Answering Hobart Freemanism -- From a Reformed Perspective

[mothcorrupteth]

Hi all. This thread is something of a testimonial, something of a solicitation for advice.

For starters, my mother came from a Fundamental Baptist background, and my father from Holiness/Wesleyan. We went to Southern Baptist churches until I was about 13, after which we started to assemble with Bible Methodists, a conservative Holiness denomination. Not wanting to step on each other's theological toes, my parents never taught me much doctrine beyond that talking about predestination was an unpardonable sin.

I responded to an altar call at the Southern Baptist church at age 8 or 9, but it produced no change in me. I was bored with the sermons, and I could just never really get into the Bible. When we started going to Bible Methodist churches, I found out about "entire sanctification" and thought, "Oh boy! This is just what I need! This is why I can't ever seem to change!" Well, two or three "entire sanctifications" later, I was still the same rotter as usual.

Well, I realized I couldn't find any evidence for entire sanctification in the NT, but I still felt like I wanted to bump up my experiences with God a notch, and I started getting interested in Third Wave theology. At the same time, I met this girl I really liked who got all excited when I started talking about Third Wave ideas--y'know, leaving dead institutional churches, continuation of the spiritual gifts, the "deeper life." And I really wasn't aware at the time how much these motifs just keep getting recycled every twenty years with each generation of spiritual enthusiast theology--Pentecostalism, Charismatism, Third Wave, Emergent... So I took her excitement as a good sign, like maybe I'd found what I'd really been looking for in Wesleyanism.

Meanwhile, she and her parents are sharing all this literature with me, all these casette tapes of her father's sermons, and as I'm listening to those sermons I'm loving every word of condemnation against the "dead" denominations. Then I get to the sermon where her father starts talking about having faith for healing and positive confession and not taking medicine. He mentions a name: Freeman. I google it, and I've never been so scared in my life.


After earning a Th.D. in Hebrew Bible at Grace Theological Seminary in 1961, Hobart Freeman (1920-84) was appointed to teach in its Old Testament department. Two years later the school dismissed him over doctrinal differences, his increasing criticisms of denominations, and his rejection of Christmas and Easter as pagan holidays. Freeman then founded Faith Assembly in 1963 as a house church in Winona Lake, IN, with about thirty members. As the fellowship grew larger, it moved into the Glory Barn, a rehabilitation center for addicts, near North Webster, IN, in 1972. Six years later, when he disagreed with the head of the Glory Barn over whether medical treatment could be sought for fellowship members, Freeman moved his community into a modest building surrounded by corn fields about thirty miles northwest of Fort Wayne, and thereafter emphasized a faith healing ministry. At the time, about twenty-five hundred were attending weekly services. What happened then, Cindy Barnett recounts in her autobiography Never Far From Home:

When I first heard of divine healing, it was like refreshing water. I didn't understand why churches opposed this teaching. Who wouldn't want to be healed? But we took it a step further than most Charismatic churches--maybe even ten steps further. Dr. Freeman taught that it was always God's will to heal in reponse to our faith, and that God would do it without the aid of doctors or medicine. He spoke constantly about faith. He was willing to stake his life and future of the church on this message of faith and divine healing. It sounded good until a baby died, and some others died who probably would have responded to medical treatment. It eventually led to Dr. Freeman's own death in 1984.​

In total, at least 90 deaths can be traced for certain to Faith Assembly and its spinoffs. Of all denominations in the U.S. that emphasize faith healing--including Christian Science--Faith Assembly has the highest body count. "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

To understand why I nearly lost my faith in God over this, you've got to understand how much I'd invested in Third Wave. I thought I was having all these personal words from God pushing me in the direction of this girl and her family--and now all that was shattered. Thankfully, I found Roger Smalling's The Prosperity Movement: Wounded Charismatics, which was written to answer Hyperfaith movement's heresies from a Presbyterian perspective. I was suspicious, because I didn't trust Calvinism, didn't trust "insititutionalism," but by the end of that book, I was hungry for so much more.

I took up the challenge and set out to answer Dr. Freeman's theological arguments for myself. As I found error after error and sorted out what I thought Scripture had to say on certain matters, I realized my systematics were beginning to look more and more like Calvinism. Ultimately, about two months ago, I came to the conclusion that I believed basically what Reformed theology teaches.

So anyway, I just finished a few apologia against Dr. Freeman, and I thought I'd post one of them here to see what you's have to say in response. I really want to make these as effective as possible so I can reach out to other people caught in Freeman's trap, so any suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.



Concerning Dr. Hobart Freeman and the Church Universal

[All Bible verses are quoted from Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) unless otherwise noted.]

The reader’s first question when confronting this apology might be, “Isn’t all this really just trivial? What does Dr. Freeman’s ecclesiology have to do with anything?” Well, several hundred years ago, partly due to his scorn toward the Donatists (an early form of Anabaptist), Augustine of Hippo converted from premillennial eschatology to amillennialism. As a consequence, his understanding of Mt. 24:13 was greatly skewed, and he began teaching that justification was a gradual, not instantaneous process. The Romish church was forever thereafter sealed in the bondage of works righteousness. Now, granted, the Protestant Reformers were amillennialists, and there are still many of the Puritan faith who eschew premillennialism while holding the torch of justification by faith. However, Augustine serves as a prominent example of how a single vulnerability can predispose one to very great errors in systematic theology.

In like manner, Dr. Freeman’s Southern Baptist ecclesiology feeds right into his doctrines about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is really no coincidence of history that a wide host of Holiness and Pentecostal denominations (including the Assemblies of God) have their origins in the Baptist tradition. If one can accept the subtle error that Christ is divided and that there is no invisible catholic Body, then it becomes all the easier to accept the belief that genuine believers are separated into two camps: those who have received Spirit baptism and those who have not. The Independent-minded Christian, then, having no awareness what St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians is about in the first place, proceeds to repeat the error of the church at Corinth in full, riding roughshod over verses that disprove the Charismatic-Pentecostal experience like 1Cor. 12:13 and 1Cor. 12:30 (and how exactly these do disprove it is the subject of other apologia).

The effect is reciprocal for the spiritual enthusiast already convinced that there is a second and distinct work of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of a universal invisible church threatens teachings that have already passed into common use. A mystical Body of Christ implies that the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) was laid once for all, and thus there is no need for these offices today. A mystical Body of Christ implies that Pentecost was a corporate, not personal event. By simple deduction, the enthusiast concludes that catholicity must be incorrect. It is logical, to be sure, but it is based on questionable premises.

The reader, then, hopefully perceives the systematic importance of the question of catholicity. This apology seeks to convince him that there does indeed exist one invisible Church composed of God’s elect. It will engage the following subjects with respect to Dr. Freeman:

1. His caricature of the Protestant Reformation
2. Some Scriptural bases for catholicity that he ignores
3. His exegesis of 1Cor. 12
4. His exegesis of Jn. 10:16
5. His exegesis of Heb. 12:23

I. Concerning the Doctor’s Caricature of the Protestant Reformation


i. On pp. 225-226 of Exploring Biblical Theology, Dr. Freeman teaches the following:

In regard to the nature of the church, there are basically three views: the Roman Catholic view, the Protestant view, and the view of all other churches. The Roman Catholics formulated the universal visible church theory, which alleges that the Kingdom of God is universal, and all who are saved are in the Kingdom of God. They equate the church with the Kingdom of God and say there is no salvation outside of the true church, which to them is the visible Roman Catholic Church.​

In 1520 Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church because of his stand on justification by faith. Since he was no longer a member of the visible church, he invented the theory of the universal invisible church. He said, “Jesus taught us the Kingdom of God is within you; that means it is invisible. The Kingdom of God is also universal; therefore, the true church is universal and invisible.” He taught that alongside the local visible churches was also a universal invisible mystical body of Christ to which all Christians belong. Most Protestants today agree with that teaching, although there is not one word in the Bible to support their view. Because of this conception of the church as a mystical invisible body, many have a shallow attitude toward the local assembly and their responsibility to it. (emphasis in original)​

ii. First of all, Dr. Luther was excommunicated in 1521, not 1520.

Second, he was a member of a visible church that consisted of him and his fellow German Reformers even after this.

Third, Luther did not “invent” the theory. Hegessipus (c. 120 – c. 180) taught that there was an invisible church, and so did Augustine (354 – 430) in his polemics against the Donatists. Besides the fact that Luther was an Augustinian monk, one can hardly call it an act of “invention” to combine a doctrine of catholicity that one already has with the evidence throughout Scripture that true and false converts will exist side by side, and that the false converts will be purged out in the end times:

 

[mothcorrupteth]

[24] ‘The reign of the heavens was likened to a man sowing good seed in his field, [25] and, while men are sleeping, his enemy came and sowed darnel in the midst of the wheat, and went away, [26] and when the herb sprang up, and yielded fruit, then appeared also the darnel. [27] And the servants of the householder, having come near, said to him, Sir, good seed didst thou not sow in thy field? whence then hath it the darnel? [28] And he saith to them, A man, an enemy, did this; and the servants said to him, Wilt thou, then, [that] having gone away we may gather it up? [29] And he said, No, lest -- gathering up the darnel -- ye root up with it the wheat, [30]suffer both to grow together till the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the darnel, and bind it in bundles, to burn it, and the wheat gather up into my storehouse.’ (Mt. 13:24-30)
​

[19] …ure, nevertheless, hath the foundation of God stood, having this seal, ‘The Lord hath known those who are His,’ and ‘Let him depart from unrighteousness -- every one who is naming the name of Christ.’ [20] And in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour… (2Tim. 2:19-20)

[22] Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Mt. 7:22-23)

[10] Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people, and thy father's house; [11] So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him. [12]And the daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift; even the rich among the people shall intreat thy favour. [13] The king's daughter is all glorious within: her clothing is of wrought gold. [14] She shall be brought unto the king in raiment of needlework: the virgins her companions that follow her shall be brought unto thee. [15] With gladness and rejoicing shall they be brought: they shall enter into the king's palace. (Ps. 45:10-15, KJV)

[21] And one strong messenger did take up a stone as a great millstone, and did cast [it] to the sea, saying, ‘Thus with violence shall Babylon be cast, the great city, and may not be found any more at all; [22] and voice of harpers, and musicians, and pipers, and trumpeters, may not be heard at all in thee any more; and any artizan of any art may not be found at all in thee any more; and noise of a millstone may not be heard at all in thee any more; [23] and light of a lamp may not shine at all in thee any more;and voice of bridegroom and of bride may not be heard at all in thee any more; because thy merchants were the great ones of the earth, because in thy sorcery were all the nations led astray, [24] and in her blood of prophets and of saints was found, and of all those who have been slain on the earth.’ (Rev. 18:21-24)
​

iii. Fourth, the use of the word “theory” to designate the doctrine of a universal invisible Church is a Baptist pejorative that begs the question and primes Dr. Freeman’s readers to treat this doctrine with scorn. Catholicity is a doctrine, whether it is true or false.

Fifth, the truth of the statement, “Most Protestants today agree with that teaching,” depends on what one means by “Protestant.” Historically, a Protestant was one who demonstrated antipathy toward the Romish church’s doctrines and influences. Ecumenicals who call themselves “Protestant” but cozy up to the Roman pontiff are not Protestants properly so called. Dr. Freeman, judging from his teachings, is Protestant, though he betrays his Southern Baptist education when he teaches there is a contrast between Protestant ecclesiology and that of “all other churches.” Being Protestant has never necessitated that one is Reformed (i.e., one believes in a catholic but invisible Church existing in a visible catholic church that must be continually renewed—“Semper reformanda”). It is in ignorance of the terms’ historical meanings that Baptists insist they are not “Protestant” because they believe in the autonomy of the local assembly and therefore have no larger universal body to “protest.” Protesting the Romish church has nothing to do with catholicity.

Sixth, the claim that “there is not one word in the Bible to support their view” is begging the question. As the full length of this apology will testify, there is one word that supports our view, which word is “one.” There are also other words, but “one” is the trademark.

Seventh, it does not logically follow from the premise that there is no invisible catholic church that those who believe in it forsake their duties to the local assembly, and Dr. Freeman does not otherwise give supporting evidence for this statement. This is simply more circular reasoning, and I offer the objection that belief in an invisible catholic church raises one’s sense of fraternity in Christ so that one appreciates one’s proximate brethren all the more. Additionally, one is inspired to reach out to those professed Christians outside of the local assembly who err from the truth.

II. Concerning Some Direct Scriptural Bases for the Catholicity of the Church

i. In this section, I would like to put forward two arguments for the existence of a universal, invisible Church which Dr. Freeman neglects to address. First, the Lord Jesus Christ said he would build his church (singular) on the cornerstone of himself:

‘And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it…’ (Mt. 16:18)
​

The Romish church, as all know, claims that Peter was “this rock,” whereas Protestants of many traditions (including Baptists) recognize the differences between the two Greek terms translated as “rock.” While this correct exegesis of the text does discount Roman Catholicism, it does no damage to—yea, it is rather the foundation for—the teaching that there is a catholic Church, though whether it is visible or invisible the text does not indicate.

ii. Second, St. Paul always stated in his epistles that he persecuted one church:

[4] If any other one doth think to have trust in flesh, I more; [5] circumcision on the eighth day! of the race of Israel! of the tribe of Benjamin! a Hebrew of Hebrews! according to law a Pharisee! [6] according to zeal persecuting the assembly! according to righteousness that is in law becoming blameless! (Phil. 3:4-6)

…I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I did persecute the assembly of God… (1Cor. 15:9)

…[Y]e did hear of my behaviour once in Judaism, that exceedingly I was persecuting the assembly of God, and wasting it… (Gal. 1:13)
​

One might object that he was referring to the local church at Jerusalem, but that would be incorrect, because Acts 9:1-2 states that “Saul, yet breathing of threatening and slaughter to the disciples of the Lord, having gone to the chief priest, did ask from him letters to Damascus, unto the synagogues, that if he may find any being of the way, both men and women, he may bring them bound to Jerusalem.” He was clearly persecuting Christians from diverse geographical regions. Furthermore, why would St. Paul neglect to mention which specific local assembly he was persecuting if he had known there might be some confusion?

 

[mothcorrupteth]

III. Concerning the Doctor’s Exegesis of 1Cor. 12


i. Dr. Freeman writes,

Luther and his followers in the Protestant Reformation attempted to explain this view [of a universal invisible church] by saying that a believer may or may not be a member of a local visible church; but that every believer, whether in the past, present, or future ages of Christianity, whether living or dead, does belong to the universal invisible church of the mystical body of Christ. To support this supposition, they cite I Corinthians 12:27, where the term “body of Christ” is used. However, their use of this text is invalid because it is a metaphor showing relationship within the church, not the nature of the church. (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 226)​

In further exposition, he comments,

Advocates of the universal invisible mystical church theory frequently cite the “one body” concept of Paul. In I Corinthians 12:13 Paul said that all Christians are baptized by one Spirit into one body, obviously speaking of regeneration. In I Corinthians 12:12-31 Paul used the body as a metaphor to show the spiritual relationship between Christ and His church. Again, in Ephesians 2:16 and 4:4 he showed that there is one body. Paul had reference to the church being one—one body. He was not teaching the universal invisible mystical theory, but was illustrating that the church is made up of all races, all kinds of people, and all social classes of people. Jesus said in John 10 that there is one Shepherd and one fold; that is, that one day both Jews and Gentiles will belong to the same body. Whenever a literal, geographical church is referred to, it is always spoken of as a local, visible assembly.​

A metaphor is a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, such as the phrase, “a mighty fortress is our God.” God is not an actual fortress, but use of this metaphor shows the nature of His power to deliver and protect those who trust Him (Psalm 91:2). In I Corinthians 12 Paul used the terms “hand,” “feet,” “eyes,” and “ears” to portray the many parts of the body. The metaphor shows a spiritual relationship. Christ is the head; the church is the body. To insist that the body of Christ means a literal invisible mystical body somewhere is to absolutize what the Holy Spirit intended as a metaphor. Care must be exercised when interpreting the Bible not to literalize or absolutize the many metaphors found in the Word of God; or God’s eyes, for example, would be running to and fro throughout the earth (II Chronicles 16:9). (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 228)​

It appears that Dr. Freeman does not appreciate the overarching theme of unity present in St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. That theme, when properly exegeted and then applied to our understanding of 1Cor. as a unit, reveals the truth of the invisible Catholic Church—and the shortsightedness of Freeman’s argument (and we must be crystal clear with our terms; Reformed Protestants have historically refused to call that body of false believers in bondage to popery as “Catholic;” to us it is the “Romish” or “Roman” church and nothing more). To understand why 1Cor. 12:27 does refer to the anatomy of the Church, so to speak, in addition to her physiology, we must trace the use of “one body” imagery all the way through the epistle.


ii. The first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians begins with a salutation (ch.1:1-3) followed by the customary thanksgiving for the Corinthians’ conversion and sanctification (vv.4-9). Then starting in vv.10 and ending in vv.13a,

[10] And I call upon you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the same thing ye may all say, and there may not be divisions among you, and ye may be perfected in the same mind, and in the same judgment, [11] for it was signified to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that contentions are among you; [12] and I say this, that each one of you saith, ‘I, indeed, am of Paul’ -- ‘and I of Apollos,’ -- ‘and I of Cephas,’ -- ‘and I of Christ.’ [13] Hath the Christ been divided?​

So at last we come to St. Paul’s purpose for writing the letter. Some from Chloe’s household had come to him and reported that some factionalism had developed within the Corinthian assembly regarding whom they claimed to follow. In response, St. Paul’s question is not, “Are we divided?” but, “Hath the Christ been divided?” For, as he explains later in vv.31, “ ‘He who is glorying -- in the Lord let him glory.’ ” Clearly, Paul regarded a division among the Corinthians to be somehow equivalent to a division of Christ himself. This does not tell us anything about the possible catholicity of the church, but it does set the stage for the rest of Paul’s epistle.


iii. From there, St. Paul explains that the Gospel, not baptism, is his mission (1Cor. 1:13-17), and that the “foolishness” of the gospel (v.18-28) gives Corinthians no cause to boast (vv.29-31). Chapter 2 reiterates that St. Paul’s gospel was “foolish” or humble according to the judgment of the world. Chapter 3 immediately returns to division over ministers, the thesis (vv.4-5), pointing out that both St. Paul and St. Apollos were servants laboring unto their edification (vv.6-10), and then exhorts them to build upon the foundation of Christ with sturdy materials (vv.11-15), informing them they are a temple or sanctuary unto God:

[16] …have ye not known that ye are a sanctuary of God, and the Spirit of God doth dwell in you? [17] if any one the sanctuary of God doth waste, him shall God waste; for the sanctuary of God is holy, the which ye are. (1Cor. 3:16-17)​

As a word of explanation, “sanctuary” (which the KJV renders “temple&#8221 is Young’s accurate translation of the Greek naós (ναό&#962, which refers to the inner cell or Holy of Holies of the larger temple building (which was the hierón or ὶερό&#957. To illustrate, it was to the pinnacle of the hierón that Satan took Christ to tempt him in Mt. 4:5, but it was between the naós and the altar that Zacharias was slain, as the event is alluded to in Mt. 23:35. As a side note, St. Paul always uses “naós” when referring to believers as a holy habitation of God, and it is in the naós, not the hierón, that the man of sin is said to sit in 2Thes. 2:4. Hence, many Reformed Protestants interpret St. Paul as indicating that this Antichrist is actually due to sit among the body of believers proclaiming himself to be God, which is precisely what the Roman pontiff does when the Pope calls himself “Vicarius filii dei”—vicarous Son of God.


Moving along, St. Paul declares that the Corinthians are “a” sanctuary in which the Spirit of God dwells. Then he switches to the definite article, “the.” If one desecrates the sanctuary, God’s wrath is poured out on him because the sanctuary is holy, and the Corinthians are the sanctuary. He alternates these definite and indefinite articles again in his second epistle to the Corinthians:

…and what agreement to the sanctuary [naós] of God with idols? for ye are a sanctuary [naós] of the living God, according as God said -- ‘I will dwell in them, and will walk among [them], and I will be their God, and they shall be My people…’ (2Cor. 6:16, cf. Lev. 26:12)​

Now, one might protest that the use of a definite article means nothing in and of itself; after all, could St. Paul not be referring to “the local sanctuary at Corinth”? However, when the Apostle John recounts an episode that happened as the Lord Jesus Christ was exiting the temple after cleansing it, he observes,

[19] Jesus… said to them [the Jews], ‘Destroy this sanctuary [naós], and in three days I will raise it up.’ [20] The Jews, therefore, said, ‘Forty and six years was this sanctuary [naós] building, and wilt thou in three days raise it up?’ [21] but he spake concerning the sanctuary [naós] of his body… (Jn. 2:19-21)​

Question: How many bodies did Christ offer up on the cross? One. Any more than that, and we implicitly state that he was sacrificed more than once, which is heresy. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane,

[20] ‘And not in regard to these alone do I ask, but also in regard to those who shall be believing, through their word, in me; [21] that they all may be one, as Thou Father [art] in me, and I in Thee; that they also in us may be one, that the world may believe that Thou didst send me. (Jn. 17:20-21)​

The Romish church, the Stone-Campellite “churches of Christ,” and various other groups that claim to represent the only surviving visible catholic church see in this prayer a justification for their organizational exclusivity and unity. However, we of the Reformed Protestant tradition recognize that Christ’s prayer has been instantly answered now and forever because those who believe in Christ are accepted in Christ (Eph. 1:6) and in his one resurrected Body, which is the sanctuary of God, wherein the Spirit of God makes its tabernacle as it did in the days of Moses (Ex. 40:34-35):

[19] Then, therefore, ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the[Jewish] saints, and of the household of God, [20] being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being chief corner-[stone], [21] in whom all the building fitly framed together doth increase to an holy sanctuary [naós] in the Lord, [22] in whom also ye are builded together, for a habitation of God in the Spirit. (Eph. 2:19-22).​

If one misses this, then one misses the mystery of the cross, which is that we were called into one Body in one hope:

[14] …above all these things, [have] love, which is a bond of the perfection, [15] and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also ye were called in one body, and become thankful. (Col. 3:14-15)​

[3] …[be] diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of the peace; [4] one body and one Spirit, according as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; [5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] one God and Father of all, who [is] over all, and through all, and in you all… (Eph. 4:3-6)​

 

[mothcorrupteth]

—and which mystery is that

… [6] our old man was crucified with [him], that the body of the sin may be made useless, for our no longer serving the sin;[7] for he who hath died hath been set free from the sin. (Rom. 6:6-7)​

[W]ith Christ I have been crucified, and live no more do I, and Christ doth live in me; and that which I now live in the flesh -- in the faith I live of the Son of God, who did love me and did give himself for me… (Gal. 2:20)​

[Y]e did die, and your life hath been hid with the Christ in God; when the Christ -- our life -- may be manifested, then also we with him shall be manifested in glory. (Col. 3:3-4)​

iv. Moving along, in ch. 3:18-20, the Apostle returns to the motif of the contrast between God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom, then to the main point that all ministers, yea, all of creation, is given for the Corinthians’ ministration (vv.21-23). Picking up in ch. 4, St. Paul basically discusses the life of sacrifice he lives for them as an apostle and how much it hurts him to chastise them. What, besides their divisive spirit, is on his mind? Namely that there is a man among them who has been committing adultery with his father’s wife (ch. 5:1). St. Paul advises the Corinthians to eject this person from their assembly, reasoning,

[6] Not good [is] your glorying; have ye not known that a little leaven the whole lump doth leaven? [7] cleanse out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, according as ye are unleavened, for also our passover for us was sacrificed -- Christ, [8] so that we may keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of evil and wickedness, but with unleavened food of sincerity and truth. (1Cor. 5:6-8)​

Thus the Apostle works back around to this idea of the magnitude of the offense that it is to join that which is unclean into that which is holy. Take notice, though, of his reasoning in vv. 7: the Corinthians are unleavened because of Christ’s Passover sacrifice on the cross. Therefore, he argues, they are put away the fornicators from their midst to maintain their consecrated status. Now, this is the first mention of Communion in the epistle, and the symbolism of unity conveyed in the sacrament is evidenced by St. Paul’s exhortation in vv.11:

But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.​

The context shows that St. Paul is telling the Corinthians not to let such people take part in the Pascal feast of Communion with them. Indirectly stated is that eating with them in Communion is somehow a demonstration of enjoinder or fellowship. Later, in ch. 10, we shall what exactly the nature of that community (“Communion&#8221 really is.



v. After some concluding reiterations to put this fornicator out from among them, St. Paul admonishes the Corinthians for going to court against each other (1Cor. 6:1-8), which is another outworking of their divisiveness. He also informs them that none of a whole host of sinners will inherit the kingdom of God, including fornicators (vv. 8-10), who are main target in mind when he says that the body is for the Lord (vv. 11-12). He asks,

[15] Have ye not known that your bodies are members of Christ? having taken, then, the members of the Christ, shall I make [them] members of an harlot? let it be not! [16] have ye not known that he who is joined to the harlot is one body? ‘for they shall be -- saith He -- the two for one flesh.’ [17] And he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit; [18] flee the whoredom; every sin -- whatever a man may commit -- is without the body, and he who is committing whoredom, against his own body doth sin. (1Cor. 6:15-18)​

Again, we see the motif of defiling that which is holy. But this time it is the body which is defiled. The body is for the Lord and is a member of the Lord’s Body. Now St. Paul makes a very interesting point. He uses Gen. 2:24 to show that the Christian man who physically joins his body to a whoring woman in sexual union is also joining that which is for the Lord and a member of the Lord’s Body to that which is unclean. This is only one dimension of the Paul’s implicit argument, though. Recall from vv. 11 that he says the body is for the Lord. What does he mean? For the answer, we must compare his statements here to statements made Eph. 5:25-33 concerning a similar topic:

[25] The husbands! love your own wives, as also the Christ did love the assembly, and did give himself for it, [26] that he might sanctify it, having cleansed [it] with the bathing of the water in the saying, [27] that he might present it to himself the assembly in glory, not having spot or wrinkle, or any of such things, but that it may be holy and unblemished; [28] so ought the husbands to love their own wives as their own bodies: he who is loving his own wife -- himself he doth love; [29] for no one ever his own flesh did hate, but doth nourish and cherish it, as also the Lord -- the assembly, [30] because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones; [31] ‘for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh;’ [32] this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly; [33] but ye also, every one in particular -- let each his own wife so love as himself, and the wife -- that she may reverence the husband. ​

In what is one of my favorite passages in all of Scripture, St. Paul endearingly reveals that the relationship between a man and his wife should be a type for “the” assembly or church, for which Christ died. He argues that because the two are one flesh, they are as one body, and so the husband is obligated to care for his wife as he would care for his own flesh: for “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1Tim. 5:8). And the Lord Jesus Christ takes care of his body, whose members, St. Paul says, “we” are.



Now, that St. Paul uses the definite article “the” in reference to the “assembly” indicates nothing in and of itself. After all, he could be talking about “the” assembly at Ephesus. Two things argue against this, however. First, in vv. 30, he lapses into the first person plural—“we.” St. Paul is not exactly a member of that assembly, since he is an itinerant minister of the Gospel. Second, St. John’s Revelation speaks of only one Wife or Bride to the Lord Jesus Christ:

[9] And there came unto me one of the seven messengers, who have the seven vials that are full of the seven last plagues, and he spake with me, saying, ‘Come, I will shew thee the bride of the Lamb -- the wife,’ [10] and he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and did shew to me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, [11] having the glory of God, and her light [is] like a stone most precious, as a jasper stone clear as crystal, [12] having also a wall great and high, having twelve gates, and at the gates twelve messengers, and names written thereon, which are [those] of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel, [13] at the east three gates, at the north three gates, at the south three gates, at the west three gates; [14] and the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Rev. 21:9-14)​

Is it not interesting that the names of the twelve apostles and of the twelve tribes of Israel are written upon this single city, which is the Bride of the Lamb and the Wife? Is it not more interesting that Christ has one Bride and Wife, not many, as the Mormon god does? And if there is one Wife which is one flesh with the one and only beloved Lord Jesus Christ, where does that place those who are of the Bride (that is, believers) but in his one resurrected Body? Dr. Freeman would probably object that this Bride is only eschatological, as he does of Heb. 12:23’s “general assembly” (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 226-227), but St. Paul indicates that the husband-wife relationship of the Church is a present spiritual reality:

[22] The wives! to your own husbands subject yourselves, as to the Lord, [23] because the husband is head of the wife, as also the Christ [is] head of the assembly, and he is saviour of the body, [24] but even as the assembly is subject to Christ, so also [are] the wives to their own husbands in everything. (Eph. 5:22-24)​

Moreover, in Eph. 5:25-33 St. Paul freely moves back and forth between statements about what Christ has done for his Wife and what he intended to do thereby. Christ’s relationship to his Bride is clearly past, present, and future.

vi. How very appropriate then, that in 1Cor. 7, bridging from the topic of fornication, St. Paul turns to the matter of the duties of marriage? He talks about the mutual ownership of bodies in a marriage (vv. 4), about maintaining the unity of marriage (vv. 10), and that marriage should be within the fellowship of the Lord (vv. 39). In the wake of discussing the necessity of not being a stumblingblock to other Christians in ch. 8 and ch. 9, then we come to key passage in ch. 10 that describes Communion. Before advancing into this material, however, we must establish some background information about the sacrament.

When our precious Lord Jesus came to Capernaum across the sea of Galilee, the multitude that he had just miraculously fed with five loaves on the other side of the sea came to him and asked, “Rabbi, when hast thou come hither?” (Jn. 6:25). The Lord, knowing their hearts and knowing what they were really asking, answered, “Verily, verily, I say to you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were satisfied; work not for the food that is perishing, but for the food that is remaining to life age-during [everlasting], which the Son of Man will give to you, for him did the Father seal -- [even] God” (vv.26-27).

He has told the crowd to work for an everlasting bread; and who, given such an offer, would not ask as did they? “What may we do that we may work the works of God?” (vv.28). Christ replied, “This is the work of God, that ye may believe in him whom He did send” (vv.29). Hence, believing on the sent One is a work which earns the everlasting bread.

The multitude, realizing that Jesus spoke of himself, inquired, “What sign, then, dost thou, that we may see and may believe thee? what dost thou work? our fathers the manna did eat in the wilderness, according as it is having been written, Bread out of the heaven He gave them to eat” (vv.30-31).

This is significant, for it a metaphor that Christ himself confirms later in the conversation. After some Jews begin to scoff because Jesus said he was the bread given to them, Jesus says, “Verily, verily, I say to you, He who is believing in me, hath life age-during; I am the bread of the life; your fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness, and they died; this is the bread that out of the heaven is coming down, that any one may eat of it, and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of the heaven; if any one may eat of this bread he shall live -- to the age; and the bread also that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world” (vv.47-51). And thus it is that he affirmed for us that his flesh is the bread of life, which he repeated at the Last Supper after breaking the bread: “Take ye, eat ye, this is my body, that for you is being broken; this do ye -- to the remembrance of me” (Mt. 26:26, Mk. 14:22, Lk. 22:19 and 1Cor. 11:23-24).



We therefore draw two main observations from the Gospels: (1) the manna that the Israelites ate in the wilderness was a type for Christ’s body, which (2) is our everlasting bread. It is from this foundation that we may proceed to St. Paul’s interpretation of these things. In 1Cor. 10, St. Paul returns yet again to the letter’s thesis of unity:

[1] …all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all to Moses were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea; [3] and all the same spiritual food did eat, and all the same spiritual drink did drink, for they were drinking of a spiritual rock following them, and the rock was the Christ...​

 

[mothcorrupteth]

Notice that the fundamental sign of their unity is that the Israelites partook in a common spiritual food and drink. When they were in the desert, God fed them with manna (Ex. 16:15, Num. 31:4-6) and watered them from the rock (Ex. 17:6, Num. 20:11, Ps. 78:15). And yet St. Paul says these physical means of sustenance were mere symbols for the spiritual sustenance they were receiving from him who was yet to come in the flesh, Christ Jesus our Lord. St. Paul then moves on to a contrast:

[5] …but in the most of them God was not well pleased, for they were strewn in the wilderness, [6] and those things became types of us, for our not passionately desiring evil things, as also these did desire.​

Having taken note that most of the Israelites in the wilderness desired evil, St. Paul spends the next few verses clarifying that those desires included idolatry (vv.7), whoredom (vv.8), temptation or provocation (vv.9), and murmuring or gainsaying (vv.10). The Apostle warns again to be wary of their souls, because these things are types for Christians (vv.11-12). No temptation, he says, is too great for us (vv.13). It is then that he begins to feed his flow of thought into the doctrine of Communion:

[14] Wherefore, my beloved, flee from the idolatry; [15] as to wise men I speak -- judge ye what I say: [16] The cup of the blessing that we bless -- is it not the fellowship of the blood of the Christ? the bread that we break -- is it not the fellowship of the body of the Christ? [17] because one bread, one body, are we the many -- for we all of the one bread do partake. [18] See Israel according to the flesh! are not those eating the sacrifices in the fellowship of the altar? [19] what then do I say? that an idol is anything? or that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything? -- [20] [no,] but that the things that the nations sacrifice -- they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not wish you to come into the fellowship of the demons.​

The key text is vv.16-18. The fellowship of the blood and body of Christ is found in one Body. That is why the Communion sacrament involves breaking pieces off one sheet of unleavened bread—“we all of the one bread do partake”—and why the fornicator in ch. 5 was not allowed to take part in Communion—because it would symbolically acknowledge his enjoinder to the one Body of Christ, which is not to be defiled. In type, this is revealed in physical Israel’s fellowship at its altar, particularly during the national Passover sacrifice (Deut. 16:1-8). It was reflective of Israel’s identity as one body of people who were liberated from the bondage of Egypt: “…‘[T]he sons of Israel prepare the passover in its appointed season; in the fourteenth day of this month between the evenings ye prepare it in its appointed season; according to all its statutes, and according to all its ordinances ye prepare it’ ” (Num. 9:2-3). The 1563 Heidelberg Catechism comments,

What is it then to eat the crucified body and drink the shed blood of Christ? It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the pardon of sin and life eternal; but also, besides that, to become more and more united to His sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ and in us; so that we, though Christ is in heaven and we on earth, are notwithstanding “flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone”; and that we live and are governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one soul.​

vii. The Apostle turns to the subject of eating that which is offered in sacrifice to idols, emphasizing the importance of conscientiousness (1Cor. 10:19-33). Then we have head coverings, which repeat many of the themes discussed earlier (1Cor. 11:1-16). After this comes the agápê feast and the Communion:

[27] Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. [30] For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. [31] For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. [32] But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. (1Cor. 11:27-32)​

St. Paul reminds his readers of the consequences of polluting the holy thing. Just as it was threatened in ch. 3:17 that God would smite him who wasted the sanctuary of his body, those who do not treat the Communion sacrament with its due esteem (ch. 11:20) and who disrespect the other partakers (vv. 21) face punishment as well. Many were “weak and sickly” among them “for this cause.”



viii. So at long last we come to ch. 12’s beginning of the discussion of spiritual gifts, whereat Dr. Freeman makes his argument,

…[Protestants] cite I Corinthians 12:27, where the term “body of Christ” is used. However, their use of this text is invalid because it is a metaphor showing relationship within the church, not the nature of the church. (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 226)​

—by which he means,

In I Corinthians 12:12-31 Paul used the body as a metaphor to show the spiritual relationship between Christ and His church… ¶ A metaphor is a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, such as the phrase, “a mighty fortress is our God.” God is not an actual fortress, but use of this metaphor shows the nature of His power to deliver and protect those who trust Him (Psalm 91:2). In I Corinthians 12 Paul used the terms “hand,” “feet,” “eyes,” and “ears” to portray the many parts of the body. The metaphor shows a spiritual relationship. Christ is the head; the church is the body. To insist that the body of Christ means a literal invisible mystical body somewhere is to absolutize what the Holy Spirit intended as a metaphor. Care must be exercised when interpreting the Bible not to literalize or absolutize the many metaphors found in the Word of God; or God’s eyes, for example, would be running to and fro throughout the earth (II Chronicles 16:9). (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 228)​

At this point, we need to stop for a moment and think. We have seen time and time again that St. Paul’s mile-long theme is unity in one holy Christian body that is not to be defiled. In 1Cor. 3:16-17, we saw how he used the temple sanctuary to illustrate this unity. In 1Cor. 6:15-18, we saw how an illegitimate sexual union disrupts this unity. In 1Cor. 10:1-20, we saw how Paul connected the Communion sacrament to the unity of the Old Testament saints in the Wilderness and to their Pascal sacrifices.

Now, all of these are present-tense illustrations of the structure of the Church that each has a relevant object lesson of a sanctified lifestyle. In none of these illustrations we have seen so far is St. Paul’s point that “the church is made up of all races, all kinds of people, and all social classes of people” as Dr. Freeman insists; that is only true for 1Cor. 12:12-14, which we are about to consider. Always is the form of St. Paul’s argument, “This is what the Body is, so this is how you ought to behave with respect to one another.” So what makes us dare think that St. Paul’s continued use of the phrase “one body” in 1Cor. 12 breaks the pattern and is somehow limited to function, not structure?



Examine 1Cor. 12:12-14:

[12] For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ, [13] for also in one Spirit we all to one body were baptized, whether Jews or Greeks, whether servants or freemen, and all into one Spirit were made to drink, [14] for also the body is not one member, but many…​

Now take notice of the “for” at the beginning of the passage. It refers to the previous verse:

…and all these [manifestations of the Spirit] doth work the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each severally as he intendeth. (1Cor. 12:11)​

What is St. Paul’s logic? Working backwards: Because the Body is many, we were all made to drink into one Spirit and were all baptized to one Body in that one Spirit. Because we were all made to drink into one Spirit and were all baptized to one Body in one Spirit, Christ is one but with many members. Because Christ is one but with many members (even as the Body is), the Spirit divides its manifestations. The main idea here is not ethnic and socioeconomic relations, although they are mentioned. It is exposition of the reason the gifts of the Spirit operate as they do, which sets the stage for St. Paul’s return to the unity theme in his discussion of cooperative specialization among the members. It is saying that function follows from the form, and it tells you what that form is: many, and yet one:

[24] …God did temper the body together, to the lacking part having given more abundant honour, [25] that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same anxiety for one another, [26] and whether one member doth suffer, suffer with [it] do all the members, or one member is glorified, rejoice with [it] do all the members; [27] and ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (1Cor. 12:24-27)​

Here, as with almost all other parts of the letter, St. Paul’s emphasis is on the unified nature of the Church,—“that there may be no division in the body”—and the relationship within the Church is only a sub-argument that feeds into his greater chastisement of the Corinthians’ divisive spiritual pride. Yes, “the body of Christ” is a metaphor. Yes, it illustrates function. But to insist that it does not illustrate structure and to accuse those who see the structure of “absolutizing” the metaphor is to miss the entire point of I Corinthians. As it is written,

[11] He gave some [as] apostles, and some [as] prophets, and some [as] proclaimers of good news, and some [as] shepherds and teachers, [12] unto the perfecting of the saints, for a work of ministration, for a building up of the body of the Christ, [13] till we may all come to the unity of the faith and of the recognition of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to a measure of stature of the fulness of the Christ… (Eph. 4:11-13)​

ix. Lastly and on a note only related to the preceding material in that it deals with 1Cor. 12, Dr. Freeman states on pp. 227 of Exploring Biblical Theology:

In I Corinthians 1:2 Paul addressed himself to the church at Corinth; then in chapter 12, verse 27 he said, “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” Thus, Paul forever disproved the false invisible mystical body theory of the reformers, who would have believers belonging to two churches.
​

How Freeman interprets vv. 27 to mean St. Paul is disproving that there is a catholic Body is numbingly obscure, but I understand him to argue that “ye” means “the church at Corinth” and thus a local assembly, not all Christians everywhere. This is a red herring, really. First, the emphasis is on “ye” being members, not the body. Second, the more immediate context of vv. 12 suggests catholicity:

For, even as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the one body, being many, are one body, so also [is] the Christ…​

By which the Apostle is saying that the body is one but has many members, and that Christ is analogous to this, not the local assembly, and we know that there is one true Christ. Third, if one refers to vv. 2, one may observe that “ye” are Gentiles, and yet St. Paul talks in vv. 13 about both Jews and Gentiles being baptized into the one body. The point, then, that “ye” has the antecedent “the church at Corinth,” only backfires. Most of all, when one considers that the nature of the body to which “ye” belong happens to be the one Christ, it raises the question whether there can be plural bodies of Christ.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

IV. Concerning the Doctor’s Exegesis of Jn. 10:16


i. Dr. Freeman argues on pp. 228 of Exploring Biblical Theology:

Paul had reference to the church being one—one body. He was not teaching the universal invisible mystical theory, but was illustrating that the church is made up of all races, all kinds of people, and all social classes of people. Jesus said in John 10 that there is one Shepherd and one fold; that is, that one day both Jews and Gentiles will belong to the same body.​

ii. Specifically, he is referring to the following passage:

‘I am the good shepherd, and I know my [sheep], and am known by mine, according as the Father doth know me, and I know the Father, and my life I lay down for the sheep, and other sheep I have that are not of this fold, these also it behoveth me to bring, and my voice they will hear, and there shall become one flock -- one shepherd.’ (Jn. 10:14-16)​

iii. However, he neglects to consider 1Pet. 2:25:

…[F]or ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.​

Who are “ye”?

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice [elect] sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia… (1Pet. 1:1)​

If one were to take a look on a political map of the former Roman Empire, one would see that these are geographically large provinces that account for almost all of Asia Minor’s territory; hence, St. Peter addresses the “sojourners of the dispersion of” these regions (or, in the KJV, “the strangers scattered throughout…&#8221. Yet we need not even know this to guess that St. Peter’s audience must include members of multiple local assemblies, because we should already be recalling that there were at least two churches in the Galatian province alone (Gal. 1:2). So when St. Peter writes, “ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls,” he is talking to a plurality of individuals—not an assembly—for which reason he says “souls.”

This should tell us something about the metaphor of the one flock in Jn. 10:16. Namely, if St. Peter uses the corollary metaphor of the one shepherd when speaking to individual Christians from multiple local assemblies, and if he does so in a context other than Jew/Gentile relations, what makes us think that the Lord intended the metaphor of the one flock to be taken only to mean that Gentile believers would be grafted into the tree (cf. Rom. 11)? What makes us think that it cannot speak to the catholic nature of that flock?


Now, St. Peter also writes,

[1] Elders who [are] among you, I exhort, who [am] a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Christ, and of the glory about to be revealed a partaker, [2] feed the flock of God that [is] among you, overseeing not constrainedly, but willingly, neither for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, [3] neither as exercising lordship over the heritages, but patterns becoming of the flock, [4] and at the manifestation of the chief Shepherd, ye shall receive the unfading crown of glory. (1Pet. 5:1-2)​

It is rather peculiar that St. Peter writes about only one flock when he knows that he is writing to elders from multiple geographical regions with multiple churches. He does not say “the flocks,” nor even “your flocks,” but “the flock of God that [is] among you.” He says “patterns becoming of the flock.” In what other context could we imagine speaking of “the chief Shepherd”? If there is a chief Shepherd, then it follows that there is a chief flock—a catholic flock.


iv. While we are still in 1Pet., let us also consider ch. 2:5 and ch. 4:17, which read,

…and ye yourselves, as living stones, are built up, a spiritual house [oíkos pneumatikós, οίκος πνευματικός], a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1Pet. 2:5)​

…because it is the time of the beginning of the judgment from the house of God [tou oíkou theoú, του οίκου θεού], and if first from us, what the end of those disobedient to the good news of God? (1Pet. 4:17)​

Again, recall that St. Peter’s audience is geographically far-flung, and yet he is referring to them as a single house. If there were no mystical Body of Christ, then we would expect him to say “spiritual houses” and “the houses of God,” but this he does not do. Neither does the author of Hebrews:

[1] Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and chief priest of our profession, Christ Jesus, [2] being stedfast to Him who did appoint him, as also Moses in all his house, [3] for of more glory than Moses hath this one been counted worthy, inasmuch as more honour than the house hath he who doth build it, [4] for every house is builded by some one, and He who the all things did build [is] God, [5] and Moses indeed [was] stedfast in all his house, as an attendant, for a testimony of those things that were to be spoken, [6] and Christ, as a Son over his house, whose house are we, if the boldness and the rejoicing of the hope unto the end we hold fast. (Heb. 3:1-6)​

Admittedly, the author’s intended audience, probably Jewish Christians facing persecution, could be only one assembly of believers. It is possible. However, Heb. 3:1-6’s flow of ideas is centered on the existence of one house (oíkos, or οίκο&#962 over which Christ has been appointed the authority and which “we”—the writer and his audience—are. As in other passages already mentioned, the author would not use “we” if this unified structure he was talking about did not include him. On top of this, the immediate context is not unity between Jews and Gentiles, either; it is persistence in the faith. Linking the house of Christ to the Mosaic house of Israel—a comparison of nature—serves as the typological object lesson, as one discovers from reading the remainder of chapter 3 and then chapter 4.

V. Concerning the Doctor’s Exegesis of Heb. 12:23


i. Lastly, Dr. Freeman attacks the key proof text for the invisible catholic Church:

Another text they use is Hebrews 12:23, where Paul said, “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirit of just men made perfect.” They contend that this verse says all the saints living or dead are registered in heaven; thus, they all belong to an invisible universal church. Obviously, Paul was not just speaking of the church of his day, but of all the saints who have their names registered in heaven. Therefore, the use of “assembly” and “church” in this passage speaks of the completed church as a thing in prospect, and not of the church then in actual existence. He was saying, in effect, that one day there will be a general assembly composed of Old and New Testament saints, all whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life, and with myriads of angels. (Exploring Biblical Theology, pp. 226-227)​

ii. However, let us examine the verse in context:

[22] But, ye came to Mount Zion, and to a city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of messengers, [23]to the company and assembly of the first-born in heaven enrolled, and to God the judge of all, and to spirits of righteous men made perfect, [24] and to a mediator of a new covenant -- Jesus, and to blood of sprinkling, speaking better things than that of Abel! (Heb. 12:22-24)​

The action—“ye came,” vv. 22—is in past tense, not future, and it is clearly something that applies to the author’s contemporaries, for part of that Zion to which they have come is “a mediator of a new covenant -- Jesus.” Is Christ Jesus eschatological only or are believers found in him presently? Let the Scriptures answer: “ ‘…[L]o, the reign of God is within you’ ” (Lk. 17:21). “…[W]herefore, a kingdom that cannot be shaken receiving, may we have grace, through which we may serve God well-pleasingly, with reverence and religious fear…” (Heb. 12:28). Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem are present mystical realities, as is the universal Church of the elect. To claim that Heb. 12:23a is only future is to break the unity of the complete sentence of which it is a part in the original Greek and to dismiss the tense of the antecedent verb. For those who study the text carefully, what is “obvious” to Dr. Freeman is anything but.

VI. Concluding Summary

i. Concerning the Doctor’s caricature of the Protestant Reformation, we observed that Dr. Freeman’s Baptist background biases his perception of history and his use of language. It also leads him to make illogical conclusions about the edification value of the doctrine of catholicity.

ii. Concerning some direct Scriptural bases for the catholicity of the Church, we observed that Christ only ever claimed he would build one church, and St. Paul only ever reported persecuting one church.

iii. Concerning the Doctor’s exegesis of 1Cor. 1:12, we observed that Dr. Freeman ignores symbols of unity that pervade said epistle, including the sanctuary, sexual intercourse between a man and his wife (or between a man and a harlot), and the Communion bread—which all serve as clues to catholicity themselves and point toward interpreting 1Cor. 1:12 as teaching catholicity.

iv. Concerning the Doctor’s exegesis of Jn. 10:16, we observed that St. Peter used the symbol of one flock or fold when addressing a very geographically dispersed audience that almost certainly included more than one assembly or church. He also only speaks of one household of faith, as does the writer of Hebrews.

v. Concerning the Doctor’s exegesis of Heb. 12:23, we observed that Dr. Freeman does not consider the full context of the verse, which indicates that the general assembly of the elect is a present reality, not something confined to eschatology.

vi. In toto, Dr. Hobart Freeman’s exposition on the doctrine of a universal invisible church is more rhetoric than sound argumentation, more a priori supposition than a posteriori reflection. And as the introduction to this apology suggested, his Independent ecclesiology can only contribute to greater errors of pneumatology. There is one mystical Body of Christ—one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father—now and forever. Amen.

 

[nobdysfool]

I haven't read your whole posting, just part of the first, but I had to say that I was one of those in attendance at the Glory Barn from late 1975 on, and left in early 1979 (after the move to the new building) when the word came down that no one was allowed to disagree about any point of doctrine. About 25 of us left, or were kicked out by BK, including my brother, the Roach family, and others. (I trust you know who BK is, if not, I will post his name.). Please PM me, if you'd like to talk more about specifics, as I don't want to sidetrack the thread.

We survived and like you, I have come to realize that what I found in the Word was more Reformed than anything else, as I sorted through Dr. Freeman's teachings, and questioned some of the more extreme ones.

 

[heymikey80]

I appreciate your taking the time to write this, and while I don't know the group, I see some things line up with longtime friends as well.

Keep in mind that we all are reforming, we aren't finished with reforming. I'm sure you realize even now the Reformed exegesis isn't perfect -- its representatives have just been trying to be closer to Scripture. But with that closeness we have to admit all the more our incapacity to get this perfect. Being closer to what God means, it's shown us how poorly we understand or conform to what God means. Being right in some sense makes it that much more painful, in that we're shown to be all the more in the wrong by what God has said. It throws us more strongly into relying on the Hands of God than on our theology.

So avoid the deceptions, yes. But realize there are more to come, that you will find we're akin to those deceived as well, we're human. And we hope through our communion with the Spirit among all of us that the deception in each of us will be reduced.

 

[mothcorrupteth]

I appreciate your taking the time to write this, and while I don't know the group, I see some things line up with longtime friends as well.

Keep in mind that we all are reforming, we aren't finished with reforming. I'm sure you realize even now the Reformed exegesis isn't perfect -- its representatives have just been trying to be closer to Scripture. But with that closeness we have to admit all the more our incapacity to get this perfect. Being closer to what God means, it's shown us how poorly we understand or conform to what God means. Being right in some sense makes it that much more painful, in that we're shown to be all the more in the wrong by what God has said. It throws us more strongly into relying on the Hands of God than on our theology.

So avoid the deceptions, yes. But realize there are more to come, that you will find we're akin to those deceived as well, we're human. And we hope through our communion with the Spirit among all of us that the deception in each of us will be reduced.

Thanks for the encouragement! I'll definitely keep your advice in mind, heymikey. What I'm really enjoying within the Reformed tradition is its conduciveness to intellectualism, that it encourages one to be a thinker and a scholar, to know exactly what one believes and why. While I am aware of some of its weaknesses, this one strength wins me to it more than anything else.