THE END of YOUR SEARCH for the INVISIBLE CHURCH

(The Evans/Haifly Invisible Church Debate)



Daniel S. Haifly, th.d. (7150 C.R. 35, Syracuse, IN 46567) has responded to the "FlamingTorch's" challenge to be shown where an invisible, universal church can be found in the Word of God. Brother Haifly’s response is six and one half pages of small type, so we have not addressed his introductory comments. Still, we have addressed all of Haifly's attempts to show us his invisible, universal "church," by responding to his comments. Nevertheless, Haifly has not "shown" us or proved to us any universal, invisible church in the word of God. – Herb Evans



HAIFLY ONE



Dear Editor (Flaming Torch),



. . . I have read your attempt to convince me, and I am not convinced. Please give me the privilege of presenting my view to you . . .



I believe that the Double-reference principle of hermeneutics can be applied to the word "church." That is - I believe that there are two meanings to the word "church" in the Bible. Just as redemption - with the emphasis on the calling out of the land of Egypt - is the theme of Exodus and redemption - with the emphasis on the calling into the land of promise is the theme of Joshua, so it is with the word "church." The word is used with emphasis on being called out of the world (the organism of the church or Universal church), and it is used with the emphasis on where it was called to (the organization or the local church). -- Haifly



EVANS’ ONE REPLY

We have little interest in Haifly's implied (can) "possibility" of a double reference principle of hermeneutics being applied to the word "church." With all due respect to Brother Haifly, we are not interested in what he believes or implies or declares. The deal was to "show" the "Flaming Torch" an invisible, universal church in the word of God.

How Haifly gets from Joshua's exodus and redemption to the invisible church must needs be spiritually discerned, for Haifly surely does not prove nor explain it. Haifly tries to lay a basis for a difference between the "local" church and the "universal church" by contrasting an "organism" (his idea of a universal church) with an "organization" (his idea of a local church). The local church is both an organization and an organism, for a body (1 Cor. 12) is an organized organism.

A "calling out" of the local church is a reality and is based on scripture. Haifly's universal church is a fantasy and is based on nothing. What composes Haifly's church of the called out? Souls? Spirits? Bodies? Where do all these "called out go?" Where do they assemble? Heaven? The clouds? Are they called out physically? Mystically? Ethereally? The local church is "called out"to "assemble" together. -- Herb Evans



* * * *

HAIFLY TWO

 Let me demonstrate by looking at the use of the word "ekklesia." Out of the 115 times that this word is used in our New Testament, there are 4 times in which it has nothing to do with the body of Christ. In Acts 7:38 the word is used in reference to the Israelites being called out of Egypt. Notice it says, "church in the wilderness." The wilderness is not a definite location; therefore, the emphasis has to be on where they came from.

The other three times - the word is used to speak of one specific incident: Acts 19:32,39, and 41. This is a reference to an assembly of Ephesians that had gathered together in a theater after they had captured two of Paul's companions. The way the word is used here puts the emphasis not on being called out of anything, but rather, on being called together. Looking at how the word was used by the Greeks when not referring to the church of the Living God helps us to understand the depth of the word.

I conclude that there are two ways to use the word "ekklesia." It could be used when referring to a gathering together in one place, a local body (78 times out of 115), or it might be a reference to all of the people that have been "called out" (22 times out of 115), or it might be used encompassing both ideas (10 times out of 115). Please see enclosed index entitled, "Is there a Universal Church?"

It is obvious that the majority of references to the church in the Bible are speaking to individual local assemblies of believers. They were given the job of sending missionaries, evangelists, and were supposed to do the visible work of the preaching of the Gospel. It was an organization by God to make sure that everything was done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). Nevertheless, there are other references in which the word "church" encompasses far more than a local body. –Haifly



EVANS’ TWO REPLY

. . .and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai . . . And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness . . . ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. -- Exo. 16:1-3



While we would agree that the "church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:58) and the Greek "civil assembly" (Acts 19:32,39, 41) have nothing to do with the N.T. Christian church, we take exception to Haifly's comment that "the wilderness is not a definite location." Not only was the wilderness a definite location, the church in it was a definite "congregation" and a definite "assembly."

Where Haifly implies "emphasis" on the Greek civil assembly being called "together" rather than "called out," we do not see "emphasis" - merely a statement of fact. Still, that "lawful" (19:39) assembly must needs be called out from the city to be called to gather together. It certainly had to be "dismissed" (19:41). Most of them did not even know why they were assembled together (19:32). Did they just all decide to assemble together at a whim? Haifly's "concludes" that there are two uses of the word "ekklesia" and says that it "could" be used for a universal, invisible church because of the way the Greeks used the word. The Greeks used the word as a "lawful assembly" (19:39). The Holy Spirit narrative also used the same word without any difference (19:32,41) in meaning (adopting this word for His local church). The "depth" of the word, to borrow from Haifly, is an "assembly" or "congregation." Haifly says that the Greek word "COULD" be used of a local assembly (78 times out of 115).

Still, the Greek word is used of a church or assembly, (generically or specifically, singularly or plurally, civil or otherwise) every time. Haifly tells us that the word"MIGHT" be used of all the universal church called out people (22 times out of 115), and it "MIGHT" be used encompassing both ideas (10 times out of 115). Haifly's lack of certainty is significant, i.e., "MIGHT, COULD, I BELIEVE, I CONCLUDE, etc." Still, Haifly seems very certain about the number of each of his meanings of word "church." We would love for Haifly to let us in on the secret mechanics, which he uses to determine whether the church in a given passage is local, universal, or both. We suspect that Haifly's formula would read, "If ‘local church onlies’ cannot prove (by the context) that a local church is meant in a given passage, then a universal church can safely be claimed," although Haifly cannot prove (by the context) that a universal church is meant in the same given passage. In other words, Haifly is shooting for ties in contextually inconclusive situations! --Herb Evans

* * * * *



HAIFLY THREE

I believe that the church overlaps and is part of the kingdom of God presented so clearly in the book of Matthew. It began, not with John the Baptist, but with Jesus Christ, the "Cornerstone." If these statements are true then it seems very likely that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel chapter 2 reveals some interesting facts about the church. Note: Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45. We see in these passages the following things:



1.) The stone was cut without hands - a clear reference to Jesus Christ.



". . . that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” -- Matthew 1:20



". . . upon this rock I will build my church . . . " --Matthew 16:16-18



". . . Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone . . . " --1 Peter 2:5



2.) The stone grew into a mountain that filled the whole earth. Not a mountain chain, but a single mountain.



"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house . . . " -- 1 Peter 2:5



". . . Till we all come in the unity of the faith . . . unto a perfect man . . . " -- Eph. 4:11-16



3.) I believe that the grand scheme of the church transcends time. It is bigger than one little church in one location. It was founded before the beginning of the world. The mountain completely demolished the kingdoms of the world. See Rev. 19:11-21



". . . mystery of Christ . . .Which in other ages was not made known . . . that the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel. . . ." -- Eph. 3:3-11



". . . the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began . . . "

-- Rom. 16:25-26



4.) It is the bride of Christ and will be eternal

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without

end. Amen." -- Ephesians 3:21



". . .Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it . . . That he might present it to himself a glorious church . . . " - Eph. 5:25-27



". . .Come hither and I will shew thee, the Lamb's wife . . . " -- Rev. 21:9-27, Haifly



EVANS’ THREE REPLY

Christ is surely the stone made without hands, but these futuristic passages from Daniel do not remotely relate to an invisible church or local church. Haifly confuses the kingdom of God with the church just as others confuse the church with the family of God. Whatever relationship all these terms may have to one another, the church's meaning is not to be altered or changed, regardless of what part it plays in relation to the kingdom of God or family of God.

John the Baptist, indeed, did not start the church, but he did provide Christ with the material to found His local church. Christ is the corner stone foundation and Builder/Founder of the local church (founded in the Gospel, the apostles did not predate the beginning of the world). He set the apostles, first (1 Cor. 12:28), in the foundation of the local church, before Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Luke 6:13; Eph. 2:20). The local church of Matthew 16:16-18 is the same local church of Matthew 18:17, where member grievances were to be brought to "the" church.

The mystery of Christ and the church and the fact that the Gentiles would be included as fellowheirs and members of the same body as the Jews (the first Christians) was that which was kept secret "since" (not before) the world began and "in other ages was not made known." The Jews were never a part of any invisible body, neither O.T. nor N.T., they were members of a visible congregation and assembly.

The church that Haifly refers to in Ephesians 3:21 and 5:25-27, which Christ gave himself for, was the "local" church. This local church was purchased with His own blood and had overseers appointed over it (Acts 20:28). In order to be presented a glorious church, this local church must be cleansed and sanctified by the word of God. It must be rid of its spots, wrinkles, and blemishes and be holy prior to its heavenly presentation. Is Haifly's church dirty enough to be cleansed? Sinful "bodies" are members of Christ (1 Cor. 6:15) and are members of the church. --Herb Evans



* * * * *



HAIFLY FOUR

Sometimes, however, the idea of a single unit was communicated by the use of the definite article. Notice the following:



And God hath set some in THE church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. -- 1 Cor. 12:28



And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to THE church, -- Eph. 1:22

. . . beyond measure I persecuted THE church of God, and wasted it: -- Gal. 1:13 --Haifly

EVANS FOUR

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. -- Eph. 5:23



Here, Haifly spends a lot of space discussing the definite article "the" as used with the term church and churches, using a number of scripture references. He concedes that the definite article is used with the plural form of the word "churches." Still, he sees the definite

article as sometimes used with the singular form of the word "church" as a reference to the universal church.



Haifly thinks that every time the church is referred to generically or in a general way by using the definite article, he is free to claim it as his universal, invisible church. The definite article does not license Haifly to invent an invisible church, wherever he finds the definite article used.



The church, which Paul persecuted; it was the local church of Jerusalem (Gal. 1:13), the only local church. It was the "church of God" that you could behave yourself in (1 Tim. 3:15). You cannot persecute or behave yourself in an invisible, universal church. There can be no "teachers" or "governments" in a universal, invisible church (1 Cor. 12:28). Christ is the head of the church, the local church, meaning that Christ is the head of each local church. The husband is the head of the wife, meaning that the husband is the head of each wife. It does not mean that there is a universal, invisible wife and husband out there somewhere; it is a generic expression.



Haifly's "I believe(s)" and "it seems very likely(s)" and "I conclude(s) and "coulds" and "mights" and strained cross references are not very convincing. His attempts to force synonymity on differing Bible terms are less than impressive. Haifly's comparative logic compares to the following:



A cow is an animal



A dog is an animal



Therefore, a cow is a dog.





Haifly is not convinced of our attempt to convince him; we are not convinced of his attempt to convince us. Touche'. Nevertheless, Haifly has not shown us any universal, invisible church in the word of God as challenged to do.



-- by Herb Evans



Evan/Haifly Debate ­ Flaming Torch, April/May/June 1997, P. 8