The Riddleblog

Christ's Spotless Bride -- Apostolicity As an Attribute of the Church (Part Nine)

Reformed Reflections

The last attribute of Christ’s church mentioned in the Nicene Creed is apostolicity—one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. According to Herman Bavinck, “apostolicity is undoubtedly a distinguishing mark of the church of Christ.”[1] Edmund Clowney adds, “the sure sign of Christ’s true church is the preaching of the apostolic gospel.”[2] Protestants generally, and especially the Reformed, see this attribute as closely connected to the apostolic gospel which gave birth to the church. Roman Catholics understand apostolicity to be essentially about the birth and organization of the church and its subsequent history (of which Rome claims to be the true heir), while the Eastern Orthodox closely tie apostolicity to the Eucharist and the succession of bishops who guard its purity. Protestants focus upon the message which is the foundation of the church (the gospel) while others tend to focus upon the history and continuity of the church as an institution which has its origin in the apostolic age (apostolic succession).

Not all Reformed folk frame the matter this way since the foundation of the church upon the preached gospel and its subsequent history of promulgation cannot be fully separated. J. A. Heyns, a South African theologian, contends that apostolicity is not on the same level as the previous three attributes. “Apostolicity is not an eschatological attribute . . . but rather the historical method by which the Church realizes those three attributes” (i.e, unity, holiness, catholicity). “Moreover,” says Heyns, “it is clear that ‘apostolic’ can easily be replaced by ‘biblical’ or ‘scriptural’, so that what is expressed by this term might equally well be included among the notae ecclesiae [marks of the church].” He concludes that “none the less, apostolicity . . . would indicate the Church’s historical continuity in respect of its origin, message, and task.”[3]

Michael Horton offers another important qualification. “Apostolicity is guaranteed neither by immanent history nor by inner immediacy; it is a gift from above, in time and across time. On this point . . . only the ministry of the Spirit working through the Word and the sacraments, maintaining discipline across the generations, is able to sustain this kind of integrated praxis.”[4]

As an attribute of the church, the meaning of apostolicity arises from Jesus Christ creating his church through the preached word in the days of the apostles and sustaining it across time through word and sacrament in the power of the Holy Spirit.

To read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerDecember 6, 2024The apostolicity of the churchComment

Christ's Spotless Bride -- Catholicity As an Attribute of the Church (Part Eight)

The Third Attribute in the Nicene Creed – Catholicity

It is useful to begin with a brief survey of historical reflection on catholicity of the church:

Avery Dulles (a Roman Catholic theologian): “Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures gives the fullest discussion of the term in Christian antiquity. He assigns five reasons why the Church is called catholic: it extends to the ends of the earth; it teaches all the doctrine needed for salvation; it brings every sort of human being under obedience; it cures every kind of sin; and it possesses every form of virtue.” (Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church, 14)
Dulles continues: “The Orthodox churches have continued to claim catholicity, which for them means, above all else, adherence to the fullness of the faith as handed down from the Fathers.” Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church, 15)
Edmund Clowney (Presbyterian): “The Greek term katholikos means that which is universal or general, having to do with the whole; it is not used in the New Testament to describe the church. The early church fathers used it to express an important New Testament teaching: that the church as a whole is more than the local church.” (Clowney, The Church, 91)
Clowney: “As the church struggled against false teaching, the term ‘catholic’ came to be used to describe the orthodox church as distinct from the Gnostic, Montanist and Arian heresies . . . . Catholicity took yet another meaning when the Novatians [who did not admit the lapsed] and later the Donatists held to orthodox theology, but separated from the church . . . . Augustine appealed to the geographical spread of the catholic church. . .” Reformers replied to Roman Catholics “by pointing to another dimension of catholicity: its extension in time.” (The Church, 91-92)

Reformed Teaching

Louis Berkhof addresses catholicity:

Protestants again “apply this attribute primarily to the invisible Church, which can be called catholic in a far truer sense than any one of the existing organizations . . . . The invisible Church is primarily the real catholic Church, because she includes all believers on earth at any particular time, no one excepted; because, consequently, she also has her members among all the nations of the world that were evangelized; and because she exercises a controlling influence on the entire life of man in all its phases. Secondarily, they also ascribe the attribute of catholicity to the visible Church.” Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 575)

To read the rest of this essay, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerNovember 9, 2024CatholicityComment

Christ's Spotless Bride -- Holiness as an Attribute of the Church (Part Seven)

The Second Attribute in the Nicene Creed: Holiness

While the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and perhaps the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) have some claim to an outward unity that the Reformed do not have, they certainly have nothing of the sort when it comes to holiness. The Roman Catholic Church may be externally the Roman Catholic church, but it’s not externally the holy catholic church. This fact raises the question: “If the Roman and Orthodox churches need to look to an objective gift of holiness rather than focus on a visible holiness, does not this bolster the Reformed case that this is true for unity too?

Michael Horton makes an interesting big-picture comparative observation:

In both Roman Catholic and free-church ecclesiologies . . . . the church’s visible holiness is inherent, although for the former it flows from the one to the many and for the latter from the many to the one . . . . In both paradigms . . . , the means of grace employed . . . are oriented first of all toward an infused, inherent, and inward holiness . . . . Covenant theology has taken a different route than either of these paradigms. Regardless of the personal holiness of its members, the church . . . is holy because it is the field of divine activity, in which the wheat is growing up into the likeness of its firstfruits, even though weeds are sown among the wheat.[1]

To read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerSeptember 11, 2024The Holiness of the ChurchComment

Christ's Spotless Bride -- On the Marks of the Church (Part Four)

Reformed Confessional Teaching on the “Marks of the Church”

The discussion of the marks of a true church is important—especially in our day and age—because of the competing claims of various religious bodies and organizations to be “Christ’s church.” There are a myriad of churches who make such a claim–some associated with recognizable church bodies. Other groups who identify themselves as “churches” are more the product of the American entrepreneurial spirit, possess a trendy name, and an undefinable identity. They see themselves as radical and relevant, not stale and stuffy.

Reformed theologians have understood the marks of the church to be an especially important matter since multiple church bodies claim to be the only (or the true) church, yet their various claims are questionable in terms of biblical teaching and doctrine. This raises the question under discussion here: “how do we distinguish valid claims to be a true church from invalid claims?”

Louis Berkhof points out that there was not much of a need to consider the marks of the church when it was clearly one (i.e., during the apostolic church), but after heresies arose it became increasingly necessary to speak in the terms of a true/false, biblical/unbiblical dichotomy of any assembly of people professing to be Christians and followers of Jesus. Responding to heresies requires a response and doctrinal explanation. Oftentimes these explanations lead to further division.[1]

To read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerMay 22, 2024The marks of a churchComment

Christ's Spotless Bride -- More New Testament Images of the Church (Part Three)

This is part three of a series on the doctrine of the church entitled Christ’s Spotless Bride. In the previous post, I introduced how the New Testament images of the church are but one way of approaching the doctrine of the church (attributes and marks are other such categories). To understand the value of these images, an analogy to the doctrine of God (theology proper) is in order. Scripture teaches us about God (who is incomprehensible in himself) not only by ascribing certain attributes to him (e.g., justice, knowledge, power) but also by identifying him as a certain kind of person or having a certain kind of role (e.g., king, shepherd, warrior). These New Testament images are analogical and anthropological. God is like but also unlike human kings, and being a king does not exhaust who God is.

The first half of this list of New Testament images of the church can be here. This essay picks up where I left off last time.

Bride of Christ

The imagery of the church as the bride of Christ illustrates the relationship between Jesus and his church as well as his authority to rule over it. According to Michael Horton,

This covenantal relationship [between God and his people] can also be expressed in terms of the marriage analogy, rooted first of all in the union of male and female, becoming “one flesh,” a point that will be developed more fully . . . [in] consideration of the body of Christ. It is especially in the prophets that the marital analogy is appealed to, particularly as a way of highlighting the gravity of Israel’s infidelity to the covenant.[1]

Paul describes the church as Christ’s bride in Ephesians 5:25-31. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus uses the term explicitly in 21:2, 9; 22:17 (cf. 19:9). “Bride” is the last designation used of the church in the New Testament . The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is said to await the people of God when the bridegroom returns for his bride on the last day.

to read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerMay 3, 2024New Testamwnt Images of the churchComment

Christ's Spotless Bride -- New Testament Images of the Church (Part Two)

In an age of growing uncertainty, increasing angst, and divisive tribalism, a number of strategies (often politically focused) have been proposed to stem the rising tide of unbelief and the social havoc of our times. But one important area of doctrine which speaks to these issues is often overlooked—ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church. In the first of this series (Christ’s Spotless Bride) I addressed some of the reasons why the doctrine of the church is not of interest to many, and why I think reflection on the nature and mission of Christ’s church offers important, if overlooked, answers to many of our current woes. In this and the next piece in this series I will consider a number of the images given us in the New Testament in order to stimulate thinking about how the church offers solutions to these contemporary problems, and then address some of the ways we ought to think about the church. These images of the church in the New Testament, along with the attributes and marks of the church (which will be taken up later), help us to better understand the nature of the church and the comfort to be found in the new covenant community.

New Testament Images of the Church

There are a number of images used in the New Testament to describe Christ’s church. Such images are but one way of approaching the doctrine of the church.[1] To understand the value of these images, an analogy to the doctrine of God (theology proper) might help. Scripture teaches us about God (who is incomprehensible in himself) not only by ascribing certain attributes to him (e.g., justice, knowledge, power) but also by identifying him as a certain kind of person or having a certain kind of role (e.g., king, shepherd, warrior).

But these attributes of God are analogical and anthropological and cannot be absolutized. God is like but also unlike human kings, and being a king does not exhaust who God is. Similarly, the church displays the images given us in certain respects, but none of them describes the church comprehensively. Louis Berkhof speaks of “figurative designations of the Church, each of which stresses some particular aspect of the Church.”[2] That is my approach here. There are certainly a number of these images given us in the New Testament which are well worth consideration.

To read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerApril 5, 2024Images of the church Comments

Christ's Spotless Bride -- Some Thoughts on the Doctrine of the Church (Part One)

Some Thoughts on The Importance of the Doctrine of the Church —

Or How I introduced My Ecclesiology Course to Students

I understand that ecclesiology is not everyone’s favorite topic. No doubt it is the least read section in any systematic theology text—and that is not merely because the doctrine of the church usually comes at the end of the volume. For a host of reasons American Christians tend not to be interested in the topic. But after serving as a pastor and professor for over forty years, I have come to believe that ecclesiology is one of the most important topics for our time and well worth thinking about.

Here are the main points for consideration I made whenever introducing the topic to Reformed seminarians.

First, during my post-seminary days I taught graduate systematic theology and apologetics courses to mostly “five-sola” evangelical students at the Simon Greenleaf School of Law (now the Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, CA). Berkhof’s Systematic Theology was my text. I always dreaded coming to the closing chapters on the doctrine of the church because the class was filled with students who came from various evangelical churches. Many were professing Christians but had no ties to any church. Many were still in mainline Protestant churches but were soon to leave. Others stayed in the churches in which they were raised, or they followed the crowd to a celebrity pastor. Many of these students had picked their churches for reasons that had little if anything to do with ecclesiology or doctrine. Reading Berkhof pulled the church rug out from under their feet.

To read the rest, follow the link below

EcclesiologyKim RiddlebargerMarch 11, 2024Church as Bride of Christ, Importance of ecclesiologyComment