The unity of the Body of Christ could very well be the most important contemporary issue the Church faces today in America and Europe where we see the most independent denominationalism and therefore schism.
As I read contemporary writing and dialogue regarding separation and unity in the Churches it seems that from my humble perspective we are speaking past each other. I think it is important that we AGREE in definitions of some of the terms we use before we just throw them out there and confuse what the discussion at hand really is about.
Maybe we could begin by seeing if we agree with some Church history in relationship to an essential vs. faithful distinction of the Visible Church. (I will be summarizing)
The "Church Fathers" sought to define the ESSENTIAL distinction of the Church. What defines the ESSENCE of the Visible Church, as opposed to Paganism. In other words, either you are in the Visible Church, or you are in the Satanic institution Christ Jesus calls "the World", and your religion then is Satanic. (John 17)
My understanding is that their answer was "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." (WCF XXV.2)
"ALL THOSE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THAT PROFESS THE TRUE RELIGION; AND OF THEIR CHILDREN"
And how did they seek to define the TRUE RELIGION? By the Universal Creeds (Apostle's, Athanasian, Nicene) And so you will see that many, many denominations will fit into this category: Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, (most) Pentecostals, African Methodist Episcopal, etc. And they fit because they uphold the Universal Creeds.
When the RPNA says "the BEING" of the Church, we mean the same thing as the Early Church Fathers meant as to the ESSENTIAL distinction of the Visible Church. We have never sought to take people out of the Visible Church.
Now a problem arises when we begin to deal with the FAITHFUL distinction of the Visible Church. The Reformers found themselves having to come out of what they believed to be part of the Visible Church in ESSENCE (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church), however, their justification for doing so was that Rome departed NOT FROM THE ESSENCE, but from the FAITHFULNESS of the Visible Church.
How did they understand the FAITHFULNESS distinction? Well is it possible that they understood the nature of it, but did not develop the doctrine of it until after they had left? We see that there was a development as the Reformation progressed.
Right preaching and sacraments
Right preaching, sacraments and church discipline
Right doctrine, sacraments, and church discipline
Right Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government
And these all mean the same thing, but we see a greater clarification as time and reformation progress. These became the Marks of the True Church, and many have referred to them as the ancient landmarks (Prov. 22:28).
Now when they say TRUE Church vs. FALSE Church, one must discern whether they speak of:
TRUE is CHRISTIAN as to FALSE is PAGAN or
TRUE is FAITHFUL CHURCH as to FALSE is UNFAITHFUL CHURCH
In other words, they would use terms to mean something in one context, and turn around and use the same term differently in another. They do this with other terms as well, and so if we are not careful, we too could be guilty of not being clear enough, and this could easily lead to offense; which I hope none have been thus far in my post.
The Reformation was not about departing or leaving, but rather RETURNING to the FAITHFUL Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government that had already been established prior in Church history. And because of the size of Reformation and ability to settle many matters in a high court they then sought to establish a greater faithfulness than had been established prior. For this is nothing less than confirming the Great Commission given to the Bride of Christ, through the Ministry of the Word.
When the RPNA uses the term "WELL BEING" They refer to the FAITHFULNESS distinction of the Visible Church.
You have the ESSENTIAL Visible Church and the FAITHFUL ESSENTIAL which is,
You have the BEING, and the WELL BEING.
Until we agree to the definition of these terms and historical testimony of the Reformations, then we will not be able to move on in the discussion.
For further thought/clarification see:
The Covenanted Reformation Defended Ch.2
Westminster Confession of Faith Ch. 25 - “Of the Church”
This is a collection of my theological thoughts put to font. I never said it would be good stuff. Please feel free to comment.
4 comments:
I am not the expert on this and have (honestly) been wrestling witht this issue for about three years. Being in Grand Rapids doesn't help much (Dutch territory), bc the only distinction that the Belgic Confession makes is that of true and false. We need to use the Westminster to shed light on the Belgic.
I will continue to wrestle, but am convinced of at least one thing: what the church is doing now is not working.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html#Article 29
Well it appears that the Belgic, in my opinion, is a little unclear.
I first questioned whether it be defining the TRUE VISIBLE CHURCH, or TRUE INVISIBLE because it states: "We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."
But are not the hypocrites mixed in the Visible Church? And having them does not make the Church a False church, else there would be no True Church. haha.
Since we are talking of Visible Marks, I would conclude it is speaking of the Visible Church, which makes what is said harder to discern, not easier.
It further states: "As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry."
Does this mean it is NO CHURCH?
Well I have a couple questions:
1) If a Church court willingly changes an established truth from their standards, based on God's Word, is it not assigning more authority to itself than the Word of God and therefore is NO CHURCH?
2) If it is Antinomian in Constitution, does this mean it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ, and therefore is NO CHURCH?
3) If a Church withholds the administration of Baptism to Covenant Infants, or allows any to come to the table of the LORD, does that mean that it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded and is therefore NO CHURCH?
etc, etc.
Even within the vague doctrine of the Church found in the Belgic Confession, I am not sure one would want to conclude that False means NO CHURCH, but rather, an UNFAITHFUL CHURCH. How do we say that multitudes in unfaithful Churches are NO CHURCH?
Instead I suggest we look to the Constitution of the Church first. We look to the doctrine, worship, discipline and government.
So, any thoughts?
when are you coming back to the blogoshere? how about tam?
I'm Back. So any further thoughts?
Post a Comment