Catholicity, Orthodoxy, and Lordship
In this last day with Professor Longman, we have discussed the theme of the Divine Warrior. This has been a central theme in his commentaries.
It has been an extremely helpful class, especially in his discussion of Wisdom Literature. At noon, Tremper Longman and Dr. Bruce Waltke will be debating (that is, in a greacious manner) their different views on Ecclesiastes. Longman denies that Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes. There are also some other differences which I intend to mention at a later time.
Last evening my wife and I and a few students drove to downtown Orlando to hear Dr. James White debate bishop John Shelby Spong. By the way, Spong also debated the late Walter Martin some years ago. It appears that his arguments have not changed since the last time, except he has published a few more books since then. Debates like last night prove why it is inconceivable to avoid presuppositionalism. In fact, even the bishop (as opposed to an Orthodox BISHOP) himself admitted that both of them were starting from different perspectives/worldviews. This was evident from beginning to end. White’s worldview accounted for a direct revelation of God to man, whereby man can KNOW the will of God and what is right and wrong. On the other hand, Spong assumed from the beginning that the Word of God is not the word from God nor His divine special revelation. With this assumption, Paul was a homosexual who struggled deeply with his flesh and all accounts that condemned homsexuality were written by oppressive Christians.
As for the debate itself, Spong was unable to keep to the format which was rather frustrating for those who were interested in hearing an intellectual exchange. However, Spong was unaware that when you are asked to ask questions you are supposed to cross-examine your opponent. Rather, he took his time to elaborate on absurd scientific theories as to why the Bible cannot be trusted.
I have little to say about Dr. White. He portrayed himself well and made salient points throughout the debate. He defended unashamedly the Biblical perspective and affirmed the authority of God’s Word. If God has spoken, he argued, we can know what He says and expects from His creatures. At other times James was visibly perturbed by Spong’s unbelievable inability to affirm the simplest of truths. He stressed several times that the church is accepting of all those who would repent. Of course, to this Spong repeated ad nauseum that he should avoid being so judgmental.
What is our response? Heretics like Spong are far from the truth; so far in fact that there is no return (Hebrews 6). His blasphemies and absolute denial of the God of Holy Writ and the true apostolic and catholic Church condemns him. His condemnation in fact is greater, because knowing the truth he has denied it. And to him God says, CURSED!
In chapter 32 there is a brief discussion on the role of the sacraments in the life of the church. Kuiper notes that various churches consider the sacraments in different ways. Some (as Roman Catholics) hold to seven sacraments (penance, confirmation, and extreme unction are at least three that are added to the common Protestant two-fold sacramental usage). In the Brethren church (or Primitive Baptist) there are three (foot-washing is added), and in the Protestant tradition there are two that are commonly known as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Kuiper notes that “the loosed the definition (of the sacraments) the larger will be the number; the stricter the definition, the smaller will be the number (202).” Both Rome and the Swiss Reformer Zwingli differ in their opinions in regards to the definition of the sacrament. Kuiper summarizes their differences as follows:
Rome teaches that the sacraments are more than a means of grace because they themselves contain the grace which they convey. Zwingli, one of the sixteenth-century Reformers, held that the sacraments are less than means of grace, being no more than vivid reminders of the saving work of Christ. Thus Rome overrates the meaning of the sacraments, while Zwingli and his followers underrate their meaning (203).”
The latter view tends to represent the current evangelical world. On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists, take the position that God, not an ecclesiastical rite bestows saving grace, but that “it pleases God to do this through the instrumentality of the ecclesiastical ordinances which He Himself has ordained to that end (203).” In the Reformed tradition then, the sacraments take a significant role. When the church administers the sacraments, it proclaims visibly the very same gospel truth proclaimed audibly from the pulpit.
In chapter 37, Kuiper refers to the “divine assignment.” Here he speaks of the ecclesiastical purpose of the church being to evangelize the nations. This great task becomes a possible reality when at Pentecost the Spirit of God descends and the disciples receive power to be witnesses in all the world. Pentecost signifies that the Old Covenant Church has entered into a new stage in redemptive history. It “constitutes the transition from a national church to universal (238).” Kuiper argues that if the church were committed to the task of evangelizing the nations, then, the glory of the church would be revealed in all its splendor. The Great Commission would find fulfillment.
Though Kuiper does not mention them, he implicitly states three positions on the matter of the Commission’s fulfillment. First, Pre-millenialists insist that the Great Commission will not be fulfilled since Christ will rapture his church, but as Christians they are told to occupy until the Master returns to rapture His bride (though this position varies, this is the basic argument). Secondly, Amillenialists (such as R.B. Kuiper) argue that all of life is under the lordship of Christ, but that the fulfillment of the Great Commission will not necessarily mean that Christians will become a major force in this present age (there are variations in this, but most Amills are mainly skeptical on these matters. Finally, Postmillennialists find assurance that the Great Commission will be fulfilled not only in word, but in number. The society will one day prior to Christ’s return become a Christianized society where the gospel of Christ will be a prevalent message.
Kuiper summarizes beautifully the ultimate expression and the requirements of the kingship of Christ in this world:
It must require of men everywhere that they acknowledge Him as Head of all things, as King of every domain of their lives. It must insist on Christian marriage, Christian education, Christian Science, Christian industry, Christian labor, Christian relationships between labor and industry, Christian culture, Christian recreation, Christian politics, Christian internationalism, in short, on a Christian society as well as a Christian Church (p.276).
Indeed, the nature, purpose, and the content of the church are truly glorious. R.B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ captures the essence and the value of the great bride of our Lord Jesus Christ to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.
Andy posed a great question regarding Alastair’s post on Transubstantiation. I thought I would post the question and answer briefly with my thoughts on the matter and perhaps Alastair could add some comments to it if he desires. Andy inquired as follows:
Christ is at a distance from us because of the disjointedness of our reality. Both the time and the place in which Christ exists are removed from our own (direct quote from Alastair).I’m sure that with some context it would become more clear, but it sounds at one moment that “reality” means location and presence – where and when things are. But then in this remark it sounds more like he’s speaking of a sort of “spiritual” misperspective that needs realignment. Maybe I’m misled, though, for I can see how the words he uses could also be speaking of the objective fact of the “not yet”-ness of our union and redemption in Christ, vis-à-vis the “already”-ness of that which we experience, again, in an objective, local, present reality when we are united to his flesh and blood by the Spirit in the Eucharist.
Here is my response:
The disjointedness of our reality does have a temporal significance. Similar to Paul’s comments, “we now see grimly… as through a dark glass,” so our reality is indeed disjointed. This means that it is incomplete due to a variety ontological “realities,” which includes: Sin, finiteness, incompleteness, and so on.
Further, it follows that Christ’s existence is separated from our own due to the ontological distinctions between us. Christ can no longer abide in our midst as exalted Sovereign until his enemies are under his feet (I Cor.15:25). So, it is the exalted state of Christ that causes this severe separation. In essence, I believe all your comments reflect the partaking of the elements. I am not quite sure if Alastair meant it that way, but I would agree that there are also elements of temporality and already/not-yet-ness to the partaking of the meal. It is as Alistair put it: “a mini-advent,” or rather as I prefer to say it, “a mini-trailer” to the big picture. In all, the Spirit of Christ stands as the one who ushers us into these realities. Herein, lies the error of the Roman Church on this matter where they bring Christ down again and again not only to re-visualize, but to re-sacrifice our Lord. Alistair’s statement that it is we that go up, not Christ that comes down summarizes clearly our primary and fundamental difference.
A brief answer to your question would be to say that both our location and our spirituality needs “alignment” as you put it and the elements serve to re-align our disjointed lives every Sabbath; hence lies the importance of weekly “Eucharistic Celebration.”
I have been working my way through Peter Leithart’s book: The Kingdom and the Power: Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church. It is in a sense an exposition of the role of the church in the shaping of society. Leithart argues that while evangelicalism today is largely interested in changing this secular culture, evangelicalism in general lacks “an adequate appreciation of emphasis on the validity–in my judgment, the centrality–of the ecclesiastical or sacramental model of the kingdom (xi-xii).” Pastor Leithart indicates that there is a growing trend of evangelicals who want to be more political, but they are going about it the wrong way. They tend to think that in order for the church to be politically influential, “her first task is to become more political(xiii).” Though the church’s involvement in the political scenario is essential, the church cannot betray its proper identity by abandoning its ecclesiastical priorities.
Leithart concludes chapter one by summarizing the purpose of the book:
The book is not a summons to retreat from the world, but a rally cry to conservative Christians to engage the world–not as isolated Christians or as an interest group, but as the church. It is the burden of this book to stress the primacy of holy war, which, being translated, means the primacy of the church (22).
Peter Leithart’s blog can be found here.
Alistair continues his series on Transubstantiation. Here is a quote from his excellent article:
One of the great insights in John Calvin’s Eucharistic theology (although the eschatological dimension of the Supper is generally muted in Calvin) is that it is our reality that is out of joint and needs to be reorientated to Christ, rather than vice versa. In the Eucharist it is not Christ who is brought down to us, but we who are raised up by the Holy Spirit to enjoy the presence of Christ in the heavenlies. Christ is at a distance from us because of the disjointedness of our reality. Both the time and the place in which Christ exists are removed from our own. However, the Holy Spirit is able to bring together things that are separated. Rather than Christ being brought down again into the structures of our broken world, in the Eucharist, by the work of the Holy Spirit we are given a foretaste of the world reorientated to His reality.
Chapter thirteen begins with a masterful treatment of the indestructibility of the church. Here R.B. Kuiper deals briefly but carefully with the meaning of Matthew 16:18 which says that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against the church.” The exegesis of such passages has been under considerable debate for centuries, but in Kuiper’s own words the answer is a conspicuous one:
The Christian church in its entirety will never perish. The body of Christ will never be destroyed. To the end of time will be a communion of true believers on earth. The answer to our Lord’s rhetorical question: “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) may very well be that He will find but little; it cannot be said that He will find none (87).
In defense of his position on Matthew 16:18 Kuiper quotes Geerhardus Vos in his little book called: The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church. Vos translates the familiar “the gates of hell shall not prevail” as “the gates of Hades shall not surpass it.” Vos elaborates further and concludes that “the church will not be excelled in strength by the strongest that is known.” In the final analysis Kuiper attributes the indestructibility of the church to God’s preservation thereof.
In chapters 19-24 Kuiper exposes the role of God’s people in the ministry of the church. He argues that as members of Christ’s church we have a fundamental role in maintaining its glory. He says: “In every age every living member of the body of Christ is undeniably a partaker of Christ’s anointing and hence a prophet, priest and king (131).” In a sense every member is an officer. Members minister to one another, console the sick and poor, and demonstrates grace to the weak, but nevertheless Christ’s church has also assigned specific duties that not every member can be a part of. These duties include that of a minister (known as a Teaching Elder), a deacon, and a ruling elder. Each of these offices is regarded as essential to the purity of the church and its furtherance in this present age. Even as each member is a prophet, priest, and king, God has ordained that certain officers partake of these roles in a specific fashion. These duties carried out by chosen members of the church take upon themselves a higher responsibility. Though the regular church member is an active participant in the duties of the church, the church itself has called certain men to be in certain offices. These offices may be called as Kuiper puts it, “Exalted Offices.” This exaltation is not a matter of degree, but of priority. Simply put, these men are called by God to be in these exalted offices, whereas not every member has been called. Kuiper summarizes their roles as follows:
The minister or teaching elder represents him (that is Christ)as prophet, the deacon represents Him as priest, and the ruling elder represents Him as King…precisely expressed, the special (or exalted offices) are rooted in the universal office (134).
In chapters that follow R.B. Kuiper develops the great responsibilities of the church. What exactly is the role of these officers is answered in chapters 25-36. In no uncertain terms the author declares the primary responsibility of the ekklesia:”So the task of the church is to proclaim salvation (165).” It is in the words of Richard Baxter: “dying men speaking to dying men.” The implications of this proclamation are many among which is the social implications of a changed heart. Kuiper affirms that the “gospel primarily concerns the salvation of individuals, but it undoubtedly has its social implications (167).” The works of mercy and deed serve to reinforce the gospel message. Far from the social gospel, Kuiper argues that all of life must be affected by the message of grace. The gospel affects the environment of a regenerated individual. With belief comes obedience to Christ’s commands. In those lines Kuiper reflects on the consequences of works after belief:“To believe in Christ and to obey Him are not two separate acts but two phases of a single act (193).” The Gospel does not end with belief, but only begins its work with belief and proceeds to enable men to live as a child of the King.
From Luke chapter twelve the Rev. Mike Malone elaborated persuasively regarding the necessity of reading the times with spiritual insights. Jesus’ rebuke in Luke 12:56 serves as an immediate reminder of the confusion existing in the present Christian era. Jesus said: You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to interpret the present time (here the Greek “kairos” has a theological redemptive significance).
Rev. Malone carefully developed this point by noting that they (crowds) could read physical signs, but they could not read the spiritual signs. That is, they were unable to understand the times which transpired before their very eyes. The hubris of their abilities to understand the physical signs led them to foolishly miss the pictures of real spiritual power demonstrated in the signs of the birth of the Messiah (Galatians 4:4), the signs of Christ’s miracles, the storms being silenced and a myriad of other fantastic revelations of power and mercy from the Christ.
In God’s Holy Sabbath, are His people so devoid of spiritual insight that they are unable to see the greatness of worship and the greatness of Christ’s presence in the elements they partake so casually? Can they by faith see the realities of communal singing, prayers, adoration, confession, and thanksgiving? Perhaps Jesus’ words strikes the believer even more severely today, than the mixed mass in the first century.
The present spiritual manifestations of our Lord are not similar to an enigmatic novel; rather it can be understood because Christ desired that His people be not driven away or enamored easily by commonality (being the expressions of humanism) at the expense of spirituality (being the revelations of God to His people through the means of grace and other ordained means).As the text later reveals, those who were unable to understand spiritual realities in their very eyes came to a faltered approach to the theology of judgment. So too, in our day, the need to read the times with insight becomes an even greater task; since the signs are no longer in our presence (in flesh and blood), we are called to be even more cautious.
The insights usually do not come through flesh and blood anymore, but they do come in
the symbolic nature of the elements, the control of God over the affairs of men and through various means established by God to His church. Christ has not left us seeking hints to fill our spiritual gaps, but He showered us with both visible and invisible signs, with His presence among us in Sabbath worship, and through the faithful preached Word. The Sabbath is properly observed when realize these insights and it will be properly loved when God’s people understand the true signs of the times.
As we continue our summary of Kuiper’s treatise on the glory of the church we will begin by exploring his views on the catholicity of the church. Kuiper affirms that there are two misinterpretations of catholicity. “There are those who take too narrow a view of it; on the other, there are those who view it too broadly (61).” One example of such is the Church of Rome that calls itself The Catholic Church. According to Rome, the universality of the church does not extend itself to any other institution except that of the Church of Rome itself. The author calls this “restricted universality.”
On the other hand, “many Protestants take far too loose a view of the catholicity of the Christian church (61).” These groups consider any group that call themselves “churches” to be part of the catholic church. This is in stark contrast to Rome, but nevertheless it commits another grotesque error. The error is a serious doctrinal one. Simply, any church that denies essential Christian dogma (Apostle’s Creed or Nicene) cannot be considered part of the universal church or Christ. They are in the words of Kuiper:” False churches.”
In his critique of National Churches such as the Church of England R.B. Kuiper writes:
In the past there have been several national churches, and some persist to this present day. The Church of England is an outstanding example. But if catholicity is an attribute of the Christian church, it follows that a national church is a contradiction in terms. It is not even correct to describe the church of Christ as international. It is supra-national. That is to say, it far transcends all nationalism (64).
In chapter 11 Kuiper speaks briefly on illumination. He writes concerning the error of the Anabaptists when he says that:
they stressed the right of private interpretation of the Word of God to the point of practically ruling out the illumination of the church by the Spirit of truth (71).
The fact that the Anabaptist ended with peculiar doctrines and scattered groups proves that their lack of emphasis on communal and ecclesiastical dependence for interpretation led them to heresies (some denied the Trinity). Though the body of Christ is no longer dependent on the church to interpret every jot and tittle in God’s Word, the Holy Spirit has left us with a grandiose history of scholars and theologians whose insights have greatly and must continue to aid the body of Christ in their endeavor to be truthful to Sacred Writ.