Eph. IV. 4-6.–There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
This is the image of the CHURCH, as delineated by the hand of the inspired Apostle. In the whole world, we find nothing so resplendently beautiful and glorious, under any other form. The picture is intended to enforce the great duty of charity and peace, among those who bear the Christian name. In the preceding part of the epistle, Christ is exhibited as the end of all separations and strife to them that believe, and the author of a new spiritual creation, in which all former distinctions were to be regarded as swallowed up and abolished forever. Reference is had in this representation primarily to the old division of Jew and Gentile; but in its true spirit and sense, it is plainly as comprehensive as humanity itself, and looks therefore directly to every other distinction of the same sort, that ever has been or ever shall be known in the world. Christianity is the universal solvent, in with all opposites are required to give up their previous affinities, no matter how old and stubborn, and flow together in a new combination, pervaded with harmony only and light at every point. “In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, not uncircumcision, but a new creature.” “Those who were far off, are made nigh by his blood.” “He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; making in himself of twain one new man.” In him, all spiritual antagonism among men is subverted. The human world is reconciled first with God, and then with itself, by entering with living consciousness into the ground of its own life as revealed in his person. Such is the idea of the Church, which is “the body of Christ, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.” And now at length, passing from doctrine to practice, the Apostle calls upon those to whom he wrote to surrender themselves fully to the claims of this exalted constitution. “I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord beseech you, that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called. With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Such a temper, and such a life, are necessarily included in the very conception of the Church, as here described. “There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” He does not say, Let there be one body and one Spirit, as simply urging Christians to seek such agreement among themselves as might justify this view of their state; but the fact is assumed as already in existence, and is made the ground accordingly of the exhortation that goes before. There is one body and Spirit in the bond of peace. The unity of the Church is not something which results first from the thought and purpose of her vast membership, of which it is composed; but on the contrary, it is the ground out of which this membership itself springs, and in which perpetually it stands, and from which it must derive evermore all its harmony, and stability, and activity, and strength.
From the beginning, this great truth has dwelt deep in the consciousness of the Christian world. Through all ages, and in all lands, that consciousness has been uttering itself as with one mouth, in the article of the creed, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is one and universal. Her unity is essential to her existence. Particular Christians, and particular congregations, and particular religious denominations, can be true to themselves only as they stand in the full, free sense of this thought, and make it the object of their calling to fulfil its requisitions. The manifold is required to feel itself one. All particularism here must be false, that seeks to maintain itself as such, in proportion exactly as it is found in conflict with the general and universal, as embraced in the true idea of the body of Christ.
I propose to consider, in the further prosecution of the subject at this time, first, the Nature and Constitution of the Holy Catholic Church, in the view now stated; and secondly, the Duty of Christians as it regards the unity, by which it is declared to be thus Catholic, and holy, and true. [Read the Rest].
When I originally keyboarded and published this on Theologia, I was trying to promote steps toward unity I had already seen taking place among Reformed denominations and encourage Evangelicalism to to reform its fissional tradition.
What I never expected was to have to direct this preaching to professors in cavlinistic institutions.
Pretty sad. I have been surprised lately at how dogmatically and vociferously some Reformed amillennialists have expressed themselves toward postmillennialism–a well-represented eschatalogical option in the history of the Reformed churches (given the way some other traditions from these churches are exalted by these same people it is rather difficult to understand how the two attitudes can exist in the same persons). It is hard not to wonder if the amil-legislation isn’t a compensating mechanism. Does anyone think this sort of attitude towards other Christian churches is remotely outward-facing? Is this not a recipe for turning the Reformed churches into the sociological equivalent of an inbred and shrinking family?
Hat Tip: Lord Voldemort (unless that title belongs to another who must not be named)
Actually, Wilson’s been known more simply as “The Dark Lord” for some time now. Genuflecting when he enters the room is still, as far as I know, optional.
“Genuflecting when he enters the room is still, as far as I know, optional.”
That’s crazy, Steven. Don’t you know that the CREC is a cult because of our slavish submission to one or two personalities? We are required not only to genuflect, but also to kiss his ring when offered. We’re presently working on a revision to the Apostle’s Creed that will include him. Duh.
Oddly, anyone comparing Clark to Wilson will find that Wilson is much more willing to make arguments and collect evidence to persuade people.
When does Clark not demand his declarations simply be accepted on the basis of his own authority?
Too bad I can’t mod you up for that headline.
I find it somewhat humorous that Dr. Clark is being roundly condemned across the FV blogs for a few comments about Wilkins and his ecclesiology.
As a caveat, I happen not to agree with Dr. Clark on this matter. I think Baptist churches can be true churches, and I have no problem with classic (Edwards/Warfield) postmillennialism. I don’t think lynching was a helpful reference to the Wilkins situation, as it casts aspersions on those “prosecuting” the case.
But, the same blogs that condemn Dr. Clark continually reference and promote a man who is a pastor, head of a seminary and college, (Doug Wilson) and who has reams of paper devoted to snarky sarcasm of his fellow ministers and believers, writes books defending the Scriptural necessity of sarcasm, and thinks theological saloon brawling is a spiritual gift.
Double standard?
MArk,
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I don’t think heresy or the legitimacy of other churches is an individual’s call, after all, but rather a church’s. I think Dr. Clark has a valid historical point –the Reformers didn’t much care for Baptists. But, I think we can safely say the Reformers were wrong there. So, do we now rebaptize those who were baptized in Baptist churches?
I guess what irritates me about Doug is the continuous smarmy, snarky sarcasm. It is for that reason I don’t blame Dr. Clark for not debating him.
Frankly, I think all it does is foment the controversy and further alienate his adversaries. I know people who have tried to counsel him about it (this before the whole FV controversy began), and that he was pretty defensive and quite obviously immune to the criticism.
That, and who would waste whole issues of a magazine on the topic of cheese?
I could have a blind eye, but I haven’t noticed Doug calling other people heretics or other churches fakes.
I don’t see the comparison being equal, though again (for the sake of emphasis and chiasm) I could be partial.
At this point that is how I see it.
I hope you know I’m not real upset about anyone being amil. I’m just reporting on something I have perceived in some and only some amil advocacy.
And, of course, in the nineties there was plenty of that sort of invective coming from the postmil quarter.
Ken,
I do blame him for not debating Wilson. Endlessly calling a group of ordained ministers “FV boys” and then not being willing to debate one of them publicly is, in my opinion, cowardly. His blog is filled with stupid comments that imply FVers are secret agents of the Pope blah-blah. Allowing these (stupid and very destructive comments) on a church web-site run by a history professor and pastor is childish and apalling.
So, nothing on Wilson’s presumably church sponsored website (or magazine, etc) is ever childish or appalling?
Ken,
Who ever said that? Like Mark said: “I could have a blind eye, but I haven’t noticed Doug calling other people heretics or other churches fakes.” That’s the point. Wilson points (sometimes stupidly) sarcasm at fellow believers, Clark pours Greek fire (and allows much worse on his church, let me say that again, church, website) on the heads of those he posits as outside the church or worse.
Ken, if you’re claiming some sort of moral equivalence you are simply wrong. Either you think there are a bunch of gospel denying heretics in the Church and you’re just playing nice while Clark speaks plainly (and you believe truthfully), or else you’re weighting speech against those you favor as worse than the other way around simply because you favor them. If neither of these things are the case, I’d ask you to re-think your present estimate of how Wilson and Clark compare in verbal communication.
Wilson has not taken the unilateral move in this fracas of declaring those he opposes as heretics and false teachers. That step belongs to Clark and certain bulletin boards and email lists who give him a hearing.
Mark,
As I said before, whether or not anyone is a heretic is not an individual’s call. The church as a whole makes that determination, not individuals. We might, of course, criticize views, and even express opinions that certain views are without the pale of orthodoxy. But the judgment of persons is up to the courts.
My point is that Doug has been pouring out bile for years, and that it is far too easy to be blithely critical of our adversaries, and overlook the faults of our friends. I don’t know Dr. Clark, I certainly don’t always agree with the WSC guys, whom I think are a little to Klineolutheran, and I’m not defending him. But, I guess I think that perhaps you, and other Moscow-friendly guys are guilty of your second option above.
Doug has been pouring out bile against fellow believers for YEARS. I would worry about anyone who is attracted to that sort of rhetoric, without qualification. Maybe that’s what I am seeking, MArk. Just a little qualification, a small caveat like, “I profit from some of what Doug says, even though I dislike his demeanor towards his brothers in Christ.” or some such thing, as I have said about Dr. Clark above. That is a healthy self-criticism of one’s own “movement” or whatever you might call it.
Why in the world do you care whether Scott Clark thinks you’re heretical? He’s not in the PCA, he’s not employed by any agency of the PCA. He is a man expressing an opinion, not a church court.