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.

Roman Catholic Teaching

It should come as no surprise that Rome focuses upon the history of the institutional church and the office of the papacy when discussing this attribute. According to Avery Dulles:

The concept of catholicity in time strikes us as unusual because we generally place the historical continuity of the Church under the caption of apostolicity rather than catholicity. But since the theme of apostolicity would raise more specialized questions, such as the succession in the ordained ministry, I prefer to speak first of the abiding identity of the Church as a whole through the centuries.[5]

Protestants respond by noting that if catholicity focuses upon the universality of the church, apostolicity focuses upon the continuity of doctrine from the church’s founding until the present—not the church’s institutions (i.e., ordained offices).

Eastern Orthodox Teaching

The Orthodox Church does not focus upon the priesthood and papacy (the ordained ministry) as Romes does, but upon the Eucharist as the foundation for the church and the basis for its continuity. Steenberg argues that for Orthodoxy (EO):

The Church is ‘one’ precisely here: in the chalice . . . since the Church is the living body of the one there to be met. The Church is ‘holy’ in exactly this act of sacramental communion, the sanctification of the Spirit . . . . And the Church is both ‘catholic’ and ‘apostolic’ inasmuch as the Eucharistic communion is understood as the singular encounter with the one Christ met and known by the apostles . . . It is thus in the Eucharist, the sacrament of sacraments, that the Church finds its fullest definition . . .[6]

According to McGuckin in his volume, the Orthodox Church:

One major factor in this period of the apostolic and immediate post apostolic generation was the organization of worship. The Christian cultus centered around the celebration of Jesus’ salvific life and death and resurrection, as the fulfillment of the scriptural hope (`the Old Testament’ as they soon began to call the ancient prophetic narratives) and as the promise of new life in the present moment. The Eucharist served to gather Christians together regularly for the shared `recounting of the Lord’s saving death and resurrection that was epitomized by the eucharistic meal. In the course of the Eucharist, the concept of the New Testament as a body of apostolic writings first arose. The canon is merely the formalized recognition of what was, and ought to be, read in the course of worship. Along with the formal readings of sacred texts, the role of the eucharistic president expanded significantly. These, the earliest bishops, were heirs of the apostles, not least because they continued the prophetic office in the church `interpreting’ and explaining the Scriptures, how they related to Jesus and to contemporary life, to their congregations.”

Accordingly, for the Eastern Orthodox, the Eucharist (as understood by the EO) replaces the preaching of apostolic doctrine as the mark of apostolicity.

The Reformed View

On the other hand, the Reformed affirm that the sacraments draw their efficacy from the preached word, not from the apostolicity of the church. Yet, apostolicity remains an important attribute of the church. Jesus declares,

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:18-19).

Furthermore, in Ephesians 2:19–20, we read, “so then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.” The church has been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (who function as New Testament prophets—Ephesians 3:5). Christ himself is the cornerstone, and obviously, has no successors, only those called to be under-shepherds of his church.

Both of these passages indicate that the apostles are foundational to the church, but not a continuing office. According to Matthew 16:18-19, the reference to building on a rock is obviously pointing to the need for a foundation, in light of Matthew 7:24-27 (the house built upon the rock). There is nothing here about the apostles as something other than a foundation.

It is evident that the church today is not apostolic in the following ways:

• Apostles or their successors are not still present.

• Our churches do not have fellowship with churches the apostles planted, since we know that these early churches could fall away (Revelation 2:5; 3:16). The church must be apostolic because it is built upon the foundation the apostles laid. The continuity is essentially doctrinal, not institutional or organizational.

What is the foundation upon which we still must rest? The thing most striking about the apostles in the New Testament is that they speak the authoritative word of God which must be believed and obeyed. The apostolic foundation isn’t about persons or institutions, but teaching. The apostles speak the word of Christ in the following passages.

• Romans 2:16 — Paul speaks of “my gospel”

• 1 Corinthians 7:10, 12 — “not I, but the Lord . . . not the Lord”—the word Paul spoke was equally authoritative as were words spoken by Christ while on earth

• 2 Corinthians 13:3 — the Corinthians sought proof that Christ was speaking through Paul

The apostles had a prophetic office/calling, and so ought to be heeded as prophets. The general qualification was that an apostle had been with Jesus during his earthly ministry (Acts 1:21-22), and at least three disciples saw Jesus speaking in the midst of the heavenly counsel as in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.”

In Revelation 1:10-20, John sees Jesus walking in the midst of the seven churches to which Revelation is addressed.

Paul’s was an exceptional case — he saw the resurrected Christ when Jesus appeared to him, but emphasized that he had seen Jesus in heaven. His Damascus Road experience is mentioned 3 times in Acts (chapter 9 especially); 1 Corinthians 9:1– “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?”); and in 2 Corinthians 12:1-7.

I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses—though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.

How do we know the apostolic word in the present? The apostles and those in the apostolic circle wrote the New Testament for us as stated 2 Peter 3:16, “as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Jesus also foretold of this in John 14:26. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

When we speak of the apostolic church, we are referring to that doctrine passed down to us from Jesus and the apostles.

To read the previous essays in this series, go here: Christ’s Spotless Bride

_____________________________________

[1] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4.338.

[2] Clowney, The Church, 73.

[3] Heyns, The Church, 144.

[4] Horton, People and Place, 232-233.

[5] Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church, 87.

[6] Steenberg, Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology, 122.

[7] John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church (NP: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), 8-9.