The Church, And The Churches Of God: A Suggestive Outline Of Truth

by F. A. Banks | Category: The Church, And The Churches Of God: A Suggestive Outline Of | Dec 1967

This article, reprinted by special request, was first published in 1883. The writer was a godly expositor of the Word, and his spiritual stature can be measured by the fact that on his lamented death at the early age of twenty-five he left a collection of writings on Scriptural subjects which reveal a remarkable insight into the great doctrines of Holy Scripture. Among these writings was a pamphlet entitled: "The Church, and the Churches of God: a suggestive outline of truth". This was appraised by many godly and competent students of the New Testament as a great step forward in the understanding of "church" truth. We do not claim that every detail of this outline can necessarily be established. Since those days further truth on this subject has been brought to light. But nothing has appeared in the intervening years to disturb the main thesis laid down by this able exponent of the doctrine of the Lord. It set forth with clarity and power what many had been grasping after for a long time.

This pamphlet has been out of print for some years and because of its historical importance this reprint is issued to make it available to those who wish to examine its Scriptural basis. We commend ft to all interested in the important subject of the Church, and the churches of God. (Editors)

God's heart has ever been set upon man, but while this is a grand and glorious truth, we must not forget that the dispensational manifestations of His love greatly vary.

In the past, God's elect ones were of the natural seed of Abraham, and witnessed for Him in a national capacity. In the future, Jehovah means to glorify Himself in the restoration of Israel, and in greatly blessing the Gentile nations of the earth (Acts 15.16-18).

During the present time, however, that is to say, from the descent of the Holy Spirit until the coming of the Lord for His saints, God is not dealing with men upon the distinctive platform of Jewish and Gentile relationships, but solely upon the broad basis of sinnership. "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3.28). God is now separating to Himself "a peculiar people", and it was in regard to this unique period of time that Christ uttered those memorable words recorded in Matthew 16.13,18: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter (Gr. Petros), and upon this rock (Gr. Petra) (margin R.V.) I will build

MY CHURCH;

and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it". In the epistle to the Ephesians we read particularly of this same aspect of truth. See chapters 1.22; 3.6; 5.23-32. Of this glorious Church or Assembly Christ is Head, and all believers, despite all sectarian differences, form a part. Linked together in one blessed eternal bond of relationship, the saints of God may well sing

"Once in Him, in Him for ever;

Thus the eternal covenant stands,

None shall pluck us

From the Strength of Israel's hands."

THE CHURCH OF GOD

Now as we cannot be too particular in regard to our use of Bible phraseology (Titus 2.8) it may not be undesirable to say that the Church, as above referred to, is not called in Scripture the church of God, an expression frequently applied thereto. Hence it does not once occur in the epistles to the churches of Ephesus and Colosse, two epistles which deal more prominently with this line of truth, the Church which is His Body, than any others. Its omission is noteworthy, and should be remembered. The phrase "church of God" is used in the Word of God to designate a company of believers acting together in local accountability upon the earth, but lest this should appear to be a statement unsupported by the Scriptures, it will be necessary to note the places where it is used.

I."To feed the church of God" (Acts 20.28). The reading here, as many readers will know, is disputed, the alternative reading being, "The church of the Lord", and this would appear to be more in harmony with the clause attached-"which He hath purchased with His own blood". But on the other hand, if we retain the expression "church of God", it bears a distinctly local character. In verse 17 we read, "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church", and therefore the apostle, in giving his words of counsel and warning, is thinking of the assembly which was in that city.

II."Paul... unto the church of God which is at Corinth" (1 Corinthians 1.1,2). In verse 2 the locality is so obviously marked that any comment thereon would be superfluous.

III."Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles (Greeks) nor to the church of God" (1 Corinthians 10.32). The apostle is here speaking in regard to the use of food, etc., and it is important for us to remember that at this stage of the dispensation prejudices in this respect were exceedingly rife. Hence the Christians are exhorted, in their individual habits, to give no offence. Paul is viewing the Jews and Gentiles residing in the city of Corinth, and the phrase "church of God" simply refers to the assembly in that place too.

IV."What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God?" (1 Corinthians 11.22). Here again the thought is the same. It would appear from this chapter that the Corinthian saints were in the habit of partaking of a supper previous to the breaking of bread. Probably they imagined that because the Lord partook of a meal with His disciples prior to the institution of the feast of the breaking of bread, they were to do the same. Then, the manner in which they ate and drank was of such a nature, that they were unfit to discern the Body in the ordinance which followed. This explains what Paul meant by repeating to them what he had delivered to them to do, and the interrogation respecting their own houses and the assembly is to enforce upon them the fact, that in their conduct of levity at this meal of theirs, they degraded the dignity and order which should characterize the people of God when gathered together.

V."I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it." (1 Corinthians 15.9, and Galatians 1.13). Saul's persecution of the saints was confined to Jerusalem. See Acts 9.13; 26.10. From this centre he had been the cause of their fleeing to strange cities (Acts 26.11; Galatians 1.22-24). Emboldened by success, and being exceedingly mad against them, he would fain follow the escaped ones, and attack others. We read of his intentions regarding Damascus, and of the authority he possessed to prosecute this dreadful work; but, blessed be God! Saul of Tarsus was stopped in his mad saint-hating career; and he who had purposed to enter Damascus in a haughty and blood-thirsty spirit, entered it self-subdued, blind, and helpless, a captive to the grace of God. Still, he had wasted God's assembly in Jerusalem, and scattered the saints, and the memory of this always produced in Paul the deepest sorrow and humility.

VI."If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1 Timothy 3.5). Oversight is always regarded as a local responsibility. It is manifestly so in this scripture. "I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus" (1 Timothy 1.3); and again, "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly" (1 Timothy 3.14). Those brethren who are gifted of Christ, and appointed by the Holy Spirit to oversight work, labour in the localities where their lot is cast. They do not oversee the Church which is His Body, but the church of God where they are. If this were not so, it would place such under obligation to look after the saints the wide world over. A sheer impossibility!

CHURCHES OF OOD

We have traced the expression "church of God" in the singular, and it will now be desirable to observe that God uses it three times in the plural.

I."If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" (1 Corinthians 11.16). This is a word addressed to a church of God in respect of those who would be self-choosing and self-sufficient in their fellowship.

The assemblies of God are not places where persons may do as they like, One Christ is Lord over all, one Spirit operates in each, and the Scriptures alone contain their creed. This being so, what wonder if there should be similarity of views, and uniformity of practice? Is it not a necessary result?

II."The Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God", etc. (1 Thessalonians 2.13,14). In chapter 1 we learn that the Thessalonians were converted to God, but, in the verses above quoted, we discover a step distinctly in advance of this. Unitedly they follow the example of the "churches of God". This was the outcome of the Word operating in their hearts, while the companies of saints which they sought to copy were a God-created fellowship, and therefore perfectly safe examples. Alas! where may we behold the same thing today? Where do we see the action of the Scriptures affecting those newly brought to God, and leading to similar results? Evangelists are used of God in the conversion of souls, but in too many cases the babes in Christ, instead of being looked after, and cast upon God and the Word of His grace, are cast adrift, and told to find a "church" for themselves, or to look out for a minister under whom they would be happy and comfortable. Thus are the saints of God encouraged to take a false course, while the sectarian systems of men become increasingly strong.

III."So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure" (2 Thessalonians l.4). Here we see the reciprocal relationships of the early assemblies. They knew no independency either in joy or sorrow. In the Lord's messages to the seven churches in Asia, while it is perfectly true on the one hand that each church was responsible to judge itself (Darbyism practically denies this) yet, be it remembered, in each distinct case it is said

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches".

Thus it is apparent that the expressions "church of God" or "churches of God", are not phrases coined by some eccentric brethren, and applied to the assemblies, but that these terms are scriptural, and therefore applicable.

WHAT EACH CHURCH OF ODD SHOULD BE IN ITS LOCALITY

In regard to this point it will be needful to look particularly at Paul's 1st Epistle to Timothy. In chapter 1, verse 3, we read as follow - "As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine"; and if this be read in connection with verses 14 and 15 of the 3rd chapter we shall see distinctly that Paul is not viewing "the Church which is His Body" (i.e. God's entire dispensational Assembly of saints), but simply the church of God at Ephesus (compare with verse 5). "These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (R.V.). That is to say, the epistle contains instruction in regard to all in their various spheres of service, in order that each assembly as a part of the whole may be a living testimony for all the truth. This, of course, affords us divine guidance for the present time. Suppose a person who is without a shadow of a doubt a Christian, but who has imbibed the pernicious heresy of "non-eternity of punishment", or some such doctrine affecting the person and glory of the Lord, applies for fellowship in a "church of God", would he be a fit person to receive? Certainly not. But, is he not a member of the Body of Christ, being a saved person? Yes, but that alone is not sufficient. The assembly has to be the pillar and ground of the truth, and therefore the reception of such a person would mar its character, and seriously cripple its responsibility in this respect.

LIFE IN CHRIST ALONE,

regardless of any conditions, constitutes a member of the Body of Christ, but that is not absolutely alone the basis of a "church of God" fellowship. For instance, let us imagine that a representative of each of the various sects in a neighbourhood meet together in one place, all truly born of God, but differing entirely upon essential and important truths. They agree to form themselves into a church or assembly, it being stipulated that each may retain their sectarian views. Could a "church of God" be built together of such material? (albeit all of them were saved persons, and, if Christ came for His Church, would be caught up to meet the Lord in the air). We believe not! Mere intelligence, or knowledge, should never be the absolute qualifications for saints to possess, ere they are fit to be received into a "church of God". But surely, in addition to life, there should be a willing spirit to obey the Word of God, and to own Jesus Christ as Lord. This is clearly taught in 1 Corinthians 1.9 and 10. Because the church of God at Corinth had been called by a faithful God to the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, therefore does the apostle insist upon subjection of heart and ways to the One unto whom God had gathered them.

Is it not very desirable that this should be understood? Ought there not to be a preparedness of heart to relinquish anything previously believed, and a willing spirit to advance any step not taken hitherto, if the Scriptures call for it?

The church of God at Corinth was in its principles a pattern assembly. Its practices in many respects were faulty and sorrowful, and the word of the Lord came to humble the saints and put them right. In chapter 5 we get some

CARDINAL PRINCIPLES

which should be very carefully weighed.

I.The centre of a "church of God" fellowship. "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when ye are gathered together", verse 4, thus beautifully agreeing with that oft-quoted scripture. "Where two or three are gathered together in My Name" (Matthew 18.20). It is not gathering to the name of any man, however deserving, or to his views of truth, whatever their nature. Jesus Himself can alone be the Centre of attraction and gathering of a God-banded company in any place.

II.The excommunication of a person when the church is thus gathered (verses 4 and 5). Evil had crept into the assembly, and the saints are called upon by the apostle's authority to deal with it; but observe specially, the power for such discipline is only to be found in the Name to which they are gathered, and by virtue of the word of Him who bears the title of Lord.

III.Therefore, "let us keep the feast", etc. (verse 8). The persons who broke bread at Corinth were those who, being in fellowship, could, if called upon by the Lord, participate in this solemn act of excommunication. Thus we see RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE inseparably joined together. Indeed, throughout the entire Word of God this is the case. Thus was the wicked person put away: he was not fit for the "church of God" fellowship at Corinth, although, despite this act of necessary discipline, he was still in "the Church which is the Body", for the apostle speaks of his spirit being "saved in the day of the Lord Jesus". How could a casual breaker of bread (a person not in fellowship at all) join in an act of cutting off from any "church of God"?*

*This article was written in 1883 against practices existing amongst those

who have been known as "Open" Brethren.

Such a thing would surely receive no countenance from any, and how important it is to see that there is no such thing in Scripture as receiving to an ordinance at all! It is always receiving into the circle of the assembly, where all alike are subject to the rule and discipline of the house of God; and who can, if removing elsewhere, receive letters of commendation to other churches of God (2 Corinthians 3.1). To illustrate the importance of this, let us consider a case like the following. A Christian comes to an assembly occasionally to break bread, one who has never properly identified himself with the fellowship. It is reported of him that he has fallen into sin, but what can be done? Not being in fellowship, the assembly, scripturally speaking, has no jurisdiction to act in discipline. Of course the saints may make up their minds to forbid him to break bread should he turn up again, but this is merely negative, and such a system of things cannot be God-glorifying. A number of esteemed Christians seem to have no concern about matters of this nature, and they deem it a correct thing to bring in persons because they are Christians to break bread now and again, while, of course, they would never dream of inviting such to participate in cases of responsibility.

Surely this, though done doubtless by well-meaning brethren, is inconsistent and contrary both to the spirit and letter of the Word of God. The proof that saints have truly learnt the mind of the Lord in respect to this blessed ordinance is not to be found in a spasmodic obedience controlled by circumstances, but in continuing "steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2.42). See the same principles in 2 Timothy 2.22, "Follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart". The saints at Jerusalem were suspicious of Paul, and afraid to welcome him, but Barnabas testified of him in a favourable way, and the barrier was removed. But let it be particularly observed that it was not the testimony of Barnabas that Paul "was a Christian, and therefore he would break bread upon this occasion". No, "Paul assayed to join himself to the disciples", to cast in his lot among them, and to share with them privileges and responsibilities alike (Acts 9). This is a vastly different thing, and any saint desiring to follow the Lord is entitled to be received thus. The testimony of any in whom the saints would have confidence, in regard to such applicants, is to be greatly valued; but when received by the assembly within its circle, then it is incumbent upon such not merely to break bread, but to act in all matters relative to the assembly which may scripturally call for their attention. Both these things are prominently taught in the 5th chapter of 1 Corinthians, and, to say the least, it is a deplorable state of things which encourages the saints to break bread now and again, and which never exercises their minds in regard to matters of responsibility.

THE INTERCOMMUNION OF THE CHURCHES OF GOD

(2 Thessalonians l.4)

While in regard to this point it may be freely admitted that we have not such definite guidance as on some other subjects, yet there are principles laid down in Scripture which, if attended to, may afford us considerable instruction. Such verses as these, for example (Colossians 4.10,16), "Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him)". We are not told what these commandments were which the apostle had sent these saints. Most likely they concerned Mark's service (compare Acts 12.25; 13.13; 15.37-39). It is perfectly clear, however, that whatever their nature, they affected more than one church, for it is distinctly stated that the epistle was to be read to the Laodiceans too. Again, the very fact that letters of commendation are given and received (and this in accord with Scripture), is in itself an indication of the common relationship of all the assemblies God-gathered.

WHEN DOES A COMPANY OF PERSONS CEASE TO BE A CHURCH OF GOD?

Revelation 2.1,5, may help us while considering this question. There was at Ephesus much that called forth the Lord's approval, but there also existed that which, if not purged out, would necessitate His rejection of them in an assembly capacity. Ere this is done, however, He gives them ample time to repent. This is ever His way. It was so at Corinth. If the Lord's rebukes lead to confession of that which is wrong, if His remonstrances produce sorrow and repentance, it is all right (2 Corinthians 7.8-11). It may still be one of God's assemblies. On the other hand, if the word of the Lord is rejected, and in spite of His entreaties the sin be unconfessed, He must be righteous and set aside the lampstand. He removed the assembly light. The Ephesian saints had departed from their first love, and the first works had been neglected as a natural consequence. It is not our province to judge in a matter of this sort at all! We reflect His act. We are not to disown an assembly until it is palpable that He has disowned it. Assemblies are not to be ignored because of weakness and failure, or even sin. It is only when the Scriptures are set aside, and Christ's Lordship practically repudiated, that it is abundantly clear the Lord has disowned them. However, it is needful to see that it does not follow of necessity, because an assembly has been set aside, that therefore each individual, indiscriminately, is to be discarded. The whole subject calls for the exercise of much wisdom, patience, and love. Each case may be so peculiarly different from another, that the help and power of God must be earnestly sought, that no rash and un-Christlike conduct may exist.

In conclusion, let it be remembered that there is no need for us to be looking here and there trying to determine which is the church of God, so much as there is a need for each company of saints in its own locality seeking to be themselves what a church of God should be, positionally and conditionally. Let them not trace their assembly origin to any phase of "Plymouthism", or to any other "ism", but to God, in His present living sovereignty, operating upon their hearts and ways by His Spirit through His Word. And it may not be out of place just to remark (in order that the distinction may be clearly seen), that if a letter should come to any town addressed "to the Church which is His Body" it would be absolutely necessary to give its contents to all the Christians, irrespective of everything, whether under discipline or not. On the other hand, should it be addressed to the saints in a "church of God", or to "churches of God", surely it should be handed to those who seek collectively to carry out principles of the churches of God of earlier and purer days.

F. A. Banks | Dec 1967
The Church, And The Churches Of God: A Suggestive Outline Of