Theology Thursday - Clearwaters on Ecclesiology
Image
In this excerpt from his work The Local Church of the New Testament, Richard Clearwaters discusses problems he sees in ecclesiology.1
Three common errors cause Christians to fail in having the proper regard for Christ’s earthly church and its officers and its organization.
Many Christians think that the universal church is entered by faith, and faith alone.
Babies dying in infancy never had saving faith, but the Bible teaches their salvation (Romans 5:12-21; 2 Samuel 12:22, 23). If nine-tenths of the babies die in infancy in some of our heathen lands, could they not be populating heaven more rapidly than so-called Christian America is today?
If infants had believed and should have been regenerated, it is still true that regeneration is not enough to give an individual entrance into the universal church. Their bodies would still await the resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
God’s children of all ages are awaiting the redemption of the body (Romans 8:23, 24). Every Christian will one day be sanctified to a complete conformity to the image of Christ (Hebrews 10:10; Romans 8:29). This has not yet happened (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
Thus, we see from Scripture that the general assembly (Hebrews 12:23) in glory referred to as the universal church required for membership justification, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification of the body (“the redemption of the body” Romans 8:23). Many individuals who will be members of the universal church body have never been born; other members of the universal church body are now asleep in Jesus while their bodies have never been resurrected or glorified. The universal church, therefore, has never been assembled or had a meeting. It is a prospective Church.
The second error is that the invisible church exists separate and apart from the visible church.
Apart from individual Christians and that series of local congregations or churches called the visible church, there is no Christian church upon the earth. Christ has no earthly church except those individuals and local congregations (1 Corinthians 12:12-31).
The local particular congregations known as churches are both visible and invisible, temporal and spiritual (1 Corinthians 12:27-31). The two New Testament church ordinances are both mediums of visible acts and conveyors of spiritual truth (1 Corinthians 11:23-34; Romans 6:1-23).
One need only glance at those sects or Christian communions that convert the ordinances into the spiritual magic of sacraments, that allow unregenerate sinners to enter Christ by water baptism, and allow Christ to enter unregenerate sinners by the communion wafer; they at once fill up the local churches with dead and unregenerate church members with more members in the local church that are “natural” than those that are “carnal” or “spiritual” (1 Corinthians 3:1-23).
Also notice those communions that deny, eliminate, neglect, or compromise the materials of both ordinances, converting them to the purely invisible spirit, and notice how they dissipate themselves and are utterly unable to fulfill Acts 2:42-47.
The two New Testament ordinances are material dramatizations of our spiritual salvation. The sign is never greater than the thing signified!
The third error in the minds of Christians is that the earthly bride of Christ and the universal church are coexistent.
There are some instances (Hebrews 12:23; Ephesians 5:25-27) where reference seems to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every such case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual, which means there is not now but there will be a general assembly of Christ’s people. Many of its members, properly called out, are now in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:8; Philippians 1:21-23). Many others of them, also called out, are here on earth (Colossians 1:20-24). Millions yet to be called out are yet unborn and therefore nonexistent.
The House that Moses built, the Tabernacle (Exodus 40), did not coexist with Solomon’s Temple; if it should have, all would have preferred Solomon’s Temple.
The House that Solomon built, the Temple (1 Kings 8:10), did not coexist with Jesus’ earthly Church (Matthew 16:16-18) or all would have preferred Christ’s Church.
The House that Jesus is building, the Church, His earthly Bride, does not coexist with the universal church that individually in all of its members and collectively as a body will have experienced justification, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. If part of the membership is now in heaven, another part on earth, another part not yet born, there is as yet no assembly except in prospect.
If any of those coexisted, all would prefer the “better” (Hebrews 1:11), but that choice was never given and is not now given to God’s people.
Notes
1 Richard Clearwaters, The Local Church of the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Central Press, 1954), 8-10. The edition I have is a PDF reproduction, and I doubt the pagination is identical to the original text.
Tyler Robbins 2016 v2
Tyler Robbins is a bi-vocational pastor at Sleater Kinney Road Baptist Church, in Olympia WA. He also works in State government. He blogs as the Eccentric Fundamentalist.
- 21 views
To what pvawter said, there are definitely practical barriers to getting “the church” to do anything as a singular entity. It’s like getting “America” to do something, only even harder, because “the church” doesn’t have an earthly process for collective decision-making.
On the other hand, dispersed entities can be said to have done something when enough of the constituent parts choose to act in a similar way. So most of us would say “the church” reformed in the 16th and 17th centuries, for example.
(Admittedly, it might be more precise to say “many churches” reformed.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Step one would be to envision ourselves as unified, no? Now the doctrine of the universal, small c catholic church is not the only thing that is important in achieving this, but if we overemphasize the independence of local congregations, we are simultaneously going to downplay the universal church and its significance.
And in that light, it’s important to remember that Jesus spoke of the kingdom, singular, of God, and of His Church, singular. As such, I can’t quite go along with the notion that it’s in the future. Sure, that’s a consummation of history at the marriage supper of the Lamb, but as The Church’s one Foundation notes, there is yet a mystic sweet communion, no?
The error is when we view that communion, or koinonia, as being fulfilled through human political structures.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Per Matt. 13, the kingdom is incomplete, mixed, awaits revealing.
Meanwhile, the structures Christ has ordained for His churches are not human or political.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think it is an error to think that there is some conflict between the independence (dare I say, autonomy) of the local church and the universality of the church as it will one day be constituted in heaven.
Here and now, the local church is where it’s at. The local church is where the great commission is carried out. The local church is where discipline and discipleship alone are possible. The local church is where true Christian fellowship takes place.
Then and there (after Christ returns for his bride), the church will be gathered as one and enjoy the complete and ultimate fellowship that today we can only glimpse in bits and imperfect pieces.
Recognizing the difference between the two isn’t downplaying the universal church but keeping it in perspective.
We need to balance the notion of the universal church being incomplete with the reality that Christ says that the Kingdom of God is. He does not use the future tense, but the present. In the same way, Hebrews notes that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses—so while we are glimpsing it “in bits and pieces” today, it nonetheless remains an incredible reality for us to appreciate.
For that matter, the local church is exactly the same—it is not complete, nor is it in its final form, but it is.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I don’t think anyone denies that it is.
The difficulty begins when we ask “So what?” (or “What kind of behavior does that call for?”)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No question that the bulk of reference in the NT in connection to the church is a local context. There is also evidence linking churches together (like Jerusalem and Antioch). It would be fun to list out the various passages that speak to the presence of a body of believers outside a single congregation. It seems like in the past I did that - Ill have to dig it up… although I’m occupied with other projects now.
It is interesting to ponder evidence of the Holy Spirit’s move in the Universal Church. Consider revivals. The Great Awakenings and the notable Revivals impacted large groups of congregations…. different denominations. I don’t think you can say those were the results of God’s working solely or even primarily in the local church.
I’m happy to hear your views. This is a great thread by the way….
Straight Ahead!
Joel Tetreau
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
[Joel Tetreau]It is interesting to ponder evidence of the Holy Spirit’s move in the Universal Church. Consider revivals. The Great Awakenings and the notable Revivals impacted large groups of congregations…. different denominations. I don’t think you can say those were the results of God’s working solely or even primarily in the local church.
I think that’s a great question, and how we evaluate something like the GAs is going to reflect our view of the church. I would say that our only means of evaluating the fruit of such a revival is through the lifelong commitment of those who responded, not through the numbers of converts or even their impact on greater society. Just because crowds heard the gospel and cried out for mercy doesn’t mean they persevered in faith.
To be truly successful, I would think we would expect that those who trusted Christ would go on in obedience by joining a local church and being discipled. Only by their continued walk of obedience can we be assured of the genuineness of their conversion.
This is what I try to impress on people I minister to today who claim to be Christians. I can’t see their heart to know their faith, but they ought to join the church and follow through as disciples. This will show the success of the gospel in their heart.
Discussion