What Is "The Visible Church?" - And Other Matters Of Recent Controversy

by J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Category: General | Dec 1976

Some little time ago a decision of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland created considerable controversy in ecclesiastical circles in that country. It related, as some of our readers will be aware, to an elder who had been "baptized" by sprinkling as an infant and now in his mature years had been baptized by immersion in a Baptist Church so that he might witness publicly to his faith in Christ. He had no desire whatever to leave his own church. The Presbytery disapproved of his action but the Synod upheld it. In the final court, the General Assembly, it was decided that he should be called upon to repent of his "second baptism" or be removed from his position as an elder. It was maintained that just as the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, so also was the original "baptism".

The Westminster Confession was approved in 1647 as the Confession of the Church of Scotland. Chap. XXVIII deals with baptism, and, together with the scriptural references, reads as follows:-

CHAP. XXVIII. Of Baptism.

BAPTISM is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Chnst,1 not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church,2 but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,3 of his ingrafting into Christ,4 of regeneralion,5 of remission of sins,~ and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life:7 which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.8

II.The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.9

III.Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling upon the person.10

IV.Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,11 but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.12

V.Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,13 yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it,14 or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.15

VI.The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is adminislered:16 yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will. in his appointed time.17

VII.The sacrament of baptism is but once lobe administered to any person.18

1 Matt. XXVIII 19.

2 1 Cor. 12,13.

3 Rom. IV 11 with Col. II 11, 12.

4 Gal. 11127. Rom. VI

5Tit. III 5.

6Mark I 4.

7 Rom. VI 3, 4.

8 Matt. XXVIII 19,20.

9Matt. III 11. John I 33. Matt. XXVIII 19,15

10Heb. IX 10,19,20,21,22. Acts II 41;XVI 33. Mark VII 4.

11 Mark XVI 15, 16. Acts VIII 37, 38.

12 Gen. XVII 7, 9 with Gal. III 9, 14 and Col. II 11, 12 and Acts II 38, 39 and Rom. IV 11, 12. 1 Cor. VII 14. Matt. XXVIII 19. Mark X 13, 14, 15, 16. Luke XVIII 15.

13 Luke VII 30 with Exod. IV 24, 25, 26.

14 Rom. IV 11. Acts X 2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47.

15 Acts VIII 13, 23.

16 John III 5, 8

17 Gal. III 27. Tit. III 5. Eph. V 25, 26. Acts II 38, 41.

18 Tit. III 5.

We commented briefly in last month's issue (page 172) on how, to very many Bible-loving, thinking Christians, the "baptism" of the infant by sprinkling is to be rejected as unacceptable since it is completely unscriptural. We therefore make no further comment on paras. Ill and IV. The other paragraphs of chap. XXVIII, however, give us equally great concern for, according to our experience, very many people have been given by reason of them a completely misleading understanding of Scripture, which, sadly, may work out to their eternal sorrow.

Para. 1 states that "Baptism is ... ordained by Jesus Christ". The reference given is Matt. 28:19,20 and with this we concur. The verse reads: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world".

It was the Lord's command to the apostles to take the gospel to the nations, to baptize the disciples who would respond in faith to the message, then to teach them all matters in which the apostles had themselves been instructed. For this purpose the disciples would be gathered in churches of God so that the necessary teaching could be given. In due course the converts themselves would continue the apostolic ministry, and the presence of the Lord was pledged to those who would give themselves to this great work. We agree then that baptism was "ordained by Jesus Christ".

Para. 1 continues to the effect that baptism was "for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church". It will be noted that the Scripture cited in support of this statement is 1 Cor. 12:13, which reads, "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit". But this has patently to do with baptism by the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit (see also Matt. 3:11) and cannot refer to baptism by men in water. Can any discerning reader say it does?

The "one body" here referred to is elsewhere described as "the Church which is His Body" (Eph. 1:22,23). This is not a "visible church". It is composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus, from Pentecost till the coming of the Lord. Baptism into this Body coincides with receiving the Spirit (Gal. 3:2) at conversion, when the believer is sealed by Him (Eph. 1:13) and receives an anointing from Him (1 John 2:20). It is personal, an experience which might well be known only to the believer himself. It was when the convert testified to this experience, requested baptism, and was added to a church of God, that he became associated with a "visible church". It is fatal to an accurate understanding of New Testament teaching not to distinguish between the invisible Church the Body, and the visible churches of God.

This element of "visibility" began with the church of God in Jerusalem, to which the 3,000 newly converted and baptized disciples were added on the day of Pentecost. They entered the Church the Body on their conversion, and straightway, but separately, were added to the church of God in Jerusalem following their baptism. The church of God was a clearly defined company of disciples, visible for men to see, tangible for Saul of Tarsus to persecute. The work spread by the Spirit's power and other churches of God were formed. As the testimony increased, it remained in unity, a fellowship of assemblies. And when the persecutor was himself converted we read that "the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace" (Acts 9:31, RV - as elsewhere in this article). Later these integrated churches became known as "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

That was the visible church, whereas the Church the Body had, as such, no corporate expression. When therefore the Westminster Confession speaks of a person being admitted to the visible church by baptism, this can only properly, scripturally apply to disciples of Christ, who following baptism in water, are received into churches of God. But to say that the sprinkling of an infant gives it entrance into any one of the things designated by the word "church" in the New Testament has, according to our understanding of the plain Word, not a shred of support in the Scriptures.

The next point we would draw attention to is the statement in the same paragraph that baptism is to the person baptized "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. When in due course the infant reaches years of understanding and enquires what exactly was involved in his sprinkling, the foregoing wording might well be recited to him. What, we ask, will the ordinary man in the street understand by this? From our personal experience with many contacts he will accept the words at their face value and assume that he has been ingrafted into Christ and has received regeneration and the remission of sins, quite regardless of what the drafters of the paragraph may have intended by "a sign and seal". In other words, many take the view that something happened at their "baptism" as infants, some grace was conferred, and all that is required in later life is a measure of good works and all will be well for eternity.

Thus souls, deceived by such instruction, may pass out of time into

eternal and irreparable loss. Hence our submission that the recognition of infant sprinkling was tragically wrong on two points. First, by its mode the whole significance of Rom. 6:4 is lost to view, and, second, the idea that grace is conferred in infancy is wrongly introduced. How can such distortion of Scripture possibly be well-pleasing to the Lord, who so precisely expressed the original Scriptures and then so miraculously preserved them for our use?

Of course those who drafted chap. XXVIII endeavoured to show in para. VI that regeneration does not actually take place at sprinkling in infancy. It only becomes effectual in subsequent years of understanding, at a time appointed by God, and even then, only in the case of God's elect. But no reference is made in the chapter to the need for regeneration to be secured through a personal acceptance by faith of Christ as Saviour, on the part of those who were said to be given the sign and seal in infancy.

We suggest also that there is no valid authority in the footnote scriptures for the view expressed regarding the baptizing of "the infants of one or both believing parents". It is surely a principle of exposition that we may illustrate an expressly stated New Testament truth from an Old Testament incident but we may not found on an Old Testament narrative a truth or practice for New Testament times which is not itself expressly taught there or is contrary to what is taught. For example, a certain group of Christians have taught that since all Israel were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea", and there must have been infants among them, so we should baptize by immersion the infants of believing parents today. Thus by a false premise they invalidate a basic New Testament teaching.

Another instance of this is the application of Gen. 17:7-9 to the "baptism" of infants (see footnote 12 above). The covenant of circumcision provided for the application of the rite to a Jewish boy when eight days old. But we cannot build on that Old Testament procedure a provision for the "baptism" of infants in New Testament times, when such an arrangement has no present-day scriptural support and indeed runs completely counter to the whole conception of New Testament baptism.

Acts 2:39 is quoted as relevant, but can we with any sense of spiritual integrity give such a meaning to that verse? There is no question that the Pentecost message was to the parents in Israel and their children. It was a message sent to the nation. But the burden of the message was a call to intelligent repentance and then to baptism. There seems to us something extremely unworthy about the insistence of certain Christians that the infants of believing Jews were in Peter's mind in verse 39 and that logically the church in Jerusalem would as a consequence have immersed them. Further, no support for the view can be based on 1 Cor. 7:14 (same footnote). This reads: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy". The children of one or both believing parents in the New Testament churches were not holy in the sense that they were regenerate. It was necessary for them to make a personal decision for salvation just as all other children did.

In Corinth, as in many other places where the truth of God was penetrating, one of the partners in a marriage union was being received into church fellowship, so in the home there was a believing and an unbelieving parent. The counsel of God was clear; the discipling of one partner in no way invalidated the marriage bond. In no sense was this a counterpart of the Old Testament evil of marrying "strange women" of other nations, with such dire consequences as Ezra 10:3. So the children of the marriage were not "unclean", as they would have been in a union condemned by the Lord. They were "holy", lawfully set apart as the product of a union recognized by God. The phrase carries no warrant whatever for regarding the infants as regenerate and most assuredly not as subjects for New Testament baptism.

The man in the street is largely ignorant of the teaching of the Bible. If he is interested at all he relies on his spiritual adviser. Why then should unscriptural instruction be offered to him by those who should be capable of guiding in the plain Word? The Lord Jesus described the scribes and Pharisees as "blind guides". Is that where the established churches are today?

And so the elder was told that he would have to repent of a scriptural baptism because he had already had an unscriptural one! Surely the whole subject needs re-thinking by exercised Christians.

J.L. Ferguson, Barrhead | Dec 1976
General