SOUND DOCTRINE - INDEX
In this series we intend to examine doctrines with the intent of establishing which are sound and which are false.
Sound doctrine unites believers in Christ, false doctrine divides people from Christ, and conflicting doctrine disrupts unity and fellowship in Christ.
Therefore, each of us ought to purge ourselves of false doctrine and earnestly seek sound doctrine.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
(I Thess 5:21)
This is not a matter of personal opinion - nor one of one-upmanship; it is a matter of personal righteousness and of right-standing before God. Ultimately, we must be willing to let God’s Word speak to us, and we must be willing to conform ourselves to that Word.
Question: How much false doctrine can one believe and still be saved?
At the Berean Research Institute, we are not willing to be comfortable with any false doctrines - no matter how few they are, nor how little they may be, nor what cost we may face to rid ourselves of them.
For good reason, Jesus warns us to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees:
Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matt 16:6)
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. (Matt 16:12)
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. (Gal 5:9)
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. (I Cor 5:7)
Therefore, as we examine various doctrines, we do so not to be confrontational or disagreeable with others, but to be obedient to these specific commandments of God and to be faithful to his scriptures, overall.
Let's Be Scriptural, In Determining Sound Doctrine.
List of Articles:
OK…. So, you’re a "CHRISTIAN"...
What’s Wrong With Being a “Christian”??
Who is God? - Make it Simple
OK…. So, you’re a "PENTECOSTAL" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:
Pentecost and the Modern Pentecostal Movement
Examining the Pentecostal Statement of Faith, “What We Believe”
Pentecostal Feminism
Why I left the Tongues Movement - Alfred H. Pohl (Opens in New Window)
“Slain in the Spirit”
“Speaking in Tongues”
My Pastor, the "Spiritual Hippie"
Fake Healers, Apostles & Prophets
Smith Wigglesworth - A Book Review - by Mike Wright
Benny Hinn - "Man of God"?? - Videos
Benny Hinn - Outrageous Claims
Benny Hinn - Politics with China
United Pentecostal Church International
Is Water Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
Is the UPCI Gospel True?
OK…. So, you’re a "BAPTIST" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:
The Eternal Security of the Believer
The Eternal Security of the Believer
Eternal Security
The “Carnal” Christian
The Local Church
The “Local” Church - A Review of Dr. Kirkland's Book
Bible Verses Refuting the "Local Church" doctrine (Opens in New Window)
Calvinism and Arminianism
Calvinism and Arminianism
The god of the Calvinist
Calvinism and Modern Bible Versions
OK…. So, you’re a "CATHOLIC" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:
Salvation for Catholics
Can a “Catholic” be a “Christian”?
A Warning to Catholic Christians !!
Catholic Booklet - “Be Careful of Protestant Teachings”: a Review
Catholic Doctrines
The Virgin Mary
The Mass - Transubstantiation
Roman Catholic Responses - Refuted
The Judgment of Rome
The Judgment of Rome - The Mother of Harlots
OK…. So, you’re a "JEHOVAH'S WITNESS" - Let’s Be Scriptural About:
Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses
Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses - Intro
Question For Jehovah's Witnesses
The "Local Church" - a book review by Mike Wright
"New Carts"
"Strange Fire"
"Wild Grapes"
or
The Local Church?
B. Kirkland D.D.
(a book review by Mike Wright)
Local Church Ministries
and outreach ministry of FairHavens Baptist Church
P.O. Box 501 Sarnia, Ontario, N7T 7J4
Printed by Bethel Baptist Print Ministry, London, Ontario.
king), 1981, and 1995 by Harrison House.
INTRODUCTION:
Dr. Bob Kirkland has written a book that clearly states his position on the role of the "local church" - that the "local church" is God's program and, therefore, that no God-ordained work occurs outside the authority of the "local church".
We believe that submission to biblical authority is a requirement for, and a characteristic of, truly born again men and women. The final authority in all matters of faith and practice is the written word of God, which is manifest to us in the authorized King James bible. Therefore if any man or organization of men contradicts that final authority, we are obligated to earnestly contend for the faith in response.
Dr. Kirkland's premise, as excerpted from the "IMPORTANT NOTE" (pg 4 of "The Local Church"), is that:
We are saying the word "ecclesia" always refers to the local church rather than the so-called universal church.
Although it is unlikely, it is possible that Dr. Kirkland misunderstands the biblical meaning of the word "church." Alternatively, it may be that he has chosen to ignore the meaning so as not to conflict with his existing and preferred beliefs.
We do not write in defense of what Dr. Kirkland calls a "universal church", in part because he has provided no definition by which to gauge its conformity to scripture.
We do not write in defense of C.I. Scofield; nor of his beliefs. Nevertheless, we believe that Dr. Kirkland exhibits uncharitable derision of Scofield (page 7).
We do understand that Dr. Kirkland may feel betrayed by Scofield's teachings, since having believed them for much of his life, and now having rejected them. We are sensitive to these things and to our own fallibility, as we all seek to know the truth. That is why we encourage the reader to honestly consider our reasons for opposing the teachings that we address in this article.
We do not agree with Dr. Kirkland that the "local" church is God's organization on earth. The Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Roman Catholic Church make similar claims to having Apostolic succession and to being God's vicarious authority on earth. Clearly only one of these claims, at most - and if any - can be right.
Jesus warned his disciples to beware of the leaven (doctrine) of the Pharisee's (Matt 16:11). A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
(Gal 5:9) We do not wish for anyone to be overtaken by false doctrine.
By examining Dr. Kirkland's reasoning and comparing it directly with scripture, we intend to prove that:
a. God has never ordained an organization called the "local church",
b. The doctrine of the "local church" is more than unbiblical; it makes the scripture become nonsense grammatically and logically, and
c. The church that Jesus said he would build is comprised of all born-again believers (i.e. disciples). The church functions as one body, and each member assembles, fellowships and works with other members of the body as the Holy Ghost directs.
We believe that Dr. Kirkland has accurately represented the commonly held doctrine of the "local church". We believe that his credentials and peer support qualify him to represent those who hold to this doctrine. If we have misunderstood or misrepresented the doctrine in any way, we would ask any knowledgeable reader to correct us and to assist us in understanding the truth.
False doctrine destroys. We must all earnestly contend for the faith. Therefore, we ask the reader to carefully consider our reasons for believing that the doctrine of the "local church", as presented by Dr. Kirkland, is false doctrine.
NOTE: Whether Dr. Kirkland and other leaders knowingly misrepresent God's word in these doctrines is a matter between them and God. We recognize that all of us are fallible and that many simply convey the erroneous doctrines they themselves were taught and have come to believe. It is our intention to break this cycle of blind error - regardless of whether it is rooted in ignorance or in malice - and to cause the reader to think, to reason, and to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)
(Dr. Kirkland's quotes will appear in bold text)
ANALYSIS:
1. Page 5 (first thetical page)
The word "church" appears 112 times in the King James Bible.
Believing that we should be as precise and as accurate as possible, by our count:
a. the word "church" only appears 78 times in 76 verses (all of which are in the new testament);
b. the word "churches" appears 37 times in 36 verses (all of which are in the new testament);
c. the word "assembly" appears 39 times in 39 verses (five of which are in the new testament);
d. the word "assemblies" appears 6 times in 6 verses (none of which are in the new testament)
e. the word "congregation" appears 363 times in 331 verses (only one of which is in the new testament)
2. Page 5
The Greek word from which the word "church" is translated is "ecclesia." What is an "ecclesia"? In Acts chapter 19 the word "ecclesia" occurs three times where it is translated "assembly." (Dr Kirkland cites Acts 19:32, 39 and 41)
Here in only this second sentence of his book, Dr. Kirkland lays the foundation for his challenge of the authority of God's word, the authorized King James bible.
a. With prose that is commonly used by bible-correctors, Dr. Kirkland appeals to Greek manuscripts, ("The Greek word..."),
b. He states that the biblical word "church" is translated from a Greek word and he introduces that word - "ecclesia",
c. He cites three verses wherein the translators of the King James bible translated "ecclesia" as "assembly", and
d. He states that "'ecclesia' simply meant 'assembly'." (Implying that the word "church" is a weak, poor or incorrect translation of the word "ecclesia" in the other 112 [sic] occurrences of the word "ecclesia") This leaves the reader doubting God's word, apprehensively wondering what the "correct" word is for "ecclesia" when it was translated as "church", and looking to Dr. Kirkland for an understanding of the word that God should have used in those places instead.
Dr. Kirkland's logic goes like this:
a. Greek "ecclesia" = "assembly" three times,
b. Greek "ecclesia" = "church" 112 [sic] other times,
c. Therefore, God's word "church" might better have been translated...or would more accurately have been translated "assembly" these 112 other times too. [Even on the balance of probability, by predominant usage, this evidence does not support Dr. Kirkland's logic.]
In fact, ultimately, Dr. Kirkland concludes that the word "church" isn't such a bad translation after all, as long as we understand it to actually mean "local" church, which he defines as "a place" and assures the reader with perpetuity does NOT mean "a brotherhood of believers".
If the reader is unfamiliar with the methods and the extent of such assaults that are being made on the authority of God's word, we would encourage the reader to research these things by beginning in our "Bible Versions" section. Despite the disclaimer in his "Endnotes", Dr. Kirkland very much does injustice to the word of God (and to the character of God, by correcting God's 'errors').
On every occasion that he inserts the word "local" into a reference to the church, Dr. Kirkland corrects God, departs from scripture, changes the meaning of the passage and leads the reader from truth into false doctrine.
The word "local" never appears in the King James bible. (But it is interesting to note that it and its derivatives do appear in modern versions.)
3. Page 5
To learn what the church is from Scripture we will first define an assembly. Then, we will look at how Jesus used the word "assembly."
From our list in the ANALYSIS paragraph 1.c. above, we recall that the word "assembly" only occurs five times in the new testament. On NONE of these occasions did Jesus express the word "assembly".
Dr. Kirkland is simply misleading the reader when he states otherwise, and he demonstrates again that he is willing to 'correct' and to change the word of God in order to make it support his doctrines. We urge Dr. Kirkland to stop defying God by changing his scripture, or alternatively to be honest with people in admitting that he does not believe God has preserved his word "exactly the way He wanted us to have it." (page 66)
Jesus used the word "church"; not "assembly" in these passages.
In his word, God uses the word "church" exactly where he wants to use it, and he uses the word "assembly" exactly where he wants to use it too. We have no authority to change the word of God.
4. Page 6
The definition of an assembly.... We must have a place. We call it the local church.
Dr. Kirkland says that "it" ("place") is the "local church". This is his definition of the "local church": the "local church" is a "place".
The "local church" is a term and fabrication of man's making, so we do not object to Dr. Kirkland defining it as a "place". However, we strongly disagree with the implication that Dr. Kirkland's definition applies to the biblical "church".
5. Page 7
In Matthew chapter 16 we see Jesus speaking to His disciples about the church. Since He was speaking in Greek (English did not yet exist), he used the word "ecclesia."
Dr. Kirkland makes a couple of errors here. It is true that English did not exist yet at the time of Jesus, but he states this fact in such a way (and as if the reader didn't already know) that he implies that this is why Jesus was speaking in Greek. This is an error. It is also a red-herring, because it masks the bigger error - that Jesus was speaking in Greek.
Jesus was not speaking in Greek.
We ask the reader:
a. Should we conclude that the Pharaoh of Egypt disregarded his native tongue and spoke in Hebrew, on the basis of his words being recorded in Hebrew?
b. Why should we assume that Jesus disregarded his native tongue and spoke in Greek, on the basis of his words being recorded in Greek?
The assumption that Jesus primarily used Greek comes from mistaken understanding of history and misguided belief in a pre-Christian Septuagint.
It is true that the new testament was written in Greek, but there is no scriptural proof that Jesus read, spoke or taught in Greek. Conversely, there is ample scriptural proof that he read, spoke and taught in Hebrew.
The misguided belief in a pre-Christian Septuagint is the source of a great number of assaults on the authenticity of the word of God. From the confusion and uncertainty arising in the wake of those assaults, false teachings (such as, 'Jesus and the Apostles quoted Greek scriptures') lead to false doctrines (such as, 'Jesus meant "local" church, a place; and not members of his body'.)
As tools of Satan, false doctrines ultimately result in bondage and/or death.
6. Page 7
In reference to Matt 16:18, where Jesus says, "... upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.", Dr. Kirkland states that:
Jesus was not referring to a brotherhood of believers.
Given the evidence to the contrary, this is quite a surprising conclusion.
We ask the reader: If Dr. Kirkland is correct and Jesus really meant, "my local church" (even though he actually said, "my church") in this passage, then what would prevent the gates of hell from prevailing against any of the other local churches?
If adherents of the "local church" doctrine fail to see the theological problems caused by inserting the word "local" into the phrase "my church", then they should at least consider the logical problems caused by doing so.
"Church" is a collective noun. It is a single entity that has individual components. The "church" can act as a unit or as an 'assembly' of its individual components. (A biblical assembly - and a secular one for that matter - refers to the collection of the components parts, or individuals. It is not a synonym for the "place" itself in which the component parts actually meet, as Dr. Kirkland would contend.)
The word "Church" refers to the two or more people assembling together in his name (Matt 18:20). The context of each passage reveals whether the word "church" refers:
a. to the entire body of Christ, or
b. to a portion of the body of Christ (whether they are assembled together or not), or
c. to the assembly of the members of the body of Christ (whether in whole or in part).
In none of these possibilities does the word "church" ever mean the meeting place itself. This may be why God simply said "church" and not "place" or "local church".
As specific examples, consider God's choice of words in these passages, as follows:
a. "there was great persecution against the church which is at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1), which logically cannot mean that there was great persecution against the "place" which is at Jerusalem, and
b. "Likewise greet the church that is in their house" (Rom 16:5), which logically cannot mean greet the "place" that is in their house, and
c. "to the angel of the church in Pergamos" write, (Rev 2:12), which logically cannot mean 'to the angel of the "place" in Pergamos write...
In these cases and in many more, "church" refers to people. It never means place. Therefore, to use the term "local church" (which Dr. Kirkland defines as a "place") not only changes the theological meaning of the expression, but it also challenges and/or changes the logical meaning of it.
7. Pages 9-26
Dr. Kirkland says that God's word "church" really means "assembly" which he says is a "local church" which he says is a "place", NOT a "brotherhood of believers".
In order to more easily assess the correct understanding of the word "church", we have reproduced every verse in which the word "church" occurs in God's word and have compared those verses with themselves after having replaced "church" by what Dr. Kirkland believes the "church" to be (a "place") and by what he believes the "church" definitely not to be (a "brotherhood of believers").
We think the reader may be surprised to discover how easily the truth can be seen in these results. (Please click on the link - OPENS in a new window)
8. Page 18
A UNIVERSAL HUSBAND?
We want to emphasize again, when we read this portion of Scripture we do not think of a universal husband or a universal wife and we should not think of a universal church.
The husband is pictured singularly. The image is of a husband who is the head of a wife, not to a group of wives. Even so, Christ is the head of each local church. To each individual church he fulfills the roles of leader, protector, provider and head.
It is true that our children are well-versed in the scriptures, in the English language and in logical thinking. Nevertheless, we didn't foresee the healthy burst of spontaneous laughter that erupted as we read the second paragraph of this quote to them "The image is of a husband who is the head of a wife, not to [sic] a group of wives."
They immediately recognized that Dr. Kirkland has contradicted himself and is arguing against his own thesis with a splendidly scriptural analogy. As is any biblical leader, Jesus is the head of ONE wife (the Church); not of MANY wives (innumerable local churches).
This is really not a difficult concept to understand (unless one wishes to hold to pre-conceived extra-biblical doctrines.) The bible clearly teaches that, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into ONE BODY,....for the body is not one member, but many........But now are they all many members, yet but ONE BODY." I Cor 12:13-20 (Emphasis added).
9. Page 19
AN INVISIBLE CHURCH?
Dr. Kirkland seems to believe that, unless one accepts his definition of a "local church", a term which he 'assembles' to his liking with frequent reference to words such as "organized", "place", "meeting", etc, then one must, by default, believe in an "invisible", "universal" church. But this is not true.
The bible clearly teaches that the church ("people"; not "place") met in houses. This did not make them invisible. While visiting with other "members" of the body of Christ ("members" of the "church"), the Apostle Paul was never invisible. In fact, his presence caused a polarization of response from people in most communities he visited.
Further, Paul did not have to seek God for "guidelines and qualifications for denominational officers," (pg 13) because these offices did not exist, nor did any other man-made "organized", "meeting" "place" (local church). Paul was an Apostle to the church.
For this reason - and as one example - when Barnabus and Silas traveled, they were accepted as "Christians"; members of the "church". They were not pastors in a "local church". They were not deacons in a "local church". They were not Apostles. They were "disciples" and they were members of the church, regardless of where they traveled or where they 'assembled'. If that makes them part of an "invisible", "universal" body, by Dr. Kirkland's definition then so be it; call it what you will.
But the bible calls it "church". It defies the definition of "local church". And we encourage the reader to use biblical words and to follow biblical definitions of those words, in faith and obedience to the word of God.
10. Pages 27-37
The bible uses the word "church". It also uses the word "churches". The churches are obviously PEOPLE (not places) who "assemble" whenever and wherever they "gather" in his name. It does not use the terms "local church", nor "local churches" and it does not promote the corresponding doctrines.
We agree that the church must do God's work God's way. It is for that very reason we encourage the reader to use the words that God gave to us by inspiration. We believe God. We believe his word exactly as it is written.
11. Page 39
As he does in other places, Dr. Kirkland uses a list of correct statements to lull the reader into agreement with him. Then, he slips his own beliefs into the list as if they too were legitimate.
Here, he correctly lists examples of how God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit send 'labourers', or 'missionaries'. But then he adds a fourth example, claiming that the "LOCAL CHURCH SENDS MISSIONARIES".
Not surprisingly, his reference verses (Acts 13:1-4) do NOT include the word "local". The word "local" is a man-made addition to God's word in support of unbiblical doctrine, that regrettably, Dr. Kirkland appears to believe. "Local" never appears in God's word.
12. Pages 43-48
Dr. Kirkland lists and refers to many well-known commentaries and preachers from the past to support his assertion that the "universal church" is "false doctrine". In doing so, Dr. Kirkland commits several errors, as follows:
a. He is guilty of fallacious logic - false dichotomy and defeating the 'straw-man' (the universal church), by arguing that defeat of (an undefined) "universal church" proves the existence and authority of what he calls the "local church", a term not even found - anywhere - in God's word.
b. He contradicts himself. On page 43, he attributes the "false doctrine of the universal church" to the Roman Catholic church and claims that the doctrine propagated, "When the mainline denominations split from the Catholic church" during the Reformation of the 16th century. Conversely, on page 48, after having assailed C.I. Scofield, and in an apparent attempt to further disparage Scofield, Dr. Kirkland claims that the "universal church position appears to be as new as the Scofield Reference bible", (which was published in the early 20th century).
c. He contradicts himself again. Throughout pages 45-48, Dr. Kirkland cites these popular commentaries and preachers from the past as authoritative witnesses in support of his argument that the "universal church position" is a recently fabricated false doctrine. But on his web site, Dr. Kirkland devotes an entire article to the "misleading" nature of commentaries and notes that, "WE SHOULD ALWAYS BEWARE OF ALL NOTES WRITTEN BY MAN".
13. Page 50
In reference to Matthew chapter 18, Dr. Kirkland writes:
The two or three referred to in verse twenty are the same two or three referred to in verse sixteen, who are involved in a local church discipline situation
To suggest that two or three people gathered together in the Name of God is the simplest form of a local church is ridiculous. For this to be the simplest form of church goes against everything the bible teaches about local church structure.
We ask the reader and Dr. Kirkland: What is the smallest assembly that would be considered a biblical church?
14. Page 50
Dr. Kirkland claims that two or three gathering in the name of the Prime Minister of Canada would not constitute the "simplest form of our government".
We could argue that a surprising number of decisions are, in fact, made by one person or by a handful of people in various governments, and that cabinet sizes wax and wane frequently, but that would be following Dr. Kirkland down an irrelevant line of reasoning to the issue at hand.
The fact is that God's word commands us to follow godly government. But it does not command us to follow man-made government of the "church." For one example, the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is not to be followed, and the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes is integral to the doctrine of the "local church". Therefore, we should not follow the doctrine of the "local church".
15. Page 51
Under the heading of "PROBLEMS CAUSED BY "UNIVERSAL" CHURCH THINKING AND PRACTICE", Dr Kirkland lists:
The Ecumenical movement is furthered by para-church ministries and "universal" church thinking.
The non-sequitur fallacy in this reasoning is obviously: "therefore support and promote the doctrine of the LOCAL church."
Local churches are robbed of resources by misguided members who contribute to para-church ministries.
Dr. Kirkland judiciously avoids using the word "money" here; and favours the more discreet word "resources".
God's word says that the love of money is the root of all evil. The "local church" doctrine provides for greater ability to fleece the sheep, or at least to control what has been fleeced.
Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches notoriously promote the "local church" doctrine. By following the corporate business model, pastors of IFB 'churches' are answerable to no one but to their own sheep. So, by frequently reinforcing the "local church" doctrine, IFB pastors retain their kingdom wherein their word is the final authority.
Ultimately, these pastors will answer to God. The corporate business model (Christianized in the form of the 'local church') is a worldly and therefore temporary hierarchical system.
16. Pages 53-57
Dr. Kirkland does a good job identifying the need for authority and the natural human response to being answerable to authority. The problem with his analysis however is that his solution is a man-made authority - the 'local church' which (like most deceptions) closely resembles the truth but is NOT the biblical model.
17. Pages 59-61
Because the love of money is the root of all evil, we will select for examination an item from Dr. Kirkland's list that pertains to money, as follows:
All offerings in the New Testament were handled through the local church.
We note again that the term "local church" is never found in the scriptures, a fact which, alone, is sufficient in refuting Dr. Kirkland's assertion.
We also draw the reader's attention to scriptures such as:
a. Acts 9:36 where Tabitha (Dorcas) was full of good works and almsdeeds without funneling those 'resources' through the "local church"
b. Matt 6:3 where Jesus says, "But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:" and
c. Acts 10:2 where Cornelius, a "devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway" without any reference to an organization.
Without devoting much more time to this, it should be clear that the "local church" doctrine is erroneous.
18. Pages 63-65
We have considered the statements Dr. Kirkland makes in his section entitled, "WHAT WE ARE SAYING AND WHAT WE ARE NOT SAYING".
Without being repetitious, we have addressed the core issues presented, so we end with this quote:
If the man after God's own heart could be wrong about how he was doing God's work, maybe we could be also. I have been a Christian for over 45 years. For over 30 of those years I believed everthing C.I. Scofield said about the "universal church." I was wrong!
It is admirable that Dr. Kirkland is candid about his previous beliefs. It is also understandable, perhaps, why he writes so fiercely in opposition to Scofield. However, we believe that Dr. Kirkland has gravitated reactively to the 'local church' doctrine, a deceptively unscriptural representation of the true biblical "church".
We ask Dr. Kirkland and those who presently believe the "local church" doctrine to consider our reasons for rejecting that doctrine and for re-examining the issue to find the truth.
God is a righteous judge. He will not reward those who blindly and dogmatically hold to false doctrine. But he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
For this reason, if we are wrong in anything that we have presented, we welcome correction that has factual and scriptural support.
