In the dictionary, "religion" is defined as a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by, or an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by. This can be anything that takes us away from the true living God-Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Religion can be alcohol, drugs, pornography, a career, sex; thus, anything that drives a wedge between us and the trinity of God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a religion. Religion teaches us to hide our sinful attitude behind a mask of goodness, righteousness, and secular humanism. How many self-help gurus have we heard claim to have the secret to our happiness by giving us self-esteem, pride, and true self worth? I tire of hearing pompous professors and teachers of "higher learning" telling young folks that the only way to fulfillment is through "enlightenment of the mind." Cain was the first "religious" man and the inventor of the first religion in history. John MacArthur hits the nail on the head in his book Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus:
"Natural reason seeking God ends up ignorant, idolatrous, and demonic. Demons are behind all false religions. They are behind all philosophical and religious systems. They are behind every lofty thing lifted up against the knowledge of God. Any unbiblical, anti-God idea is demonic."The purpose of Jesus' coming was not to "bind us" or "tie us" to anything or anyone, though it might be argued that in the reception of Jesus Christ by faith there is a spiritual attachment of our identity with Him. Jesus clearly indicates that He came to set us free free to be functional humanity in the fullest sense, by allowing God to function through us to His glory. To some believing Jews, Jesus explained that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Jno 8:32). Further explanation of the personification of that "truth" in Himself was then made when Jesus said, "If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." To the Galatians Paul affirms that, "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery" by reverting back to the bondage of Jewish religion (Gal 5:1). "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal 5:13), Paul exclaims. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Cor 3:17).
Jesus did not say, "I came that you might have religion, and practice it more faithfully," or "I came that you might have religion, and adhere to it more commitedly," or "I came that you might have religion, and define it more dogmatically," or "I came that you might have religion, and defend it more vehemently," or "I came that you might have religion, and thus behave more morally." What Jesus said was, "I came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly" (Jno 10:10). The life that He came to bring and express within us and through us is His life. "I AM the way, the truth and the life," declared Jesus to His disciples (Jno 14:6). The apostle John wrote that "He that has the Son has life; he that does not have the Son does not have life" (I Jno 5:12). "Christ is our life," is the phrase Paul uses in writing to the Colossians (Col 3:4), for Christianity is not "religion," but the life of Jesus Christ expressed in receptive humanity. Moreover, it is a personal relationship with one's Redeemer.
Religion emphasizes precepts, propositions, performance, production, programs, promotion, percentages, etc. that leads to empty formulaism of the rankest kind, vain repetitions of man-made prayers, confessions and endless routine established by creeds, codes, books of rules, arranged form of worship, as stipulated by archbishop, synod, central committee, convention, conference, or headquarters delivering edicts from on high. In contrast Christianity emphasizes the Person of Jesus Christ, and His life lived out through the receptive Christian believer. Religion concerns itself with form, formalism and formulas; ritual, rules, regulations and rites; legalism, laws and laboring. The "good news" of Christianity is that it is not what we do or perform, but what Jesus has done and is doing in us. Jesus exclaimed from the cross, "It is finished!" (Jno 19:30). Jesus has done all the doing that needs doing for our regeneration, and continues to do all the doing that God wants to do in us. "God is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phi 2:13).
I believe that titles and denominational pigeon-holing of Christians according to the tenets of their faith and / or practice thereof, is fundamentally a source of division between true Christians, which is something forbidden in I Cor 1:12. While the evolution of the various present day denominations can be traced to stem from the "Holy Catholic Church" prior to the Great Schism of 1054, however, that origin can find no justification as having a Scriptural foundation as being the first church, or that that denomination fundamentally is the universal church, i.e., the Body that is in Christ.
The English reader with little or no Greek has, of course, the standard concordances, notably Wgram's Englishman's Greek Concordance; the student of Greek has his Grimm-Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Bauer. While these works provide a lexical skeleton, W.E. Vine's work clothes that skeleton with the flesh and sinews of living exposition, and makes available for the ordinary reader the expert knowledge contained in more advanced works. In fact, the Expository Dictionary comes as near as possible doing for the non-specialist what is being done for the specialist by Kittel's work Theological Dictionary of the New Testament4 If one uses as adjunct to this other works, e.g. that of A.T. Robertson's New Word Pictures, it should become apparent that an advanced seminary doctorate is not prerequisite so as to establish the veracity of doctrinal truths contained within Scripture.
A. T. Robertson was the premier New Testament scholar of his generation. A voluminous writer, Robertson published forty-five books: four grammars of the New Testament, fourteen commentaries and studies, six volumes in the series Word Pictures in the New Testament, eleven histories, and ten New Testament character studies. This body of literature reflects a general bent toward language study over theological reflection. His work A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, published in 1914, was the capstone of his career. It drew accolades from all corners of the globe and was used by diverse figures in their work, including Robertson's seminary contemporaries, professors in secular institutions, and the pope.
Recent proof has been provided that the language of the New Testament is not a debased form of literary Greek corrupted by Hebrew idioms, but that in the main it was the vernacular, the speech of the everyday life of the people in the countries which came under Greek influence through the conquests of Alexander the Great. As a result of those conquests, the ancient Greek dialects became merged into one common speech, the Koine or common Greek. In one form it became the literary Koine, or Hellenistic, of such writers as Josephus. In its spoken form it was the everyday speech for millions of people throughout the Graeco-Roman world, and in the providence of God it was under these conditions and in this world-language that the Word of God was written.5
Most contemporary print media articles are written at or below 8th grade level. It would be absurd to think that one presently needs more than a decent high school education to comprehend what is being conveyed in the Koine vernacular of Scripture, written at a time when virtually nobody had any formal education whatsoever. The Scriptures are not written using a literary style requiring a genius intellectual acumen to unravel philosophical sophistry or didactic treatises by contemporary intellectuals of the time, e.g., Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Seneca, Epictetus, Cicero, Plutarch, Pythagorus, Philo, etc.. Only the most educated elite could plausibly understand what any of these people were saying, let alone be able to comprehend what they wrote. Who stands to gain from a perception that Scripture, despite being written in common vernacular and idiom of a generally uneducated audience, requires advanced letters to interpret? Scripture says that God is a respecter of no person. What does Scripture suggest concerning the value of the wisdom obtained from academia?
The Greek word, ekkleisa is translated in most places in the New Testament as "church." The Greek word is used one hundred and fifteen times in the New Testament. It is translated as "church" one hundred and twelve times, and three times as "assembly." To Greek speaking individuals of the New Testament era ekkleisa meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."6 The word as used in the New Testament is taken from the root of this word, which simply means "to call out." The New Testament uses the word exclusively to represent a group of people assembled or "called out" to meet together for a particular cause. It is never used to refer to a universal or catholic church.
Vines says:
There are two applications to "companies" of Christians however, (a) the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era (Mat 16:18) "I will build My Church", and which is further described as "the Church which is His body" (Eph 1:22), and (b) in the singular number, i.e., a company consisting of confessed believers (cf., Act 20:28; I Cor 1:2; Gal 1:13; I Ths 1:1; II Ths 1:1; I Tim 3:5; and in the plural with respect to churches in a district. In Acts 9:31 there's an exception between the RV and the KJV where the latter has "churches" the singular seems to point to a district; but the reference in either case is clearly to the church as it was in Jerusalem, from which it had just been scattered. Again in Rom 16:23 that Gaius was the host of "the whole church" simply suggests that the assembly at Corinth had been accustomed to meet in his house, where also Paul was entertained.7Some conclude that the term "body of Christ" (cf. I Cor. 12:27, Eph. 4:12) refers to a universal church. However, "the body of Christ" and the "ekklesia" are two different bodies (and two different words). The "body of Christ" is made up of all believers of all times from Pentecost to the Rapture. The word ekklesia, on the other hand, only refers to those alive and assembled together in a particular locality. The New Testament explicitly refers to believers universally only once and this will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (cf. Rev 21:9, here not called the church, but "the bride of Christ.").
The normal common usage of ekklesia in New Testament times was understood by all to mean simply "an assembly." And normal common usage of the time could refer to various kinds of assemblies. A town meeting, for example, would be called an ekklesia. Acts 19:39-41 references the civil assembly of local townspeople of Ephesus (which included idol makers). The modern English word "church" cannot be translated into Koine Greek because there is no word in Koine Greek carrying the equivalent English connotation. A look at any English dictionary will reveal the etymology of the English word "church" from the late Greek kyridakon which is not found anywhere in the New Testament; a word not in use until the 16th Century (long after New Testament times).
1 Cor 16:19 is rendered in the KJV as "the churches of Asia." However in Acts 7:38 the word "church" refers to the group of assembled Israelites at Mt. Sinai, in Moses' day. In Acts 19:32, 39, 41 we know that the ekklesia or assembly was a group of idol makers. Acts 19:24-25 states that a man named Demetruis, a silversmith, who made idols, called all workman of like occupation together for a meeting. In verse 32, it says "the assembly was confused." Verse 41 states, "And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly." The Greek word translated to English in all of these verses is ekklesia. There is no grammatical reason to translate the word ekklesia into "assembly" here, and in other places, into the word "church." The context of each usage of the word tells us what kind of ekklesia was meeting. The Bible does not make any other distinction with respect to usage of the word.
The Matthew's Bible (1537), translated by John Rogers who used the pen name of Thomas Matthew, correctly used the word "congregation." Rogers was an assistant and friend of William Tyndale. The Matthew's Bible was the first complete Tyndale Bible. Although Tyndale completed the New Testament (1526), and part of the Old Testament, he was martyred before he could complete his work. Rogers picked up Tyndale's incomplete translation, and using some work from Coverdale, completed Tyndales initial effort. Both Testaments he then published under the name "Thomas Matthew." The Great Bible (1539) also used the term "congregation."
Theodore Beza, a Protestant, and follower of John Calvin at Geneva, first used the term "church" in 1556. It would be normal for a Protestant, who followed a hierarchical "Presbyterian" (elder rule) form of church government to use the word "church" instead of "assembly."8 The use of the word "congregation" or "assembly" would not support his church's hierarchical government.9 William Whittingham's Geneva New Testament (1557) was the first edition of the Geneva Bible and followed Beza's usage of "church."10 It was also a revision of the Tyndale's New Testament of 1526 which correctly used the term "congregation". The Bishop's Bible (1568) was a revision to the Geneva Bible and continued the use of the term "church." It was this Bible that was the foundation for the King James commission.
When King James authorized the translation of the Bible in 1611 he made a number of rules which the translators were to use. Following are the two rules imposed on the KJV translators that dealt with this matter:
Of Eph 1:22,23, Robertson says:
He put all things in subjection (panta hupetaxen) Gave him to be head (auton edôken kephalęn, edôken is first aorist active indicative of didômi) to the church ( ekklęsia here intimating the universal spiritual church or kingdom as in Col 1:18,24) Christ as Head (kephalęn, predicate accusative). This conception of ekklęsia runs all through Ephesians (Eph 3:10,21; 5:23,24,25,27,29,32) Which (hętis) "Which in fact is," explanatory use of hętis rather than hę [is his body] ...All things are summed up in Christ (Eph 1:10), who is the plęrôma of God (Col 1:19), and in particular does Christ fill the church universal as his body. Hence we see in Ephesians the Dignity of the Body of Christ which is ultimately to be filled with the fulness (plęrôma) of God (Eph 3:19) when it grows up into the fulness (plęrôma) of Christ (Eph 4:13,16).11Robertson states that "the body", i.e., soma, that the passage references is a metaphor. In his discussion concerning I Col 1:18:
The head of the body (hę kephalę tou sômatos [emphasis mine]). Jesus is first also in the spiritual realm as he is in nature (verses Col 1:18-20). Paul is fond of the metaphor of the body (sôma) for believers of which body Christ is the head (kephalę) as seen already in 1Co 11:3; 12:12,27; Ro 12:5. See further Col 1:1; 2:19; Eph 1:22; 4:2,15; 5:30. The church (tęs ekklęsias) Genitive case in explanatory apposition with tou sômatos. This is the general sense of ekklęsia, not of a local body, assembly, or organization. Here the contrast is between the realm of nature (ta panta) in verses Col 1:15-17 and the realm of spirit or grace in verses Col 1:18-20. A like general sense of ekklęsia occurs in Eph 1:22; 5:24-32; Heb 12:23. In Eph 2:11-22 Paul uses various figures for the kingdom of Christ (commonwealth politeia, verse Col 1:12, one new man eis hena kainon anthrôpon, verse Col 1:15, one body en heni somatic, verse Col 1:16, family of God oikeioi tou theou, verse Col 1:19, building or temple oikodomę and naos, verses Col 1:20-22).12IF the church referenced is the universal temporal church on Earth, when does it "grow up into fullness of Christ" that Eph 1:22,23 refers to? This can NOT be reference to a physical entity, albeit an abstract one such as an assembly of the assemblies across the globe. For even such abstract entity, i.e., organized Church of churches, exists physically in the temporal realm. While Christ does indeed possess a physical body, where is it temporally at present? Christ's physical body exists in heaven presently, which is a "spiritual" place. So any reference to "the Body that is in Christ" must likewise be spiritual.
Moreover, if the Body of Christ is indeed referencing a temporal (as opposed to a spiritual) "universal" church, then why didn't God give clear instructions as to its government? In the Bible, God always gave some degree of organization to everything he created. There is no reference or even a hint of an organization of a "universal" church other than Christ is head of it. God clearly did not establish a hierarchical system of government over the churches (plural). Each church rules itself following the New Testament example and principles. God in Rev 2:6, 15, said he "hated" the Nicolaitans who sought to set up a hierarchy to rule over the people. It would be against God's very nature to sanction human government over a universal church. This would violate the autonomy of the local assembly of believers which He clearly established and set that into opposition with what is said He hated (Rev. 2:5, 15). The ekklesia that Christ established had organization: it met together, had pastors (bishops), it took the Lord's Supper, it baptized new converts into its assembly, it supported missions, administered and edified the members of the church. A so called "universal" or "invisible" church can do none of these things.
The concept of the church "as a mystery" must also be addressed when considering a "universal" church. "It was no mystery that God was going to provide salvation for the Jews, nor that Gentiles would be blessed in salvation. The fact that God was going to form Jews and Gentiles alike into one body was never revealed in the Old Testamentand forms the mystery of which Paul speaks in Eph 3:1-7; Rom 16:25-27; Col 1:26-29. This whole mystery program was not revealed until after the rejection of Mat 12:23-24 that the Lord first makes a prophecy of the coming church in Mat 16:18. It is after the rejection of the Cross that the church had its inception in Acts 2. It was after the final rejection by Israel that God called out Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles through whom this mystery of the nature of the church is revealed. The church is manifestly an interruption of God's program for Israel, which was not brought into being until Israel's rejection of the offer of the Kingdom. It must logically follow that this mystery program must itself be brought to a conclusion before God can resume His dealing with the nation of Israel...The mystery program, which was so distinct in its inception, will certainly be separate at its conclusion. This program must be concluded before God resumes and culminates His program for Israel. This mystery concept of the church makes a pretribulation rapture a necessity."13
It has been shown that the correct definition of the word "church" has great and far-reaching implications. Ultimately there can be no conclusion other than there is no Biblical basis for a church hierarchy outside the local church or local assembly of believers (either singular or within district). Since the only ekklesia that is evident in the New Testament was a local assembly of believers, there is no Scriptural foundation for a Holy Catholic Church prior to the great schism of 1054. Furthermore, purely secular historical records are neither kind nor flattering to the Holy Catholic Church.
Contrary to Catholic dogma, the papal office did not originate with Peter. It was centuries before the Bishop of Rome attempted to dominate the rest of the Church, and many centuries more before that primacy was generally accepted. Leo the Great's letter to Flavian in 449 was not accepted until the Council of Chalcedon had approved it. Leo I himself acknowledged that his treatise could not become a rule of faith until it was confirmed by the bishops.14
There were eight councils of the Church before the schism of 1054, and the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. None of these eight councils was called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the emperor, who also put his stamp of authority onto their decrees. As for papal authority:
Pope Pelagius (556-60) talks of heretics separating themselves from the Apostolic Sees, that is Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria plus Constantinople. In all the early writings of the hierarchy there is no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, nor yet the special name of 'pope'...Of the eighty or so heresies in the first six centuries, not one refers to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, not one is settled by the Bishop of Rome...No one attacks the [supreme] authority of the Roman pontiff, because no one has heard of it.15The Easter Synod of 680 called by pope Agatho was the first ecclesiastical body that asserted the authority of the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church, but this was not an ecumenical council of the entire church, so its decision was generally not accepted. As de Rosa points out:
...not one of the early Fathers of the church saw in the Bible any reference to papal jurisdiction over the church. On the contrary, they take it for granted that bishops, especially metropolitans, have the full right to govern and administer their own territory without interference from anyone. The Eastern church never accepted papal supremacy; Rome's attempt to impose it led to schism.W.H.C. Frend, Emeritus Professor of Ecclesiastical History, in his classic The Rise of Christianity, points out that by the middle of the 5th century the Church "had become the most powerful single factor in the lives of the peoples of the empire. The Virgin and the saints had replaced the [pagan] gods as patrons of cities."17 and pope Leo I (440-61) boasted that St. Peter and St. Paul had "replaced Romulus and Remus as the city's [Rome's] protecting patrions."18 Frend writes that "Christian Rome was the legitimate successor of pagan Rome...Christ had triumphed [and] Rome was ready to extend its sway to the heavens themselves."19...one looks in vain in the first millennium for a single doctrine or piece of legislation imposed by Rome alone on the rest of the church. The only general laws came out of Councils such as Nicea. In any case, how could the Bishop of Rome have exercised universal jurisdiction in those early centuries when there was no [Roman] Curia, when other bishops brooked no interference in their dioceses from anyone, when Rome issued no dispensations and demanded no tribute or taxation, when all bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome, had the power to bind and loose, when no bishop or church or individual was censured by Rome?
Further, for centuries, the Bishop of Rome was chosen by the local citizens - clergy and laity. If he had jurisdiction over the universal church, would not the rest of the world want a say in his appointment? When he was believed to have [universal] supremeacy the rest of the church did demand a say in his election. This came about only in the middle ages.16
The Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously against the current Catholic dogma of papal supremacy and an unbroken line of succession back to Peter
...the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Mat 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou art Peter" to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants.No justification for making themselves the absolute and infallible rulers over the Church, much less the world, can be found in the writings of the early Fathers and certainly, as demonstrated, not in Scripture. The early popes chose, instead, to rewrite history by boldly manufacturing allegedly historical documents, e.g., The Donation of Constantine (circa 8th century), where pope Stephen III convinced Pepin, King of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, that territories recently taken by the Lombards from the Byzantines actually had been given to the papcy by the Emperor Constantine. Pepin routed the Lombards and handed to the pope the keys to some 20 cities (Ravenna, Ancona, Bologna, Ferrara, Iesi, Gubbio, etc.) and the huge chunk of land joining them along the Adriatic coast.Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. This is staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead...
For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith - or the Lord in whom Peter has his faith - which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.
...not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him...There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office.
So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter...The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels [though it wasn't there].20
Dated 315 Mar 30, the document declared that Constantine had given those lands, along with Rome and the Lateran Palace, to the popes in perpetuity. In 1440 that document was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, a papal aide, and is so recognized by historians today. Nevertheless, and that notwithstanding, successive popes over the centuries continued to assert the document to be genuine and on that basis to justify their pomp, power and possessions. The fraud continues to be perpetuated with an inscription in the baptistery of Rome's St. John Lateran, having never been corrected.21
That fraud in and of itself being insufficient for the Church's purposes, the pseudo-Isodorian Decretals were concocted. These were early papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isidore (560-636), but where actually fabricated in the ninth century. Those frauds became the foundation for much of today's "tradition" that the Church relies upon today.22 Prior "to the time of the Isodorian Decretals no serious attempt was made anywhere to introduce the neo-Roman theory of infallibility. The popes did not dream of laying claim to such a privilege."23
The Decretals involved more than a hundred concocted decrees allegedly promulgated by the earliest popes, along with counterfeit writings of supposed Church authorities and synods. These fabrications where just what Nicholas I (858-67) needed to justify his claims that the popes "held the place of God on earth" with absolute authority over kings, including even the right to "command massacres" of those who opposed them - all in the name of Christ.24
During the first part of the 1800's, some Christians began to feel uncomfortable about denominationalism, clerical hierarchy and certain "compromises" that were creeping into their churches. Those were days of unrest not only in the National churches of Ireland and England, but also throughout the various non-conformist bodies. Higher Criticism 25 was beginning to gain ground among the Anglicans, as was the Tractarian movement 26 with its trend toward Rome. At the same time the Irvingite heresy 27 with its charismatic tongues and prophesying began to surface in London.
In accordance to the Lord's pronouncement in Mat 18:20, these Christians resolved to simply read their Bibles and to try to gather in the same simple manner as Christians did in the New Testament. For some time they had been meeting to study the Scriptures; in comparing what they found in the Word of God with existing conditions at the time, they found no expression of the nature and character of the church of God, either in the National Established churches or in the various dissenting bodies. This led them to separate from these disparate ecclesiastical systems, and to come together in the name of the Lord Jesus (Mat 18:20), owning the presence and sovereign action of the Holy Spirit in their midst (1 Cor 12:4-11), and seeking to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace (Eph 4:3-4).
They were not seeking to start a movement of any kind, neither were they engaged in competition with existing churches, nor did they attempt to influence others to do as they were doing. Early in 1825, two students of the Scriptures, Dr. Edward Cronin and Edward Wilson began meeting together each Lord's Day morning in Dublin, Ireland, for the breaking of bread, worship, and study of the Word. These unquestionably godly men did not feel at home nor find spiritual food and fellowship in the Anglican Church of Ireland of the day. Moreover, since they professed Church membership to be unscriptural - already being members of the Universal Body of Christ - were not accepted by the few dissenting and independent churches of the time either.
By 1827 the little flock included H. Hutchinson, Wm. Stokes, Lord Congleton, J.G. Bellett, and J. N. Darby--the latter being an ex-lawyer, and at the time a cleric in the Irish National Church. In 1830, J. N. Darby left the Anglican priesthood and devoted himself full-time to forming and feeding similar small gatherings both in Ireland and England. In 1832 B.W. Newton, leader of one of the larger assemblies located in Plymouth, England, invited Darby to come and share the ministry. Concurrently, Lady Powerscourt opened her Irish mansion for a series of Prophetic Truth Conferences, which continued for several years. Before long, Darby became the acknowledged leader of these meetings to which many clergymen were attracted, as well as some of the charismatic Irvingite leaders. During the course of these Conferences, primarily through Darby, that Premillennialism was restored to the Church.
An outgrowth of the Prophetic Truth Conferences, through the Lord's use of Darby, was the systematic clarification of the doctrine of the believer's rapture prior to the Tribulation, as well as the Lord Jesus' glorious return to earth with His saints to establish the Millennial Kingdom. J.N.D. also did much to develop the dispensational teaching that exists today.
From 1832 to 1845 Darby was in fellowship with and ministered occasionally to the thriving Ebrington Street assembly at Plymouth. Since most of his time was spent elsewhere establishing other gatherings, Newton and J.L. Harris were obligated to carry on the bulk of the ministry in this assembly. It was considered the center of the Brethren movement and grew to number some 1,200 communicants. It is from that location that the term Plymouth Bretheren was established.
This term, however, is a purely sectarian nomenclature, most people inside the assemblies simply prefer to be called Christians. Nowadays, however, that term is insufficient. In order to fully qualify one's Christian belief it is necessary to make the absolute distinction: "fundamental Bible believing Christian". Its a real travesty that all those adjectives are actually needed to describe true Christians. Nevertheless, several well-known Christian authors (including Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and David Wilkerson) have referred to the movement by that name in their writings, and in so doing renewed interest in non-denominational Christianity.
Darby wrote, "What gave rise to the existence of so-called Plymouth Brethren is the grand truth, the great fact, of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, to form the body of Christ into one; then the coming of the Saviour as the continual expectation of the Christian".
In no uncertain terms the Brethren proclaimed the Scriptures to be absolutely inspired by God and the sole authority for faith and practice. It was mainly through Darby's ministry and writings that the sovereignty of God, election, assurance, acceptance, and unconditional eternal security were built into the movement's foundation. In the face of the charismatic developments among the London-based Irvingites (Scotch Presbyterian Apostolic Church), Darby strongly emphasized the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the time of new birth, coupled with the truth that believers are baptized into the one Body, the Church.
Early in 1845 it was brought to Darby's attention that all was not well in the Plymouth Ebrington Street assembly. It soon became evident that Newton had been attempting to establish the large and influential group as an independent church with himself as pastor--and that with the blessing of co-workers Harris and Tregelles.
To the horrified Brethren, Newton's action was not only schism in the Body, but also sectarianism and the dreaded "clericalism." To further complicate the catastrophe, Newton came out in the open as a postmillennialist, expressing disdain for Darby's dispensationalism and distinction between Israel and the Church.
After many stormy sessions and writing of papers in an effort to heal the breach, Darby and a number of others withdrew from the Plymouth assembly to form a new one. This move did not so much constitute a split as it did the excommunication of Newton and those who chose to remain with him at Ebrington Street. Two years later (1847), however, Harris discovered what was considered heretical error in one of Newton's unpublished manuscripts. It had to do with the Lord Jesus as Man, and as an Israelite on earth. When this was brought to light many of those who had previously questioned Darby's move sided with him. As far as the Plymouth Brethren movement was concerned, Newton and his group were off New Testament ground of gathering, and were considered to be a source of error.
Each local group of likeminded fundamental Bible believing Christians is wholly autonomous. There's no inter-church organization of any kind, no organizational headquarters, no official publication, no office representing such groups. They all do, without exception, look to the risen Head of the church, Jesus Christ, as the head of their local group (church or assembly). They meet under the spiritual presidency of the Spirit alone. There is no archbiship, synod, central committee, convention, conference or headquarters. There is no creed, code, book or rules or worship or human court of appeal. The result obviously leads to some differences in Scripture interpretation and slight variations in procedure and service. An outsider would be astonished to see how fundamentally similar procedures and services are amongst the disparate groups across the world.
The universal view amongst all of these assemblies is that this is preferred to a formula which all must follow. These assemblies are the meeting of the minds for those Christians who have soured to the experience of the majority ridiculing the concept of a conversion to Christ (becoming born again), where the saved and unsaved freely share fellowship, and modernistic and false doctrines, e.g., ecumenism, Christian psychology, not merely women but openly homosexual women ministers, are openly preached and embraced. These souls felt that they were in the wrong place and longed for the liberty of the Spirit.
The original and sustaining motive of the Brethren was to gather and worship in freedom "according to the New Testament pattern," as they understood it. They believe what Scripture teaches concerning "the priesthood of all believers", and instead of a clerical heirarchy look to what Scripture teaches about church government, and therefore have no one pastor, instead prefering several co-equal "elders" and "deacons" to assist them, (all of these men depending upon the Holy Spirit for their own leadership and guidance). This is not only eminently sound doctrinally, but inherently minimizes the risk of ravenous wolves in sheeps clothing insinuating false doctrine into their assembly. Their ministry was shared by those men gifted and trained for that purpose by the Spirit. The concept of an "ordained" ministry is dismissed. Ordained by whom? The state? Some school? A church? Or perhaps, by the Spirit Himself?
In the New Testament, the term presbuteros is used to refer to two distinctly different groups of elders. The first is the non-Christian Jewish elders who ruled Israel at the time of Jesus. Most New Testament references to these elders refer to the members of the Sanhedrin, the council of seventy established under the Old Testament elder system. These men, in alliance with the chief priests, were responsible for governing the religious matters of the Jews; yet they perpetrated the crucifixion of Jesus and persecuted the apostles and early believers (Mat 26:3,47,59,27:1,12; Act 6:12; 23:14). Their poor example of leadership demonstrates clearly that structure alone is not the answer to abusive, authoritarian church leadership. Even though they functioned as a collegial body, their lack of humility and lust for power took them so far away from God that they ultimately destroyed the Presence of God in their midst. Without a humble serving spirit, any group of leaders can quickly degenerate into an arrogant and exclusive club of tyrants wielding unbiblical authority over God's heritage.
The second use of the term presbuteros is in reference to the leaders of local assemblies. After the Day of Pentecost, as Jesus was building His Church through the power of His Spirit, the twelve apostles provided both pastoral oversight and practical service to the assembly in Jerusalem. In Acts 6 they turned some of the practical service over to seven men whom many believe serve as the prototype of those who would later be called "deacons." At some point the apostles appointed other mature and capable men to serve as elders in the Jerusalem church.28 In Acts 15 we see the first references to "the apostles and elders" (vv.2, 4, 6, 22, 23).
In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas were sent out by the assembly at Antioch to plant churches in Asia and Europe. After their church plants reached a certain level of size and maturity, these apostles appointed men called "elders" to provide continuing leadership. Acts 14:23 says, "So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." The assemblies had been founded by Paul, Barnabas, and their traveling team of church planters (Acts 13:1-5, 13). But once an assembly was mature and ready to be set in order, the responsibility for ongoing pastoral oversight and care was turned over to a team of elders. "Every church" (singular) had "elders" (plural).29
In 1 Timothy 5:17, Paul wrote that the elders who "rule well" should be counted worthy of double honor. This implies that it is possible to not rule well. In our modern way of thinking, the idea of church leaders "ruling over" the people is most often associated with the hierarchical form of church leadership. But this is not what Paul had in mind. In describing the nature of leadership, Paul used the phrase "over you in the Lord" (I Ths 5:12). This phase suggests that the biblical concept of rule can only be understood by looking at the ultimate Ruler of the Church, who described Himself as "gentle and lowly in heart" (Mat 11:29). At the last supper He told His disciples, "If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example..." (Jno 13:14-15). As the Shepherd of the flock, Jesus declared, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep" (Jno 10:11).
It is not a heavy-handed style of rule being described, but a rule based on love, care, gentleness, concern, and compassion. It can be characterized as "gentle strength." Men, in their insecurity, often have a tendency to want to "lord it over people." But Jesus told His disciples explicitly, "It shall not be so among you" (Mar 10:43). And Peter admonished the elders to do their shepherding work, not "as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." He then cautioned that the Chief Shepherd would one day appear, implying that He would be looking to see if they had been ruling over His people in accord with His example (I Pet 5:3-4).
Because of the Bretheren disdain for an ecclesiastic clerical hierarchy, you won't find the elders elevating themselves above the assembly when they are delivering a sermon or conducting services. Though Paul was a powerful apostle and teacher, and though he considered himself the "father" of the church in Corinth, he never asserted his authority over the people on the basis of his being an apostle. Instead he sought to persuade them on the basis of his love and proven concern for them. Modeling his style of rule after the Chief Shepherd, he wrote, "Now I, Paul, myself am pleading with you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ; who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you" (2 Cor 10:1). In the New Testament Church, those who are appointed to rule over the assembly are to do so from a position of humility and service, not power and control. Hebrews 13:17 says that those who rule are the ones who "watch out for your souls," a clear reference to the shepherding function, which Jesus said means laying down ones life for the sheep.
The center, or focus, of Brethren assemblies is always the Lord's Table. They have always been seated in a square about the table for communion. Each Lord's day they partake of the one loaf, and the one cup, signifying the unity of the Body. "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread" (1 Cor 10:17).
Based on the fundamental nature of the Bretheren assemblies, there is really no way of knowing how many there currently are in existance. Most large cities in North America have at least one "Brethren Assembly" and some small towns have several. At some point the dividing line between "Brethren Assembly" and "Independent Bible Church" gets blurred. An address book that had been published by Walterick some time ago lists 195 assemblies in the Canadian province of Ontario - population in excess of 9 million - alone. There would certainly be hundreds of these churches in England and Scotland, and likewise in some African countries. The Australian periodical Tidings lists 261 assemblies in country.
Aside from whatever "open" assemblies may exist:
Moreover, it commits the mistake of the genetic fallacy, i.e., a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. The genetic fallacy fails to assess claims on their own merits. Usually those who commit these fallacies, are guilty of yet another fallacy, i.e., argumentum ad antiquitatem, which is just as specious as argumentum ad novitatem. One argument being something must be true because it has always been accepted as true, and the other saying it must be true because it is novel, current, up to date, modern, academic, etc.
The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. While genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, they are inherently irrelevant to the merits of an argument.
While not unique in this, the Brethren are certainly outstanding today in their concern for the Lord's glory and stand uncompromisingly for the Lord Jesus who is the living Truth, and for His Word, the written Truth. Their basic burden is to be the New Testament expression of the Body of Christ, the Church, as they see it and yearn for it to be today. Moreover, the Bretheren care--they care for the Body, and they care for the members in particular. They will not tolerate error, neither in their midst, nor in the Body Universal; although they may not always deal with it in the best manner (who of us does?).
Recently an assembly invited a speaker who ministers to the movement at large. A rarity among the Brethren, this particular brother had been infected by the charismatic plague. Inevitably, his message betrayed the fateful fact. At that moment a ruling brother stood and terminated the meeting with prayer! The very next morning he ordered a quantity of The Line Drawn31, to be distributed among the families of the assembly. True, the congregation should have been prepared long beforehand for any such incident, especially in these days; but at least there was decisive action when the need arose.
And Dave Hunt is just as uncompromising concerning the Truth with respect to unbliblical teaching and practices that impact the church. His exhortation is to sound doctrine, with emphasis placed upon Biblical discernment of truth regarding teachings and practices currently being promoted in the church. I question what motivation exists concerning whatever antipathy there may be against the man. If the man is promoting heretical doctrine, then I want to hear the doctrine refuted. If the doctrine that he presents as being Scriptural can not be refuted, then the issue is an entirely personal and one that needs to be taken up with the Lord.
===========================================================
Notes: