The True Church Of God

Post 6, Friends With God, Chapter 5: God’s Called Out Ones.

This is the sixth post in the series from Chapter 5 of Friends With God: God’s Called Out Ones. In the previous post we looked at what it means to Do The Will Of God, with a deeper understanding of not taking God’s name in vain, as required in the third of the Ten Commandments.

In this post we will examine the characteristics of the true Church, and how we may be able to identify it.

But the hour is coming, and now is,
when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth,
for the Father seeks such to worship Him.
God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.
(John 4:23-24)

The Name Of The True Church

Yet, how do we worship God in Spirit and in Truth?
Who determines what is the Truth?

The doctrine of the Primacy of Peter holds that apostolic succession and supreme authority on Earth is now in a modern day “Peter”. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox Churches all claim to be the “true” church, with their modern day “Peter” who is the head of their “true church”.

These three large and ancient churches claim lineage back to Peter, and many other churches claim it also, as they have come out of these churches. The terms “catholic” and “orthodox” denote universal authority and correct doctrine, and thus (they claim) it provides authenticity to these organisations.

Some other churches, who state that they have nothing to do with these ancient churches, also claim a link back to Peter. This includes a small but diverse group calling themselves various types of the “Church of God”. They claim that this is the true name of the Church, which has been used in an unbroken succession back to the first century.

To support this they show that the name ‘Church of God’ is mentioned in the scriptures eleven times, once by Luke in the books of Acts, and the rest by Paul.

However, none of the other apostles, nor Christ, ever used the term ‘Church of God’ to address or refer to the church.

And while “Church of God” is certainly a very succinct and specific name, historical records don't support the idea that it has been used consistently since the time of Christ till today. 

Paul also uses many other terms for the church, including: Churches of Christ (Rom 16:16), churches of the Gentiles (Rom 16:4), Church of the Firstborn (Heb 12:23) church of the living God (1Tim 3:15), churches of the saints (1Cor 14:33) churches of Galatia (1Cor 16:1) and he starts both 1 & 2 Thessalonians by simply addressing them as the church of the Thessalonians, in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ.

The scriptures also mention the members of the church as those who follow ‘the way’ in Acts 9:2, 19:9, 22:4 and 24:22.

Added to this, whenever the term ‘Church of God’ is used, the word ‘of’ is not in the original text. So, you could alternatively translate it as “the Church in God”, or “the Church with God” or whatever preposition you want to add.

In addition, the word “church” can also be translated as “Assembly”, thus giving the Assemblies of God some “credibility” based solely on their name.

The term ‘Church of God’ is also not mentioned in Revelation where Jesus addresses the seven churches simply by their location, such as the church at Smyrna etc.

The Relationship That God Expects With The Church

The term ‘Church of God’ is therefore seen to be a convenient all-encompassing phrase that Paul occasionally used, rather than being (as is claimed) a specific and important identifying appellation of the ‘true’ church.

Scripture has a far deeper and more profound way to identify the true believers of Jesus: we need to find those who do the will of God, by being in his name in works and actions. (Matt 18:19-20)

There is therefore no ‘true name of the church’ to indicate who true believers are.

To promote a group as being the “true successor to Peter” simply because it has “the true name of the Church”, is irrelevant as to whether we are in Christ or not.

Such ideas serve only to undermine the fundamental purpose of the scriptures- which is to enable us to develop a personal relationship and friendship with God the Father and Jesus Christ His Son. (John 14:20-21)

Developing out of this friendship will naturally be friendships with others who also have a personal relationship with Christ and the Father. An assembly of such people is what the church is, or at least is supposed to be.

• But what is this Church’s structure and purpose?

• Who runs it?

• Are there many such groups?

• Or is there just one such ‘true’ church, which all others should emulate and conform to?

To address these questions, we need to understand how the first century church was established and grew. We have already seen, in this previous post, that the Apostles were shown that they were not the only group that God was working with. We will now examine how Paul’s ministry related to that of the other Apostles.

The Calling Of Paul

Paul’s calling is one of the clearest and most dramatic examples that during the first century God was not establishing his church with some kind of lineage back to Christ, via Peter.

The first mention of Paul is in Acts 8:1 where he (called Saul at the time) is consenting to the death of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Next, he is mentioned in Acts 9:1-18, where he begins a severe persecution of the followers of Christ, including going to Damascus with authority from the Jewish leadership to imprison any Christians he finds there.

However, just outside Damascus, he is famously struck down by a vision of a very bright light, along with the voice of Jesus telling him to stop the persecution. Blinded by this light, he was led by the hand into Damascus, where he fasted for three days, till his sight was restored when anointed by Ananias, a Christian sent to him by Christ.

It was Christ who called Paul on the road to Damascus.
Christ who blinded him.
And Christ who told Ananias to anoint him, so that he might receive his sight.
Peter is not mentioned at all in the calling and conversion of Paul.

Even after Paul is converted and comes to Jerusalem, it is Barnabas through whom Paul (Saul) is introduced to the disciples and to all the Apostles. (Acts 9:26-27)

None of the Apostles wanted to have anything to do with Paul, for they did not believe he was converted. There is no mention of Peter having any relationship with Paul during any part of his early calling and preaching in either Damascus or Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1-31)

Our Relationship To Christ As The Head Of The Church

Paul explains in his first letter to the Corinthians, that it’s our personal relationship with God that’s important. In comparison, our relationship with any person, including Paul, Peter or Apollos, is irrelevant and insignificant. (1Cor 3:1-23)

The ideal that Paul is emphasising is of being perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Cor 1:10-17)

The mind and judgement we are to attain to is Christ’s:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4:13)

His point is that we are all equal brothers in the family of Christ and God the Father, where Jesus is the example that we are to emulate. (Matt 23:8)

We are not united in the body of Christ under any man, but it’s only through our direct relationship with Christ, that we come together as one working body of people reflecting the mind of God in our actions.

And this relationship with Christ is ultimately to be one of friendship with him and God the Father. (John 15:15)

Paul’s independence is again emphasised in the first two chapters of Galatians, where he not only doesn’t acknowledge Peter as the one from whom he got the truth, but is adamant that he was never under Peter’s authority:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead,…
But I certify to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not after man. 
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it (by men),
but (it was directly given to me) by the revelation of Jesus Christ. 
(Gal 1:1 and 11-12) 

Paul’s tone in this letter toward the leaders in Jerusalem could even be construed as somewhat disrespectful:

But from those who seemed to be something (whatsoever they were it makes no matter to me; God does not accept the face of man), for those seeming important conferred nothing to me. But on the contrary, (those important ones) seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, (to the non-Jews or gentiles as they were called) as Peter (had been entrusted with the gospel) to the circumcision (the Jews); for He (God) working in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision also worked in me to the nations (gentiles). and knowing the grace (favour from God) given to me, James, and Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave the right hands of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we go to the nations (gentiles), but they to the circumcision (Jews). (Gal 2:6-10)

These verses are diametrically opposed to the idea that there is succession of the church leadership through men.

It is interesting to note that Peter was sent to the Jews, and Paul to the gentiles. If there was any “succession from Peter” it would therefore have been limited to those converts of the Jews, to whom Peter was specifically sent.

All those gentiles who were converted by Paul and Barnabas were obviously not in any succession from Peter, as he was not sent to them.

Different Jobs For Different Apostles

Peter and Paul were two men (amongst many) given separate assignments by Christ to do. There is no indication that Peter’s role was more important than Paul’s. They were assigned different jobs, which were necessary at the time, due to the structure of the societies and the political geography of the regions.

Clearly the intention of Peter, James and John, when they ‘gave the right hands of fellowship’ to Paul and Barnabas, was not as a delegation of authority from them, but as a sign of respect of the equal role they were already playing in spreading the Gospel. They were acknowledging that Paul and Barnabas were brothers in the fellowship of Christ and God the Father, and that they were all in the same covenant with Christ as their leader and teacher. (Matt 23:8-11)

To emphasise this equality, Paul goes on, in the same letter, to tell how he boldly withstood Peter’s hypocrisy in front of the congregation.

But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles: but when they had come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; so that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, (as he had done by eating with them previously) and not as do the Jews, (who don’t eat with them) why compels you now the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (to eat separately from the Jews)”

(Gal 2:11-14)

It is therefore clear that Paul was not under Peter’s authority, nor did he derive his own authority from him. He obtained his authority as an Apostle to the gentiles directly from God, through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.

For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles… (Rom 11:13)

Similarly, the commissioning of Paul to preach the Gospel to the gentiles was directed by the Holy Spirit- without Peter or any other human intermediary:

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul (Paul) for the work whereunto I have called them”. (Act 13:1-4)

How the Holy Spirit said this is not clear, but the fact is that Paul and Barnabas were separated from the others who all “ministered to the Lord”. These two were then sent forth by the Holy Spirit to do this particular work of God to the Gentiles.

God’s Friendship With You Is Not Dependent On Men

Jesus himself also said that Paul was a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel. (Acts 9:15)

We see from this that the Holy Spirit is not restricted in being able to start any new ‘work of God’, without the necessity of linking it to any existing Church of God.

As we have seen in previous posts in this series, God has many groups of people, and some existed even during the days of Christ. Scripture does not support the idea that there is one single ‘work of God’, that everyone must come under the authority of, and that God only ever works through one leader, as some still claim today.

Our spiritual relationship is between us and God directly, and need not directly involve anyone else. However, (as we have seen previously) how we relate to others demonstrates how we love God. (1John4:20-21)

Just because we are friends with one person doesn’t mean we can’t be friends with someone else, or that they can’t have friends we don’t know about, or even like. In the same way, friendship with God is not exclusive.

While we are told to be ‘one body’ as a church, it does not mean we are to necessarily be under one human leader.

When Peter, James and John agreed that Paul and Barnabas were working in separate areas of responsibility, it didn’t mean that they were not members of the same body of Christ, nor that they were in competition with each other.

God is big enough to have many different friends, carrying on many and various areas of ‘work’ for him. We should not assume anything less, or we could be contending with how God chooses to do his work. (Acts 5:35-39)

The Scriptural Basis Of The “Primacy of Peter”

From the above discussion it appears that there is simply no such thing as a lineage of authority passed down from Peter to Paul, and then continuing onto those leaders of the one true church of the modern-day Christian era.

As we have seen, all those gentiles converted by Paul’s teachings have no lineage back to Peter. Also scripture tells us that Peter’s primary ministry was to the Jews, and as most of the world’s Christians are not Jewish, it would also be logical that most Christians therefore have no lineage back to Peter.

The doctrine of the “primacy of Peter” is therefore shown to be a complete fallacy. Where, however, does this idea come from? In the next post we will examine the scriptural and historical claims for this doctrine, and why it is completely against the spirit and truth of the Word of God.