There is a common question: which church do you belong to?
Sometimes this can be agonizingly difficult to answer because of what people think church is.
Is church an organization, such as the Rotary club, Lions club, Shriners or PTA?
Granted, there are many different church denominations currently recognized, such as Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. etc. They are called churches, but what does that really mean?
The early days of Christianity as reported from the Bible link the term Church with the followers of Jesus Christ, but if that were all the answer we needed, that would suggest that the devoted people of each of the above-mentioned churches would be part of the same church. Yet that would appear to not be true because they have different practices, ordinances, customs and beliefs related to Jesus Christ, and therefore must be in conflict with one another.
Some say that baptism is necessary, some say it isn’t. Some say you need to “pray the rosary”, others not so much.
Suffice it to say that if you have different practices, ordinances, beliefs, customs, traditions, etc., you can’t really say they are all the same thing. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that not all churches are the same. If that is truly the case, as it must be, then the term “church” must have meant something specific in the early days of Christianity.
Let’s look at this in terms of national identity. I am an American. I am a citizen of the United States according to the laws of the United States. I have neighbors that are also citizens of the United States according to the same laws. I have worked with and talked with people who are not citizens of the United States, even though they have lived in the United States for quite some time. Occupancy does not mean citizenship, though. It does not mean that the law views them the same way. They are here by temporary permission, not by right. It is possible, by law, for a non-citizen to be deported because their permission can be revoked. Citizens, however, cannot be deported. They have rights guaranteed by the laws of the nation, and one of them is that they have the right to live here without the need to obtain permission to do so. Citizenship means something.
Not all nations have the same laws, so in another country it may be possible for them to deport their citizens if they should have laws allowing that to be done. They also do not guarantee the same rights as we have in the United States. Freedom of speech, religion, from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., are rights given to its citizens, but not so in other countries. Some nations do not allow you to name your children certain names. Time would fail me to share the differences between what it means to be a citizen of the United States versus being a citizen of any host of other nations. Suffice it to say that if we were all part of the same nation, we would all have the same laws, but we know that this is not the case.
Church means something also. If you are a member of a church, you have rights within that church. They have laws that you must abide by. But if these churches (as they do) have different beliefs, they can’t really guarantee the same rights.
But perhaps that is the difference in thinking that we should focus on. If the church is something created by Jesus Christ, does the church create its own laws, or are laws given to it by Jesus Christ? As institutions of men (and women) are churches truly governing bodies established by men? If so, then they have missed the early foundational teachings of the apostles about the church.
I have purposefully left out some important considerations. A religion is a system of beliefs. Christians' belief in Jesus Christ is one of the definitions of the Christian religion. Muslim beliefs in the teachings of Muhammad defines the Islamic religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions have beliefs and/or philosophies that are unique to them and that are at odds with other religions. They are also subject to the same differences in custom and practice, though, so they also have denominations unique to their sect of the religion.
Who founded these different religions, though? It seems quite evident (or is at least taught) that a man named Muhammad started the Islamic religion. It seems quite evident that Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) created the Buddhist religion. The origin of others has been lost to time, but what is undisputed is that the Christian religion has an origin in Jesus Christ.
Why is it important to identify when and by whom the various religions originated? It has to do with power and promises.
What is the purpose of a religion? To the Buddhists it is a path to enlightenment (Nirvana). Once enlightenment (whatever that might mean) is achieved, there is some hint that life will be fully realized. To the Hindu, it is essentially a never-ending path of rebirth until learning makes one perfect. To the Muslim, it is to have a reward in the afterlife.
Besides the teachings of Jesus, the central tenet of the Christian religion is that God took the extraordinary measure of sending part of himself (Jesus) to be born, crucified and resurrected in the flesh. Through these steps eternal life is possible. No other religion makes a claim that an atonement for sin is or was necessary because they don’t view sin as requiring a special atonement that is of both a human and a divine nature.
For a Buddhist, the power to achieve enlightenment is undefinable - it is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom that matters, not a literal salvation. For the Hindu, there really isn’t a concept of salvation or a final end, so the purpose of power is likewise undefinable - there isn’t power because there is nothing it is needed for. To the Muslim, power exists only after this life - Allah is non-interactive and essentially hands-off until people die, when they can be consigned to either paradise or hell. In each of these, no one really experiences life-changing power.
Power is necessary to achieve promises. If I make a promise and do not keep it, that means I did not have power to keep the promise, whether that means the mental or spiritual fortitude to do it, or the physical ability to do it. If God makes a promise and is able to demonstrate his ability to keep it, then it also means he has the power to accomplish it. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the sure demonstration of the power to accomplish the promises that have been made since the beginning. No other religion believes it is necessary for this to happen.
That brings us back to the idea of what a church is.
God is truly a source of power. The idea that Jesus Christ used power to achieve both the atonement and the resurrection from the dead is key to demonstrating that not only does the power exist, but that it is used. Witnesses at the time of Christ’s resurrection also reported that many others were resurrected from the dead. People in the church reported miraculous events for many years after this.
At the time, there was only one church as such. There were no Catholics or Baptists or Methodists or Presbyterians. There was just one church and that was the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus originated it, so it is his.
This church consisted of people who were nationally and genetically Israelites, but not exclusively so. They were also people from other heritages and nationalities - Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians and so on. What defined them as a body was the continuity of belief, ordinance, practice, teaching and especially power and authority.
Paul said it simply as “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Ephesians 4:5)
There is a lot to be said about that statement. If either of the 3 items listed were absent, it could refer to something else. Assuming we understand for the moment what the first two are, let me examine the third.
Baptism.
They clearly believed in baptism. While that is not the only thing they believed in, it was important enough that Paul had to spell it out as a central aspect that distinguishes their beliefs from others.
The baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist (not referring to the Baptist church, but by the fact that he baptized people) is illustrative of the importance of baptism. Jesus made the clear statement that it must be done to “fulfill all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15)
Had John been baptizing incorrectly or for the wrong reasons, Jesus would have repudiated him for that, but he didn’t. It was a necessary step. Nor did Jesus tell him to stop baptizing, which undoubtedly would have been mentioned had it been so.
Let us also remember that during this time they were still under the law of Moses. John was baptizing in law-of-Moses times (undetstanding that the law of Moses had an end in the crucifixion of Jesus). But this is not all, the apostles were commanded, after Christ’s crucifixion, to continue to baptize people.
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
Not was it just commanded, but the consequences are spelled out for those who refused to be baptized and would not believe: they would have harsh judgments awaiting them in the resurrection. So this was not just an old testament practice, or just a new testament practice, but it was included in both the old and new testaments. That includes the modern day.
So when Paul states that they should have “One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” he isn’t introducing a new concept, but as previously stated in the same chapter, it is for the purpose of “endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;” (Ephesians 4:3-4)
If there were indeed just one body, there could not have been many churches. So the church was not a group of different beliefs under one roof. It was one set of beliefs under one roof.
But why did Jesus go to John in particular to be baptized? Could he not have gone to any number of the other respected leaders among the Jews to be baptized? Evidently not. There was a purpose and method to Jesus' actions.
John was clearly recognized as a prophet in his day. (Jesus speaking) “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.“ (Luke 7:28). He was also a preacher. “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,” (Matthew 3:1).
Again, if Jesus went to John to be baptized, there was a purpose in this. Evidently John is one whom God gave authority to baptize. After all, Jesus later ordained the apostles, and they baptized:
“And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,” (Mark 3:14)
“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41)
John, being a prophet, and having authority to baptize, was given to know that Jesus would also have this authority, as well as authority to perform another baptism - the baptism of the Holy Spirit (also known as the Holy Ghost).
“John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:” (Luke 3:16)
We further know that Jesus himself also performed the baptism with water:
“And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.” (John 3:26)
There is a chain of authority illustrated here. John baptized Jesus. Jesus was given the witness of God’s authority by the testimony of the Holy Ghost:
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
After receiving this testimony Jesus then went forth to baptize and ordained others to baptize. Had it been the case that Jesus didn’t have authority, he could not give authority to others. We have further witness of that authority from the book of Hebrews:
“Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” (Hebrews 6:20)
“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.” (Hebrews 5:5)
This is not a witness given to every one that is baptized. But for our benefit we have been given this witness that Jesus had authority given to him. We also saw earlier that he was able to give authority to others, but to that witness we add another:
“Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” (John 15;16)
The apostles didn’t ordain themselves, nor did them call themselves, nor did they have authority of themselves, nor did the respected institutions of the time give them authority, but power and authority were given to them by one having power and authority from God to do so. Although they did choose to follow Jesus, that alone was not adequate to constitute authority or power. Jesus gave them power and authority as one who had that power and authority given to him by God.
That is the chain of authority that defined the early days of the church. Never at any time in the scriptures we have does it say that the church as a body gave authority, but ministers having authority from God performed ordinances such as baptism, the laying on of hands and preaching, having power to do so granted to them by God.
It is not possible for God to change his ways. This matter of having a chain of authority from God has never deviated since the earliest days recorded in the scriptures. Authority must be given by God, and it is done through the means established by God. Ordinances are performed by those ordained by God to perform them. And it is no different today, nor should we expect it to be different.
So if the baptism of Jesus by the prophet John is true, and if the baptisms Jesus performed were authorized by God, and if Jesus had authority to ordain others to this power, then this is how we know whether the baptisms of today are done with power and authority from God. A prophet given power and authority from God to baptize can ordain others to this power, and they will then also have authority from God to do the same. Yet we must also recognize that it is God who calls men to this authority, and not the men who perform the ordination.
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (Acts 13:1-3)
Note here that God (the Holy Ghost) spoke through prophets to say that Paul and Barnabas had been called to the work. As they had authority by this command to ordain them, they prayed and laid their hands on them in order to set them apart for the ministry. This wasn’t a decision the prophets and teachers at Antioch made of their own choice, but because God spoke to them and told them to do it. So we know that this is the same procedure that Jesus followed, and this event described in Acts took place after the resurrection of Christ, some years after the day of Pentecost. This is how we know that this is the same procedure God would use today.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Any claimant to the baptism authorized by God that has not used this order given by God, must necessarily be without the unity of the faith, and is outside the will of God.
But what does this have to do with the church? Are we any closer to understanding what the church is, or is not?
Yes. The scriptures tell us that there is a wedding to take place, and it describes in a few brief words what this is about.
MatthewThis makes no mention of a bride as such, but it speaks of sending out servants to bring as many to the wedding as they could find. It seems that not all in attendance were wearing the wedding garment, or were not worthy to attend. Because they were not wearing the wedding garment or were not worthy they were cast out into outer darkness.
How does that compare to the language Jesus used, as quoted earlier:
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15-16)
So it would seem that the wedding garment mentioned herein must be baptism and belief.
As a single act, or ordinance, baptism is only momentary. But you should also bear witness to the fact that it does not say that the unworthy attendee wasn’t given a wedding garment. Whether he was or wasn’t given the garment is not the key point. The key point is that he was not wearing it. It is not just the act of being baptized that guarantees entry to the wedding, but the act of wearing the garment. Baptism is just the first step; what remains is to continue in the will of God so that the worthiness to attend may be ensured. Baptism is therefore a continual process that means it is necessary to continue in the will of God. Refusal to do so means being cast out of the wedding.
The language used in this parable is interesting. If it is a wedding, there must be a bridgegroom and a bride. We assume from the parable that the bridegroom will be marrying a bride, and surely that must be so, but remember that this is a parable. It is a likening of one thing to another so that we may more easily understand the meaning.
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Ephesians 5:23-24)
This draws the connection between the church and the bride. The church is to be the bride of Christ, but as the church consists of numbers of men and women, the type of wedding this entails must be somewhat different than the average.
So the characteristics describing what the church is can now begin to fit together, and it isn’t at all what the world might recognize.
God is very particular about the way he does things, so it should be no surprise that he would be very particular about what he calls the church
To be a member of Christ’s church means that several things must be true. The church consists of individuals who are called to the wedding. Not all who are called are chosen, but those who choose to follow in the life of Jesus can be made worthy to attend the wedding by the act and process of baptism. The act of baptism must be performed in a manner that is consistent with the manner by which Jesus was baptized, namely, that he went to an authorized preacher who received authority from God to baptize, he was baptized by total immersion, and received the Holy Ghost. Testimony from the apostles shows that they baptized by the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands:
“Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:14-17)
Having received the Holy Ghost, they were bidden to continue in the word of God, which we see from the following:
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32)
It is not enough to believe the words of Jesus, but to do them is necessary.
“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20)
So believing and doing according to that belief are necessary, otherwise it is hypocrisy to believe only and not do.
Those that are of the church are those that believe and do the will of God in the way that he has appointed for it to be done. Only they that do those things will find place at the wedding of Christ with the church.
Supposing all of these things to be true what does that say about the churches of today, since we live in the now rather than in the past? Have God’s words changed in some manner?
“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)
If God’s words have not changed, nor his ways, then we should expect Christ’s church today to be in compliance with the same standards that he established during his ministry and the days of the apostles. So we can see from this that the church is not just a group of people that share common beliefs, but it is also a set of standards that God has established for it. If it is to be Christ’s church, his bride, then he will not marry someone that is not of his choosing.
When the servants of the king were sent out to bid guests to the wedding, they were called to attend. Not all who were called chose to come, nor were all who came chosen. It is Christ’s wedding, so he gets to pick the rules for attendance; all who choose not to follow those rules must be cast out.
In the modern world, there are many denominations of Christianity, but not all of those churches can be the church of Christ because they do not all follow the teachings and order of Jesus Christ. The bride takes the name of the husband, so a church that is not called by the name of Christ cannot be Christ’s bride. Even those calling themselves by the name of Christ cannot be his bride if they don’t follow his rules - they must be cast into outer darkness.
To give you some clarity, I can truthfully say that Christ knows those who are his. But for us to know whether we are his is something that comes from believing and doing what Christ tells us to do. Issues of authority matter in this because it is the way that Christ gave us as an example. Issues of power matter because Christ did his works using power. Baptism matters because it complies with the law and because it is a continual lifestyle. Any who follow another path must be as Christ says, thieves and robbers:
John 10