The Baptist Pillar © Brandon Bible Baptist Church 1992-Present www.baptistpillar.com
"...The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
I Timothy 3:15
E. L. Bynum
What Is "The Body of Christ?"
According to Jack Van Impe (JVI) and many fundamentalists, the body of Christ is composed of all saved people scattered throughout the earth. This idea is repeated over and over again by JVI in his book, "Heart Disease in Christ’s Body," and of course the Scofield Bible and many fundamentalists would agree that he is right.
We fully realize that many separationists agree with JVI in this area, but nevertheless we strongly disagree. No where in the Bible is it really taught that all saved people make up the body of Christ, and we intend to prove it to all who will forget human tradition and just accept what the Bible says.
In order that everyone may see that we are not misrepresenting JVI’s stand on the body of Christ, we will give direct quotes from his book showing what he believes on the subject. On page 96 he writes, "First Corinthians 12:13 declares: ‘For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.’ This is not Baptist, Nazarene, Pentecostal, Wesleyan Methodist, Christian and Missionary Alliance or Evangelical Free Church body.
Rather, it is the one body of Jesus Christ composed of all born-again believers found in numerous denominations. Oh, if the church of Jesus Christ would quit sporting its labels and begin exalting the Saviour, calling themselves by His name–Christ or Christians–then love for one another would become the effectual force it was meant to be within the evangelical scene." (Emphasis ours).
It is clear from the above quote that JVI believes that all saved people are in the body of Christ, and that this body is the Church of Jesus Christ.
To further prove our point, we quote from pages 115 and 116. "Fundamentalism’s Marching Orders: Is love for one another, regardless of denominational affiliation, a scriptural principle? Were our founding fathers right, or were they wrong? You be the judge:
"Order #1: Every born-again believer is a member in the body of Christ.
"In Christ’s great priestly prayer, recorded in John 17:11, 21-23, He prayed for unity four times. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer says: ‘With all these requests in view, it must be conceded that few, if any, truths are so emphasized in the Word of God as the unity of the believers. Now this prayer began to be answered on the Day of Pentecost when those then saved were fused into one body. The prayer has also been answered continuously as all those at the moment of believing were added to Christ’s body by the operation of the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13). This marvellous unity between believers then becomes the logical ground for all Christian action [namely, love (JVI)] one toward another.’
"Presently, it is the duty of every Christian to keep the unity the Holy Spirit has already begun and continued for 20 centuries (Ephesians 4:1-3). This is God’s commandment, and no set of resolutions adopted at a fundamentalist congress can alter God’s marching orders."
It is on the basis of such false Bible interpretation that JVI builds his doctrine of separation, or should we say doctrine of non-separation? It is a fundamental error of Bible interpretation to take Scriptures that apply to one group, and seek to apply them to an entirely different group. Some do this by taking the Scriptures that apply to Israel and applying them to the Church.
Others take the Scriptures that apply to the Church and try to apply them to Israel. This error always leads to confusion. JVI has made this error of applying verses that are spoken to a local Church, to all Christians everywhere. This is a part of the reason why fundamentalists have trouble developing and holding to the Biblical doctrine of separation. JVI did not invent this problem, but he is certainly perpetuating it today. This is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics or Bible interpretation, which will inevitably lead into various errors.
All Saved People Are In the Family of God
Let no one misunderstand, the editor of the PBC believes that all saved people are in the family of God regardless of their church membership. No one should join any church until they are born-again. Only children of God have any right to baptism and church membership. We therefore agree with JVI’s statement on page 116, when he says, "Every born-again believer is a member of the family of God." We hasten to say that the family of God and the body of Christ are not the same thing according to the Bible.
The family of God is composed of all saved people whether in heaven or in earth. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." (Eph. 3:14,15). This means that those who have died and gone on to be with the Lord, as well as those saved on the earth, are all a part of the family of God. No where in the Bible do we find similar language describing the body of Christ.
The only qualification for getting into the family of God is salvation, but no one has ever gotten into the body of Christ by salvation alone. We intend to prove that the body of Christ is a Scriptural local church, and therefore Scriptural local church, and therefore Scriptural baptism must precede one’s becoming a member of the body of Christ. We fully realize that to many of our readers this sounds like strange doctrine, but please withhold judgment until you hear us out.
What Is the Biblical Meaning of Body?
The word body is found over 140 times in the New Testament and is translated from the Greek word "soma." While we make no claim to Greek scholarship, we do claim the ability to look up the word in Strong’s Concordance and The New Testament Englishman’s Greek Concordance by Wigram. It is found at least 40 times in the gospels, and in every instance it speaks of a literal, visible body. Many of these instances where it is used, most certainly refer to the physical body of Jesus Christ. In no instance does it refer to any thing or persons who are scattered around the face of the earth.
"Soma" is used once in the book of Acts, where it refers to a human body. It is used five times in the book of James, where without a doubt it refers to the human body. It is used one time in the epistles of Peter (I Pet. 2:24), where it refers to the literal body of Christ as He hung upon the cross. In Jude 9 it is used in regard to the body of Moses. It is found one time in the book of Revelation (18:13), where it is translated slaves. No one could doubt that this one usage refers to anything else that real human bodies.
The Word Body in the Epistles of Paul
Paul uses the word body (soma) some 97 times in his epistles. In most instances it is used to refer to the human body or the physical body of Christ. It is used sometimes in a figurative sense, as in Col. 2:11, where it is said, "...putting off the body of the sins of the flesh..." In none of the figurative usages do we see any justification for saying that the body of Christ is all the saved people in the world.
In four of Paul’s epistles he uses the word body in a few instances to refer to a group or company of Christians. In none of these epistles, if we understand them correctly, does he use the word body or the body of Christ to refer to all the Christians in the world. In each instance he uses the word body in reference to a local group or congregation of saved baptized people, in other words a local church.
The Body in I Corinthians
There is one verse of Scripture that has been used more than any other to teach that all born-again people in the world compose one body of Christ. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond of free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12:13). Scofield and others quote this verse or use it as a reference over and over again, to prove their theory of a universal church and a universal body. It is our belief that much error has crept into Christianity through the wrong interpretation of this verse.
Was the book of I Corinthians written and addressed to all the born-again people in the world? No, it was not. "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth...," is how Paul addressed it (I Cor. 1:2). Of course its truths can be applied to Christians and churches everywhere, as the context clearly indicates. So it is "unto the church of God which is at Corinth" that Paul says, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (I Cor. 12:27). So if we will only read the entire context of I Cor. 12:13, it can be easily seen that he is talking to a local body or congregation, and not to a universal, invisible body made up of all the saved of the world.
In the first place, we need to know that the Holy Spirit has never baptized anyone. To understand this better, we need only look at John 1:33. John the Baptist said, "...he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John baptized in Jordan, and he baptized with water. John was the baptizer, water was the element in which he baptized. It is a terrible mistake to say that the Holy Spirit ever baptized anyone. In the instances of Spirit baptism found in the New Testament, in every instance Christ is the baptizer and the Holy Spirit is the element in which they were baptized. (See Matt. 3:11 Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; and Acts 1:5; 11:16).
In the second place, I Cor. 12:13 is not talking about being baptized in the Holy
Spirit. Some versions take the Greek word "en" which is translated "by" in the KJV,
and change it to "in." The American Standard Version does this and thus reads, "For
in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body..."
While the Greek "en" is indeed translated "in" as well as "by" in the KJV, we simply do not believe in changing the KJV in any way. It is right just like it is, and needs no correcting. There is no such thing as being baptized in the Holy Spirit today. It happened in the book of Acts, but it does not happen today. Every person receives the Holy Spirit at the time of salvation, but they are not baptized in the Holy Spirit, then or at any other time. There is "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" today (Eph. 4:5). There is only one baptism and not two. If there is such a thing as Spirit baptism today, then there is no such thing as water baptism. You cannot have both, for there is only one kind of baptism. I have been baptized, and thousands of others who read this have been baptized, but there is only one kind of baptism. If we have really been baptized, we have all received the same kind of baptism.
In the third place, in I Cor. 12:13, Spirit should not be spelled with a small "s." While in Seminary I was brought under the influence of Arthur W. Pink’s interpretation of this verse. According to Pink this verse should read, "For in one spirit are we all baptized into one body..." Pink rightly believed that the body in this verse is the local church, and so do we. However, we do not agree that the Word of God must be changed in order to get this teaching. For years we taught Pink’s doctrine on this verse. Contrary to what some might think, we have never claimed to know it all, for we are still learning. We even reprinted his article on this subject in tract form, but since learning the truth, we no longer print that tract. The end result of Pink’s teaching was indeed true, but he twisted the Scripture to teach truth. (This is not to say that all Pink’s writings are bad. Many of them are good, but we need to be like the Bereans when it comes to the writings of men.)
In the fourth place, the context of I Cor. 12:13 will give us the real meaning of this verse. In v.3, Paul writes, "...no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." Twice in this verse we see similar phraseology as that found in v.13. We are referring to "by the Spirit of God," and "by the Holy Ghost." The Holy Spirit will never enable a man to call Jesus accursed, but He will enable or lead a person to confess that Jesus is the Lord. The same phraseology is used over and over again in verses 8-11. It is by the enabling of the Spirit that we are saved. It is by the enabling or leadership of the Holy Spirit that we are led into the truth of baptism. It is by the same Spirit that we receive spiritual gifts. All of our works for God should be done by the leadership of the Spirit.
The "one Spirit" is the Holy Spirit. The "one body" is the Scriptural local church. There is only one kind of such body, just as there is only one kind of baptism. (See Eph. 4:4-6). Paul uses the editorial "we" in I Cor. 12:13, which does not mean that he was baptized into the Church at Corinth, but he had been baptized into that same kind of body.
In the fifth place, the context of I Cor. 12:13 illustrates the kind of body that Paul is referring to. In verses 14 to 26, we have a clear illustration of this body as Paul compares it to the human body, which is made up of the various parts. The human body has eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. No one can claim that this human body is universal or scattered throughout the earth. Hands in Asia, feet in Europe, ears in Africa, and eyes in America cannot compose a human body. Neither can you dissect a human body in America, send the feet to Asia, the hands to Europe, the eyes to Africa, and still have a human body. A body is local and it is assembled.
According to v.25, the Church body that Paul refers to is one that can have schism or division in it. This simply would not fit the idea of a universal body or church. Christians in America do not even know the Christians in Russia or Africa, how could there be schism or division between them? It is the schism in the body, the local church, that Paul is concerned about in this verse. In verse 24 we find that God has tempered the human body together. This means that the members of that body are mixed and blended together into one body, and this is an exact illustration of what God has done in the local church body.
When I mash my thumb with a hammer, it affects my whole body. The rest of my body is aware of the suffering of the thumb, and the very same thing happens in the local church body. According to verse 26, when one member of the body suffers, then all the members of the body suffer also. This illustration simply will not work with a universal church body. Christians in other parts of Texas, suffer and die, and I know nothing about it, much less the suffering of Christians in far off lands.
Again I call your attention to verse 27, where Paul tells the Church at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2), "Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular." This clinches the matter of the identification of the body in this chapter. Some may wonder how that the church at Corinth could be the body of Christ, and at the same time the church at Ephesus and other churches, could also be the body of Christ. How can Christ be the head of many different bodies? That is easy, it is in the same way "...that the head of every man is Christ" (I Cor. 11:3). I did not say that Christ is the head of many different kinds of bodies, for there is only one kind of Scriptural body, as there is only one kind of Scriptural baptism. (Eph. 4:4-6).
As a matter of fact, Acts 2:41 supports the above interpretation of I Cor. 12:13. As they were baptized in Acts 2:41, they were added to the church as we can see in v.47. Paul is simply using different language in I Cor. 12;13 to refer to the same thing, for the one body is like unto the one church body at Jerusalem.
The Body in Romans
In Rom. 12:4,5 writing to Roman believers, Paul uses the editorial "we" again. He was not yet in Rome, but he wrote to all the believers in Rome, and this is made clear in v.3, where he writes, "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." He was striving to establish unity in the exercise of spiritual gifts among the members of the Rome church.
They were not members of the church at Antioch, but in Rome they were members one of another. Seven spiritual gifts for service are listed in verses 6-8, and these were to be exercised in the ministry of the local church body. There is no universal body to be found in these verses. (The reader will note that we continue to refer to the "local" church body, but we hasten to say that this is the only kind of church body in existence today, as there is no universal body.)
A living cow is a body, but let the butcher kill her and cut her up, and you no longer have a body. Part of the body becomes hamburger, part of it roast, and part of it steak. Even a dead cow is a body, but once she is cut up and distributed the body no longer exists. There is no universal human body, and there is no universal church body.
The Body in Ephesians
The book of Ephesians has been held up by the exponents of the universal church body advocates as being the book that proves their case. In actual fact it does no such thing, and rightly understood, it deals a death blow to their theory.
According to Eph. 1:1, the letter is addressed to "the saints which are at Ephesus." Although the word church does not appear in the salutation, the whole book makes it clear that it is the church that he has in mind. The word church occurs some nine times in this short book. If there were any saints at Ephesus who were not members of the church at Ephesus, we have no record of such.
This is not to say that church membership is necessary to obtain salvation, but the believers of the New Testament were baptized into the local church soon after salvation. These Christians had not yet been exposed to the error of the universal church body theory. They had not been confused by much of the false teaching that is prevalent today which downplays the place and importance of the local church. There were no radio or television pastors (?) who by their wrong use of the words pastor and church, lead people into error on this vital doctrine.
In Ephesians it is clear that the church and the body, are one and the same thing. "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22,23). What kind of a body is this? That question is answered many times in Ephesians, but it can be clearly seen in 4:11-16. "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: (Eph. 4:11,12). "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles..." (I Cor. 12:28).
The apostles were in the church that Jesus established during His earthly ministry. That church was later on located at Jerusalem. They were all members of the same local church. (Later on, some of them may have been members of other local churches, but the point is that Christ placed them in the local church.)
The apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers were all placed in the local church to edify that body. That is, to build it up. A radio pastor (?) cannot do that. He may do some teaching, but try to get him for counseling, personal teaching, weddings, or funerals and see what happens. You can write him for an answer, and you will receive a letter written by a secretary or a computer, with the radio pastor’s name signed to it. Yet, simple believers think that the radio pastor has actually seen their letter and answered it.
In Eph. 4:16, we read, "From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." How in the world could this ever refer to a universal body?
First of all it is an "whole body," not a dismembered body. It is whole and it is assembled. This body is "fitly joined together" which is descriptive of a human body and a local church body, but could never refer to a universal church body. Notice that it is "compacted" which could not refer to something that is scattered. Notice the usage of "every joint" and "every part." This fits a human body and a local church body, but how could it ever refer to a universal church body? "Every joint" certainly indicates a close union, with coordinated action, as all parts harmoniously work together with smooth fitting joints.
In Eph. 2:16; 3:6, Paul deals with the assimilation of both Jews and Gentiles into the local church body, where they can be edified by the pastors and teachers. Here again unity is in view, and both Jews and Gentiles are to be unified in one kind of body.
No Universal Wife in Ephesians
In Eph. 5:21-33, we have a glorious comparison set forth. The relationship between husband and wife is compared to the relationship between Christ and His Church. It is clear that the church and the body are one and the same thing in this passage. There is no such thing as a universal wife. Each wife is a local and visible, and each church body is local and visible.
What kind of church body does Paul refer to in Ephesians? The answer to this can be found in Acts 20, where Paul personally dealt with the elders of the Church at Ephesus. Keep in mind that in the New Testament that "elders," "pastors," and "bishops" are words that refer to different aspects of the same office. They do not refer to different grades in the ministry. In v.17 of this chapter they are called overseers and are told to feed the flock of God. Overseer comes from the same word as bishop, and feed comes from the same root word as shepherd and pastor.
"And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." He told these same elders, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:17,28). The church at Ephesus was a flock according to this verse. A flock of sheep can never be universal, they are local, visible, and assembled.
One sheep in China, another in Persia, another in France, and others scattered in different nations cannot be a flock. Sheep from each of the fifty States do not compose a flock. The elders of Ephesus were overseers of the church of God. A universal church? No, never! It was the local church body of Ephesus. They could never feed a universal church, but they could feed the church over which God had placed them. Can we imagine that Paul is referring to one kind of church in Acts 20, and another kind in the Ephesian letter?
The Body in Colossians
In Col. 1:18, we find that "he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church..." In what sense are we to understand this? In the same sense that "the head of every man is Christ" (I Cor. 11:3). In v.22 we see that body is used in reference to the physical body of the Lord Jesus Christ. He needed a local visible physical body to accomplish His work of redemption while He was here on earth. He now needs local visible church bodies to do His work of carrying out the great commission here on earth today. The books of Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians are just as much Church Epistles as is I Corinthians. Rome, Ephesus, and Colossse were local visible cities. The saints in those cities were members of the local visible church bodies in those cities.
In Col. 2:7 Paul admonishes them that they are to be "rooted and built up." This is terminology that would be used in reference to a tree or plant. It is local, visible, stable, rooted and growing. This is a perfect description of what a church should be. In verses 2 and 19, he uses the word knit. Their hearts are to be knit together. "And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God." This body has joints and bands, and is to be knit together. This refers to something local and visible. A woman takes yarn or thread, and she knits it together, what a picture of a proper functioning local church body!
Use Common Sense in Regard to the Body
It has been said that the home is the backbone of a nation. Whether this is a true statement we will not enter into. Does this statement mean that there is a universal home? No, of course not. It is being used in an institutional sense. It can truly be said that the automobile has changed our way of life. Do we mean that there is a great universal automobile that exists in invisible form somewhere? Certainly not! There are millions of automobiles, but they are all local and visible. There are many other illustrations that could be used to amplify this point, but we will let our reader think of some of those.
it is sad that such confusion reigns concerning the use of the words church and body in the Christian world. A great deal of this confusion is due to the failure to understand the abstract use of singular nouns.
Abstract Use of Singular Nouns
"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). We have emphasized four singular nouns in this verse by placing them in bold face type. No reasonable person would consider that the above verse teaches a universal husband or a universal wife. We all recognize that these two nouns are used in the abstract sense, and that they refer to any husband and wife and could not be used to perpetuate the idea of a universal husband or a universal wife.
Why do reasonable people insist on making the singular nouns church and body into some mystical, invisible, imaginary, and impossible thing? They are to be understood in the same way as husband and wife in this verse.
Where Did the Universal Church Body Doctrine Originate?
The Roman Catholic Church developed this doctrine from the time of Constantine. All of the people in a given community were baptized into the Catholic Church and they were told that they were a part of the Universal Visible Church. Remember that Catholic means Universal!
The reformers rejected some of the errors of Rome, altered some of them, and swallowed others whole. They did not reject the idea of a State Church. They continued the teaching that everyone in a community should be a member of one church. However, they did see that there was a problem with this, and so they developed the idea of a Universal Invisible Church to which all truly saved people belonged.
Verduin wrote: "Calvin’s visible Church is the Church of Constantinianism; his invisible church is the Church of the New Testament. The latter is for Calvin infinitely smaller than the former, ‘a small and contemptible number hidden in a huge multitude, a few grains of wheat tucked away in a pile of chaff.’ The picture is that of many ‘Christians’ among whom there is a sprinkling of ‘Christians.’
This whole concept of ‘Church visible’ and ‘Church invisible’ is foreign to the New Testament; it was fashioned in order to provide a formula whereby men could escape from the Stepchildren’s (Anabaptists) clamor for a Church of believers; it was invented in order that men might be excused from repudiating the inclusive Church..." (The Reformers and Their Step-children, by Leonard Verduin, Baker Book House, page 83).
Keep in mind that Verduin is not a Baptist, but a member of the Reformed Church. Note that Calvin and the Reformers developed this doctrine of a universal church to try to answer the clamor of the Anabaptists. Now the situation is somewhat reversed. We have people who claim to be Baptists advocating that the local church is small and insignificant and that the invisible church is large and mighty.
The whole idea of a universal church body simply cannot be found in the Bible, except in Scofield’s notes. It certainly cannot be found in the text itself. The word for church is "ekklesia" and it means assembly. All of the metaphors used to describe the real churches of the New Testament contradict the idea of a universal body. Not any of the metaphors such as candlestick, body, bride, building, flock, or temple, that are used of the church could possibly mean something that is universal and scattered throughout the earth.
It is time that we return to the Bible doctrine concerning the church and reject the errors of long ago which have created so much confusion in the religious world.
The Collapse of Van Impe’s Arguments
Once we see the error of the universal church body theory, we can then see that JVI’s whole argument is based upon a house of sand. You cannot take the Scriptures that speak of the local church doctrine and discipline and make them apply in a universal sense. It simply will not work, and it will lead to all kinds of compromise.
JVI’s other arguments for loving or cooperating with new evangelicals and other compromisers are just as untenable as is his arguments about the body of Christ. He has carelessly misinterpreted and misapplied the Scriptures on love and unity in the same manner as his use of the body of Christ.
New Evidence of Compromise
As we pointed out in a previous article, JVI defends Holland B. London and the California Graduate School of Theology. This school has been notorious for its involvement with new evangelicals, charismatics, and liberals. In spite of this many fundamental Baptists will not face the issue of this school and its compromise, no doubt because so many fundamental leaders have been involved with this school.
Just a few days ago, I received a letter from Kenneth R. Guindon, independent Baptist missionary to France. He is a converted Jehovah’s Witness, having been one of their missionaries for a number of years before being saved. In 1975, he enrolled as a student in the California Graduate School of Theology, because of the encouragement of Christian friends. He stayed in school for one day, and then wrote a letter which we shall quote in part. On September 10, 1975, in his letter to Dr. Holland London, he wrote:
"I am sorry that I must withdraw from your school. I hope that this letter will make my position clear. ...You may know that I have a ministry to the cults. I was lost in Catholicism and Jehovah’s Witnesses for many years. Frankly, I am shocked that Seventh Day Adventists and Roman Catholic priests are permitted to attend classes in a Christian institution.
“Why do we want to train and polish men who preach another gospel? Is not their work diametrically opposed to the principles of the New Testament and the great Reformers? Personally, I do not feel comfortable in an institute that would ‘train’ these men. I can love the men, but I do not need to worship with them or give them any inkling that I approve what they preach.
"I believe that a school is not only represented by its professors, but by its students. Otherwise, why have any standards in Christian schools for students? Also, I believe that a church is represented by both its pastors and its members. The people you train are doing the work that you are equipping them to do. If I had known that these people attend classes there I would not have enrolled. I was not well enough informed."
I have before me the original letter written and signed by Holland B. London, September 17, 1975, in which he replied to Guindon’s letter. It is significant that the emblem on the letterhead is the mythical St. George and the Dragon. That ought to tell us something. We shall quote the one pertinent paragraph from London’s letter.
"My good friend, you must remember that this is not a seminary, it is a graduate school and it is non-denominational and we have many different denominations in our school. You might be interested to know that in the last few years we have had some of the pastors who have enrolled in the school, who through the influence of the things taught here, realized they had never been saved and they accepted Christ here and God has blessed their work."
This is the excuse that London gives for training Seventh Day Adventists and Roman Catholic priests. He does not say how many that were saved while they were students, or how many had left their apostate denominations, if any. He does not say how many Seventh Day Adventists and Roman Catholic priests he had trained, or how many of them were still in their false denominations.
Remember that London is the man that now is the personal assistant to Dr. Jerry Falwell. He is the same man that appeared on the platform of the Temple Baptist church, Detroit, Michigan, with Jack Van Impe and Jerry Falwell when Truman Dollar was installed as pastor, Sunday Evening, March 25, 1984. The devious and deadly web of compromise has a stranglehold on many who march under the banner of fundamentalism.
There is an epidemic of deadly heart disease in fundamentalism. Unless men of courage stand up for the truth of Biblical separation, fundamentalism will destroy the meaning of its own name.