Baptists and

Interdenominationalism
M.L. Moser Jr.

Dr. Ernest Pickering of Minneapolis, Minnesota said: "For hundreds of years Baptists had
no problem regarding their relationship to other denominations. They were a persecuted,
hunted people, fleeing from the power of tyrannical religion. Ancient Baptists carried the
banner of gospel truth even through the period of the Dark Ages, meeting secretly, but
evangelizing with remarkable success.
"Since the rise of post-Reformation denominationalism, Baptists have been faced with the
problem of their relationship to other denominational groups. In the last fifty to seventy-five
years the problem of interdenominational movements has been accentuated for fundamental
Baptists in the United States. The growth of fundamental interdenominationalism has been
notable during this period and has produced a flood of mission boards, radio programs,
schools and other agencies. Its influence has extended into Baptist churches and affected the
thinking of Baptist people. The spirit of the day is the spirit of ‘togetherness,’ a spirit which
declares ‘Let us forget our differences so that we may all work together.’
"The spirit of interdenominationalism is a pervasive one. It must be viewed in the light of
Scriptural principles, those to which Biblical Baptists adhere.
"To deny the great good which some interdenominational organizations have accomplished
would be to deny obvious facts. Neither would anyone question the personal godliness of
many interdenominationalists. But these matters are beside the point. The basic issue is this:
Are the concepts, principles, and methods of contemporary, fundamental
interdenominationalism true to the teachings of the Word of God? Are they compatible with
the Baptist position which rests upon these teachings? A comparison of
interdenominationalism with historic Baptist principles will serve to answer this question."
The question then is, are Baptists of today ready to do what they consistently have refused
to do in the past. If so, were they wrong?
As I look at the subject, we are not discussing all denominations and their relationships
with other denominations but only Baptists and other denominations. Just what is our
relationship as Baptists with other denominations?
Our relationships can be divided into four basic areas which can be seen in three concentric
circles, each of which has its own area of fellowship, with some partial overlapping [See
chart].

The largest area of fellowship is that which we have as individuals with all people living on
earth. We have a family relationship in that we all belong to the human race having descended
from a common pair, Adam and Eve. This includes those who are the non-religious, either
atheists or agnostics, the false religions such as the Hindoos, the Muslims, etc., as well as the
false cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc. This
relationship however is strictly limited.
Then within the first circle or the outer circle are included those Christians who are of other
Christian denominations. There is an area of fellowship with these which is much greater than
those outside the circle since we are all members of the family of God, having been born
again.
It is in this circle that the pastor’s position and work may bring him into contact with
ministers of other denominations in the community, and his comfort and usefulness will to
some extent depend on the esteem and confidence with which he is regarded by those
Christians outside his own church. He will often times find many of the noblest Christian men
and women in these other denominations and it is well to maintain with them the most frank
and cordial relations. This is especially true when called upon to cooperate in a funeral
service.
He should be ready to show a friendly, cordial spirit and a readiness to help in all areas that
does not compromise his basic Baptist doctrines, principles or practices. This however should
never extend to an exchange of pulpits or cooperation in either union, ecumenical or citywide
campaigns or revival meetings. In such meetings each church is expected to waive its
distinctive doctrines, something which Baptists cannot do. While it is not denied that such
meetings have sometimes produced some good and possibly beneficial results, still they are
not desirable, for what benefits might be derived are more than off-set by the loss of the
church’s distinctiveness as a Baptist church differing from other denominations. To do so
places one in the position of being "just another Protestant denomination." Thus, this circle of
fellowship is of necessity a very restricted circle.
The second circle of fellowship is within the outer circle and this includes members of other
Baptist churches, yet not members of the church to which we are members. Since they have
been scripturally baptized and are members of Baptist churches, there is an area of fellowship
greater than that which we have with other Christians who have not been scripturally
baptized. Cooperation with these churches in mission work, education, revivals, etc. is not
only advisable but we see particular examples of such cooperation in the Scriptures as various
churches cooperated together in both the support of the persecuted church in Jerusalem and
the support of a missionary, the Apostle Paul. This cooperation was done on an individual
church basis, for though the churches associated together in their cooperation, they did not
form an Association, Convention or organization of any kind as each of the churches
maintained their status as an independent Baptist church.
The inner circle and the one where we should have our greatest fellowship is that circle
which includes those who are members of the same church to which we belong. It is this
small inner circle where we should have our greatest fellowship.
The difficulty we often have is in determining the boundary lines or limits of these areas of
fellowship for they are not the same, and it is to this difficult question that we will be seeking
an answer in this book.
Very few articles or books have been written on this subject, for few if any modern day
writers discuss this subject at all and if so, it is for the purpose of erasing or removing these
circles in order to make just one big circle of fellowship, eliminating all areas of division. As
an example I quote the following:
Dr. Jack Van Impe, noted evangelist in America today, has published an article entitled
"That They All May Be One." This article is published in the 1st Quarter, 1983 of American
Review. It is a very lengthy article, precluding my quoting the entire article, but I do want to
quote some excerpts in order that we might set the background for our discussion of "Baptists
and Interdenominationalism."
Dr. Van Impe says: "The Lord Jesus, in His high priestly prayer, said, ‘[Father], as thou
hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. Neither pray I for
these alone [my sent ones], but for them also which shall believe on me [converts of future
generations] through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me’ (John
17:18, 20, 21).
"The unity or oneness of the family of God is the purpose of the Lord’s prayer. Imagine,
God in the flesh prayed that all Christians in all eras of time might have love for one another
as a sign that the Father really sent the Son and that Christianity is genuine. Is it any wonder
that Jesus said in John 13:35: ‘By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love one to another.’
"1 Corinthians 12:13 declares: ‘For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.’ This is
not a Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Weslyan Methodist, Christian and Missionary Alliance
or Evangelist Free Church body. Rather, it is the body of Jesus Christ composed of all born-
again believers found in numerous denominations. . . It’s too bad that God, who chose us and
called us to salvation (Ephesians 1:4) did not do it through one denomination. This would
have made unity much simpler (ha!). . .Do you really think that denominational tags are that
important to God? . . .
"Don’t misunderstand. We may each have our personal convictions and hold to our
doctrinal distinctives. I do, as a Baptist. Still, should we shun other brothers in Christ who
disagree with our position? Could it be that most of us follow at least one man-made teaching
within each of our denominations that could prove to be wrong, and scorn all brothers who
disagree with us? Remember that no man is right on every issue, be he Calvin, Luther,
Zwingli, Wesley or the leader upon whom your denomination was founded or for whom it is
named. . .
"Dr. Paul E. Billheimer states: ‘I believe personally that the main thing hindering the return
of the Lord is the disunity of the Body. This is the greatest sin in the Church because it is the
real cause of more souls being lost than any other sin.’. . .
"Am I being condemnatory? By no means. In fact, I, too, was guilty. In my mass, area-wide
crusades, dating from 1969 to 1980, many good brothers in Christ were barred from
participation because I allowed ‘militant’ leaders in numerous cities to establish false
standards of separation. Consequently, men who dearly loved God were often banned because
they did not bear the same denominational tag . . . As a result, many good men were deeply
hurt. Yet, I remained silent.
"During the last five years, my spirit grew progressively troubled and many decisions were
made. Consequently, I am now able to fulfill the promise I made at the 1977 Sword of the
Lord Conference in Detroit. At that time I stated: ‘I can no longer tolerate the dissention and
division occurring among the brethren. It hinders genuine revival and makes a mocking world
reject the message of Christ. I will no longer go into areas for future evangelistic campaigns
unless there is a new spirit of love and unity among our leaders.’
"I have lived with this heartache long enough. Now it is finished, and my only desire is to
love all the family of God and proclaim the message of reconciliation until I go home. How
else can I expect to hear my Lord says, ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant?’
"Because the situation concerning my area-wide crusades became seemingly hopeless, I
realized the futility of attempting to reach a world of lost men under these heartbreaking
conditions. Thus, I ended this aspect of my ministry, fulfilling my promise made at the Sword
of the Lord Conference in 1977. . .
"Beloved brothers in Christ, I reach out to you with open arms of love. If you were
ostracized and banned from my crusades, I apologize. I also ask forgiveness for injuring you
—a true member of the body of Christ. I promise both my God and you that the rest of my
years will be spent proclaiming the message of reconciliation and love for all the brotherhood
(1 Pet. 2:17). I cannot do otherwise, for we are all one body in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 12:13),
and the Holy Spirit adds in verses 25 and 26 that ‘there should be no schism [or division] in
the body’ because it inflicts agonizing pain upon all of us...
"Brothers and sisters, since I have caused some of this pain in the body of Christ, I ask once
again for your forgiveness. I truly love each of you who are members of the family of God,
and never want to knowingly hurt anyone again.
"May I conclude by asking all ministers and laymen the following question: ‘When did you
last exemplify the love of Christ to a brother or sister within another denomination—or even
with your own if they are of another association or affiliation?’ If not, why not? Since we are
all members of the one body, are we not ‘fingers on the same hand’ as it were?
"What a shame, then, that religious leaders will not allow these fingers—representing
various denominational brothers—to touch one another until we reach heaven’s golden
shores! God forgive all of us. We have been wrong. . .so drastically wrong. . .so scripturally
wrong!
"Show love to manifest to an unbelieving world that we all are one, and that the Father
hath sent the Son!"
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a part of the "falling away" of the last days
predicted by the Apostle Paul. Paul said the "time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears"
(2 Tim. 4:3).
It has often times been demanded of Baptists that they show evidence of a church before
the Day of Pentecost, and strangely enough, many Baptists are willing to concede that there
was no church before Pentecost. However, an honest inquirer can find evidence of a church
before Pentecost if he will simply examine the inspired record without any preconceived bias
against finding such a church.
John the Baptist was sent in order to prepare a people for the Lord, and when the Lord
arrived to begin His public ministry, the Lord accepted these people and called them His
disciples. Within this group or body of disciples, under the authority of Christ and giving
obedience to His authority, we find everything necessary for a New Testament church. They
are called out from the world by a profession of faith and baptism, they are associated in a
visible body according to the direction of Christ their only Head and Kin, and they submit all
things to His authority. This was the beginning of Christ’s church and John himself applied to
it the very name given it in the book of Revelation, the Bride (Rev. 21:9), for this church will
one day be the Lamb’s wife.
Shortly thereafter Christ gave to this body of disciples the name church or assembly, a body
that could and frequently did assemble for worship and the transaction of business. He
assembled this group several times before He gave them the title of His church or assembly.
The first full church meeting in which all the disciples were gathered together in one place
for instruction is recorded by Matthew in chapter 5 verse 1: "And seeing the multitudes, he
went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him." These disciples
were not the twelve apostles nor the seventy mentioned later on, for they had not yet been
chosen. This was the entire multitude of His disciples, no doubt those who had been baptized
by John the Baptist.
This is the first recorded meeting of the church, a visible assembly of men, possessing
certain qualifications, called out from the multitudes for a specific purpose, and this is the
essential meaning of the word ecclesia. We can even add an organized assembly since they
recognized the supreme authority of Christ over them.
In this first general meeting of His disciples, which He soon named His ecclesia or church,
He instructed them touching their individual Christian duties, and clearly indicated their
mission as His assembly by giving them their first commission. "Ye are the light of the world.
A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid . . . let your light so shine before men, that they may
see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Through this commission
Christ revealed to His church that they were His missionary agency to take the gospel to the
whole world for that light was to be taken to the whole world.
Here was this first church of which Christ was the living present Head and the source of all
law and government, but as yet it had no officers since neither the apostles nor the seventy
had been chosen as yet.
We read of a second meeting recorded by Luke in which He called them together (Luke
6:12). At this meeting He chose the Apostles and then in Luke 10 He appoints the seventy. It
was shortly after this that He announced to this body of disciples that they were His church
(Matthew 16:18). Next He delivers to His church the laws dealing with personal offenses
among the members which is still in force today, and the giving of this law and the specific
mention of the body of His disciples as a church, puts it beyond all question that there was an
organization at this time, since laws imply and necessitate an organization.
The third general meeting of His church was after His resurrection, where at a place He
appointed before His death, He met more than five hundred brethren at one time (1 Cor. 15:6).
We are not told how many witnessed His ascension, but at least 120 upon their return held a
church meeting in an upper room in Jerusalem where they by popular vote, elected Mathias to
take the place left vacant by the death of Judas. This was a valid election as attested to by the
Holy Spirit (Acts 1:15-26; 2:14; 6:1-2).
This assembly which Christ had assembled these three times and which He had designated
as His church, the Holy Spirit calls a church after the ascension of Christ. There is not the
slightest indication that there was the least modification made in its organization, much less a
new and unheard of organization was originated by the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost. It
was to this body that Christ left, were added the three thousand souls on the Day of Pentecost
and it was to that church already existing that were added daily for some time after Pentecost.
No church was organized during the days of Pentecost or afterward in the city of Jerusalem.
Having seen that the Lord and His apostles foretold the fact of the falling away of the
church (2 Tim. 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:3), let us consider more particularly the origin and nature of
that falling away. But this cannot be rightly understood unless we have a true conception of
that standing or condition from which the church fell. We must, therefore, enter into some
particulars as to the ends which God purposed to accomplish by it, so far as He had made
them known, and how those ends were to be attained.
The church is established by God for a special purpose, the revelation of Himself and His
will to the world. He chooses some individuals to be His instruments of instruction and
blessing to others. This He did through individuals, as with the patriarchs, or in the case of the
Jews, through a nation. They were separated by His act from other nations, and brought into a
special covenant relation to Him. The New Testament church constitutes a new election,
wholly distinct from that of the Jews.
 The church may fail partially to fulfill the purpose for which God chose it, even as it was
with the Jews (Isa. 1:2; 5:2), but His purpose in it cannot fail. It is not preserved from all
falling away, but cannot become wholly apostate (Mt. 16:18; 28:18-20). It is preserved by the
Headship of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:22).
As the human body is that through which a man acts upon things without, so it is with
Christ’s body. The Head, personally or through the Holy Spirit, made known who should
officially serve under Him, and teach and rule His people; and thus unity of doctrine and of
administration was preserved in His selecting the Apostles as inspired teachers and providing
us with an inerrant and infallible Bible as our standard for all things. Following the beginning
of that first church by the Lord, other churches were formed and each congregation chose
their own pastor by vote or election by the membership, the membership being guided by the
Holy Spirit. But when a church loses their "first love," it can come into such a spiritual
condition of estrangement from its Head, that they are no longer able to discern the choice of
its Head, and the church then drifts away from following its Head to following another. This
is the beginning of disobedience resulting in disobedience to the Lord’s authority where He
said "As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."
The church as the body of Christ is one with Him. The law of His life is the law of its life
and it is in full sympathy with Him, His truth is its truth, His purposes its purposes, His
strength its strength. It loves and hates what He loves and hates.
The Head has a twofold work: first in the church to fill it with His life; and secondly,
through the church to manifest Himself to the world. The church therefore is His body
through which He can act and manifest Himself to the world. How well He is able to manifest
Himself to the world is affected by the spiritual condition of the church. As He has no will
separate from the Father’s will, so the church should have no will separate from His will. The
Lord said "I can of mine own self do nothing" (John 5:30), so the church of its ownself can do
nothing. It has no independent activity, for it is the Head who teaches and acts through the
body, His church. It is Christ who acts by His pastors and leads the worship of the church.
The falling away mentioned by Paul is the change in the churches relationship to her Head.
The Head can no longer carry on His perfect work in it and by it as in the past. The vital link
is not broken, but it has become weakened so that it no longer functions as a strong, vibrant
body as it once did. There may be individual members with much zeal and activity, but the
action of the church as a whole has been basically ineffective. The cause of this change is
seen in Revelation 2:4 "Thou hast left thy first love." This was the first step that ended in the
condition of the church of Laodicea with Christ, the Head of the church, on the outside
seeking admittance to His own church.
The church of Ephesus left her "first love" and failed to do her "first works." In these
"Seven Churches of Asia" we see a deterioration until we arrive with the church of Laodicea
which not only had left her "first love" but we see her Head is on the outside threatening to
completely leave her.
Within the church may be "withered branches" who no longer have life since they have
separated themselves from the Head. In fact, it is possible for the members of a church to so
separate themselves that the whole body may become spiritually weak or enfeebled and so fail
to accomplish His purpose for them. When enough of the members reach that point, the
church is in danger of the Head leaving and the church soon dies. It may continue as an
organization but there will be no life in it. It has even exceeded or surpassed the state of the
church of Laodicea.
The Lord makes known to the church her own spiritual condition as seen by the Head. The
estimate the church has of herself however, may be very different than that of her Lord as
seen by the seven churches of Asia, particularly the church of Laodicea. Such ignorance of
her real spiritual condition is possible because she has lost her first love and does not have
that intimate fellowship with her Lord that enables her to receive the communication from her
Lord or they reject His evaluation in preference to their own. They no longer have "ears to
hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."
The church is an organization but it is far more than an organization. It is also an organism.
It is alive. It is a living organization with the life of its Head pulsating through its very being.
But when the church is cut off by its Head, it may continue to be an organization but it no
longer is an organism—it is dead. This was the warning which the Lord gave to the church of
Laodicea. Separated from its Head, the church would cease to be an organism and be only an
organization.
As her strength was in union with Him, so her weakness was in disunion. Failing then to
have their strength from Him, they then turned to the strength of numbers and men by
merging under a Bishop over several churches, and ultimately to the leadership of one man,
the Pope.
There was no uniformity in the early stages of the Catholic Church even as there is no
uniformity in Protestantism today. The Roman Catholic Church began very similar to
Protestantism—separate denominations, each gathered around particular doctrines or men, yet
soon to be gathered around one supreme authority, a church council, later to be around one
man—the Pope.
Some of these "denominations" within the Roman Catholic church continue today under the
descriptive title of "orders." The Jesuits, the Franciscans, Carmelites, Dominicans and many
others. Though each of them is a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, there are as many
differences between them as there are between the various denominations of Protestantism.
As early as the second century in the writings of Irenaeus, we see that the emphasis is no
longer upon the churches but rather on the church. In seeking to unify these various churches,
he wrote that it would be preserved in three ways: by adherence to scripture, the apostolic
tradition, and the historic episcopate or the miniature hierarchy which had already begun.
Cyprian carried it still further for where the bishop is, for Cyprian, there is the church. And
he said "he who will not have the church for his mother cannot have God for his father." The
aggregate of bishops thus became for Cyprian the concrete realization in time and space of the
universal visible church. Greenslade has summarized Cyprian’s views thusly: "The church is
a single, visible body, using the apostolic Scriptures in addition to the Old Testament,
maintaining the traditional apostolic faith, living under the institutions which have been
handed down from apostolic times; and it is further linked with the apostles by the succession
of bishops in each see." In Cyprian’s teachings were present most of the basic concepts which
were to convert Christianity into a persecuting religion. The sword became not only an
accepted method of preserving unity of the church but a tool of evangelism as well.
Cyprian’s united church fell apart around 1054 because of the split between what is referred
to as Eastern and Western Christianity. All attempts at reunion failed and by the fifteenth
century was looked upon as a permanent division.
Especially beginning with the ninth century there were huge defections from the Catholic
Church as millions of its followers left their ranks to be baptized and join with the
Anabaptists. As a result, crusades were launched against the Waldenses; John Huss was
burned at the stake, and the inquisition with varying degrees of success, attempted to enforce
conformity wherever it could compel the secular power to do its bidding. This was soon
followed by the Reformation on the part of many.
 It is true that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli viewed the Roman Catholic Church as a fallen
church, but neither of them agreed with the Anabaptists in holding that the fall was total and
the Roman Church completely apostate. All three felt that they were simply remodeling a
structure upon the same time-honored foundation, and that they were in vital communion with
the one true church of Christ. Infant baptism became the outward symbol of this basic
assumption.
The Baptists, however, viewed the fall of that church as total and absolute. They dated the
fall primarily with the union of church and state which, according to them was first
implemented by Constantine the Great. In no sense could the Anabaptists accept the church of
Rome as the true church.
Though the Anabaptists did feel a kinship with some of the Reformers, recognizing that
every regenerate man, because of his relationship to Christ was a member of the family of
God, they had no interest in making such a concept a cause for either organic unity with these
new denominations nor for cooperation with them. They were primarily concerned with
building visible churches upon the foundation of Christ and the apostles. Apostolic
succession, corporate unity, and political power had absolutely no attraction for them. It was
their conviction that they stood in relation to Christ and the apostles where first century
Christians stood, and that it was they themselves who had not only preserved doctrinal purity
since New Testament days but also were the direct successors to the New Testament churches
that had continued in an unbroken line until then.
If one’s doctrine of the origin of the church is scriptural, it will be in harmony with the
other doctrines of God’s grace. If it is unscriptural, it will conflict with those doctrines, and
before the world and on the minds of the members who uphold such a church will certainly
tend to obscure, if not to efface these doctrines. Both Luther and Calvin saw clearly that the
central point of their controversy with Rome was just this doctrine of the church. Luther said:
"What is the dispute between the Papists and us? It is the dispute about the true Christian
church. The dispute is not whether we must believe the church—whether there is a church—
but which is the true church." Calvin said: "We only contend for a true and legitimate
constitution of the church, which requires, not only a communion in the sacraments which are
the signs of a Christian profession, but above all, an agreement in doctrine."
Luther and Zwingli and their followers separated from and condemned the Roman Catholic
church, not on account of the Romish origin or foundation of their church, but on account of
the false doctrines which Rome taught respecting salvation. In thus separating from Rome and
preaching the truth, they deserve the highest commendation. But they retained essentially the
Roman Catholic origin of the churches.
The introduction of W. M. Nevins in his book Alien Baptism and the Baptists (published by
Challenge Press) reads as follows: "In 1854, the Presbyterian General Assembly met in
Buffalo, New York, and this question was presented to them for their decision:
"Are Romish baptisms and ordinations valid?
"There was a heated discussion over this question. The majority report of the committee
was that all ordinations at the hands of the Romish priests were invalid, because the Roman
Catholic Church was no church of Christ, but anti-Christ, and therefore the baptisms and
ordinations of such an apostate body are null and void.
"The minority report, on the other hand, contended that if they denied the church of Rome
to be a true church of Christ, they unchurched themselves, since they came out of Rome, and
received their baptisms and ordinations therefrom. Finding they could not extricate
themselves from the dilemma, they moved an indefinite postponement of the question.
 "Baptists are and have ever been faced with the same question ‘Are the baptisms and
ordinations of Rome valid?’ [However, we are also faced with another question of equal
importance, are the baptisms and ordinations of Protestants valid? —MLMJr.] But since
Baptists did not come out of Rome, neither out of the Protestant bodies, the contention of the
minority report is not pertinent to us, and we can answer squarely, ‘No.’ This has been the
Baptist answer for nearly 1,600 years of marvelous history." In view of this, what should our
relationship be with other denominations. A tract written by J. M. Pendleton entitled An Old
Landmark Re-set provided the basis for a set of five questions presented by J. R. Graves to a
group of interested Baptists at Cotton Grove, Tennessee, June 24, 1851. These questions are:
1. Can Baptists consistently, with their principles of the scriptures, recognize those
societies, not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem church, but possessing a
different government, different officers, a different class of membership, different ordinances,
doctrines and practices, as the Church of Christ?
2. Ought they to be called Gospel Churches or Churches in a religious sense?
3. Can we consistently recognize the ministers of such irregular and unscriptural bodies, as
gospel ministers in their official capacity?
4. Is it not virtually recognizing them as official ministers to invite them into our pulpits, or
by any other act that would or could be construed into such a recognition?
5. Can we consistently address as brethren, those professing Christianity who not only have
not the doctrines of Christ and walk not according to His commandments, but are arrayed in
direct and bitter opposition to them?
Most questions like these are ignored today or else there is a belief that all churches and all
denominations are equally scriptural and therefore questions of this nature pose no problem
for them. To some, denominations are simply minor branches or divisions of the one true
church which ultimately will embrace all denominations in one final universal visible church.
Samuel J. Andrews in speaking of this wrote: "There are those who think little of the church
as a historic institution to be preserved and unchanged, but believe that there will be a wider
and overgrowing spread of Christianity as a spiritual influence till the entire world is
leavened. A new era is to come about and the new era they expect will come through a
Christianized civilization and the enlargement of Christendom to embrace all denominations
and all nations."
It is based on the mistaken idea that the whole world is to become Christian. Advocates of
this position interpret the Parable of the Leaven (Matthew 13:33), along with a few other
Scriptures, as teaching that the leaven represents the gospel, the woman represents the church,
and the meal represents the world, and since the leaven is going to permeate the entire world
through the efforts of the woman, the conclusion is that this universal church is ultimately
going to succeed in converting the whole world. It is for this reason that Dr. Jack Van Impe,
referred to earlier, cited a statement by Dr. Paul E. Billheimer in which he said: "I believe
personally that the main thing hindering the return of the Lord is the disunity of the body.
This is the greatest sin in the church." Their attitude is "major only on the ‘major’ doctrines
and not divide over the ‘minor’ doctrines. Preach only so-called ‘positive messages.’ After all,
God called me to win souls not to criticize others." One simply needs to read Jude 3-4 to
refute such arguments as this.
In this parable, they teach that the woman represents the church and the meal represents the
world, and since the leaven is going to permeate the entire world through the efforts of the
woman, then this universal church is ultimately going to succeed in converting the whole
world to Christ. On the contrary, this woman that we see in the Parable of the Leaven is the
same woman we read of in Revelation 17 and 18 where she is referred to as "the great whore."
John identifies her as the Roman Catholic Church and the offspring of this great whore are the
Protestant churches resulting from her illicit love affairs. How can we fellowship with such?
Can we abandon the New Testament church and join ourselves to an adulteress? God forbid!
Christendom instead must be recognized as a battlefield where the old elements and the
new are struggling together not merging or cooperating together. Liberals are confronting
conservatives: Neo-orthodoxy is confronting orthodoxy. Modernists are confronting
fundamentalists. Truth is confronting error. In interdenominationalism the assailants and the
defenders are so inextricably mingled that one cannot separate the enemy from friend. This is
one of the results of interdenominationalism. Denominations become so entertwined in the
mind of the world that there is lost any clear distinction between them, so that they are all
equated one with another, and Baptists lose their distinctive identity and our trumpet no
longer blows a clear and certain sound.
But Christ did not build churches in deadly antagonism to each other, and in open rebellion
to His authority— churches constitutionally divided against each other—composed of
materials so heterogeneous and discordant that they could never be "fitly framed together"
(Eph. 2:21). Christ Himself said "every kingdom divided against itself is brought to
desolation" (Matthew 12:25). Yet He says His church will stand forever and therefore, it is
not divided against itself—composed of discordant and antagonistic constituencies or
churches.
True churches of Christ are not diverse the one from the other, but the equals of each other,
having the same character of membership, the same form of organization, the same
ordinances in form and design, and holding and teaching the same fundamental doctrines.
There are three mathematical axioms which can apply right here as well as to the field of
mathematics.
1. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
2. Things unequal to each other can not all be equal to the same thing—one and only one
may be.
3. Of contradictory propositions, if one be true all the others are false.
Now applying these propositions to the various churches and denominations, each claiming
to be equal to the same thing—a scriptural church—we see the falsity of the claim that all are
scriptural. In fact, each one when asked will deny that the others are equal to itself or the New
Testament model. So these denominations are not all equal to each other and not even any two
are essentially alike. Note the differences between the Methodists and the Presbyterians. One
is Arminian the other Calvinistic in doctrine—poles apart on the doctrinal scale. Among all
the denominations, if one can be found that is patterned after the New Testament churches,
whether that one be the Catholic, the Methodist, or the Baptist church, only that one is a New
Testament or scriptural church. All the contradictory denominations in existence today can
not be equally true—if one is New Testament, only one can be.
If we conclude that the Catholic church is a New Testament church, does not that
conclusion affirm that all others are not? If I should conclude that all are New Testament
churches it would be either through ignorance or hypocrisy. Therefore, if we believe that
Baptist churches are true New Testament churches, all others are false. If we conclude that all
are New Testament churches, it admits that Christ is the originator of all these denominations,
and that He Himself originated or authorized the origination of each of these antagonistic
denominations that shall remain in perpetual conflict until one has either swallowed up or
exterminated all of the others. It is preposterous to think that Christ would begin all these
contradictory organizations that call themselves churches. Are we willing to concede that the
oceans of blood or The Trail of Blood precipitated against our Baptist forefathers by these
Catholic and Protestant denominations, was done by those who were really New Testament
churches all along?
That each denomination is a separate church, equally scriptural as Baptist churches is false
on its face. The popular "branch theory" is an absurdity. This theory is based upon a false
assumption that all the leading popular denominations, variant and antagonistic though they
be, are branches of "the Church of Christ." Branch is a relative term, necessarily implying a
trunk or body, but these proponents are unable to tell us what or where the trunk of this tree
is. The absurdity of this idea must be apparent to even the most naive Christian when one
thinks of a tree bearing natural branches of perhaps 200 or more different kinds of wood, and
without a body or trunk.
Van Impe used the illustration of fingers on a hand by asking the question "Since we are all
members of the one body, are we not ‘fingers’ on the same hand as it were?" This begs the
question by making two false assumptions. The first false assumption is that all of us are on
the same hand. The second one is that we are all in the same body. This Baptists emphatically
deny. We are not fingers on the same hand nor are we members of the same body. A hand
with every finger being totally different from every other finger would certainly be a
monstrosity and a deformed hand, would it not?
What is the body of Christ? If it is not the sum total of all believers, then what is it? Paul
tells us in Colossians 1:18, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." In this passage
we see that the church is the body and since Christ has many churches, He has many bodies,
for He has as many bodies as He has churches.
Furthermore, He is the Head of everyone of them just as Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:3
He is the Head of every man. He is the sovereign ruler over each church, having been made
the Head following His resurrection from the dead (Eph. 1:20-23; 5:23). Paul also tells us that
He is "over" the house of God" in Hebrews 3:1-6.
In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul shows that the body he is writing about is the church of Corinth
and not a universal invisible body, for in verse 27 he says: "Now ye are the body of Christ,
and members in particular." This shows us that the hand, the foot, the eye, etc. does not refer
to various denominations but to the membership that made up the church of Corinth.
Others refer to the broad phrase of a church army, Christ being the "captain" and the
various denominations the various platoons, companies, regiments, brigades, etc. and the
different denominational creeds the flags under which they fight. This theory breaks down
when we consider the fact that the various parts of an army are all under the same laws and
regulations, trained by the same tactics, and not in deadly conflict with each other—platoon
against platoon, company against company, regiment against regiment, as the different
denominations have been from the day they started, and continue to do even today, and will
continue to do so as long as they hold and teach different and antagonistic doctrines. They are
not fighting a common foe, but they are fighting each other.
The universal church theory is equally fallacious in spite of its popularity among all
Protestant denominations and those Baptists who have been misled or deceived. This theory is
as false as the others mentioned above as it violates the fact that one scriptural church must be
equal to any other scriptural church, else Christ would have a kingdom divided against itself.
Yet we see the Protestant denominations discordant and divided against themselves, seeking
to destroy each other, and all seeking to destroy Baptists. Such teaching will drive men away
from the Bible. Convince a man that Christ did originate all these diverse denominations, and
that Christ is really the Creator of all the absurd and contradictory doctrines and systems of
faith, and he will reject all the Bible teachings and be an infidel or a fool. Christ has no more
two churches, one visible and the other invisible, than He has two kingdoms.
It is impossible to count how many denominations there are in America today let alone the
whole world, all diverse and most of them radically differing from each other in the essential
elements of a scriptural church, yet each claiming to be alone conformed, or at least, more
than any other, conformed to the scriptural model of a Christian church. Now the unthinking
multitude is taught from the pulpit and press to believe and to call all these antagonistic
denominations, Evangelical churches, meaning scriptural churches, and equally entitled to be
considered the equal to any other, and they claim it is proof of "intolerant bigotry" to deny
that they are not all scriptural churches or that one is more conformed to the scriptural pattern
than the other, or that one alone meets the New Testament standard.
Truth is an expensive article and when a Christian has bought it, he is not at liberty to hide
or sell it (Prov. 23:23). He is but a trustee. It is his duty to pass it on as he received it to each
succeeding generation. When Baptists participate in interdenominationalism with Protestants
and Catholics they sacrifice a portion of the truth, so the honest Christian has but one
alternative. He must stultify his reason and common sense, and admit what he knows to be
false, or he must dare to stand alone against public opinion whereby he will receive the brunt
of sectarian hate hurled against all who oppose their pet theory.
The central point of controversy between Baptists and Protestants is not always the
doctrines of grace, for there are many who agree with us on these doctrines, but it is the
doctrine of the church, and this we hold to be a point of supreme importance. Baptists are
accused of being schismatics because, though we may agree with some Protestants on the
great doctrines of the gospel, yet concerning the doctrine of the church, Baptists refuse to
acknowledge Protestant churches as rightly begun or formed, or to hold their administration
of the ordinances as scriptural. Since we acknowledge that many of them do preach the
gospel, it is assumed that we ought to grant everything else. True Baptists refuse to walk
together where we think others offend against Christ’s truth. Though the Protestant
denominations differ from each other from the Calvinistic Presbyterians on one extreme to the
Arminian Methodists on the other, yet all have at their base the same origin of their churches
—a human founder and based upon a believe in the universal, invisible church concept.
Therefore our difference with them and our opposition to them is not minor but stands on the
deepest principle as that of what constitutes a true New Testament church. Though this may
be considered a minor doctrine to Protestants, it is the basic doctrine that gives Baptists their
real reason for existence, for without this doctrine we would cease to be Baptists.
The Scriptures that Jesus founded His own church during His own ministry as we have
seen, Protestants deny, but all admit that at least there was a New Testament church as early
as the day of Pentecost. Now, if the church has not been perpetuated it is because of one or
both of two things: Christ either did not want it perpetuated or was unable to perpetuate it.
The question now raised is, did Christ want His church or churches perpetuated?
Can anyone give any proof that Christ did not want His churches perpetuated; is there
anything in His teaching to that effect? Can anyone give any good reason why these churches
should not be perpetuated? We think no one will attempt to give either. Now there are both
good reasons why, and scriptural proof that these churches should be perpetuated. If the
church was established because of certain existing conditions and needs, then it should have
been perpetuated for the same reason, for these conditions and needs have been perpetuated.
Every argument in favor of the establishment of the church will hold good in favor of the
perpetuity of it. Not a reason can be given in favor of the establishment of the church which is
not a reason in favor of its perpetuity.
 So, looking at the question simply from the standpoint of reason, we see no reason why it
should not have been perpetuated, but good reasons why it should have been perpetuated. As
to the scriptural proof, it seems to us if the Scriptures teach anything clearly and positively
they teach that it was the purpose of the Lord to perpetuate the organization which He
established in the world.
We learn that "Christ gave himself for the church that he might present it unto himself
without spot or wrinkle or any such thing," and said of this church, "The gates of hell shall not
prevail against it," referring, no doubt, to its indestructibility.
Again, when Christ instituted the ordinance known as the Lord’s Supper, and gave it to His
church to be observed, He said, "This do in remembrance of me till I come." Now, no one will
deny that if the doing of a thing is to be perpetuated, the doers of that thing must also be
perpetuated. This is a self-evident proposition. If the observance of the Lord’s Supper is to be
perpetuated "till I come," then those who observe it (which all admit is the church) must be
perpetuated "till I come."
Let me remind you again that Christ, when He gave the great commission to His disciples,
said, "And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:28-20). This
commission was given, not to the apostles as such, for in that case when the last apostle died
the commission would have been dead. The commission was given to Christ’s disciples in
their organic capacity as His church. The preaching of the gospel, the administering of the
ordinances, the teaching and building up of the church is a work which the Lord committed to
His blood-bought, divinely-appointed and spirit-guided churches. Christ promised to be with
these churches from the day He gave the great commission to the end of the world. If this
promise is made good the churches must be perpetuated from the giving of the great
commission to the end of the world.
One cannot be with a thing which is not. If "I am with you to the end of the world" you
must be to the end of the world. Thus we see both reason and the Scriptures sustain the
position that it was Christ’s purpose to perpetuate His churches. Certainly no sane person
would say Christ did not want His churches perpetuated. This, to our mind, would be to
charge the Lord with folly. It is to say Christ made a mistake. Either He established His
churches too soon, or before "the fullness of time had come," and, discovering His mistake,
later attempted to rectify it by discontinuing them for a season. This is a serious charge, and
the establishment of which would be to destroy the validity and the value of the churches
altogether.
CHRIST’S ABILITY TO PERPETUATE HIS CHURCHES.
Let us now consider the second proposition, Christ’s ability to perpetuate His churches.
Bear in mind that our claim is that if the churches of Christ have not been perpetuated, it is
because Christ either did not want them perpetuated, or was not able to do what He wanted to
do. In the foregoing it has been proven that it was Christ’s purpose to perpetuate His
churches. Was He able to do it? The answer to this question involves the deity of Christ. If He
was not able to do what He wanted to do, then He was not God. If He is God He can do
whatever He wants to do. There are certain things which God cannot do, but they are only the
things which God doesn’t want to do. The reason He can’t do them is because He doesn’t
want to do them, and the reason He doesn’t want to do them is because they are not consistent
with His nature. "God cannot lie."
Thus the question has narrowed down to this: Was Christ divine? Did He have all power?
The answer is obvious if one is to believe the Bible.
There was a church of Christ in existence at least as early as the Day of Pentecost, for
members were added to it that day. If Christ wanted this church perpetuated, and it seems that
He did, why has it not been perpetuated? "But, oh," claims some overcautious one, "we have
no reliable unbroken record of the churches back to the day of Pentecost." That, however, has
nothing to do with this question. Christ promised to preserve His churches, but He did not
promise to preserve the record of these churches among men. The fact that I have no "reliable
unbroken record" back to Adam is not sufficient ground to deny the fact that I am a
descendant of Adam. The very fact that God started the race with Adam, told him to multiply
and replenish the earth, and the very fact that at the flood, when nearly all of the race was
destroyed, he saved a remnant, or seed, and sent them out with the same command to
multiply, and the fact that I am here, with all the striking characteristics of Adam, are rather
prima facie evidence that Father Adam has been perpetuated. To deny one is a descendant of
Adam because one has no preserved history back to Adam is sheer nonsense, and to deny that
the churches of Christ have been perpetuated from the establishment of the first church until
now, because we have no preserved record of them through all these ages is equally
nonsensical.
Christ had a church at least as early as the Day of Pentecost. If this church has not been
perpetuated it is because He either did not want it perpetuated, or was not able to do what He
wanted to do. No earnest, conscientious Christian would be willing to accept either horn of
that dilemma.
The New Testament uses the word church in only two senses—the concrete and the
abstract. I find no justification for a third use, a so-called "glory church" of the future which
will include all true believers of all times to be assembled in eternity. This so-called "glory
church" mitigates against and minimizes the importance of the New Testament church today
in our age. After all, if all believers are going to be in that "glory church" there is very little
difference between that and the universal invisible church taught today, and it is just one
small step to move from the "glory church" concept to the invisible universal church concept.
In fact, some independent Baptists have done that very thing.
The noted Baptist writer E. T. Hiscox, in his book The New Directory for Baptist Churches,
discusses several passages of scripture that are used to teach either a universal invisible
church or a future "glory church" composed of all the saved. He writes:
But when it is said, "Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might
present it to himself a glorious church" etc., (Eph. 5:25, 27), it presumably refers to no
particular congregation of believers, but to the entire company of the saved—the universal
invisible Church. In the same way is interpreted the much-quoted declaration of Jesus: "On
this rock will I build my Church" (Matthew 16:18). Also, "To the intent that now . . . might be
known by the church the manifold wisdom of God" (Eph. 3:10). "He is the head of the body,
the church" (Col. 1:18). "The general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written
in heaven" (Heb. 12:23). These, with a few other passages, are supposed to refer not to any
localized congregations of believers, but to the universal fellowship of the faithful. And yet it
is likely that some of the passages usually thus interpreted might, by a more careful exegesis,
be found to bear the primary and literal meaning of a particular congregation. Certain it is
that this literal meaning of the word is its first and ruling signification, as is certified in a vast
majority of cases . . . There is no such thing as a universal church on earth embraced in one
grand communion."
The abstract or general use of the word church is used when no particular church is in view.
Paul uses this word in the book of Ephesians chapter 5. Our Lord also used this word in this
sense in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18. The concrete or particular use of the word is its most
common use in the New Testament where it refers to a particular assembly in some particular
location.
 It is at this point, the church, that we differ from our Protestant friends. It is this basic and
fundamental doctrine of the church that we must compromise if we participate in any
interdenominational or ecumenical movement—we compromise the doctrine of the New
Testament church and all that that entails.
However, growing out of this erroneous doctrine are many other errors in Protestantism that
makes it impossible for Baptist churches to cooperate in interdenominational movements.
Some of these errors are:
1. The admission of unbelievers to church membership—mostly through infant baptism. I
know that each Protestant denomination has its own method of explaining this away, each
differing from the other, but the end result is to bring into their churches those who are
unbelievers.
2. The making of church membership to precede the hearing of the Word. This brings us to
another difficulty of great importance. The Scriptures know nothing and we know nothing of
churches which are not the body of Christ (Eph. 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:27; etc.). To be in the church
is, according to the New Testament, to be in Christ. Not that the church and Christ are
synonymous; but because none were to be admitted but those who gave evidence of being in
Christ.
Now the Scriptures teach that the instrument to bring about our union with Christ and His
church is the Word (1 Pet. 1:23; Rom. 10:17; 10:14; Jam. 1:18). But, if before hearing, before
faith, before the receiving of the Word, either an outward ordinance or a church is placed as a
means of union with Christ, we see a positive contradiction between the Scriptures and the
constitution of such a church. This makes the union with Christ external and formal rather
than internal and spiritual. From the Protestant standpoint, the first thing needed is not the
Word and faith but the church. If this were true, that the church rightly precedes the Word in
the salvation of the soul, then why do we not hear the apostles exhorting men to join the
church that they may come to Christ, rather than hearing them insisting on attention to the
Word that men might be saved. By this doctrine of the Protestant churches, great harm is done
to the Word of God and to thousands of souls, in reversing God’s order of salvation. The
rightful place of the Word is usurped by the church.
It is the belief in this very doctrine that led to Protestant churches joining with the Roman
Church in the persecution of our Baptist forefathers. When the Word and its work are put
aside as prerequisites of church membership, and the church assumes the place of the Word as
the external means for uniting souls to Christ, then that which is merely formal and outward
becomes its greatest power, and that which is internal and spiritual becomes secondary. For
this reason, it is one of the most amazing facts in history, that all Protestant churches, coming
out from under the tyranny of Rome and even protesting against her tyranny over the
conscience of men, should have become in a few years almost as bitter persecutors for their
form of faith as Rome was for hers, and Baptists suffered at the hands of all of them. Luther
and Melancthon persecuted; Zwingli and Calvin persecuted; the Reformed Church of Holland
persecuted; the established Church of England, the Presbyterians of Scotland, the
Congregationalists and others even here in our own United States, fell into the same error as
Rome had done, and defended it on the same grounds.
Can this strange inconsistency be explained? There is only one apparent solution. Differing
as they did from Rome, they actually formed their churches on the same basis as that of
Rome. The church was put before the Word and in their view, the salvation of souls
demanded its existence, and with no pangs of conscience at all, its defenders would punish
with all bodily misery and deprivation of goods, those who denied its validity.
 On the other hand, from the very New Testament days to the present, no Baptist church can
be shown which has ever favored or defended religious persecution. Nor can any Baptist
author be found who has favored or defended religious persecution. Their witness has been
clear and unmistakable on the side of religious liberty, not tolerance but freedom, not
sufferance for themselves alone, but for all men.
This surely is not due to any intellectual or moral superiority on the part of Baptists, but
must be due to a principle that inheres in their religious thinking and that principle is to be
found in their belief of the precedence of the Word of God to the church. In our view every
man must come face to face with the Word of God. By that Word He must be convinced and
must decide the supreme question concerning his soul’s eternity before he possesses any
qualification for membership in a church. Having brought him face to face with the Word of
God, it then becomes a matter between him and God, and no persecution, ordinance nor
church can effect the change, which is the work of God’s Holy Spirit alone.
A strange thing should be noted here also. When a Protestant argues with a Catholic against
the fundamental constitution of the church of Rome he always uses the full Baptist position,
but when he argues in favor of his Protestant church, he is compelled to take the Romish
position and use Romish arguments.
3. A third error which we will not fully discuss since it has been partially discussed already
is the scriptural plan to make church membership precede regeneration. This is pure
Protestantism which they stole from Rome and to our eyes appears to be as flat a
contradiction of God’s plain Word as anything can be.
4. It is an error to allow the church to take the place of faith. Just as the church can not take
the place of the Word, neither can it take the place of faith.
There are some radical differences between Baptists and other denominations, and these
differences go much deeper than just the ordinances. Our refusal to participate in
interdenominational movements or to walk with them in ecumenical movements is not based
solely upon their change in the form of baptism, for neither historically nor logically is that
true. Suppose all Protestant denominations today returned to the scriptural form of baptism
but still retained their peculiar constitution or beginnings as churches, we should still be
compelled to protest against them and deny that they were formed according to the Word of
God.
Our refusal to participate with them is not based upon any belief among us that they are not
excellent Christians, taught of the Spirit in many ways, zealous of good works, who are
members of the family of God and have the same blessed hope of eternal life with the Lord.
Though we may believe all this, we cannot accept them as scriptural churches because of the
defect in their very beginning when they were constituted as churches. They have no
scriptural beginning, and this is an error against God’s truth and since we love that truth, we
must maintain truth over error, and cannot compromise truth for the sake of unity.
This is not a "holier than thou" position. Paul had no such feeling when he withstood Peter
to his face because he was to be blamed. It was in the interest of truth which was dearer and
more precious and vital than even the friendship of Peter, and I do not believe we have many
Baptists today who have pleasure in taking such a position against interdenominationalism,
but as we have been saved by the Lord and taught His truth, we must uphold that truth, even if
it is opposed, and perhaps especially when it is opposed.
One condition of membership in a New Testament church is baptism. Yet if we participate
in interdenominationalism we must be silent on the subject of baptism. The Apostle Paul
enforced the obligations to holiness from the fact of baptism, but we must not venture on a
similar course. The subject of baptism is like raising a red flag when mentioned by a Baptist
to a Catholic or Protestant. J. M. Pendleton in his book Baptist Principles says: "Where there
is no baptism, there are no churches."
One has well said: "No Christian, no church has authority to fellowship error, whether it be
the error of an individual or the error of thousands as in a denomination. The sincerity of
those who hold error, though it may claim tenderness and kindness, is no reason why any
Christian should give it his fellowship" (Rom. 10:2-3).
There are four commands of the Lord that I want us to note at this time . Each of these
commands makes it impossible for Baptists to participate in interdenominational movements
or ecumenical movements. These statements are:
1. "Beware of them" (Col. 2:8-10).
2. "Have no fellowship with them" (2 Thess. 3:6).
3. "Mark them" (Rom. 16:17-18.)
4. "Receive him not" (2 John 9-11.)
Interdenominationalism destroys "fitly framed together" (Eph. 2:21);
Interdenominationalism requires a belief in several baptisms (Eph. 4:5);
Interdenominationalism denies the unity of the faith for disunity (Eph. 4:13); and
Interdenominationalism places love above sound doctrine (1 John 5:2-3).
At this point I want to quote a lesson taken from the Young People’s Quarterly for April-
May-June, 1964 produced by the Southern Baptist Convention. It is the lesson for June 28 and
is the last lesson in the book. The lesson is entitled "The Whole Family of God."
IN A EUROPEAN clock shop one sees old clocks of every design. They are all ticking
away as if time’s passage depended on them. Upon visiting such a shop, I was startled when a
clock chimed the hour of four about five minutes ahead of time by my watch. Soon there was
a medley of clocks striking the hour, and after a few minutes of silence a last "Grandfather"
gave his benediction.
All of these clocks set differently made me wonder what time it really was. By which clock
should I set my watch? Then I thought of the various Christian denominations and their
differences. Which one is right? As a Baptist, I asked myself whether our denominational
clock strikes exactly on the hour.
As I thought further, however, I realized all the clocks were within ten minutes of each
other. They all struck four times, and each gave a relatively close account of the true time.
Christians, regardless of denomination, are basically close together as one body in Christ.
Every real Christian believes in God and his Son, Jesus Christ. All have been forgiven of their
sins and made sons of the Father. This oneness in Christ is more important than our
differences.
[Ephesians 2:11-22 is quoted at this point.]
The point of division in the New Testament church was the relationship between Jewish
and Gentile Christians. Our problems are different, but the principle used in dealing with that
problem of division in the early church can be applied to the issues of our day.
HOPE FOR THE GENTILES
This letter was written to Gentile Christians at Ephesus who were asked to join with Jewish
Christians in one church.
The pagan religions from which these Gentiles had come did not offer hope. The Gentiles
were not part of the covenant-people of God as were members of the Old Testament religious
community.
 Christ brought hope for the Gentiles. They were neither better nor worse than Jewish
Christians. Christ did not see persons as "Jews" or "Greeks," but simply as persons in need of
grace. He is the unifying person who brings peace to all who call on him. Christians are given
the ability to be reconciling agents of their Master.
THE WALL OF PARTITION REMOVED
The "middle wall of partition" refers to a wall in the Temple courtyard at Jerusalem. The
outer court was open to all people. A wall separated that area from an inner court open only to
Jews. The historian, Josephus, relates that there were signs engraved on the wall in Latin and
Greek, telling Gentiles not to enter the inner court upon pain of death.
The "wall of partition" was, also, a symbol of the whole legalistic system of Jewish rites
and observances which separated Jew from Gentile. Christ "abolished" all the walls of
division which separate Christians from each other.
Without intending to do so, Christians continue to erect many "walls of partition" which
separate them from other Christians. Young people must be careful lest they, too, build walls
and defend them, while Christ is at work tearing them down.
Within Christianity there are differences of temperament and tradition. There is variety of
belief about doctrine and church practice. Yet believers constitute one body, reconciled to
God and each other by the cross.
All Christians stand together as sinners who have been given free pardon by the forgiving
grace of Christ. This common experience unites us into one body and gives to all believers
equal privilege of access to the Father through "one Spirit." This is the Spirit of the risen
Christ, present in his church.
THE CHURCH DESCRIBED
The writer of Ephesians multiplied metaphors to drive home the reality of the essential
oneness of all believers.
The figure used to describe the church changes from the "body" to a political analogy. All
Christians, this writer claimed, are "fellowcitizens" with the saints. By the next stroke of his
pen he presented Christians as members of a family, "the household of God."
The author continued with yet another figure, that of a building, having a foundation of
"apostles and prophets." Jesus Christ himself is "the chief corner stone." All the stones are
placed in a beautiful design by the builder, so that they are described as "fitly framed
together."
In one further change of figure, the writer envisages "a holy temple," apparently conceived
as more than one building, and yet together constituting "an habitation of God."
The teaching of the New Testament, here as elsewhere, is that Christians are one body. In
the background selection, Ephesians 4:1-16, we are told that there is "one Lord, one faith, one
baptism" (v. 5). If we accept the possibility that the epistle to the Ephesians was addressed to
several churches, can we not recognize the ideal of diversity in unity? Where Christians differ
they may yet speak the truth in love and thus make healthy the body of Christ. Is not the
measure of our maturity, as stated in verse 13, our willingness to grow into "the unity of the
faith"?
A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
As Baptists, possessed of strong Bible-based convictions and closely knit by
denominational ties, we must surely face the question of our relationship to other Christian
bodies. Can we demonstrate before the world oneness in Christ unless we are prepared to
pursue possibilities of closer cooperation with other Christian groups?
 What is known as the ecumenical movement has a strong following among Christians
today. It has grown out of a restudy of the New Testament on the part of sincere men and
women whose conclusions we must respect. Whether we can identify ourselves with all their
aims is another matter.
Certainly, no Christian group should compromise basic Bible truths for the sake of
"togetherness." But is this necessarily required? Cannot mature believers hold fast to their
beliefs and at the same time seek areas of fellowship and co-operation with Christians of other
denominations?
Zeal for one’s own beliefs is commendable. Loyalty to one’s own church and denomination
is beyond reproach. But need such conviction and loyalty express themselves in violent
opposition toward other Christians whose viewpoints differ?
Reconciling principles are clearly taught by the writer of Ephesians. Christ himself is the
great reconciler, the one who breaks down walls of division, and brings together, in one
Spirit, all the family of God. Let us have strong convictions, but let us also be willing to
recognize the Christian likeness in others, to seek fellowship with them, and to learn from
them.
Now, I want to assume that I was invited to write this same lesson for this quarterly. Using
the same scriptures, same illustrations, and same applications, it would come out quite
differently. Here is my version:
In a European clock shop one sees old clocks of every design. They are all ticking away as
if time’s passage depended on them. Upon visiting such a shop, I was startled when a clock
chimed the hour of four about five minutes ahead of time by my watch. Soon there was a
medley of clocks striking the hour, and after a few minutes of silence a last "Grandfather"
gave his benediction.
All of these clocks set differently made me wonder what time it really was. By which clock
should I set my watch? Then I thought of the various Christian denominations and their
differences. Which one is right? As a Baptist, I asked myself whether our denominational
clock strikes exactly on the hour.
As I thought further, however, I realized all the clocks were within ten minutes of each
other. They all struck four times, and each gave a relatively close account of the true time, yet
only one is the correct clock from which all other clocks must be timed or set. Each clock, to
be correct and accurate, must be a duplicate of the first pattern clock and must continue to
maintain the same exact time as the pattern clock or it is wrong.
Christians, regardless of denomination, are basically close together as members of the
family of God, but all Christians are not in the body of Christ. Every real Christian believes in
God and His Son, Jesus Christ. All have been forgiven of their sins and made sons of the
Father. But this oneness in Christ does not replace our obedience to Christ and is not more
important than our obedience to Christ.
The point of division in the New Testament church and interdenominationalism is the
relationship between God’s church and man’s church; between true churches and false
churches. Our problems may be different today from those in New Testament days, but the
principle used in dealing with the problems in the early church can be applied to the issues of
our day.
This letter, the book of Ephesians, was written to Gentile Christians at Ephesus who were
taught that the unity that God desires of His people is a seven-fold "unity of the faith"; that
this "unity of the spirit" can only be obtained or attained when there is full agreement on the
seven principles or doctrines as laid down by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 4:3-6. Without
such unity of belief churches cannot cooperate together for Amos said "Can two walk
together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3). Even with unity of belief there can be no
organizational structure that would combine or merge these churches together into an
organization.
The "middle wall of partition" refers to a wall in the Temple courtyard at Jerusalem. The
outer court was open to all people. A wall separated that area from an inner court open only to
Jews. The historian, Josephus, relates that there were signs engraved on the wall in Latin and
Greek, telling Gentiles not to enter the inner court upon pain of death.
The "wall of partition" was, also, a symbol of the whole legalistic system of Jewish rites
and observances which separated Jew from Gentile. Christ "abolished" this "wall of partition"
which separated Jews from Gentiles, but in the New Testament He established another "wall
of partition" to separate unbelievers from believers, and indirectly, obedient Christians from
disobedient Christians. That "wall of partition" is baptism. God has placed baptism as a
requirement for being a member of a New Testament church, so that all Christians may
become members of a New Testament church, but only if they are willing to follow the
example of Jesus Christ by being baptized under the authority of a Baptist church. We today
must be careful lest we tear down this wall which Christ Himself has established.
Within Christianity there are differences of temperament and tradition. There is a variety of
belief about doctrine and church practice. All Christians stand together as sinners who have
been given free pardon by the forgiving grace of Christ. That common experience unites us
into the family of God and gives to all believers equal privilege of access to the Father, but the
experience of the New Birth does not place us into the body of Christ. It is scriptural baptism
that admits us into the body of Christ, and all believers who fail at this point are not members
of the Lord’s body, New Testament churches.
The writer of Ephesians multiplied metaphors to drive home the reality of the unity that
God desires of all believers.
The figure used to describe the church changes from the "body" to a political analogy. All
Christians, this writer claimed, are "fellowcitizens" with the saints. By the next stroke of his
pen he presented members of New Testament churches as "the household of God."
The author continued with yet another figure, that of a building, having a foundation of
"apostles and prophets" Jesus Christ Himself as "the chief corner stone." All the stones are
placed in a beautiful design by the builder, so that they are described as "fitly framed
together." They are placed into this building through the ordinance of baptism, else they
would not be "fitly framed together" which indicates unity.
In one further change of figure, the writer envisages "a holy temple," constituting "an
habitation of God."
The teaching of the New Testament, here as elsewhere, is that each New Testament church
is one body. In the background selection, Ephesians 4:1-16, we are told that there is "one
Lord, one faith, one baptism" (v. 5). If we understand the fact that the epistle to the Ephesians
was addressed to the Ephesian church and was to be circulated to all other churches, can we
not recognize the importance of these seven doctrines if there is to be unity? Is not the
measure of our obedience and maturity as Christians our willingness to grow into and submit
ourselves to "the unity of the faith" that the Lord gives us through the Apostle Paul?
As Baptists, possessed of strong Bible-based convictions we must surely face the question
of our relationship to other Christian bodies. Can we demonstrate before the world our
obedience to Christ unless we are prepared to maintain the New Testament teachings
regarding the church and refuse to take part in any interdenominational movement or activity
where the New Testament church is involved?
 What is known as the ecumenical movement or interdenominationalism has a strong
following among Christians today, including some Baptists. It has grown through either a lack
of study or a rejection of the New Testament teachings concerning the Lord’s church on the
part of sincere men and women who are more concerned about what others might think than
they are about what Christ thinks.
Certainly we Baptists should not compromise our doctrines nor the express commands of
our Lord simply for the sake of "togetherness." Mature Christians and obedient Christians will
hold fast to their beliefs as laid down and taught by our Savior and His apostles in the New
Testament. Though there may be areas of fellowship and cooperation with Christians of other
denominations on an individual basis, there is no room for such compromise on the part of
God’s churches.
Reconciling principles are clearly taught by the writer of Ephesians. Christ Himself is the
great reconciler. If there is to be unity and full fellowship with other Christians or non-
Baptists, it must be on the principles as laid down in the New Testament. When our brethren
and friends in other denominations are willing to submit to the same authority of Jesus Christ
as we are, then we shall be glad to extend the hand of fellowship to them on the same basis
that we do those who are members of our churches. That hand of fellowship is extended upon
their submission to the ordinance of baptism at the hands of a Baptist church. Until then, we
cannot consider them as members of the body of Christ or members of a New Testament
church, for baptism at the hands of a New Testament (Baptist) church is essential for
membership in one of the Lord’s churches. We as Baptists should be ready to welcome into
our fellowship and into our churches all believers who are willing to come into the church on
the same basis as did our Savior, baptism at the hands of a New Testament church, for our
Savior too was baptized by a Baptist preacher, John the Baptist.

aaaaaaaaaaa
The fundamental position with Baptists in regard to all these matters is that all efforts for
Christian union or interdenominational cooperation must be based upon loyalty to the truth.
As Baptists we approach these questions with the clear conviction in our souls that the things
for which we stand are not trifles, that they are not nonessential, but they are real.
We must make a clear distinction in our thinking between that which we can do as
individuals and that in which we would have our church as an organization take part, such as,
for example, the Bill Gothard movement. An individual pastor might go, but to recommend it
to his church and seek to get as many as possible to attend, to some may be borderline, but in
my judgment it means one has crossed that line which is proper. Have we not brought
interdenominationalism into our churches when we do that? I have done some things in the
past that today I consider borderline, and I would not do those same things today. It is in this
area that we must tread very carefully.
This passes no judgment upon the material that is taught, but should cause us to reflect
upon whether we have compromised our position as Baptists. Even if everything taught was
right, it is wrong to participate in interdenominational movements.
Some Baptists, and even some who are not Baptists, do not realize how singular Baptists
are among the great bodies of Christendom. We stand alone in our viewpoints even more
positively than we stand alone in many of our distinctive principles. We have a different way
of looking at things. It is comparatively easy for many Christian bodies to work together, and
they do not understand why it is difficult for us, but conscience will not allow it.
 The question of interdenominational cooperation is a very big one. We can only settle
ourselves upon great principles. As Baptists, we must stand for loyalty to Christ, for the Bible
as God’s book, and for personal and spiritual religion. Our attitude towards others must be the
attitude of those to whom these principles are dear. That attitude will not be one of arrogance,
bitterness or hostility; it will be the attitude of broad, sympathetic love, but of clear, definite
conviction. We must desire to see the Bible put to the forefront and must sympathize with all
who would honestly go with us to find its teaching. We have a friendship with all those who
are trying to live up to that which the Bible teaches, even though their interpretation shall be
different from ours. We are zealous for our doctrines because we believe that they guard
against errors which have perverted and obscured the truth, and we can never forsake the truth
for the convenience of interdenominationalism.
There are some important lessons for us to learn here. If we have more truth on our side, by
that we are placed under a greater responsibility—a responsibility not just
answered by a mere vocal protest, but one that demands of us lives wholly consecrated to
the Lord. The Baptist who participates in interdenominationalism has no excuse, and will be
judged worthy of a deeper condemnation than those who have not seen God’s truth so clearly.
We who have the truth—we who know the truth— must be pure in our doctrine if we are to
be true witnesses for our God and His Christ.
Interdenominationalism is based on a kind of unity which is conceived more as an outward
expression than an inward reality. Interdenominationalism requires the acceptance of all kinds
of baptism and a kind of intercommunion. It requires the recognition of infant baptism on the
part of Baptists as valid baptism.
Our churches, while holding fast to the form of sound words, have been insensibly beguiled
by the fraternal feeling and the plea of courtesy into the practical surrender of the purpose for
our separate existence.
True Baptists have never accepted a universal church concept. The commission God gave
to His church cannot be carried on by a universal invisible church. Only a local visible church
can do this and for that reason, Baptists energies have been directed toward the planting of
churches in all parts of the world in order to win men to Christ. It is the church in the
concrete, not in the abstract, which has compelled their interest. It is here where the work is
done, the gospel preached, young men are called, lives strengthened, and men transformed.
This is the church that salts and gives light to the world. The man in the jungle, on the small
town square or downtown fifth avenue is brought to a face-to-face encounter with the living
Christ because a local visible Baptist church was there witnessing in the power of the Holy
Spirit of God.
Let no one imagine that there is anything in itself pleasant in the stand which Baptists feel
compelled to take. Only our loyalty and our allegiance to Jesus Christ our King could keep us
there. It would be far more pleasant, could we with clear conscience, cordially merge with
other denominations or fully cooperate with them in ecumenical or interdenominational
movements, but love cannot be applied at the sacrifice of duty. That is false liberality which
for the sake of union would forsake the positive commands of Scripture. The desire for
association is not less powerful in our hearts than in the hearts of others, but it can not
annihilate our obligations. The principles which guided the apostles, we may safely follow
wherever they lead. If they were once right, they are forever right. They constitute a standard
of appeal amid the compromises of our day. Their straight line is in contrast to this crooked
generation. Let us follow that straight line.