Church Tradition
By Eschol
Cosby
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition?” Matt. 15:3.
We Baptists of today feel so free to criticize
the Pharisees for their tradition, or the Catholics for theirs, and fail to
realize that our own denomination is also seething in Church Tradition today.
The Israelites were the people in blessing when the Lord Jesus came to earth
the first time; for “Unto them were committed the oracles of God.”
Rom. 3:2. They were in possession of the Scriptures, and God had dealt with
them as He had dealt with no other people on earth. And yet we find that they
were the most unprepared people of all, to receive their Messiah when He did
come, for they failed to recognize the time of their visitation. Vanity, pride
and conceit had entered in, and along with it, the TRADITIONS which made them
blind leaders of the blind. They confused the prophecies concerning the first
coming of their Messiah with those concerning His second coming, rejected Him,
and, as a result, they have been cast aside, taken from their place of
blessing, and a dispensation has been given over to the Gentiles.
WE ALSO CONFUSE SCRIPTURES
So, in like manner, we Baptists have taken all the Scriptures
concerning the Church (Proper) and the Church (Local), and dumped them all into
one basket, so to speak. We have failed to differentiate between the two, and
have arrived at a similar misunderstanding. In our case, we have succumbed to
the conceited idea that all the Scriptures concerning the Church mean “The
Baptist Church”; and we fail to see that the Church (Proper) is that body
of people who have been born again, and is to be distinguished from a local,
visible congregation. So, being a Baptist myself, and realizing, to some
extent, how far reaching this tradition has extended into our denomination, and
realizing also that many others do not embrace this idea, may we turn the
searchlight of “The Word” upon the subject in order to see
“What saith the Lord”; for “The entrance of thy words giveth
light” (Ps. 119:130).
Here is the contrast:
OUR TRADITION SAYS that the Church referred to in Matt. 16:18 is
the Baptist Church.
THE SCRIPTURE SAYS that it is the Body of Christ. —Eph.
1:22-23.
OUR TRADITION SAYS that we join that Church by water baptism.
THE SCRIPTURE SAYS that we are baptized into the Church by the
SPIRIT. — 1 Cor. 12:13.
OUR TRADITION SAYS that the Church is an earthly institution and
does not necessarily comprise the body of saved people which will be taken to
Heaven, and identified up there as the Bride.
THE SCRIPTURE SAYS that all born- again Saints constitute the
Church, which He will present to Himself. —Eph. 5:25-27.
Now, which am I to believe—OUR
TRADITION, or THE
SCRIPTURES? “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”—II
Tim. 2:15.
BASED ON ASSUMPTION
As we investigate, we find that our tradition is based almost
entirely on assumption. In the first place, it is assumed that “The
Church” of Matt. 16:18 is a local, visible, tangible organization. The
Bible makes no such statement, but rather, just the opposite, as the preceding Scriptures reveal.
Then, it is further assumed that this visible organization is our Baptist
denomination. Then, on a basis of these assumptions, it is still further
assumed that it was to this Church that the Great Commission was given, that
the authority was given to it to baptize, and to administer the Lord’s
Supper, and so forth. But we find that the Scriptures make no such statements.
Let’s speak where the Scriptures speak and be silent where the Scriptures
are silent. For when you have a false assumption for a foundation, I think it
is easy to understand how unlimited the extent of the error can become.
THE LOCAL CHURCH
In view of the fact that a person is so often accused of
denying the local church altogether, when he does not embrace our tradition on
this point, let it be clearly stated here that the Bible does make ample
provision for our local churches.
Giving their geographical location, their faults, the things for which
they were commended, and so on. And realizing that two cannot walk together
“Except they be agreed” (Amos 3:3), we Baptists are perfectly in
order when we have something to stand for. And having Scriptural provision made
for our local churches, as we do, it never becomes necessary to embrace some
self-assumed tradition in order to substantiate our position.
THE BIBLE A UNIT
One of the main reasons for error in our Bible study is
that we too often study it in isolated portions. When we do that, we are just
guessing. When we study it as a unit, tracing a subject through the Bible,
finding its type in the Old Testament, and its fulfillment in the New, then it
makes a complete picture, just as a jig-saw puzzle does when every piece is in
its place. But if you take one part out of its place, then it disrupts the
entire picture. So in this case, when we try to make the Scriptures concerning
“The Church” apply to the Baptist Church, we disrupt a chain of teaching
beginning back in the Old Testament and continuing on through the New, to such
an extent that we completely disrupt and mar one of the most beautiful pictures
in Holy Writ.
JESUS CHRIST THE ROCK
“And upon this rock I will build my church and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.
We find many,
many references to Jesus in Scripture as a Rock or Stone. The rock which was
struck by Moses (Ex. 17:6) is a type of Christ. For here, Moses struck the rock
and life-giving waters flowed forth to all who would partake. So Christ was
smitten that the Spirit of Life might flow forth to all who would drink.
—1 Cor. 10:4.To Israel, He is the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.
—I Peter 2:8. To the church, He is the Chief Cornerstone. —Eph.
2:20. To the Gentile world powers, He is the smiting Stone cut out without
hands. —Dan. 2:34. To the unbelievers, He is the crushing Stone of
judgment.—Matt. 21:44. And then finally, the Stone becomes a great
mountain and fills the whole earth. —Dan. 2:44-45. What a wonderful
picture we have thus portrayed of Jesus in His rejection, crucifixion, saving
power, judgment and coming King. How can we have the audacity to offer a
substitute for the Body of Christ as His Church? To break one link in the chain
is to break the chain. How narrow is our vision! How true to human nature is
our conceit! “And we forbad him because he followeth not with us”
(Luke 9:38). What an obstruction is wrapped up in that little word
“Us.” “When a man becomes wrapped up in himself, he makes a
very small package.
THE LIVING STONE AND THE LIVELY STONES
Now what I say may not amount to much, but what the Scripture says
is final. So please read very carefully the following Scripture quotations:
“To whom coming as unto a LIVING STONE, disallowed indeed of men, but
chosen of God, and precious. Ye also as LIVELY STONES, are built up a spiritual
house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God
by Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:4-5). Does not the “Living Stone”
here refer to the Lord Jesus, the same Stone upon which the Church is to be
built? Do not the “Lively Stones” refer to those who are to build
upon this foundation and form the church? Well, our tradition says that a
person can be a member of the church and not be saved and that he can be saved
and not be a member of the Church. Now that is true if the reference is made
only to a local church, but again the reference is made to “The
Church” which is to be built upon the Rock, Christ Jesus. In that case,
here are two questions I want to ask: How can an unsaved church member be built
upon the “Living Stone,” the Lord Jesus, and upon what foundation
are those built who are saved but not in the Church, therefore not on the solid
Rock, Christ Jesus? If it is the LOCAL CHURCH that is built upon the Lord
Jesus, and if an unsaved man can be in that church, he is built on Christ, is
he not? And if a saved man is not in the Church, he is not built upon Christ,
therefore, what foundation does he have? Does the Church of Matt. 16:18 then
refer to the local Church or the Body of Christ?
THE CHURCH AND THE BODY THE SAME
I never did like to base eternal
things on suppositions, but I find great enjoyment and spiritual blessing in a
study of the Book. It will enlighten, spiritually invigorate and bless its
reader as no other book can. So let’s read on. “And hath put all
things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the
CHURCH, WHICH IS HIS BODY” (Eph. 1:22-23). There we have it in a clear
statement, that the church is the body of Christ. How can we reverse the order
and say it is the local assembly and that we are admitted by water baptism?
What does the Book say? “FOR BY ONE SPIRIT are we ALL baptized into ONE
BODY, whether we be Jews or Gen-tiles, whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into ONE SPIRIT” (I Cor. 12:13-14). Why
interpolate by means of a long remote process and say the Scriptures teach
certain things? These things are clear and precise statements of fact.
“Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow
citizens with the saints and of the HOUSEHOLD OF GOD, and are built upon the
FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF being the CHIEF
CORNER STONE; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into an
holy temple in the Lord: In whom YE ALSO are builded together for an habitation
of God THROUGH THE SPIRIT” (Eph. 2:19-22).
Please note that there are four
specific questions answered in that quotation.
-
Who is the Chief Corner
Stone?
-
Who builds thereon?
-
How do they build thereon?
-
What do they form?
Also notice
how perfectly this agrees with all the other quotations. Is not this Chief
Corner Stone the same Jesus as that of Matt. 16:18? Does the word
“Ye” refer to members of a Local church or the Body of Christ? Do
they enter by water baptism or “Through the Spirit”? Is not the
building fitly framed together that they form, the same Body or Church into
which we are “All baptized by one Spirit”? Is this not also
synonymous with the Church and the Rock referred to in Matt. 16:18? So once
again I ask the question: Is the Church of Matt. 16:18 the local Church or the
Body of Christ?
SAVED TO SERVE
The further we go, the richer it gets. Here is some more
Scripture: “But now hath GOD set the members every one of them IN THE
BODY, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the
body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say
unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have
no need of you” (I OCR. 12:18-22). In this quotation we have four
specific facts set forth. First, God sets the members into the Body. We do not
admit them ourselves, by water baptism. Second, we, though individual members,
compose one Body. What is that Body? Third, God has a place of service and
responsibility for each member, though they do not have the same calling.
Fourth, we have a spiritual relationship to each other. “So we, being
many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another” (Rom.
12:5). Notice how all of these Scriptures concerning “The Body”,
“The Church” and its foundation agree when we take them to mean
what they say. So again I ask: Is the Church of Matt. 16:18 the local Church or
the Body of Christ?
THE CHURCH TO BE THE BRIDE
The Church is not complete now.
It is in the process of being formed. “And the Lord added to the church
daily such as should be saved.” When the body or Church is complete, He
will present it to Himself in Heaven. “Husbands, love your wives, even as
Christ also loved THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. (Now notice) That he
might PRESENT it to HIMSELF, a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph.
5:25-27). “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the arch angel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in
Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we
ever be with the Lord” (I These. 4:16-17). This is the “Glorious
appearing” that we are admonished to look for. —Titus 2:13. And
when this “Glorious appearing” takes place, then the Church will be
presented to Himself as the Bride. “Let us be glad and rejoice, and give
honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made
her-self ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine
linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of
saints” (Rev. 19:7-8). Now there are three things here that I want us to
notice in particular: First, Christ gave Him-self for the Church. Second, He
presents this Church to Himself. Third, this Church must of necessity then be
the Bride in Heaven. So, once again I ask the question: Is not this the same
Church as that of Matt.16:18?
SELF ASSUMED AUTHORITY
On a basis of previously mentioned assumptions, our
tradition further assumes the authority concerning The Great Commission. The
claim is made that when Jesus gave this commission, He was talking to His
Church (Now the Baptist Church) and that to such a church was this authority
given. What an assumption that is! It is about like a man saying all sparrows
are birds, therefore all birds are sparrows. A church is an assembly; therefore
any assembly is a church. As a matter of fact, there was no local church
recognized until Pentecost. You cannot establish doctrine by apostolic
experiences. Apostolic experiences and apostolic teachings do not agree. They
experienced things that we can never experience. They lived under the Law. They
lived under Christ’s own ministry. They experienced Pentecost. They were
a SPECIAL group, were given a SPECIAL task, with SPECIAL power, and were dealt
with in a SPECIAL manner. How foolish of us to endeavor to substitute their
experiences for their teachings in establishing doctrine. In this case, it
would mean that a man who was genuinely saved but not a Baptist would have no
part in the Commission at all. On the other hand, if a man was unsaved, but was
a Baptist, he would be commissioned of the Lord to preach the Gospel.
“And we forbad him because he followeth not with us” (Luke 9:38).
AUTHOR1TY TO BAPTIZE
By virtue of this same
self-assumed authority, our church also claims the only authority to administer
water baptism. This too, goes back to the same place for its foundation. If our
Baptist church is “The Church,” and if it was to this Church that
the commission was given, then we do have that authority. If not, then we
don’t. Right there is where the whole thing hinges. According to our
tradition, we have that authority. According to the Scriptures, we do not.
THE LORD’S SUPPER
The same thing is true concerning
the Lord’s Supper. The Scripture says, “But let a man examine
HIMSELF, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (I Cor.
11:28). But we just reverse the order by virtue of our tradition and WE ex-amine
the man and if he be Baptist, WE let him partake, and if not, then WE for-bid
him. Of course, it should be made clear that only saved people should observe
this ordinance and the importance of this self-examination should be
emphasized. Never the less, after
having done this, the responsibility of this self-examination must rest upon
the individual, not with the church. No place in Scripture is there any
provision made otherwise.
JOHN THE BAPTIST
A writer once wrote in effect
that the Lord gave John the name “Baptist,” that he was a
missionary and that he was a preacher; therefore, he was a Missionary Baptist
preacher (in our sense of the term). He further wrote in effect that Jesus was
a Missionary Baptist preacher because He identified Himself with John’s
baptism. You might call a canary a crow, but it would not change his song.
Neither can we change the mission of John the Baptist by misrepresenting his
name. He was never called to be a preacher of the Gospel of Grace as we preach
it today at all. If so, here is a question I would like to ask. Why is it that
the Apostles themselves would not accept his baptism after Pentecost, but
rebaptized those whom he had baptized? It was because John preached the Gospel
of the Kingdom. We preach the Gospel of Grace. John was looking forward to a
coming Messiah. We look backward to an accomplished redemption. There is a vast
difference in the two aspects. So it is no wonder that Paul said, “Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they said, L unto John’s baptism. Then said
Paul; John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saving unto the
people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is,
on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:3-5). We have a similar account in Acts 8:14-16. So
if John the Baptist was the first Baptist preacher (in our sense of the term),
how strange it is that the Apostle Paul would not accept his baptism!
BASED ON HISTORY
I have talked with many Baptists
who would admit, finally, that the Baptist Church could not be identified as
the one referred to in Matt. 16:18, but would contend that history would prove
that the Baptist Church of today is a direct descendant of the First Church at
Jerusalem. Well, I wouldn’t even attempt to prove or disprove this
statement, one way or another. It is completely beside the point. For when you
consider the scores of differences existing within the denomination, even
today, what do you suppose the possibilities of apostasy would be in nineteen
hundred years? Of course, we claim that our church has remained true all this
time, but if taken from a historical standpoint alone, every other church has a
right to claim the same thing. Therefore, the historical foundation is out. The
only authority we have for our doctrine now, or ever have had is “The
Book.”
THE FAITH VS. THE BRAND
Now, I realize that we are told that many false prophets
shall arise and shall deceive many, and that we should beware of them. I also
realize that we are admonished to come out from among them and be a separate
people, and to contend for the faith. And I believe in doing just that. But I
also find that we are told to avoid contentions and strivings about some
things, for they are unprofitable. So for this reason, I believe in standing
for something and being true to it. But, I believe that that some-thing should
be our FAITH and not so much our BRAND. Sometimes our churches are prone to
endorse a man in a big way, even though he may be a modernist or even though he
may deny the faith in many ways, just because he has our denominational brand
and approval on him. On the other hand, you very often see a man who will stand
for all the fundamentals of the faith that we do, and yet, some of our leaders
will denounce him in a most vehement manner, just because he does not have our
BRAND on him. And this is the very thing that our tradition contributes to. It
is the same old weakness of the Pharisees, to follow the popular or political
trend, to receive the praises of men. Which should we contend for, the FAITH or
the BRAND?
THE EFFECT OF OUR TRADITION
After long observation, there is no doubt in my mind as
to the demoralizing effect of this tradition on our spiritual power. Our object
soon becomes, building the church, rather than seeking the lost. We become
self-centered rather than Christ centered. This in turn creates factions and
jealousy where no factions should exist. The evangelistic zeal and spiritual
fervor is soon re-placed by a greed and a desire for potential power to subdue
and command in ecclesiastical circles. I remember one Baptist preacher saying
concerning another faction with whom he differed only slightly, “We just
don’t allow them to come into our country at all.” I was told of
another man Who want-ed to turn out of his church, a man who had won hundreds
of people to the Lord and Whose life was unquestionable and above reproach,
just because he didn’t believe in this tradition. On the other hand, this
same pastor was on perfectly good terms with other members of his church who
went out on beer parties, to say nothing of what accompanies such procedure. On
one occasion a Bible class was started in a town and the meat of the Word was
being given out and Christians were feeding upon it and growing in grace. It could
have been a blessing to every Baptist church in town, but pastors became
enraged merely because their members were attending. Would you call this a
Godly concern for their members, or a personal jealousy? Some pastors became so
dictatorial that they would put their members on the spot and practically force
them to either stop going to the Bible class, or withdraw from the Church. Is
this what we call Baptist democracy? Or would these men look more fitting and
proper with their collars turned around? One pastor emphasized the fact that it
was the BEST members of their churches who were attending this class. Does he
not realize that it is the CARNAL Christian, not the spiritual Christian who is
led astray by false doctrine? Will he thus admit that he is not feeding his
flock? Does he not realize that he is helping to drive out of his church the
spiritual element and retain the carnal? Or is this what we might call zeal
without knowledge? Instead of realizing that a good Bible class is a
contribution to any church, these pastors seemed to imagine a competition to
exist, and became jealous. “The wicked flee when no man pursueth”
(Prov. 28:1). I would think that a preacher would be interested in promoting
all the good Bible study possible, instead of denouncing it. Evidently, some of
them are not so interested in defending the faith as they are in defending the
BRAND.
OUR INVITATIONS
Another place where the effect of our tradition is being
found is in our invitations. They are becoming, for the most part, a two-fold
proposition. First, to the unsaved to come to Christ and be saved, which is
very good. Second, to the Christians to join the church. And such an issue is
made concerning joining the church, and such a noticeable absence of the
teachings of a Spirit filled life, that, whether intentional or unintentional,
the impression is left that the entire essence of spiritual maturity is
contained in being baptized and joining the church. So it is no wonder that the
spiritual Christians are prone to leave a diet of this kind and go where they
can feed on the meat of the Word. This is rather a stale diet for a growing
Christian.
CONCLUSION
Now, in conclusion, may I say this: It is not the
Lord’s purpose in this age to build a Large, visible, tangible church
organization for the world to observe and admire. That is in keeping with the
Post-Millennial viewpoint. It is not His purpose for us to build a large
powerful organization to dominate in a political sense. This is in keeping with
the Catholic program. His purpose in this age is to take out of the Gentiles a
people for His name. This is in keeping with the Pre-millennial position and
evangelism. This is in keeping with the missionary commission. And there is
nothing wrong with organizing in order to carry this out. The thing is, will we
be able to master our organization, or will our organization master us? Which
will we exalt, the organization of Christ, or the Christ of the organization?
As long as we exalt the Christ, His words of assurance will ever come back to
us saying, “Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man
can shut it” (Rev. 3:8). But, regardless of what I say and
regardless of all the scpriptural admonition we have, we know
that the element of tradition with its political conquest is going to prevail,
even as we can see it so much in evidence today. “I know thy works that
thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou were cold or hot. So then because
thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
(Now notice this) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods and
have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable,
and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the
fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed,
and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with
eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten, be
zealous therefore, and repent” (Rev. 3:15-19). There is a lot of difference
in having potential or political power and having spiritual power.
There’s a lot of difference in being able to command in worldly affairs
and being able to win souls to the Lord. There’s a lot of difference in
an attitude of dictatorship and an attitude of evangelism. The former embraces
vanity, pride and self-exaltation. The latter embraces humility, zeal and favor
with God. The former characterizes the course of the end of this age. The
latter characterizes the will of God for us. The former embraces the satisfaction
of carnal achievement and wealth. The latter embraces soul winning and riches
in Heaven. The former is identified by our tradition. The latter is identified
by God’s Commission. So, “Why do (we) also transgress the
commandment of God by (our) tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Let us stand by the
Word of God, and the God of the Word will stand by us.
Printer
Version
