One true earthly church, or a heavenly assembly?

I’ve found this question keeps coming up. Essentially your thinking about how much should we work for visible unity between local churches depends on your answer to this question.

Some links I’ve found helpful:

The One, True Church – John Frame in ‘Evangelical Reunion’

We must first be assured that Jesus Christ established on earth one church, not many denominations. Further, the unity of the church is not merely “spiritual,” but also organizational.

The Church and Denominations – David Broughton Knox

The Epistle to the Hebrews makes clear that the assembly, or church, which Christ is building now is primarily a supernal heavenly assembly.

The Locus of the Church: Heaven or Earth? – David Peterson

Most seriously, I believe, Giles has played down or denied the heavenly locus of the church as it emerges from certain key passages in the New Testament. This is a failure to highlight the way the ascended and enthroned Christ is at the centre of the church, gathering people to himself on the basis of his redemptive work to form a community whose citizenship is in heaven. It is a failure to see how the inaugurated eschatology of the New Testament should be applied to the church concept to deliver us from the earth-bound and organizational focus of much contemporary ecclesiology.

Assembled in Heaven? – Andrew Errington

In the twentieth century, the notion that the basic reality of the church is “assembly” was articulated by Sydney Anglican evangelicals Donald Robinson and D. Broughton Knox in response to the world ecumenical movement. They, and others who have since followed, argued that church fundamentally involves actual gathering, such that the church finally exists in two basic ways in the present—as the one heavenly gathering around the ascended Lord Jesus, which is in “continuous assembly”, and in local assemblies of believers, which “come and go” (Robinson 1965, 14). The notion of the present heavenly gathering is, however, highly problematic, and I would like here to offer a critique.

Any others?

The glory of God in the face of Christ

We had a training session a couple of weeks ago where we were asked to think about what the most important roles Jesus has in God’s plan.

I ended up feeling like most of the topics could be helpfully expounded under two headings:

A. Christ the Image of God
B. Christ the Mediator of a New Covenant

I want to stress at this point that this arrangement is by no means “Doctrine” – it’s not the teaching of the church! There may well be some horrible errors that may come out of this arrangement of the topics.

That said, I think it’s worth presenting, because:
1. It could be pedagogically helpful in our culture to sidestep some of the ontological debates about the Person of Christ by tying up his human and divine aspects under the same headings
2. This arrangement emphasises links with the doctrines of Creation and New Creation (in Heading A) and Salvation (in Heading B), and the links between those doctrines.
3. Applications to the doctrines of humanity and Christian life are more obvious – we are the image of God, washed by Christ’s blood.

Of the two headings above, it is Christ as the Image of God that will be more controversial, since the second heading corresponds pretty well with the traditional heading of Priest in the Prophet/Priest/King triad.

Let me expand what is under each heading.

A. Christ the Image of God

1. The Son of God
   He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1)
    
   In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things … He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1).

 

2. Revelation of God
   In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son … He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature (Heb 1).
    
   Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14)

 

3. Creator and Sustainer
   He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Col 1)
    
   He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. (Heb 1)

 

4. Better Adam
   Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. (Gen 1)
    
   Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit… Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor 15)

   By the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Rom 5)

   Christ being a better Adam – a perfect humanity – implies the next two points.

 

5. Perfect King and Judge
   “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Gen 1).
    
   While the first Adam failed to rule creation and so disobeyed, the second Adam obeyed and received all rule and authority, being enthroned in his resurrection:

   The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
   today I have begotten you.
   Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
   and the ends of the earth your possession. (Ps 2)

   “Behold, with the clouds of heaven
   there came one like a son of man,
   and he came to the Ancient of Days
   and was presented before him.
   And to him was given dominion
   and glory and a kingdom,
   that all peoples, nations, and languages
   should serve him (Dan 7)

   He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Col 1)

 

6. Goal for the Christian Life
   Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. (1 Cor 15)
    
   And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8)
    
   Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. (Col 3)
    
   All these points combine to produce our final point, that Christ as the image of God is worthy of all praise and honour.

 

7. Object of Worship
   The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Cor 4)

    

   He is the radiance of the glory of God …
   “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Heb 1)

   The city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. (Rev 21)

More briefly, our second heading – Christ as the Mediator of a New Covenant. While there are links between the headings, I’m not sure that this aspect of Christ’s work can be described as an aspect of Christ as the image of God.

B. Christ the Mediator of a New Covenant

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. (Heb 9)

1. Propitiatory Sacrifice
   Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (Rom 3)
2. Priest of the New Covenant
   When Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (Heb 9)

    

   Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb 4)

3. Object of Worship
   And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying,

   “Worthy are you to take the scroll
   and to open its seals,
   for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
   from every tribe and language and people and nation,
   and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
   and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev 5)

Though there are links between the two topics (a mediatorial office is in some respects a prophetic or revalatory office), I am encouraged that two of the key passages on Christ seem to distinguish the ideas in these two headings, but discuss them in close proximity:

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1)

He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1)

In both these passages, Christ’s pre-eminance and God-likeness are discussed in terms of his image, before discussing his mediatorial work as he reconciles us to God through the cross. This also seems to be the broad pattern in Hebrews, with chapters 1-2 establishing Christ as the supreme image of God, and the rest of the book examining the signficance of Christ’s redeeming work.

So this arrangement of ideas appears to be Biblical. Before I get too excited, what are the problems with it?

A couple of thoughts:

• To my mind the distinction between image and Son is pretty blurred, and there may be good reasons for preferring sonship as a heading.
• I haven’t got an obvious place to put the theme of Christ as defeater of Satan (aka Christus Victor).

Thoughts?

Before you respond, why not read over some of those verses again, and offer praise to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Because saying ‘no’ to a bacon sarnie isn’t sinful, apparently

Dave Bish has been considering the issue of women teaching in student Christian Unions. He says that where CUs are divided on this issue, the majority should lovingly submit to the minority. For example, in a CU where the majority hold to the complementarian position (they believe that women are equal in status but not in role, and believe it is exclusively a man’s role to lead through teaching), they should allow women to teach so that the minority don’t feel oppressed. Or vice versa, in a majority egalitarian CU, the majority should not impose women teachers on the complementarian minority.

Dave distinguishes between the position in a CU, which is an evangelistic organisation with a small shared doctrinal basis, and a church, where decisions have to be made about how to teach about marriage and whether to appoint female elders.

I want to make a couple of points in response.

Firstly, a lot of what Dave is saying seems to be an application of Romans 14, correct?

A quick sample:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

(ESV)

An egalitarian CU ought to welcome a complementarian person (whom they would judge weak in faith), by not putting the hinderance of a female speaker in front of the complementarian.

That’s fine, but when we looked at Romans 14 in our small groups earlier this year, we noted that Paul specifically talks to those who are ‘strong’ in faith – those who are happy to eat anything or drink anything. He tells those people not to destroy the work of God by what they eat or drink. So in essence, the strong should love the weak by being willing to give up their bacon sandwiches or their beer so that the weak people don’t feel that they are in sin or unwelcome.

What he doesn’t say is that the weak people should act like the strong to welcome the strong. So if the house church contained a majority of people who felt eating pork was not right, Paul’s not saying they should start serving bacon sandwiches before church just so the people who feel that eating them is ok feel welcome.

No, because for the person who thinks eating bacon sarnies is wrong, eating them really is a sin. Verse 23:

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

But for the person who thinks it’s ok to eat bacon sandwiches, it is not a sin for them not to eat them. (NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANYTHING YOU THINK IS ‘OK’ IS NOT A SIN!!)

So basically, as well as being loving, Christian communities should default to the “least sin” position. It is the strong who have an obligation to the weak.

I’d argue that in the complementarian/egalitarian debate in CUs, it is the complementarians who are more obviously weak. That’s because everyone agrees that male speakers are ok, it’s just whether female speakers are ok or not.

When a male speaker speaks, both complementarians and egalitarians are happy. No one is sinning. The egalitarians might be thinking it would be great to get that really excellent female speaker in sometime, but like missing out on bacon sandwiches, they’ll just have to put up with it for the sake of their weaker brothers and sisters.

However when a female speaker speaks, often complementarians are sinning. If they really are convinced it is wrong to sit under a woman’s teaching then they are sinning, and we’ve just mucked up our application of Romans 14.

An egalitarian CU leader might feel that he’s sinning by not allowing women to have their God-given right to teach, but I think we can agree that this is a less obvious sin than the complementarian’s.

Ok, that was point 1.

Point 2 is much more brief. Which is to consider how CUs and churches are different in this respect. I think they are, but possibly not for quite the same reason as Dave.

The “minimal doctrinal basis so we can have a shared mission” point is fair enough, but it’s quite a pragmatic argument that is prone to a ‘where do you draw the line?’ response.

I think the reason churches can be a bit more inflexible on this is that they have elders who have authority and responsibility for those decisions. If I’m not sure whether someone should or shouldn’t teach in my local church, I am happy to sit under that teaching regardless, because I defer to the authority of my elders, knowing their God given role is to make those kinds of decisions and to bear the responsibility for them. In a CU it’s not quite the same, because I’m not convinced that a CU leader has quite the same authority to make those kinds of decisions.

Additionally, I would think that a convinced egalitarian church leadership would probably be sinning if they didn’t appoint a woman they considered suitable to the eldership since the nature of church leadership is quite different to an occasional CU speaking engagement. So in a church the egalitarian/complementarian positions become a bit harder to classify into weak/strong.

It’s complicated stuff, and I haven’t had a coffee yet, so please don’t take this as anything other than tentative. If you think what I’ve said is wrong, or has dangerous implications let me know. With that, I’m off for a bacon sarnie!

Admitted into a participation of this grace – Calvin on Romans 6

Let us know, that the Apostle does not simply exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death of Christ is a pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt he ascends higher, as he announces a doctrine, with which he connects, as it is evident, an exhortation; and his doctrine is this — that the death of Christ is efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity of our flesh, and his resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better nature, and that by baptism we are admitted into a participation of this grace.

This foundation being laid, Christians may very suitably be exhorted to strive to respond to their calling. Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27.)

Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence.

– John Calvin, Commentary on Romans

Romans 6 and baptism in the early church

I’m somewhat hesitant to post this, as my views are not fully formed, it’s a comment on a major source of disunity in the church, and many greater minds than myself have come to a different view on this.

But what is blogging for if not to discuss a few ideas, while practicing discernment?

With that in mind, read this passage assuming that the early church had a normative practice of infant baptism:

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

(ESV)

If you suppose all-age baptism in the early church, what is the most obvious interpretation of this? Surely that all of us who have been baptised with water have been spiritually united to Christ, adults and infants alike. You’d be looking around your Roman house church thinking there’s Andronicus and Junia – they’re baptised, so they’re united to Christ. And their two little sprogs, Andronicute and Juniette. They’re baptised too, so Paul is saying they’ve been buried with Christ in his death.

This has some interesting implications. This baptism is not presented as a breakable bond, so surely it means that all the baptised will be saved. Breakable or not, we’re in Federal Vision territory. Does it not also mean that the unbaptised will not be saved since they cannot be united to Christ through baptism? In which case, what about the old “if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord” line from a few chapters later? Are there two ways to be saved? I’m sure we would all say ‘certainly not!’

Additionally, why exactly would God chose the application of water upon an infant to be the thing that joins them to Christ?

To avoid these issues, you’re forced to say with Dunn that this passage refers to a spiritual baptism leading to a spiritual unity with Christ. But most agree this is unlikely. Or you say, with Calvin, that baptism unites you to Christ conditionally upon faith (and indeed mortification! Institues 4.16.16). But are we to imagine that Paul wanted his Roman readers to keep inserting “and repentant faith” in this passage every time he mentions baptism? No, Paul is really saying that baptism unites you to Christ in his death – we have been united with him.

Let’s try again, this time reading the passage presupposing an early church practice of normative believers’ baptism upon profession of faith.

If baptism stands for the public declaration of faith in the Christ who died for your trespasses and was raised for your justification (Rom 4) then the link between faith and baptism is much clearer. If baptism in the early church presupposes faith, then it is easy to see why Paul is able to use baptism as a kind of synecdoche for faith. It becomes obvious why baptism should unite you to Christ – it does it in the same way faith does. Christians can look back on their baptism as a point where they became united to Christ as they publicly identified themselves with Christ in his death. It’s essentially an intensified, objective expression of faith – a confession with the mouth and with the body that Jesus is Lord.

Obviously this is not to say that all baptisms follow true faith, nor that all who are saved must be baptised. But this passage makes most sense if it was the norm in the early church for baptism to be an expression of an individual’s faith.

Thoughts?

A glance at the Federal Vision from Don Carson

I was privileged to get to hear Don Carson (along with several excellent speakers) at the Evangelical Ministry Assembly held in London this week.

On the second day, there was an interview with him conducted by Richard Cunningham (Director of UCCF). Among many topics posed, Carson was asked whether the Federal Vision presented sufficient problems that it requires a ‘99 call‘ by non-Federal Visionists – a reference to the British Lions’ tactic of combating the Springboks’ physicality by punching the nearest opposition player when the 99 call was shouted.

Carson, after taking issue with the analogy, suggested two thoughts to bear in mind.

Firstly, the content of the message matters. Secondly, the way the message is promulgated matters.

Under the first heading, Don noted that there are a range of views amongst FV advocates, some of which are wrong, some of which are perhaps worse than that (I don’t want to mis-quote him). More interestingly, he noted that various streams of orthodoxy are susceptible to different errors. High Presbyterians will be more attracted to the presumption of the salvation of believers’ children (one of the FV’s main distinctives) than Baptists. Other streams will be more attracted to other errors – e.g. Arminians to Openness Theology, Messianic Jews to the Galatian heresy etc (I just made those up).

Carson then went on to suggest that he thinks English Anglicans will be susceptible to following the FV errors because ‘they don’t have a strong theology of baptism’. If you tend away from the main stream of what the Bible teaches in one area, you will be inviting a ‘swingback’. If we don’t talk about the Spirit, we invite the extreme charismatic movement, if we ignore the issues involved in the end-times, we invite dispensationalism.

So similarly, he thinks English Anglicanism could be tempted by aspects of the Federal Vision: a practice of child baptism without a clear theology of it (unlike that ground out by American Presbyterians I assume). I’m not really qualified to comment on that!

He didn’t mention this, but obviously the presence of historical Catholic and Lutheran views of child salvation through baptism in the Anglican denomination may also make FV views on this issue attractive to conservative evangelical Anglicans who are seeking unity in a denomination that is so theologically fragmented.

Under his second heading, the way the message is promulgated matters, Carson was similarly irenic and helpful.

Don repeated what is a familiar line of his when he deals with various movements – students pick up what you teach, not your assumptions. So the next generation may have gotten your views on the gifts of the Spirit, or the timing of the millennium, or the salvation of believers’ children, but having forgotten the basic gospel of Christ appearing to save sinners and judge evil.

His concern is that for some Federal Visionists, their distinctives may become more central in their teaching than the gospel.

My general comments would be that Carso’s guarded approach to the Federal Vision echoes that of John Piper, who has invited Doug Wilson to speak at a Desiring God conference. It may be that Reformed Baptists are disposed to be generous to Federal Visionists, since they think the key error is in infant baptism, and may almost welcome the increased link between baptism and regeneration seen in FV theology. They both clearly think there are errors in the Federal Vision, but are not rushing to trumpet them.

I certainly appreciated Carson’s rejection of the idea of making a ’99 Call’ on the FV, and his willingness to be perhaps harsh on Anglicans in giving them a loving warning. I’d encourage anyone interested in the Federal Vision debate to read this superb primer on the Federal Vision issues and importantly how to approach them.

What theology is, and what it is not

Good quote here from John Frame (author of an excellent introduction to systematic theology):

We need a clearer understanding of what theology is. Many, I think, regard theology as discovering something within the Bible, sometimes called a “system.” On this view, the challenge of theology is to see who can reproduce this system in the fullest detail. In our circles, many assume that Calvin and the Westminster Standards did it best; they got the system right. So our theology must be a reproduction of theirs. This concept of theology encourages, I think, the “golden age” view of things and the necessity of holding rigidly and in detail to past models.

Let me suggest instead that the work of theology is the work of application. It takes the Scriptures and uses them to answer our present questions and to meet present needs. This is Paul’s concept of doctrine: teaching that is sound (health-giving) (1 Tim. 1:10, 6:3, 2 Tim. 4:3, Tit. 1:9, 2:1). Thus, as Jones says, its focus is upon the present and future, not only the past. And so theology is bound to the mission of the church.

Read the whole thing.

(As an aside, Frame really needs to start publishing these articles directly to his blog!)