the bread 'is My body,' it likely means that it represents what Christ has done on behalf of the church through his sacrifice." (Schreiner, New Testament Theology)
4. In reviewing Jesus' institution of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, the Apostle Paul quotes Jesus as twice saying: "Do this in remembrance of Me." This seems to point to the character of the Lord's Supper, not as a partaking in ingesting the physical body and blood of Jesus, but as a memorial feast, antitypical of the Passover (see below).
5. The Lord's Supper clearly has its background in the Passover: in the Passover there is no thought of the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of the sacrificial lamb.
6. In the cultures to whom the Gospels and Epistles were addressed (note Paul's comparison between the Lord's Supper and idol feasts, 1 Cor 10:21), there was no thought of the elements in religious feasts becoming the physical body and blood of a deity/religious figure.
7. If the Lord's Supper was meant to involve the physical presence of the body of Jesus in the elements, therefore, this aspect of the Lord's Supper would be a point of explicit contrast to both the Passover and to idol feasts; in order to make this point of contrast clear to the earliest church, more explicit instruction would be required from the apostolic writings.

Traditions that teach the physical presence of Jesus' body in the elements invariably neglect the implications of the fact that the glorified Christ is currently seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, having completed His gospel work once and for all (cf. Psa 110:1; Heb 1:3; 7:27; 10:10-14), and they make the Lord's Supper not just a crucial corporate proclamation of the gospel, but a part of a gospel-obscuring (at very best) sacerdotal system.

[See:

Peter Gentry, “The Lord’s Supper BF&M Article 7b,” An Exposition from the Faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (Louisville: The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001), 25-28.

Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 730-734.]

Samuel Renihan on Sacraments

Each Lord's Day at Kosmosdale Baptist Church, we are blessed to take the Lord's Supper at the end of the worship service. Thinking of baptism and the Lord's Supper together, many Christians would use the term "sacraments". Most times when I hear the word "sacraments", I cringe. None of the Baptist confessions use this term (though, admittedly, many of the framers and signers of these confessions did use it in their writings), and most Baptist catechisms, including the one we used in my household, do not use this term. I tend to prefer the term "ordinances" to speak of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

However, if everyone who used the term "sacraments" were as careful in their thinking as Samuel Renihan is, then I would be nothing but glad whenever I heard the term. Near the end of his book, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, which I cannot recommend highly enough, Renihan offers a brief discussion of the sacraments. His entire discussion, found on pages 203-206, is helpful; I want to offer some brief excerpts below.

Defining the sacraments, Renihan writes: "a sacrament is a visible word... Sacraments are words in a visible mode." Renihan then describes how these 'visible words' functioned through various biblical covenants:

In the Covenant of Works, the trees made the promises of life and death visible. In the Noahic Covenant, the Rainbow makes the promise of preservation visible. In the Abrahamic Covenant, circumcision makes the promise of Canaan and the threat of punishment visible. In the Mosaic Covenant, the Passover and sacrifices made the promises of God [to Israel] visible. In the New Covenant, baptism and the Lord's Supper make the promises of the covenant visible.

Renihan notes: "Sacraments are not just God's Word to His people, but also His people's participation in the very promise made visible."

He then writes more specifically of the New Covenant sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper:

In the Lord's Supper, for example, God reminds us of His promise to forgive our sins through the sacrifice of Christ. And we remember and proclaim that death until He comes.

Baptism is a visible word, a representation, of new creation life through death.... the symbol of regeneration and union with Christ, baptism, is the visible initiation into the kingdom of Christ, the first blessing of integration into the local gathered kingdom of the saints. It is God's visible promise to His people, and the people's declaration of participation and trust in that promise.

The one point that I would add to what Renihan writes (a point to which I believe he would agree), is that the word "visible" is being used a synecdoche. The sacrament of baptism is visible to the entire congregation. However, for the participants in baptism and the Lord's Supper, more than their sight is engaged; the sacraments are a whole-body experience: the person being baptized being literally immersed in the water and the person taking the Lord's Supper literally taking the sacrament into himself. Both of the sacraments, then, display the entire-life transformation–body and soul–that the gospel brings about.

Associations Between Churches: Why They Should Exist and What They Should Do

Baptists and other Christians who hold to a congregational model of church government believe that the New Testament does not allow for any ecclesiastical authority outside the local church. Each congregation is under the direct headship of Christ. However, if churches and members are bound "to pray continually for the good and prosperity of all the churches of Christ in all places" (2LBCF 26.14), then each congregation should also act in ways (within biblical limitations) to assist in the good and prosperity of other congregations.

From the New Testament, we see the following kinds of legitimate cooperative church help that formal associations facilitate:

• Giving advice in difficult questions of doctrine or practice, going beyond the training or experience of an individual congregation (Acts 15)

• Helping with financial needs, for which an individual congregation is unable to provide (2 Corinthians 8)

• Sending missionaries (Romans 15)

• Helping to supply/appoint leadership for congregations in need (Acts 11)

• Holding fellow congregations accountable (Revelation 2-3)

A Brief Statement on Baptists and Inter-Church Relations

Baptists believe that the New Testament model for inter-church relations does not allow for any ecclesiastical authority outside the local church. Each congregation is under the direct headship of Christ. According to Chapter 26 in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, when members from various churches meet together to consider matters that may be of mutual concern to many congregations, delegates from the individual churches are simply named “messengers”, and “these messengers assembled are not entrusted with any church-power (properly so called), or with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves.”

On Suffrage Within the Church in Electing Elders

3 points about the above video:

1. Yes, it may have been made with sexist intention, and sexism is wrong.
2. It is, however, genuinely ironic and funny.
3. The real point is that most people have not been educated or prompted to consider their right to vote, and that definitions matter. (This is why I used to show this video when teaching Political Science; I think that someone could have just as easily gotten a bunch of guys to thoughtlessly sign a petition against men's suffrage.)

With that goofy introduction out of the way: this post is not about women's suffrage, or suffrage in general. This post is about suffrage within the church, specifically in regard to the election of elders. I believe that, just as people in society at large have not adequately thought through issues related to voting, we within the church have not adequately thought through the role that voting plays in our congregations.

Concerning suffrage within the church, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 declares:

"Each congregation operates under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes."

In line with this statement, I was brought up under a tradition of regular church business meetings, wherein the congregation would vote on various issues facing the church. Though, at times, the business meetings were viewed as alternately either boring or contentious, no one questioned whether they should be occurring.

In college, I lived in a different town, and I became involved in an independent church, the pastor of which was very strong on the elder-rule model of church government. He basically believed that the congregation did not need to vote on anything. Whereas I remained convinced that the New Testament gives warrant for the congregation electing deacons, I followed my then-pastor's conviction that elders should be appointed by other elders, and that the elders should make virtually all of the decisions for the congregation as a whole; I did not see that the need for any church vote regarding the installation of elders. I believed that my conclusions on this matter were warranted from Titus 1:5, in which Paul instructed Titus (who was a pastor), "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city, as I directed you." This passage seemed to indicate the Titus himself, and not the various congregations, was in charge of installing elders for the congregations.

When I became a student at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, my thinking on elders unilaterally appointing other elders was challenged. Surprisingly, the decisive challenge (moving me back into a more historically Baptist direction) did not come from a Baptist, but from a Presbyterian. For a Missions class, I was required to read Robert Reymond's Paul, Missionary Theologian. In discussing aspects of church government seen in Paul's missionary activity, with specific reference to Acts 14:23, Reymond notes:

The verb xειροτονέw literally means ‘choose, elect by raising hands’. The action described here probably means that Paul as an apostle simply appointed elders when he first planted a church, just as missionaries often do today when they first plant a church. This ‘appointing’ did not preclude, however, his seeking the church’s will in the matter by asking the congregation for a show of hands. (502n10)

The idea seems to be that elders will initiate the choosing of other elders, but that the congregation will play an important role in confirming the calling of those elders. Practically speaking, this makes sense in at least two ways:

1. Men who may be considered for the role of elder might tend to put on more of a pious manner when around the already-appointed elders than when around others.  Members of the congregation who are not elders may have insight into ways that a man's character does not line up with the qualifications of an elder.

2. In general, if the congregation does not respect a certain man (perhaps not through specific moral fault in the man, but rather through his not having labored among them for an adequate time), then–if that man is installed as an elder with no formal congregational input–it might be hard for the congregation to accept the new elder's pastoral authority.

John Calvin had made a similar point as Reymond, in an even more expansive way, when he considered the question, 'Should a minister be chosen by the whole church, or only by colleagues and elders, or by the authority of a single pastor?' Calvin answered:

Those who attribute this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city” (Tit. 1:5); and also to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man” (l Tim. 5:22). But they are mistaken if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever pleased them, while all others were excluded. Lest this should seem to be a fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words are, Χειροτονήσαντες πρεσβυτέρους κατ᾽ εκκλησίαν (Acts 14:23). They therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body, as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates, for no other reason but because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election. Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgment and testimony, (Cyprian, Lib. 1 Ep. 3). Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles, nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people (Acts 6:2). “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination of a priest behoved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.” We see, then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. (Institutes 4.3.15)

After the above statement on suffrage within the church in electing elders, Calvin then gives the following important word:

Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult. (Ibid.)

With all of this in mind, I  believe that when it comes to electing elders, the already-appointed elders should take a lead role in both bringing new candidates for eldership before the congregation and in presiding over the election of new elders. HOWEVER, candidates for eldership must be confirmed by the whole congregation. The biblical warrant for the congregation both electing officers and exercising church discipline (Matt 18:17) means that there is definitely a congregational aspect to church government.

I will say that I am still a bit uncomfortable with the Baptist Faith and Message declaration about "democratic processes," simply because the term "democratic" has such philosophical and historic baggage. HOWEVER, I fully concur with the statement in the Reformed Baptist Confession (1689):

The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands. 
( Acts 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14; Acts 6:3, 5, 6 )
 (26.9, emphases added)

How is Christ the Head of the Church?

The Church is composed of all Christ’s true disciples. The Church is one holy catholic [meaning: global]
body, founded upon the apostolic teaching as found in Scripture. According to Christ’s commandment, Christians are to associate themselves into particular congregations or churches. I believe that the Lord Jesus is the only Head of the Church, and in Him is invested supremely all power for its government.

If Jesus is the only Head of the Church, and if Jesus is currently seated at God the Father's right hand until His enemies are made a footstool, and we cannot see Him face-to-face until His second coming, then how does Christ exercise His headship–His authority–over the Church?

As Head of the Church, Jesus–whom we do not currently see face-to-face–exercises His authority over His people through the apostles He appointed. Though we can't see the apostles face-to-face either, we have access to the apostles’ teaching through the Holy Spirit-inspired New Testament writings. NOTE: 

• New Testament writings must have a place of prominence in considering the headship of Christ over the Church.
• This is NOT to denigrate the Old Testament. Through the words of Christ our Lord and His apostles, we know that the Old Testament scriptures are equally inspired with the New Testament. ALL Scripture is the very Word of God transmitted by Him in a verbal, plenary manner (Matt 5:18) and is as truthful and authoritative as God Himself (John 17:17). Its authority is derived from its Author and not from the opinions of men (2 Pet 1:20-21). All Scripture was given by inspiration of God, is infallible and inerrant, and is the sufficient, final arbiter of all disputes concerning matters of life and godliness (2 Tim 3:16-17).
• The New Testament scriptures, however, are especially instructive to the Church, as they illuminate how we are to live in the current New Covenant era, which was inaugurated through the historical, earthly ministry of Christ. (“Testament” means “covenant,” so the New Testament scriptures are those applied to the New Covenant community.)

Through the New Testament scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and written down by the apostles (or by their close associates), Christ exercises authority over His Church by establishing points of doctrine, the pattern of church government, principles of gathered worship, and procedures for church discipline to be followed in the local congregations. 

Points of Doctrine

The first way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing points of doctrine; that is, Christ gives us specific teachings, which we must confess and believe. Christ is the Word of God from the beginning (being God Himself and with God, John 1:1), and so we look to the entire canon of Scripture for our doctrine. However, Christ is specifically exalted as Head over the Church in the new covenant era, and we see certain teachings—about the trinity, for example, or the nature of the afterlife—come into much clearer focus following the historical work of Christ. Right doctrine allows us to know Christ better, to glorify Him for who He is, and to tell others about Him with confidence. Right doctrine leads to greater harmony among believers, as the unity of the church congregation must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

Pattern of Church Government

The second way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing the pattern of church government. The regular officers of a Church are of two kinds: [1.] Bishops, Pastors, or Elders (as appointed by other Bishops, Pastors, or Elders and agreed upon by the congregation) and [2.] Deacons (as elected by the congregation). SEE: Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5. 

In The Loveliest Place, Dustin Benge notes:

[Christ heads His Church] through the instrumentality of godly leaders (1 Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17). Pastors, elders, and deacons are representatives of Christ's authority over the church. Paul summarizes the purpose of these shepherds this way: "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:11-12)... authority the leaders of the church possess is a delegated authority from Christ. It is always Christ, and Christ alone, who governs the church. The sole responsibility of those given charge in leading, teaching, preaching, and serving her is to declare and apply the instructions of Christ as revealed in his written word.

By establishing the pattern of church government, and tying the authority of church government directly to the Bible–hemming in officers, so that they do not go beyond God's Word–Christ exercises His own authority over His Church.

Principles of Gathered Worship

The third way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing principles of gathered worship. 

As the elders of Grace Heritage Church have noted:

Worship is the corporate expression of the delight, awe, and thankfulness that come from knowing our infinitely glorious and sovereign God and Savior. Because the distance between God and His creatures is so great, the only acceptable way of approaching God in worship must be revealed to us by God Himself. Therefore, He may not be worshiped in ways invented by us. This principle protects us from idolatrous worship and focuses our energies on those activities through which God has called us to draw near.

Congregational worship of God is composed of: the reading of the Scriptures; preaching, and hearing the Word of God; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord; prayer; the giving of tithes and offerings; greetings and announcements; as also the administration of baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These are to be performed in obedience to him, with understanding, faithfulness, and affection. Moreover, solemn humiliation with fastings, vows, and thanksgivings upon special occasions ought to be used in an holy and religious manner.

Procedures for Church Discipline

The fourth way in which Christ exercises authority over His Church is by establishing procedures for church discipline. Church discipline is to be conducted according to the commands of Christ recorded in Matthew 18:15-17 and the commands of the Apostle written in passages such as 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, 1 Timothy 5:19-20, and Titus 3:10-11. Church discipline shows the Church's submission to Christ and demonstrates the seriousness with which the Church views Christ's call to follow Him in holiness.

Conclusion

Practically speaking, how is Christ the Head of the Church on a week-to-week basis? Christ exercises His headship over local congregations in four ways: by establishing points of doctrine, the pattern of church government, principles of gathered worship, and procedures for church discipline to be followed in the local congregations. By recognizing Christ's headship, and by seeking to discern specifics of His headship through looking intently into His Word, the Church is empowered in:

1. living harmoniously (members seeking Christ's will rather than their own preferences)

2. enjoying and glorifying Christ for who He is and what He has done for us

"That Man of Sin"

In the Summer 2005 edition of Founders Journal, Dr. Sam Waldron published an article arguing that churches should use the 1689 Baptist Confession as their statement of faith. Dr. Waldron argued that the 1689 Baptist Confession is the “best available local church confession.” In making his arguments, Waldron was clear in stating that Scripture alone is infallible, and that—as with all lengthy confessions—some revisions should be considered. One area of the 1689 Baptist Confession that needs “a slight revision,” Waldron argued, is Chapter 26, Paragraph 4: that the Pope of Rome is that Antichrist: the “man of sin” who will be destroyed at Christ’s return. Waldron wrote:

[T]his statement ought not to have been made or be part of our confession today. This is one of those places where a slight revision of the 1689 Confession is necessary. In my experience (having become a Reformed Baptist pastor in 1977 and having shepherded two Reformed Baptist churches during that time), Reformed Baptist churches today, when they express their allegiance to the Confession in their constitutions, commonly make an exception of this statement.

Whereas it seems wise for a confession of faith to forego being overly specific in its eschatological (that is, "end-times") views–and therefore to forego identifying the Pope or papacy with a single end-times Antichrist–it is important to note that there are definite reasons that the Particular Baptists who originally adopted the 1689 Confession came to the conclusion that they did. Whether or not the “man of sin” mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is a single individual who will hold the Roman Catholic office of “pope,” the papacy is certainly anti-Christ in the broad sense (1 John 2:18). In fact, the papacy is diametrically opposed to all three persons of the trinity. Consider some of the titles that the Pope claims for himself: “Holy Father,” “Pontiff,” and “Vicar of Christ:”

 

¨    God alone should be called “Holy Father,” as Jesus directly commanded His disciples in Matthew 23:9.

¨    Jesus Christ is the only pontiff. “Pontiff” means “bridge,” or—in religious settings—the high priest mediating between God and Man. Jesus is the only mediator between God and Man (1 Tim 2:5); in the New Covenant era, He is the only High Priest  (Heb 8:1; 10:14).

¨    The Holy Spirit is the only vicar of Christ. (“Vicar” means “substitute.”) See: John 14:16, 26.

[The above observations are adapted from points made by Phillip Jensen at the 2016 Together for the Gospel Conference.]

Conclusion: Confessional Subscription

In light of the Pope’s blasphemous claims, along with Waldron’s concession about the particular wording found in the 26.4, how should churches that subscribe to the 1689 Confession view its statements concerning the papacy? 

[N]ote that the primary doctrine expressed in 26:4 is the exclusive headship of Christ over the church.  As a secondary doctrine, the confession condemns as blasphemy the pope’s usurpation of Christ’s title.

So what does it mean to subscribe to this doctrine? 

1. A strict subscriptionist [one who seriously takes the doctrines expressed in the 1689 Confession as an accurate summary of biblical teaching] must agree that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and that no man may usurp that title. 

2. A strict subscriptionist must agree that the system of papacy is a manifestation of the spirit of antichrist, and that part of the purpose of God the Holy Spirit in revealing antichrist to us was to prepare us to reject the papacy.  He must agree that God has rejected the papacy, and that Christ will utterly destroy it at the Judgment.

3. A strict subscriptionist must recognize that the papacy was the primary manifestation of the spirit of antichrist - at least during the age and location of the authors of our confession. 

It is important to take Reformed confessions seriously and to understand why they make specific claims concerning the papacy. It is important to resist—and not compromise in resisting—the spirit of the anti-Christ, wherever it might be found. Finally, it is vitally important to glorify Christ alone as the Head of the Church, “in whom—by the appointment of the Father—all power for the calling, institution, order, or government of the Church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner.”

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.