A Debate on the Marks of the Church: Opening salvo

This is hopefully the beginning post of a series. I will be linking you to another blog where the responses will take place. This is a dialogue. If I fail to answer your comments or questions immediately, it is because the quality of the other debater requires my concentration. Eventually, I will get back to you.

This started with the following comments that I will reproduce here as context for my opening remarks. 

“Definition of legalism: any attempt to use the moral law as a set of requirements by which a person can attain favor with God; or, for a Christian, any attempt to use the moral law as posing a threat to the believer or creating a system of punishment and rewards.

Definition of antinomianism ("no law") -- failure to recognize the moral law as a universally valid measure for human conduct before a holy God, by which measure we all fall short; or, for the Christian who has been delivered from condemnation, the failure to recognize the moral law as a guide for how we can show gratitude to God.

These two definitions attempt to make clear the proper and improper use of the law, which I consider an important subject badly mangled by many of the devout.”

Before embarking upon this trek, I will supply some background. My foil in this discussion is a good friend who is a Presbyterian (PCA) Elder. I am a former Episcopalian who is now returning to the Reformed Episcopal Church, a member organization in the Anglican Church of North America. We are both Calvinists. This is an important point from the outset as we will be having an in-house discussion between believing brothers in Christ. We hold the vast majority of theology and doctrine as common ground. Therefore, we will likely be making assumptions that not all of our readers will understand or support. You are forewarned and forearmed.

As a point of information, the Presbyterian position on the marks of the Church is that there are three: Word, Sacrament and Discipline. This series will be exploring this third point. Both sides have centuries of theologians lining up behind them, but we want to flesh out the argument as much to understand our own position better as to convince anyone. In fact, it would be highly unlikely that either of us will change our positions. We do not expect or even necessarily desire that outcome. Both of us will want to remain true to the positions of our respective traditions. I will be working from the ESV and I suspect that will be consistent with my foil, but we will know in the rebuttal if I am in error on this point.

Concerning our working definition of Legalism

It appears to me that the conclusion above sets the framework for the definitions. These definitions are designed in terms of their use within the church, both good and bad. I think I would start by expanding the definition and bringing light on various aspects that warrant consideration. The Law can be defined by the Ten Commandments with the addition of general revelation. There is a side issue of Levitical or rabbinical law that needs to be discussed, so that it can be set aside. Here is how this was defined from the first discussion that I am quoting.

“[T]he law is the moral duty that God requires of people, as revealed generally in conscience and summarized in the 10 commandments. Jesus summarized the moral law as requiring us to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves.”

This definition works well for me, so that we understand that rabbinical law is excluded from the discussion. This follows from basic covenant theology and both sides will agree on this point. I will begin with a general definition of legalism and build to the more specific. Legalism is strict and literal adherence to a legal system. There is an implication of extreme compliance to the point that goes to beyond the purpose of the law. In Biblical context, the Pharisees were legalists in terms of both moral law and rabbinical law. Since Jesus was obviously at odds with that group as his primary foil throughout the Gospels, what did he say about legalism?

Any discussion about Jesus and the law must begin with the Sermon on the Mount particularly Matthew 5:17. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” One can easily take the verses that follow out of context and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is proposing an extreme form of legalism. Actually, He is pointing out the futility of keeping the law for man at that point in history. He is trying to get men to understand that they are in a hopeless situation under the law without some sort of help or rescue. Both of us will agree on this point.

Turning a moment to the Rich Young Ruler, an excellent example of a legalist, in Matthew 19:16-26, we see Jesus suggest that the key to salvation is to obey the moral law. The young man completely misses the point of the instruction, so Jesus throws yet more law at him until he capitulates. So much attention, particularly in suburban America, is given to verse 23, that it is often missed that verse 26 is closely related to it. The point of this story is that obedience to the law for salvation is impossible for man alone. Again, there will be agreement on this point.

Martin Luther described the three uses of the law, which bears repeating in this space, though I have written on the topic in the past. There is the civil use of the law, which is as a force to restrain sin. This is in the context of general revelation or natural law. There is the pedagogical use of the law, which shows people their sin and points to mercy and grace outside of themselves. This is the use for confrontation and refutation of sin for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ. Finally, there is the normative use of the law, which is the use of the law for saints as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good. The problem arises when the pedagogical use of the law is attempted on saints. This is how legalism begins. When the doctrines of grace are not understood, there is an innate tendency to return to the law. This expectation that the law provides any role in salvation is misguided. Once again, I do not anticipate any issues here.

Concerning our working definition of antinomianism

This definition is very good as it makes specific mention of our gratitude. The problem with the antinomian is that he does not appreciate the overwhelming nature of the gift of mercy and grace through Christ’s earthly ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. Often, people want to skip to the good stuff and miss the foundation of why Christ was necessary. This is true of the antinomian. Anyone who fully understands the depth of despair associated with sin, particularly the condition of sin and its implications for salvation, and then is taught the doctrines of grace, this person will not fail to be grateful to Jesus for His condescension to become human, his sacrifice and triumph over death, and finally his ascension and role as mediator and advocate. There are no antinomians who understand this formula. This begs the question as to whether an antinomian is a true believer. I would argue against their faith being genuine. This seems to be consistent with the text and doctrinal teaching from both sides of this debate.

Marks of the Church

By now, you are asking, where is the debate? Here is the debate finally: what are the marks of the church? As I’ve said above, the Presbyterian answer is that there are three.

• 1.       The preaching of the Word, correctly and continuously.
• 2.       The keeping of the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
• 3.       Church discipline.

What is meant by each of these? The preaching of the Word means something very different than the typical “message” many of us hear on Sundays. We are given a steady diet of topical preaching. This phrase refers to preaching through a book of the Bible from beginning to end, and keeping a proper perspective on the relationship between law and gospel. The Reformed notion of the role of preaching is a very high order of importance. It is through the preaching of the Word that the gospel is first heard. The Holy Spirit acts to reveal the truth of the gospel and transform the hearts of the believers. This is a sacred and important task, not just the teaching of some moral checklist each week. The preaching of the Word is active and is the means through which the Holy Spirit moves in regeneration. You will have no argument here from me.

The keeping of the sacraments is a topic that will certainly cause some discussion. First, it is important to define the two sacraments from a Presbyterian perspective, and then discuss the implications of each. Baptism is viewed from a covenant context, paedobaptism is the norm. This is not an exclusion of adult believer’s baptism, but an inclusion of the children of saints into the covenant community. This is Biblically consistent with the Jewish example. However, while the Lutheran believes that baptism delivers what it promises, the Presbyterian still expects the individual to come to a full knowledge of the love and mercy of Jesus, and to believe in the salvation promised in the Gospel. This means that there is a possibility that some Baptized people may not be among the saints. But this is not problematic or inconsistent. There are Jews who are members of the covenant community, but who did not receive salvation, notably Judas Iscariot. What is interesting here is that there is an acceptance of this fact, and yet a reticence to administer the next sacrament to all covenant members. 

The Lord’s Supper can be viewed in several ways, and rather than listing them all, let us look at the spectrum and see where the Presbyterians fall. On one end, there is Roman Catholic notion of transubstantiation. This means that the elements actually mystically transform their substance from mere bread and wine to the actual body and blood of Christ. There is a “real presence” of Christ in the elements. This is a key point of divergence in the Reformation, and one that both sides in our debate will not condone. The other end of the spectrum is a mere memorial. This is the Baptist view on this sacrament, and it is probably a stretch to call the Lord’s Supper a sacrament at all in that context. It is reduced to nothing more than a prayer over food. The Presbyterian view is that first of all, it is a remembrance, but of the death and sacrifice of our Lord. It is akin to a funeral in some respects. But the real telling point here is that the Lord’s Table is placed below the pulpit. This architectural anomaly sheds light on the relative importance of the sacraments to the correct preaching of the Word. Rather than the Roman Catholic understanding of a real presence, the Presbyterian view is of a pneumatic presence, one that stresses the work of the Holy Spirit. I will leave this to others to define this distinction better. What is most interesting to this discussion, however, is that the Presbyterian sacrament is a closed sacrament. This means that it is only open to saints in good standing with the church. The issue here is unrepented sin. The worry is that a person with unrepented sin who takes the elements eats and drinks condemnation upon himself. The closed sacrament is explained as a protection of the person from blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and thus eternal damnation. Notice the vast difference between the covenant theology applications to each sacrament. Baptism is offered to children with no knowledge of their eventual lives, and yet the Lord’s Supper can be withheld from church members who have a particular issue with sin. 

This brings us finally to the third mark of the church, church discipline.

“I would say that church discipline is not an attempt to bring a believer under the condemnation of the law. Rather, it is a warning to someone who refuses to acknowledge and repent of sin that they need to repent, and that a refusal to agree with God about their sin may indicate that they are not in the faith. It is not the fact of sin, but the refusal of repentance, that brings about discipline.”

This definition is completely in line with the discussion above. Notice that there seems to be an implied ability of a person to fall from grace. This is a point of consistency that will have to be addressed later in the discussion. In addition, a full description of the Presbyterian system of church discipline will be required. In the next installment, I will lay out that system and then begin my presentation of the Anglican perspective. 
 

– Troll –