Catholic Today: A Reformed Conversation about Catholicity [1 ed.] 9783666540813, 9783525540817

Citation preview

Willem van Vlastuin

Catholic Today A Reformed Conversation about Catholicity

Reformed Historical Theology Edited by Herman J. Selderhuis In Co-operation with Emidio Campi, Irene Dingel, Benyamin F. Intan, Elsie Anne McKee, Richard A. Muller and Risto Saarinen

Volume 66

Willem van Vlastuin

Catholic Today A Reformed Conversation about Catholicity

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek: The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: https://dnb.de. 1st Edition 2020 © 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Cover design: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Typesetting: Le-tex publishing services, Leipzig

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2197-1137 ISBN 978-3-666-54081-3

Contents Introduction ...................................................................................

9

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church 1.

Ignatius (ca. 35–107) ............................................................... 1.1 The epistle to Smyrna ......................................................... 1.2 One Christ........................................................................ 1.3 The visible church .............................................................. 1.4 Assessment .......................................................................

18 19 21 23 24

2.

Cyprian (ca. 205–258) .............................................................. 2.1 Bishop of Carthage ............................................................ 2.2 One Christ........................................................................ 2.3 Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy ............................................. 2.4 Assessment .......................................................................

26 26 28 30 33

3.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)................................................................... 3.1 Catechetical lectures........................................................... 3.2 Catholicity comprises the whole world.................................. 3.3 Catholicity comprises all doctrines ....................................... 3.4 Catholicity comprises all categories of people ........................ 3.5 Catholicity comprises the remission of all sins ....................... 3.6 Catholicity comprises all virtues .......................................... 3.7 Assessment .......................................................................

34 34 36 38 40 41 42 43

4.

Augustine (354–430) ............................................................... 4.1 Confrontation with Donatism ............................................. 4.2 The universality of the church.............................................. 4.3 The church as a community of sinners .................................. 4.4 The church as the body of Christ.......................................... 4.5 The church as the temple of the Holy Spirit............................ 4.6 Assessment .......................................................................

45 45 46 48 50 54 57

5.

Vincent († between 434 and 450) .............................................. 59 5.1 Commonitorium ............................................................... 59 5.2 Catholicity as normative ..................................................... 60

6

Contents

5.3 Catholicity as identity......................................................... 63 5.4 Assessment ....................................................................... 65 Review and reflection ...................................................................... 66 B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition 6.

John Calvin (1509–1564).......................................................... 6.1 From person to church ....................................................... 6.2 Called to unity .................................................................. 6.3 Orthodox besides the mediaeval church................................ 6.4 Anonymous catholicity ...................................................... 6.5 Assessment .......................................................................

7.

Confessional intermezzo........................................................... 101 7.1 The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561) .................................. 101 7.2 The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) ........................................ 103 7.3 The Second Helvetic Confession (1566) ................................ 104 7.4 The Westminster Confession (1647) ..................................... 107 7.5 Assessment ....................................................................... 110

8.

James Ussher (1581–1656) ..................................................... 111 8.1 One Christ........................................................................ 112 8.2 From visible to invisible ...................................................... 113 8.3 An orthodox Christ............................................................ 114 8.4 Spirit, baptism and offices .................................................. 117 8.5 Assessment ....................................................................... 117

9.

John Owen (1616–1683) .......................................................... 119 9.1 From invisible to visible ...................................................... 119 9.2 Pluriform unity ................................................................ 121 9.3 Orthodoxy........................................................................ 122 9.4 Spirit, baptism and offices ................................................... 124 9.5 Assessment ....................................................................... 126

85 85 89 92 95 99

10. Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) .................................................. 128 10.1 Catholic despite discord...................................................... 128 10.2 The cosmic Christ .............................................................. 134 10.3 Assessment ....................................................................... 139

Contents

11. Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996)..................................... 143 11.1 One Christ........................................................................ 143 11.2 Qualitative catholicity ........................................................ 145 11.3 Assessment ....................................................................... 149 Review and Reflection ..................................................................... 151 C. Systematic part 12. Catholicity as a term ................................................................. 162 12.1 The use of the term ‘catholic’ ............................................... 162 12.2 Qualitative catholicity ........................................................ 163 12.3 Universal, but not common ................................................. 167 13. The body of Christ .................................................................... 169 13.1 The body of the living Christ ............................................... 169 13.2 Confession of the living Christ............................................. 171 13.3 The church is Christologically determined............................. 172 14. One Christ ............................................................................... 176 14.1 Catholicity breaks through borders ...................................... 176 14.2 From church to denomination ............................................. 180 14.3 Ten Times Reformed .......................................................... 185 14.4 Exploration concerning the covenant.................................... 188 14.5 No simple solution ............................................................. 192 15. Whole body and individual ....................................................... 193 15.1 A living member in Christ’s church ...................................... 193 15.2 Re-appraisal of the tradition ................................................ 198 15.3 Old is better ...................................................................... 202 16. Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy ................................................... 208 16.1 The indwelling of the Spirit ................................................. 208 16.2 Reformed exclusivity .......................................................... 209 16.3 Reformed 2.0 .................................................................... 215 16.4 Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda ................................. 219

7

8

Contents

17. Being a holy stranger and pilgrim .............................................. 227 17.1 Forgiveness of all sins ......................................................... 227 17.2 All virtues......................................................................... 231 17.3 Citizen of two worlds ......................................................... 234 Bibliography................................................................................... 237

Introduction Each Lord’s Day we confess, with the congregation, the holy catholic church. So the church does not only exist in abstract theological textbooks, but it belongs to the glowing heart of the Christian faith. The fact that one of the twelve articles of the Apostles’ Creed mentions the church reveals its central position in the Christian life. Clearly, the church lies at the heart of the Christian faith. When we confess the deeds of salvation of the Triune God with our hearts, we mention the church in the same breath. Nor can we degrade the church to a dead object, just as little as we can do this with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This means that we cannot speak about the church in a detached manner, because in the faith we are involved in the church and are part of it in the very fibre of our existence. This implies that we cannot dispose of catholicity, just as little as we can dispose of Jesus Christ. Catholicity is not a human program, but a believing recognition of the reality in Christ. In this most existential liturgical deed of confessing we call the church a catholic church. It is our custom to confess: “I believe the holy catholic church.” What do we confess when we say the church is catholic? Catholicity is not just a characteristic of the church, but a quality. The rule of faith mentions qualities which are unrelinquishable. In this sense, it is a pleonasm. Compare the expression “a round circle”. If a circle is not round, it is not a circle. Similarly, we can say about the church that it is not a church if it is not catholic. “The church is catholic or it doesn’t exist.”1 Considering the immense growth of the church is Asia, Africa and SouthAmerica, the term “catholic” becomes more and more relevant. We become increasingly aware that the Christian church is not a Western affair. Globalisation also brings this distant church nearer and nearer, which makes it necessary to consider the catholic quality of the church. The term “catholic” also leads us back in history. The church did not commence at the Reformation in Europe, but the New Testament church had already existed for centuries. Catholicity brings us into a relationship with the Eastern Christian church which is also familiar with the Nicene Creed. Do we also refer to these churches when we confess to believe in the communion with the church of all ages? When we mention the Eastern church, we realise that the church was not only moulded by the Reformation. Because the word “catholic” is often used as the proper name for “Roman Catholic”, Protestants often use the word “universal” to distinguish themselves from Rome. We should wonder if we, as Protestants, 1 B. Kamphuis wrote about catholicism under this title.

10

Introduction

are not too indulgent towards the Roman-Catholic tradition by using the term “universal”, because in this way we give room to the Roman Catholic Church to arrogate the word “catholic” to themselves.2 Or does this mean that Protestants tend to identify with their protestant character rather than that they know themselves as catholic Christians?3 This also raises the question whether it is catholic to be Reformed, or is Reformed-catholic a lawful alternative to Roman-Catholic? What should we think of the plea to end the family feud between Protestants and RomanCatholics and to return to a restored Roman-Catholic church? Was the Reformation an (unintended) catalyst to secularisation, because the harmonious view of the world in the light of eternity was broken, in such a way that the connection between religion, morals, science, ethics, economy and society was broken, with the result that science became opposed to religion, morals became a subjective matter, the economy was separated from ethics, leading to capitalism and consumerism?4 These questions become even more urgent if we focus on the Reformed tradition in the church as a whole. If we absolutize the Reformed identity, the spiritual family becomes very small. Then we take the world population and subtract all Muslims and non-Christian religions, as well as those who say to believe in nothing.5 Next we subtract the Jews, the Eastern-Orthodox and the Roman-Catholics. Are we spiritually related to all Protestants? Do we also have to subtract Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and Pentecostals? And are we actually one with all Reformed people? In this light, it becomes pressing that the same catholicity is confessed in numerous pulpits in a lot of denominations with a Reformed identity. This raises questions: How important is catholicity in the Reformed tradition? Isn’t it precisely the Reformed tradition which has shown that it actually does not know what to do with catholicity?6 What is the relationship between catholicity and unity? Does catholicity mean an organizational unity or is this an obsolete 2 O. Noordmans emphasized that Protestants forget that they are catholic. A catholic church is needed as opposed to the Romana, ‘Protestantse katholiciteit’, Verzamelde Werken vol. 1, 413-417. 3 M. Allen and S.R. Swain plea for a revaluation of catholic-reformed thinking, Reformed Catholicity and Christian Dogmatics. 4 Cf. Taylor, A Secular Age; Gregory, The Unintended Reformation. 5 According to Noordmans, ‘De wijzen uit het Oosten’, Verzamelde Werken vol. 8, 59-61, 61. 6 H. Bavinck feared that there was a lack of awareness of catholicity in the Gereformeerde Kerken of his days, The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church, 250-251. Cf. Brinkman, ‘Bavinck en de katholiciteit van de kerk’, 309. An example of a recent consideration within Calvinism is offered by Van der Borght (ed.), The Unity of the Church. K.J. Vanhoozer treats the issue whether the solas of the Reformation provide an alternative to Catholicism, Biblical Authority after Babel

Introduction

term in a time of postmodern networks and should we abandon institutional thinking? Will society perhaps take more note of the church when it operates in smaller units, than when it is merged into a large, massive block, as a result of which it is actually impossible for them to speak as a unity to the world outside due to internal differences? Is a zeal for unity perhaps a typically modern phenomenon which is completely obsolete in a postmodern time, and which neither agrees with the pluralism of God’s work? Should we limit catholicity mainly to the invisible church, in such a way that we no longer focus on institutional aspects, but are sensitive to the informal networks where the church “happens”?7 This also raises the question how we are Reformed today. Which tradition should or shouldn’t we use? Which translation of the Bible should we use? Do we sing Psalms, and in which version? Which musical instruments do we use? These questions do not only arise in a national perspective, but also from a sensitivity to the international, the intercontinental and the intercultural character of the Christian church. Besides this, we are confronted with various forms of postmodernity in Christianity with respect to the authority of the Scriptures, such as beliefs about female office-bearers, how to deal with homosexuality and the view of the theory of evolution. Does awareness of catholicity mean that we reject all these developments because they are new in the large historical perspective, or does awareness of catholicity mean that we, indiscriminately, generously accept all kinds of beliefs simply because they belong to the broad catholic tradition of today? Is catholic another word for mild, generous and vague? Quite a number of questions arise when the catholic faith is confessed. Moreover, many Christians have their own struggles with the church. In any case, this has been true for me personally. I grew up in a church movement that oriented themselves to the historical church of the Reformation from a belief in restoration of this church. In the way of a reflection on catholicity I found a home in this Reformed Church of the Netherlands. Subsequently, a merging process began to accelerate which led to the transformation of this old Reformed Church of the Netherlands. After this period, which was for me personally dramatic, my consideration of the mystery of the church has not come to a standstill, but the quest for the essence of the church has only deepened. This study is part of this pursuit. The abovementioned questions are not meant to be limitative, but merely illustrative. The purpose of this study is to find a pathway in the broad term of catholicity and in the research that has been done on this subject8 7 According to Ward, Liquid Church. He accounted for it based on social trinitarianism in Participation and Mediation. See also Van Wijnen, Faith in Small Groups of Adolescents. 8 E.A.J.G. van der Borght gave an outline, “Oecumene en katholiciteit”. The World Council of Churches spoke about “The Holy Spirit and the catholicity of the church” at the Uppsala

11

12

Introduction

with the objective of gaining a deeper understanding of the catholic faith in the present. The main question for this study is: how can the understanding of catholicity in the Early Church serve catholicity in the Reformed tradition? In order to answer this question, I would first like to listen to the voices of the Early Church, because the term catholicity was first used there. There is a large distance in time between the Early Church and the Reformed tradition, but from the fact that the Reformation advocated a return to the Early Church, it is certainly lawful to look back from the Reformed tradition to the early days of the New Testament church. Standing in the Reformed tradition, I listen to the voices in the Early Church as a member of the same church, because the church is of all ages.9 Irenaeus says it aptly when he speaks of the one sun that shines in all ages.10 This entails that I am not listening to the historical insights in a neutral and distant manner, but that I am modestly talking to these theologians and I am trying to find out how their approach may be helpful in the present. This interaction with the Early Church is the framework for listening to and weighing the voices from the Reformed tradition. The assessment of the historical part provides the building blocks for the systematic part, where a concept of catholicity for church and theology is outlined in a constructive manner from a Reformed perspective. This book was originally written in Dutch and is based on the Dutch situation. Considering the nature of the response to this book, my desire grew to share this study with the international Reformed community. In order to make this study suitable for the international community, the specifically Dutch context was reduced in several places. In other places it was maintained on purpose (in the footnotes) from the understanding that the catholicity of the church comprises all cultures and that we need each other internationally in order to understand the catholic fullness of faith.

Assembly (1968). In “Called to be one church” attention is given to catholicity, The Ecumenical Review 58 (2006), 112-117. See also Dutton and Stucky (ed.), Globalization and Catholicity; Heller and Szentpétery (ed.), Catholicity under Pressure. Also in the Romana there is a continual reflection of the catholicity of the church, Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church, Cunningham, An Introduction to Catholicism. The first chapter is telling: “The many meanings of Catholicism”, 1-22. For an “evangelical” reflective, see Husbands and Treier (ed.), The Community of the Word. 9 R.W. Jenson wrote assuredly: “There is no historical distance between the community in which the Bible appeared and the church that now seeks to understand the Bible, because these are the same community”, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 279. This is also the bottom line in Williams, Why study the past? and in Küng, The Church, 301. 10 Adversus Haereses 1.10.2.

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

The use of the adjective “catholic” as a characterisation of the Christian church dates back to the first centuries of the history of the church. We encounter the confession of catholicity in the creed of the undivided church, namely the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed: “And in (Greek: είς) one holy catholic and apostolic church.”1 The word “in” was a sensitive word from the very beginning. Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345–410) emphasized the distinction between Creator and creation and from this he concluded that we do not believe in the church, but that we believe the church, just as we believe the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.2 Others have followed him on this point and in the Latin version of the Nicene Creed the word was completely left out. In the Western and more liturgical Apostles’ Creed, the word “in” was never included. The oldest versions of the Apostles’ Creed did not use the word “catholic” either. This changed slowly. Various versions of the Apostles Creed developed.3 In the textus receptus the expression “I believe” does not only comprise the Holy Spirit, but also the church, the communion of saints, forgiveness, the resurrection and life everlasting, so that this confession was used: credo in spiritum sanctum sanctam ecclesiam catholicam.4 There are also several versions in which the credo is explicitly stated with respect to the church, so that we confess credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam. We also find this additional credo in the version of the Apostles’ Creed in the Heidelberg Catechism.5 The Heidelberg Catechism translated the traditional version credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam in the English version as: “I believe the holy catholic Christian church.” In the original German version, we read: “Was glaubstu von der heiligen, allgemeinen christlichen kirchen?”6 The German version (and its Dutch translation) of the Heidelberg Catechism put us on the wrong track by speaking of the “universal Christian” church. Here both “universal” and “Christian” are used as translations of “catholic”. Luther spoke of the “holy Christian church” to replace “catholic” by “Christian”.7 It was used in a similar way in the Dutch tradition by A Lasco and Micron. When people were not 1 Cf. for several versions Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom vol. 2, 57-61. 2 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm (accessed on 29 December 2016). 3 For an outline, see Westra, The Apostles’ Creed, 539-562; Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom vol. 2, 45-55. 4 Westra, The Apostles’ Creed, 22. 5 Bakhuizen van den Brink, De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften, 165. 6 Bakhuizen van den Brink, De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften, 178. See about this topic also De belijdenisgeschriften volgens artikel X van de Kerkorde van de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, 242-243. 7 Cf. Zwanepol et al. (ed.), Belijdenisgeschriften, 68.

15

16

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

satisfied with the approach of Luther, A Lasco and Micron, a double translation of “catholic” was made, expressed by the phrase “universal Christian”. In each of these cases, the term ”Catholic” disappeared. The English translation kept the word “catholic” and added the word “Christian”. Here it is preferable to return to the original: ‘I believe the holy catholic church.’ In this way, “holy” and “catholic” are adjectives to the church as the body of Christ. Besides the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, which was later written in the West, also uses the word “catholic”. The first article begins with it: “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith.” In the third article, faith in the Triune God is called the catholic faith. A similar use is found in article 20 and in the concluding 44th article. Apart from that, in this symbol there is a difference with the previous documents because it does not speak of the catholic church, but of the catholic faith. It is a first indication for a qualitative use of the term “catholic”. The etymology of the term “catholic” is not easy. It is good to realise that the use of this word as such was not derived from the New Testament, since it does not occur there in its present ecclesiastical meaning. We do encounter the term καθόλου in Acts 4:18 where it means that the apostles are strictly forbidden to speak about the risen Christ. The ecclesiastical and Christian meaning of this word goes back to its practical use. The Greek term καθολικός is a combination of κατα and το ὅλον.8 The first word means as much as “down from”, a downward movement, whereas the latter word refers to the whole. The combination of both words refers to an organic cohesion in contrast to a whole consisting of separate parts. It refers to universalism in contrast to pluralism. We see this use in the work of Zeno (490–430 BC) who wrote a book about universals.9 Polybius (200–120 BC) spoke of a catholic or universal history. Justin the Martyr (100/114–165) applied it to the universal resurrection. These are indications that the church father used a broader term, which they specifically applied to the church. That is the reason why we will explore how this term functioned for various church fathers. Even though they did not deal with the church as a distinct doctrine10 , there are treatises in which the church is explicitly mentioned. We will explore this concept looking at several representatives of the Early Church, namely Ignatius, Cyprian, Cyril, Augustine and Vincent. With this selection of theologians, on the one hand a representation from several centuries is put 8 Wenzel, ‘Katholisch’. See also a letter from Chr. Mohrmann to O. Noordmans on 23 October 1953, Verzamelde Werken vol. 9b, 940-941. 9 Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 384-386. 10 Cf. Pannenberg, Systematische Theologie vol. 3, 33.

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

in the spotlight, while on the other hand they are all theologians who have considered the theme of catholicity. After this, a verdict follows by way of assessment in which the main question is whether common features can be discovered which may serve as an interpretation framework for the later development.

17

1.

Ignatius (ca. 35–107)

Ignatius of Antioch is one of the earliest church fathers.11 According to several traditions he was one of the children who were embraced and blessed by Jesus. Others believe that he, just like Polycarp, witnessed the ministry of the apostle John. In any case, he was bishop in Antioch, the third city in the Roman Empire. He was highly esteemed as bishop in this international city. In a Hellenist surrounding, he led a Jewish-Christian congregation. In his theology, the aspect of union with Christ is strikingly clear. He considers the Christian life entirely from the union with Christ’s death and resurrection. This leads him to a positive appreciation of martyrdom.12 He sees it as the fulfilment of the remnant of the affliction of Christ. Moreover, for him the union with Christ is inseparably connected with the unity of Christ’s body. In the time of the emperors Domitian and Trajan, Ignatius was confronted with the pressure which was exerted on Christians. These emperors were not opposed to foreign religions in general or to the Christian faith in particular, but they had to adapt to the established order. Trajan required that Christians must worship their gods together with the heathens. Today we would call it a certain form of pluralism. Ingatius refused to obey the command because of the exclusivity of Christ.13 The Romans considered this claim to exclusivity to be a threat to the pax Romana (peace of the Roman Empire) and the pax deorum (peace of the gods). Ignatius’ obduracy was eventually considered treason, the penalty for which was death. He was transported to Rome. He had to walk for the largest part of the journey. In Rome he was thrown to the wild beasts in the Colosseum. In this way his desire to die as martyr for the Christian faith was granted: “I am wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found pure bread of Christ.”14

11 The epistles of Ignatius can be accessed at www.newadvent.org/fathers (accessed on 21 December 2015). A brief interpretation of Ignatius’ life and teachings is also given in De Reuver, Eén kerk in meervoud, 194-202. 12 See about this aspect Bakker, Exemplar Domini. See also his ‘Ze hebben lief, maar worden vervolgd’, 56-69. 13 Cf. Williams, Why study the past?, 32-59 14 The epistle to the Romans, 4th section.

Ignatius (ca. 35–107)

1.1

The epistle to Smyrna

On his way to Rome, they visited Smyrna, where he met Polycarp. That may have been the occasion for him to write to the congregation of Smyrna, later on his journey. In this Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius first used the term “catholic” to refer to the church. In order to place this in the right context, it is good to look at the main point of the letter. Let us first consider the addressee. Ignatius wrote his epistle to the church of God the Father and of the beloved Jesus Christ in Smyrna, in which there is “every kind of gift, which is filled with faith and love, and is deficient in no gift, most worthy of God, and adorned with holiness”. In the church, the fullness of salvation is present. And he wishes the church abundance of happiness by Spirit and Word.15 In the first chapter of the epistle, Ignatius praises the congregation of Smyrna because they believe in Christ as the seed of David and the Son of God. He strongly urges the congregation to reject errors and to hold to the truth. Apparently the truth has respect to the history of redemption. It is striking that he mentions that He was truly born of a virgin and baptized by John. An important point in the epistle is the true physical sufferings of Jesus. Ignatius earnestly defends that He was truly raised from the dead, which is for example clear from the fact that He ate and drank. These words about the corporeal resurrection of Christ were written in the context of existing heretic teachings which opposed this truth. These are gnostic and docetic tendencies in the congregation. In gnosticism people consider the miracles in the Bible to be symbols of spiritual liberation, and the resurrection of Christ is considered a spiritual process to discover the divine spark in oneself. Docetism is based on the belief that God cannot be one with man, and cannot experience suffering.16 In this context, Ignatius refers to his own life. He has surrendered himself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts for the sake of the Gospel.17 He is prepared to make the greatest sacrifices and to suffer with Christ. Why is he willing to suffer for Christ? Because Christ’s work was not a sham and because Christ is a living reality. However, those who deny the corporeality of God’s Son, deny Him. Ignatius strongly emphasizes the divinity of Christ and incarnation.18 The historicity of the incarnation, the cross and the resurrection is at stake.19 Because the Son 15 16 17 18 19

Cf. the heading in the epistle to the church of Rome. Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society, 72. This willingness is most explicit in the epistle to Rome. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 19-20. Cf. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch, 220-224.

19

20

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

of God united Himself with man, the church is one with Christ. This means that Ignatius lived from the reality of the union with Christ. Thus, the Person of Christ is even more important than the salvation that He gives. So catholicity is determined by Christ. Without faith in Christ’s blood, sufferings and resurrection, there is no eternal life. In this context he also points out other errors, for example the belief that the Father of Jesus Christ cannot be known. If we do not know God, the relationship with our neighbour fades. The belief that God cannot be known is associated with the lack of care for the widow, the orphan or the oppressed. In this context he also mentions earthly mindedness, from the supposition that this world will exist forever. After he has described this, Ignatius discusses the Eucharist. Heretics do not take part in the Eucharist because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ. The Christians of Smyrna must avoid these errors and hold to the truth. Once again, we hear him speak of the reality of the union with Christ. This is followed by exhortations with respect to the ecclesiastical dimension of the Christian faith. Christians should follow the bishop just as faithfully as Jesus Christ follows His Father. In this context we hear the meaningful sentences: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.”20 Those who do not revere the bishop, do not revere God.21 He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does serve the devil. The discussion of the office of the bishop is found within the framework of speaking about presbyters and deacons. Ignatius concludes his epistle with several wishes and greetings. The above-mentioned concept reveals several concentric circles, namely the circle of Christ, the circle of the Eucharist and the church and a wider circle of the structure of offices in the church. In the first circle, it is remarkable that Ignatius, in his situation, was confronted with the defence against Docetism in which the corporeality of Christ was at stake. For Ignatius, the corporeality of Christ is so real that he is even willing to give his life for it. This is not the interpretation of a certain doctrinal aspect, but the reality of the living Christ, salvation itself being at stake. According to Ignatius, from life in Christ the New Testament is better than the Old.22

20 Ad Smyrnaeos 8. 21 Cf. Pros Ephesious 6; Magnesieusin 3-4, 6-7. 22 Philadelpheusin 9. From the notion of Christ’s cross and resurrection, Judaism is practically rejected, Magnesieusin 10.

Ignatius (ca. 35–107)

1.2

One Christ

In the subsequent concentric circles, the titles that Ignatius uses to refer to the church are striking. For a twenty-first century Protestant, it seems like a different world. Christ and the church are so closely connected that the body of Christ is no metaphor, but a living reality. In a mystical way, there is identification between Christ and the church. For this church father it is evident that salvation is only partaken of in the body of Christ, not outside it. That is why the unity of the church is unrelinquishable23 and that is why doctrine is just as important as offices and the church.24 The emphasis is not on an individualist link from the believer to God, but personal salvation is embedded in the corporate aspect of the entire community. The discussion of this union is not an insignificant matter. Eusebius wrote about the moving reality that martyrs collectively walked towards the wild beasts, without looking at each other.25 There was mutual competition and martyrdom was considered a proof that they were right. On the one hand, it shows us that they were humans like everybody else, and on the other hand that the oneness in Christ functioned despite this brokenness. The exhortation to preserve the unity of the congregation is closely connected with the fact that catholicity has respect to the fullness of salvation. We might call it a qualitative approach of catholicity. Apparently, this church father was fully aware that there is abundance in Christ and a multitude of aspects of salvation. Participation in this fullness is closely connected to the participation in the Eucharist. Ignatius addresses those who stay away from the Eucharist because in this way they miss the fullness of Christ. Apparently, he reasons that we only share in the fullness of salvation, namely the reality of incarnation, cross and resurrection, in the communion with Christ – by means of the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, in the Lord’s Supper the oneness is expressed: “Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.” We should consider Ignatius’ exhortations in the light of the fact that people wanted to organize meetings without the bishop. The church father opposes this, because by the presence of the bishop, the gathering is qualified as a church

23 Cf. Pros Ephesious 3-5; Trallianois 6; Philadelpheusin 3; Magnesieusin 13. 24 Cf. Magnesieusin 7-8. 25 According to Bakker, ‘Ze hebben lief, maar worden vervolgd’, 75.

21

22

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

community. It should be clear that this is primarily about the gathering of the local church in which the Eucharist is administered. In this context, we should not ignore the fact that “being the church” and the catholicity of the church took place in the context of heresy from the very beginning. Not everything is catholic and the term catholicity is used by Ignatius to refer to pure Christianity.26 Apparently, confessing, experiencing and exercising Christ has always been challenged. If the orthodox concept of the incarnation of Christ and His corporeal resurrection are denied, there is also a real distinction in the opinion of this church father. He explicitly speaks of damnation for those who do not believe in the blood of Christ. Those who separate themselves from the catholic church, do not partake in salvation. These concepts existed more broadly in the Early Church. For example, this is clear from Irenaeus’ (ca. 140–ca. 202) understanding of early Christian confession. He makes a sharp contrast between believers and the unrepentant. According to the church father, Christ will raise all flesh of the whole human race and He will execute just judgement against all: ‘Sending into everlasting fire (…) the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men.’27 He does not limit judgment to those who publicly live in unrighteousness, but also applies it to those who pervert or transform the truth.28 These are not people outside the church, but people within the church who do not remain in the tradition of the apostolic faith. We also find explicit references to judgment against the wicked in the writings of Tertullian (ca. 160–ca. 230). When he summarizes the Christian confession in the thirteenth chapter of his De Praescriptione Haereticorum, he mentions the everlasting fire that will come upon the ungodly.29 These are indications that there was always an intuition for the personal dimension in the Early Church. The corporate dimension of the church is not detrimental to the personal way in which we participate in the church and in redemption. In order to have true faith in God, one needs to remain personally within the catholic church, because Christ is the Truth and the guarantee for all truth.30 If Christ is the true knowledge of God, it is not necessary to be ensnared in lies 26 Cf. Dulles, The Catholicity of the Church, 1; Cunningham, An Introduction to Catholicism, 4. Ireneaus also considered catholicity from the message. After he has shown that heretics appeal to the Scripture, he shows that there is one faith. Just as there is one son which gives light to the world, there is one unchangeable faith that no one can add to or take away from, Adversus Haereses I.10, 2. 27 Adversus Haereses 1.10.1. 28 Adversus Haereses 3.4. 2. 29 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian11.html (accessed on 16 September 2015). 30 Pros Ephesious 16-17.

Ignatius (ca. 35–107)

or to maim the faith in God by ungodly teachings. Implicitly, we might hear in this a first step towards the teaching of the infallibility of the church, since there is so much emphasis that the catholic church is the guarantee against error.31 Departing from this orthodox faith is closely connected with leaving the orthopraxy.32 Ignatius accuses the heretics of earthly-mindedness because they do not have an eye for the future life, neglect love and leave the poor and needy to themselves. In short, sojourning is the other side of belonging to the community of the church. 1.3

The visible church

Thirdly, we should not neglect the fact that Ignatius does not spiritualize the church, but that he speaks of the visible church. It is the third concentric circle. The exercise of the office, the establishment of the canon and the writing of the confessions were parts of the structure of the Early Church. The cohesion between office, canon and confession was the instrument to persevere in the line of the apostles. It is an intriguing question (which lies beyond this study) what happens when this cohesion is undermined because one of these components is taken away. Within the visible church, the bishop is the key figure. Besides this, there are several problems with respect to the figure of the bishop in this epistle of Ignatius. For example, it is not clear to what extent this figure is embedded in a hierarchical structure in which elders and deacons also have a place.33 This has led to many questions about the authenticity of this letter, because there was no balanced church hierarchy in this early period of church history. However, we can establish that the church was not based on the bishop, but that the bishop referred to Christ.34 The way in which the bishop represents the church, rather indicates the Christological foundation of the office, than that the bishop and the church were identical. The bishop represents Christ in the preaching of true doctrine and the administration of the Eucharist.

31 Cf. Philadelphians 3. 32 Cf. Magnesieusin 10. 33 Cf. introduction Philadelphians; Ephesians 6; Magnesians 6, 13; Smyrnaeans 8; Trallians 3; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm (consulted 21 December 2015). Without mentioning the name of Ignatius, Calvin opposes the view that there is a hierarchical difference between the bishop, the elder and the deacon, Institutes 4.3.8. He does recognize the figure of the bishop, only of he preaches the Word and relates to the elders as a primus inter pares, Institutes 4.4.1-4. 34 Cf. Kronenburg, ‘Protestantse identiteit en katholieke horizon’, 28.

23

24

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

An observation which is closely connected with this, is that the bishop as a lawful office-bearer represents the body of the church. This fact emphasizes the importance of the offices in the body of Christ. The church cannot function without a structure of office-bearers. This means that we cannot place ourselves outside the organized church to have communion with Christ. In the Early Church, the term ‘church’ is not a spiritual term which can function separately from the tangible object of the church. Thirdly, it can be said that there was a difference between the bishop on the one hand, and the deacon and presbyter on the other. The latter two officebearers only had a local function, whereas the bishop also had authority which went beyond the local church. In this way, the bishop gave form to the unity of the church, both locally and regionally, both synchronically and diachronically.35 This regional authority and unity, however, can be distinguished from the later development to the monarchical episcopate. As such, the position of the bishop with regional authority is comparable to the Protestant minister, who, in contrast to the elders and deacons, has regional authority and who is not ordained for a limited period of time. A special point of attention that reaches us through the person of the bishop, is the special relationship between the local church and the global church. The local bishop shows us that the local church on the one hand is a complete church, and on the other hand that it cannot be isolated from the worldwide church of Christ. The local church is wholly catholic, but does not comprise all catholicity. So the catholic church cannot be considered a sum of separate local churches, but rather the local church represents the whole. 1.4

Assessment

From this study of these concentric circles it shows us that the catholicity of the church is founded on the catholicity of Christ. The catholic church is an organic and holy worldwide body of Christ which cannot be locked within narrow national borders. We must not neglect the fact that we are here speaking of the tangible form of the church which cannot be spiritualized, or equated with the invisible church.36 At the same time, we notice that catholicity is given form in orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Orthodoxy is all about the doctrine concerning Christ, an understanding that we cannot ignore without damaging ourselves. For orthopraxy, it is essential to look forward to the future life, as a sojourner. Within the one catholic church, one shares in the fullness of the truth and full 35 Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society, 77; Jenson, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 229. 36 Cf. Philadelphians 3

Ignatius (ca. 35–107)

eternal life and full salvation. That is why any attack of the unity, the truth or the offices in the church, is an attack of the body of Christ, and therefore an attack of Christ Himself. The unity with Christ and the unity of His church are made visible in the Lord’s Supper.

25

2.

Cyprian (ca. 205–258)

Another church father who was clearly occupied with considerations about the church is Cyprian of Carthage.37 It is commonly acknowledged that his considerations have been very important and influential.38 2.1

Bishop of Carthage

Cyprian was born of wealthy parents. As a rhetoric and lawyer in Carthage, he belonged to the upper class of this cosmopolitan city. His life radically changed thanks to his friendship with an elder from the Christian church. He became a Christian and was baptized in 246. He forsook his old life, mourned over his lack of respect for his fellow men, and by faith he gave up the life of luxury and material possessions. The latter meant that he put his money into a church fund in order to support the poor, widows, and sick and persecuted Christians in Carthage. This diaconal mindset as an expression of love for his neighbour was also characteristic in his later life. Soon after his conversion, he was elected a deacon, next he became a priest and later bishop in Carthage (248/249). His ordination as bishop caused some tension because Cyprian had only been a Christian for a short time. This was not the only problem he would be confronted with as a bishop. Soon after his appointment, persecution broke out under the Emperor Decius (249/250). Decius feared that growing Christianity would undermine the social order. He thought the social order was threatened by the fact that Christians did not take part in dancing, the theatre and bloody arena games. Moreover, they recognized slaves as fully equal members of the congregation. This threat to the social order led Decius to force Christians to take part in public meals in honour of the Roman emperor and Roman gods. They did not have to renounce the Christian faith, but they were not allowed to distance themselves from the public religion. Christians responded to this in very different ways. Some of them admitted, others continued in opposition, and there were others who bought a certificate 37 Cf. about his life and his message http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04583b.htm (accessed on 22 December 2015) and C. Tazelaar’s introduction in Cyprianus, Eenheid en eensgezindheid, 7-27. See also De Reuver, Eén kerk in meervoud, 171-194; Bakker, Van Geest and Van Loon (ed.), Cyprian of Carthage. 38 De Reuver, Eén kerk in meervoud, 171; Bakker, “Towards a Catholic Understanding of Baptist Congregationalism”, 177.

Cyprian (ca. 205–258)

of participation without actually taking part in these meals. Cyprian himself had gone into voluntary exile, in order to be able to lead his congregation in a better way. From his place in exile, he wrote numerous letters to the congregation and to other bishops. For example, he wrote to those who had to suffer for the sake of the Gospel. The virtues of the martyrs were to the praise of the church.39 If people survived the persecutions, this was an excellent recommendation to bear an office in the church.40 Bishops should be humble, support the unity of the church, have a high opinion of the offices of the church, and experience the office as a given calling instead of a desired ambition.41 When the persecutions subsided, the question arose how one should deal with those who had fallen from the faith. Cyprian believed that the persecutions should be seen as a divine judgment because Christians craved possessions and gain, were characterized by jealousy and had given up a simple, sober way of life.42 Also the scandals of the bishops had to be dealt with. For him it meant that those who had succumbed to the pressure from the emperor could not simply participate again as a full church member. They had to undergo a long pathway of severe penance, in order that the holiness of God and His church were taken seriously. If participation in the church was made cheap, the church would be put to shame in its decisions before the world.43 Since the church is the bride of Christ, it is not open to strangers and unbelievers.44 The fact that the view of Cyprian with respect to the restoration of those who had fallen was broadly accepted among bishops in other places, reveals that the holiness of the church was ranked highly. There was also a topic that led to a conflict between Cyprian and Stephen I, the bishop of Rome. Stephen believed that the bishop of Rome had final and absolute authority with respect to the doctrines of faith and church government. Cyprian opposed this. He considered the bishop of Rome a primus inter pares (first among equals). In this context, Cyprian often quoted the text about the authority of Peter, but he applied this text to the whole of the church, not to the primacy of the bishop of Rome.45 On the one hand, this was an expression of 39 Epistola 8 and Epistola 25.3. For the epistles, I refer to the numbers as they are found in Migne, Patrologia Latina vol. 4 and as it has also been used by http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/ 0506.htm (accessed on 22 December 2015). 40 Epistola 32.2 and Epistola 34. 41 Epistola 68.3 and Epistola 51.8. 42 Epistola 7. 43 Epistola 10.3. 44 Epistola 75.2. According to the Song of Solomon, the church is a “garden inclosed”. See also Epistola 73.11. 45 Epistola 69.3; Epistola 70.3. Because of this anti-hierarchical approach of Cyprian, he exercised much influence in the Reformed tradition, Goudriaan, ‘Cyprian’s De ecclesiae catholicae unitate’, 239.

27

28

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

his anti-Papalism, on the other hand it was an expression of his understanding of Christ’s church as a covenant of churches which were, each in themselves, wholly church, as each bishop bore an indivisible office. There was another matter concerning the bishop of Rome that Cyprian was involved with. When Novatian was not appointed as substitute for the pope, in the vacancy as a result of his death, Novatian did not recognize the newly appointed pope Cornelius and presented himself as the pope. Cyprian made it clear that he did follow the church election of Cornelius. This impression from Cyprian’s activities as a bishop teaches us that he, just like Ignatius, was a man of the church. 2.2

One Christ

From his voluntarily exile, Cyprian wrote a book about the importance of the unity of the church, at the end of 250 or at the beginning of 251. It is called De ecclesiae catholicae unitate (about the unity of the catholic church).46 Although we may wonder if Cyprian chose this title himself, it is still striking that unity and catholicity are closely connected in this work. Because there is one catholic Christ, both qualities are very closely connected and catholicity is characterized by unity. Cyprian supports the doctrine of the unity of the church with numerous arguments. If unity is not held firmly, the faith will not be held either, because one cannot expect blessing outside the church of Christ. Separation from the church is usually an expression of pride and a lack of love. Those who are without love, are without God. The shocking reality is that there may be a lot of gifts, while love is lacking. This representative of the Early Church is aware that one may prophesy, expel evil spirits and perform great miracles on earth, without walking in love in the pathway of righteousness. With a reference to 2 Timothy 3, he sees difficult times before him, which are characterized by loveless pride and controversy. The church father can avail himself of numerous metaphors to underscore this plea for unity. There is one flock, one Peter, one faith, one Spirit, and one baptism. Just like a branch cannot live if it is separated from the tree, the church cannot live without unity. Just like a beam of light cannot exist without the one source of the sun, the church cannot be divided. Just like the garment of Christ was not torn in pieces, the church cannot be torn in pieces. This was also true for the kingdom of Solomon: it was a unity. There was only one house of Rahab on the wall of Jericho. This one house is a type of the unity of the church. In 46 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm (accessed on 21 December 2015).

Cyprian (ca. 205–258)

short, those who separate themselves from the church, separate themselves from God’s promise, because God’s promise has been given to the community of His church. Eventually, the unity of the church is founded on the unity of God: God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can one body be separated by a division of its structure, nor torn into pieces, with its entrails wrenched asunder by laceration. Whatever has proceeded from the womb cannot live and breathe in its detached condition, but loses the substance of health.47

This fundamental view of Cyprian expresses that the church is not the sum of separate parts and that the living whole of the church is more than the sum of the parts. With this in mind, we can understand his well-known saying that there is no salvation outside the church.48 “No one can have God for his Father, who does not have the church for his mother.”49 Next he uses the ark as an example: “As well might one out of the ark of Noah have escaped the flood, as one out of the church be saved.” The example of the ark clearly shows that there is no salvation outside the church, because God gives His Spirit to the lawful office-bearers, who as a result are able to give remission of sins.50 In this context, Cyprian refers to the history of the “minor Pentecost” in John 20, where the risen Christ breathes on His disciples and says: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” Cyprian recognizes that God’s church reveals itself in numerous places, but it is impossible that there are different flocks of Christ in one place, while different shepherds feed the flocks. In this way, catholicity is a critical instrument against schismatics. Schismatics tear the members of Christ in pieces and they do their best to rip the one body of the catholic church to shreds. That is why Cyprian calls people who have left the church to return to their mother, the catholic church.51 Here we also see that the catholic church, in a sense, functions as a proper name, to distinguish the church from schismatics.

47 De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, 23. 48 Epistola 73.11.3. Cyprian says this in the context of baptism. This context is not present in Art. 28 of the Belgic Confession of Faith. 49 De ecclesiae catholicae unitate 6. 50 Epistola 75.7 and 11. 51 Epistola 42.1.

29

30

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

All this shows how unrelinquishable the unity of the church is. Also in Cyprian’s own situation, the unity of the church is attacked by heresy and schism on the one hand, and by alternative appointments of bishops on the other hand. He recognizes that there are “weeds” in the church and that bishops may err. Yet the unity of the church is in no way nuanced or minimized. There can only be one church and God protects it.52 There seems to be a straight line from the appointments of bishops to God. Just like God singled out priests in the Old Testament, He singles out the bishops under the New Testament.53 That is why resistance against a bishop with orthodox doctrines is outrageous. In addition, Cyprian did have a “check and balance”, namely the fact that the appointment of the bishops took place while the congregation was present.54 The congregation knows the life of the bishop and the congregation also has a right to reject an unworthy bishop. Apparently, it does not occur to Cyprian that the church as a whole may also err. The church father makes this even more explicit when he refers to the promise that Jesus will be present when two or three are gathered in His Name. This does not mean that God will give His blessing to any group which behaves as a church, but that God connects His blessing to the body of the church, and therefore blesses the single-mindedness in prayer. If we pray for God’s blessing single-mindedly, we may expect great things. God’s blessing does not depend on great numbers, as is clear in the history of Daniel and his friends. God was also with Peter and John who were imprisoned. In this approach, we feel that the true church of God may be very small and that God’s truth may be under attack. We should not look for the truth in great numbers of people. 2.3

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

In this context, the question arises what the relationship is between unity and doctrine. Did Cyprian have an opinion about this, or does this question tell us more about us than about the Early Church? As it turns out, this question was also posed in the Early Church. For Cyprian, unity was closely connected with agreement in doctrine. Bishops from all over the world are responsible to guide the churches, to maintain the plan of evangelical truth, and of the tradition of Christ.55 He even says that the church must slavishly follow the 52 Epistola 46. 53 Epistola 67.1. 54 Epistola 67.4-5. H. Bakker shows that this is not “democracy”, but the qualitative voice of the congregation, ‘Towards a Catholic Understanding of Baptist Congregationalism’, 167-174. 55 Epistola 62.1.

Cyprian (ca. 205–258)

instructions of the Master. However, the other side of this is that bishops have to be on their guard against human and newly invented teachings. Schisms are, namely, caused by heresy. We may also formulate it the other way around: unity in doctrine is the secret of the unity in Christ. Without elaborating it, Cyprian even assumes that a minority can represent this unity: “Rebuking the faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be obtained by the concordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant supplication of many.”56 Cyprian also mentions the negative side: “As [the devil] is not Christ, although he deceives in respect of the name; so neither can he appear as a Christian who does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and of faith.”57 Korah, Dathan and Abiram, king Uzziah and the sons of Aaron are sad examples of people who did not follow God’s commandments. Cyprian applies it, in his situation, to following new teachings: “These, doubtless, they imitate and follow, who, despising God’s tradition, seek after strange doctrines, and bring in teachings of human appointment, whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in His Gospel, saying, ‘You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.’”58 Cyprian’s view of the church is in particular expressed in his view of baptism, because he was involved in a serious dispute about baptism. The question arose whether a Christian who had been baptised outside the church by heretic or schismatic office-bearers should be considered baptised, or should be baptised (again). Bishop Stephen I of Rome considered baptism an expression of a person’s personal longing to serve God. Therefore, he judged, a person did not need to be baptized again. Cyprian, however, believed – in line with Tertullian – that the church would be guilty of heresy if the dipping by heretics was accepted as baptism, and therefore he judged that the people concerned should be rebaptized, which of course he did not consider rebaptism.59 With respect to this, Cyprian reasons very consistently from “the authority of divine Scripture”.60 There is one God, one Christ, one Spirit, one hope, one faith, and baptism and one church.61 This unity is unbreakable. The Holy Spirit is within the one catholic church and that is where one receives the remission of sins. Baptism also belongs to the church, because the baptism with the Spirit 56 57 58 59 60 61

De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, 12. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, 14. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, 19. Epistola 70. Epistola 72.8. Epistola 73.11.

31

32

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

and the baptism with water are inseparably connected. According to the words of Jesus in John 3:5 people are born again by water and the Spirit.62 This means that by baptism within the church, one receives the Spirit, Who is also the Spirit of regeneration.63 If baptism with water is separated from the Spirit and the Spirit is separated from the water of baptism, that which God designed as a unity is torn apart. Lawful office-bearers within the one catholic church have received the Holy Spirit to give remission of sins.64 This means that heretics outside the church do not have the Spirit, and therefore cannot remit sins. After all, Christ and the Spirit cannot be separated because it impossible to isolate the church as the body of Christ from the Spirit.65 It is good to be aware that these are very meaningful words for Cyprian. He is very much aware of the numerous movements outside the church, such as Patripassians, Anthropians, Valentinians, Apelletians, Ophites, Marcionites and many other heresies.66 So for Cyprian, catholic also means antithetically directed against sects and movements outside the church which do not have the label “catholic”. Cyprian also applies this to Novatian in Rome. Even though he uses the same baptismal formula, his baptism is not valid because it is not used within the lawful catholic church.67 If baptism outside the church is recognized, this means that one recognizes that the Spirit is also outside the church.68 It should be noted that he accepted that there were different opinions about this in the whole of Christ’s church.69 Despite the latter nuance, Cyprian’s view did not win the day in history. When we look at Cyprian’s beliefs about unity in light of catholicity, it is remarkable how closely these qualities are connected. In our culture of pluralism and a great variety of denominations, it is as though we enter a different world when we hear the church father speak about the one catholic church of Christ. For him, catholicity is a criterion against schisms in the church. This means that a faction that separates themselves from the catholic church cannot be called catholic. 62 Epistola 71.1. In this epistle, Cyprian also refers to Acts 10 to emphasize the unity of water and Spirit. 63 Epistola 62.8. ‘Thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God”, Epistola 72.12. 64 Epistola 69.1. John the Baptist received the Spirit in the womb, to be able to baptize, Epistola 75.11. 65 Epistola 73.4-5. 66 Epistola 72.4. 67 Epistola 75.7. 68 Epistola 69.3. 69 Epistola 75.17.

Cyprian (ca. 205–258)

In our opinion, it seems very severe that the Spirit, baptism, remission and salvation can only be received within the bishopric institution of the one catholic church. This is put into perspective by the understanding that there are also tares in the church. The attention which is given to this point, indicates that one personally shares in salvation within the collective body of the church. This personal concept led his fellow-bishops to the conclusion that baptism cannot be administered exclusively within the catholic church. 2.4

Assessment

In Cyprian’s work we see even more clearly than in Ignatius’ writings that catholicity is a qualitative term, because it is filled from the full truth and the riches of the Christian doctrines. The conservative element is clear from the distancing attitude towards renewal of doctrine. One difference with Ignatius lies in the great emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit. Just like Ignatius, Cyprian connects the Christian doctrines with the Christian life. If possible, he makes the theme of sojourning even clearer from a critical attitude towards gaining possessions and popular games on the one hand, and a focus on the future life on the other hand. This involves an emphasis on humility and simplicity.

33

3.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

Cyril of Jerusalem had an eventful church life.70 There were a lot of problems in relation to his office as a bishop. He was deposed several times, was forced to flee and was rehabilitated as a bishop. These problems had relationship to the balance of power between Caesarea and Jerusalem, the relationship between the bishop and the archbishop, as well as Cyril’s own beliefs, which initially were not wholly in agreement with Nicaea. 3.1

Catechetical lectures

Before Cyril met with the abovementioned problems, he gave his famous catechetical lectures about the Christian doctrine and liturgy halfway through the fourth century. The first eighteen lectures are intended for those who are preparing for the sacrament of baptism, and five are intended for those who have already been baptized. These first eighteen lectures start with sin and remission, next baptism is addressed, followed by the nature and the substance of faith. In the sixth to the eighth lecture, the line of Nicaea is followed, and this series concludes with the confession of the church in the eighteenth lecture. There are several aspects that deserve our attention. In the prologue, Cyril starts by saying that the people to be baptized have gathered round the Vestibule of the King’s palace and that they are ready to be received into the royal palace of the church. Here we see how highly the church was valued. The lofty titles he uses for baptism at the end of his prologue are in line with this. He characterizes baptism as a ransom to captives; a remission of offenses; a death of sin; a newbirth of the soul; a garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of adoption. However, in the sequel he is also critical. People prepare for baptism, but also Simon Magus was baptized. In this context he also refers to the parable of the man who did not wear a wedding garment. This means that one may be physically baptized without the soul being actually cleansed. From this it is clear that the problem of sin, and faith in the remission of sins are found in the earliest expressions of faith of Christianity. So these are not inventions of the Reformation. Also early Christianity uses the aspect of forgiveness to express the main message of the Word of God, and as a rule to explain the Word.71 70 Cf. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm (accessed on 22 December 2015). 71 An illustrative book is Lane, John Calvin. In the Early Church, a lot can be found about the doctrine of justification. Mathethes’ Letter to Diognetus, 9 speaks of the justification of “wicked

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

Unmistakably, here we find a very personal focus with respect to faith. Cyril says that one may desire baptism for the sake of wife or husband; and a slave for his master. So there may be insincere motives in people who want to be baptized, and therefore one should examine themselves. And even more importantly: one must forsake one’s old life. Because there is only one baptism, it is extremely important how one receives this baptism. That is why he emphasized a careful examination of one’s motives for baptism.72 The catechumens should realize that baptism is like entering the ark of Noah. Entering the ark means forsaking the world. Therefore, one should prepare for a life of struggle, for example because there are so many errors. It is also necessary to be thoroughly exercised in the “building blocks” of the Christian faith. One should pray in order to share in the mysteries of the Christian faith, meditate about divine judgment when one has had sinful thoughts, and diligently study the Christian doctrines to overcome the dragon and enter eternal glory. After Cyril has dealt with the substance of faith, he gives a description of the church.73 The church is called the church because it assembles together all men. In the Old Testament, the church was an assembly of Jews, but the first church was cast away and replaced by a second church out of the Gentiles. The sense of community is very strong in Cyril’s writings. This is clear, for example, when he says that one can be saved by others believing.74 Besides the element of community, the element of truth is important. The church is a pillar and ground of the truth, and cannot be harmed by the devil. In this context, the word “catholic” is used. The word “catholic” is important to distinguish the church from numerous sects which also call themselves and ungodly”, a “sweet exchange”, and it says that the wickedness of many is hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One justifies many transgressors. Based on Psalm 32, Irenaeus recognizes that the sins are not imputed and that righteousness is imputed, AH IV.XVI.2. Justin Martyr wrote about ‘hold righteous’, Dialogue with Trypho, 47. In Gregory of Nazianze we find the notions of representation and expiation, Orations 4.5 and 20. Chrysostom speaks of a “royal pardon”, NPNF (first series) XI, 378-379, about justification in one moment, XI, 386-387 and he opposes salvation by grace to salvation by the works, XIII, 286. N. Needham extensively documented the forensic and imputative aspects in the Early Church, “Justification in the Early Church Fathers”. The key terms of the doctrine of justification were familiar in the Early Church, 42-53. Williams, Evangelicals and Tradition, reaches the same conlusion, 131-144. 72 N. Witkamp investigated the admission to baptism in the Syrian church in the fourth and fifth centuries, Tradition and Innovation. His conclusion is that people’s motives for baptism were carefully examined, because in the church community one became a citizen of the heavenly city who could boldly come to the throne of grace. It should be noted that we see a “quick” baptism in the New Testament, without prolonged preparation, Cross, Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament, 245. 73 Catechetical lectures 18.22-27. 74 Catechetical lectures 5.8-9.

35

36

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

“churches”. I am aware that Cyril wrote these words in a specific situation, in which numerous sects were popular. In this context he emphasizes that only the catholic church is the bride of Christ, and the mother of all believers. Many ideas concerning catholicity which prevailed at the time coincide in this description.75 Probably, his beliefs were used for the adapted version of the Nicene Creed in 381. According to Cyril, the church is called catholic: - because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; - because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; - because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; - because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body; - because it possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

The first thing that is striking in this description of catholicity is the positive approach. Catholicity is about the whole world, all doctrines, all sorts of men, the forgiveness of all classes of sin, and every virtue. Apparently, catholicity is primarily a term of fullness and richness. It implies a great invitation to unbelievers to share in this abundance, and catholicity appeals to the members of the church to live from this fullness. The other option is that one rejects this catholic wealth and withers away spiritually. Moreover, it is striking here that – even more explicitly than in Cyprian’s writings – not only quantitative, but also qualitative marks are given. The universality and the presence of all social layers in the church has a rather quantitative focus, while the other aspects of catholicity are of a qualitative nature.76 So in any case, Cyril also emphasizes the fullness of truth in the Christian faith. 3.2

Catholicity comprises the whole world

Let us now focus on each mark given by the church father. It is not hard to see that the first interpretation of catholicity can be understood from Jesus’ 75 Catechetical lectures 18.23. A. van de Beek copies this interpretation of catholicity to give his own update of it. Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 68-92. 76 For this distinction, Cf. Van den Brink and Van der Kooi, Christian Dogmatics, 630.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

command to His disciples to make all nations His disciples.77 This calling is underscored by the great victory of Christ over sin, the world and the devil. He has all power to govern in heaven and on earth.78 In this light, catholicity means the understanding that in Christ a fullness of salvation is available to the whole world. Christ is the light of the world, the atonement for the world, and the expression of God’s infinite love to the world.79 It is telling that the first interpretation of catholicity is the universal character of the church. This also means that we cannot think about the church in provincial terms. This, in turn, raises the question if the wide dissemination says something about the truth. Isn’t it possible that a minority has a better view of the truth than the majority? Another question is raised when we see that Cyril distinguishes between the first and the second church. The first church was the church consisting of only the Jews. God rejected them, because they rejected the Saviour. After that, God established a second holy church with the Christians. When Cyril, in this context, mentions the rock on which the church will be built, we get the impression that this second church is indestructible, in contrast to the second church of Israel. We also see that the second church exists because of the end of the first church. In this way, the understanding of catholicity is at odds with the continued concern for the people of Israel. This raises the question if actually the whole world is comprised in this understanding of catholicity. Another question is if, against the intentions of the church father, this separation between the church for Israel and the church for Christians does not feed the depreciation of the Old Testament and the material creation, an error that was hard to put right in his days. A third question concerns the consequences of the universal character of the church for the government of the church. Does this mean that the church must be one worldwide organisation and that national borders are in conflict with it?80 The consideration of Cyprian’s approach does not exclude relative independence of towns and regions. Cyprian thought in terms of interconnection between colleagues. This means, on the one hand, that the church cannot be locked up in national isolation, and, on the other hand, that there may be smaller kernels to keep the church governable.

77 78 79 80

Matt. 28:19 and Mark. 16:15. Matt. 28:18. John 8:12; 1 John 2:2; John 3:16. This is stated by Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 71-79.

37

38

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

3.3

Catholicity comprises all doctrines

The next mark of catholicity mentioned by Cyril is that it teaches all the doctrines. In the struggle to understand the truth, it had become clear that not any understanding of the doctrines could be used and that a right understanding of the Christian message was necessary. Also Cyril had a strong consciousness that the church is a pillar and ground of the truth. In this context, Cyril also mentions the Marcionists.81 Cyprian paid much attention to the error of Marcion. It shows that the church, for a long time, had to grapple with Marcion’s belief in a dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments, the denial of the good creation as core of the Christian faith being at stake. This focus on truth is accompanied by the full wealth of the truth. There is pureness of doctrine and there is a catholicity of doctrine. Catholicity emphasizes that not only the pure truth functions, but also the full truth, because it is only in this way that the church shares in full salvation. This emphasis suggests that one may be one-sided in doctrine and that certain aspects of doctrine may fade and disappear. Apparently, truth is a whole, of which nothing can be left out. If anything is left out of this whole, it is a mutilated truth. A mutilated truth loses its beauty and power. Half a truth is even a complete lie. In any case, Cyril’s approach of catholicity makes clear that catholicity bears relationship with the abundance of God’s kingdom. We cannot speak of an economy of scarceness, but we should speak of an economy of the abundant richness of God’s grace.82 If catholicity of lacking, we put ourselves on spiritual rations, because we have to be content with several partial truths. Absolutizing a partial truth could lead to heresy. On the other hand, it is also true that the one faith and the one Spirit do not contradict a great variety of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.83 On the contrary, we need all these saints to acquire some knowledge of this overwhelming fullness of God’s grace.84 Those who exclusively follow one certain theologian or a certain movement, cut themselves off from this mighty flow of God’s fullness. With respect to doctrine, it is striking that Cyril explicitly speaks of the visible and the invisible things. In a century in which we tend to follow visible things, these words from the Early Church remind us of the broad perspective of a creation which largely lies out of reach for our senses, namely the world 81 H.A. Bakker discusses several theological decisions in Marcionism, ‘Zij hebben lief, maar worden vervolgd’, 107-118. Evil shows the Creator’s lack of power, the “not yet” of salvation fades, the corporeal resurrection does not function properly, nor does de salvation from guilt, there is Biblical criticism, antinomianism, etc. 82 Cf. Rom. 5:20; Eph. 1:7; 1 Tim. 1:14. 83 Eph. 4:4-16. 84 Eph. 3:18-19.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

of angels. While we tend to allow ourselves to be controlled by things which are visible and tangible, we are addressed by the transcendent reality which surpasses our thoughts and imagination. Meanwhile, the question arises what Cyril meant by the whole doctrine. From the twenty-first century we, either consciously or unconsciously, probably think of dogmatic works which are full of considerations about covenant and election, about charismata, the order of salvation, female office-bearers and the use of rituals in the church. It should be clear that this was not what Cyril was thinking about. The content of his catechetical lectures shows us that he largely follows the line of Nicaea. In the fourth lecture, in which he summarizes his doctrine, Cyril teaches with much emphasis that God is the Creator of body and soul. Against the devaluation of the body, he stresses that the body was created by God, that sins cannot be reduced to a bodily phenomenon, that marriage is permitted, that meat and “apparel” belong to the body and that we should avoid all uncleanness, excessiveness and vanity. The acceptation and vindication of the material creation is in particular clear from the belief in the resurrection of the body. For Cyril, this is part of the core of faith.85 If we believe in the resurrection of the body, we will handle our body carefully. The hope of the resurrection gives the expectation that justice will be done to the unjust and to those who have suffered injustice. The resurrection opens the door to the kingdom of heaven, or to eternal life. That is what the Christian life focusses on. In the fourth lecture, he also writes about the incarnation of the eternal Son of God. If He had not become man, people could not be saved. He became man to be crucified for the sins of men. Although people despised Him, He was recognized by the whole creation when darkness fell upon the earth. Jesus rose again and was taken up into glory. That is why the proclamation of Christ crucified causes the devils to tremble. Christ will come again to judge and His kingdom will be – against all errors – an everlasting kingdom. Cyril employs two lectures to give an explanation of the Holy Ghost.86 It is remarkable that he commences with “speaking against” the Holy Spirit. It shows to what extent the indwelling of the Spirit was taken seriously in the congregation. The number of references to the Old Testament is striking – in particular considering his critical attitude towards Israel. He also says that the Old and New Testaments must not be separated. The Spirit also worked in the Old Testament prophets, and through the prophets He witnessed of Christ. Kings and judges had wisdom and courage through the power of the Holy 85 Catechetical lectures 18.1-21. 86 Catechetical lectures 16-17.

39

40

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

Spirit, and through the Spirit they had abilities beyond normal human abilities. Cyril has an eye for the deeds of the Spirit in the development of the history of redemption. The Spirit worked in Mary, Elizabeth and John the Baptist. John received the Spirit before his birth, to communicate the Spirit in baptism. At His baptism, Jesus received the primacy and first-fruits of the Holy Spirit to be able to baptize in the Holy Spirit. The dove descending on Jesus reminds us of the new creation that developed after the Flood. The Holy Spirit also guided the apostles. He taught them to speak in other tongues, He gave witness by the miracles and wonders that took place, and He was the Spirit of prayer. He was on Philip and He separated Barnabas and Saul unto the service in God’s wide world. He guided the believers unto salvation, to heal them, to instruct them, to strengthen them and to enlighten them. The Holy Spirit gives a seal upon our souls in Holy Baptism. Through the Spirit, believers despise possessions and martyrs see a glimpse of heavenly Paradise. Cyril also mentions the Scriptures when discussing the doctrine of the Holy Spirit – in agreement with Nicaea. Plausibility or deformation of teachings makes no sense, because all mysteries of faith have to be proved from the Scriptures. Cyril also points to himself and says that nothing of his message must be believed without the authority of the divine Scriptures. At the end of the fourth catechetical lecture, Cyril gives further insights about the Scriptures. He speaks of the divinely-inspired Scriptures, he discourages the reading of the apocryphal writings and he considers the Septuagint to be a translation led by the Holy Spirit.87 3.4

Catholicity comprises all categories of people

The third aspect of catholicity that Cyril mentions, is the fact that the church is meant for all categories of people. The Gospel is for all ethnicities, for all ages, for all generations and for all social classes. In his discussion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Cyril refers to the ark as a type of the church.88 Just like a calf, an ox, a lion, a wolf and a lamb were saved in the ark, all different types of people find salvation in the church. Firstly, it is a confirmation of the belief that the Early Church considered the communion of saints a matter of relationship, and secondly, is shows something 87 In the Early Church, the authority of the Bible was universally recognized, “The Truth Above All Demonstration”, 43-88. S. and M. Westerholm, Reading Sacred Scripture, show how this functioned for Irenaeus, Origin and Chrysostom, 51-128. For example, Origen did his best to harmonize contradictions, 76. 88 Catechetical lectures 17.10.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

of the variety of divine revelation. We need all the saints from all times and all places to understand the unspeakable richness of God’s grace in Christ and to be filled with all the fullness of God.89 These saints may be rich princes, but may just as well be poor slaves. All classes of people communicate at one Lord’s table. That is why there is an anti-discrimination principle in the church. It requires much self-denial from the members of the higher ranks of society to show a sincere interest in simple church members. All cultures, all generations, all races, and all strata of the population share in the one and only Gospel. This places cultural, ethnic and social divisions in the church unacceptable.90 Of course, everyone listens to the Gospel from their own perspective. This is no impediment, because the deep conviction that the Gospel is relevant in any culture, in any situation and in any time underlies this aspect of catholicity. The more we think about it, the more we are impressed by the mystery of the Gospel: the Gospel offers all people with all characters in all circumstances everything to fill all desires of the heart. 3.5

Catholicity comprises the remission of all sins

Fourthly, Cyril mentions the remission of all sins. We should consider these words against the background of the belief that certain sins could not be forgiven. The unforgivability of sins was sometimes applied to apostasy, but also gross sins such as murder, idolatry and adultery. It is understandable that the church resisted “cheap grace”. In particular Tertullian opposed the universalisation of grace, because he saw the threat that sins would increase. While Whereas Tertullian resists the ecclesiastical way of penance and remission of all sins, Cyril explicitly advocates it – just like Cyprian. Just like Tertullian, he believes that the church should take sin seriously, but not in such a way that remission is no longer possible. This is a telling concept of catholicity, because it shows a tension between the holiness of the church and the fact that the church is fundamentally about the remission of sins. The background of this dilemma, namely, is the question how the morals of the church members relate to the remission by God’s grace. On the one hand, there is the wealth of God’s grace by which the sins can be forgiven. On the other hand, the church should not put its own credibility at stake by justifying any way of life through an appeal to God’s grace. It is not easy and cheap to belong to the church, because one must die to the old life of this world and walk in the new life with Christ. Baptism marks the death of the old 89 Eph. 3:19. 90 Cf. Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 81-82.

41

42

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

life and the commencement of the new life. This description of catholicity given by Cyril is an expression of the church’s struggle with the relationship between grace for sinners and breaking with sin. We have seen that Cyril takes entering the church very seriously, warns against insincere motives for desiring baptism and emphasizes that members of the church should live a holy life. In this way, Cyril tries to hold to both concepts, namely the concept of the wealth of God’s grace and the concept of repentance of all sins. In this way, the abundance of God’s grace can fully function without abandoning the holiness of the church. Later this would lead to the question whether the church is without sin.91 Cyril’s approach means that sins must be taken seriously. In a society where everything is tolerated, concepts such as responsibility and guilt disappear, while senselessness is lurking. In taking sins seriously, also the sinner is taken seriously. Moreover, the forgiveness of guilt means that there is real restoration and that a relationship can grow in a new soil. In this way, taking sins seriously and remission work healingly toward God and men. In Cyril’s approach, the church offers rich comfort to those who know that they are sinners, because Jesus is apparently pleased to dwell with sinners. We are taken seriously in our sins, but the fact that we are sinners is not the only thing that is to be said about us. The fact that the forgiveness of sins is an explicit aspect of catholicity, emphasizes that sin and grace are catholic terms and that soteriology is at the heart of Christian doctrine. Moreover, apparently the old Christian concepts of responsibility and guilt inseparably belong to the Gospel. This fact is important in the present context, where there is a culture of shame rather than a culture of guilt in large parts of the world. An important question is what will happen in society if these traces of the Christian faith are wiped out. 3.6

Catholicity comprises all virtues

Finally, Cyril mentions the presence of all virtues and gifts. The Holy Spirit is compared to water because it gives life to roses and to palms, hyacinths and in many other types of plants.92 Cyril has a receptivity to the variety of God’s creation. Similarly, there is a rich variety of gifts and virtues in re-creation. He mentions the gift of wisdom, prophecy, of casting out devils, the explanation of the Scripture, giving alms, fasting, the training for martyrdom, and self-discipline. Elsewhere he also mentions understanding, temperance, justice, 91 Cf. Horton, The Christian Faith, 834. H.U. von Balthasar also speaks of the sinlessness of the church, Church and World, 145-146. 92 Catechetical lectures 16.12.

Cyril (ca. 315–386)

mercy and loving-kindness, and patience which is unconquerable in persecutions.93 This approach shows us that he took the lives of Christians just as seriously as the doctrinal content of the Christian faith.94 Moreover, he does not interpret the Christian life in a negative moralistic manner, but from the effectivity of the salvation in which one shares by the communion with Christ in the church. Moreover, it is striking that Cyril does not speak about the necessity of good works in general terms, but he explicitly speaks of all virtues. Apparently, it is a real danger that a certain virtue slips our attention and the body of the militant church is killed by the absence of one of the necessary virtues to offer resistance. A soldier who has all parts of the armour and is well-trained, but loses watchfulness, can be overcome by the enemy.95 If harness, helmet and sword are in place, but the warrior is not steadfast, this may cause a deadly fall. From a Protestant view, the emphasis on virtues and works raises the issue of the meritoriousness of the works and the character of grace. At the same time, it is Protestants above all that should know that it is fully Biblical to state that we cannot be saved without Christian virtues. The fact remains that it may be a hard job for Protestants to take this concept of catholicity to heart and to allow it to function in Christian proclamation. We may be somewhat used to the virtues of faith, hope and love, although the cohesion is somethings missing. Modern Protestantism sometimes emphasizes hope at the expense of faith, whereas Reformed Protestants greatly emphasize faith, while hope for the new heaven and new earth is often not more than a token entry.96 And how does the life of love function? 3.7

Assessment

We can see that Cyprian, just like Ignatius and Cyprian, attaches great value to the church. He makes it even more practical as a result of the discussion about the admission to baptism. The holiness of the church and baptism are unmistakable, which is why the issue of the remission of all sins is urgent. We can see, even more clearly than in the writings of the previous church fathers, that there are two types of membership of the church. One may receive baptism in an unworthy manner, in such a way that the body has received 93 Catechetical lectures 18.27. 94 I have given a further elaboration of this catholic dimension in the article “Van ecclesiologie naar economie”. 95 Cf. Eph. 6:10-20. 96 Van Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 73-75.

43

44

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

baptism, but the soul is still unclean. Here we see a development which may indicate that there is an increasing attention for this personal aspect. Perhaps this is related to the even greater attention for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and His numerous ministrations. Another point which is striking in comparison with the other representatives of the Early Church, is the increased attention for the corporeality of the resurrection, and explication of the authority of the Bible beyond the authority of bishops and the elaboration of the Christian life into several virtues. A remarkable point is also the antithetic relationship between the church and Israel. In the midst of this early Christian terrain with respect to catholicity, we see that Cyril makes more explicit what it practically means to him with respect to the universality of the church, the full wealth of the Christian doctrines, the remission of all sins, the presence of all categories and classes and the functioning of all Christian virtues. By doing so, he gave a clear direction to the interpretation of catholicity.

4.

Augustine (354–430)

Augustine’s view on catholicity mainly developed in the context of his confrontation with Donatism.97 That is why we will focus on this confrontation in this chapter. 4.1

Confrontation with Donatism

The origin of Donatism dates back to the persecutions under Diocletian between 303 and 505. These persecutions were carried out in an administrative way. Churches were pressurized to hand in holy books and furniture. Several bishops offered resistance and preferred martyrdom to obedience to the government. In these Christian leaders, something is seen of the courage of the martyrs from the first centuries, of the independence that belongs to subjects of King Jesus and of the awareness of the holiness of God’s church. Of course, there are also office-bearers who succumbed to the pressure of persecution and who handed in their books. That is how they came to be called traditors. Others managed to smartly compromise, one of whom was Donatus. He fobbed off the government officials with a load of medical books. When the persecutions had ceased, the question arose how to deal with these traditors. Donatus supervised an investigation of the course of events when these scriptures were turned over. The case culminated when Caecilian of Carthage was appointed, because he was said to have been ordained by a traditor. For eighty Numidian bishops it was reason to declare this ordination invalid and to ordain another “clean” bishop in Carthage. Several authorities had to give their judgment about this case: the pope, a synod of Gaul and the emperor. Each supported Caecilian. When the opposition did not accept this, the schism became a fact. The countermovement received its name when Donatus took the position of the antibishop. The Donatists considered themselves God’s elect people, they saw an uninterrupted line between themselves and the martyrs and they were supported by the majority in the province. They saw the church as the ark of Noah, where there was safety and salvation. This ark was water-resistant, so the polluted water of the world and the good water of baptism were clearly 97 Cf. for the contours of this section “Ubi ecclesia?” or Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 212-225; Mara, “De kerk bij Augustinus”; Van der Meer, Augustinus de zielzorger, 96-136. Noordmans, Verzamelde werken vol. 3, 134-148; Van der Zwaag, Augustinus, de kerkvader van het Westen, 69-78, 277-293. Anti-Donatist writings by Augustine are found in Migne, Patrologia Latina 43.

46

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

separated. This separation manifested itself around baptism by former traditors. Donatists declared this baptism invalid, and said that re-baptism was necessary. For Donatists, also sociological motives played a role. Actually, it was also a movement of the Berber rural population against the Romanised landowners and city dwellers. The Donatists wanted to wrestle themselves away from central authority from Rome, and to emphasize Christian sojourning against the entanglement of ecclesiastical and political power. 4.2

The universality of the church

When Augustine returned from Milan to Africa, he came across a small catholic church opposite a large church of Donatists. He could fail to sympathize with the Donatists. Unity was too dear for him: Beloved, God greatly commends unity. (…) Did God make the other birds from one bird? Did He make all the fish from one fish? All horses from one horse? All beasts from one beast? Did the earth not produce many things at the same time? Did it not complete many created things with numerous offspring? Then He came to the creation of man, and He created one man; and from one man the human race. Nor did He will to create two separate beings, male and female, but one man; and from this one man He made woman. Why did He do this? Why did He begin the human race from one man, if not to commend unity to mankind? 98

Augustine was not content to be with the Donatists in a safe ark, because he strove for the unity of mankind. The catholic church was a beginning of the restoration of unity, which had to take place all over the world. Whereas the Donatists considered the church a “contrast community” where the distinction between church and world was emphasized, Augustine thought “theocratically”, to show that the church and the world are under God’s government. It should be noted that his participation in the international church of Christ gave him the strong conviction that this was a regional problem. The scrupulous zeal to preserve one’s own identity and to lock oneself up in isolation was not in agreement with his understanding of catholicity: “The clouds roll with thunder that the House of the Lord shall be built throughout the earth; and these frogs sit in their marsh and croak, ‘We are the only Christians!’”99 98 Sermo 268.3. 99 Translated to http://www.augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_salmi/index2.htm (accessed on 2 September 2015).

Augustine (354–430)

Augustine wrote these words in his treatise about Psalm 96. In this Psalm, God’s dominion over the whole creation and over all nations is praised prophetically. So, the universal character of the church had been given in the Scripture.100 Christ confirmed in the New Testament that the world was God’s field. We also find telling sayings in his explanation of (our) Psalm 22:28–29. It speaks of “all the ends of the earth” which will repent and God’s kingdom among all nations.101 Augustine says that the Donatists limit these texts. All the ends of the earth, all the generations and all kingdoms were bought by Christ, rather than the province of Africa or Mauretania. Whereas Christ calls the ends of the earth, Donatus only limits his call to part of Christianity. It is also telling how Augustine, in his discussion of Psalm 22, analyses the mind of the Donatists: “But you now, because you wish to hold your own goods in private and not in the general unity with Christ – for you wish to rule on earth, not to reign with Him in heaven – you possess your own establishments.” A little further he writes what the Donatists say: “Keep what you have: you have your sheep, I have mine. Leave my sheep in peace as I leave yours.” Here we hear that the Donatists handle the church as their own possession. They think in terms of allotment and groups, so that one part belongs to one group (the catholics), and the other part to them, as if the church is the possession of people and groups. That is why Augustine writes the meaningful words: “You split up the unity, you seek for possessions of your own. And why have they the name of Christ attached to them? Because to guarantee your own property you have affixed to it the title of Christ. Do not some men do the same in their own homes? To safeguard this house against a powerful transgressor, a man will fasten to it the title of some influential magnate. The title is a lie.” The titles are the proofs of Christ’s possession in baptism. As a consequence, the baptized do not belong to the Donatists, but to Christ: “No, the title remains as before; the ownership is changed, the title is not. Similarly with those who possess the baptism of Christ; if they return to unity, we do not change or destroy their title, but we acknowledge the title of our King, the title of our Commander. Wat are we to say? O wretched patrimony, let Him whose title you bear own you; you bear the title of Christ, do not be the property of Donatus.” The overwhelmingness of God’s comprehensive dominion of heaven and earth also shines into our face from Augustine’s magisterial De Civitate Dei. This work sheds light on Augustine’s understanding of catholicity. For him, it was impossible that the wealth and fullness of God’s kingdom was limited to a certain 100 Cf. Mara, “De kerk bij Augustinus”, 210-212. 101 See http://www.augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_salmi/index2.htm (accessed on 23 December 2016).

47

48

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

province, and therefore it was impossible for a small part of God’s worldwide church to pretend to have a monopoly on the truth. If God’s truth becomes so exclusive, its catholic character is missing. So for Augustine, catholicity in the sense of universalism was an important criterion for the truth. Augustine was so sure he was right that he accepted and defended that the government forced Donatists to return to the catholic church, a title that was used as a proper name to distinguish them from the Donatists. The use of force to make people return to the catholic church is questionable, because it is a type of inquisition.102 Just as parents can force their children to go to church, Augustine used the strong arm of the government to make the multitude go to church. Once people were in the catholic church, the bishops would instruct the congregation in the catholic faith. This would be wholesome for the Christians and this great end sanctified the means of force. Or putting it another way: sometimes a minor evil is necessary to prevent a major evil. The self-confidence of the church father raises several questions. Apart from the question whether this made him a forerunner of the inquisition, we may wonder whether Augustine did not respect the courageous martyrdom of the Donatists. With respect to the latter: he distinguished between martyrs and martyrs. There was unholy fire among the martyrs and some martyrs held unholy motives.103 There were Christians who sought to become a martyr and who glorified it. 4.3

The church as a community of sinners

But didn’t the church father have to recognize the holiness claim of the Donatists? Didn’t the Donatists have a point when they criticized the yielding of the traditors? Augustine indeed considered the traditor a criminal, but he saw the schismatic as a worse criminal.104 Just like the Donatists, Augustine made a sharp distinction between God’s church and the world. This is clearly seen in De Civitate Dei. Here he makes a clear distinction between the community of saints and the city of this world. However, Augustine had seen what the destructive consequences were when people draw the dividing line.105 Because the city of God is in fact not visible, 102 Cf. Van der Meer, Augustinus, 113-115. 103 ‘Itaque martyres non facit poena, sed causa’, http://www.augustinus.it/latino/esposizioni_ salmi/index2.htm (accessed 4 September 2015). 104 ‘Si traditio Codicum scelerata est (…), quanto sceleratius est sacrilegium schismatis’, Epistola 76.4, http://www.augustinus.it/latino/lettere/index2.htm (accessed 4 September 2015). 105 Cf. Jenson, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 174.

Augustine (354–430)

people should not try to establish its borders. That is why the mystery of invisible predestination is just as important in the conflict with the Donatists as in the debate with Pelagius. God’s election guaranteed for Augustine that the city of God would continue to exist. The conflict with the Donatists also pivoted about the character of grace. Among the Donatists, it was believed that God’s church and His Spirit are an inseparable unity and that there is no salvation outside the church. In a sense, they followed Ignatius, Cyprian and Cyril in this belief. Just like these early church fathers, the Donatists emphasized the holiness of the members of the church. Also Augustine believed that there was no salvation outside the church, but he did not make the salvation of the church dependent of the clergy in the church. For him the starting point of the holiness of the church was not in the holy members, but in the holiness of the Word and in the effect of the sacraments. That is why holiness in the church preceded the holiness of the members, and did he accept sinners in the church. Moreover, believers continually receive remission of sins in the community of the church. When Augustine, in his sermon about confession, says that baptism is like the Red Sea, in which all the enemies were killed, he continues: “But since we are destined to live in this world where no one lives without sin, on that account the remission of sin depends not solely on the washing in holy baptism but also on the Lord’s prayer that you will receive after eight days. In that prayer you will receive, as it were, your daily baptism, so that you may give thanks to God who has given to his church this gift that we acknowledge in the creed. Thus, when we have said, ‘I believe in the holy church’, let us add, ‘and in the remission of sins’.”106 So for Augustine it is very essential that, in the creed, the church precedes the remission of sins, because the remission of sins continually takes place in the community of the church. With this point, an important decision is taken about the nature of the church. In contrast to the Donatists, this means that the world is not only outside the church, but also inside the church. Where the Donatists, in fact, deny that there is chaff among the wheat, for Augustine, this point has a fundamental significance in his understanding of the church. This approach makes his attitude towards the church very realistic. When Augustine tells beginners in the Christian faith to persevere on the narrow way to eternal life and that they, therefore, must be on the alert for temptations, he says that they should be most on their guard for temptations in the church. They would encounter drunkards, misers, frauds, gamblers, adulterers and superstitious people in the church.107 106 Sermo 213.9. 107 De catechizandis rudibus 25.48.

49

50

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

The multitude that filled the theatres on pagan feasts was the same multitude that went to church on Christian feasts. In particular in Cyril’s writings we saw that he took insincerity of church members into account, but Augustine even goes one step further. He does not only deem disobedience to God present in the church in a hidden way, but also in a public way. Apparently, the bishop of Hippo had a heart for the multitude and he wanted to share the Gospel with them. He did not consider sinners from their character as sinners, but from the potential of the Gospel. This shows that Augustine was driven by a pastoral motive rather than by desire for power. Although he operated in a context of force, his focus was on the salvation of people. He expected so much from the presence of the Holy Spirit in the catholic church that he was willing to do anything to lead the people of his time under this easy yoke of Christ. It is clear that we find a different understanding of the church in Augustine’s writings than in the writings of Ignatius, Cyprian and Cyril. There is an equal emphasis on the unity and the catholicity of the church. However, Augustine reasons more from the potential of Word and Spirit than from the church as a closed institute where the Spirit is present and outside of which the Spirit cannot reach anybody. Whereas there was more emphasis on the holiness of the church and the privilege to be a member of Christ’s body in the preceding centuries, Augustine takes a campaigning position around the church in order to draw as many people as possible into the Bible’s sphere of influence. For Augustine, catholicity arises from the authority of the Gospel, because the Word of God is the source and the mark of real catholicity. The church father’s approach is related to his reasoning from the mysterious election of God. A striking cohesion emerges here: the less the borders of the church can be made visible, the more the invisible election functions. P. Brown justly says, “oHoSo his writings against the Donatists will mark a final stage in the evolution of Early Christian ideas on the church, and its relation with society as a whole.”108 4.4

The church as the body of Christ

This “people’s church” approach raises the question how Augustine deals with the high titles of the church such as the body of Christ and the temple of the Spirit. Can the church still be seen as an ark of salvation, is baptism a baptism to the forgiveness of sins or does the church degrade into an institute for evangelization? 108 Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 217.

Augustine (354–430)

We begin to understand his thoughts when we once again look at the quotation from the preceding section, from a sermon about the Creed in which faith in the church is mentioned.109 There he states that we believe in the church. This is an intriguing expression because the controversial Dutch theologian A. van de Beek, in his study about the body and the Spirit of Christ, chose to structurally speak about faith in the church.110 He does so with an appeal to the original Greek text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Van de Beek is aware that the church is given a higher estimation if we speak of believing in the church. It places the church on a similar level as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, because we speak of believing in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Believing in God means that we trust in Him and expect our salvation from Him. In this spirit, Van de Beek advocates speaking of believing in the church. Our redemption and our salvation depend on the church. Van de Beek furthers supports this plea based on the Nicene Creed. With the Niceanum, we confess to believe in one God, in one Lord and in one church. The number one is not used when we confess one Spirit, but it is first used when the church is mentioned. According to the former professor Symbolism, this means that this one Spirit takes form in the one and only church.111 We meet the Spirit in the form of the church, and in the form of the church we meet the Spirit. Here Van de Beek sees a parallel between the homoousios (= of the same essence) in the Christological part of the Nicene Creed. Just like we meet the Son of God in the form of a vulnerable human, we meet the Holy Spirit in the form of a vulnerable church. It is conceivable that Van de Beek, in this way, wants to do justice to the deep undertones of the New Testament. If the congregation is a temple of the Holy Spirit and the congregation is an early form of God’s eschatological kingdom, we cannot isolate the congregation and the Spirit from each other. We find the first-fruit of the Spirit in the congregation. Augustine’s speaking about faith in the church receives even more depth if we are aware that he, with respect to the relationship between Christ and His body, spoke of totus Christus (the whole Christ).112 With this in mind, he can say that we are not only Christians, but Christ, or that the whole Christ is made from the church which is added to His flesh.113 Elsewhere he says that the one Christ 109 Sermo 213.8-9. 110 Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 186-191. Also B. Wentsel states: “Believing in the Church is in fact believing in the Triune God”, De Heilige Geest, de Kerk en de laatste dingen, 21. 111 Cf. Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 392, 420. 112 Cf. Van Bavel, ‘De idee van Christus totus’. 113 The church father wrote about John 5:20-23: ‘Let us rejoice, then, and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ’, Homilies on the Gospel of John, NPNF1, vol. 7, 140.

51

52

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

speaks, through the head or through the members.114 So speaking about the church is speaking about Christ, and vice versa.115 This approach sheds light on the great reality of the church as Christ’s body and is a protection against a superficialization of the term ‘church’. The approach also emphasizes that the church is God’s work in a very different way than, for example, the creation, because the church is not only God’s work, but also the body of Christ.116 It shows us that we should speak about the church in a sacramental manner, because Christ Himself is present, in a special way, in the human aspect of a gathering of believers. It is possible that the theologoumenon totus Christus is understood platonicontologically, leading to a rigid and absolute view of the church in which the church is considered a body without sins117 , needs no further reformation, and, in a simple way, becomes the ongoing incarnation.118 In this way, the church, in fact, is transubstantiated into Christ. Of course, here is also a link to the doctrine of transubstantiation in which bread and wine change into the body of Christ. In this way, Christology and ecclesiology melt together, so the clear distinction between them disappears. Can and should we interpret Augustine’s view of the church in this manner? What is the relationship between Augustine’s interpretation of the church and the context of the Early Church? Let us first answer the latter question: in the Early Church the Spirit was not identified with the church. This is clear when we read several early creeds. Ignatius, in his creed, focusses on Christ’s deeds of redemption.119 Irenaeus (180) begins with the church. This means that, for him, the church is not an object of faith, but the confessing subject. Tertullian’s (200) creed has a Trinitarian content, with much emphasis on the deeds of redemption, however, without explicit attention to the church. Cyprian is the first who explicitly mentions the church as part of the substance of faith. His creed is characterized by brevity: “I believe in God the Father, in His Son Christ, in the Holy Spirit. I believe the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life through the

114 115 116 117 118

119

The same volume also contains the first sermon about the epistle to John in which he wrote, “To that flesh the Church is joined, and so there is made the whole Christ, Head and body”, 462. Cf. Horton, The Christian Faith, 829. Enarrationes in Psalmos 140, 3. Enarrationes in Psalmos 30.2, 4. Cf. Jenson, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 167. Cf. Jenson, Systematic Theology deel 2, 213. Cf. Himes, The Ongoing Incarnation. According to Karl Adam, the divine is objectified and the church possesses the Spirit, The Spirit of Catholicism, 31-32. The future pope Benedict XVI wrote as cardinal Ratzinger about a “fusion of existences” to explain the ontological transformation of the church to Christ’s body, Called to Communion, 37. Cf. for this paragraph Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom vol. 2, 11-41.

Augustine (354–430)

holy church.” We cannot deduct from Cyprian’s creed that the church has a purely instrumental meaning, i.e. that the church is only the way in which we receive forgiveness and eternal life. The communion with the church certainly matters, without the Spirit coinciding with the church. The fact that the Spirit and the church do not coincide, is also clear in the Early Church from the fact that Nicaea confesses “one baptism”. If it had been the intention to express the belief in “one Spirit” by the belief in “one church”, what then may have been meant by “one baptism”? We may tend to think that one baptism and one church express the same reality, but this becomes very complicated when we realise that the number “one” in the Early Church is used more broadly than only with respect to the divine Persons (Eph. 4:4–6). That is why Van de Beek attaches too much weight to the number one in the expression “one church” when he raises the church to the same level as God Himself. The exploration of faith in the church makes Augustine’s approach interesting. Does he approach the church differently than the customary approach in the Early Church? Do his words about faith in the church imply that we believe in the church just as we believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? When we look at the church father’s explanation, it becomes clear that he characterizes the church as the wife of the great heavenly Bridegroom. This Bridegroom found a harlot and made it a virgin. This virgin could give birth to children. This is how the church, according to Augustine, is the mother of all believers. This does confirm the importance of the church, but it does not confirm that the church must be put on the same level with the Trinity. This is confirmed when we look at a different sermon about the creed by the bishop of Hippo. It is clear that he does not attach much value to the expression “believing in the church”. He does not use the words in ecclesiam, but per ecclesiam.120 His explanation makes it even clearer: You can certainly see, my dear friends, even in the very words of the Symbol, how at the conclusion of all the articles which belong to the sacrament of faith, a kind of supplement is added, which says, through the holy Church. So shun as best you can the many and various deceivers, the multitude of whose sects and names it would take far too long to explain now. You see, we have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear the now. One thing I only urge you to take to heart, and that is by every means possible to turn your minds and your ears away from the person who is not a Catholic, so that you may be able to lay hold of the forgiveness of sins and the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting through the one, true, and holy Catholic

120 Sermo 215.9. Also Cf. for this argumentation Calvin, Institutes 4.1.2.

53

54

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

Church, in which we learn of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, to whom is honour and glory for ever and ever.

In these words by Augustine, we firstly see the great importance of the catholic church. Salvation is connected with the church because the church is the body of Christ. Secondly, the importance of the church for salvation is not confessed in a cheap manner, because this creed was written in the context of the existence of various groups and movements that ornamented themselves with the name “church”, but which could not be called the catholic church. Although the way to salvation is the way of the church, there is – thirdly – a clear distinction between the Trinity and the church. It is too poor only to speak of an instrumental function of the church, but there remains a clear distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit on the one hand and the church on the other hand. This means that Augustine, despite the Platonic influence on his thinking, did not draw rigid ontological conclusions about the church.121 Apparently, he did not only consider the church to be Christological, but also pneumatological, and, as a provisional form of Gods kingdom, also eschatological. 4.5

The church as the temple of the Holy Spirit

Besides this, Augustine’s broad “people’s church” approach did not at all detract from this view of the church as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Just like earlier church fathers, Augustine was very much aware of the indwelling of the Spirit in God’s church. That is why he emphasizes that the Spirit is in the church, and not outside it. So those who are outside the church, do not have the Holy Spirit.122 In this context, Augustine uses the metaphor of body and soul. The whole of the body is indwelled by one spirit: What our spirit, that is our soul, is to the parts or members of our body, that the Holy Spirit is to the members of Christ, to the Body of Christ, the Church. (…) Is this Body alive? It’s alive. What with? With one Spirit. (…) So consider, brothers and sisters, the case of our own bodies, and grieve for those who cut themselves off from the church. (…) But now, if a member is cut off from the body, the spirit doesn’t follow, does it? And yet the member can be recognized for what it is; it’s a finger, a hand, an arm, an ear. Apart from the body it retains its shape, it doesn’t retain life. 121 Horton, The Christian Faith, 834. 122 Sermo 268.2.

Augustine (354–430)

In this conclusion, the church father clearly explains that the church is not only a formal institution, but a living organism, namely the living body of Christ. For the church father, the presence of the Spirit in the church is connected with love. He explains this in a sermon on Ascension Day.123 In this sermon, he problematizes the twofold outpouring of the Holy Spirit, namely “minor Pentecost” and Pentecost. Why was the Spirit given twice? According to Augustine, there is a parallel with the two commandments. There is one love by which we love God above all and our neighbour as ourselves. So Augustine does not relate “minor Pentecost” to the official authority to forgive sins, like Cyprian did, but to the Christian life of love of all Christians. With a reference to Romans 5:5 it is very clear to him that the indwelling of the Spirit is inseparably connected with love. It also means that one does not have love outside the church, because one does not have the Spirit outside the church: “One only has this love in the unity of the Church.” Those who cut themselves off from the church are natural people without the Spirit. With this in mind, we can understand his zeal for unity, because he believed the Donatists outside the church to be without the Spirit and without salvation. Augustine made various applications to explain what love practically means in the interaction between Christians. Because love is the most essential quality of faith, the practice of love cannot be missing. In the controversy with the Donatists, it becomes clear how seriously he took love. After years of tensions and complications between Donatists and catholics, a public conference was held in 411, where 286 catholic bishops were present and 279 Donatist bishops. The catholics won. One would expect Augustine to say that the Donatists must give up their office. But the opposite was true. If there were two bishops in a certain town or city, the catholic bishop had to withdraw in favour of the Donatist bishop. Augustine did not fight for himself and for his own authority, but for him it was all about the salvation of the multitudes. This means that, for Augustine, catholicity rather than the office was decisive, since the bishops had to withdraw to serve unity and catholicity. Here we can hear that apostolic succession is somewhat contextualised. In a sense, it may be said that the church is an end in itself, but the office in the church is there for the sake of the church, not the other way around. This has consequences for the way in which church offices were applied. In Augustine’s opposition to the Donatists, the serving character of the office becomes clear. He could be so humble as to recognize the Donatist church as an equal part of Christ’s body, he did not deny that the Spirit was active in the separated part of God’s church and he did not in any way boast in the character of the catholic part as opposed to the Donatist part. Thus he could 123 Sermo 265.

55

56

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

generously make their own offices available and give priority to others. In this way, Augustine shows us that we must not simply assume that God connects His blessing to our holiness, but that He gives His blessing there where brethren dwell in unity (Ps. 133). After Ignatius and Cyprian, this is a remarkable shift with respect to the importance of the office, since for the earlier representatives of the Early Church the church and its unity more or less coincided with the bishop. In Augustine’s writings we do not at all find a sedes apostolica (apostolic seat), but he finds the authority of the apostles in the Gospel. In this approach, we also see that Augustine approaches the Donatists differently than heretics. Heretics have false beliefs about the faith, but the schismatic Donatists have the same faith, the same Scriptures and the same sacraments. However, they lack catholicity and love. So whereas the Donatists are outside the catholic church and outside the Spirit, theologically, Augustine does not make this a fundamental judgment. Augustine does not make it a theological principle, but here an opening is given to a broader pneumatology. He can say that there are many wolves in and many sheep outside the church.124 Elsewhere he says, “Many who seem to be without are in reality within, and many who seem to be within yet really are without.”125 Augustine says this in the context of God’s election. Firstly, this means that the Spirit is not bound to the church in an absolute sense. Secondly, we see much attention to individual persons. In Augustine’s Confessions we find a clear understanding of human individuality. It is similar to what we find in his Soliloquies: “A. God and the soul, that is what I desire to know. R. Nothing more? A. Nothing whatever.”126 Thirdly, it means that the actual characteristics of the ecclesia catholica are of a spiritual nature. This underscores that the church is a temple of the Holy Spirit. Augustine has a deep awareness of the holiness of the church, and, in connection to this, of the possibility of sacrilege. In this context, it is interesting to read carefully what Augustine writes with respect to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: Forgiveness of sins, by which the reign of the spirit divided against himself is overthrown and terminated, (…) is seen as the proper work of the Holy Spirit. (…) So anyone guilty of impenitence against the Spirit, in which the Church is gathered together as a unity, a companionship and a communion, will never be forgiven, because he has shut the door of the place of forgiveness in his own face. (…) The

124 In Iohannis evangelium tractatus XLV.12. 125 De baptismo V.27.38. 126 Soliloquia 1.2.7. Vgl. Taylor, Sources of the Self, 129-136.

Augustine (354–430)

person who speaks a word against the Holy Spirit is the one who opposes an impenitent heart to the unity of the Church, which is the place in which forgiveness of sins is achieved in the Holy Spirit. (…) Nobody who doesn’t gather with [Christ], in whatever they may under his name, has the Holy Spirit. (…) That’s why all the gathering, or rather scatterings, which call themselves Churches of Christ and are divided against and opposed to each other, and are all hostile to the gathering of unity which is his true Church, lack the right to belong to his flock just because they seem to have his name. (…) People will be forgiven every sin and every blasphemy in this flock, which Christ gathers in the Spirit which is holy and not divided against itself. (…) And thus a word is spoken against the Holy Spirit, when someone never comes from the scattered to the gathered flock, which has received the Spirit for the forgiveness of sins. But any who come and joint his gathered flock with a sincere heart receive forgiveness of sins in the Holy Spirit, even if they are admitted by a bad clergyman who still happens to be a Catholic minister, however false and insincere he may be.127

In summary, the church father emphasises in his approach that the Spirit focuses on unity. Whoever in the Christian church is not focused on this unity, does not have the Holy Spirit and sins against the Holy Spirit. Augustine even calls this the unforgiveable blasphemy against the Spirit, the greatest sin. 4.6

Assessment

What does this study of Augustine’s ecclesiology yield for our understanding of his idea of catholicity? Firstly, it is striking that the principle of universality is more clearly visible than in Cyril’s writings. Secondly, it turns out that the relationship between unity and catholicity follows the line of Ignatius, Cyprian and Cyril. Just like we find in Cyprian’s writings, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the catholic church is very important to Augustine. He emphasises, more clearly than Cyprian, that this is what makes the church a living spiritual reality. Augustine differs from Cyprian when he, on the one hand, somewhat downplays the office of bishop, and on the other hand, emphasises the exercise of love. This also influences his understanding of the validity of baptism. In contrast to the tradition before him, Augustine emphasises that Christ in His church lives together with sinners, so that, on the one hand, remaining remission also functions within the church, and on the other hand, we cannot say that the church is sinless. Another difference with the tradition before him, is that 127 Augustine, sermo 71.33-38.

57

58

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

Augustine connects the hidden election with his understanding of the church – without the catholic church evaporating into an invisible reality.

5.

Vincent († between 434 and 450)

Vincent of Lerins lived as a monk in a refugee monastery of Lerins on an island in the south of France.128 Much about his biography is uncertain. The year of his birth in unknown. It has been assumed that he was of a noble descent. It is certain that he wrote the writing called Commonitorium. It is not clear if he wrote anything else besides this. 5.1

Commonitorium

In his Commonitorium, Vincent gives a personal testimony, which shows that he experienced conversion. Before that time, he was busy with his earthly life, but later he felt freed from this vanity and wanted to humbly sacrifice his life to the service of God. One way in which he did so, was writing his Commonitorium. In this writing we see that Vincent was not an original thinker, but that he wanted to serve by describing existing understandings. Within this framework, he paid much attention to the doctrine of the Trinity and in particular to the incarnation, while the relationships between both natures of Jesus Christ are mentioned. Vincent here mentions the extra Patristicum (Christ also exists outside His humanity) and the communicatio idiomatum (communion of properties).129 In his writings the concept is present that catholicity represents a fullness.130 Catholicity can be compared to the seven-armed candlestick in the tabernacle which represents the perfect fullness of the Holy Spirit. Vincent connects this to the integrity of the religion of the apostles which, without innovations, remains relevant in changing circumstances. The fact that Vincent has an eye for a fullness of faith is also clear from his emphasis on the necessity to apply this fullness in practice.131 One cannot neglect part of the catholic truth. If one may neglect one part of the catholic truth, one may also drop another aspect, so that, eventually, very little of the Christian message remains, and there will be more and more room for new, strange and human elements.132 More clearly than in Cyril’s writings, it is stressed that the fullness of doctrine is not only a matter of abundance and 128 Cf. for general information http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm (accessed on 29 December 2015). 129 Commonitorium 13.37 and 15.40. 130 Commonitorium 6.15. 131 Commonitorium 23.58. 132 The heresies of Pelagius, Coelestius, Sabellius, Novatian and Simon Magus could develop when the universal catholic truths were dropped, Commonitorium 24.62.

60

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

wealth, but also a matter of necessity. When certain aspects of God’s truth are dropped, God’s church becomes defenceless against errors. A characteristic of catholicity is that a Christian loves the truth, the church and the body of Christ.133 Vincent emphasizes love for the truth, the church and the body of Christ against the background of philosophy, eloquence or geniality. Eventually, the latter concepts are not decisive for a catholic Christian. This means that a Christian is not led (and tempted) by eloquence or intelligent arguments, but by the search for the truth. We notice in Vincent’s Commonitorium that he is very much aware of the truth of Christ’s second coming. In this light, he struggles with the numerous beliefs he encounters in the Christian church and he wonders how he can determine the truth. For him, the Scripture undoubtedly has the greatest authority.134 Vincent unambiguously speaks of the sufficiency of the Scriptures. This again shows that the principle of Scripture authority clearly functioned in the Early Church. 5.2

Catholicity as normative

At the same time, this principle reveals a dilemma. As it turns out, different interpretations of the Scriptures are possible. This implies that, without a rule for the interpretation of the Scriptures, any appeal to the Scriptures is of equal importance. Moreover, various heretics and false teachers appeal to the Scriptures to make their new insights acceptable.135 This leads Vincent to the statement that one must first look at God’s Word and next at the tradition of the catholic church.136 Whoever rejects the interpretation of the tradition, rejects God.137 This duplication of authorities raises the question for the mutual relationship between the two: But here someone perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be 133 Commonitorium 20.48. 134 Commonitorium 2.5. Vincent speaks of the only authority of the Scriptures, Commonitorium 28.71. The authority of the Canon can, in fact, decide in any case, Commonitorium 29.76. 135 Commonitorium 7, 25, 26. The devil even appeals to the Scriptures Commonitorium 26.68-69. 136 Commonitorium 2.4. Cf. Commonitorium 27.70. 137 Commonitorium 28.73.

Vincent († between 434 and 450)

capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another (…). Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.138

This leads to a very succinct rule: “All possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”139 He adds the following explanation: For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic”, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

What Vincent has in common with Cyril is the universality of the Christian faith, but in Cyril’s writings clearly antiquity is missing as a qualification of catholicity. While Cyprian and Cyril used the term catholicity mainly substantively, Vincent also gives it a formal and instrumental function to determine what is authentically catholic. Vincent gives several examples of how this can function. At the time of Donatus the weight of the universal church could reveal the error of one single man.140 Also at the time of Arius, the ancient faith could be preserved.141 In this context, he approvingly refers to the bishop of Rome, Stephen, who, appealing to the tradition, opposed the belief that baptism was to be repeated.142 Also the errors of Nestorius, Photinus and Apollinaris confirm the rule that the ancient faith is better than the new faith.143 He also discusses Origen.144 138 139 140 141 142

Commonitorium 2.5. Commonitorium 2.6. Commonitorium 4.9. Commonitorium 4.10. Commonitorium 6.16. Strikingly, two chapters later, Vincent approvingly refers to Cyprian, even though he advocated re-baptism in certain situations. 143 Commonitorium 11.29-12.35. 144 Commonitorium 17.42-45.

61

62

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

He was a man who descended from a family of martyrs, an erudite scholar and a good rhetoric. However, he became overly confident in himself and in his own geniality, which led him to despise his tradition and to develop errors. Something similar happened to Tertullian, a great philosopher who also refuted numerous errors.145 But in his transition to Montanism, he denied his loyalty to the tradition. With the concept that theologians are more self-relying than loyal to the tradition, Vincent subtly underlines that theologians need humility.146 It is proud to think that we know better than the tradition of the church, to strive for innovation and to try to implement innovations. Vincent shows that he is not fond of theological innovations. Innovations bring chaos and confusion, while the proclamation of the ancient faith leads to restoration.147 We must preserve the spiritual and theological heritage that we have received from our fathers, and pass it on unchanged to the future generations.148 Only those who are steadfast in their confession of the ancient truth can bear the title of Confessor of the Faith. Here a conservative element in the Early Church is clear which is closely linked to apostolicity. In Commonitorium, this is explicitly emphasized when Vincent devotes three chapters to the meaning of 1Timothy 6:20, keeping that which is committed to our trust. Also Galatians 1:8 is an important text in this argument: Any other doctrine than Paul’s is cursed, even if it were proposed by an angel. This approach raises the question to what extent development and spiritual growth are possible. Vincent raises this question in chapter 23 of his treatise. He carefully distinguishes between a growth in faith and a change of faith. In this context, he uses the example of a young person who grows into an adult man with mature judgement. He does not receive new legs or arms, but the person’s understanding increases. His understanding refines and extends. However, this can clearly be distinguished from new ideas or changes of the apostolic faith. Although the ancient faith can be deepened or refreshed, the church never changes its faith and never adds anything to it. So substantive innovations should be considered as an attack on the catholic faith. Catholic believers are called to marry the faith of their fathers and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives for it.149

145 Commonitorium 18.46. 146 Cf. also Commonitorium 31.82. Nestorius believed that he was the only one who interpreted the Scriptures rightly, Commonitorium 31.83. 147 Commonitorium 4.11 en 5.12-14 148 Commonitorium 33.86. 149 Commonitorium 33.86.

Vincent († between 434 and 450)

5.3

Catholicity as identity

What does this approach add to the existing understanding of catholicity? Firstly, it is striking that catholicity is used here in the sense of antiquity, to safeguard the faith of the church. So it has a critical function. That which was initially an additional function of the understanding of catholicity, is for Vincent the most important function of the catholic dimension. Perhaps this is connected to the necessity to be able to use such an instrument in the midst of numerous errors. Moreover, on the other hand, the full catholic wealth of the Christian faith should be put into practice. Vincent shows, more clearly than in the earlier concepts of catholicity, that neglecting the full wealth of faith gives an entrance for error and unsound innovations. Thirdly, it is striking that Vincent, just like Cyrial, has a worldwide view. On the one hand, this means a focus on that which is universally accepted in Christianity, and on the other hand, a critical attitude towards exclusive beliefs which are not supported by Christianity around the world. Fourthly, it cannot miss our attention that Vincent is more focused on the doctrine than on the church. Ignatius and Cyprian approach catholicity from the institute of the catholic church, from the office of bishop and from the indwelling of the Spirit in the church. We see an initial shift in Cyril and Augustine, and Vincent sheds all light on the contents of the Christian faith. He is also most explicit on the authority of the Scriptures. Perhaps these things are connected. Although, based on this observation, it is not opportune to speak of a development in the understanding of catholicity in the Early Church, it is something that deserves our attention. Fifthly, when Vincent writes about the three aspects of catholicity, the formal question arises who determines whether a belief is catholic.150 The appeal to universality as such is problematic, because here the fundamental question arises whether truth is a matter of quantity or of authority.151 The New Testament church began in Jerusalem, so the Christian faith could not be everywhere. Is historicity a mark of catholicity? Throughout history, errors have had considerable numbers of followers. Today we might point out to Vincent that the church of the Middle Ages as a whole deviated from the Word. Luther experienced many problems when people tried to silence him with an appeal to the long tradition of the church.152 150 Steinacker, ‘Katholizität’, 75. 151 M. Horton points out that also in Islam and Buddhism an appeal can be made on universality, The Christian Faith, 833. 152 WA 18, 649-652. Article 18 of the Scots Confession explicitly rejects “antiquity”, “For Cain was before Abel and Seth in age and title; Jerusalem had precedence above all other parts of

63

64

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

Yet Vincent, in his own times, was not insensitive to these problems. He knew about the considerable size of Marcionism, Arianism and Montanism, but still maintained his position. Similarly, there may be a problem about the continuity of the Christian faith. In his treatise, Vincent refers to the Council of Ephesus. However, it is precisely around this council that a “rob synod” was held where previous decrees were revoked. Strikingly, also in the later tradition new understandings are present. With respect to the antiquity of the faith we should also consider that, in Vincent’s times, conservatism was higher esteemed that in our times where novelty is a mark of truth and goodness, because we expressly assume development and progress.153 Moreover, we should take into account a distinction between a classical content and a topical application. It may be necessary to apply the same doctrine differently in different times. For Hans Küng, these problems are reasons not to simply copy Vincent’s approach.154 He raises the question whether catholicity is simply defined by the spatial extension, the numerical quantity, the cultural-social variety and the continuity throughout time. In his discussion of Vincent’s understanding of catholicity, Küng makes clear that catholicity is, in any case, not characterized by the opposite of these categories. For example, catholicity is not characterized by a local or regional belief. Nor is the opposite true. As such, quantity, variety and continuity cannot guarantee catholicity. Tellingly, for each category he writes a sentence which is similar to this structure: “There is no point in having a church which claims to be the oldest and can point to its ‘fathers’, whether of the sixteenth century or the thirteenth or the fifth of the second century, if throughout its long history it has betrayed its true nature, if it has become no more than a venerable memorial of a venerable tradition.” So antiquity, quantity and continuity are a kind of prerequisites for catholicity, but they are not important enough to call them catholicity. What then is decisive for catholicity? Küng says about this: “It is an allembracing identity which at the foundation makes a church catholic, the fact that despite all the constant and necessary changes of the times and of varying forms, and despite, its blemishes and weaknesses, the church in every place and the earth, for in it were priests lineally descended from Aaron, and greater numbers followed the scribes, Pharisees, and priests”, http://www.creeds.net/reformed/Scots (accessed on 17 October 2016). Also the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 7, rejects the absolute authority of custom, the great multitude, antiquity, succession of times and persons, councils, decrees or statutes. Voetius says Roman-Catholics are to blame for the appeal to antiquity, De Niet, ‘Inleiding. Aspecten van Voetius’ praktische vroomheidsleer’, lvii. ‘Even’ H. Küng emphasizes that the most ancient church can betray its essence, The Church, 301-302. 153 Cf. Taylor, A Secular Age, 58-59, 129-130. 154 Küng, The Church, 301-304.

Vincent († between 434 and 450)

in every age remains unchanged in its essence, whatever form it takes: this must be its aim and its desire.” A little onward he gives a further explanation: “If a Church at any time or place or in any form renounces this identity, if it allows itself to be absorbed into any nation, culture, race, class or social phenomenon, then it becomes uncatholic (…) Identity is the basis of catholicity.” 5.4

Assessment

These problematic aspects and further qualifications of Vincent’s concept show us that antiquity, generality and universality cannot be made absolute. Despite these sensitivities, Vincent reminds us that there has always been a faith throughout all the centuries, and that it is this worldwide faith that redeems us and makes us partakers of eternal life. It also means that we should be alarmed when substantive innovations are proposed with respect to the substance of the faith. Beliefs which arise in Western Christendom may be looked at critically, because universality is lacking. It is also clear that the church must be careful with beliefs that arise from a certain denomination or from a certain theologian.

65

Review and reflection After this investigation of the understanding of catholicity in the Early Church, we look back at the different approaches in this history and we begin to reflect on its theological meaning. a. Difference and development It is remarkable that the understanding of catholicity in the Early Church is not monolithic. Different authors emphasize different aspects with respect to the term. One representative of the Early Church understands catholic to be universal (Augustine), while another uses it to refer to orthodoxy (Vincent) or underscores the fullness of catholicity (Ignatius and Cyril). In the writings of each of the representatives we have discussed, we clearly see that the Gospel for all nations and for all times is decisive. That is the universal aspect. At the same time, a quantification of catholicity ignores its depth and its quality. In Cyril’s interpretation, quantity and quality come together when he emphasizes that all nations take part in the Gospel and also that the full Gospel of all doctrines must function. In any case, it is clear that the term catholic is much richer than can be expressed by the quantitative aspect of universality, and that the qualitative aspect has belonged to the understanding of catholicity from the very beginning. The different accents found in different church fathers could indeed complement one another, but the investigated writings permit the tentative conclusion that the understanding of the catholic church develops into a qualitative understanding of catholicity, here on the one hand the content of the Christian faith is of great importance, and, on the other hand, the bishopric structure receives less explicit attention.155 In any case, we can say that the office is constitutive from the church, but that the authority of the Scriptures takes the place of the bishop. Perhaps this is also linked to the completion of the canon and the broader distribution of the Scriptures. We continually see that the church fathers appeal to the Scriptures, but Vincent was the one who most explicitly wrote about the exclusive authority of the Scriptures. He emphasizes the right interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, while catholicity also receives a formal function to serve as a criterion for the veracity of approaches and statements. The understanding of catholicity turns 155 It is not true that the qualitative dimension was not emphasized until the Reformation, as H. van den Belt believes, ‘De katholiciteit van de kerk als kwaliteit van het christendom’, 285-286.

Review and reflection

out to be closely connected with beliefs about the church as such. In this sense, it is not surprising that the expression “catholic church” functions as a proper name, although it should be noted that this function is rather secondary than an end in itself. By speaking of the catholic church, a distinction was made with schismatic groups and movements. It is clear that it impossible to speak about the church without linking it to catholicity and vice versa, because catholicity is an essential quality of the church. Ignatius and Cyprian have a strictly bishopric view, while our study shows that this is less explicitly present among later authors. For Augustine, love and the church have primacy over the offices of the church. The investigated writings give no reason to conclude that and episcopal system is essential to the understanding of catholicity. A catholic person from the fourth century would not feel at home in a catholic church with an infallible pope as vicar of Christ, cardinals and encyclicals.156 This is also true for phenomena such as the celibacy, seven sacraments, transubstantiation, and rosary prayers. Despite the pretence of Leo the Great (400–461), we cannot draw the conclusion that the term catholic is equal with Roman Catholic. Also the view of Gregory VII (1073–1085) that the bishop of Rome must be considered the vicar of Christ, does not date back to the Early Church. Another development which becomes clearly visible in the writings of the church father from Hippo is the concept that the forgiveness of sins within the church is an ongoing process. This gives him a different understanding of catholicity than the others, because for him, remission mainly functioned on the threshold of the church. There was also a development in the view of baptism. For Cyprian it was inconceivable that a baptism outside the church would be recognized as legal, but in Augustine’s time is seems that the baptism by heretics was more broadly recognized, because the spiritual quality of the person who administers the baptism cannot be decisive for the value of the baptism. This approach is connected to a view from God’s perspective rather from the quality of the office-bearer. It also seems to imply a certain downplaying of the church and a greater emphasis on the individual person. Augustine’s regard for the ongoing forgiveness of sins also has consequences for the understanding of the holiness of the church. Augustine said that the church should not be considered from the perspective of the holiness of its 156 Cf. Cunningham, An Introduction to Catholicism, vii-viii. Also H. Küng gives a negative answer to the question ‘Was Jesus catholic?’, De katholieke kerk, 27-33, 41-43. According to Küng, it was after AD350 that there was a slow rise of the Roman community and its bishop to a monarchical position in the West, 63-65. Although Rome was important to Augustine, Augustine was no advocate of papalism and he rejected the primacy of Rome, 74.

67

68

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

members in the first place, but from the potency of the Word and Spirit within the catholic church. Cyprian’s belief about the church as a “garden inclosed” was an earlier indication of it, but it received more form in Augustine’s writings. b. The body of Christ Despite the diversity among the different theologians of the Early Church, several stable lines can be discerned with respect to the understanding of the catholic church. The first stable aspects to be mentioned is the concept of the church as the body of Christ. In the Early Church, it did not just function as a metaphor, as though it did not have to be taken seriously. Precisely because the body of Christ was considered a living reality, it was unthinkable for the church father that the body of Christ could exist outside the catholic church. The deep conviction underlying this was that the body of Christ is a living organism. Thinking from a living organism, it is evident that there is no life outside the church, just as a body part separated from the body has no viability, no matter how much it shows the characteristics of the body part. Van de Beek has drawn our attention to this living reality of Christ’s body by speaking of faith in the church. His interpretation of this aspect tends to lead to the belief in a sinless church, since he sees a parallel with the homoousios in the Christological part of the symbol of Nicaea. Augustine’s belief in the ongoing remission of sins in the church, however, implies that we cannot speak of a sinless church. Apparently, people in the Early Church realized that, despite the high Christological qualification of the church as the body of Christ, no Christological categories can be applied to a soteriological category, because by doing so the unicity of God would be applied to the relationship between God and man, as if the divinity were a general principle. Christology is unique and exclusive. If may be said about Jesus of Nazareth that He is God’s Son, but the church cannot be said to be the Holy Spirit. God’s Son has one ‘I’ while the ‘I’ of the Spirit does not coincide with the identity of the church. In addition, Van de Beek reverses the order of pneumatology and ecclesiology in the Nicene Creed. Whereas the Nicene Creed first confesses the Holy Spirit and subsequently the church, Van de Beek uses the opposite order in his study, making the doctrine of the Holy Spirit actually an appendix to the doctrine of the church, and locking up the Holy Spirit in the church. Van de Beek admits that this order is actually not right, but in his opinion, the present downplaying of the church, requires this order to be used.157 Whatever be the case, this approach is not derived from the beliefs in the Early Church. 157 Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 420-422

Review and reflection

What then do the high Christological and pneumatological qualifications of the church mean? Christians do not expect their salvation from the church as the body of Christ, but they do so in the body of Christ. So salvation, in an existential manner, belongs to the body of Christ and is not available separate from it. Believing in the Holy Spirit and believing in the forgiveness of sins are inseparably connected to believing the church. Faith is practised in the church and in the communion with the saints. Moreover, in this way it becomes clear that the church is a place of salvation. Whoever is in the church, is at the place of salvation and (somehow) takes part in salvation and the Saviour. Moreover, the church is the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit.158 It is better, in this context, to consider the word ‘in’ a preposition of location and communion rather than a preposition that indicates the object of faith. So believing the church is not a scholarly faith in the existence of the church, but a substance of faith which is of the same type as believing in the forgiveness of sins, the corporeal resurrection and eternal life. We are in the church, because we are in Christ, and we are in Christ, because we are in his congregation. Although this reciprocity is not a rigid automatism in the Early Church, it is the theological reality that people live with. That is why the church is much more true than we will ever be able to give an account of. A comparison with marriage is plausible. We live in marriage and it is impossible to isolate ourselves from the marriage position. Nor can we separate ourselves from the church position. That is why the church is not just a locus in theology, but the bearing reality of all theology. Theology is nothing but the self-reflection of the church. That is why Van de Beek has got a point here. In the early Christian beliefs, the church is not just an appendix or an additional instrument. In a time in which we think in terms of church denominations, the weight of the confession of the church fades, as well as the understanding that the church is the body of Christ and that the communion with Christ and His body are inseparably connected. From the unity of Christ and His body, however, it is conceivable to speak of believing in the church, in such a way that the great privilege of belonging to the church becomes visible again. Without losing sight of the distinction between Christology and ecclesiology, the Early Church teaches us the mystery of the totus Christus. There is something totalitarian about it, because there is an inseparable connection between Christ, the Spirit, the truth, the offices, baptism, the Eucharist and the forgiveness of sins. These are not different, isolated things, but different sides of the same thing. In this church, one is in Christ’s body and in the temple of the Holy Spirit. It impossible for this body of Christ not to be orthodox. Among the early representatives of the 158 Hand. 2:38; 1 Kor. 3:16; 2 Kor. 1:22, 5:5; Ef. 2:21-22.

69

70

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

church, we discern an inseparable unity of church and office. Nor were the Spirit and baptism isolated from each other. One is incorporated into the body of Christ by baptism, in such a way that one receives this one baptism to the forgiveness of sins. In short, we believe in the Triune God, because this God is a God of salvation to us. That is why we believe one catholic church. This is a subtle distinction, which is also expressed in the Apostles’ Creed. There is a difference between Christ and the church. At the same time, we notice how existential the relationship with the church is, because the church expresses realities of salvation. c. One Christ This study has clearly shown that the cardinal number “one”, which is used in Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, was widely supported in the Early Church. It was clear that catholicity and unity were two sides of the same thing. Just as there is one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, one Saviour, there is also one visible church.159 The unity of the church is derived from the one Christ, because the catholic church is the body of Christ. Just as Christ cannot be divided, His body cannot be divided, because body parts cannot exist independently. In the Early Church, this understanding was even deeper: since the unity of the church is derived from the existence of one God, divisions in the church immediately concerns the confession of one God. The division of Christ’s body blemishes the name of Christ as if His body were not one. There are not two gods or two saviours, that is why there are not two churches. The unity of the church does not only concern Christology, but also pneumatology. The one Spirit manifests Himself in the one church. In particular in particular in the writings and Augustine we see a close connection between pneumatology and ecclesiology. We may wonder if the Spirit must be locked in the church, as we saw with Van de Beek, but it is a fact that for Cyprian the understanding of the Spirit and the understanding of the church go hand in hand. In Augustine’s writings, we see that this is somewhat contextualized, but he does not give up the church as temple of the Spirit. In any case, from a twenty-first century perspective we may say about this that the Christ, the Spirit and the church are primarily connected to recreation, not to creation. We receive the fullness of the Spirit in the church and the church itself is a work of the Spirit. Vice versa, this means that the division of the church is against the Spirit. It is an extremely great sin against the Holy Spirit. This becomes even more urgent when we realize that the unity of the church was not a cheap thing in the 159 Vgl. Joh. 10:16, 17:11; Ef. 4:4-7.

Review and reflection

Early Church. There were divisions in the church of Corinth. Paul was strongly opposed to it. People were not baptized in the name of Paul, Peter or Apollos, but in the name of Jesus Christ. In the century that followed, the great threat of Marcionism was experienced. It was not a small group, but a considerable movement that threatened to make a schism in the church. The same is true for movements such as Gnosticism and the threat of the Novatians who gathered around the antipope Novatian (251). The fact that the unity of the church was confessed despite this, emphasizes how fundamental the unity of the church was considered to be. There was no uniformity in the church. There remained differences between rich and poor, men and women, Jews and Greek, masters and servants. Firstly, this means that the unity of the church is a unity that exceeds all diversity. The identity in Christ is decisive with respect to social and ethnic differences. Secondly, this unity in diversity cannot be understood as a variety of churches. In this light, a variety within the church can be appreciated, but this cannot be said of a variety of churches next to each other. Thirdly, it is not just a formal unity, but the apostolic witness speaks of people who steadfastly continued in the breaking of bread and in prayers.160 So there was an intimate mutual relationship. Fourthly, unity did not mean a one-mindedness with respect to a list of truths. Unity in the Early Church was much deeper than intellectual agreement about certain expressions of faith, much more than agreements as they may be closed in science or in politics. Unity of faith in the Early Church was an existential unity given in Christ which was expressed in the confession with the one and only mouth of the organism of Christ’s body. The sources we have studied contain the message that they reasoned from the unity of the whole of the church. This whole of the church was not the sum of separate individuals, but as the unity of Christ’s body it was more than the sum of parts. The decisiveness of the prior unity of Christ’s body was clear when Augustine, against the Donatists, made clear the breaking with the unity was a much more severe crime than yielding to the pressure from the persecuting authorities. This unity of the church criticizes individualistic reasoning and teaches us to reason from the unity of the organic whole. It is good to be aware that here the unity is structured differently than from an appeal to Christ’s prayer for unity in John 17:21. When an appeal is made to this prayer of Christ, the division of the church is taken as a starting point and a moral appeal for unity is heard. In the Early Church, a divided church was an impossibility in one’s understanding, because unity was not considered to be organisational, but rather organic. There simply could not be life outside the living body. Those who accepted Christ, also accepted the unity of His 160 Acts 2:42.

71

72

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

body given in Him. Those who did not accept this unity, did not accept Christ. Although Christology and ecclesiology were distinguished, they were simply inseparable, because Christology was determinative for ecclesiology. d. Whole body and individual The abovementioned evaluative considerations raise the issue of the relationship between the whole of Christ’s body and the position of the individual within it. The fact that, in the order of the early Christian confession, the Spirit precedes the church and the church precedes the forgiveness of sins, is telling. In later considerations of the Christian faith, we often see that the matter of forgiveness and soteriology as a whole precede ecclesiology.161 This suggests that the church is only an external aid and that it is actually all about the personal relationship with God in forgiveness and renewal. Apparently, this was different in the Early Church. However, this does not mean that the personal focus is missing in the Early Church. The suprapersonal church has a focus on the personal forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and eternal life. We encountered it in the explorations in this chapter. It is in particular in the writings of Cyril and Augustine that we see a focus on personal faith and a distinction between the whole body of the church and the personal participation in the living organism of the church as the body of Christ. We may wonder if the confession about the communion of the saints, which was added later, is helpful for us when we weigh the personal aspect of the Apostles’ Creed. Quite something can be said about the interpretation and the historical roots of sanctorum communionem.162 Does this refer to communion with sacred things, such as the Eucharist, and do we have to understand the expression in a sacramental way? Or does it refer to the communion of holy persons? The consideration of these arguments shows that the aspect of koinonia (communion) was heard from the beginning. In this way it becomes very clear that the church and the saints cannot be separated. Given this early focus on the human individual, it is telling that, in the confession of the Early Church, the corporative aspect precedes the personal aspect, and bears the personal aspect. Persons do not bear the church, but the church bears persons. In this way, the suprapersonal character of the church is emphasized. Thus the interests of the church are of great importance. These interests surpass our personal interests. 161 For H. Bavinck, soteriology precedes ecclesiology, Reformed Dogmatics vol. 3 and 4. The modern scholar H. Berkhof uses the reverse order in Christian Faith. 162 Cf. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 388-397.

Review and reflection

We recognize this in the Lord’s Prayer, where we first pray for the coming of God’s Kingdom and next for the forgiveness of our sins. The coherence between corporative unity and personal participation is also linked to the coherence between the visible and invisible church. In fact, those in the Early Church thought from the perspective of the visible church, while we also encounter a sensitivity to the invisible core of the church. Cyprian’s question for sincere motives to desire baptism was part of the sensitivity to the invisible core of the church. His attention to spiritual meditation and exercise is in line with this. Also in Augustine’s writings, this spiritual dimension is well-represented when he focuses on the invisible soul and that which happens inside it. This is continued in his words about the invisible election and about the possibility of sheep outside of the flock and wolves within the sheepfold. Still the invisible church is not made independent, nor is it made a subset of the visible church. It is the invisible core of Christ’s visible body. A very different issue with respect to the unity in Christ is the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, where questions arise about the relationship between Israel and catholicity. Despite the conscious acceptance of the Old Testament, we also see a critical attitude towards Israel. We keep this fact in mind and, at the same time, conclude that it is a study in itself to consider the relationship between Israel and the church in the context of catholicity. e. Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy The representatives of the Early Church do not equally emphasize the indwelling of the Spirit in the church. We encountered this secret explicitly in the writings of Cyprian and Augustine. It is implicitly present everywhere because it is the other side of the reality of the body of Christ. This spiritual reality is expressed in baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and it is striking that Ignatius emphasizes the Eucharist while Cyprian emphasized baptism. Within this framework, we see a continual care for the orthodoxy of the catholic faith. For the representatives of the Early Church, it is impossible for the catholic church to go hand in hand with unorthodox beliefs. The peculiarity of the catholic church is that orthodoxy is held as an expression of the concept that the church is a pillar and ground of the truth.163 According to Augustine, error is worse than murder, because murder kills the body, while error kills the soul. At the same time, it is true that error easily creeps in. There are thousands of errors, but there is only one truth. Moreover, the foolish heart of man is receptive to lies. That is why we see, in the Early Church, that considerable 163 1 Tim. 3:15.

73

74

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

efforts are made to refute errors and to confirm the orthodox truth. When we try to gain more understanding of the substantive side of orthodoxy, it turns out to focus on faith in the corporeal resurrection of Christ, the incarnation and the second coming. These concepts were at stake and the church fathers integrally defended the orthodox faith in the transcendent truths concerning the Person of Christ. That is why there was so much attention for the corporeal resurrection of the believers, as an expression of a transformation which is outside our human order. The Early Church also had to deal with Marcion’s beliefs with respect to creation. Gradually, more explicit attention was also given to the Holy Spirit. So, we could summarize the orthodox essence of faith, in the Early Church, as faith in the Trinity. With respect to orthodoxy, it is striking that considerable attention is given to the full wealth of the Christian faith. It was Vincent in particular who pointed out that neglecting certain aspects of the Christian faith leads to an erosion of the Christian faith. We may add to this that the application of the full wealth of the catholic church makes the church more defendable in different situations and serves its credibility in different contexts. With respect to the orthodox faith, continuity also applies. In this context, Nicaea uses the word ‘apostolic’ to refer to the catholic character of the church. So the church rests on the “apostolic succession”, a succession as the apostles wanted it to be. We already find this principle in the Scriptures. The apostles – together with the prophets – are called the foundation of the church.164 At the same time, we read that no-one can lay another foundation than that is laid, which is Christ.165 The apparent discrepancy that occurs here, hardly needs explanation. Christ is the essential foundation of the church, only He is the Saviour and Redeemer. The apostles are the eyewitnesses of Christ, who witnessed of His Person and His works.166 That is why the apostolic office is an office that cannot be repeated in the church, so that we can say that the apostles are the foundation of the church. The church is characterized by continuing in the faith and the rites of the apostles.167 It is also striking to see how emphatically the apostles called on the early church to preserve this witness.168 We might call the focus on faith and the witness of the apostles a conservative aspect of the Christian church. In our culture, novelty is the characteristic of that which is true and good, but the early Christian church valued a truth and reality that transcended the rages of the times. If innovation becomes characteristic 164 165 166 167 168

Eph. 2:20. 1 Cor. 3:11. 1 John 1:1-3. Acts 2:42. 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 3:14; Heb. 4:14, 13:7-9; Jud.:3.

Review and reflection

of the Christian church, if people think they have to call traditional insights old-fashioned or if the present-day interpretation displaces the supratemporal interpretation, this is a reason to be alarmed, according to the Early Church. There is actually nothing to be innovated about the substance of faith and the identity of Christ and His body. Throughout all centuries the same things have been important: it is the same Person and the same body of Christ, the cross and the resurrection of Christ, and the use and the salvation in these things for us. Even though we live in a very different culture, we share in the same Christ as Peter and Paul. For Christians in the twenty-first century, this means a spiritual connection with believers from the past and an independence with respect to the quickly changing Zeitgeist. We may wonder at scientific understandings from two thousand years ago, but expressions of faith from the same times have a different effect. Although we may wonder at such expressions – it would not be easy to listen to sermons by Ignatius or Augustine – they do not make us feel like they had a different faith, but they encourage us to relate to the apostolic witness concerning Christ once again. This also implies that it is better to speak of a progress in our understanding of the Gospel doctrines than a progress in our understanding of the Gospel.169 The concept of progress dates back from the nineteenth century. It was believed that the Early Church had laid the foundation, that the Reformation had built on it, a building which they themselves further refined, in such a way that the newest doctrines of the Gospel were also the best developed doctrines of the Gospel. This idea of progress is not compatible with the substance of faith of the Early Church. Vincent showed that there is progress in the understanding of faith, but that the substance of faith is unchangeable. For a twenty-first century Christian, this means that the history of theology is full of turns and breaches; we may think of the progress of the capricious forms of a brook, but this is no qualitative progress. Perhaps people in the Early Church understood more of Christ than we do in the twentyfirst century, without excluding the possibility that realities of faith were later expressed with unpreceded clarity. The secret of this stability is found in the Person and the work of Christ. Our Saviour is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.170 That is why Christians are not primarily focused on the innovation of or the progress in the substance of faith, but it is quite enough for them to understand the early witness concerning Christ and to interpret it in their own situation. Spiritual communion with these early Christians is indispensable in order to fathom the apostolic witness concerning the Saviour. 169 Cf. Berkhof, Inleiding tot de studie van de Dogmatiek, 57. 170 Heb. 13:8.

75

76

A. Historical part. Catholicity in the Early Church

There is so much wealth in this Gospel, that it is sufficient to answer all the questions and needs of all times and cultures. That is why it is not good to speak of conservatism as such. Actually, it is the eschatological fullness in Christ which comprises each historical context. Whereas the term “conservative” must be interpreted historically, the term “eschatological” has something that transcends, transforms, absorbs and attracts history. The Gospel witnesses of this dazzling richness. f. Being a holy stranger and pilgrim It is striking to see how much attention the Early Church paid to the Christian life of soberness, mercy, humility, love, suffering and so many more virtues. Cyril emphasized the presence of all virtues in the church. We know, from the history of the Early Church, that people were impressed by the Christians’ way of life. Their marital fidelity and the mercy they showed upon the homeless of their days were greatly respected. Their way of life, which was different from the people around them, was a living Bible to those who did not read the Bible. Moreover, it was an important means to attract people from paganism to the Christian church. This way of life was given with the existential position in the body of Christ, which was animated by the Holy Spirit. In this context, it must be noted that unity with Christ was decisive with respect to citizenship on this earth, so sojourning and heavenly citizenship were assumed to belong with the position in Christ’s body. Augustine accepted the consequences of this fact by shifting the main area of focus of the holiness of the church from the individual Christians to the body of Christ, as it is expressed in the holy Gospel, holy baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the holy church service, the covenant and the holy marriage. By doing so, the church father made it clear that holiness is not ours and does not become ours, but that it is amazing that sinners are granted to partake of the holiness of the church as the body of Christ. In the writings of several church fathers, we see how they show that living according to the order of God’s kingdom leads to a break with the old life. Cyril adds to it the concept of Christian conflict, from the understanding that this break is not a once-and-for-all event. His discussion about this struggle also emphasizes that it is a demanding process that requires much endurance from us, while we are confronted with powerful opponents. In Augustine’s writings, the understanding breaks through that forgiveness deserves a permanent place in Christian life in the church, while the order of church and forgiveness in the Apostles’ Creed is fundamental. In this way, the holiness of Christ’s body becomes something that gives tension, because it moves at the border of “cheap

Review and reflection

grace”. The question arises how far the church should go in tolerating that which is opposed to its essence. It also reminds the church of its calling to address sin and uphold justice. If the church does not do it, who will? In this way, the church, as expression of Christ, remains a stranger in this world, with a strange message, while it is, for the believer, the beginning of eternal life.

77

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

In the first part of this study we investigated how different representatives of the Early Church interpreted the catholicity of the church. We will use the results of this study as a framework for our consideration of several representatives of the Reformed tradition. We will start with Calvin, because he, in the context of his times, gave much thought to the church and considered the catholicity of the church. Then we will investigate several confessions arising from the Reformed tradition. We will further study the Reformed tradition to find individual theologians who dealt with the theme of catholicity. This leads us to A Reformed Catholicke by William Perkins (1558–1602).1 The full title, on the one hand, shows that this work mainly concerns a controversy with the Roman-Catholic Church, while it emphasizes, on the other hand, that William Perkins – in contrast to Calvin – does not give up the term “catholic”.2 It is remarkable how Perkins introduces the book: “By a Reformed Catholic I understand anyone that holds the same necessarie heades of religion with the Romane Church, yet so as he pares off and rejects all errours in doctrine whereby the said religion is corrupted.”3 So, Perkins considers a Reformed catholic someone who confesses the heads of the Roman religion minus the errors that have entered throughout the centuries. What is remarkable in his approach, is that he speaks of the church in the context of continuity, and places the reformation of errors within this framework. So, Reformation does not in any way mean a break with catholicity, but rather preserving of catholicity. In Voetius’ writings (1589–1676) we also encounter a positive approach to the tradition. When Voetius gave an account of his ample use of quotations, he wrote that he did not want to teach new things, because with the great theologians he considered the most travelled way the safest.4 His Scottish contemporary Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) said the same thing: “It may be, that I am incapable of new light (…). Thousands of thousands, walking in that light and that good old way, have gone to heaven, and are now before the throne; truth is but one.”5 1 W. Perkins, A reformed Catholike: or, A declaration shewing how neere we may come to the present Church of Rome in sundrie points of religion: and vvherein we must for euer depart from them with an advertisment to all fauourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the catechisme. 2 This approach has also been used to weaken the Reformed identity, cf. Broevver, “De irenische Perkins-vertaling van de Arminiaan Everard Booth (1577-1610)”; Op ’t Hof, “Everhardus Booth een irenist?”. 3 Perkins, A Reformed Catholike. Perkins also deals with a proper appreciation of the tradition, 134-151. 4 Cf. De Niet, ‘Inleiding’, i, vii. 5 Rutherford, Letters, 641 (17 April 1646).

81

82

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This positive approach of the tradition Voetius gives a balanced view of the Roman tradition. In his Practice of Piety, Voetius is critical of mediaeval and Roman-Catholic spirituality, but it is also clear from dozens of positive references that he also learns from Roman-Catholic theologians and Jesuits.6 When we look for a treatise by him about the catholic church we find the first chapter of the first volume of his Politica Ecclesiastica (1663–1676), where he discusses the essence of the church. It is striking that he, only in a synchronous perspective, compares the catholic character of the church to the Roman-Catholic Church.7 Therefore he does not discuss the catholic character of the church throughout the centuries. Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620–1677) was a student of Voetius. He believed that the Reformation had broken too rigorously with mediaeval practices such as the monastery. It shows that he was not satisfied with the ecclesiastical and spiritual situation of his days: “Certainly, the Reformed truth (involving the doctrine of the imperfection of saints in this life), teaches that there is always much to be reformed in the church, and that one, therefore, has to perform and continue this work all the time.”8 He said this from his conviction that the church of the Reformation had got stuck somewhere halfway. Using the metaphor of the valley of dry bones he stated that the church of the Reformation was still a body that lacked life.9 This analysis is not even very catholic, but the understanding that we can never rest on our laurels in the church because a continual reformation is necessary, is certainly a catholic concept. In the tradition, this understanding has led to the slogan ecclesia reformata semper reformanda (the Reformed church must always be reforming). Generally, it can be stated that the piety of the Puritans and representatives of the Second Reformation is rooted in mediaeval catholicism. The Reformed Polanus (1561–1610) referred to the Roman-Catholic Bellarminus (1542–1621) to defend a “long” Gospel of Mark.10 In the development of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works Roman-Catholic and Reformed theologians mutually influenced each other.11 6 De Niet, ‘Inleiding’, xxxi, lx-lxi, lxiii-lxv. 7 Voetius was clearly negative towards Rome. He saw it as wine mixed with poison, which is why he had to be radically negative: ‘Nulla pax cum Roma’, Politica Ecclesiastica vol. 2, 527. He most extensively wrote about it in Desperata causa papatus (1536). 8 Van Lodensteyn, Beschouwinge van Zion, 184. A reprint is known published by Höveker, Amsterdam, 1839. The quotation is found in vol. 2, p. 63. This reprint was taken care of by H.P. Scholte, which is also telling. An exploration on the Internet revels that this expression is widely used, also by Roman-Catholic and Lutheran theologians. 9 Van Lodensteyn, De geesteloosheid in de godsdienst, 11-13. 10 Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf, 353. 11 Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei, 245-280.

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This quest for truth in the Reformed tradition, was not limited to the RomanCatholic church. Reformed theologians also referred to Lutherans.12 Peter of Mastricht (1630–1706) referred to the Eastern Gregory of Nazianzus to explain the unity with Christ, although he distanced himself from his language about the deification of man.13 One of the discoveries by G.A. van den Brink is that, in Reformed orthodoxy, Calvin’s concept of atonement was exchanged for a different concept, the basic structure of which was given by Hugo Grotius.14 People distanced themselves from many beliefs of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), but they were so open-minded as to recognize truth in his words. This study shows that the Reformed slogan sola scriptura was not a Biblicist sola scriptura,15 but that people believed in the guidance of the Spirit in tradition.16 In our quest for a treatise concerning catholicity, we also found a page by Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711), and it is remarkable that he is so critical towards this term.17 By stating that it is not a Biblical word, he means that it is not important. He points out that various heretics have used this term. Moreover, he emphasizes that the name catholic does not say anything about the substance, which means that it cannot be a mark of truth. He points out that the relationship with Rome is not catholic at all, rather the opposite. He also plays down the term by stating that the church of the Old Testament was not catholic, because the church comprised only one nation. He concludes his argument by saying that the Reformed church does not boast in the word catholic. When we consider the critical approach of À Brakel, the question arises how he relates his view to the Apostles’ Creed. In any case, these points made by À Brakel urge us to listen carefully to other voices in the tradition. Although the aforementioned theologians have made statements about catholicity, we need to approach other theologians for treatises about catholicity. This leads u to James Ussher (1581–1656), who wrote an extensive treatise about catholicity. John Owen (1616–1683) was also particularly occupied with these things. We will also study Herman Bavinck (1854–1921) because he devoted a rectorial address to the catholicity of the church. We will conclude with the 12 Cf. De Moor, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Compendium of Christian Theology deel 1, 192; Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, 7. 13 Van Mastricht, Theoretico-Practica Theologia, 792: ‘Nec proinde fidelis, per hanc unionem, Christificatur aut Deificatur, ut imprudenter olim Nazianzenus.’ 14 Van den Brink, Tot zonde gemaakt, 294. 15 Allen en Swain, Reformed Catholicity, 85; Fesko, ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy’. 16 Cf. for this process Quantin, The Church of England and Christian Antiquity; Han, Symphonia Catholica. 17 À Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service 2:18-19.

83

84

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

study by Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996), who a substantial part of a study devoted to the catholicity of the church. There has been more research with respect to catholicity18 , but the selected theologians are representative for the Reformed tradition, while they also guarantee different perspectives.

18 More research can be done, since also Klaas Schilder, Hendrik Berkhof and Abraham van de Beek studied the catholicity of the church. Also, much has been done internationally, as was pointed out in the introduction.

6.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

John Calvin hardly needs to be introduced. Besides numerous other Protestant theologians, he guided, from Geneva, the second phase of the Reformation. He is one of the most famous Reformers and his theology still internationally offers a landmark for Reformed church life, which shows that his work was and is recognized as a valuable interpretation of God’s Word. In particular his Commentaries and his Institutes have been very influential in spiritual, ecclesiastical, social and cultural life. 6.1

From person to church

Since Calvin gave his own description of catholicity, we will choose this as our starting point and we will compare it to the benchmarks from the Early Church: For unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope of the future inheritance awaits us. Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal (Aug. Ep. 48), for two or three (churches, WvV) cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ.19

This interpretation of catholicity leads to a number of observations. Firstly, Calvin chooses the spiritual communion with Christ as the starting point of his understanding of catholicity. Where Ignatius and Cyprian structured the church from the bishop, Calvin redefines the church from Christ as the highest bishop.20 This enables him to interpret the church from its invisible dimension. This invisible dimension of the church is based on the hidden election.21 This is also clear from the beginning of the section, where the quotation about catholicity was taken from. With respect to the confession of the church, “reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to 19 Calvin, Institutes 4.1.2. 20 Zillenbiller, Die Einheit der katholische Kirche, 113-114, 126-127, 148. 21 It is telling that Calvin, also in the Catechism of Geneva primarily defines the church from God’s election, cf. Q. 93. In Question 100 he emphasizes, once again, that the article about the church actually is about the church of election.

86

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life”. In this expression we hear that the most actual words about the church have respect to the invisible church. This information reveals that Calvin, in the end, chooses his starting point for his view on the church in the invisible church and the personal relationship with Christ.22 For the reformer, the catholic unity of the church is not an aim or a command, but in the first place a gift in God’s gracious election.23 This starting point is further confirmed by the structure of the Institutes. It is striking that Calvin deals with the doctrine of the church in the fourth volume, in the context of “the external means or helps by which God invites us to fellowship with Christ, and keeps us in it”. According to G. Plasger, this indicates that Calvin divided the Apostles’ Creed over the four volumes of the Institutes. He discusses the work of the Holy Spirit as a unity in the third volume, and does not only define the church from the perspective of the Holy Spirit.24 This definition certainly has substantive consequences. Firstly, it must be pointed out that the church, in this way, is considered an instrument. So for Calvin it is no question whether we can speak of faith in the church.25 He explicitly states that Christians only trust in God and they believe the church, just as they believe the remission of their sins or the corporeal resurrection. It may be defended with solid arguments that this is in line with the intentions of the Early Church. But when the church, in fact, is considered to be an instrument in the redemptive actions of God, the church is approached differently than during the first centuries AD. Where Calvin’s structural order gives the church a position as serving the body of Christ, the Early Church called the body of Christ the church and vice versa. Secondly, this change in structure has consequences for the relationship between church and remission. Where, in the Apostles’ Creed, the forgiveness of sins is placed in the context of the church, Calvin puts the forgiveness of sins in the foreground and puts the church further to the background. So, according to Calvin, we may speak of forgiveness while we haven’t spoken of the church yet. In this way, the institute of the church is contextualized. Where Augustine explicitly chose to speak of ongoing forgiveness within the church, based on the order of church and forgiveness in the Apostles’ Creed, Calvin spoke of forgiveness without the church. 22 Comp. Plasger, ‘Ecclesiology’, 324. D.G. Butner emphasizes that Calvin speaks of the election in Christ, and thus of the election of the one Person in Christ, “Reformed Theology and the Question of Protestant Individualism”, 238. These notions in Institutes 3.22.1-2 do not take away the character of personal election. 23 Cf. Plasger, “Ecclesiology”, 324, 326, 328. 24 Plasger, “Ecclesiology”, 323. 25 Calvin, Institutes 4.1.2.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

This is not just a formal matter, but here an important theological decision is made. The forgiveness of sins becomes something between God and the individual person. Although external means such as the church, sacraments and preaching are necessary, there is much more emphasis on the individual relationship with God at the expense of the corporative aspect of the church. Undoubtedly, this approach reveals a criticism of the absolutizing of the power of the church of the Middle Ages.26 While in the Middle Ages all emphasis was given to the external and visible church, this Reformed theologian emphasizes the invisibility of the church. We may even go a step further here. Reformation would not have been possible without this understanding of catholicity.27 If Calvin had assumed a rigid ontological understanding of catholicity, the Reformation’s serious criticism of the church of the Middle Ages would have been encapsulated and disarmed from the outset. It is precisely the dynamic view of the church which made it possible for Calvin to criticize the church of the Middle Ages and to prove the relevance of the Reformation. Here Calvin joins Luther, who in his controversy with Erasmus, said that the public church may err.28 This means that the true church may be hidden in the small number of believers who understand, love and confess the truth. In this sense, the truth and understanding the truth is not a common possession, but a special grace. Moreover, the approach from the invisible church made it possible to recognize an attacked church as the church. The church of the Reformation was in a desolate situation, since “a small and contemptible number are hidden in a huge multitude and a few grains of wheat are covered by a pile of chaff ”. Here Calvin refers to the insignificance of the Protestant movement, in an external sense. Although Calvin, personally, served in the great city church of Geneva, he was aware that many Protestants were ‘divided and dispersed’ (dissita et dispersa).29 Irenaeus had already spoken of a church which was scattered, but in this time of confusion this understanding was given a new dimension.30 In Calvin’s days, there were many refugees, who fled to Geneva and other places.31 In this context, the comfort of God’s election shone forth.32 In this context Oberman speaks of the “Reformation of the Refugees”.33 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Cf. Oberman, “De katholieke kerkvader”, 998; Van ’t Spijker, “De kerk bij Calvijn: theocratie.” Berkouwer, The Church, 122. WA 18, 649-652. Calvin, Institutes 4.1.9. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.10.2. Zie Neuser, ‘Calvin and the Refugees’, 7. Cf. Oberman, The two Reformations, 111-115. Oberman also points out that this comfort is internalized in times of prosperity. 33 Oberman, John Calvin and the Reformation of the Refugees, 177-194.

87

88

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This also indicates that Calvin did not so much consider catholicity from the wealth of faith, but from the universality of the church, namely the whole of often insignificant and vulnerable local churches.34 As an ecumenical theologian, Calvin made the “heroic effort to unite the Protestants in the dispersion’ under a church roof.35 We can imagine that Calvin reached this personal understanding of catholicity because he thought about catholicity in the context of a broken church. Calvin’s understanding of catholicity was not born in a neutral study situation, but in the broken church reality of his days. In the context of the brokenness of the church, he could still see the unity of the church from a spiritual interpretation of catholicity. At the same time, when we consider Calvin’s understanding of catholicity, we must take into account the cultural context. The Reformation was part of a culture in transition, where a turn was taking place to the subject.36 Also in this respect, Calvin was a child of his time. Bavinck also notices this development in a religious sense: “The Reformation – deliberately and freely – took its position in the religious subject, in the faith of the Christian, in the testimony of the Holy Spirit.”37 This turn towards the subject is not absolute for Calvin. The Reformer agreed with Cyprian that there is no salvation outside the visible church, and he joins Tertullian in his belief that the church is a mother of all believers.38 Calvin’s pays so much attention to the functioning of the visible church, that V.M. Kärkkäinen says that it was of primary importance to him.39 In his sermons we do not find that Calvin makes the individual person the focus, because here he speaks from the reality of Christ’s church. The position in his Institutes where Calvin discusses election, is telling. He places it in the third volume, which shows that God’s election cannot be treated as a principle a priori, as though we could distinguish the elect from the reprobates. The fact that Calvin discusses the mystery of God’s eternal choice precisely here, emphasizes that we only learn something about this divine mystery a posteriori. Calvin also considered the corporate aspect of Christ’s body. For example, in Calvin’s work we find him speaking of totus Christus when he says that Christ, in

34 35 36 37

Cf. De Boer, ‘Verspreid en verstrooid’, 12-14. Noordmans, ‘Het calvinisme en de oecumene’, Verzamelde Werken deel 6, 397-409, 397, 403. Taylor, A Secular Age, 146. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 1,583 (par. 151). Cf. Van der Kooi, “The appeal to the inner testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck”; Jenson, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 256. 38 Calvin, Institutes 4.1.1-2; cf. Plasger, ‘Ecclesiology’, 324. 39 Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 50.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

a sense, is not complete without believers.40 The fourth volume of the Institutes places the external aids within the framework of the communion with Christ. On the other hand, we have seen that the personal focus of salvation was clearly present in the Early Church. So, this was not new in the Reformation. Despite these nuances, the fact remains that in Calvin’s work a different direction can be observed when he structurally reverses the relationship of church and forgiveness. Clearly, the direction of view has been reversed, as compared to the Early Church. Where people in the Early Church thought about the individual from the visible corporate unity, Calvin thinks about the visible church from the invisible relationship between Christ and the individual. Despite his appeal to the Early Church and his desire to furnish church life in continuity with the Early Church, he changed the understanding of catholicity. In summary, we can conclude that for Calvin the invisible and the visible church, as inside and outside, are inseparably connected and that his direction of view is to the outside from the inside, so from the invisible to the visible church. 6.2

Called to unity

The perspective of the individual toward the visible church as such could be a source of fragmentation of the church. Moreover, in addition to the question about orthodoxy, Calvin investigates the meaning of the true church.41 He does not situate the church around the bishop, but he agrees with the Augsburg Confession, which speaks of the right administration of Word and sacrament.42 The principle of the combination of Word and sacrament could be a vehicle to start churches again and again without caring about cohesion and unity. For Calvin, it did not function like that at all. From the perspective of hidden election and Christ’s hidden body, the meaning of the visible local church is highlighted.43 It is the believers’ precious calling to give form to this unity, also visibly. A striking sentence in the Institutes, which connects the invisible church to the visible church: “Moreover, this article of the Creed relates in some measure to the external church.”44 Again it is clear that Calvin actually applies the article from the Creed to the invisible church, but that, from the invisible church, something can be said of the visible church. 40 41 42 43 44

Comm. Ef. 1:23 See Niesel, Die Theologie Calvins, 195. Calvin, Institutes 4.1.9 and CA, art. 7. Wendel, Calvin. Origins, and Developments of His Religious Thought, 296. ”Quanquam articulus symboli ad externam quoque ecclesiam aliquatenus pertinet”, Institutes 4.1.3. In Institutes 4.1.7 Calvin makes a distinction between the visible and visible church, where the invisible church is also seen as the actual church.

89

90

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Apparently, Calvin wants to say that all characteristics of the church which, without nuance, apply to the invisible or true church, “in some measure” apply to or serve the visible church. There is a distinction between the visible and invisible church, but this distinction cannot be made too large. In any case, there cannot be an opposition between the visible and the visible church, although some tension remains. The direction of thinking is clear: from the invisible to the visible church. This means a direction of thinking from the spiritual reality of the church to the visible revelation of the church. This also implies that the visible church, “in some measure” has the same importance as the invisible church, so the importance of the visible church is clearly emphasized. In other words: it is certainly not true that the visible church, as compared to the invisible church, is less important. This connection between the invisible and visible church places an enormous claim on the unity of the church. Calvin decisively underlines that there is no eternal life if we do not live in unity in this world.45 God regards him who alienates himself from any Christian society as a “deserter of religion”.46 Calvin can be so decisive because he is not speaking of a high human ideal, but of Christ Himself, of His body.47 If one loses sight of the unity in Christ, one is also vulnerable to heresy and schism.48 This shows that he took schism just as seriously as Augustine, who considered it a more serious crime than giving up sacred writings. It was clear that Calvin meant these things, when he was banished from Geneva.49 Those who supported him and his policy, planned not to take part in the Lord’s Supper anymore. However, Calvin admonished them to do so, despite the broken situation in Geneva. Another effect of this thinking, is Calvin’s effort to reach agreement in theology. He took part in the colloquies of Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg.50 For the sake of the unity of the mediaeval church, he was willing to speak of a justification of our works.51 He safeguarded the Reformed discovery by

45 Comm. Eph. 4:4. 46 Calvin, Institutes 4.1.10. 47 In this context, I.J. Hesselink says decisively: “His commitment to the unity of the church was not despite his high view of the church, but precisely because of it!”, “Calvinus Oecumenicus”, 70. 48 Calvin, Institutes 4.2.6. 49 See Niesel, Die Theologie Calvins, 196. 50 Cf. Stolk, Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken. 51 In a letter to Farel, 11 May 1541, CO XI, 215-216. Cf. Lane, Justification by Faith in CatholicProtestant Dialogue, 46-60; Lane, “Twofold Righteousness”; Lane, “Calvin and the Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy”.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

distinguishing this justification from the justification by faith. It was impossible for the good works to have no meaning. He could even call the works a cause of justification, if only the word causa was understood as an inferior causa, an inferior cause. Unfortunately, this catholic attitude did not have the desired result and at the Council of Trent, Rome finally broke with the catholic church by rejecting the exclusivity of Christ in church structure and theology. In any case, Calvin had done his utmost to reach agreement. He had shown his willingness to compromise; he had not behaved like a doctrinal maniac who wanted to squeeze out every last drop. He wanted to learn from everybody, also from Anabaptists and Roman-Catholics. This was also how he conversed with all Protestants. He was friends with Melanchthon, even though they did not agree about free will and divine predestination.52 Despite some reservations, he also supported Melanchthon’s Confessio Augustana. He came to an agreement with Bullinger concerning the Lord’s Supper (Consensus Tigurinus) – despite their different views concerning election and reprobation. And had there not been such a large distance between them, he would have certainly talked to Luther about the Lord’s Supper. Unfortunately, a Consensus Wittenbergius was never reached. Moreover, we can mention Calvin’s boundless efforts for the sake of the Waldensians, when terrible massacres took place among them. He wrote to Archbishop Cranmer that he looked forward to organise an ecumenicalProtestant council to come to a confession that would be acceptable to all Protestants.53 He wrote, among other things: It is to be reckoned among the worst evils of our day that the churches are so ripped apart that the holy communion of Christ’s members, which all profess with the mouth, is sincerely practised only by a few. … Thus it comes to pass that, the members being divided, the body of the Church lies down as if it has been ripped apart. Respecting myself, if it should appear that I could be of any use, it would not be hard for me even to cross ten oceans if necessary. … With respect to such an important matter, namely the agreement of learned men, according to the rule of Scripture rightly assembled, by which the Churches, which are now so far away from each other, would grow together and be united, I think it would be unlawful for me to spare any labour or trouble to effect it.54

52 Cf. Koolhaas, “De katholiciteit der kerk”, 28. 53 CO, XIV, 312-314. 54 Calvini Opera 14:314. Translation Peter Meeuse.

91

92

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Of course, Calvin did not write this in the context of divided Reformed denominations, but in the context of lacking unity between the different local, regional or national churches.55 In sum, we can conclude that Calvin acted like a “bridge builder”. 6.3

Orthodox besides the mediaeval church

This existential concern for and boundless effort for the unity of the church as the expression of the one body of Christ raises the question how Calvin could account for the existence of the church besides the mediaeval church.56 This question becomes even more urgent when we realize that Calvin was not averse to tradition in an Anabaptist way. He quoted Augustine more than two thousand times.57 The well-known example of Caroli, who accused Calvin and Farel of being unorthodox because they did not use the terms trinitas and persona in their doctrine of Trinity, shows how Calvin dealt with the tradition.58 Caroli demanded subjection to the ancient church terms, but Calvin rejected it, not because he did not agree with its substance, but because one was forced to subscribe to it as a proof of orthodoxy. The reformer of Geneva did not want “this example of tyranny brought into the church, such that he would be held a heretic who had not spoken according to the prescription of another man”. So Calvin is concerned about the spiritual connection to the wealth of faith which has been passed on in the tradition, rather than advocating literalism. Calvin could not bear that the Council of Geneva wanted to break with the tradition of the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper. He called in “an invention of the devil”. When the Council of Geneva did not give permission, Calvin concluded that “it is better to have patience with the weakness of the people than to fight with too much obstinacy”. The fact that he could be so tolerant, shows that he did not want to legally force obedience to the traditional truth, even though he had been trained as a lawyer. How could this mild man be so decisive with respect to the Roman Catholic Church? Moreover, one could not hurt him more deeply than by saying that he was responsible for schisms.59 When we study this more deeply, the doctrina (doc55 56 57 58

Wendel, Calvin, 310. It is historically appropriate to speak of the Roman-Catholic church as of the Council of Trent. Cf. De Reuver, ‘Calvijn (1509-1564)’, 232. According to Koopmans, Het oudkerkelijk dogma in de Reformatie, bepaaldelijk bij Calvijn, 36-39. 59 D. Nauta shows how Calvin, in Geneva, reveals a hatred of schisms, “Calvijns afkeer van een schisma”.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

trine) turns out to be of vital importance. The unity that he advocates is not a common brotherhood or an organisational unity as such, but a unity in truth.60 He accuses the church of the Middle Ages of having forsaken the Word with an appeal to the Spirit.61 So Calvin does not only accuse the fanatics of having broken the bond of Word and Spirit, but he also says Rome is to blame. An appeal to the Spirit without the Word leads to error and heresy, sect and schism. This belief brings him to the following description of the church, in his famous reply to cardinal Sadolet: ‘Now, if you can bear to receive a truer definition of the Church than your own, say, in future, that it is the society of all the saints, a society which, spread over the whole world, and existing in all ages, yet bound together by the one doctrine, and the one Spirit of Christ, cultivates and observes unity of faith and brotherly accord.’62 This quotation shows that unity in Christ is defined by the doctrine of Christ. That which the soul is to the body, doctrine is to the body of Christ.63 It is not so simple to explain what Calvin means by doctrine. In any case, he certainly does not understand doctrine in an absolutely systematic or rational sense. We can say that he consciously considers the doctrine which is confessed to be of greatest importance.64 In this way, he can also reject and reverse the accusation of schism. Not the reformers were the ones who made a schism, but the mediaeval church separated themselves from the Early Church in an uncatholic way.65 He accuses Sadolet, as a representative of the mediaeval church, that he has elevated the traditions of men above Christ, as a result of which the church has become corrupted.66

60 “But the most serious charge of all is, that we have attempted to dismember the Spouse of Christ”, “Reply to Cardinal Sadolet”, 66; Nijenhuis, Calvinus oecumenicus, 272, 231. 61 ‘Reply to Cardinal Sadolet’, 35. See also page 50: ‘In fine, ours the Church, whose supreme care it is humbly and religiously to venerate the word of God, and submit to its authority.’ See also page 52: ‘Hence, I observe, Sadolet, that you have too indolent a theology, as is almost always the case with those who have never had experience in serious struggles of conscience.’ Calvin can also say: ‘For such is our consciousness of the truth of our doctrine, that it has do dread of the heavenly Judge, from whom, we doubt not, that is proceeded’, page 55. According to W. Nijenhuis, Calvin’s letter to Sadolet provides his deepest view of the unity of the church, ‘De eenheid der kerk bij Luther en Calvijn’, 956. According to Calvin’s analysis, the Romana is sectarian, Nijenhuis, Calvinus oecumenicus, 273. 62 ‘Reply to Cardinal Sadolet’, 37. 63 Commentary on Acts 2:42. Cf. “Reply to Cardinal Sadolet”, 57-58: “Always, both by word and deed, have I protested how eager I was for unity (…) I behoved to purchase it with the denial of thy truth.” See also Institutes 4.2.2; Richel, Het kerkbegrip van Calvijn, 22. 64 Hesselink shows this, ‘Calvinus Oecumenicus’, 75n23. 65 Nijenhuis, Calvinus oecumenicus, 231. 66 ‘Reply to Cardinal Sadolet’, 41.

93

94

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This corruption in particular concerns the confession of justification by faith, in which the glory of Christ shines forth brightly.67 The deviations in the church of the Middle Ages were important to Calvin, considering the fact that he could be mild with respect to differences in doctrine: “Nay, even in the administration of word and sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion.”68 He adds in the same breath: “For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position.” For him it is essential to have agreement in the faith in God, God’s Son and the absoluteness of God’s grace, but there may be differences of opinion about the place of souls after this life. In a reply to Joachim Westphal, Calvin also mentions the doctrine of depravity, the manner of justification, the offices of Christ, repentance and its exercises, faith and prayer as unity-creating articles.69 According to Calvin, the controversy with Rome, however, was about giving up the full Christ70 , so he had to choose between Rome and Christ.71 Calvin, however, continued in his ambivalent attitude towards the church of Rome. He did not completely write it off, because he recognized traces and remnants of the church within it. He recognized that there are “churches” in the Roman-Catholic church, where, locally, justice is done to the Word of God, but considering the ‘the whole body, as well as every single assembly, … the form of a legitimate Church’ is wanting.72 The Roman Catholic Ganoczy has pointed out that Calvin, with respect to Rome, never rigidly contrasts the true church with the false church, but makes a distinction between the good and bad conditions of the church.73 Where the church of Rome can be seen to be moving away from the Early Church, the reformation movement, on the contrary, intends nothing but “to renew that ancient form of the Church”.74 In fact this indicates that catholicity implies historicity and apostolicity, and

67 ‘Reply to Cardinal Sadolet’, 41. 68 Calvin, Institutes 4.1.12. In Institutie 4.1.13-16 Calvin shows that even serious defects are no reason to leave the church. In his commentary to 1 Cor. 1:2 Calvin shows that no perfect church exists. Cf. Wendel, Calvin, 310-311. 69 According to Hesselink, ‘Calvinus Oecumenicus’, 88. 70 Cf. commentary to Gal. 1:5. See also Institutes 4.2.2; 4.6-9. 71 Calvin, Institutes 4.2.6. 72 Calvin, Institutes 4.2.12. 73 According to Hesselink, ‘Calvinus Oecumenicus’, 78. Richel speaks of ruins, Het kerkbegrip van Calvijn, 131-132. A restoration of the Romana is not impossible, Walker, “Calvin and the Church”, 216. 74 “Reply to Cardinal Sadolet”, 37. On page 49 Calvin concludes: “Expostulate with us, if you can, for the injury which we inflicted on the Catholic Church, by daring to violate its sacred sanctions (…) in all these points, the ancient Church is clearly on our side, and opposes you.” See also on page 37: “Our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours.”

John Calvin (1509–1564)

that reformation is mainly restoration.75 Just like Luther, Calvin did not intend to form a new church, but he meant to reform the catholic church. He did not place himself outside the catholic church, but he implicitly refuted that the church of Rome was catholic. That is why Calvin calls people to distance themselves from the numerous mediaeval renewals and to join the true catholic church of all times.76 6.4

Anonymous catholicity

Calvin did not make much effort to advocate the term catholicity as such.77 This is striking since he is catholic himself in his agreement with the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, the three of which use the term ‘catholic’. A first thought could be that Calvin does not appeal to the term catholicity out of fear to be identified with the mediaeval church.78 But this suspicion does not seem to be grounded. If this were true, the Reformer would have decided not to formally use the word ‘catholic’, but he would have paid much attention to its substance. But the opposite is true. When we investigate to what extent Calvin used the considerations of the before-mentioned theologians from the Early Church with respect to catholicity, we find that Calvin does not quote Ignatius. The highest number of references to Cyprian occur in the fourth volume of the Institutes, but still Calvin in not in tune with Cyprian, with respect to his view on the church. Cyril pays less attention to the bishop and more to the different aspects of catholicity, such as universality in the world and in categories of people, all truth, remission of all sins and all virtues. We do not consciously find this qualitative approach of catholicity in Calvin’s works. He does not refer to the passage where Cyril writes about the catholicity of the church.79 This reinforces the idea that Calvin was not especially interested in catholicity. But this is not the whole story. Whereas Calvin interpreted the term catholicity mainly quantitatively and geographically, Calvin’s not-explicated qualitative 75 Cf. Nijenhuis, Calvinus oecumenicus, 231. 76 Cf. Calvijn, Come Out From Among Them. In his commentary on Matt. 16:22 he accuses the Nicodemites of carnal prudence. 77 See Lane, ‘Calvin’s Attitude towards Catholicity’, in particular 225. This is opposed by W. Nijenhuis, who believes that Calvin pays much attention to catholicity, ‘De eenheid der kerk bij Luther en Calvijn’, 952. 78 See Küng, The Church, 306. 79 Cf. Lane, John Calvin. Student of the Church Fathers, 55-61. Lane does not include references to Cyril’s catechetical lectures.

95

96

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

perspective sheds a surprising light on the catholic character on the whole of Calvin’s theology.80 In this sense, Calvin was more catholic than he realized. Since the qualitative aspect of catholicity has respect to the fullness in Christ and His gracious dominion, it is not hard to discover Calvin’s catholicity.81 Even though there may be some historical nuances when speaking of the sola’s of the Reformation, substantively nothing is wrong with characterizing the theology of the Reformation using these terms. Calvin wanted to go back to the catholic fullness in Christ and that is why solus Christus was a reality to him. Because of the solus Christus, also the sola scriptura, sola gratia and sola fide functioned in his beliefs. From this perspective, the break with Rome was more final than we might conclude from the preceding section. Calvin was not only concerned about individual doctrinal points, but about the whole church structure. The reality of a living Christ, who reigns over His church Himself, is contrary to the structure where a pope as successor of Christ is in control.82 This personal dominion of Christ also sheds light on the cohesion of Word and Spirit. It is Christ, Who personally uses the Word and Spirit to feed His body. This underlines Christ’s liberty, in comparison to a presentia realis which is bound to matter or historical forms. This liberty also implies great dynamics for the church. We might speak of a ‘coming to pass’ of the church, because the gracious presence of God is not an automatism or possession. From the perspective that Christ commands the Word to be preached, it also becomes clear why Calvin concentrated on main points of the doctrine. By doing so, he expressed the Word-structure of the church which is effective by the Spirit in the life of the congregation. Zillenberg thinks that Calvin’s focus on doctrine is new with respect to the Early Church.83 There is, indeed, a difference with Augustine. Whereas Augus80 I use the word “geographically” differently than Noordmans, who uses it with respect to the church’s connection to a certain city such as Rome, Jerusalem or Geneva, Van der Kooi, Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans, 284-285. 81 This perspective has been derived from Koolhaas, “De katholiciteit der kerk”. W. Balke has continued this line in “De eigenschappen van de kerk”. Balke says Calvin is “the greatest catholic thinker from the history of the church”, 277. H. Berkhof says: “Calvin was a catholic thinker par excellence”, De katholiciteit der kerk, 105. Berkhof mainly elaborates this with respect to the dominion of Christ in the church and the world. In this sense, this view of Calvin is at odds with his analysis that, in Reformed circles, a qualitative understanding of catholicity was never developed, 19. 82 Cf. O. Noordmans, “Het calvinisme en de oecumene”, Verzamelde Werken vol. 6, 399, 401, 406. For the analysis of these structural differences, also see his “De Reformatie en Rome” in the same volume, 415-427. Cf. also Van der Kooi, Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans, 287, 291. 83 Zillenbiller, Die Einheit der katholischen Kirche, 140-143, 150-151.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

tine mentions the Spirit and love as the soul of Christ’s body, Calvin mentions doctrine.84 The explicit way in which Calvin expresses the Word-structure of the church is new. However, we cannot conclude from this that attention to doctrine is completely new. After all, we have seen in Igantius and Cyprian’s writings that there is an unbreakable unity between Christ, Spirit, church, bishop, baptism, orthodoxy and remission, while also Cyril and Vincentius show a clear interest in unchangeable orthodoxy. Augustine’s approach is also related to his situation. In the controversy with the Donatists, he used love as expression of catholicity, while, in Calvin’s context, one needed to speak about the interpretation of the Gospel. This is also clear from the substantive aspects that Calvin discusses. In the articles about God, the Trinity, the creation, providence, predestination and eschatology, hardly any changes take place. While the Early Church emphasized the doctrine of creation, the resurrection of Christ and of believers, these things are not so much spearheads for Calvin. Because these concepts were not so much at stake in the church of the Middle Ages, there was also great continuity with mediaeval theology.85 This continuity also existed in the scholastic way of reasoning. In Calvin’s writings, numerous philosophical nuances and distinctions can be found. Calvin even used pagan philosophers, to some extent. For example, he rejects Aristotle’s view on immortality and the praiseworthiness of virtue, but he agrees with his words on self-control.86 The same is true for the ideas of Cicero. In one and the same section, he can support and take distance from this philosopher.87 He can often quote Plato positively, but he can also speak of “Plato’s foolishness”.88 A.E. McGrath rightfully concludes that “Calvin, far from breaking totally with the medieval tradition, actually adopts many theological and philosophical positions of an impeccable medival pedigree”.89 In the understanding of the Reformation, the doctrine of Christ was actually at stake in ecclesiology and soteriology and with respect to the doctrine of the sacraments. Because these doctrines concerned the glory of Christ, the Reformation focused on them.

84 Calvin, Institutes 1.11.13. Cf. Lane, John Calvin, 50; Noordmans, “Natuur en genade bij Rome”, Verzamelde Werken vol. 6, 428-451, here 439. 85 Cf. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics; Muller, “Scholasticism in Calvin”; Muller, After Calvin; Steinmetz, “Calvin and the Absolute Power of God” in his Calvin in Context, 40-52; Steinmetz, “The Scholastic Calvin”; Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 1-10; Van Asselt and Dekker (ed.), Reformed Scholasticism; Van Asselt et al, Inleiding in de gereformeerde scholastiek. 86 Calvin, Institutes 1.5.5; 2.5.2. 87 Calvin, Institutes 2.2.3. 88 Commentary on Gen. 1:16. Plato believed that stars have personalities. 89 McGrath, John Calvin, 47.

97

98

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Here we also see a difference in catholicity between Luther and Calvin. Where Luther focuses on justification, Calvin speaks of justification and sanctification to do justice to the catholic fullness in Christ. It is characteristic of him always to use two words. He speaks of Law and Gospel, Word and Spirit, election and responsibility, procuring and effecting, inward and outward, church and state. He does not, in a civil way, seek the balance without being able to say anything else, but he allows the radicalism of opposites to function. For him, this complexion oppositorum is an expression of a high unity in Christ. This is also clear from his approach to baptism. In his opinion, baptism refers to the communion with Christ and participation in His body.90 In my opinion, this thread is also visible when Calvin shows how children participate in this reality. Also, baptism is about the fullness of Christ which is given form by the Holy Spirit.91 Why did Calvin, more than Luther, make efforts for the government of the church? Calvin does not leave the government of the church to the authorities, but precisely because of his qualitative understanding of catholicity, also in the government of the church, the fullness of Christ must be given a rightful place. Here he copies the truth expressed by the Anabaptists in his plea for discipline, while at the same time distancing himself from the rigorous forms of it. The reformer of Geneva is well aware that church and state have their own place in the Kingdom of God, but that they cannot be separated from each other. He does not seek a church state like Rome, he does not surrender culture to sin like the Anabaptists, he does not completely separate church and state like the Lutherans, but he advocates a theocratic awareness in which the Word also governs society. Thus, he finds a way between sacralising society on the one hand, and secularizing on the other hand. This exploration of the Christocentric character of Calvin’s theology shows that his catholicity is primarily an anonymous catholicity. Instead of consciously claiming catholicity, he practices catholicity by living and theologizing from the fullness in Christ. In a catholic way, he does not limit Christ’s dominion to the soul but, in Calvin’s opinion, all areas of life are under His dominion.

90 Calvin, Institutes 4.15.1. 91 W. Janse says it is a Zwinglian trait in Calvin when he continues to recognize God’s liberty, “Sacramenten”, 351. S. van der Linde has shown that Calvin also believed in works of the Spirit outside the church, De leer van den Heiligen Geest bij Calvijn, 98-110. Cf. also Thiselton, The Holy Spirit, in Biblical Teaching, 266-269.

John Calvin (1509–1564)

6.5

Assessment

At the end of this investigation, when we weigh Calvin’s attitude towards the Early Church, we conclude that there are numerous similarities between the Early Church and the reformer. Just like the Early Church, Calvin strives for unity in the visible church, as an expression of the unity of Christ’s body. Yet there are several nuances. We saw that Calvin, in the development of his view on catholicity, does not explicitly refer to or build on the understandings that functioned in the Early Church. This may indicate that he was not interested in it, but it is more probable that, in his situation of a broken church life, he was in a difficult position because of the old understanding of catholicity which was inseparably connected to the visible unity of Christ’s body. This difficult situation is also clear from the fact that Calvin, during his working life, became more cautious in his use of the word “catholic” in a positive sense, because of the claim of the Roman Catholic Church.92 Calvin characterizes catholicity from the spiritual unity in Christ, while, in the Early Church, the perspective was generally from the visible body of the church. Calvin joins the development of less attention to the bishop, which could already be observed in the Early Church. At the same time, his awareness of the heavenly Christ is the main reason for him to interpret the church from the side of Him. Thus, his appeal to the invisible church is an instrument not to identify the truth with the visible institution. This expresses a dynamic view on the church, namely that a church may change into a false church. The individualisation of modern times handed Calvin a concept which was manageable in his context. Instead of starting from a visible catholicity, he could, from the invisible unity with Christ, continue to speak of an invisible catholicity. In this way, the reformation of the church could be accounted for, in contrast to a rigid visible catholicity. In the scattered Protestant congregations, still something of this catholicity could become visible. Catholicity was mainly used as an expression of universality, without explicit attention to the qualitative concept of the wealth and fullness of the Christian faith. At the same time, this qualitative concept of catholicity appears to be anonymously present in Calvin’s writings. Calvin seeks unity and truth in Christ. His lifelong dedication to true doctrine and his striving for unity can be understood as a passion for Christ. In this sense, his formula would not have been that we seek unity in truth, but truth and unity in Christ. Just as sanctification is not a fruit of justification, but like justification a reality in the communion with Christ, we cannot separate truth from Christ.

92 See Lane, “Calvin’s Attitude towards Catholicity”, 225.

99

100

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

In Calvin’s context, the confession of Christ means the confession of justification by faith. While in the Early Church the resurrection of Christ and of believers are central themes, in Calvin’s time the confession concentrates on the reality of the forgiveness of sins, which is, given the early Christian credo, a catholic theme.

7.

Confessional intermezzo

After we have listened to Calvin’s interpretation of catholicity, we wonder which other things are heard in the Reformed tradition. The large number of confessions makes us sensitive to subtle differences and nuanced understandings. We will consider the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession and the Westminster Confession. 7.1

The Belgic Confession of Faith (1561)

A first exploration of the Belgic Confession of Faith shows us that no less than six articles are directly related to the church. When we also include the articles about the sacraments and about the relationship with the government, it is actually more than a quarter of the whole confession. It indicates that the church was an important aspect in its accountability towards Rome. For example, this is clear from Article 28, which, in accordance with Cyprian, states that there is no salvation outside the church. The article says as it were that we cannot be private Christians, but that it is our duty to join the church. This condemnation of separation from the church was directed against the Anabaptists. The next article underlines once again that faith in the church is confessed in the context of numerous sects, which usurp the titles of the church.93 This emphasizes that the church is a precious reality. The call to join the church remains, even if the government forbids and punishes it. The vital importance of the church is connected to the vital importance of Christ. Article 21 uses words derived from Christ-mysticism when it says that we find “all manner of consolation in His wounds”.94 Article 26 confesses with intimate words that no one loves us more than Jesus Christ. This loving and comforting Saviour is “the only universal Bishop and the only Head of the church” (Article 31), and “our only Master” (Article 32). This Christocentric approach of the church reminds us of patristic ecclesiology. That is why we continue to look further for the interpretation of the church. In Article 27 we read of the catholic or universal church as congregation of true believers. Firstly, this indicates that the Reformed tradition does not consider itself a break with the church of all times, but desires to join the ancient church. This is already clear in Article 9, where it is consciously linked to the Apostles’ 93 Protestantism distances itself from Anabaptists and Donatists, cf. Confessio Augustana VIII and Confessio Helvetica Posterior, chapter 17. 94 E.A. de Boer points this out, “De katholieke ecclesiologie van de Confessio Belgica”, 269.

102

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, and rejects various heretics from the Early Church. Secondly, we observe that the starting point is chosen in the invisible church, which is different from the Early Church. Next also this article speaks of the visibility of the church in the context of the question how visible this church actually is. In the eyes of men, God’s church may appear to be reduced to nothing. The visible church is spread and dispersed over the whole world. This must be the meaning of the term “catholic” above this article. We see that the Confessio Belgica interprets the term “catholic” as universal. It is striking that this article uses the same expression as Calvin when speaking of the congregation which is “spread and dispersed” all over the world. Despite this dispersion, there is unity in the same Spirit. Given the fact that Guido de Brès grafted his confession onto the French Gallican Confession, which was partly written by Calvin, this is hardly surprising.95 In any case, De Brès and later the Dutch church apparently identified with these expressions. In Article 29, the characteristics of the true church are discussed. It does not say that the church is there where the bishop is, but there where the pure doctrine of the Gospel is preached, where the pure administration of the sacraments is maintained, and where church discipline is exercised. The marks of the true Christians are closely linked with the latter. In the article, the focus changes to the orthopraxy of the believers. The true church appears to be there where the members of the church “follow after righteousness”.96 This aspect may have been often forgotten by people when speaking of the marks of the church. Incidentally, also this aspect emphasizes the more subjective approach of the church from the aspect of individual members. This confession also speaks of the offices and the government of the church. This is striking, given the abuse of power by office-bearers which had been experienced in the church of the Middle Ages.97 Apparently, the evil behaviour of office-bearers could not call into question the institution of the office. The office was not dealt with in a church order, but in the confession of the doctrines of salvation. This shows how fundamental the government of the church was considered to be. Still, throughout history, people have been able to relativize the statements about the government of the church. When it was required at the Synod of Dort to agree with the doctrines of this confession, it was possible – considering the Episcopal English delegates – to make an exception with respect to the church government. As such the attention to the office is an aspect which reminds us of the Early Church. 95 Gootjes, The Belgic Confession, 62-67. 96 Wisse, ‘’Hun heil verwachtend in Jezus Christus’’, 29-33. Wisse emphasizes that this is not perfectionism, but the eschatological expectation of justice. 97 E.A.J.G. van der Borght points this out, ‘Katholiek en daarom flexibel’, 288-289, 292.

Confessional intermezzo

7.2

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

The Heidelberg Catechism devotes one question to the church, namely question and answer 54. This is much less than the Belgic Confession of Faith. Apparently, in the change of the Electoral Palatinate from the Lutheran to the Reformed confession, the church was not a highly charged topic. The confession concerning the church is mentioned in the context of the discussion of the Apostles’ Creed, so the Heidelberg Catechism has to focus on what the catholic church means to the faith. We have already seen that the question has a double translation of “catholic” in the original German version, using the words “universal” and “Christian”. This is not a translation one might expect, because the Catechismus Maior by Ursinus speaks of the “holy catholic church”.98 This means that the choice for “universal” and “Christian” was a conscious one. Also, the answer of this question in the Heidelberg Catechism does not contain the term “catholic”, nor the word “universal”. We do see the traces of universal thinking in the answer, in the confession that the church is gathered out of the whole human race. This is connected to all times, but – in contrast to the Catechismus Maior not connected to all places.99 While Cyril and Augustine primarily related universality to all places, the Heidelberg Catechism attaches more value to historical continuity. The attention that Cyril paid to the full wealth of faith, fades with this approach. In the answer it becomes clear that the Christ-character of the church is of great importance. God’s Son is the subject in the answer. He gathers, defends and preserves the elected congregation. The church is not organized by people, a hierarchic monarchy or official meetings, but the church is considered from Christ. This Christological approach of ecclesiology fully matches with the tenor of the whole Heidelberg Catechism, which starts with the comfort of being Christ’s possession. The confession of the gathering, defending and preservation by Christ gives the body of the church a strong awareness of safety and protection, in the midst of affliction and persecution. It also emphasizes that the church belongs to God’s new creation. Also the perspective on eternal life points in this direction. In these accents, we hear something of the early Christian accent on the body of Christ. At the same time, the work of Christ is determined by eternal, personal election.100 This approach is comparable to John Calvin’s. This is also true for 98 See for an English version of this text, Bierma, An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 163-223. Question 115 and 125 about the catholic church are found on p. 184 and 186. 99 Cf. Van der Borght, ‘The Heidelberg Catechism and the Church’, 265, 276. 100 Van der Borght speaks of a ‘predestinarian flavour’, ‘The Heidelberg Catechism and the Church’, 265.

103

104

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

the concept of the visible church. The visible church is not out of sight, since it says that this invisible elected congregation is gathered, agreeing in true faith. This has a visible side to it.101 Incidentally, the official structure of the church is not mentioned here, nor is it implicitly or explicitly discussed in the whole of the Heidelberg Catechism.102 The Heidelberg Catechism does pay attention to the unity of true faith. Van der Borght thinks that this qualification of unity is at the expense of the unity of the Christians as such, and contains a germ of denominationalism.103 I am not so sure of this, since this is also an early Christian accent. In the Early Church, people thought from the perspective of the one church, and they also thought from the unity of the orthodox faith, and they did not hesitate to indicate the boundaries of true faith. 7.3

The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)

Another important confession in the Reformed tradition is the Helvetica Posterior, or the Second Helvetic Confession. It is striking that the theme of the church covers almost half of this extended confession, namely chapters 17–28. The confession concerning the church does not only include the preaching, the offices and the sacraments, but also the worship of the church, prayer, holidays and several pastoral subjects. What draws our attention in this confession, in the context of our investigation? Firstly, the title is Confessio et expositio simplex orthodoxae fidei & dogmatum Catholicorum syncerae religionis Christianae (Confession and simple exposition of the true faith and catholic articles of the pure Christian religion). The term “catholic” has been included in the title. The word catholic refers to the doctrine, so we might speak of a turn to the qualitative understanding of catholicity. Based on the subtitle, the understanding of catholicity is normative for the church. After the subtitle has mentioned the subscribers of this creed, we read: “It is their intention to assure all believers that they will remain standing unwaveringly in the unity of the true, ancient Christian church. And that they will spread absolutely no new or misguiding beliefs, and thus have no communion at all with any sect or heresy.” It is clear that church, orthodoxy and catholicity are closely connected. Moreover, the subtitle underlines that these people did not consider themselves a new movement, but a return to 101 Contra T. Latzell, who reads in this expression an implicit denial of the visible institution, Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus, 194. 102 Cf. the questions and answers 82-83, 103. 103 Van der Borght, “The Heidelberg Catechism and the Church”, 265, 276. He sees the danger of a “mono socio-economic group” and a “socio-cultural group”, 277. R. de Reuver agrees with this, “Gemeente en katholiciteit”, 150-151.

Confessional intermezzo

the “ancient” Christian church, an accent which we also find in Calvin’s works. Reformation is a reformation of the catholic church, by recovering the catholic doctrines. Also in the preface it is clear that Bullinger, who drew it up, wants nothing to do with heresies and sects. That is why he adds in the same breath that this confession expresses the spiritual unity with Christ’s churches in Germany, France, England and the other nations, despite differences in vocabulary, in the ways the doctrines are formulated, and in customs and ceremonies. By saying this, he makes clear that for him the unity of faith is not determined by one confession or by uniformity in church style. On the contrary, the same faith is confessed in different situations and languages. It shows something of the variety of the Christian faith, which people in the Reformed tradition were aware of from the very beginning. Within this variety, people desire to be catholic Christians. This catholicity is clear at numerous moments when the connection to the ancient church is expressed. In the preface we read that, just like the Early Church, the essence of the church is seen in the “agreement in the important articles of faith, in the orthodox conviction and in brotherly love”. When we carefully listen to this expression, we hear that, in the church, one must focus on the main issues of faith, not on side-issues. Again it is striking that the orthodox faith is mentioned. Moreover, we should note that orthodoxy and brotherly love are mentioned in the same breath, and are presented as equally important. After the preface, we read an “imperial decree concerning the question who are to be considered catholic Christians and who are to be considered heretics”. Next Bullinger quotes from an edict from 380 by the Emperor Gratian with his fellow emperors Valentian II and Theodosius I. He also includes a confession by the Roman bishop Damasus. The explicit appeal to these documents is meant to show that the church of the Reformation is catholic.104 After the first chapter has given priority to the authority of the Scriptures, the second chapter deals with the interpretation of the Scriptures. It rejects private interpretations as well as the binding interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. It is added that the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin church fathers are not despised. The following sentence is striking: “But we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures.” It is not excluded that is may be necessary to dissent from church fathers, but still this expression reveals great respect for them. At the same time, 104 The First Helvetic Confession confessed this value of tradition: ‘From which sort of interpretation, so far as the holy fathers have not departed from it, not only do we receive them as interpreters of the Scripture, but we honor them as chosen instruments of God’, Art. 3, Dennison, Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries in English Translation, 344.

105

106

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

the attitude towards councils is slightly more critical. It is said that it may be necessary to dissent from the decrees of historical church bodies, appealing to the Scriptures. The attitude towards human traditions is even more critical. The second chapter also reveals some reservation with respect to Vincentius, when it is stated that truth does not need to be universally accepted, is not always found with the majority and is not characterized by antiquity.105 It shows that the intrinsic quality of the Christian faith is at the centre. At the same time, it can be stated in chapter 13 that the Gospel is the most ancient doctrine. It is added that the Papists call this ancient doctrine new. In the discussion of Christology in chapter 11, the agreement with the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon is mentioned explicitly. It is an intriguing question why the councils of 553 and 680–681 are not endorsed, in which Christology was also discussed. Were these less important doctrines, or is this an early indication of dissention from the development of the church of the Middle Ages? The chapter closes with the following declaration: ‘And in this way we retain the Christian, orthodox and catholic faith whole and unimpaired; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid symbols which is not agreeable to the Word of God, and does not altogether make for a sincere exposition of the Faith.’ The connection to the ancient church is clear from a number of passages where an error is summarized and rejected. What often follows, is confirmation of the rejection of the errors by the ancient church. We also regularly find direct references to Augustine, which indicates that Augustine occupied a special place in the theology of Bullinger. Chapter 17 deals with the church at length. It emphasizes that the church consists of those who were called from the world and who together form the community of saints. This Swiss Confession matches with the well-known metaphor of Cyprian that there is no salvation outside the ark of Noah. In a spiritual sense, the church can also be called a state or a kingdom. This one state is worldwide. That is why this confession explicitly distances itself from the Donatists, which limited the church to the province of Africa, and from the Roman Catholic church, where the church is defined by Rome. This unity is not in conflict with a great variety. Bullinger subtly distinguishes between a church which is rent asunder and a church spread among nations. Her unity is characterized by one Head of the church. He is not the Pope, but Jesus Christ. Christ does not need a substitute, because He is everywhere and always present. A primacy in the church is expressly rejected106 , because history has shown that the church could flourish without the pope of Rome. 105 Such remarks are also made in chapter 17. 106 Chapter 18 refers to Cyprian’s words that all apostles are equal to Peter.

Confessional intermezzo

The pope’s position, however, is an obstacle to reformation. Moreover, within the Roman Catholic Church there are numerous sects and errors, so clearly the pope does not guarantee spiritual unity. In contrast to the large number of offices invented by the Roman Catholic Church, there was a desire to return to the simplicity of the apostles.107 This means that Christ is our High priest and that we are all priests in unity with Him. In the church we cannot do whatever we like, but as “rowers” we have to watch the captain. In connection with this point, the beauty of outward robes and ceremonies definitely belongs to the Old Testament. In this confession, a sensitivity appears towards the themes of the visible and the invisible church, the whole body and the individual. Baptism signifies that one is adopted into God’s family and that they are considered to be among the number of God’s children, and so one is called God’s child.108 Because also little children are God’s possession, they should be baptized. Baptism is called a personal thing. This implies a witness of personal forgiveness.109 In the preaching it must become clear that forgiveness has respect to everyone: “Ministers, therefore, rightly and effectually acquit when they preach the Gospel of Christ and thereby the remission of sins, which is promised to each one who believes, just as each one is baptized, and when they testify that it pertains to each one peculiarly.” Here we see a close connection between the visible and the invisible church, the basic conviction being that the individual partakes in the reality of the whole. At the same time, there are nuances on two sides.110 On the one hand, Bullinger says that God had friends outside Israel, so there may be believers who do not partake of the sacraments. Individuals or congregations can be lukewarm, so that the catholic faith has become invisible. On the other hand, there are many hypocrites in the church. But their true nature is nearly always revealed. This is one reason to give no premature judgment, and not to consider someone a reprobate too easily.111 We must never excommunicate anyone who is not excluded by the Lord. 7.4

The Westminster Confession (1647)

Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession deals with the church. Although the synthetic structure of this confession cannot be compared to the structure of 107 108 109 110 111

This is the purport of chapter 18. Chapter 20. Chapter 14. Chapter 17. Chapter 10.

107

108

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

the Institutes of Calvin, they have much in common with respect to the position of the church at the end of the confession. Chapters 10–18 deal with the order of salvation. These are followed by the chapters about the law, Christian liberty, religious worship, lawful oaths, the civil magistrate and marriage, after which the church is discussed. While the term “catholic” has more or less disappeared in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, it is fully present in the Westminster Confession. Chapter 25 commences with “the catholic or universal church”. It is immediately added that it is invisible and consists of the whole number of the elect. The elect are gathered into one under Christ, the Head of the church.112 This introduction reminds us of Calvin and the Belgic Confession. In its essence, the church is visible in this world and even invisible within the visible church.113 A difference with the Heidelberg Catechism is that Christ is here the active subject, while in the Westminster Confession the church is not considered from Christ as the subject, but rather is focused on Christ. This gives the Westminster Confession a stronger focus on the elect. We do justice to the Westminster Confession when we partly interpret this emphasis on the invisible church from the perspective of criticism on the emphasis on the visible church in the Roman Catholic Church.114 Another difference with the preceding confessions is that the Westminster Confession confesses that the church is the bride, the body and the fullness of Christ, Who fulfils all in all. These concepts refer to Ephesians 1:10, 22–23, where we read that all things will be brought to unity in Christ and that Christ has been given to the church to be the head over all things. References are made to Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32, where we read about Christ as the heavenly Bridegroom, who presents His bride to himself not having spot or wrinkle. There is also a reference to Colossians 1:18, where the Son as the Creator of the whole cosmos is called the head of His body, the church. In this reference to the fullness of Christ we can hear a powerful plea for a qualitative catholicity, while it cannot go unnoticed that these qualifications have respect to the invisible church. The second article of chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession deals with the visible church. It goes a step further than Calvin and other Reformed confessions, since such a clear distinction is made between the visible and invisible church. While the earlier Reformed tradition made efforts to closely connect the visible and invisible church, we here see a different tendency, although we 112 C. van Dixhoorn gives this a twist by emphasizing that we cannot oversee the worldwide church of all times. Confessing the Faith, 336. 113 Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 260. 114 Cf. Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 262.

Confessional intermezzo

would not do justice to the Westminster confession if we spoke of two churches. The invisible church is, in the end, a subdivision of the visible church. The visible church is also catholic and universal. Here the term “catholic” functions as a contrast to God’s relationship with one nation in the Old Testament. The visible catholic church consists of all those who confess the true religion, including their children. This visible church is given the high qualifications of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the house and family of God. In line with Augustine, Cyprian’s rule is somewhat nuanced when it is subtly added that there no “ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the visible church. Here the Westminster Confession shows an extraordinary sensitivity to the complex reality, when it does not exclude salvation outside the visible church, nor makes it a rule.115 In the context of this confession, we should also interpret this approach as criticism of the Roman Catholic Church which states that there is no salvation outside its organisation.116 The third article of this chapter in the Westminster Confession counterbalances the first article by thinking from Christ. From Whom are the offices? The offices and ordinances in the church are from Christ.117 Moreover, with His Spirit Christ binds Himself to this universal, visible, catholic church. Still the catholic church can be sometimes more, sometimes less visible, according to the fourth article. In order to make this clear, a distinction is made between the singular and plural forms of “church”. The local churches are part of the single catholic church. Christ did not give His promise of the Spirit without any reservations to each local church. The measure of visibility is not only related to the public and political context of the church, but also to the purity of doctrine, the ordinances and religious worship in the local churches. While the Belgic Confession distinguishes between a true and a false church, also here the Westminster opts for a more subtle distinction. It adds some spiritual dynamics to ecclesiology, which also provide a theological framework for reformation and revival. This is continued in the fifth article. There are impurities and errors even in the purest churches. So the Westminster Confession distances itself from an ecclesiological perfectionism. It pushes the spiritual dynamics to the limits by saying that churches can degenerate into synagogues of Satan. It is very clear that the glory of the church is not determined by the external pomp and glory of Rome.118 This criticism of Rome is also true for the belief that the church cannot fail. 115 Here Van Dixhoorn mentions the thief on the cross, a Muslim-believer who has not yet met other believers or someone on an isolated island, Confessing the Faith, 341. 116 Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 265. 117 Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 336. 118 Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 266-267.

109

110

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

In the sixth article, the controversy with Rome is continued. The pope of Rome is called the Antichrist, the man of sin, and son of perdition, because he says he takes the place of Christ. This formulation also contains come criticism of the Anglican model, where the king is the head of the church.119 The chapter concludes with what it started with, namely the exclusivity of Christ and His fullness. 7.5

Assessment

This investigation of several Reformed confessions reveals a number of differences. The Second Helvetic Confession seems to be most closely in agreement with what the Early Church said about catholicity, because it chooses its starting point in the visible church. The distinction between the visible and the invisible church is made most explicit by the Westminster Confession. The concept that the visible church is the body of Christ, has in fact disappeared in the Westminster Confession. This is connected with the strong focus in the Westminster Confession on the elect who are gathered in the church. The Westminster Confession is also striking because of its attention for the term “catholic” and the distinction between the singular and plural forms of the “church”. This confession is also innovative because it explicitly speaks of the fullness of Christ which dwells in the church. This is an explicitly qualitative catholicity. Another characteristic of the English confession is the way in which it describes the church’s dynamic character. It means that the true church can never be a possession. There are also similarities. In each confession, the controversy with Rome is present, and it always seems to be about the position of the pope competing with Christ. So this is an open nerve in the Reformed tradition. The position of the pope is the summit of a hierarchical church government, which is vehemently opposed. The fact that these aspects are dealt with in these confessions, shows their fundamental importance. It hinges on the exclusivity of Christ as the Head of His church.

119 Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 268-271.

8.

James Ussher (1581–1656)

As a man of his time, James Ussher was conscious of historicity.120 For example, he wondered what year the creation had taken place.121 He calculated it to be in 4004 BC. He also studied the history of the Early Church and the first symbolic writings. He was in particular interested in the history of Christianity in the British Empire. The result of his studies is found in Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates. The great achievement of this publication is even more emphasized when we realized that Ussher was in the midst of the busyness of church life with much political tension between king and parliament, England and Spain. In 1621, King James I appointed him bishop of Meath. After four years, he was appointed archbishop of Armagh. When he had borne this responsibility for nine years, he became responsible for the whole of Ireland. Ussher was a royalist, without any reservations. This loyalty brought him to an opposing attitude towards the Westminster Assembly which was initiated by the parliament. With respect to the church, he was not a hair splitter. In this context, the following saying of Baxter is known, “If all the Episcopalians had been like Archbishop Ussher, all the Presbyterians like Mr. Stephen Marshall, and all the Independents like Jeremiah Burroughs, the breaches of the church would soon have healed.”122 This mildness was also noticed by Oliver Cromwell. Although Cromwell was, politically, diametrically opposed to Ussher, he did contribute to the burial of Ussher in Westminster Abbey in London. There were limits to Ussher’s mildness. King Charles I experienced this when he wanted to grant certain rights to the Roman Catholics. The archbishop was a convinced opponent of the Roman Catholic Church and did not accept any tolerance towards them. Also William Laud experienced Ussher’s decided attitude when he suggested to allow the English church to dominate the church of Ireland.123 This amazing combination of mildness on the one hand and decidedness on the other hand raises interest for Ussher’s view on the church. Ussher gave an account of it in an extended sermon on Ephesians 4:13: “Till we 120 Cf. also Van Vlastuin, “Puriteins Katholiek. De relevantie van het katholiciteitsbegrip bij James Ussher (1581-1656)”. 121 Cf. Ford, “Ussher, James (1581-1656)”; Ford, James Ussher; Snoddy, The soteriology of James Ussher. The lemma ‘Ussher’ is missing in Brook, The Lives of the Puritans; Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans. 122 According to Brook, The Lives of the Puritans deel 3, 23. 123 J.D. Moore has made clear that Ussher exerted a moderating influence at the Synod of Dort, even though precisely this mindedness led to tension, “James Ussher’s influence on the synod of Dordt”, 179.

112

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.” This sermon was published under the title A Briefe Declaration of the vniversalitie of the chvrch of Christ, and the Vnitie of the Catholike Faith professed therein: Delivered in a sermon before His Majestie the 20th of Iune, 1624 at Wanste..124 8.1

One Christ

The title of this sermon expresses that Ussher speaks of catholicity in a twofold manner. In this we see the universality and also – in agreement with the Early Church – the qualitative side of the Christian faith. At the same time, it is striking that he directly connects unity and catholicity in the classical Christian line. For Ussher, this connection goes back to the understanding of the church as the body of Christ, further qualified as the body of the glorified Christ.125 The latter is not an unimportant detail, since Ussher begins his treatise with the exalted Christ.126 Despite all despising of Christ’s church, His glory is present, even though the opposite appears to be true. The unity of this body is unrelinquishable. This unity was not given with one apostle, namely Peter, as a model for the pope127 , but it concerns the unity by the work of the Spirit. Ussher criticizes the fact that the pope does not allow a council in which each person speaks with equal importance. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is an important obstacle to giving form to unity. Ussher is concerned about a spiritual unity in the faith. He primarily thinks from the smallest circle in which Jews and Gentiles are found. Even though Jews have a special place in God’s history of redemption, and even though there are still special promises for the people of Israel128 , theologically speaking there is but one church which has existed since the beginning of the world and which is decisive for the unity of the old and new covenants.129 For Ussher, this unity is also given form more broadly in the nations.130 This means that it is peculiar to the Christian church to have an eye for the universal character of the church. After all, God has given the Gentiles to His Son for His inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession.131 There where this awareness 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131

Ussher, A Briefe Declaration of the vniversalitie of the chvrch of Christ. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 5. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 1-4. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 5.12-13. Westminster Larger Catechism Question & Answer 191. Cf. Heidelberg Catechism Question & Answer 54. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 6. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 11.

James Ussher (1581–1656)

withers, the church as Christ’s body withers, since catholicity belongs to the essence of the church. A decreased functioning of catholicity does not occur without consequences, since it is the origin of breaks and schisms in the church. In this context, Ussher refers to the history of the Donatists, who considered themselves the only true church and placed all other Christians outside the church. This threat was only a little thing compared to the break that Rome caused. This break is a division between East and West, North and South. The Roman Catholic church closed churches in Russia, Greece, Europe, Egypt, Ethiopia, Asia and East-India, because they refused to subject themselves to its government.132 The church of Rome was not satisfied to be called the church of Christ alongside other churches, but it wished to be recognized as the whole Christian church – even the church in the place of Christ! Ussher believes that the words from Romans 11:18 apply here.133 In this context, this text means that not the church of Rome is the root and bears Christ’s church, but that the root also bears Rome. This understanding should end all boasting. Then he reads on in Romans 11 and writes with bold letters: “Thou also shalt be cut off.” He means that grafted branches of Rome which exalt themselves will be cut off. 8.2

From visible to invisible

For the bishop of Meath, living and thinking from the exalted Christ means that the fullness of Christ is present in His body. Also in Ussher’s work we find something which looks like totus Christus when he says that Christ does not consider Himself “full” as long as the last member does not belong to His mystical body.134 In that case, Christ is “deficient in himselfe”. In this way, the importance and great value of the church are made clear. The church is considered wholly from Christ, so the catholic fullness and universal presence begin from the Person of Christ. It would be conceivable if Ussher, for this mystical-spiritual reality of Christ and His body, chose his starting point in the invisible church. It is remarkable that Ussher does not do so. It is clear from his writing that he has an eye for the visible church, since he speaks of schisms, bishops and the presence of the church in different nations. For this approach, Ussher consciously agrees with the beliefs and writings of the Early Church.135 132 133 134 135

Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 10. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 9. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 5. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 7. The bishops in the Early Church called themselves “bishops of the catholick church”, in distinction from the separatists in those days, such as the Donatists.

113

114

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

While Ussher takes his starting point for the understanding of catholicity in the visible church, he also has an eye for the invisible heart of the church. On the inside of the church, the knowledge of faith in Christ functions in the hearts of the believers.136 Also here it is clear that Ussher considers the church wholly from Christ, because the knowledge of faith is all concerned with the right view of Christ. From Christ, and in communion with the church, the knowledge of His offices, of His incarnation and of the church as His body flourishes, from the Father and from the Spirit. All of this is borne by a personal relationship with Christ, so that believers share in His righteousness and justification. Ussher is very much concerned to have a right understanding of the nature of the knowledge of faith.137 Therefore he emphasizes that this is not “theoretical knowledge”, but the Word speaks of “experimental and [of] practical knowledge”. As befits a Puritan, he elaborates this more deeply and thoroughly. For him it is clear from 2 Cor. 5:21 that the nature of knowledge is not theoretical.138 There we read that the Lord Jesus knew no sin. Of course, Jesus knew what sin was, but He did not personally know it by experience. For him, this indicates that knowledge in the Bible means experimental knowledge. From the broader context of the text, he deducts that Paul prays that the church may share in a richer spiritual knowledge of the exalted Christ (Eph. 3:19). Also Philippians 3:8 provides Ussher insight into the experimental nature of the knowledge of faith. He reads these words as “a knowledge grounded upon deep experience of the vertue of Christs death and resurrection”.139 Again these words show to what extent, for Ussher, faith is determined by the reality of the unity and communion with Christ. Apparently, Christ’s death and resurrection are for Ussher not just “objective historical truths” which are believed as such, but the unio mystica brings believers into an existential relationship with this truth. These concepts indicate that Ussher understands the church as a reality which is not of a human order, and therefore cannot be organised by people.140 The church, as the body of Christ, is a spiritual category which has a visible revelation, but cannot be reduced to it. 8.3

An orthodox Christ

From our current context, we can imagine that the emphasis on Christ and His body might lead to a downplaying of orthodox doctrine. However, we 136 137 138 139 140

Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 39-40. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 17. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 37. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 36. Vgl. Jüngel, ‘Einheit der Kirche – Konkret’, 337.

James Ussher (1581–1656)

do not see this happening in the young bishop.141 We see rather an opposite movement. Doctrine is qualified as the doctrine of Christ, because Ussher wants to understand all doctrine in relation to Christ.142 All doctrine is an expression of Christ. This does not mean that doctrine is downplayed, but the relation to Christ rather adds more weight to the doctrine. For Ussher, spiritual knowledge and doctrinal knowledge are no opposites. The unity of faith and the knowledge of God’s Son are an inseparable unity. The enlightenment of the understanding is an aspect of the heart touched by the Spirit. Head and heart can be distinguished from each other, but they are not separate domains. On the contrary, the opened heart desires a deeper insight into the reality of God in Christ. Here we recognize a classical line in Ussher.143 It is clear that Ussher does not understand doctrine as a system of mathematical truths which it is impossible to have different interpretations of. His great knowledge of the Early Church rather brought him to the opposite conclusion. He knows that there are different versions of the confession of the Christian faith. There are varieties with respect to the doctrine of creation, Christology and pneumatology in the Nicene Creed.144 Still the writers confessed nothing but the one orthodox faith. An important metaphor to clarify this unity is the metaphor of a foundation and a building.145 The foundation of God’s worldwide church is the confession of Christ and the baptism in His Name. There are different interpretations, which do not nullify the unity of faith.146 On this common foundation, numerous differences are visible. There are low and high rooms, dark and light ones, stronger and weaker ones. Thus, there is a rich variety. These differences are also practical. The practical differences have respect to the Christian life. Even though there is agreement in the fearing of God’s Name, the repentance of sin and cleaving to the Lord, in the practice of the new obedience we see varieties among believers. These differences do not undermine the unity of faith. Nevertheless, there are also differences which do undermine the unity of faith. In his context, this brings Ussher to a discussion of the Roman Catholic teaching of transubstantiation.147 He considers it unacceptable that the bread in the Lord’s Supper is 141 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 33. 142 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 38-39. 143 Vgl. voor de eenheid van hoofd en hart Sheldrake, Spirituality and Theology, 33-64; Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 52-83. Bij J.I. Packer vinden we herwaardering van de eenheid tussen hoofd, hart en handen, A Passion for Holiness, 167-170; H. Paul, ‘Inleiding: een theologie van verlangen’, 8-10. 144 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 19. 145 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 14-15. 146 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 16. 147 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 24.

115

116

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

said to transubstantiate into the body of Christ. This affects the unique and unrepeatable incarnation of God’s Son. Ussher argues that this error is not catholic, since this ‘new Divinitie (…) threaten[s] the ancient foundation of the Catholick beleefe of the incarnation’.148 This clear position illustrates and emphasizes what has been said earlier, namely that Ussher places doctrine in direct relation to Christ. The controversy about the teaching of transubstantiation is not a theoretical difference about side-issues, but about the heart of Christology. For Ussher, it is completely unacceptable that the unique incarnation of God’s Son is contextualised. The cohesion between orthodoxy and faith in Christ can condone small differences and accents, because they do not affect the essence of faith. At the same time, this unity puts the differences in the light of Christ, which reveals the ultimate consequence, namely that Christ and true faith are at stake. At these points, Ussher is unwavering and decided. This basic attitude raises another question, namely where the church was during the Middle Ages.149 Several things can be said in answer to this. Firstly, in a certain way, Ussher allows the distinction between the visible and the invisible church to function. The visible church was in serious decay, and it had become a deceitful temple. The invisible aspect was that the devil was not able to exterminate the true faith. Christ is the great Victor, when He allows truth to survive in the hearts of ordinary church members, while the opposite appears to be true. Many ordinary believers hardly knew anything about transubstantiation or about the pope, because they lived with the deeds of salvation and faith in the Triune God. It is here, eventually, all about universality as a dimension of catholicity. God’s church is of all ages. A second distinction has respect to formal confession and church practice. Ussher refers to the Nicene Creed as the formally recognized confession of the mediaeval church. Despite the errors that functioned in church practice, the Nicene Creed remained the formal confession of the church. All the violence of lies was not able, from this perspective, to uproot the church as pillar and ground of the truth. This approach shows that Ussher greatly values the continuity of the historical church, that he finds the continuity of the church in the confessions of the church and that he rejects an independent-minded easiness to start a true church time and again, or to gather with a group of people who are of the same mind for the sake of personal benefit. Thirdly, it can be deducted from this how Ussher considered the church of the Reformation. In his opinion, it was not a new beginning, let alone a new 148 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 24. Vgl.31: ‘We preach no new faith, but the same Catholique faith that ever hat been preached.’ 149 Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 23, 27.

James Ussher (1581–1656)

church. The Reformation was concerned about the cleansing of the church.150 This is connected to his claim of catholicity for the church of the Reformation. Since it is not true that a new church began in the Reformation, the part that did not join the reformation of the degenerated church is no longer catholic, because catholicity moves along historical lines. In this context, Ussher used the metaphor of the pruning of a vine. A pruned vine is not a new vine, but it is still the same vine. We can hear a fourth aspect, namely that in fact everything has been said in the Nicene Creed. Ussher does not see an increase of the number of truths in the course of history, but he sees the continued interpretation of the one and original faith. The doctrine of the Reformation is not an extension of the faith of the church of all ages, but a confirmation and explication of it. This gives the catholicity of the church a historical dimension, because, in the faith of the church of all times, the differences of time and place fall away or are surpassed. 8.4

Spirit, baptism and offices

In Ussher’s writings, the unity of Christ, the Spirit, the offices, baptism and doctrine is not very explicitly present. The church is the body of Christ. Through the office the great miracle takes place that the body of Christ is built.151 Ussher speaks more implicitly about baptism and explicitly connects doctrine to Christ. Ussher does not say that the body of Christ is also the temple of the Holy Spirit. We see in the whole of his approach that he does not want to reduce the church to an institution. In his opinion, thinking from an organisational unity is not from the Spirit. In his view, the Roman Catholic Church is an example of an organisational approach to the church by which spiritual life in the church is suppressed.152 Ussher does not express it in this way, but we can interpret his approach as an organic way of thinking about the church. 8.5

Assessment

It is striking how Ussher considers the church from Christ. He consistently says that the church is the body of Christ, to which individual believers are related in a most existential way.153 In Ussher’s view, in agreement with the 150 151 152 153

Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 31. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 5. Ussher, A Briefe Declaration, 13. Cf. Jüngel, ‘Einheit der Kirche – Konkret’, 342. This is typically Puritan, cf. Van Vlastuin, Naar het hart van Jeruzalem, 31-39.

117

118

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Early Church, Christ is so inseparably connected to His body that the concept of totus Christus is also seen in his writings. Also related to this is the concept that the corporate body of Christ precedes personal faith. For Ussher, the whole Christ has two aspects. Firstly, Christ’s church is universal and this needs to function in the awareness of the congregation. Although Ussher does not do so himself, here several plain lines to missionary endeavour can be drawn. Moreover, this awareness sharply criticizes every church isolation. The whole Christ also means the full wealth of the Christian doctrine, where Ussher in particular has an eye for the full reality of salvation in Christ, so it is not a sum of dead formulas. For Ussher, this full view of the wealth of the living Christ also implies the communion of saints. They need each other in order to come to a full view of the substance of faith. So diversity in unity is not a postmodern, but a classical reality. Again we encounter a sharp rejection of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic doctrines. It is clear that Ussher does not substantiate this with individual truths, but in his criticism of the structure of the Roman Catholic Church, the weight of the full Christ is heard. Strikingly, he blames them for not being catholic. Another accusation towards the Roman Catholic Church is its organisation at the expense of organic thinking. If we relate this to the present day, it means a critical attitude towards organisational thinking about the church and organizing new unity in the church.

9.

John Owen (1616–1683)

John Owen is a well-known Puritan.154 His works are characterized by a thorough approach, and the themes are explored in great depth. Classical works from his hand expound the glory of Christ and communion with the Triune God. It is also striking that he was the first person in the Protestant tradition who wrote a monograph about the work of the Holy Spirit. Just like Ussher, he was not a scholar who was isolated from reality, but he fully took part in the church life of his days. He led the University of Oxford, preached before the Parliament and was an important leader of Congregationalism in England.155 In agreement with Calvin, John Owen studied writings from the Early Church,156 while he distinguishes himself from Calvin in his positive approach to catholicity.157 For example, in 1672 he wrote about the nature of the catholic church.158 9.1

From invisible to visible

Owen stands in the tradition of Westminster, and at the same time he gives this tradition a further development when he discerns three ways of speaking of the church, in the aforementioned treatise.159 Firstly, he discerns the catholic invisible church.160 This is the spiritual body of Christ. This church is ‘absolutely invisible in its mystical form, or spiritual saving relation unto the Lord Christ and its unity with him’. In this context, Owen can also use concepts which are

154 J.I. Packer calls Owen the greatest among the Puritans, Among God’s Giants, 107. 155 People who study Owen, not always pay attention to his ecclesiology. Cf. Kapic and Jones, The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology; Trueman, John Owen; Trueman, The Claims of Truth; Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life, devotes a chapter to this theme, 154-183. Also see Barrett and Haykin, Owen on the Christian Life, 237-252; De Vries, Die mij heeft liefgehad, 339-396; Kelly, Reformed and Reforming, 117-177. 156 Owen, Works vol. 13, 119, 182, 202, 267; vol. 15, 128-130, 277-302, 364, 376. After Constantine, a decline started, because the church became independent from the government, Works vol. 15, 310, 316, 353. 157 Owen was aware of this distinction, Works vol. 7, 74; vol. 13, 160; vol. 14, 109. 158 Owen, Works vol. 15, 58-185. 159 Owen, Works vol. 13, 124-125, 206, 245. Cf. Owen, Works vol. 8, 286; vol. 15, 262, 479. S.B. Ferguson speaks of a twofoldness in Owen’s ecclesiology, John Owen on the Christian Life, 158-159. M. Barrett and M.A.G. Haykin use a threefoldness, Owen on the Christian Life, 243-244. 160 Owen, Works vol. 15, 78.

120

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

related to the totus Christus, with the proviso that they are isolated from the visible church, and only have respect to the inside.161 A second manner of speaking of the church, is from the personal confession of faith. Every Christian confesses Christ in his words, deeds and behaviour, even apart from membership of a certain congregation. In this context, visible catholicity is understood as “the universality of men professing the doctrine of the gospel and obedience to God in Christ”.162 Thirdly, a Christian should join a certain local church.163 From Owen’s congregationalism this means that one voluntarily joins a local congregation. Congregationalism explicitly considers the congregation a congregation of confessing believers who make a covenant together to serve God. The emphasis is not on what Christ does by Word and Spirit, but on human obedience of faith. In this sense, the church more belongs to the doctrine of sanctification than to the doctrine of Christ or the doctrine of the Spirit. This implies that the congregation is not a purpose in itself, but a means to serve personal spiritual edification.164 From the perspective of the Early Church, a turnaround has taken place here. While people thought in terms of visible catholicity in the centuries of church history which Owen respected, Owen understands catholicity from the perspective of the invisible church. Owen is aware that he draws a different line than Augustine did. In his opinion, the church is wrong in relating the qualities of the invisible catholic church to the visible church.165 He believes that this mixing has led to much confusion in the history of the church. Owen’s approach is, fundamentally, in line with Calvin, but Owen does accept the consequences that Calvin does not accept when he explicitly places the visible congregation on a lower level, while Calvin maintains a strong relationship between visibility and invisibility. Even though Calvin speaks of the church as an aid, in practice he attaches greater value to the visible congregation. For Owen this is different, because in his view the visible church ultimately serves personal spiritual life.

161 Owen, Works vol. 13, 129. Cf. M. Horton, ‘The Church’, 324-325. 162 Owen, Works vol. 13, 137. 163 Owen, Works, vol. 15, 87. See also Works vol. 6, 467; vol. 8, 51; vol. 9, 293; vol. 15, 230, 262, 320, 479; vol. 16, 25, 27. 164 Owen, Works deel 15, 97. This sentence is characteristic for Owen: ‘Believers are not made for churches, but churches are appointed for believers. Their edification (…) is their use and end’, Works deel 13, 317. Cf. Owen, Works vol. 9, 262; vol. 13, 317; vol. 15, 117. 165 Owen, Works vol. 13, 160.

John Owen (1616–1683)

9.2

Pluriform unity

Just like for the representatives of the Early Church, for Owen the unity of Christ’s body is an important quality of the church. In contrast to the Early Church, Owen principally relates this to mystical union with Christ. From unity with the same Christ, it is impossible for true believers not to love one another. The visible congregation is an expression of this mutual love for this common Saviour.166 That is the reason why Owen rejects any unity in which love is not central. He practically relates this to a hierarchic church organisation.167 Owen also gives a further qualification of this unity among Christians, since there are “many differences” among them.168 His acceptance of these mutual differences is related to his great emphasis on the independence of believers who – in contrast to mediaeval believers – are able and allowed to think and decide for themselves.169 For Owen, this flows from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers.170 However, there is another side to the independence of individual believers. If Christians are independently able and allowed to develop an opinion about the truth, it is very possible and predictable that numerous differences in interpretation develop. It is still a reproach from the Roman Catholic Church towards Protestants that the priesthood of all believers and the Bible in the hand of lay people only lead to fragmentation. Owen acknowledges the seriousness of this fragmentation and emphasises that true believers cannot accept these schisms and at the same time long for unity.171 But which unity does Owen mean here? Does he speak of ecclesiastical unity, that is unity in the visible church? It is not so easy to answer this question, because Owen accepts in principle the pluriformity of the church. There is no denomination which can claim catholicity exclusively for themselves.172 The Roman Catholic Church is not an option for him, and for him the pope is the expression of the antichrist.173 Owen also sees the Church of England as an expression of the catholic church of Christ,

166 167 168 169

170 171 172 173

Owen, Works vol. 13, 130-133; vol. 15, 106, 108-110. Owen, Works vol. 13, 144-145. Owen, Works vol. 15, 79. ‘Churches may inform the minds of men; they cannot enforce the minds them’, Owen, Works volume 15, 128. See also Van Vlastuin, ‘Personal Renewal between Heidelberg and Westminster’, 64-66; Beck and Van Vlastuin, ‘Sanctification between Westminster and Northampton’, 8-9. Owen, Works vol. 10, 330-336. See also Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality, 176-178. Owen, Works vol. 15, 80-81, 134, 142. See also Owen, Works vol. 13, 95. Owen, Works vol. 13, 154; vol. 15, 84, 86, 92, 113. Owen, Works vol. 8, 618; vol. 13, 153-173; vol. 14, 547.

121

122

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

although he has fundamental reasons for rejecting its structures.174 Numerous other denominations exist besides it. We can go even further, since Owen is in fact willing to recognize any fellowship of two or three believers as an expression of Christ’s body.175 That which Cyprian explicitly rejected, is explicitly accepted by Owen as a cornerstone of his ecclesiology. By saying this, Owen accepts that it is possible that there are several Christian congregations in a certain town or city. He supports this by emphasizing the personal edification of believers. If there is a different congregation where one receives more edification and instruction, it is acceptable to join it.176 Our membership of a certain congregation or denomination does not imply that we deny that another congregation belongs to the catholic church.177 This does not mean that Owen justifies any schisms. He rejects unlawful schisms, but apparently there are numerous lawful breaks in the visible church of Christ.178 Owen takes much effort to show that the separate meetings of Congregationalists are not the same as making schisms in Christ’s body. Christians are duty-bound to reform themselves according to the Word of God. There may be situations in which this obedience to Christ cannot be fully practised. Then this is sufficient reason to separate oneself from this situation, to join a different congregation or to make a new ecclesiastical start. This is the root of Owen’s congregationalism. He has seen that rigid and supralocal church structures may be an obstacle to local obedience to the Word of God.179 This leads him – in contrast to the Early Church – to deny all binding supralocal church relationships and to advocate the liberty and the independence of the local church covenant, in which one serves God with other believers. This does not mean that Owen advocates the isolation of the local congregation, but he only denies the binding character of all supralocal structures. He is, however, in favour of having supralocal contacts, in order to serve each other in this way. 9.3

Orthodoxy

Mutual love between believers is of great importance in Owen’s understanding of the church. Sometimes he mentions it first when he describes the visible 174 Owen, Works vol. 15, 85, 100-101. Cf. Owen, Works vol. 13, 181-206; vol. 15, 184; Barrett and Haykin, Owen on the Christian Life, 247-248. 175 Owen, Works vol. 15, 92. 176 Owen, Works vol. 13, 198, 328-329; vol. 15, 97; vol. 16, 91-92. 177 Owen, Works vol. 15, 99. 178 Owen, Works vol. 13, 110, 171; vol. 15, 92, 125, 364-373. 179 Owen, Works vol. 13, 328; vol. 15, 349.

John Owen (1616–1683)

church.180 The fact remains that the unity of Christians is determined by a common recognition of the truth. The church has to confess the fundamental articles of the Christian faith.181 Whoever denies these ‘principal fundamentals of Christian religion’, is outside the church.182 Which articles of faith are at stake here? In this context, Owen mentions the denial that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son, the confession of the power of His death and the personality of the Holy Spirit.183 Here Owen also thinks of the church of Rome.184 Owen does see similarities with the Church of England in the doctrines of God’s eternal decrees, justification, the fall, the nature of regeneration and the reality of grace in the conversion of sinners.185 Owen made great efforts towards the study and development of Reformed orthodoxy.186 Reformed orthodoxy wrongfully sometimes gives the impression of being rigid and mathematically immovable. On the one hand, Owen is certainly afraid of innovations187 , on the other hand many aspects can be identified when he himself is an exponent of a dynamic development of the doctrines of faith188 , while he explicitly advocates a certain tolerance.189 In this way, Owen seeks to follow Thomas of Aquino.190 For his description of Chalcedon, Owen used certain writings from this church father.191 In order to speak out against semi-pelagianism, Owen copies Thomas’ words of ‘infused habits of grace’, which he describes as an ‘act of creation’.192 He also derives his teaching about divine simplicity as a ‘pure act’ from this mediaeval church father.193 Owen depends on the Jesuit Suarez (1548–1617) for certain insights concerning the attribution of God’s righteousness.194 Owen also makes efforts to develop Reformed covenant theology. In the Reformed tradition, there are some considerable differences with respect to

180 Owen, Works vol. 15, 302-306. Owen can also choose his starting point in the agreement in theology, Works vol. 13, 147, 150; vol. 15, 356. 181 Owen, Works vol. 15, 108. 182 Owen, Works vol. 15, 83. 183 Owen, Works vol. 15, 83. 184 Owen, Works vol. 13, 114-115. 185 Owen, Works vol. 15, 86. 186 For a survey, cf. Klaassen, In Christus rechtvaardig, 243-323. 187 Owen, Works vol. 15, 139-140. 188 Cf. Kelly, Reformed and Reforming, 92-99. 189 Owen, Works vol. 15, 85. 190 Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen. 191 Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen, 121-152. See also Owen, ’Christologia’, Works vol. 1, 3-27. 192 Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen, 69-120. On p. 80 he speaks of ‘act of creation.’ 193 Cleveland, Thomism in John Owen, 27-68. 194 Trueman, John Owen, 43-44.

123

124

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

covenant theology.195 In Heidelberg, a theology of two covenants was developed. Most theologians in the seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy believed there were three covenants.196 John Owen has also written much about covenant theology. He discerns a separate Sinaitic dispensation, distinguishing four covenants. In his opinion, in the Old Testament there was a promise of the covenant of grace, but the actual covenant is the new covenant in Christ.197 This is the reason why the ‘Particular Baptists’ believe that Owen was not consistent in baptizing children. According to Owen, when there is recognition in the broad contours of theology, there may be variety in the interpretation of other truths, because it is impossible for every Christian to have the same understanding of God’s Word.198 So just like Calvin, Owen made a distinction in importance between different aspects of Biblical theology. At the same time, it is a pertinent question whether the structure of Thomas of Aquino’s theology can be reconciled with the structure of Owen’s theology. Or hasn’t Owen been critical enough with respect to the distinction between the knowledge of God from nature and the knowledge of God from Scripture, in the theology of this mediaeval church father? However, these questions are beyond the scope of this study. What we can say is that the way Owen deals with Scriptural doctrine is connected to his view of Christ. According to Owen, all Biblical doctrines are an expression of Christ: ‘Whatever conceptual knowledge men may have of divine truths, as they are doctrinally proposed in the Scripture, yet – if they know them not in their respect unto the person of Christ as the foundation of the counsels of God – if they discern not how they proceed from him, and centre in him – they will bring no spiritual, saving light unto their understanding.’199 Owen also turns it around. Whoever rejects Christ, also rejects the truths of God’s revelation.200 9.4

Spirit, baptism and offices

We have seen that Owen does not consider the visible church from the one body of Christ, but from the renewal by and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in

195 Cf. McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant. 196 See McRaw, A Heavenly Directory, 155. 197 Renihan, ‘From Shadow to Substance’, chapter 5. Also H. Blocher emphasizes the new covenant in Christ, ‘Old Covenant, New Covenant’, 262. 198 Owen, Works vol. 15, 108. 199 Owen, Works vol. 1, 81. 200 Owen, Works vol. 1, 83.

John Owen (1616–1683)

believers. Commencing from the variety of the work of the Spirit in believers, he reaches a plural understanding of the church. This leads us to the next question as to what Owen believed about the relationship between the congregation, the Spirit and baptism. His treatise in defence of infant baptism201 gives us more clarity about this relationship. It is clear that Owen, in agreement with Reformed orthodoxy, accepts the reception of the Holy Spirit as a ground for infant baptism.202 This may indicate a unity of Spirit, baptism and church. However, the sequel of Owen’s treatise shows that this conclusion cannot be drawn. He recognizes that some children partake of grace and he considers children potential believers, but he does not reason from the perspective of the congregation as a temple of the Holy Spirit, in which children participate. This is not surprising in view of the whole of Owen’s theology. Moreover, it is in line with Puritanism as such that he makes a sharp distinction between baptism with water and baptism by the Holy Spirit.203 This amounts to a different relationship between the Spirit and the congregation than in the Early Church. While people in the Early Church thought from the visible congregation as a temple of the Holy Spirit, Owen makes a connection between the individual believer and the Holy Spirit. It is a confirmation of Owen’s opinion that he does not think from the body of the congregation to the individual members, but understands the congregation as the sum of its individual members. We do not have to ask if the whole is more than the sum of the parts, since this is out of the question. It is not surprising that this view on the congregation is connected to Owen’s approach to the offices. Because the visible congregation was the starting point in the understanding of the church in the first centuries AD, the bishop was given much importance. Since Owen chooses his starting point with the invisible church, it is obvious that here different interests are at stake. Owen rightly appeals to the Early Church to speak out against any form of hierarchy204 and he explicitly advocates the congregation’s involvement in the election of office-bearers.205 Office-bearers have no other task than to pray, proclaim the Word and administer the sacraments.206 According to Owen, all supralocal labour, in particular ceremonial performances, undermine the actual task of the office-bearer. Moreover, for him it is an important historical 201 202 203 204

Owen, Works vol. 16, 258-263. See also his ‘Antipaedobaptism’, Works vol. 16, 263-265. Owen, Works vol. 16, 259. See also on the appeal to Acts 10:47 Van Vlastuin, ‘En uw kinderen’. Owen, Works vol. 16, 13. Owen, Works vol. 13, 103; vol. 15, 88-89, 162, 277, 298. Cf. Kelly, Reformed and Reforming, 157. 205 Owen, Works vol. 15, 174, 286, 361-362. 206 Owen, Works vol. 15, 166, 168.

125

126

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

indication that degeneration in the church was connected with the development of supralocal structures. This is also the most fundamental reason for his resistance to a nationally organized church.207 He calls office-bearers to focus on their actual core task, namely pastoral care in the local congregation. 9.5

Assessment

We could call Owen’s understanding of the catholicity of the church the opposite side of Ussher’s approach. While Ussher approaches the church from the visible form, Owen approaches the church from invisible spiritual communion with Christ. We can also say that Ussher has a corporate view of the congregation, while Owen sees the congregation as the sum of individual believers. Owen’s view of the congregation as the gathering of individual believers leads him to a rich and deep understanding of the communion with God in public worship.208 In a theology in which the starting point of the local congregation is ultimately individually determined, it is also possible that visible baptism and the visible congregation are further away from salvation than in a corporate ecclesiology. Owen distinguishes the participation in baptism and in the congregation from participation in the body of Christ. Perhaps we may say that baptism becomes somewhat objective and the aspect of participation has disappeared. These relationships permeate all aspects of catholic understanding. We notice that Ussher strongly links doctrine to Christ and the communion with Him, while Owen gives more attention to a systematic cohesion of various truths. For Ussher, doctrine is an expression of existential faith and it strongly focusses on the most fundamental core truths, while for Owen doctrine is further away from faith, so he can also be tolerant with respect to Biblical understandings which are of less importance. In Ussher’s writings we find something of the ancient thinking about the fullness of faith which flourishes in the one body of Christ, but in Owen’s works this dimension of catholicity is not found. This means that, according to Owen’s understanding of catholicity, in particular the concept of universality remains and functions. The spiritual wealth of the knowledge of the glory of Christ and

207 Owen, Works vol. 13, 194, 272, 316. Owen did not defend an antithesis between church and state, although he recognized that all nations belong to Christ. The relationship to the state and to the church need to be distinguished, Works vol. 15, 309. 208 Cf. the study of McRaw, A Heavenly Directory. The title of the second chapter, ‘Trinitarian Worship: the Climax of Communion with God’, and the title of the fourth chapter, ‘Heavenly Worship: Worship as a Transaction with the Triune God in Heaven’ indicate this spiritual reality.

John Owen (1616–1683)

the communion with the triune God is explicitly present in Owen, but it is not motivated from catholicity and the congregation as the body of Christ. For Ussher, the inward and outward aspects of Christ’s body are directly connected, while Owen in reality degrades the visible church to an instrument. This means that Owen affords the individual believer a central position. By the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, this individual believer may be there, and he must also seek good things for his spiritual growth. The first question is not how individual believers may serve the edification of Christ’s body, but how the instrument of the church serves the edification of the individual believer. It is striking that this functional approach towards the church has another focus, since the visible church, ultimately, is not a means to come to faith, because Owen explicitly allows the invisible church to precede the visible church. It is even possible to belong to the catholic church without having joined the local church. We might say that the maternal function of the church fades here, and that the church as a gathering of believers remains. An intriguing question is, what this approach means for the external calling. Does this mean that the attention to the outward administration of the Word is at the expense of an emphasis on the direct activity of the Holy Spirit? A comparison between Owen’s understanding of catholicity and the Early Church shows that his spiritual understanding of catholicity has consequences for his view on the visible unity of the church. With Owen, the unity of the visible body of Christ in the ancient church has become a plural form of the one body of Christ. While catholicity and unity were considered two aspects of the same church during the first centuries, with Owen primary spiritual catholicity becomes a means to give an account for a pluralism of churches.

127

10.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

Herman Bavinck is a well-known Dutch theologian. He was a student in Leyden, where he was introduced to the questions of the modern times. In 1882 he was appointed at the Theological School in Kampen to teach the dogmatic disciplines. After twenty years, he moved to the Free University of Amsterdam. Together with Abraham Kuyper, he may be considered as the founder of neoCalvinism. From a neo-Calvinistic view on society, he laboured for the good of politics and he contributed to the development of ethics and pedagogics. His most well-known work is his four-volume Reformed Dogmatics which is presently broadly accepted all over the world. It is characteristic of Bavinck’s approach that he converses with numerous discussion partners (with different views), listens to their arguments, problematizes the issues, in order to reach a nuanced position in which there is always a certain warmth of spirituality. On 18 December 1888, Bavinck, as a relatively young theologian, gave his first rectorial address at the Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands in Kampen. He spoke about The Catholicity of Christianity and Church.209 This rectorial address is the starting point for the discussion in this chapter. 10.1

Catholic despite discord

The intention of Bavinck’s speech is clear from the introduction: “The affirmation of the catholicity of the church and of the universalism of Christianity is of the greatest significance in our time, which is so rife with errors and schisms.”210 Despite his seceded position, Bavinck suffers amidst the brokenness of the church. Apparently, in his own church circle he sees a tendency to errors and schisms and he considers himself responsible to give theological leadership. He considers the understanding of catholicity to be a medicine against this problem. In this way, catholicity also functions as normative and critical.211 This wholesome effect of catholicity is emphasized by a letter to his college friend Snouck Hurgronje. He wrote to the well-known arabicus: “You have 209 This is the translation of De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk. See also Kamphuis, ‘Herman Bavinck on Catholicity’. He calls Bavinck’s reflection on catholicity one of his most important contributions to Reformed theology, 97. 210 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 222. 211 Cf. Berkouwer, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 46.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

certainly received my oration. When you read it, you should be aware that it is in particular intended to be some medicine for the separatist and sectarian tendencies, which sometimes show up in our church. There is so much narrowmindedness, so much pettiness among us, and, worst of all, it is even considered piety.”212 In contrast to his own introduction, he even says the understanding of catholicity is the only medicine. So we can conclude that for Bavinck, catholicity is not merely an academic matter, but that he is worried about the health of the church of his times. When we use these concepts as reading glasses for the entire address, there are several moments where we notice that he suffers under the “separatist and sectarian tendencies” which he encounters in church life. He must have had a good reason to consider the beauty of catholicity much greater than “the most wonderful church order”.213 When one seeks to read between the lines of this expression, Bavinck is clearly tired of living with formal rules and administrative prescriptions from which any understanding of the body of Christ has disappeared. We should also consider Bavinck’s criticism of “dead” orthodoxy and “doctrinal holiness”, where the confession functions as a set of regulations or as a sum of eternal truths, in such a way that orthodoxy is separated from living faith, and people no longer struggle with the question how the Christian faith should enter these times.214 It is with pain that he sees: Not a reformation of churches but an increase in their number and a perpetuation of division. The rise of sectarianism that has accompanied the Protestant movement is a dark and negative phenomenon (…) It has never flourished as it has in our age. New church after new church is established (…) The differences have become so many and so insignificant that one cannot keep track of them (…) There is no longer an awareness of the difference between the church and a voluntary association. The sense that separation from the church is a sin has all but disappeared. One leaves a church or joins it rather casually (…) The decisive factor turns out to be our taste. Exercise of discipline thus becomes virtually impossible; it loses its very character.215

Bavinck concludes his address with the following words: “Not one church, no matter how pure, is identical with the universal church. In the same way no 212 According to Brinkman, ‘Bavinck en de katholiciteit van de kerk’, 309. 213 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 226. ‘Legalism seems to be prevalent in our Church courts’, MacRae, Diary of Kenneth MacRae, 287. 214 Cf. Berkouwer, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 56-58. 215 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 246.

129

130

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

confession, no matter how refined by the Word of God, is identical with the whole of Christian truth. Each sect that considers its own circle as the only church of Christ and makes exclusive claims to truth will wither and die like a branch severed from its vine.”216 The backdrop to these words is Bavinck’s perception that the Reformed confession or a certain interpretation of it is made absolute. Another implication is that Bavinck, as a representative of a seceded church, does not criticize the secession as a principle, but is willing to think in a catholic way from his seceded position. Here we reach the heart of Bavinck’s method of theologizing. Despite his connection to Kuyper, he does not join him in the antithesis, at least, he does not make it absolute. Over the antithesis, he seeks synthesis.217 He has a thetic attitude, and listens to everyone in order to try to come to a deeper understanding of the one truth of God. This is the Bavinck we discover in his Reformed Dogmatics. He also says it explicitly: “While with respect to others we must apply the saying of Jesus that those who are not against us are for us, with reference to ourselves we must adhere to that other saying: He that is not for me is against me.’218 So Bavinck tries to evaluate others as positively as possible. At the same time, he is critical towards his own tradition. His words cut deeply when he discerns the church-dissolving element not only in the ecclesiastical brokenness of his own times, but relates it to the Reformation as such: “In the Protestant principle there is indeed a church-dissolving element as well as a church-reforming one. The one Christian church has been fragmented into innumerable sects and small churches, assemblies, and conventicles.”219 An intriguing question in this context is what exactly Bavinck considers to be the Protestant principle. Does he mean the focus on the religious subject of the Reformation? One might wonder if this Protestant principle should not be criticized when divisions in the church are criticized. Now Bavinck does criticize the consequences of this individualist approach, but he does not identify the cause. In the context of Protestantism, he brings up another problem, namely how far a church can be corrupted, while still remaining a true church of Christ. His own analysis of this problem leads to the conclusion that no absolute answer can be given to this question from a Protestant viewpoint.220 Bavinck does not speak apodictically about absolute truths, which makes a distinction between doubt, error and heresy necessary.221 216 217 218 219 220 221

Bavinck, The Catholicity, 250-251. Cf. Berkouwer, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 41. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4: 319. Bavinck, The Catholicity, 249. Bavinck, The Catholicity, 239. Berkouwer, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 52.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

Bavinck agrees with ancient understandings that a broken church loses spiritual quality.222 This means that doctrine, the unity of doctrine and the fullness of doctrine can only flourish if the communion of saints functions in the church. If one isolates themselves from the church in an uncatholic way, this leads to one-sidedness and an imbalance in doctrine, which has many consequences on the life of faith. In response to this spiritual, ecclesiastical and theological brokenness, Bavinck sees the great importance of catholicity: This catholicity of the church, as the Scriptures portray it for us and the early churches exemplify it for us is breathtaking in its beauty. Whoever becomes enclosed in the narrow circle of a small church (kerkje) or conventicle, does not know it and has never experienced its power and comfort. Such a person shortchanges the love of the Father, the grace of the Son, and the fellowship of the Spirit and incurs a loss of spiritual treasures that cannot be made good by meditation and devotion. Such a person will have an impoverished soul. By contrast, whoever is able to see beyond this to the countless multitudes who have been purchased by the blood of Christ from every nation and people and age, whoever experiences the powerful strengthening of faith, the wondrous comfort in times of suffering to know that unity with the whole church militant that has been gathered out of the whole human race from the beginning to the end of the world, such a person can never be narrow-minded and narrow-hearted.223

Several statements in this quotation need to be emphasized.224 It is telling that he states that the damage of a lack of catholicity cannot be compensated for by meditation and devotion. It is just as telling that Bavinck speaks here of the “breath-taking beauty” of catholicity. This shows how existentially Bavinck was touched by the catholicity of the church. Moreover, we realize that it was no tangible reality to him, given the great number of splits between denominations and the sectarian tendencies in his own denomination. Bavinck’s own broadmindedness is clear when he positively estimates God’s gift of Fox, Wesley, Spener, Francke, Von Zinzendorf, De Labadie, Darby, Irving, Moody and Booth to the church.225 The same is true for pietism. Despite his criticism of this movement, he manages to emphasize the positive aspects, and he says that “it remains one of the most important forms in which the Christian faith comes

222 223 224 225

Bavinck, The Catholicity, 247-248. Bavinck, The Catholicity, 227. Cf. Berkouwer, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 46. Bavinck, The Catholicity, 245.

131

132

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

to expression.”226 These words are in line with what he wrote later (1904) in a preface to the works of the Scottish Erskines: “Here there is an important element which is seriously lacking. We have a lack of spiritual soul’s knowledge. It is as if we no longer know what sin and grace, what guilt and forgiveness, what regeneration and conversion is. We know them theoretically; but we no longer know them in the awesome reality of life.”227 We may conclude from the above that Bavinck understands catholicity from the one body of Christ, and that both the concept of universality and the concept of quality play a role. Christianity is a world religion for all times, nations and classes: “That church is most catholic that most clearly expresses in its confession and applies in its practice this international and cosmopolitan character of the Christian religion.”228 It is surprising that Bavinck is able to make a virtue out of the great needs of the ecclesiastical brokenness. However, no matter how harmful the ongoing divisions have been for the unity of church and doctrine, the consequences to Christianity itself have not been unqualifiedly negative. They testify to the vitality of the Christian faith, to its power in a people, a power that still moves thousands. The richness, the many-sidedness, the pluriformity of the Christian faith, has in this way become evident. External unity does have an immediate appeal and seems more attractive. Rome lets no opportunity pass to parade its glorious unity in contrast to the divisions of Protestantism. Yet under this external unity Rome hides the same differences and oppositions that the Protestant principle allows to develop alongside each other. For this reason it is not a curse but a blessing that the Reformation refused all false, inauthentic forms of unity and permitted external differentiation of that which did not internally belong together. It is a sad fact of life that the State Churches are still poisoned with this Roman leaven and seek to marshal their forces against Rome by externally uniting faith and unbelief in a way that blunts consciences and corrupts character, resulting in a church life that is thoroughly unhealthy. This is not the smallest advantage that the sects in general and the free churches of our century in particular have gained for us, 226 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 243. 227 According to Van der Haar, ‘Inleidend woord’ in Leven en dagboek van Ralph Erskine, 9-10. It has been said that this may indicate that Bavinck later did no longer feel at home in his own environment, cf. Aalders, De grote ontsporing, 14-15; H. van den Belt in H. Bavinck, Geloofszekerheid, 112, 255-256. We cannot state this with so much certainty, because nowadays we also know the brochure which he wrote on the occasion of the Netelenbos issue in 1919, Bavinck, Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende. Here we encounter a Bavinck who fully participates in the questions which are asked to him from modernity. 228 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4:323.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

namely, that they have wrested freedom of religion also from the state churches and have liberated faith and confession from all ties to the state. The Christian religion is once again, as in the first centuries of our era, dependent on its own resources. This will make it stronger rather than weaker in the spiritual struggle. For this reason the free churches undoubtedly have the promise of the future. Only one condition needs to be made here: provided they preserve the catholicity of the Christian faith and the Christian church.229

This extensive quotation leads to several conclusions. Firstly, Bavinck accepts the pluriformity of churches and he dissents from an ambition for unity of the visible church: ‘In the early days of the church her self-consciousness about unity was incredibly profound and powerful. It is virtually impossible for us as Protestants, in our age of subjectivism, to truly grasp this.’230 We should wonder if, in this way, the brokenness of the church isn’t eventually made relative and becomes accepted.231 Secondly, Bavinck contextualises the unity of the church by pointing out that faith and unbelief can go together under the guise of ecclesiastical unity. He provides a sharp analysis of the uncatholic character of the Roman Catholic Church: “That which is Christian is entirely swallowed up by that which is peculiarly Roman. The catholicity of Christianity and the church is restricted to a specific place and person.”232 Just like in Calvin’s works, in Bavinck’s writings unity is determined by the truth, with the difference that Bavinck accepts the brokenness of Protestantism. That which Calvin could not tolerate, is an accepted fact for Bavinck. The theocrat Hoedemaker spoke out against the revolutionary aspect of this neoCalvinist view of the church, in which Christ’s kingship was exercised through the churches as parties, the confessing church was replaced by a confessionchurch and faith made room for an ambition for power.233 Also ministers such as Ledeboer and Boone had an intuition for the human organisational reasoning in this neo-Calvinism.234 229 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 249-250. 230 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 232. With the Reformation, the period of pluriformity started, Reformed Dogmatics 4:319. W. Huttinga expresses his positive appreciation of pluriformity by using the metaphor of a bunch of flowers, ‘De ademruimte van het geloof ’, 260-261. 231 G.C. Berkouwer refers to a meeting of the classis Amsterdam, where Rev. D. Sikkel asked: “Mr. president, is a broken vase still a pluriform vase?”, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 51. 232 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 242. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4:322-323: ‘The Roman Catholic Church is progressively less entitled to the attribute of catholicity (…) The name “Roman” or “papal church” therefore expresses its nature much more accurately than “Catholic.”’ 233 Cf. Balke, Gunning en Hoedemaker, 49-66; Scheers, Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker, 184-232. 234 Vermeulen, Herder in de noodkerk, 181, 191, 318, 329.

133

134

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

A fourth conclusion we can draw from the quotation above, is that catholicity is disconnected from ecclesiastical unity, while in the Early Church, there was a correlation between unity and catholicity.235 In other words: it is possible for a pluriform church system to function with a catholic understanding of faith. Fifthly, we can point out that Bavinck, to justify this move to a pluriform understanding of the church, appeals to the Reformation, in particular to Calvin: “The Reformation ushered in another ecclesiology (…) The church, outside of which there is no salvation, was detached from all formal institutions and located in the invisible realm of mystical union with Christ. Unity and catholicity now lack concrete organization but serve as the hidden foundation of all Christendom.”236 As its source, we see Bavinck’s subjective approach in theology. He observed this subjective approach in the Reformation, and in fact he does not only follow this line, but he also systemizes it.237 In the first part of his Reformed Dogmatics, he describes – in interaction with Schleiermacher – two principia of theology, namely the principium externum and the principium internum. The principium internum is not the witness of the Holy Spirit, but faith. While the principium externum of Scripture is instrumental, the principium internum is ‘formal and principal’. It is clear and telling that, in this way, the human subject has received a key position in theology.238 Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the unity of faith and the church has become an eschatological asset: “The one, holy, universal church that is presently an object of faith, will not come into being until the body of Christ reaches full maturity. Only then will the church achieve the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, and only then will she know as she is known.’239 10.2

The cosmic Christ

The preceding exploration did not yet give insight into the most important aspect of Bavinck’s approach. In order to trace this, we need to return to the title of Bavinck’s address. Throughout history, the focus had always been on the catholicity of the church, but Bavinck wants to take a different road. Even though

235 236 237 238

Küng, The Church, 298-299, 304. Bavinck, The Catholicity, 238. Cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4:320-321. Cf. Van der Kooi, ‘The appeal to the inner testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’. Cf. for this analysis Van den Belt, ‘Autonomie van de mens of autopistie van de Schrift’, 292-293. 239 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 251.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

he does not give up the catholicity of the church, he emphasizes primarily the catholicity of Christianity.240 Bavinck does not give an account of this choice. He explains his choice in the first chapter, where he, as a central starting point for God’s work of salvation, formulates that it is focused on the entirety of the cosmos. In the Old Testament, this was revealed by the theocracy, where God’s Kingdom was proclaimed in a prophetic way. God’s revelation not only focused on religion, but it also comprised civil, social and political life: “In this way Israel’s theocracy is a type of the coming kingdom of God that shall take up into itself all that is good and true and beautiful.”241 Apparently, in God’s Kingdom, life as a whole is touched. In the Christian faith we find that which all religions and people consciously or unconsciously seek: relationship with God, salvation for body and soul.242 Christ is the “desire of all nations”. It is telling that, in his address, this cosmic aspect precedes the catholicity of the church.243 This means that there can be no catholicity of the church if it is not in the framework of the catholicity of the Christian faith.244 For Bavinck, this means that he uses the cosmic dimension as a normative framework in order to interpret the history of the church. This catholicity was at stake in the movement of Judaism and the controversy was settled at the Jerusalem Conference. Also the gnostic, nomistic and antinomian heresies were ultimately about the catholicity of the church, as well as the pressure which was exercised on the church from the side of asceticism, donatism and separatism. In the Early Church, people struggled to overcome the antithesis between church and culture: “In this way the original qualitative distinction between the church and the world was turned into a quantitative one.”245 According to Bavinck, here a different direction was taken in church history, since the world is more and more defined as the neutral natural domain. In this way, the Christian faith receives a dualistic character, because it is defined as a donum superadditum (supernatural gift), with the result that transcendent Christianity does no longer have a recreating and sanctifying influence on the creaturely existence.

240 “This catholicity of the church that is confessed by all Christians presupposes the catholicity of the Christian religion”, Bavinck, The Catholicity, 221-222. In the Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck emphasizes the catholicity of the church, 4:322-323. 241 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 223. 242 Cf. Kamphuis, ‘Herman Bavinck on Catholicity’, 101. 243 Cf. Brinkman, ‘Bavinck en de katholiciteit van de kerk’, 316. Also H. van den Belt points out that Bavinck starts with God’s Kingdom, ‘De katholiciteit van de kerk als kwaliteit van het christendom’, 277. 244 Cf. Kamphuis, ‘Herman Bavinck on Catholicity’, 100. 245 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 229.

135

136

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This has led to a compromise between nature and the supernatural, the latter complementing the former, the essence of the Pelagian system.246 The image of God complements human nature, the evangelistic commandments complement natural morality, the Mass complements the sacrifice of Christ, the pope complements Christ, the tradition complements the Scriptures, etc. The exclusivity of the Christian faith fades as a result. Natural life is overestimated in its potencies, while it is at the same time degraded in its appreciation. Bavinck also places the desire of the church of the Middle Ages to dominate the natural domain in this context. Bavinck uses his cosmic understanding of catholicity as a criterion to criticize these relationships. That is why he does not primarily qualify the conflict between Rome and Reformation as an ecclesiological and theological controversy like Calvin did, but as a controversy about the essence of the Christian faith247 , in particular concerning the understanding of the first article of faith. In contrast to the dualism of Rome, the Reformation has restored this article by liberating natural life from the pressure of the church.248 On the one hand, this has led Protestants to position sin much more deeply in natural life, and on the other hand, that they can intrinsically appreciate natural life. Bavinck uses the same cosmic understanding of catholicity to name the distinctions between the Lutheran and Calvinist wings of Protestantism. Because Luther, in his doctrine of the two kingdoms, only has an eye for the change of heart, not for the innovation of structures, dualism is not completely overcome in his doctrine, and he does not come to the full catholicity of Christianity. We do, however, see this in Calvin. Despite his emphasis on the negative virtues of self-denial, cross-bearing, longsuffering and temperance, the Reformer of Geneva had an eye for the influence of grace on the whole of creaturely life.249 According to Bavinck, Calvin shows a “new concept of the catholicity of the Christian religion”.250 In the chapter about Calvin, we saw that Calvin did indeed somehow innovate the understanding of catholicity because the Reformer takes his starting point in the invisible church. It is not clear to what extent Calvin was aware of his innovation. Moreover, it must be said that Calvin’s innovation is not the innovation that Bavinck has in mind. In this context, it should 246 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 229. 247 ‘It was a radically new way of conceiving Christianity itself ’, Bavinck, The Catholicity, 235. 248 It is striking that A.A. van Ruler assumes responsibility for this development and believes that the Reformation has failed at this point, Verzameld Werk deel 3, 416. See also his De vervulling der wet, 27, 59, 63, 75-76. 249 See also Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4:265: ‘This is how Calvin in principle viewed the Christian life. In this matter he may have been somewhat too negative, puritanical, and rigoristic; but ascetic and dualistic he was not.’ 250 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 238.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

be added in the third place that the actual innovation of the understanding of catholicity is performed by Bavinck himself.251 What Bavinck has in mind is a cosmic understanding of catholicity, in contrast to the classical ecclesiological understanding of catholicity. While Calvin limits “gather together in one all things in Christ” to the elect, Bavinck has a cosmic reality in mind.252 Bavinck also further elaborates this cosmic understanding of catholicity. We feel something of the neo-Calvinist atmosphere when he says that “life on this side of the grave was then chiefly viewed as a preparation for heaven, it now has its own independent value”.253 Bavinck can say that the Reformers are founders of a “weltliches Christentum”. He sees a culture-forming task for the Christian faith.254 In contrast to the negative virtues, he speaks about the positive virtues in this context.255 Later he further developed these accents in his “De navolging van Christus en het moderne leven” (1918).256 He writes that a turning-point came when Christ’s church was no longer persecuted and oppressed: “It was no longer sufficient for her to practice the negative and passive virtues, but it now became her task to reform and renew the world according to the principles of Christianity.”257 According to Bavinck, it is an apostolic principle that grace does not destroy nature, but restores it. He writes: The church adopted these apostolic principles when it achieved the victory over the world through purely moral and spiritual means, and could no longer be satisfied with a negative attitude towards the culture of its days. (…) Also the church could not continue without making great concessions to the ascetic ideal, and without marking out a special area for it within its own boundaries. But in particular under the guidance of the bishops of Rome, they continued on the way which had been pointed out by the apostles, and gradually it assumed a more positive attitude towards state, science, art, business, army, etc.258 251 H. Berkhof rightly says about Bavinck’s address: ‘It does not contain a real innovation of the understanding of catholicity. The address is remarkable, on the one hand because of its mildness and wideness, and on the other hand because of its modernity’, De Katholiciteit der Kerk, 20. 252 Cf. Calvin’s commentary on Eph. 1:10. Irenaeus does relate this text to the visible reality, Adversus Haereses 3.16.6. 253 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 245. Berkouwer referred to these words, The Church, 195-196. 254 Cf. Van der Kooi, ‘Inleiding’, 10. 255 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics 4:233, 244. 256 Bavinck, ‘De navolging van Christus en het moderne leven’. 257 Bavinck, ‘De navolging van Christus en het moderne leven’, 278. translation Peter Meeuse. 258 Bavinck, ‘De navolging van Christus en het moderne leven’, 278. Translation Peter Meeuse. R. Boon emphasizes the meaning of the Reformation for science, economy, culture, art

137

138

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

That is why Bavinck is sorry to observe that these apostolic principles are not effected in art, science, philosophy, politics and social life after the Reformation. A result of this slumbering dualism is, in his opinion, a fragmentizing of church, politics, culture and science on the one hand, and an internalisation of the Christian faith on the other hand. For the church, this means that sectarianism attacks in various ways, as a result of which the fullness of the Spirit disappears. Although he speaks positively about pietism, he has to conclude that something is missing: One misses the genuine catholicity of the Christian faith in them (…) there is never a methodic, organic reformation of the whole cosmos, of nation and country (…) It is not a mighty, imposing conflict between the entire church militant and the world in the entirety of its organization as a kingdom under its own master, but rather a guerilla war (… ) The unbelieving results of science are rejected, but there is no inner reformation of the sciences on the basis of a different principle (…) It is a denial of the truth that God loves the world. It is dedicated to conflict with and even rejection of the world but not to ”the victory that overcomes it” in faith.259

Bavinck’s analysis ends with the observation that there is a distance between the culture of his days and Christianity and the church: “Our situation is thus quite different — a new order prevails. Forces have arisen against which the Christian faith has never yet had to test itself, realities with which the church has not yet come to terms.”260 He puts his finger the development of economics and science, the worldview of evolution, the disappearance of the awareness of eternity, and individualism. Christians have been too much influenced by pietism in their tendency to limit faith to private life, as a result of which full catholicity is missing. From all this, we see that Bavinck, with his understanding of catholicity, attacks dualistic thinking. He rejects any separation between nature and grace: “That faith is catholic, not restricted to any time, place, nation, or people. It can enter into all situations, can connect with all forms of natural life, is suitable to every time, and beneficial for all things, and is relevant in all circumstances.”261 In his own life, this becomes visible in his resistance against and politics, ‘Vroege Kerk, Reformatie en katholiciteit’, 61-62. Also Gunning understood catholicity cosmically, De Lange, ‘J.H. Gunning jr. (1829-1905)’, 240-241. 259 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 246-247. 260 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 244. 261 Bavinck, The Catholicity, 249. A comparison with Van Ruler is telling: “It is also catholic. (…) It enters all forms and ways of human life. It connects and unites itself to them. It assumes the colour of its environment. And it adopts all elements of truth and lies from the pagan existence into its one great salvation and culture synthesis”, ‘De pretentie van de kerk’,

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

a separation between science and faith. Until the end of his life, he continued to struggle with the issue of Scriptural doctrine, and he continued to consider the questions surrounding it as an expression of his catholic mindedness, in which nature and grace could not be isolated from each other, because Bavinck did not want to flee from the world.262 10.3

Assessment

When we evaluate Bavinck’s understanding of catholicity in light of the ancient church, it is easy to conclude that he interprets catholicity differently. Bavinck does not strictly speak about the catholicity of the church anymore, but about the catholicity of Christianity and church. With respect to the catholicity of the church, he builds on Calvin and even more on its elaboration by John Owen, when he accepts a pluriformity of the church and gives an account of it from an invisible catholicity. In Bavinck, this receives an extra incentive by the neoCalvinist framework, in which the church is organizationally interpreted and the confession begins to function as regulations. Here we encounter an ambivalent Bavinck. On the one hand, he accepts the pluriformity of the church, while on the other hand he opposes a continued fragmentation of the church.263 As a remedy against the continued fragmentation of the church, Bavinck sees a catholic understanding which lifts one above the isolation of one’s own denomination or group, so one is kept from an absolutizing of one’s own opinion. This catholicity which he has in mind here, is a combination of the universality and the qualitative wealth of the faith. The eschaton beckons as a solution for this tension.264 This ambivalence in Bavinck is indirectly connected to another ambivalence. While Bavinck accepts, approves and appreciates the Reformation’s new understanding of the church, he also sees its disadvantages. It is not easy to understand this completely. Is there something double in Bavinck’s appreciation? Does he positively estimate the religious subject as starting point, or does he criticize Theologisch Werk vol. 5, 66-77, 77. And he writes in “Hervorming”: ‘Full catholicity is not reached until then: when the church itself, modest and serving, discovers itself in the rich and varied company of the many forms and institutions of the kingdom of God. But this also means that one cannot remain loyal to the Reformation, if one does not also remain loyal to its view on the world, on its culture vision, and on its view on the unification of church and state and its greatest and bold concept of a state with the Bible.” Theologisch Werk vol. 5, 152-161, 161. 262 G.C. Berkouwer has further elaborated this cohesion, ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, 58-70. 263 R.H. Bremmer has already pointed this out, Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus, 284. 264 Cf. Van den Belt, “De katholiciteit van de kerk als kwaliteit van het christendom”, 286-287.

139

140

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

individualism as such? Is it a historical acceptance or a fundamental acceptance? It is clear that Bavinck wants to understand catholicity more broadly and fully than people did in the past. Actually, it is a Christian worldview with an eye for the whole of God’s creation. Undoubtedly, Bavinck sought this widening in response to the questions of his own times, in which science, trade, industry, politics, social questions and international relationships became increasingly complex. Bavinck’s new approach cannot be completely attributed to the new context, because there is not only an applicative difference, but also a theological shift. While in the Early Church life from the risen Prince of Life was considered the starting point for the Christian life, with which a sojourning in the world was a reality, for Bavinck the unity of church and culture, creation and recreation is the starting point. In this context, the subtle distinction between the body of Christ and the kingdom of Christ can appear to be telling. In the ancient church, people spoke from the spiritual reality of Christ’s body, while Bavinck theologizes from the visible (eschatological) kingdom of God. The same difference exists with Calvin. Calvin consciously uses the term ‘catholicity’ with respect to the corpus Christi (the body of Christ) and also when he, in his unconscious understanding of catholicity, thinks from Christ and the regnum Christi (kingdom of Christ), this finds a focus in the church and its government, while one can speak in wider concentric circles about Christ’s claim on this earth. That which follows for Calvin, is the starting point for Bavinck. It cannot be denied that the Reformation influenced culture, science and politics, but this cannot be identified with the essence of the Reformation. Calvin starts from the body of Christ. Calvin interprets this body by doctrine, in particular the doctrine of justification by faith. This approach has disappeared in Bavinck. We have already seen that Bavinck’s appeal to Calvin is actually unjust, because he is much too quick in claiming Calvin for his own approach. Bavinck should have elaborated the concepts that he superficially observes more widely and deeply, because the concepts of asceticism, self-denial and sojourning are much more essential to Calvin than Bavinck makes us believe. Bavink is right when he says that we cannot say that Calvin despised the world in an absolute sense, but this does not alter the fact that Calvin’s theology contains a difference in specific weight between the church and the world, the body of Christ and the kingdom of Christ in the structures of this creation.265 Calvin was not a dualist, but in his theology – in line with the platonic-Christian tradition266 – we notice a duality, in this sense that earthly life is estimated 265 Cf. Van Vlastuin, ‘The Estimation of the World’; Van Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 113-122. 266 Bij Bavinck zijn deze platoons-christelijke wortels ook aanwezig, vgl. Huttinga, Participation and communicability, 41-75. Zie hierover ook Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 68-83.

Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)

differently than recreation in the communion with Christ.267 While Bavinck has an attitude of world-devotion, O. Noordmans (1871–1956) wonders if worldavoidance wouldn’t be more appropriate. In a sharp consideration, Noordmans puts his finger on this “earth-mindedness” of neo-Calvinism and he asks if the cross is sufficiently put at the centre: It killed the scintillas of asceticism, the “eternity diffidence” in life, and drew many Reformed people very far, in cultural and political areas. Of course they had to do their work there. But as Calvinists they lacked the (dangerous) separation between Christian and civil life, just like the Luther of that church. Calvin had taught them that the church not only has to preach the Gospel, but also has to organize life. When the brake of church asceticism, the negative belief of common grace, the ecclesial attitude, disappeared, one was immediately exposed to the danger to understand the connection between Christianity and culture, Christianity and science, Christians and politics too directly, and to consider the existent powers of the original creation, already dissolved under certain circumstances, in some ways to be Christianized in one way or other (…) It is time to re-emphasize the negative side of common grace, the rights of asceticism, the true meaning of the scintillas, the scintillae, that the Reformed theologians spoke of (…). It would be interesting to study Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics at this point, where the positive view of common grace contains a critical vein. Or rather, where the critical, negative warp contains a cultural weft. (…) Bavinck is afraid that Christianity will be deprived of catholicity of the universal revelation is put to the background too much, and ethos and physis will be separated (…). We have to derive our theology and anthropology more consistently from the Gospel, anthropology becoming knowledge of sin, and theology becoming knowledge of God’s mercy (…). It is no longer about connecting Christians with non-Christians. The opportunity to do this is passing. Universal revelation is no longer the bridge on which non-Christians enter the church, but the gangway through which the Christian leaves the church.268

We can conclude that there is an important structural difference between Bavinck’s understanding of catholicity on the one hand, and the understanding of Calvin and the ancient church on the other hand. Despite the fact that Calvin approaches the concept of catholicity individualistically, he has in common 267 Vgl. Van Vlastuin, Naar het hart van Jeruzalem, 89-92. 268 Noordmans, ‘Kritieke spanningen in de gereformeerde theologie’, Verzamelde werken deel 4, 118-130, 118-125. Translation Peter Meeuse. Noordmans explicitly says that Bavinck should have interpreted catholicity ecclesiastically, 124.

141

142

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

with the Early Church that his thinking commences from the unity with Christ in a soteriological sense, while Bavinck structures his concept cosmically. In his elaboration he does not ignore Christ and doctrine, but the total concept looks more universal. We can ask ourselves if the universal starting point is not at the expense of the particular aspect, as a result of which the attention to personal salvation and its application disappear into the background, theologically speaking. Another question is whether Bavinck’s approach is not opposed to the New Testament approach, which concentrates on the spiritual relationship with Christ, around which cosmic dimensions can be situated subsequently.

11.

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996)

Berkouwer was a theologian in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands. When he served his second congregation, he was appointed associate professor in newer theology at the Free University of Amsterdam. In 1942, he became president of the synod which decided to bind office-bearers to Abraham Kuyper’s beliefs on baptism, which led to the so-called ‘vrijmaking’ (Liberation) in 1944. In 1945, he was appointed professor in systematic theology. It is well-known about Berkouwer that he developed considerably as a theologian. He started out as an orthodox-Reformed theologian, but in his thorough consideration of the theological questions of is time, he moved more and more towards a modern theology. In his first publications, for example, he spoke out sharply against Karl Barth (1886–1968), but later he took a much more moderate position with respect to this theologian. He underwent a similar change with respect to his view on the Scriptures, election and Roman-Catholicism. This change in particular took place from the nineteen-seventies. Since we investigate Berkouwer’s study from 1970 in this chapter, it probably is a study from the “early” Berkouwer. Apart from this classification of the former leader of the Reformed Churches, I would like to enter into conversation in a catholic manner, ask critical questions and use the argumentative strength in his work about the church. In his Studies in Dogmatics, Berkouwer also wrote about the church from the perspectives of unity and catholicity, the apostolicity and holiness of the church. It stands to reason that we focus on the first two perspectives in this study. 11.1

One Christ

Just like Bavink and in line with the whole Christian tradition, Berkouwer approaches the church as the body of Christ, a characterization which “in salvation-historical terms … is a more precise Christological determination of the people of God”.269 He can approvingly refer to Bonhoeffer, who spoke of an identification of Christ and His body in the words “Christ exists as the Church”.270

269 Berkouwer, The Church, 79. 270 Berkouwer, The Church, 83.

144

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

This means that we cannot allow the church as the body of Christ to stand alone as a static reality.271 The church as such has no form without Christ, so it does not make sense to make it an object of speculation. The church is the modus of the reality in Christ.272 That is why Berkouwer rejects the early-Christian and Augustinian credo in ecclesiam in favour of the credo ecclesiam.273 The other side of this mystical union with Christ is that the credo communion sanctorum (I believe the communion of saints) is the more exact explication of the church.274 The common union with Christ implies the mutual fellowship of believers, so there is unity in suffering, in the knowledge of Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit and in the intercession for each other.275 This brotherly love does not only focus on people who are of the same mind, but its basic attitude is to do good to all people. Although Berkouwer continually refers to Bavinck with much respect and approval, he does not approach catholicity from Christianity, but he speaks explicitly of the catholicity of the church. It also appears that he has a critical attitude towards Bavink’s unconditional approval of the Reformed turn to the invisible catholicity of the mystical union with Christ. In this context, he pays much attention to the fact that the Scriptures explicitly deal with the visible aspects of the church.276 The Scriptures mention exhortations which concern practical brotherly love.277 Also the history of the tension between different groups of Christians in Jerusalem is very practical.278 The same is true for the situation of partisanship in Corinth.279 Moreover, the coming together of Jews and Gentiles refers to a concrete historical situation.280 For Berkouwer this is enough reason to apply the Biblical concepts of one bride, one temple and one fold to the concretely visible church. After all, also the reformed confessions speak concretely and historically about the church.281 He emphasises the solemnity of the actual form of the church by linking the unity of the church to the world.282 Even though Jesus, in His high-priestly prayer, says that He does not pray for the world, the world comes into sight 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282

Berkouwer, The Church, 84. Berkouwer, The Church, 88-89. Berkouwer, The Church, 84. Berkouwer, The Church, 92. Berkouwer, The Church, 93-95. Berkouwer, The Church, 39-42. 1 Thess. 4:9; Phil. 2:1 and Eph. 4:3. Acts 6:1. 1 Cor. 1:1-11. Eph. 2:14-15; Gal. 3:28. Berkouwer, The Church, 10. Berkouwer, The Church, 44-45.

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996)

through the visible unity of the church. By its unity, this visible church is a light to the world and salt to the earth. Therefore, the ecclesial practice of brokenness is an ecclesiological problem of the first order.283 Berkouwer refuses to relativize the Biblical principle of unity by speaking of the richness of pluralism, as Kuyper and Bavinck do.284 According to Kuyper, it is a curse of modernity that it does not have an eye for the pluriformity in God’s creation. This argument gives him a sold theological basis to accept the variegation of church life and to even consider it richness. Kuyper emphasizes that we do not have to expect other nations to express the same faith in the same confession as people from the West. The Christian faith does not consist of mathematical expressions which are equal all over the world. He illustrates this by using the metaphor of a beam of light which shines through a window of red, yellow and blue glass. In this way, he underlines the subjective element in the faith that continues by way of organic development.285 Berkouwer responds to this with another telling metaphor: can a broken vase be considered a pluriform vase? Kuyper is right in his view on the pluriformity of the life of faith, but he wrongly applies it to a pluriformity of churches, rather than on a pluriformity within the church. Kuyper’s mistake is that he applies an anthropological category to the church. Paul, however, does the opposite in the context of partisanship in Corinth, since he does not approach it from their human variegation, but from a Christological criterion: was Christ crucified for you? Berkouwer also highlights the problem of group thinking, in appealing to the confession.286 In his opinion, the confession is secularized in this way. He means that it is made subject to human interests and that the church is no longer experienced from Christ. In this manner, he criticizes thinking from the “peculiarities” of the church denomination, because the identity of the church is fully in Christ. The church denomination that wants to be the first, but it must follow the Master in being last of all, and servant of all. 11.2

Qualitative catholicity

Berkouwer pays attention to the qualitative side of catholicity. This gives him room to counter the Roman-Catholic appeal to the quantitative aspect.287 In 283 284 285 286 287

Berkouwer, The Church, 33. Berkouwer, The Church, 51-76. Berkouwer, The Church, 55-56. Berkouwer, The Church. 73-74. Berkouwer, The Church, 108.

145

146

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

his opinion, Rome interprets catholicity too ontologically, as if it consists of the possession of a church organisation. In contrast to it, Berkouwer advocates a much more dynamical understanding of church and catholicity, where the institutional aspect cannot be an independent criterion.288 As opposed to the Roman-Catholic quantitative approach, Berkouwer advocates a qualitative approach in which the principles of the Westminster Confession are heard. There are numerous Biblical concepts which indicate the qualitative fullness of faith.289 Berkouwer makes much effort to explain that this not a ‘quiet observation’, but that it is all about the focus on the fullness in Christ. The fullness is not a possession in the church, but the reality in Christ. That is why it is right to connect catholicity and fullness, with which it is clear that catholicity “can never be abstracted from Christ Himself ”.290 So catholicity is not static, ascertainable and verifiable, but it is a pneumatological category.291 Also in this dynamic approach we see a similarity with the Westminster Confession. In this context, Berkouwer makes a connection between the confession of the Holy Spirit and the confession of the church in the Apostles’ Creed.292 The confession of the church is controlled by the confession of the Holy Spirit. That is why catholicity is impossible without the presence of the Holy Spirit. This means that catholicity is not the possession of a denomination, but a spiritually exercised reality. The exercise of this spiritual catholicity is the opposite of heresy.293 Because heresy obscures the redemptive truth of the Gospel, it is diametrically opposed to catholicity. So the fullness of the catholic Gospel is opposed to the imperfect. This means that error is uncatholic, and so can be exposed from the perspective of catholicity. The obscuring of the catholic fullness not only takes place by obvious heresy, but also in many more subtle manners. Catholic fullness can be threatened under the guise of a fuller Gospel, for example as in Paul’s days when people wanted to complement the Gospel with works. The catholic fullness of the Gospel is also obscured if a selection of truths is made or if subjective emphases

288 Berkouwer, The Church, 115. 289 Here Berkouwer refers to John 1:14, 3:34; Rom. 15:29; Col. 1:19, 2:3, 9-10, 3:3; Eph. 3:18, 4:13; 1 Thess. 1:5, The Church, 112-113. These texts are more or less in line with Berkhof ’s tekst references, De katholiciteit der kerk, 44-45. Berkhof also mentions Eph. 1:10, 22-23, 4:10, 5:18. Incidentally, Berkouwer does not include what Berkhof wrote about the understanding of pleroma, see e.g. 81. 290 Berkouwer, The Church, 114. 291 Berkouwer, The Church, 121-122. 292 Berkouwer, The Church, 125. 293 Berkouwer, The Church, 115-120.

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996)

are made.294 This is no less dangerous than a direct attack of the truth of the Gospel. This is actually spiritual shipwreck, and a separation takes place between Christ and His church. Something similar happens when catholicity is reduced to a quantitative scale, and people are no longer aware of the catholic contents of faith of the Gospel.295 Again Berkouwer has a critical attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church, because he fears that catholicity is warped and corrupted by an imperial desire for power. The other extreme of this, is a “particularistic narrowness”. For that, Berkouwer looks at his own Reformed tradition. Through these qualifications, Berkouwer comes to the special meaning of the cosmic Christ for catholicity.296 He finds this concept in particular in the epistle to the church in Colosse. He says that he thinks that this letter may be much more relevant to contemporary Christianity than the epistle to the Romans or to the Galatians, because is discusses how, in the cross of Christ, also the powers are defeated by the reconciliation in Christ, and because it states how Christ is involved in the whole of creation. Here we find the typically neo-Calvinist interest in that which the whole world owes to the sacrifice of Christ.297 In this way, the professor shows that catholicity is a term which requires actualisation in every age.298 This means, for example, that theology and preaching must be tested with respect to their catholic character. Authentic catholicity forces the congregation to a continual consideration of the contents of the confession. If the church were convinced that the Gospel locks it, esoterically, from the world, catholicity would disappear. On the other hand, catholicity implies that the church lives from the fullness in Christ which enters into each age. In this way, it is clear from the life of the church why it lives and thinks universally. When he reaches this point, he problematizes this universal validity of the Gospel, because in everyday reality it is so much overshadowed because of advancing unbelief.299 While many people from East and West will partake in God’s kingdom, children of the kingdom will be cast out. Berkouwer discusses this in a nuanced manner. Firstly, he underlines that unbelief can never be normal and never can be made parallel to faith. Next, he emphasizes that the 294 Berkouwer, The Church, 116-118. 295 Berkouwer, The Church, 123-125. It should be noted that Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger), in the consideration about the relationship between catholicity and universality, has emphasized that the quantitative aspect can never fully cover the understanding of catholicity, On the Way to Jesus Christ, 133. 296 Berkouwer, The Church, 127. 297 Berkouwer, The Church, 133-134. 298 Berkouwer, The Church, 128-129. 299 Berkouwer, The Church, 131-137.

147

148

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

Gospel cannot accept unbelief as a status quo, but that its aim is actually to break through this situation. Thirdly, he discusses the mindedness of Christ, who lived as a Friend of publicans and sinners. This issue is also a reason to discuss a different subject, namely the exclusivity of the church.300 Can we say with Cyprian that there is no salvation outside the church? Berkouwer says that this statement can be proudly applied to the church institution. That is why he wishes to put these words of the church father into a pneumatologic perspective. According to Berkouwer, he must have meant it as a concretization of the ecclesia visibilis, and it is not possible to understand it as proud clericalism. With this approach, the issue itself remains.301 It is striking that Berkouwer pays much attention to questions relating to the boundaries of the church. In his own words, it is because the church’s veracity is tested at its boundaries. For example, the study of this in Roman Catholic theology is discussed, where a distinction is made between obstinacy and ‘invicible ignorance’.302 He also refers to the Westminster Confession, which confesses that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside of the church. This is in line with the considerations in the Reformed tradition about the salvation of children who died in infancy and who were not able to exercise faith. Does this indicate that there may be implicit faith, which may be a more widely applied principle, if necessary? wonders Berkouwer. After an elaborate exploration, he concludes with a quote from Bavinck that we have to “abstain from a definite judgment either positively or negatively in regard both to the salvation of the heathen and to that of children who die in infancy”. Another aspect which problematizes the catholicity of the church, is the issue of continuity.303 On the one hand, God can raise up children unto Abraham from stones, and on the other hand He can say that the kingdom will be taken away from them. This means that continuity cannot be a universal truth, as Erasmus stated opposing Luther, and as the Roman-Catholic appealed to the continuity of the office: Ubi papa, ubi ecclesia. Also with respect to this subject, Berkouwer feels more connected to the pneumatological belief of the ancient church: Ubi Spiritus, ubi ecclesia. He also feels of the same mind with the dynamic belief of the Reformation that continuity must be sought in the Word. As to the functioning of the authority of the Word, the Reformation was concerned about continuity, in spite of all the discontinuity of deformation and reformation.

300 301 302 303

Berkouwer, The Church, 137-143. Berkouwer, The Church, 144-164. Berkouwer, The Church,146. Berkouwer, The Church,165-198.

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903–1996)

11.3

Assessment

A first remarkable point in Berkouwer’s discussion of catholicity is the fact that he puts the quantitative universal aspect in perspective and he has attention for the qualitative fullness of faith. Behind this approach, we feel something of the sensitivity to rising secularisation and the apostasy from faith. Also, in his approach there is a sensitivity for the (difficulty of the) interpretation of the fullness of the Gospel in the culture. It turns out that catholicity does not consist of a repetition of ancient truths, but in the application of the treasure of the church in the present. In contrast to Calvin, Owen and Bavinck and in agreement with the Early Church, Berkouwer explicitly calls attention for the visible side of the catholic church. From this approach, he does not join the neo-Calvinist enthusiasm for the plurality of churches. These reservations are inseparably connected to his criticism of all possible forms of group-thinking, with or without an appeal to the confession. He also implicitly dissents from Bavinck’s priority given to cosmic catholicity. This concept is present in Berkouwer, but it is more in the framework of ecclesiology than that it is determining for ecclesiology. His line of thinking is more from the distinction between church and world, rather than that the church has a place in the kingdom of God which comprises the whole culture. This is connected to the fact that he approaches catholicity from the unio with Christ. In line with the ancient church, he strongly emphasizes that catholicity cannot be separated from Christ and that the church can only exist in this spiritual union with Christ. Without this term being mentioned, his approach reminds us of the classical totus Christus. With this, Berkouwer has added a dynamic element to his understanding of catholicity. While we see a connection between the church, the body of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when we look at Cyprian and Augustine, Berkouwer makes concrete what this pneumatological dimension means. Among other things, it is this sensitivity to pneumatology which makes him – in line with the whole Reformed tradition – critical towards the Roman Catholic Church. From his dynamic approach, he cannot live with the ontological and quantitative approach behind the Roman-Catholic understanding of the church. He builds on the concepts in the Westminster Confession, which he has clearly studied well. Berkouwer tends to focus on questions at the boundaries, because this is par excellence the place where a measurement of strengths and weaknesses takes place. This is certainly true for human organisations and scientific theories, but it is questionable whether this is also true for theology. It is my impression that we make a reverse movement in theology, namely we think from the centre,

149

150

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

being conscious of the fact that we should watch out for the speculations that occur at the boundary. From an academic viewpoint, speculative considerations are interesting and they clarify theological structures, but from a believing perspective, we should be aware of the limits of these considerations. We are speaking of a balance on the cutting edge which requires great caution from theology.

Review and Reflection After this analysis of several representatives of the Reformed tradition, we feed the new insights back into the contours that we discovered in the ancient church. We will follow the structure that was adhered to in the first part of this study. a. Difference and development It is clear that there are differences in the Reformed tradition in the way in which people have thought about catholicity. Also in the Reformed tradition there has been a distinction with regard to the attention to the quantitative or the qualitative aspect of catholicity. With both Ussher and Owen, the quantitative aspect is dominant, in Bavinck and Berkouwer’s approach, the qualitative approach is more clearly emphasized, while we encounter both dimensions in Calvin’s thought. While in the Ancient Church catholicity can function as a criterion for truth, it has almost disappeared from the Reformed tradition, although Bavinck may give some openness to it, while it can certainly be said that the opposite functions for Berkouwer, namely that error is not catholic. The Reformed tradition is less receptive to the unity of the offices, baptism, orthodoxy, the Spirit and forgiveness. This is also true for the position of the Lord’s Supper, which is more connected to the ecclesiastical unity in Christ. These connections are made implicitly, but its unity has actually been lost. Additional study would be necessary to find out whether the decrease in unity of the church is connected to the decreased attention to the Lord’s Supper as a unifying sacrament. In the Reformed tradition, orthodoxy is of great importance, and the line of Augustine with respect to continued forgiveness has prevailed in this tradition. Berkouwer is an exception, because he explicitly calls attention to the pneumatological content of catholicity. The most striking difference between the Early Church on the one hand and the Reformed tradition on the other hand, is that, in this tradition, a Copernican revolution has taken place towards an invisible catholicity. We find this in the writings of Calvin, Owen and Bavinck, while Ussher and Berkouwer both have a starting point from the invisible catholicity. This difference is also found in the confessions. The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession approach catholicity from the invisible church, while the Second Helvetic Confession is structured from the visible church.

152

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

For Calvin, the appeal to invisible catholicity was an instrument to make clear that catholicity cannot be an ontological possession, while for both Owen and Bavinck it functions in the acceptation of the brokenness of the church. There are more differences between Calvin, Owen and Bavinck. While it is necessary for Calvin, in the context of the Reformation, to start from invisible catholicity, at the same time, he has an overwhelming desire for a visible unity of the church. This passion is actually completely absent in Owen and Bavinck’s theology. In this respect, both theologians are the furthest removed from the beliefs of the Ancient Church. We can add to this that Owen has strengthened the dynamic towards pluralism which is present in the Westminster Confession. In the whole breadth of the Reformed tradition, Bavinck occupies a special position due to his approach from cosmic catholicity. In this approach, the great connection between creation and re-creation are the fruitful soil for the “meantime” of the church, while the starting point from the union with Christ is given up – at least, it is no longer of primary importance with respect to the understanding of catholicity. These differences show that it is difficult to speak of unequivocality within the Reformed tradition. There are different interpretations of catholicity, within which no clear single tendency can be described. The starting point from invisible catholicity is equally contradicted. Certain representatives in the Reformed tradition have approaches which are unique, so no development can be described. In any case, the common difference with the Ancient Church, is the above-mentioned phenomenon that one has let go of the perfect unity of Christ, the Spirit, the offices, baptism, orthodoxy and forgiveness. b. The body of Christ In the Reformed tradition, people have usually approached the catholicity of the church from spiritual union with Christ. Although Bavinck did not choose his starting point for the approach of catholicity here, this concept as such is clearly present in his consideration of the catholicity of the church. No-one made the totus Christus an isolated principle, but the fact that one sometimes touches it, shows how seriously people have taken the unity between Christ and His body. In this respect, a continuity can be seen from the first centuries to the previous century. In particular Berkouwer clearly underlined the unity between Christ and His body by the denial that the church could have any independence without Christ. Here he joins with other representatives from the early Christian and Reformed traditions, which, each in their own way, allowed the inseparable union between Christ and His church to function.

Review and Reflection

The manner in which Berkouwer did this also expressly brought the dynamicpneumatological element into the relationship between Christ and His body. One may have thought that the ancient church considered catholicity an ontological quantity, but Berkouwer has pointed out that this is impossible. In this way, he constructively contributed to the ecclesiological studies, as a result of which it has become clearer that faith in the church cannot be given room. We do well to understand his pneumatological accent as an exegesis of the unity between church and Spirit in early Christian beliefs. In Calvin, as theologian of the Spirit, this unity is present, in Ussher it functions with respect to the existential character of the church, while Berkouwer concretely elaborates it. This pneumatological approach means that catholicity is not a possession, but that it is exercised in dependence from the catholic Christ. Just like in Ussher, and in a sense also in Bavinck, the eye is directed towards the qualitative fullness of faith in Christ as the Object and the Source of faith. This receptivity to the dependence from the Spirit also implies a receptivity to the work of the Spirit in the church of Christ. In Berkouwer, this is not elaborated with respect to catholicity, but Ussher’s approach would be a valuable addition to the whole. Owen’s work in a broader sense than his considerations about catholicity gives ample occasion for studying more thoroughly the work of the Spirit in the church. c. One Christ It is clear that a new ecclesial context was entered in the time of the Reformation. While it was unambiguously clear in the Ancient Church that catholicity had respect to the one church of Christ, people lived with a dilemma during the Reformation. Calvin existentially experienced the great tension of the brokenness of the church. He could not theologically accept the brokenness of the one church. The other side of this was that, in his opinion, the church of the Middle Ages had seceded from the Ancient Church and that, therefore, restoration of the ancient church was necessary. This approach implies a dynamic view of the church. Apparently, the church is not a static, ontological fact, but in reality a true church can become a false church. Eventually, the catholicity of the church is not determined by the continuity of the institution, but by the continuity of the Word and the right interpretation of the Word. We again find this dilemma in both Ussher and in Berkouwer’s writings. In the case of Owen, this dilemma has completely disappeared, just like in Bavinck’s approach. In this sense, both Owen and Bavinck can be considered to be a radicalization of the Reformed starting point in the invisible catholicity which has resulted in the fact that the spiritual-organic unity was distinguished and separated from the organizational

153

154

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

unity. For both Owen and Bavink it was certainly possible for believers who are in the same Christ to meet in different church denominations in the same town. In Bavinck’s neo-Calvinism, this leads to an activist understanding of the church. Although the Reformed tradition gave increasing attention to doctrine as interpretation of the Word of God, the concept that unity runs deeper than intellectual agreement about a set of truths never disappeared. This even leads Bavinck to the question how much error can possibly exist in the body of Christ. Berkouwer, with his attention for the communion of saints, emphasized the existential relationship of the believers with the same Christ. It can be perceived that we entered a very different cultural climate after the Middle Ages, which is reflected in the understanding of the church and its unity. Whereas people in the ancient church lived from the unity given in Christ, with attention to the individual, in early modernity this ratio begins to change. Calvin, Owen and Bavinck ultimately think from the perspective of the individual, although this is more or less relativized in practice. This contextualising takes place the most in Calvin, and the least in Owen. We can also consider the relationship between corporate unity and the individual believer approaching from the connection between organism and organisation. Both words are unfortunate, and we may criticize them, but I would like to use them in this context for the sake of the clarity of the train of thought. While in the Early Church organism and organisation were considered two sides of the same thing, this changed in the Reformed tradition. Organism and organisation began to be disconnected, in such a way that true spiritual life is not limited to the organisation, but can also exist in a different organizational context. As a consequence, there is a decreased awareness that the church as an organisation is an expression of the body of Christ. Moreover, it is conceivable that the organizational side of the church takes the place of the mystical body of Christ, which results in a revolution in the understanding of the church. d. Whole body and individual This leads us to the relationship between the whole and the individual. Although we discovered, in the exploration of the Early Church, that the attention to the individual belonged to the original and authentic Christian faith, it was embedded in a corporate framework. This changed in modern times. Calvin gave much attention to the work of the Holy Spirit. In response to the rigid understanding of the mediaeval church, he explicitly called attention to the applicative work of the Spirit in the midst of the congregation. From the indwelling of the Spirit in the congregation, the emphasis is very individual.

Review and Reflection

This indwelling is considered in particular in the context of the issue of children who die in infancy. Also the meaning of the baptism of infants is considered. In Owen, we see very explicit attention given to the work of the Holy Spirit, both in the creation, the incarnation and the development of the Scriptures, as well as in the individual believer. It cannot be a coincidence that the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit manifested itself precisely in his theology. After all, in Owen the approach of the church from the personal spiritual relationship with Christ has become most explicit. Thus, there is a connection between this personal union with Christ and the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer. Moreover, the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer underlines that the individual believer is the starting point in the understanding of the way in which the unity between the believers becomes visible. Here a distinction between Calvin and Owen is seen. While Calvin characterizes the church as an instrument to apply personal salvation, Owen emphasizes that the church is the form of those in whom salvation has been applied. After salvation has been applied, believers form a covenant to serve God together in the church community. So, while Calvin sees the application in the context of the church, Owen sees the church in the context of the application. In Ussher’s treatise all of this is less explicit. It does become clear, however, that the existential personal relationship with Christ is borne by the corporate aspect of Christ’s church. There is a balance between the corporate essence of Christ’s church on the one hand and the existential personal relationship with Christ on the other hand. Bavinck agrees with the Reformation when he chooses the individual as the starting point for ecclesiological reflection. At the same time, he observes which difficulties are caused by this when he considers the continuing breaks Protestantism. However, this does not lead him to a reflection of his initial opinion, not in the least because he accepts the starting point in the religious subject, positively estimates the pluriformity in the life of faith and therefore tolerates ecclesiastical diversity. Berkouwer rightly point out that the confession of the Spirit precedes the confession concerning the church, but in this context he does not reflect on the relationship between the corporate and the individual aspect in Christ’s body. He does consider the article concerning the communion of saints to be a completion of the confession concerning the church. This shows that, in any case, the aspect of koinonia functions in his ecclesiology. Since the personality of the believers forms the background of this confession, this aspect is certainly present in his writings.

155

156

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

e. Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy In the Early Church, in particular in the case of Cyprian and Augustine, there was a strong awareness of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church. In the Reformed tradition, we see that in particular Calvin, Owen and Berkouwer discuss the work of the Holy Spirit. In this way, on the one hand the mystery of the church is interpreted and on the other hand the work of God’s Spirit in the hearts of people is addressed. In general, it can be said that the relationship between the Spirit, the church and baptism was more clearly seen than in later times. In Calvin we see the unity of the Spirit, the church and baptism functioning, but in John Owen in reality it has disappeared. Also the fact that the Lord’s Supper is an expression of catholicity, received less emphasis. Just like the Early Church, the Reformed tradition has an orthodox character. Both in the ancient church and in the tradition of the Reformation, people only desired to seek the truth, to understand it and to preserve it. This truth relates to the functioning of the Trinity in theology and spirituality. We see how Calvin wrote his Institutes from the great Trinitarian contours of theology. Ussher approaches the church in particular from the communion with Christ’s cross and resurrection. Owen wrote his most important books about the glory of Christ, communion with the Triune God and the work of the Holy Spirit. Bavinck chose his starting point in the cosmic Christ, with all the questions that arise from this surrounding Christianity and culture. In his reflection about the church, there are no central terms for him, since he develops the theological issues in his dogmatics from the synthetic method. The same is true for Berkouwer. The latter theological approach indicates a subtle difference. While in the first centuries of Christianity orthodoxy functioned in relation to the risen Christ, the good creation and faith in the Holy Spirit, in modern times it is elaborated much more specifically by means of the discussion of numerous dogmatic themes. In order to do justice to the large number of themes, it is obvious to use a synthetic structure of systematic theology. At the same time, a shift may take place because of this approach, as a result of which the resurrection of Christ is no longer the central confessional doctrine of the church, and is no longer fundamental for the identity of the body of Christ. Nothing changes in the orthodox confession concerning the Prince of life, but this faith is no longer the framework within which Christian theology functions. It is conceivable that this subtle shift of the framework also implies other changes. In the Early Church thinking from communion with the living Christ enabled justice to be done to the soteriological aspects of the deeds of salvation, but if the resurrection of Christ is no longer the centre of theology,

Review and Reflection

things can shift. It is conceivable, for example, that justification becomes the central article of faith, to such an extent that mystical union with Christ fades into the background, or that one loses sight of the new obedience of the believer, or that sojourning no longer functions. Also other consequences are possible. For example, the order of salvation in a broader sense can be put at the centre and thus the deeds of salvation disappear into the background. Or possibly the Reformed confession begins to function as a sum of separate truths, while it is no longer illuminated from the living Christ in a Trinitarian context. Another possibility is that the congregation is surprised by exegetical peculiarities which are not connected to Christ in the preaching. Or that the congregation is separated from Christ to such an extent that the deeds of believers become more important than the great fulfilled redemptive work of Christ. If we keep to the doctrine of justification as an example, we can imagine that the individual gift of the forgiveness of sin is easily isolated from communion with Christ, as a result of which it stands alone and it no longer related to Christ and His presence in the body of the church. Various good and true Christian aspects can be put at the centre, while the living Christ is, slowly, assumed to be an orthodox fact, without functioning as a living reality. Here lies a critical point of difference of the modern theologian as opposed to the theologian from the early church. The latter thinks from the centre of Christ’s resurrection and resists this theological innovation with respect to this centre. Perhaps a tendency has developed in the Reformed tradition to be theologically up-to-date, that Christ’s resurrection does not seem to be of all times. In this way, theology is made independent with respect to the Person of Christ and His work. f. Being a holy stranger and pilgrim In the Early Church, sojourning is assumed with the communion with Christ. This is connected to the fact that participation in the church as the body of Christ is also strongly determined by baptism. Baptism unambiguously expresses the relationship with Christ. In this context one can also concretely discuss the sanctification of the Christian life and also give concrete indications of it. In modern times, these things have changed somewhat. In Calvin’s thinking, communion with Christ is fully present and in reality it is the framework to interpret justification and sanctification. In fact, this is also true for the other representatives of the Reformed tradition. Yet the distance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy seems to have increased. In Owen, for example, we see he gives much attention to the spiritual reality of communion with Christ. In his

157

158

B. Historical part. Catholicity in the Reformed Tradition

sermons to the Parliament he discusses everyday realities at great length, but he does not do this in his large treatises. Although Bavinck is very interested in ethics, it is not integrated in his theological works. This is even more true for Berkouwer. Also baptism is given a different place. Undoubtedly, this will be connected to the different positions. While the Early Church is characterized by a minority position, the Reformed tradition functioned in the context of the corpus christianum. Baptism theologically means that one belongs to Christ’s body, but the consequences for daily life are of a different order than in the time of the church fathers. Bavinck occupies a very special position, because he calls attention to the cosmic Christ and Christ as the Mediator of the creation. He does this in opposition to dualism. However, it is questionable whether this happened in a theologically neutral way, or whether a theological price was paid. We will discuss this in more detail in the systematic part of this book.

C. Systematic part

C. Systematic part

So far we have done two things. Firstly, we explored the contours of the understanding of catholicity in the Early Church. Next, we compared it to the understanding of catholicity in the Reformed tradition. In this part we would like to come to a topical reflection of catholicity. We will impose three limitations on ourselves. Firstly, we will address the main themes that were discussed in the historical part. For example, this means that the important theme of the position of Israel with respect to catholicity must remain unaddressed for the simple reason that this connection was not made in the tradition and Israel was even approached critically in the Early Church. We should also realize that the questions surrounding Israel are so complex, that they cannot be easily included. Secondly, we will focus on the essence of catholicity as it comes down to us from unity and communion with Christ. From history, other intriguing themes have been handed down to us concerning the offices, the Lord’s Supper and baptism, but these cannot be elaborated in the context of this book. Thirdly, this is a Reformed conversation. The consequence of this is that the relationship with the Roman-Catholic Church or ecumenism is not discussed here, because these would be separate studies themselves. This all means that this study has a very modest approach. It intends to do nothing but to call attention to catholicity in the Reformed tradition by means of a substantive reflection of it. From this focus on the understanding of catholicity as such, numerous perspectives emerge which call for further study. The abovementioned points mean in practice that we will start with both aspects of catholicity, namely the qualitative and quantitative aspects. Next, we will focus on the understanding of the church as the body of Christ and its unity, the relationship between the individual person and the whole body, the theme of orthodoxy in connection to the Spirit and the aspect of sojourning. For each aspect, we will connect the findings from history to Biblical details to hear, in communion with the church of all times, what the Spirit says to the church today – in the awareness that we know but in part, and with the desire to reach a deeper understanding of the one Christian faith.

161

12.

Catholicity as a term

In this chapter we will discuss the use and the meaning of the term ‘catholic’. In order to do justice to the mystery of Christ’s church, the term ‘catholic’ is preferable to ‘universal’. In this chapter, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative catholicity is used, the first dimension serving as a framework for the second dimension. 12.1

The use of the term ‘catholic’

We have seen that, in the time of the Reformation, people became increasingly reluctant to use the term ‘catholic’ because the church of Rome claimed this term for itself, and it had begun to function as a proper name of this denomination. We have also seen that later Protestants have begun to use this term once again. There are several reasons to continue this later Protestant tradition. Firstly, in this way the connection to the Early Church is expressed. If we do not use the word ‘catholic’ anymore, it means we lose an awareness that we are a unity with the ancient church. This unity is not self-evident. Several Reformed schools and other institutions characterize “the Bible and the Reformed confession” as their bedrock. Firstly, one may wonder if the confession is intended to be the bedrock for organisations. Confessions are an expression of the faith of the church in response to the Word. The use of the confession as the bedrock for an organisation, is of a different nature than the use of the confession in the church. In this way, the confession of faith can degrade to an element of a human organisation. Also, the juxtaposition of the Bible and the Reformed Confessions gives rise to questions. From a catholic perspective, one might say that, by the references to the Confessions, the Early Church was lost sight of, as if there was no church before the Reformation. This is not only uncatholic, but also unreformed. In this situation, the active use of the term ‘catholic’ can express the connection with the Early Church. Although the minority position of the church in the Western world is of a very different nature than the minority position in antiquity, the common minority position is another reason to explicitly express the connection to the Early Church. However, it is much more important to use the term ‘catholic’ for the sake of catholicity as such. By doing this, the Early Church expressed the nature of the church and the character of the church-gathering work of Christ. This work of Christ is wider and richer than can be expressed in the term ‘universal’, not counting the fact that this word sounds universal.

Catholicity as a term

After all, we have seen that the word ‘catholic’ was not only interpreted as ‘universal’, but also served to express the spiritual fullness and theological richness of Christ’s body. Or in other words: the word ‘catholic’ also has a qualitative meaning. In the Roman Catholic Church, the quantitative aspect of the church is apologetically applied to the universal presence of the Roman Catholic Church in all cultures of the world in order to prove the truth of this institution. It is clear that the Protestant dispute with the Roman Catholic Church is weakened if they also understood catholicity in a quantitative sense. The historical regard for the catholic and qualitative fullness of faith is another good reason to use the word ‘catholic’ instead of the word ‘universal’. Think of the metaphor that Cyprian used of a branch which is cut from the tree and has no life in itself. The seriousness of catholicity is not heard in the word ‘universal’. It can, for example, be expressed by confessing on the Lord’s Days: “I believe the holy catholic church.” 12.2

Qualitative catholicity

We have seen the qualitative use of the term ‘catholic’ in the history of the church. We saw this use in the theology of Ignatius, Cyprian, Cyril, Augustine and Vincent in the Early Church. In the Early Church, it was not filled from the New Testament term pleroma (=fullness).1 The Westminster Confession, however, did call attention to this New Testament concept. After the First World War, this aspect came to attention again in the worldwide reflection on the term catholicity.2 The nouvelle théologie meant an innovation of Roman Catholic theology, also in ecclesiology.3 The French Dominican friar Congar stated that the fullness of Divine revelation belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and that the seceded churches, with their peculiarities, partial truths or solas (sola gratia, soli deo gloria), should place themselves under the care of this church in order to contribute to the fullness of this church and to also share in this fullness. More recently, also Pope Benedict stated that the decisive aspect of catholicity is qualitative.4

1 According to H. Küng it is artificial when we now interpret a term from outside the Bible Biblically, The Church,297-298. This argument does not make sense. 2 Koolhaas, ‘De Katholiciteit der Kerk’, 5-7; Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 23-27. 3 Congar, Chrétiens desunis; De Lubac, Catholicisme. 4 Ratzinger, On the Way to Jesus Christ, 133.

163

164

C. Systematic part

This message has awakened something in Protestants. They were tired of the subjectivism in the culture and longed for a new touch by suprapersonal truth.5 The question irresistibly rose whether one could and should consult the Roman Catholic tradition for this. Not all Protestants responded to this question positively, because this tradition downplayed the radicalism of the Gospel.6 Moreover we as Protestants can wonder if Congar, in his thinking, did not identify Christology with ecclesiology, as a result of which catholicity is limited by the localisation in Rome. A third objection is that the fullness of God, in this approach, is considered a sum of separate parts. This way of thinking presupposes an organic understanding of the truth in which the truth can be extended, but precisely here it should be emphasized that the fullness in Christ is inseparable.7 It is the one salvation, the one Name, the one Christ, the one church and the one truth, portrayed by Irenaeus by the one sun who is visible in all times and at all places. These insights bring us back to the Gospel. The Gospel refers to fullness several times. The abundance of the best quality wine at the wedding in Cana was a powerful witness of God’s Kingdom.8 This was once again underlined by the remnant of bread after the multiplication of the loaves.9 Jesus Himself explicitly said that He came to give abundance10 , and in the context of the true Vine He speaks of “much fruit”.11 In the letters to Ephesians and Colosse, this is theologically expressed in the term pleroma (=fullness).12 In these letters, we hear that God Himself is the fullness and that this fullness dwells in the glorified Christ.13 Filling is exercising this fullness which appears in Christ’s dominion.14 Next we see that the church participates in this fullness, because the church is the fullness of Christ.15 In the way of the church, Christ dwells in His body.

5 Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 28-33. Berkhof concludes that the qualitative understanding of catholicity is the basis for the quantitative understanding, 80. 6 The Lutheran W. Stählin was very critical: ‘Katholizität, Protestantismus und Katholizismus’. 7 Cf. Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 75. The wholeness of the Gospel is important, Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 182. 8 John 2:1-11. 9 John 6:13. 10 John 10:10. 11 John 15:5. 12 Cf. for a discussion of these terms in the Greek umwelt, the Old Testament and Judaism, Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 48-52. 13 Col. 1:19; Col. 2:9; Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 52-61. 14 Cf. Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 80. Berkhof relates this pleroma too much to a ‘dominium’, and he allows the richness of the blessings in Christ to fade. 15 Eph. 1:23; Col. 2:10.

Catholicity as a term

It should not slip our attention that Christ was given to the church as the Head of all. Here we see the great views of Christ’s cosmic meaning light up.16 Amazingly, this all-comprising glory of Christ was given to the church. This shows the privilege of the church, because Christ reigns over the cosmos as the Head of His body. The history of the world also serves the history of the church.17 From this information in the Scriptures we can learn that the fullness of the church is the first beginning of the eschatological fullness. Because, in our experience, it sometimes seems as if the heavenly Christ is the great absentee, in the Christian hope we desire the fervently that this cosmic fullness in Christ is revealed.18 When we carefully listen to Ephesians 1:23, we also learn that the fullness is in Christ. In our study of Calvin, we saw that this insight was part of his implicit qualitative understanding of catholicity. For him this insight was essential to interpret the structures of the church, in such a way that it, at the same time, functioned as a crowbar with respect to Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Also in the twenty-first century, the exclusivity of this fullness in Christ is contextualized in various ways. We must be very careful at this point, because there are many ways in which the fullness of Christ is negated.19 This negation does not only concern the government of the church, but it also touches theology, the preaching and spirituality. The autonomy of man can be presented as competitive with respect to Christ’s government, natural theology, the tradition, the church order, the denomination, the church institution, or papal authority. From the understanding of fullness and in response to radical Protestantism, catholicity can also be understood as an uncritical openness to accept everything in the church and theology, in such a way that “a syncretistic accumulation of heterogenous, distorted and occasionally un-Christian, pagan elements” develops.20 This happens when the principles of the culture have a substantive say in the meaning of the Gospel. In the Reformation, one had to dispute with the philosophy of Aristotle. In modernity, the understanding of science was an important means to undermine the authority of Christ. Today the understanding of truth in the postmodern culture has become a subtle poison to play down the words of Jesus. Time and again the government has tried to place itself between Christ and the church. It is also conceivable that the doctrine of sin is put forward against 16 17 18 19 20

Cf. Matt. 28:18. Cf. Q. 50 HC; Meijering, Kennis is niet alles, maar alles is wel kennis, 83-85. Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:10. Cf. Balke, ‘De eigenschappen van de kerk’, 276. Küng, The Church, 312.

165

166

C. Systematic part

Christ’s domain as if sin has any right to speak the final word. Precisely when we appeal to the Word, it may be that we are silencing the Word, because we impose our own interpretations and schemes onto the Word. It is even conceivable that a legitimate Biblical doctrine as such begins to function one-sidedly to such an extent that hinders growth towards Christ’s fullness.21 Here the dispute between Luther and Erasmus is of lasting value. Erasmus loved the Bible, but Luther showed that this scholar studied the Bible as an object, without submitting to it himself. The Reformer had come to know the Bible as a living and powerful Word that killed him. In this way, he discovered that facere quod in se est (= do that what is in you) is not a way to salvation. In this existential confrontation with his depravity, only Christ was salvation. The way to salvation was not an upward way, but a downward way from above. In this way Luther defended the exclusivity of Christ, the identity of catholicity. So we can understand that Luther’s appeal to Scripture cannot be interpreted as an attack on the church and its unity, because it was an appeal to the words of Christ and an acknowledgement of Christ’s Lordship. The watchwords of the Reformation – sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia – are expressions, applications and concretizations of solus Christus. So, the appeal to the authority of Scripture expressed the exclusivity of Christ.22 This exclusivity of Christ confronts us with our need. When He is light, darkness is in us. When He is our life, we acknowledge that we lie in the midst of death. His unfathomable fullness reveals our unspeakable emptiness. His pleasure to do well to people also confronts us with the fact that our flesh preserves itself in spite of anything, against the Son of man. Because none of us wants this confronting message, the catholicity of Christ is a disputed matter. In the church and the world, the powers try everything to obscure the light in Christ, to kill life in Him, to play down the fullness in Him and to cherish human resistance against the dominion of His grace. This makes catholicity valuable. Growing in catholicity is not an automatism23 , but it is accompanied by dying in communion with the crucified Christ. This process of dying is accompanied by pain, suffering and struggle. The Gospel, after all, is for man, but against the old man, while we prefer a Gospel that preserves our old man. Here a struggle to the death takes place in which 21 B. Wentsel believes that the development of Calvin, in which he places the center of gravity in the doctrine of election, is an example of this, De Heilige Geest, de Kerk en de laatste dingen, 412-413. 22 Cf. K.J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 26-28. Instead of exemplifying individual autonomy in his appeal to Scripture, Luther appealed to the apostolic witness and acknowledged their authority, 96-99. 23 Cf. Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 61-68. Barth says that the church is only catholic to the extent that Christ acts in the church, Kirchliche Dogmatik 4.1, 793.

Catholicity as a term

believers are involved to the deepest parts of their souls. That is why Paul prays that the church be filled with all the fullness of God.24 In this way, the wonderful reciprocity in God’s kingdom takes place. Christ fills His church and the believers grow towards the Head Christ, in such a way that His Word governs them increasingly, and they become more and more defensible against human teachings and sinful desires.25 From the exclusivity of Christ, also the view of his entire Kingdom begins to flourish. The Gospel contains more treasures than the church has ever been able to receive. Each cultural context brings the potency of the Christian faith to a fresh light. In this sense, we should never feel needy with respect to the Christian faith. Our need, after all, is His opportunity. This is not true, however, when we turn it around. When we start at the bottom, we will not arrive at the exclusivity of Christ. So, catholicity is also a critical term, which criticizes each attempt to allow salvation to start on earth. He who starts with (regenerate) man or the restoration of this world, will never come above. This is also true for an ecclesiastical unity which is not born from the communion with the catholic Christ. When we believe that the church is His body, the restoration of His body is not a work of man.26 In short, the best thing the church can do for the church, is concentrate on her heavenly Bridegroom. 12.3

Universal, but not common

At various moments, in the classical understanding of catholicity, also a quantitative aspect is highlighted, namely the principle of universality. Christ’s church comprises all nations and all sorts of people, while God’s truth receives universal approval. This means that the content of the Christian faith cannot be limited to a certain region or group. When someone pretends to be the first one to have seen the sun, you do not have to pay too much attention to it. Christians do not have to come up with something new and do not have to make efforts to distinguish themselves from other Christians. Such an attitude portrays a proud heart that wants to be special and no longer seeks specialty in the confession of Christ, nota bene the Crucified One. Does the principle of universality also mean that the majority of votes is determining for the truth, or that the antiquity of a conviction guarantees its truth? 24 Eph. 3:14-19, 4:10-16, 5:18. 25 Eph. 4:14-16; Kol. 2:19-23, 3:5. 26 ‘Horizontal ecumenicity is born from vertical catholicity’, Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 110.

167

168

C. Systematic part

This conclusion is not right. It is clear at several moments that universality cannot be identified with numerical majority or with antiquity. The representatives in the Early Church had to deal with large movements of errors that they placed outside of the catholic church. Their quantitative understanding of catholicity stood in the framework of the qualitative understanding of catholicity. Also Luther can help us here. In his dispute with Erasmus in De Servo Arbitrio (=The Bondage of the Will) this issue is discussed explicitly.27 Erasmus had stated that the denial of the free will was no universal truth in history. Luther responded that God sometimes permits His church to err. In the time of Elijah, the people as a whole erred, and God’s public ordinances were used for idolatrous purposes. God’s truth was present in the seven thousand who did not bow their knees to worship Baal. So, Luther argues from the remnant that represents the whole.28 He also sees this happen in the history of Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Esau and Jacob. Jesus Himself was rejected by the people, while only Joseph, Nicodemus, the penitent thief and eleven disciples remained loyal to Him. In the history of the church, he refers to the example of Athanasius, who was almost alone in the confrontation with an Arian front. God preserved the truth even in the dark Middle Ages, as is clear in the history of John Hus. Here is a connection with Luther’s theology of the cross. If the truth is only known to some people, the truth is kept hidden from unbelievers, so they do not see the glory of God: “God’s saints are pearls.” The catholicity of the church should not be identified with glory and honour. The catholic church may sometimes gather as a faint group in a house church or be expelled to the dumps of Rio de Janeiro, where they meet under corrugated cardboard. Generally speaking, they are not many wise men, not many mighty, not many noble that belong to Christ’s church.29 This is a comforting perspective for the church in the West which is more and more minimalized. This is an argument not to interpret quantitative catholicity as common catholicity, because the church does not belong to this world. Christ’s church does not belong to common reality, it does not even originate from the reality of creation, but it was born from re-creation. This makes the truth valuable; the church must not lose sight of this valuable truth. Throughout history and all over the world there are believers who understand the truth of the uniqueness of the church. The universality of the Christian faith cannot be a simple generalisation, but faith, struggle, affliction and study are necessary in order to know the truth. 27 WA 18:649-652. 28 In his well-known sermon about indulgences and grace, Luther says that the beliefs from the Middle Ages about penitence, satisfaction and indulgences are a new teaching, WA 1:243-245. 29 1 Cor. 1:18-29.

13.

The body of Christ

Ignatius set the tone by approaching catholicity from unity and the communion with Christ. For him, orthodoxy was a proper view of Christ. In this chapter we ask the question how we consider the church from Christ today. It is about the essence of catholicity. 13.1

The body of the living Christ

In the history of the Christian church, the church has been understood as the body of Christ. It is obvious that a deep Biblical thought resounds here.30 In the midst of metaphors like bride, people of God, temple or field, this metaphor has its own position.31 The terminology of Christ’s body starts with His resurrection, the central moment of the New Testament. N.T. Wright, in his elaborate monograph about Christ’s resurrection, unambiguously explained that faith in the resurrection of Jesus is not a product of the later church, but belongs to the original Christian faith.32 Indeed, the church was born from the proclamation that the crucified Jesus was risen.33 Wright fruitfully defends the corporeal resurrection of Christ. His book contains enough to make clear that Jesus’ resurrection was not an incorporeal continued existence. Wright acknowledges that Christ rose in a different way than Lazarus and the son of the widow in Nain. This also means that Christ’s resurrection body is of a different quality, namely, ‘transphysical’.34 Yet we have reason to wonder if the other quality of Jesus’ resurrection body is sufficiently highlighted in expressions that Wright uses such as ‘live again’, ‘alive once more’ and ‘back to life.’35 Wright speaks of a ‘robust physical’ body of Christ after His resurrection, however, giving no place to the confusion that the empty grave and the appearances evoked.36 We nowhere read that Jesus’ 30 1 Cor. 12:12-31 is a key moment. For explicit texts, also see Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15, 10:16, 11:27, 29; Eph. 1:23, 2:16, 3:6, 4:4, 12, 16, 5:30. R.F. Collins says that this metaphor originates from the Greek classics, The Many Faces of the Church, 40-41. 31 V.M. Kärkkäinen discusses the metaphor in several Christian traditions, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 17-78. 32 Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Cf. also Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ. 33 Cf. Acts 2:31, 3:15, 4:10, 33, 13:30, 17:18, 31, 24:15, 25:19, 26:8, 23. 34 Wright, The Resurrection, 477. Jesus’ body has ‘unusual properties’, 605, is ‘somehow transformed’, 609, and ‘somehow different’, 611. 35 Wright, The Resurrection, 686, 688, 703, 710, 722. 36 Matt. 28:11; Mark. 16:8; Luke 24:11, 16, 37, 41, 51; John 20:13, 21:4. I borrow this argumentation from m. Welker’s discussion of Wright’s book ‘Article review. Wright on the resurrection’.

170

C. Systematic part

disciples easily recognized Him by His voice, facial expression or eyes. So, there must be a new mode of existence of God’s Son, in which the physical existence has come to fullness.37 Paul speaks of a spiritual body.38 The resurrection of God’s Son is not the reanimation of a dead body; He is risen in a new existence of the Spirit. In this new existence, He has put all things under His feet and is the Head of the church.39 Although we cannot identify Christ’s resurrection body and the church, there is a special relationship between these two.40 For His church, the spiritual nature of Christ’s body is not only a message about a new reality, but as Christ’s body it participates in this new reality. Thus, we understand that this real spiritual unity of Christ and His body light up at various moments, sometimes more implicitly than explicitly. In the Scriptures, we continually find references to the mystical union with Christ, expressed by the word “in”. The church is not only saved by Christ, it does not only believe in Jesus, but it is saved in spiritual union with Christ.41 This union with Christ is also the basis of expressions such as “died with Christ”, “risen with Christ” and sitting “together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus”.42 These expressions in the Scriptures emphasize the reality of union with Christ. That is why it is logical that we continually see moments in history where a tendency to the totus Christus appear. This concept can be criticized.43 The church is not constitutive of the Son’s identity, the church is fallible, Christ’s offering was absolutely definitive and unique, and the reality of the ascension clarifies that Christ, in a certain sense, is not on earth. Other Biblical metaphors also tell us that this total and rigid identification of Christ and His church goes too far. The Biblical distinction between Head and body, Christology and soteriology offers resistance to this.

37 Cf. Welker, ‘Theological Realism and Eschatological Symbol Systems’, 41. 38 Cf. Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:42-47. Welker ends his discussion with this sentence: ‘Theological realism should rather affirm and help to explore the spiritual dimensions of reality in the light of the resurrection of the Son of God’, ‘Article Review’, 475. 39 Eph. 1:21-23. Welker emphasizes the existence of Christ by the Spirit, he speaks of a participation in this reality and in eternal life, without making the connection with the church as Christ’s body, ‘Theological Realism’, 42. 40 C.R. Campbell parallels the metaphors ‘body’, ‘temple’, ‘marriage’ and ‘clothing’. Although he concludes that these are not just metaphors and although he refers to the resurrection body of Christ, no connection to the church is made, ‘Metaphor, Reality, and Union with Christ’, in Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, 61-86, in particular 82. 41 This theme is experiencing a ‘revival’, Burger, Being in Christ; Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ; Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder; Klaassen, In Christus rechtvaardig; Thate, Vanhoozer en Campbell (ed.), ‘In Christ’ in Paul; Billings, Union with Christ. 42 Cf.e.g. Rom. 6:6; Eph. 2:5-6; Col. 3:1. 43 See K.J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 152.

The body of Christ

The functioning of the church is entirely determined by the living Christ as the Head of His body. He reigns over the church by His Spirit and Word. Whatever official structures we recognize in the church, this fundamental structure is unrelinquishable. That is why the figure of the pope caused so many problems in 1054, 1517, 1534 and 1870. The place and function of the Head of the church were at stake here. The actual difference between Rome and the Reformation was not even the doctrine of justification, but it was the understanding of the church: “The secret of the true church lies in the pure preaching of the Word and in the proper administration of the sacraments. Calvin exposed the deepest evil in the church structure of Rome.’44 And a little further: “Then it appears that agreement with respect to justification by faith is not everything: already during the colloquies in Regensburg, Germany (1541) one managed to find a formula concerning this (…). The actual difference lies in the structure of the church.’45 This leads us to the insight that we can consider the Reformation a re-discovery of the identity of the church as the body of Christ. In this context, we can also see something else. If the tendency towards the totus Christus is entirely lacking, this probably indicates that the union between Christ and His body is not experienced. If the church is a human construction to us, we will never reach the concept of the total Christ. In this way, the ‘sliding off the rails’ can be a ‘reminder’ to us to give a deeper insight into the peculiarity of Christ’s church. 13.2

Confession of the living Christ

If the living Christ is the centre of our life, He is also the interpretive framework for the whole of our theological reflection. In the time of the Reformation, this was clearly expressed by the Bern Synod (1532). It confessed the Christian faith in 44 chapters. A number of chapter titles made the relationship with Christ explicit.46 For example, the title of the second chapter reads, “All doctrine consists only in Christ.” This chapter begins as follows: “(…) This doctrine is nothing but Christ Jesus Himself, Who was crucified for our sins and risen from the dead to acquire the righteousness by which we are justified.’ The title of the third chapter reads: ‘God must be preached to the people as He is known in Christ.’ The essence of the fifth chapter is: ‘God’s grace is only and directly known through Christ.’ Also in the sixth chapter, about the 44 Van ’t Spijker, Reformatie en geschiedenis, 120. Translation Peter Meeuse. 45 Van ’t Spijker, Reformatie en geschiedenis, 132-133. Translation Peter Meeuse. 46 Dennison, Reformed Confessions, 234-240.

171

172

C. Systematic part

preaching, Christ is put at the centre: ‘A Christian sermon must be completely about and from Christ.’ In the summary of the seventh chapter, it becomes clear again that Christ is the centre: ‘Christian doctrine and Christian life must start and end with the dead and resurrection of Christ.’ The same is true for the eighth and ninth chapters: ‘Our sins must be understood in connection to Christ’ and: ‘The knowledge of sin must be sought in Christ without the law.’ So the Christian faith is not a do-it-your-self kit of separate parts, but it lives from the reality of the one Christ. We should not think from theology, not even from Reformed theology, but from Christ. All doctrines are spiritually connected to Him, Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.47 That is why we need the continual confrontation with the living Christ in order to prevent rationalisation, superficiality, and confusion.48 The Canons of Dort have to be interpreted within the framework of the Belgic Confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism, rather than the other way around.49 One certain doctrine should not be the glasses through which one looks at the whole of theology. Since the Heidelberg Catechism is characterized by a theology from the communion with Christ, this implies that we must put theological themes in this perspective. We might say that, by analogy with this situating of the Canons of Dort, the Reformed confessions of faith must be interpreted from the confession of the Early Church. This means that the confession stands in a ChristologicalTrinitarian framework. This perspective has, in particular, substantive value. It is conceivable that we, in a synthetic structure of systematic theology, forget to think from the living Christ.50 As a consequence, all themes become of equal importance and we may even begin to see the Reformed doctrines as a sum of abstract truths. The understanding of the unity of God’s truth encourages the understanding that theology and spirituality are a unity, so confessing becomes an existential thing. 13.3

The church is Christologically determined

Secondly, the unity of the living Christ and the church, tells us that ecclesiology is Christologically determined, but in Protestant theology, both dogmatic loci 47 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 611. This is also an accent of Schilder, ‘Vrijgemaakten en ecclesiologie’, 216-217. Pluralism abandons this one truth, 218. 48 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 613. 49 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 771. 50 ‘In dogmatics, all loci of subjective soteriology are distorted, if one does not have an eye for the function of the offices in the works of the exalted Christ and of the Spirit’, Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 84.

The body of Christ

threaten to be isolated in Protestant theology, resulting in a depreciation of ecclesiology.51 Wilhelmus à Brakel is an exception in the Reformed tradition. In The Christian’s Reasonable Service, he discusses ecclesiology after Christology and he discusses the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the church.52 We encounter the same structure in H. Berkhof and in Christian Dogmatics by G. van den Brink and C. van der Kooi.53 Calvin, in his time, had reason to contextualise a rigid church, but our individualistic time gives ample reason to honor the corporate aspect of the church by this localisation in systematic theology. A theology of the church which is grafted upon the reality of Christ’s body, clarifies the relationship with Christ, even though it transcends any comparison with a human relationship. After all, it is a participation in a reality, so it is more ‘being’ than ‘knowing’. In this way, also the intimacy of the union between Christ and His body is underlined. It tells the church that He is not far away, but that the church is filled with Him. The membership of the church cannot be compared to the membership of a club, but it involves an awareness of the great privilege of being counted with Christ. In the Reformed tradition, it may happen that the church is seen completely isolated with respect to Christ. Then a lot of true and good things can be said in the church, but one loses sight of the fact that the church as such is an exercise in the communion with Christ. Only a revaluation of the worship service as exercise in the communion with Christ, brings us to a proper estimation of the church. Then the worship service is not an ‘information takeaway’54 for the closet, but in the space of the worship service we participate in the eternal kingdom of the King of all kings. Here our soul is fed, refreshed and assured of His unfaltering Kingdom, in order that faith, hope and love flourish. This great appreciation of the worship service is the reason why persecuted Christians, despite all the pressure put upon them, still seek communion with Christ’s body, and do not experience their faith as a private matter. Catholicity also has implications for our preaching. We do not preach personal convictions or truths from a sub-tradition, but we proclaim that which is true always and everywhere. We do not preach the Gospel towards Christ, but from Him. The Word is not a neutral source which informs us about a 51 The church is not an ‘accident’ or ‘appendix’, but the ‘apex’ of God’s plan of redemption, Vanhoozer and Treier, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture, 77. 52 In chapters 17-23 of The Christian’s Reasonable Service, À Brakel discusses christology, while ecclesiology is discussed in chapters 24-29. C. Graafland has already pointed this out, ‘De kerk in de Nadere Reformatie’, 165-166. 53 Berkhof, Christian Faith; Van den Brink and Van der Kooi, Christian Dogmatics. 54 A term of T. Keller, Preaching, 165.

173

174

C. Systematic part

few things, but it is the speaking of the living Christ.55 Christ does not need a substitute, because He Himself speaks to us by His Word. He cannot be closer to us than in His speaking. How could He speak is He were not personally present! Too often we have the impression, influenced by modernism, that the Word is a dead object while we are the actual subject. Then the Holy Spirit has to do an immediate work to quicken the dead subject, in such a way that the application of salvation is given weight from the acquisition of salvation, and Christ disappears into the background. If we lose sight of the mystery that the church is the body of Christ, we also lose sight of the mystery of the Word, and as a result we no longer know what to do with the rich meaning of baptism. Life from Christ has a correcting influence here, because it makes us realise that the proclamation of the Word is the speaking of the living Christ. The Holy Spirit applies this Word, so we are saved in the way of the speaking of God’s Son. Also assurance is not ‘added’ to the Word, but the Word is eternally sure. So, we do not live towards assurance, but we live from this given assurance in the Word. The Word is no longer an intermediary authority, but the actual authority, so the certainty is not in the believing subject, but in the speaking Subject. In this way, much emphasis is given to the uniqueness and unrepeatableness of Christ. Here the catholic church conflicts with the Roman-Catholic Church, where the uniqueness of Christ fades.56 Here the catholic church also conflicts with Kuyper’s neocalvinism, where immediate regeneration puts pressure on the connection between Word and Spirit, and even causes it to break.57 Noordmans, in this context, spoke of a “shutdown of the Word”, because people speak of a grain of consciousness without the cross. In this way, the moral development from regeneration is made absolute, as a result of which Christianity changes into humanism, because the mortification of the old man can no longer function. It is striking that the absolutization of one truth, in this way, leads to heresy, because this one truth is isolated from the one Truth. The presence of Christ Himself by His Word and Spirit criticizes any independence of the born-again subject. If we seek certainty and assurance in the born-again subject58 , we will be locked up in the darkness of history, but when the voice of the speaking Subject is heard in our hearts, we will be surprised and we will be assured by the Spirit of His absolute reliability, as a result of which 55 56 57 58

Cf. here Rom. 10:6-8. John 19:30; Heb. 7:27; Heb. 10:14 conflict with the repetition of Christ’s work. Cf. Van der Kooi, Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans, 86-91. H. van den Belt, in his inaugural address, makes clear that this distinction between the assurance of the object and the assurance of the subject lead back to modernity and was put into words by the Jesuit Bellarmine, ‘Kan een mens wel zeker zijn?’, 7, 18, 31-33.

The body of Christ

the expectation from the living God flourishes for us dead sinners. When we ask ourselves what the sinner can do with the living Christ, we will not have much to say. But when the question is asked what the living Christ does with the dead sinner, an expectation is born where nothing could be expected.

175

14.

One Christ

The point of reference of catholic theology is the Person of Christ. Because there is only one Christ, there can also be only one church.59 Here shines the wonderful character of the unity in Christ, because there are so many differences between Christians in culture, language and traditions. Vice versa, in this chapter we will also investigate what happens when we lose sight of the unity in Christ. We are dealing with the breadth of catholicity. 14.1

Catholicity breaks through borders

Cyril emphasized that catholicity is an inclusive and inter-categorical term. Ignatius and Cyprian emphasize that the Christian life cannot isolate itself from widows and orphans, poor and ill people. If there is any preference, there is a preference for people on the boundaries of society. This is based on deep biblical concepts. God did not choose highly educated Egyptians to make His covenant with, but suppressed slaves. According to Paul, the Gospel of the cross also has consequences for the population in the church. It does not consist of many wise men, many mighty, and many noble.60 Even despised Zacchaeus, a yuppie, is not excluded.61 This means that any congregation exists for all people. If the congregation is not a people’s church, in this sense, it lacks catholicity. The church exists for the underdogs of society, for the homeless and the despised. In the brokenness of life within and without the church, something of the mercy of the Lord Jesus may become visible in the church. In the church, God’s grace functions, which liberates from the pressure to perform, and which brings equality in all social differences. The question arises if it is a favourable situation that immigrants meet in their own garages, not participating in existing congregations. Have the existing congregations given occasion for this? Is it true that the historical Reformed churches are churches of the middle class rather than churches for people on the boundaries of society? We sometimes see congregations in villages or cities which focus in particular on intellectual people, or on people from low social classes. Moreover, Christians 59 The unity of the catholic church is not luxury, but it belongs to the substance of salvation, Visser, ‘Zeg de kinderen Israëls dat zij voorttrekken’, 172. 60 1 Cor. 1:26-28. 61 Tomás Halík, Geduld met God, portrays Zacchaeus as a seeker who is kept at a distance from God by believers.

One Christ

seek a congregation which suits their identity: evangelical, classical, modern, world-involved, or experientially orthodox; everyone moves towards a group of people of the same mind, to be presented with a Gospel the way they like it. This quest for people of the same mind is definitely not a catholic mentality, but an expression of modernity.62 In times of revival, the catholic mindedness is visible. Jonathan Edwards wrote an account of the preliminary phase of the Great Awakening. The first mark that he mentions is the catholic character of revival. All ages and all social classes were touched by the intensification of the work of the Holy Spirit.63 In the church where he was a minister, nine black people and two native Americans celebrated the Lord’s Supper together with white people.64 In this way, the seed was sown in the Great Awakening that would germinate in the criticism and abolition of slavery. This example shows that catholic mindedness does not only transcend social differences, but also ethnic differences. The New Testament gives the powerful witness that Jews and Gentiles are brought together in Christ.65 While Jews come from a monotheistic tradition, other ethnicities had become thoroughly polytheistic. This difference was connected to radical differences in cultural customs and traditions. Also, the interpreting worldview differed greatly. And still, all these differences are no reason for separation in the relationship to Christ. If all these impressive differences can be bridged in Christ, how much more is this true for the much smaller differences in tradition between Christians of different persuasions all over the world. There are differences in language, translations of the Bible, metrical versions of the Psalms, clothes, ethnic beliefs, singing tempo, and liturgy which should not cause separation. How can we ever relate to the worldwide church of Christ if we cannot even deal with these differences in our own environment? The ethnic differences that exist in the one catholic church, give rise to the question whether we can think nationally about the church. There is the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Reformed Church of America, the Church of Scotland and the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In the Reformed tradition, it is customary to organize the church nationally. On the one hand, it can be argued that the national organization of the church is only pragmatic and historical, on the other hand one may wonder what remains of catholicity if the national church does as it pleases and takes autonomous decisions. 62 Van de Beek, ‘Cultuur en katholiciteit’, 199. 63 The Works of Jonathan Edwards vol. 4, 157-159. Cf. Van Vlastuin, De Geest van opwekking, 82-83. 64 Cf. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 258. 65 Eph. 2:11-22; Gal. 3:26-28. Collins underlines that Jesus conquers ethnic differences, The Many Faces of the Church, 65.

177

178

C. Systematic part

Is the Reformed principle of church government more catholic than the principle of the Roman Catholics and their connection to the city of Rome? With respect to the understanding of the worldwide church, the Roman-Catholic Church holds a convicting mirror to the Reformed churches. Also the organisation of the Anglican Church gives food for thought, since the connection to the worldwide body does have a place in this church. These examples tell the Reformed church that the national organisation should not be an end in itself and that a national church should not isolate itself from Christ’s worldwide body. Although the Spirit puts his stamp on a nation, the church is essentially not of a nationalist nature. The transethnicity of Christ’s church also appears from the way we deal with the missionary calling of the church. William Burns, a friend of McCheyne, was one of the first Protestant missionaries who saw that cultural differences must be accepted. According to Chinese custom, he grew a long ponytail and wore Chinese dress in order to express that the Gospel truly enters the existing culture and sanctifies it. This process is even more influential in theology. Consciously or unconsciously, the tendency exists to exercise theological colonialism and to export European theology to foreign nations. We tend to forget that our theological terms are not culturally neutral, but are marked by the culture in which God revealed Himself. Richardson has shown this from Scripture.66 How affecting it was for Abraham to be blessed by Melchizedek. In a context of child sacrifices, temple prostitution, homosexuality and idolatry, he was a priest of the highest God. Abraham did not refuse the blessing of this priest because he believed that he had to bless Melchizedek or because Melchizedek used a pagan God concept. God had dealings with Melchizedek, there were remnants of God’s special revelation or He had immediately revealed Himself to Melchizedek, and so Abraham recognized YHWH in the God El that Melchizedek mentioned.67 Another example from Scripture that Richardson shows us is the example of “the unknown God” in Athens. This was not a theoretical term, but God had earlier revealed Himself in the history of the city anonymously. In his address on the Areopagus, Paul connected to the historical reality of the city of Athens; he referred to Epimenides and called him a prophet. In the New Testament, not the Hebrew word ‘Messiah’ is used, but the GreekRoman term Kurios. While Christians criticized the cult of the emperor and did not participate in it, they did use the word that was used to refer to the emperor. This form was employed in a modified way to communicate the Gospel. Similarly, the term logos was employed in the Gospel. 66 Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts, chapter 1. 67 Strange, Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock, 196-202. M.E. Brinkman, De niet-westerse Jezus, describes this process as an acceptation of a Canaanite god concept, 36.

One Christ

M. Hengel has shown that there are numerous parallels between the GreekRoman interpretation of Jesus’ death and the Christian message of the cross, although the New Testament message broke through the ancient concepts.68 In his research, the interaction between the understandings of Philo and the Gospel are discussed.69 Also in Paul’s view of humanity, a relationship with Philo and Plato can be discerned70 , and in his description of salvation in Christ he used the cosmology of the Greek-Roman world.71 The ‘Hellenization of Christianity’ is not something that happened later, but it is present everywhere in the New Testament. In the nations we see a similar indigenisation of the Gospel. Richardson describes it for the Incas in South-America.72 The only God revealed Himself to their king Pachucuti (1438–1471). He sought God and in his long quest he discovered that there had to be a Creator Who was of a different order than the sun god who he used to worshipped. We see the same thing in China. Although Confucius filled the spiritual vacuum in the Chinese national soul, there was a primordial understanding of the Shang Di, the Lord of heaven, that gave rise to a longing for His worship. Chinese also has the remarkable character in which the word ‘righteous’ is portrayed by a ‘lamb’ above ‘I’.73 In this language there are numerous words that contain the Gospel and that show that Christ is the Mediator of all His creatures. The same is true for Korea, where people spoke of Hananim. Roman Catholic missionaries who emphasized the utter novelty of the Christian faith ignored this, but when Protestant missionaries did use this name for God, the Gospel appeared to amazingly connect to the longing in the soul of the Korean nation. In a certain way, Christ had gone before the missionaries of the Gospel. Among the Germans, the nations in Africa, Asia and South-America, just like in the Greco-Roman culture, a re-interpretation of known terms took place, the exclusivity of Christ always being the catholic criterion. The unworldly Gospel appears to conquer any culture without being conquered.74 In this way, a rich 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Hengel, The Atonement, 28-32, 73-74. Hengel laid his foundation in Judentum und Hellenismus. Hengel, The Son of God, 51-56. Van Kooten, Paul’s Anthropology in Context, Tübingen 2008. Van Kooten, Paulus en de kosmos. Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts, chapter 1. Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts, chapter 3. D. Strange has expressed the complexity of revelation and the devil, idolatry, and parasitism, antithesis and continuity as follows: ‘From the presupposition of an epistemologically authoritative biblical revelation, non-Christian religions are sovereignly directed, variegated and dynamic, collective human idolatrous responses to divine revelation behind which stand deceiving demonic forces. Being antithetically against yet parasitically dependent upon the truth of the Christian worldviews, non-Christian religions are ‘subversively fulfilled’ in the gospel of Jesus Christ’, Their Rock Is Not Our Rock, 42.

179

180

C. Systematic part

variety in the interpretation of the Christian faith developed. Apparently, the Gospel contains such a fullness that it manages to absorb any culture. On the one hand, this means that Christianity allows a special aspect of Christ to light up in any culture, so we need the saints from all cultures to see a fraction of the unequalled glory of Christ. On the other hand, it means that we confess the same Christ in all cultural varieties, that the deepest identity of the Christian is not determined by, for example being an African, but by being a Christian, and that there is unity in Christ that transcends all cultures.75 14.2

From church to denomination

Christ’s body cannot be divided, but still it is divided. How terrible. Where is the church? We do see church denominations, but do we see the catholic church? Without catholicity, we do not think from the one church, but from church denominations.76 Then we think about the church in terms of a human organisation, as a result of which the degree to which the church is flourishing is measured in terms of its activity. There is no lack of activity, because every domination has to maintain the entire church business. Each denomination has its own committee for questions concerning marriage and family, for the relationship with the government, for the instruction of young people, for reflection on Israel and, of course, for questions concerning church unity, etcetera. Of course, these committees cannot cooperate, because this would be at the expense of their own profile. Unconsciously, we try to distinguish ourselves from other denominations and to compete with them, just like companies and political parties compete with each other to gain the favour of the consumer or voter. It is no wonder when a little boy asks his father: “Is our church the best church, dad?” When denominations gradually differ from each other in ecclesiastical quality, it is worthwhile to join the best denomination. Doesn’t everyone want to belong to the best club, association, party or denomination? In this way, we make our own criterions for the best denomination and strengthen the divisions. Whereas the Belgic Confession speaks of a true or a false church, the Westminster Confession speaks of more or less pure churches. We also find this thinking in neo-Reformed ecclesiology, with all the consequences that this entails. If we think our own denomination is just a little purer than other denominations, this is a large obstacle to cooperate in an unprejudiced way with other denominations or to seek unity, because this means that we have 75 Cf. Van de Beek, ‘Cultuur en katholiciteit’, 195-196. 76 Denominationalism has no respect for catholicity, Yoo, ‘Catholicity, Denomination, Denominationalism’, 317.

One Christ

to question or abandon our own ecclesiastical quality. Who would want that? Could we call this ecclesiastical pride? Actually, the church denomination functions like a human association, but the members of this association call their cause God’s church. An industrious institution with rules and committees is called church. Often the Reformed confession, or part of it, is used as the legitimation that it is God’s cause, while in reality the social aspects of group dynamics function. We almost worship the Three Forms of Unity, while the desire for unity is nowhere to be found. Or we publicly pray that God will gather together that which belongs together, while in fact we want to choose ourselves what belongs to us. Even when we say that we fight denominationalism, when we speak of ecclesiastical awareness, we do not practically intend to downplay our own cause. In this situation, the confession begins to function as the regulations of an association, as a result of which the confession is no longer an expression of faith. The confession of faith is replaced by believing the confession. The confession becomes a system of truths and a possession that we are in control of, while simple checks tell us who does and who does not observe the regulations of the confession. The Dutch theologian Noordmans, who has been called the twentieth-century church father, emphasizes the danger of a rigid confessional attitude: In a Calvinist church order, the centre is occupied by the confession, just like the Word is at the centre of its public worship (…) Even too much attention to the liturgy, just like for many in the Anglican Church, undermines the attention to the confession (…) The honorary title of a good Calvinist was often that he was ‘rigid’. However, the confession can then change into its opposite. It may become unecumenical and push off ecumenism. There are still rigid Calvinists, at least in the Netherlands. Sometimes they are also “tough” and they contain some Christian obduracy. However, one should always wonder of what nature this tenacity is. Calvinism should not become a race, just as little as Christianity (…) When these things are forgotten, the confession loses its ecumenical power. It does no longer attract people, but it begins to push off. Finally, it divides those who were united by it and it disrupts the dwelling together of the brethren.77

When the confession is no longer an expression of faith, it becomes an end in itself, as a result of which the dispute with the culture and with unbelief fades. We no longer give an account to unbelievers, but we have rabbi’s discussions 77 Noordmans, ‘Het calvinisme en de oecumene’, Verzamelde werken vol. 6, 397-409, here 402403. Translation Peter Meeuse.

181

182

C. Systematic part

down to the square millimetre, in which faith becomes a theological specialism. These discussions are not just about theology, they may also be about our own traditions, or about the interpretation of spiritual life. We have to maintain a certain identity, as a result of which young people no longer hear the Word being preached, but the cumbersome promotion of party manifestos. In this presentation of our manifesto we no longer look at the Scripture, tradition and culture through the lens of the catholic faith, but through the lens of the subculture. We proclaim truths which are only believed to be true in a small circle, and do not preach what is Christian in a catholic sense. Meanwhile, orthodox Christianity has become a minimal group in the Western world. Can we, in this need, afford the luxury of denominational thinking? We also hear this in public prayer for “our” seminary, “our” missionaries and “our” synod. This perspective subtly shows that denominational thinking is a modern phenomenon that rises from the human subject. It is striking that we boast in the “ancient truth” yet meanwhile we deal with it in very modern ways. If we are thus marked by modern subjectivism, the ecclesiastical fragmentation is not a cause of suffering for us. We do not really suffer until we live from the catholic whole. Or have we forgotten what the church is? Eventually, denominational thinking is all about our own plans, and that is why we pray that God will bless our plans. In a Donatist way, we see the church as our possession, as a result of which we think in terms of influence and the division of it. The starting point of our thinking is at the bottom. Noordmans says about such thinking: ‘Calvinism is no better than humanism, if it, for the future, expects salvation from maintaining its own identity as concrete historical phenomenon. In the nineteenth century there were people who practised idolatry like this.’78 Numerous ecclesiological concepts are conceivable in which these structures occur. Each ecclesiology or (sub)tradition that considers itself as its own end, and is governed by its own identity, loses catholicity. One may also be so much focused on forming a contrasting community to the surrounding society, that one ends up being locked up in itself. The other way around, a church also loses sight of the reality in Christ where openness is an end in itself, just like the church which looks at the Scripture through the lens of the culture. Denominational thinking has the consequence that we put our own church life in the middle, and just like the Pharisee always find reasons to justify ourselves and to confirm our own correctness, whilst looking around us where we find spiritual, theological and cultural recognition. This recognition then defines the unity of the truth and the faith, and thus the catholic church has been 78 Noordmans, ‘Het calvinisme en de oecumene’, Verzamelde werken vol. 6, 406. Translation Peter Meeuse.

One Christ

abandoned and a kind of ecumenism of the heart or a spiritual partisanship takes the place of the church.79 In practice, this attitude also continues within denominations. Pulpits are closed for certain ministers, and groups develop within the church. People often think in terms of ‘left’ and ‘right’. People want to present themselves as “rightwing”, or they want anything rather than being identified with the “right-wing”. This thinking, in which we ourselves are the starting point, is very proud, even if we preach humility. This thinking from ourselves is also foolish and short-sighted. What is actually “right”? Does “right-wing” indicate truth? The movement of the Pharisees could be called right-wing with respect to the Sadducees, but was it a reason to join the Pharisees? Hitler was also “right-wing”. The term “right-wing” is a political term, rather than a description of the spiritual communion with Christ. The opponents of slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were initially characterized as “left-wing”, but today also the right wing will agree that the left wing was right. For years, the “right-wing” dismissed the environmental issue as “left-wing”, but today there is a broad awareness that we have entered a unique situation of the word’s history, in which nature no longer threatens man, but man threatens nature. This also works the other way around. The “left” does not take the comments of the “right” seriously, because they are from a different wing. When the “rightwing” insists on the chapter of man’s misery it is correct, because we approach the fearful wrath of God much too lightly. When the “right wing” is reluctant with respect to liturgical innovations there may be a wise intuition behind it, even when their position is not explained in a wise manner. It is of the greatest importance to ask for the deepest intentions of the other person, and we should not write him off in advance because of his “party colour” in the church. A catholic mindedness means that we no longer think in parties, but seek the truth. Therefore, catholic Christianity does not write another Christian off when he keeps seeking a deeper interpretation of God’s truth. In short, a catholic Christian does not think sociologically but theologically, not politically but spiritually, not in terms of power but in terms of truth, not from one’s own correctness but from the correctness of the catholic whole, not from prejudice to others but from the awareness of God’s judgement of himself. We can also learn something from John Newton, the converted slave trader: I preach my own sentiments plainly – but peaceably, and directly oppose no one party. Accordingly, Churchmen and Dissenters, Calvinists and Arminians,

79 Cf. Van de Beek, ‘Vrijgemaakten en ecclesiologie’, 218-219, 223.

183

184

C. Systematic part

Methodists and Moravians, now and then even Papists and Quakers, sit quietly to hear me. I can readily adopt No Popery for my motto; but Popery with me has a very extensive sense. I dislike it, whether it be on a throne, as at Rome; or upon a bench, or at a board, as sometimes in London. Whoever wants to confine me to follow his sentiments, whether as to doctrine or church order, is so far a Papist. Whoever encourages me to read the Scriptures, and to pray for the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and then will let me follow the light the Lord gives me, without being angry with me because I cannot, or will not, see with his eyes, nor wear his shoes – is a consistent Christian. The depravity of human nature, the Deity of the Savior, the influences of the Holy Spirit, a separation from the world, and a devotedness to God, these are principles which I deem fundamental. And, though I would love and serve all mankind, I can have no religious union or communion with those who deny them. But whether a surplice or a band be the fittest distinction of a minister, whether he be best ordained by the laying on or the holding up of hands; whether water-baptism should be administered by a spoon-full or tub-full, or in a river, in any river, or in Jordan (as Constantine thought), are to me points of no great importance. I will go further –though a man does not accord with my views of election – yet if he gives me good evidence that he is effectually called of God – he is my brother! Though he seems afraid of the doctrine of final perseverance; yet, if grace enables him to persevere, he is my brother still. If he loves Jesus, I will love him, whatever hard name he may be called by, and whatever incidental mistakes I may think he holds. His differing from me will not always prove him to be wrong, except I am infallible myself.80

In the Dutch tradition, the catholic mind of Rev. Doornenbal is well-known. Despite all the brokenness, he continued to live for the whole nation and church, any groupthink was foreign to him.81 He was not a member of a modality organisation and he never spoke of the ‘gereformeerde gezindte’.82 When people questioned him about the liberalism in the local church, he responded: “In our village, we do not qualify varieties.”83 He lived from unity, also in a historical sense. He exercised a deep desire for the catholic union of all believers.84 Doornenbal was against secession from the one church of the Reformation in the Netherlands, but he did not condemn it. He liked to preach in the seceded 80 J. Newton in letter 18 on 29 March 1781, Works of John Newton vol. 6, 198. 81 Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 524. Over de Betuwe merkt hij op dat er veelal één plaatselijke kerk is en dat men vreemd is aan de partijdige richtingenstrijd, 268-270. 82 Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 506. 83 Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 506. 84 Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 85.

One Christ

churches in order to learn about the church in every place: “There is so much to experience.” And: “We have to be open to the whole fullness of spiritual life. It is only then that we live ourselves, otherwise we will die.”85 He could not forget the Roman Catholic church and sought continuity with the church of all ages. He could not agree with women holding offices in the church, because it meant a break with the church of all ages.86 In short, he lived out the catholic faith, despite all brokenness in the church. This catholic faith in God’s church is something which is challenged, and it is characterized by a strong focus on the future, in which God will be all and in all, and when temple and church will no longer exist. It is better to live in this torn desire than to deny the church, to fabricate one’s own unity outside the catholic pathway of history with a new confession in which transcendent aspects have been planed away as much as possible, and in which the resurrection of believers as an expression of the union with the risen Christ is lacking, in such a way that the kingdom of God can be understood in the order of the present world. 14.3

Ten Times Reformed

In 1973 a remarkable booklet was published in the Netherlands under the title Ten times Reformed.87 It is remarkable because representatives from all denominations have contributed to this book. The fact that all these writers were willing to respond to a number of questions concerning the brokenness of the church, indicates that they were not completely separated from each other. They had the historical awareness of the church of the Reformation, as a result of which they suffered under the brokenness of the church. J. van der Poel of the Old Netherlands Reformed Congregations saw the division fundamentally date back from the division between Abel and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael.88 At the same time, he acknowledged that much division is caused by people’s characters. That is why he longed for restoration. He sought this restoration in a spiritual way. In this context, he writes about Melanchton and Luther. Melanchton asked in doubt: ‘Is there nothing we should and can do?’ Luther responded: “You wish, that you could really do nothing.”89 A. Vergunst of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations expresses his respect for the fathers of the secession, because they were concerned about the 85 86 87 88 89

Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 180. Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 182-183. Aalders e.a., Tien keer gereformeerd. Aalders e.a., Tien keer gereformeerd, 61. Aalders e.a., Tien keer gereformeerd, 63.

185

186

C. Systematic part

radicalism of the Gospel. Iron and clay cannot go together.90 At the same time, he is the minister who wrote a book with the title ‘Quis non fleret?’ (who would not weep?) in which he emphasized that we need each other; there is more that unites us than what separates us, and that we should not strive to emphasize the distinguishing marks of a denomination. Today, we are more than ten times Reformed. All these divisions do not come from nowhere, but they are often an outward expression of inward alienation. Perhaps it starts with small things, which people apparently cannot communicate about; on both sides there are sincere intentions to take the right way, and still they do not manage to communicate with each other, distrust and partisanship grow with its own dynamics, until the snowball has become a deadly avalanche. If we see divorce as a parallel, we can imagine that healing is beyond our thoughts. There are witnesses of believers who, after a spiritual struggle, have gone a certain way in the church. Yet these witnesses do not mean that we should not examine ourselves, and also in these situations we should always ask what the difference is between flesh and spirit. Isn’t it possible that the surrender by the Holy Spirit in our hearts took place in a structure of thinking that must be examined? How complex is the relationship between the Holy Spirit and our own spirit! When we say this, we do not deny the presence of God’s Spirit at crucial moments, but nor do we deny our carnality in it. Jacob was motivated by a spiritual desire for the birth right blessing, but he took this right in a carnal way when he deceived his old father. On the other hand, we can be manoeuvred into a situation, in which we have to choose between two evils, and have to make a choice guided by God’s Spirit. Then the least evil thing is not a thing from the Spirit. G. Boer, as representative of the reformed movement in the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, pointed out the evil of ecclesial fragmentation during the first conference of the Contactorgaan Gereformeerde Gezindte in 1964: I am not telling a secret when I say that things are not going well in Reformed circles (…) Moreover, together with its divisions, a startling process of de-Christianization has been ushered in. It spreads quickly and the end is not in sight yet. Reformed morals have gone crazy here and there. Old traditions are being wiped out, new traditions often still have to be born. What we get back in return is often full of nihilism. With all of this, the grip on our national life has weakened. We have too many troubles and problems inside the church. No matter how much understanding 90 Aalders e.a., Tien keer gereformeerd, 26.

One Christ

of each other’s ecclesiastical position increases, as a result of which one gets a more positive or sometimes more negative view, the church struggles devour manpower, thinking power and working power, not to mention money, which should be devoted to a spiritually dying world. Everybody feels they are not able to cope with it anymore in their own church or group. The dykes have been broken down. The “safe” walls of tradition have given way and will succumb more and more. (…) We see whole families and generations disappear.91

The great number of denominations is not a Biblical face, since there was only one Christian church in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Jerusalem and Antioch, even though they met in different houses. Still we should be on our guard with respect to activist unification processes. The question is, whether unification processes should start with man or with the living Christ. Processes that start with man, are doomed to failure. Divisions can be a judgement of God. We may think of the division of the kingdom after Solomon into two and ten tribes. This judgement of God is irreversible, it spreads itself over all things and it cannot be countered by human organisation. The catholic Doornenbal expresses it even more deeply: “But for some reason I have never been able to join ecumenical efforts (…) You cannot make one that which is not truly one, nor should one try to do it (…) But nothing or no-one can truly make one that which was once rent asunder. Probably, God cannot even do it because, somehow, He does not want it. He never re-united Israel and Judah nor did He ever allow it to happen.’92 Is this all we can say? We also read in the Scriptures that Elijah erects an altar on Mount Carmel.93 He heals the altar that was broken down and takes twelve stones, not ten or two. By doing this he shows that, for faith, these twelve tribes belong together. Even though there is a considerable difference between Israel in the past and the church today, there is also a parallel in the restoration of unity. Unity and the truth are in the undivided Christ. That is why the full presence of God in Christ is necessary in the preaching. From life in communion with Christ’s fullness, unity is born. We need to mortify ecclesiastical self-sufficiency and serve each other. When we concretize our ecclesiastical calling, we can begin with the common confession which is a “possession” of the whole Reformed tradition: “That is why it is forbidden, I believe, that one church on its own modifies it, or begins to extend it without consulting the others, or casts away all kinds of interpretations,

91 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 606-632, 620. 92 Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 179. 93 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 627-628.

187

188

C. Systematic part

binding or not binding.’94 That is why we, as Reformed churches, cannot change the confession on our own. That is an illustration par excellence of isolated denominational thinking in which historical awareness has also disappeared. In this context, B. Kamphuis of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated) suggested to use a “catholicity-impact-assessment” in ecclesiastical decisions.95 He meant to say that church meetings should take other churches into account, and should not take decisions that would harm the relationship with other churches and that would unnecessarily increase the distance between them. It is also possible to cooperate in the investigation of theological questions.96 We need each other with respect to questions concerning Genesis, atonement and the authority of the Scriptures. Today we could extend this to questions concerning female office-bearers, theistic evolution, homosexuality, etc.97 In this light, every cooperation between church denominations is a little cloud like a man’s hand. In these encounters, it is important to do justice to the emotional pain of generations. We may also acknowledge that, behind ecclesiastical brokenness, there is sometimes an intense struggle to understand and confess the truth. Not every debate indicates a lack of love, just as not every argument between children in a family indicates that there is no love. This becomes clear when real concerns raise their head. At the same time, one will have to undertake theological discussions, in order to achieve a substantive restoration of mutual trust. An important theological justification for ecclesiastical differences in Reformed circles, concerns the different understandings of the connection between the covenant, baptism and election. That is why the nineteenth century has been called An age of struggle about covenant and baptism.98 In a real meeting with each other, these theological subjects must be discussed. 14.4

Exploration concerning the covenant

In the Reformed tradition, there are the doctrines of two, three or four covenants. Some representatives of the two-covenant theology were able to preach the call to faith with much fervency, in others it is absent. In Willem Teellinck’s 94 95 96 97

Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 629. http://www.nationalesynode.nl/artikelen/6-vragen-over-de-ker (accessed 23 January 2017). Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 629-630. Van de Beek says that the subject of homosexuality cannot be discussed without the world church, ‘Cultuur en katholiciteit’, 200. See also Buijs, ‘Kerken in de crisis’, 131. 98 Smilde, Een eeuw van strijd over verbond en doop.

One Christ

theology, the covenant, election and the congregation are closely connected, but for Theodore van der Groe the covenant and election are a much narrower circle within the congregation.99 Wilhelmus à Brakel says that the Bible does not contain promises for unconverted people.100 Ralph Erskine, however, writes in his well-known sermon about Gal. 4:28 that the promise “It is given not only to humbled and penitent sinners, that see their need, and are convinced of their sin and misery, but even to the unhumbled and impenitent.” When we look at these sayings purely mathematically, they exclude each other, so we tend to suspect À Brakel of a narrow-minded Gospel or Ralph Erskine of a cheap Gospel. When we listen to both preachers more carefully, we perceive that they have different pastoral motives. The words of “father” Brakel were written in the context of a warning against cheap grace, while Erskine sought to comfort a doubting seeker with God’s promises. It is remarkable that both preachers can make such different statements about the promises, given that they both teach a strict two-covenant-theology in which the promises, ultimately, are only for the elect. This shows that there may be much larger differences when theological differences diverge even further, including within the Reformed tradition. It is quite challenging to reach a consensus in all these differences – following Calvin’s example. On the one hand we have to say that the differences between Calvin and Bullinger concerning the Lord’s Supper were more far-reaching than the different interpretations of the covenant. The fact that Calvin and Bullinger could reach an agreement, offers a promising perspective to accept this challenge. On the other hand, the question remains whether we should not be able to live with differences concerning covenant theology within the Reformed tradition. If so many differences are found within this tradition, this indicates that different concepts may complement each other. Therefore, different concepts of covenant theology cannot be church-dividing. In this context, also the question needs to be raised how the different interpretations of the covenant are connected to the relationship between object and subject. Modernity is characterized by a turn to the human subject. Descartes put it into words: ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (= I think, therefore I am). This development has continued since then. Charles Taylor described this process in his well-known A Secular Age. He makes clear that cultural history is characterized by a more and more central position for the human individual while the environment is more and more objectivised. Brad Gregory reaches similar beliefs 99 Van Vlastuin, ‘En uw kinderen’. 100 À Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service 2:632.

189

190

C. Systematic part

with respect to truth and religion; a “hyperpluralism” has developed within Christianity as a result of this tendency.101 Without weighing all consequences of these cultural analyses, we can say that it is conceivable that a turn to the subject has taken place, as a result of which the aspects of covenant and baptism have been objectivised. An analogy with the objectification of the creation makes it clearer. Despite the scientific, technical and medical gains that this objectification has yielded, we now recognize that the living creation was made into dead nature. Similarly, we can say that, because of the objectification of the living realities of covenant and baptism, only dead realities have remained. Then it actually makes no difference how many covenants we see, because in fact God’s marriage relationship with human beings functions as a theoretical construction. When we look at the century of struggles about covenant and baptism from this perspective, it is striking that the relationship between object and subject can clarify many developments and positions. The situation in the Netherlands may be clarifying for other parts of the world. In the Christian Reformed Churches, the starting point was chosen in subjective regeneration. All concepts about the new birth from the time of the Reformation were explained as the individual grain of regeneration in the members of the church. In response to this, the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated) or the Canadian Reformed Churches came into being, in which people dissented from this internalisation and defended the objectivity of covenant and baptism. Undoubtedly, the ‘liberated’ had a point, and undoubtedly good concepts were lost in the dynamics of the ‘liberation’, as a result of which a spiritual impoverishment took place. When the whole of God’s truth is more than a sum of separate parts, a lot of catholic wholeness is lost in any church schism. It is just as solemn to realise that we cannot get this catholic wholeness back by adding up the separate parts or denominations again. Also in the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, the relationship between object and subject was problematic. One shrunk back from the generalisation of subjective regeneration in the Christian Reformed Churches and defended the particular character of this subjective regeneration. In the separated Netherlands Reformed Congregations, one accepted the consequences of this position and refused to speak of a general offer of grace. Undoubtedly, also in these movement valuable understandings remained, such as the radicalism and the seriousness in the message of personal grace.

101 Gregory, The Unintended Reformation, 369. Characteristic is that every individual ‘must be the sovereign of his or her own Cartesianized universe, determining his or her own truth, making his or her own meanings, and following his or her own desires’, 385.

One Christ

In the Free Reformed Churches, the three-covenant theology was defended, in which one emphasized that salvation had been objectively given in the covenant, but still had to be applied subjectively. In fact, this debate continually turns around the relationship between object and subject so, despite all differences, one eventually thinks within the same framework. What is the reason why we have become so caught up in the issue of the relationship between object and subject? Isn’t there a possibility to escape from this stranglehold, on the one hand from a consciousness of cultural development and on the other hand from a catholic understanding of the Christian faith? If we perceived an opportunity to think in a catholic way from God and His revelation in Christ, there should be a possibility to recognize each other, despite differences in covenant theology. If we do not see the covenant as an objective reality, but as the living reality from the Subject par excellence, namely the living God, this provides us with a way of avoiding approaching the matter from the human subject. So, we do not have to get stuck in inner-world relationships, but there can be room from the extra nos (= outside us). This room brings with it that theological differences do not need to be interpreted as differences in faith. Then no-one has to say that he is separated from God. In this way, everyone can also consent to the application of salvation in God by the Holy Spirit. In this context it is not surprising that questions concerning the application of salvation have received much attention in Reformed circles, also in interdenominational encounters. The application of salvation, after all, is all about the question that, in the context of the change to the subject, is seen as the actual question, namely the question about the individual. Moreover, this is about spirituality, experience. In the abovementioned book Tien keer gereformeerd (Ten Times Reformed), Rev. J. Overduin clearly described the differences in experience in different denominations.102 If there is much emphasis on one’s misery, people in other Reformed circles can consider this to be a preaching of hell and damnation. If there is too much emphasis on deliverance, others experience this as a preaching that deals with sin superficially. The focus on thankfulness can be considered to be legalistic. Only when we place God’s Subject and our subject side by side, maintaining the tension between them, we will realize that we will never able to fathom the depths of our fall and that we will never be able to sufficiently praise God’s unfathomable grace. Can we achieve restoration in this way? It is necessary to take many sensitivities out of the taboo atmosphere. There are differences in language field and preaching style, church building, prayer customs, ethics and charisma, Israel theology and church government.103 102 Aalders et al, Tien keer gereformeerd, 39. 103 Cf. Ouweneel, Vijf olifanten in een porseleinkast.

191

192

C. Systematic part

14.5

No simple solution

Will we ever find a solution? In our church life, we have been busy pulling the petals of different denominations from the living flower of Christ’s body. We look at the petals and see them wither. We think that bringing the petals together will lead to a restoration of life, but it is a mistake. The church is not ours and it will never be ours, but the church is the mystery of the living Christ. The church is not bottom-up and therefore it is not makeable. This means that ecclesiastical processes of unification will lead to nothing, and that cultural analyses which map the process of fragmentation do not offer a solution, despite improving our understanding. There is no simple remedy. We can kill, but we cannot make alive. We will have to recognize that we have lost the church as the body of Christ. As long as we are satisfied with our denomination, we do not recognize our bankruptcy. We need a theological-experiential re-orientation on the catholicity and exclusivity of Christ. The amazing miracle is that He gives new life from the dead. In the meantime, we are loyal in our denomination-part and we serve the catholic whole.

15.

Whole body and individual

The historical exploration has shown that living and thinking from the whole also has consequences for the relationship between corporate thinking from the body of Christ and the personal relationship with Christ. In this chapter we will explore this subject and we will scan the length of catholicity, namely historical unity in the faith. 15.1

A living member in Christ’s church

In the Early Church, we encountered a strong thinking from the whole of Christ’s body as expression of catholicity. In the ancient church, this focus on the corporate unity of the congregation did not form a sharp contrast with sensitivity for the personal aspect. At several moments we encountered the concept that the relationship with God, in its deepest sense, is a personal relationship. Already the credo (I believe) underlines personal faith in the corporate whole.104 The cohesion between the confession of the church and the communion of saints (in this order) is in line with this. We are not in a rigid way one Christ (totus Christus), but we are one in Christ.105 This means that the church does not imply an annihilation of our personality, but a re-interpretation, a renewal or even a fulfilment of our personality. With this, deeply Biblical concepts are raised.106 In the books of Moses, attention is given to individuals, for example in the calling of Abraham as the father of the faithful107 , or in the emphasis on the human heart.108 Ruth’s choice is also very personal. The Psalms are full of personal experience, while Augustine, Luther and Calvin have a common love for the penitential psalms. Time and again the book of Proverbs shows the contrast between the individual who is wise and the person who acts foolishly. Despite the fact that God visits sins in later generations, the Scripture tells us

104 Cf. Visscher, ‘Om de levende kerk’, 149. 105 Horton, The Christian Faith, 849, 850, 852. He rejects the term methexis, 852. Because there is a certain participation, however, I wonder if this is not too simplistic. 106 This plays down the belief that the discovery of individuality belongs to modernity, Taylor, A Secular Age, 146. It is more truthful to say that the Christian attention for the individual has derailed in modern times, because it has been separated from the transcendent frameworks of God’s image, as a result of which the individual is now absolutized into an impersonal cosmos, cf. Keller, Preaching, 121-156. 107 Gen. 12. 108 Deut. 6:6.

194

C. Systematic part

explicitly that the son is not responsible for the sins of his father.109 This personal line in the Old Testament becomes visible once again in the long gallery of heroes of faith who hoped in God, often in the most difficult circumstances.110 It is not surprising to us that we find this personal concept even more clearly in the New Testament. Jesus has many personal encounters. The parables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep and the lost penning bring this divine interest very clearly to our attention.111 While we tend to think that the hundredth sheep will be in the herd, the good Shepherd starts out to find this single sheep. Faith turns out to be a very personal matter.112 Jesus draws our attention to two people who go to the temple, a Pharisee and a publican, and only the latter shares in God’s justification.113 Also the internal conflict in the soul of the individual believer is telling.114 These Scripture passages show us that God gathers His elect within the catholic church. Apparently, it is catholic not to understand grace as universal, but as particular. In the Early Church this was at odds with a platonic catholicity, in which there was no sensitivity to the individual, but in which the individual person flowed back into the impersonal world soul.115 Catholic preaching does not merge into general reflection, but it focuses on the individual man. It is God’s greatness that He gives the smallest man a place in His heart: “The proper subject of theology is man guilty of sin and condemned, and God the Justifier and Savior of man the sinner. Whatever is inquired or discussed in theology outside this subject, is error and poison.”116 This focus on the individual was never more deeply expressed than in the Reformed doctrine of predestination.117 This doctrine expresses that my creation and recreation are not necessary, but are borne by God’s free will. The turn from this way of thinking to a necessary fatalist concept of election is wafer-thin, but fundamental. God’s will is not arbitrary, because it is the good and wise God Who ultimately disposes my personal destination. This predestining God is immanently present in the creation, incarnate into our flesh and dwells in His church and in the individual person.

109 110 111 112 113 114 115

Ez. 18:17-20. Cf. Ex. 34:6-7. Heb. 11. Luke 15:1-32. John 3:16; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 16:22. Luke 18:13. Rom. 7:14-26. Noordmans points this out, ‘De katholieke bestanddelen in de prediking’, Verzamelde Werken vol. 6, 23-33, 24. 116 Luther, Psalm 51, 27. 117 Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 89-95.

Whole body and individual

With the latter, Reformed theology fathoms the weight of the individual person. The full weight of eternal salvation or damnation hinges on the personal application of salvation in the heart. The Spirit works faith, in order that we believe. God chooses us, in order that we choose God. In this way, we become a “grown-up” person who begins to confess personally. All in all, we cannot interpret the focus on the individual man as such as a lack of catholicity or as a modern phenomenon. The attention in modern times for the individual person as such is a fully Christian concept. This means that our modern culture is marked by Christian concepts and has absorbed them. However, when these good concepts are made absolute, they turn out to become destructive powers, which turn against unity and the whole. In this situation, the corruption of the best turns out to be the worst of all. The cohesion between corporate unity and the personal relationship brings several approaches into a critical light. If I have understood it correctly, Karl Barth chooses his starting point in the election of Christ and of the church without giving the personal relationship with Christ an explicit place.118 We find a similar approach in the theology of the previously mentioned Dutch theologian Van de Beek: ‘The actual elect in the Bible is not a person, but a community.’119 He criticizes the phenomenon that church and individual have been separated in modern times, as a result of which the meaning of the church has faded.120 In his opinion, the sola fide in the early Reformation meant nothing but solo Christo and in particular in the Canons of Dort a tendency of anthropologization developed, as a result of which the individual believer was put at the centre and extra uncertainty was caused by internalisation.121 Van de Beek is right when he says that church and individual have been separated too much in our modern times. It is also true that Protestantism is characterized by a radical individualism and a radical religiosity, as a result of which the view on the catholic whole disappears, denominational division develops and individuals come separated from the church. In his own distinctive way, Van de Beek underlines that we cannot see the church separate from Christ and that there is also an election of the church. However, when he rejects speaking of personal faith and personal election as such, he is wrong. Neither the Early Church nor the Scriptures support this. We can properly say that each individual believer personally receives the promise to God’s church. 118 Ten Boom, ‘Leeswijzer’,.H 10. See also Meijering, Kennis is niet alles, 53, 55, 96. Incidentally, we also find the election of Christ as a Person also in Augustine and Calvin, without this being at the expense of personal election, Institutes 3.22.1-2. 119 Van de Beek, De kring om de Messias, 149. 120 Van de Beek, De kring om de Messias, 180-181. 121 Van de Beek, God doet recht, 209.

195

196

C. Systematic part

There is another present-day phenomenon, namely the “New Perspectives on Paul”. According to Stendahl, an introspective interpretation developed influenced by Augustine and Luther, as a result of which soteriology became decisive for the ecclesiological issues that Paul addresses.122 In agreement with this, Sanders denies that Judaism is legalistic.123 Dunn emphasizes that we should not understand Paul from the perspective of a personal doctrine of atonement, but his concern is all about participation in Christ. According to the New Perspectives approach, Paul’s letters do not deal with a right personal relationship with God, but with the right relationship between Jews and Gentiles.124 Paul is more concerned about participation than about justification. We can also say that Paul does not primarily addresses a soteriological issue, but an ecclesiological problem in a redemption-historical context. However, these perspectives do not exclude each other.125 Paul’s message has a strongly redemption-historical character which places the soteriological focus in the right perspective. In his letters, Paul explains that in Christ Jews and Gentiles are in a new position towards God. He does not only criticize the Jewish works of the law, but also the Gentile works without God’s law.126 There is no pathway of works from below to above. The law is not a stepping stone to grace, because the law confronts us with our sin.127 In short, Paul’s message tells us much about personal justification with God. So from a catholic perspective there is much reason to criticize the negligence of the individual. On the other hand, this catholic approach also has consequences for the view on the unity in the whole of the church. It is fully catholic to understand the church from its internal cohesion as the church of Christ rather than considering it a sum of separate parts or a gathering of converted and unconverted people. If catholicity is characterized by thinking from the whole, the view on the whole of the church is the first thing that is characteristic of a catholic understanding of church and congregation. In the classical forms of the Reformed tradition we find this catholic understanding. As an example, the Dutch Form for the Administration of Baptism may be mentioned. It starts with the contours of the covenant in which ‘we with our children’ are included, while the second chapter ends with the ‘assembly of the elect’. Even here it is not said that individual believers participate in eternal life, but remarkably the form continues to speak of the whole of the ‘assembly 122 123 124 125

Stendahl, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Cf. Wright, Justification. Cf. for an evaluation Klaassen, In Christus rechtvaardig, 324-357. See also Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul. 126 Eph. 2:8-9. 127 Rom. 3:20.

Whole body and individual

of the elect’. Similarly, the parents are asked if they confess that their children are sanctified in Christ and therefore ought to be baptized as members of His church. The children are not seen as isolated individuals, but as members of Christ’s church. Another telling example is the annotation to Luke 19:9: “Seeing that, when the master of the family believed in Christ, the entire family is also reckoned to be in the covenant, according to the promise, (…), except that through their unbelief they reject this grace.” This is an accurate example of a life from the catholic suprapersonal unity. Reformed orthodoxy chose its starting point in the unity of the family; the individual came in view when he or she broke the unity. These understandings show us that we may approach the church from its essence as the body of Christ. A member of Christ’s church participates in the fullness of the catholic church, the knowledge and the faith of the church, in such a way that, in the personal application, these treasures are internalized.128 That is why there is much reason, in this context (!) to lay the necessity of self-examination to heart and to preach the call to believe and repent. On the other hand, when the view of the congregation eventually leans on a sum of separate individuals, the catholic understanding of the unity has disappeared and modernity has won the day. Reading with twenty-first century glasses, the above leads to several considerations. Firstly, this preference for the body of the church to individual persons, is something that Roman-Catholicism rather than Protestantism did rightly. While in the Roman-Catholic Church personal faith fades in the context of belief in the church as an organism, in Protestantism we see that the church fades in light of personal faith.129 This leads to a second observation. The connection between the corporate and the personal aspects also criticizes the Roman-Catholic church model, because the church is considered as a continuation of the incarnation. In this way, the body of the church is greatly overestimated at the expense of the individual person. And the other way around, when Protestants liberally assume that every gathering of Word and sacrament is a church, the suprapersonal and thus the supratemporal and supralocal aspects of Christ’s body no longer function. Thirdly, when the corporate aspect precedes the individual aspect, this has consequences for the way we deal with small congregations. If we consider the church as a sum of separate individuals, this leads to a huge focus on filling the pews.130 The estimation of the church as the body of Christ eases this tension. 128 Cf. Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 730. 129 Cf. Horton, The Christian Faith, 836-837. 130 Cf. Paas, Vreemdelingen en priesters, 113-117, 122, 231, 243.

197

198

C. Systematic part

In the church we should not first count, but weigh. God’s praise is on earth there where God’s deeds are proclaimed and there where He has communion with sinners through the Word and the sacraments.131 This easing of tension is the framework for compassion. If it good to praise our God, the church must radiate passion to allow others to share in this great reality of God.132 The church cannot be satisfied with its qualitative meaning and the people around it cannot think that, in the church, faith is practised in their stead. The awareness that the forgiveness of sins is received in the church, gives much compassion with the individual, to persuade them. The focus on the forgiveness of sins means that there is a vertical relationship between God and us, in which on our side there is sin and guilt towards God. Concepts such as repentance and confession of sins on the one hand and God’s endless mercy in Christ on the other hand belong to the heart of the Christian message. Whatever is said about the future of the creation, it is marked by the miracle of reconciliation between God and man. Precisely at this point it is of great importance to understand that we receive forgiveness in the communion of the catholic church, since we share in the promises and gifts that Christ has granted to His body, and that we partake of them in the way of His body.133 When the view of the church disappears, the certainty of the forgiveness of sins also disappears. 15.2

Re-appraisal of the tradition

Living from the catholic whole also has a historical dimension. That is why we should reflect on the historical continuity of faith. This was done in Trent, when one spoke about the canonical Scriptures in the fourth session on 8 April 1546.134 In this session it was stated that Christ is the Source of all truth. His truth was recorded in the Scriptures and in oral traditions (sine scripto traditionibus). The Roman Catholic church believes that this oral treasure is still present and is passed on by apostolic succession: ‘There are things, says Newman, that Jesus was silent about, and that the apostles whispered a few words about, i.e. were almost silent, that the church fathers make various comments 131 Cf. Ps. 48:2-3. 132 S. Paas criticizes the preaching of hell as ‘spiritual extortion’. Still the compassion, in light of the latter seriousness, is in line with the Scriptures, cf.e.g. 2 Cor. 5:10-11. See also Rom. 1-3. The other side of his approach is that the urgency of personal faith fades. 133 Question 42 of ‘Kort Begrip’ (a simplified version of the Heidelberg Catechism) is accurate here: “Which benefits does God give to this church?’ 134 Canones et Decreta Dogmatica Concilii Tridentini in Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom deel 3, 79-80.

Whole body and individual

about and sometimes contradict themselves and others, and that are eventually formulated by the church, when the time and cause are ripe for it.’135 From this treasure, always new understandings arise, such as the immaculate conception of Mary (1854) or the declaration of the infallibility of the pope (1870).136 Of course, from the Roman-Catholic perspective, these understandings have equal authority with the written heritage of Jesus’ words. In response to this way of functioning of the tradition, Martin Luther appealed to the Scriptures alone.137 He broke with the celibacy, scholasticism and monasticism. This led Warfield and Hodge to a critical evaluation of the tradition. The former writes: “There is no other such gulf in the history of human thought as that which is cleft between the apostolic and the immediately succeeding ages.”138 The latter states: “Tradition teaches error, and therefore cannot be divinely controlled so as to be a rule of faith.”139 In Protestantism, this critical attitude towards the tradition has often involved a “pruning attitude”, in which people left behind all unnecessary burdens from the tradition. Because of this attitude, Protestantism has been seen as a forerunner of the enlightenment, in which reason was separated from any bounds, and also the bond to tradition came under attack. There is some truth in this assertion. The liberals have left behind the classical Christian beliefs about the doctrines and the authority of the Scriptures. But also conservative Reformed people often think that the Scriptures can be read and interpreted separate from the tradition. Although they place a high value on the tradition with a small ‘t’, there is no rooting it in the great history of the church. Or they believe that certain doctrines, beliefs, traditions or cultural customs are literally found in the Scriptures, However, we have seen that the approach of the Reformation is more nuanced. It goes without saying that the belief was rejected that the tradition is an independent source of revelation besides the Scriptures. But also an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures in which the tradition as such is suspected, was rejected. H.A. Oberman pointed out that tradition was accepted as a tradition of interpretation of the Scriptures.140

135 According to Noordmans, ‘De Reformatie en Rome’, Verzamelde werken vol. 6, 422. 136 Cf. for a description of these structures Murray, ‘Tradition: Romish and Protestant’, deel 4, 264-273. 137 Cf. also Calvin’s Catechism (1537), Art. 31. 138 Warfield, The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed, 4. 139 Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1, 128. 140 Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation, 269-296. K.J. Vanhoozer dedicates a chapter to the issues of authority, conciliarism and tradition, Biblical Authority after Babel, 109-146.

199

200

C. Systematic part

M. Allen and S.R. Swain, in their plea for a re-appraisal of tradition, consciously follow Perkins.141 They are aware that they join a broad theological trend.142 Paradoxically, in the Nouvelle Théologie, the old sources of the Early Church were again brought to the attention. Boersma sought to join this from a Reformed-evangelical perspective.143 A well-known example is Oden’s initiative to bring ‘Ancient Christian Texts’ to the attention, by publishing commentaries and patristic theological treatises. This is connected to new studies of the church fathers.144 Also the movement ‘Radical Orthodoxy’ and the phenomenon of the ‘theological interpretation of the Scriptures’ can be understood in this framework. This tendency did not leave the Lutheran tradition unaffected, according to The Catholicity of the Reformation edited by Braaten and Jenson.145 There are many differences between these movements and initiatives, but what they all have in common is the re-appraisal of the tradition in general and of the patres in particular. How should we theologically judge this re-appraisal? Biblicaltheologically, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is at stake here. The exalted Christ has promised His church the Holy Spirit Who guides into all the truth.146 This truth is not a rationalist and individualist truth as if we solve a mathematical problem. God’s truth surpasses the truth of the statement that Trump became president of America in 2017. The Spirit does not only teach truths, but He is the Truth Himself.147 He proceeds also from the Son as the Truth.148 That is why God’s truth surpasses our intellect and our knowledge is of a different order than the knowledge of this world.149 This means that theology has its own place in the church and that we should not allow ourselves to be overawed by scientific methods. Secondly, here the suprapersonal body of Christ also functions. Christ has promised His Spirit to the whole of His body, which is more than the sum of the separate individuals.150 In their own distinctive manners, Cyril and Augustine pointed this out in the Early Church. Thirdly, this indwelling of the Spirit in the body of Christ includes a historical dimension. The Spirit makes deep impressions throughout history, since Pentecost, through 141 Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity. The rest of this section is more or less based on the first chapter of this book, 17-47. 142 Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, 4-12. 143 Boersma, Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology; Boersma, Heavenly Participation. 144 Cf. Backus (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West. 145 Braaten and Jenson (ed.), The Catholicity of the Reformation. 146 John 16:13. 147 1 John 5:6. 148 John 14:6. 149 John 14:17; 1 Cor. 2:12-14; 1 John 4:6. 150 1 Cor. 12:13.

Whole body and individual

the apostles, the development of the New Testament, the church tradition, the confessions, church order and liturgy.151 This means that, in theology, we cannot avoid the cumulative wisdom of the church of all ages without breaking with Christ’s body in a sectarian way and without grieving the Spirit. Why should we put more trust in Western historic-critical understanding of Scripture than in the understanding of the saints of all times which were led by the Spirit? So, in the context of the mediation of the Spirit, the application of the Spirit stands in a long tradition.152 In response to the spiritualist tendency in the Reformed tradition in which the work of the Spirit is only related to the applicatio in nobis (=application in us) and in which the individual man separates himself from the great tradition of the church, we emphasize the long pathway of the Spirit. In response to Rome, which limits the work of the Spirit to the mediation in tradition and the praesentia realis (= real presence) of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, we emphasize the application by the Spirit. Fourthly, the above-mentioned argument does not mean that tradition is infallible. However, it cannot be concluded from the fallibility of the tradition that the tradition is useless, nor that the errors of individual believers can lead to the conclusion that they do not have the Spirit. That is why it is better, with respect to the tradition, to speak of the indwelling of the Spirit than of the continuation of the incarnation. Given the structural difference between Christology and Pneumatology, the indwelling of the Spirit does give room to recognize sin and error, whereas this is impossible when we speak of a continued incarnation. We do not say that the Scriptures and tradition are two sources of knowledge, nor do we say that the apostolic treasures surpass the treasure of the Scriptures, but we confess the sufficiency and the normativity of the Holy Scriptures. So, tradition does not stand next to the Scriptures, but it is merely the river bed through which the understanding of the Scriptures flows. The Spirit is present in debates, in catechism classes, in education, in preaching and in confession of the truth. In this way, God’s Spirit continually leads into all the truth, in this way sola scriptura functions in the context of both the church and tradition, and in this way a distinction is made between good and wrong interpretations of the Scripture. This means that solus Christus cannot be separated from sola ecclesia. Or otherwise stated: sola ecclesia belongs together with the other solas to the expression of Christ’s exclusive catholic fullness. Descartes placed the knowing individual in contrast to the tradition, but in God’s church the knowing individual is part of the knowing community. We do not know the truth of God’s Word in a naively Biblicist manner, nor do we 151 Here H. Jochemsen speaks of stoicheia (principles), ‘De betekenis van tradities’, 27. 152 Cf. Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 93.

201

202

C. Systematic part

read the Scriptures in a neutral vacuum, but with Christ’s body of all ages we are involved in the understanding of the Scriptures. Since this application of tradition is not a simple matter, we should make much effort to carefully explore tradition. When we realize how rare the truth is and how widespread the lie is, we will become even more interested in tradition to discover, preserve and pass on the valuable treasures of truth found within it. This preciousness of the truth even takes more shape in postmodern times, in which everything is considered true, as a result of which no truth remains for which one would be willing to give his life. While classical thinking was characterized by doubt about oneself and certainty about truth, our culture is characterized by doubt about truth and much certainty about ourselves. This means that our postmodern culture urgently needs communion with the supracultural church to share in its truth. That is why it is a contradiction in terms to speak of faith without the church. It is just as absurd to forge beliefs as if there is no age-old church. Tradition gives us the understanding that we are more closely connected to Christians from the Early Church than to people in our own culture. The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort belong to the historical continuity of the Reformed church.153 That is why we cannot simply push aside the confessional speaking in this historical communion of the church. This was done by the Arminians at the Synod of Dort. They sought to question the confession of the church as such without filing a protest against this historical identity of the church.154 When they refused to mention their objection, the Rev. Bogerman eventually showed them the door. In fact, the Arminians lacked understanding of the catholicity of the church, as a result of which they did not take the church seriously as the church. This catholic understanding of the tradition will help us when we are in lonely positions. It also makes all sorts of novelties relative. In a time when many people leave the church, it is comforting to see the church in its historical form, and in the rich prospect of a multitude that no one can number. 15.3

Old is better

In this section we will further think about the value of the historical insights. The British thinker C.S. Lewis had much love for history, from the understanding that the past has a message for us. It was his deep conviction that humanity has a limited view at any time, because we are simply not able to look above and beyond our own situation. That is why he advised people to read old books. 153 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 574. 154 Cf. Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 582.

Whole body and individual

This gives us input from a different context, which yields insights that break through our own limited view.155 This attitude is not advisable with respect to medical science. When we are seriously ill, we prefer help from physicians who know about the newest insights. But Lewis’ approach does apply to the area of the historical heritage of the church. In response to the reproach that these are old-fashioned insights from other times, Lewis uses the metaphor of a map.156 A map represents the experience of numerous generations who, in a way, have summarized their insights in a clear whole. He who enters the area without using the map, will have to discover everything himself. But he who explores the area using the map, takes further steps discovering the area. We might say that we need tradition in order to understand our blind spots in our understanding of the Scriptures. Here lies the great wealth of the historical faith of the church, because it shows that the church today partakes of the faith of preceding generations.157 Christ’s body cannot be fitted into temporal frameworks because Christ cannot be fitted into a certain time. The eschatological Christ is the fulfilment of all times that He created Himself. He does not soar above time, but He Himself encompasses all times. Christ’s church, as Christ’s body, shares in this new eschatological reality of Christ. In this sense we can hardly speak of a historical faith, because faith is omnitemporal. In all ages, it is the same faith in the same Saviour. Christ’s body has a triumphant part and a militant part, but ultimately it is one church of all ages. In this one church there is one faith158 , because no distance and time exist in this church.159 There is a progress through the ages, but this never means an exclusion from the preceding ages. Throughout the centuries, Christ’s body forms a unity. Of course, each age and each culture provide its own tone to the experienced faith; it would not be easy for us to listen to a sermon by Augustine. Still for a true catholic there is unity in the faith. At this point, Christ’s body differs from any human institution in this dispensation. This gives us a deep bond with the church of all ages. The faith of the Early Church is not out-dated, just as little as the faith that representatives from

155 Lewis, ‘Introduction’; Lewis, ‘On the Reading of Old Books’. 156 Lewis, Mere Christianity, 121-122. 157 Groen van Prinsterer, Het regt der hervormde gezindheid, 30, 48, 76, 81. Cf. Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 515-519. 158 Jenson, Systematic Theology vol. 2, 279. According to Reformed confessions, this church has existed since the beginning of the world, Q. 54 HC and Art. 27 NGB. 159 Cf. Spruyt, Romantiek en stichtelijkheid, 180.

203

204

C. Systematic part

the Further Reformation exercised. With all the saints of all ages, we may understand the length, height, breadth and depth of the love of Christ.160 That is why the Scriptures speak of the inalienable right of the apostolic faith and we are familiar with the exhortations to persevere in this faith.161 That is why representatives of the Early Church did not trust theological innovations. This does not deny that rigid conservatism has an obstructive effect, but it confirms that the dynamics of faith are, in any situation, nourished by the unchangeable Source Jesus Christ, to discover the fullness of Christ for every context.162 The tradition of the church is an aid here. In the Reformation, people turned back to the message of Augustine, so we can speak of an Augustinian revival. In this context, John Webster spoke of a ‘theology of retrieval’.163 Retrieval theology means looking back in order to move forward.164 Retrieval is a rediscovery of classic theology, while it does more than return to this classic theology and repeat it. A simple return to old theology is not possible, because theology is a living reality. Instead of speaking about a return and a repetition, we may better speak about a reapplication and a reformation of the old theological insights. The Reformation is an example of retrieving, because it was a retrieval of the theology of the early church and a reapplication of Paul’s understanding of justification. The movement of the Reformation brought a deeper understanding of the gospel by drawing from ancient sources. The rediscovery of the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of spiritual union with Christ are contemporary examples that show that old theological insights receive new relevance in theological reflection.165 The fact that the historical church, just like the church in the South and in the East, pays much more attention to angels and spirits, exposes today’s materialist worldview of Western Christianity. The same is true for a ‘sacramental’ understanding of the creation. In the West we have come to value the creation as nature, but we no longer realize that the creation today witnesses to God’s presence, so there is a deist tendency. We cannot do without Irenaeus’ understanding of the 160 Eph. 3:18-19. 161 Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 3:14; Heb. 4:14. 162 J. Duncan says accurately: “But there is a destructive school of progress that I cannot endure. It would simply destroy the past to make way for itself. Conservatism alone, and by itself, is obstructive; Neoterism alone, and by itself, is destructive”, in Knight, Colloquia Peripatetica, 9. 163 Webster, “Theologies of retrieval”. 164 Cf. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 23. 165 Van den Brink, ‘Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian Renaissance’. The work of J.T. Billings was important for a renewed reflection on the union with Christ, ‘United to God through Christ’ and Calvin, Participation, and the Gift.

Whole body and individual

history of redemption. While the Reformation takes us to the cross, the Early Church takes us to the cradle. Bernard of Clairvaux exercised intimacy with the Person of Christ. If there is anyone who tells us about the qualitative difference between God and man, it is certainly Luther. He fathomed the mystery of the incarnation and explained the theology of the cross. We cannot do without Calvin because he revived the mystery of spiritual union with Christ. John Owen was an original theologian who was the first to write an extensive monograph about the Holy Spirit, and gave the contours for a pneuma-christology, and expressly advocated the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Wilhelmus à Brakel, a representative of the Further Reformation, wrote discerningly about the different pathways in regeneration. A striking chapter is his chapter about spiritual joy, which he considers to be as important as justification and sanctification. He shares the affective fulfilment of the human heart with the Puritans, who reached back for this aspect to the Early Church. We may think here of the restless heart of Augustine that found rest in God. The Marrow-men still help us to make a sharp distinction between law and Gospel, and they also show that the assurance of faith goes together with the uncertainty of the human heart. Rutherford speaks in an unequalled way about selfless love for the Person of God’s Son. Whereas the Reformation draws our attention to the doctrine of justification, the “evangelical revival” of the eighteenth century draws our attention to the mystery of the new birth in Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Kohlbrugge has shown how we, by faith, take part in the fulfilled history of redemption, in such a way that we can speak about our salvation in the most definite terms, while the stubborn reality of sin remains.166 Our confessions are very wholesome in this context. Every minister tends to ride his own hobby-horses, but the Heidelberg Catechism forces us to preach through the Scriptures thematically, as a result of which themes are addressed that we ourselves do not have an eye for, and that we would never choose. Meditation about the confessions reveals that they are not dusty booklets, but we discover something of the deep faith of our fathers, that they practised with heart and hand. Today ignorance is a bigger problem than error in the Christian church. In the confession we are one with the church of history, so we discover treasures of faith. The relevance of the unity of faith is also clear in a correspondence between two important theologians in the Netherlands, Rev. G. Boer and dr. H. Berkhof.167 The rector of the seminary of the former Dutch Reformed Church (NHK) thinks that the preaching in the Reformed Association in the Dutch 166 Kohlbrugge is somewhat unknown in the international world. By now, something from his hand has been translated, Romans 7: A Paraphrase and ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit’. 167 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 564-605.

205

206

C. Systematic part

Reformed Church is too much marked by the question for God’s grace, while modern man does not even ask this question. In his opinion, Rev. Boer speaks as if he lives in the time of the Further Reformation. He also thinks that the confession of the Reformation is no match for the questions of the modern times. Rev. Boer does not deny the struggles concerning God’s existence, but underlines that the encounter between God and man, in all times and cultures, circles around the experience of sin and grace, and that this is where the lasting relevance of the classical confession lies. With this, he also makes clear that this confession does not only express an accent of God’s revelation, but belongs to the unrelinquishable heart of God’s revelation. In this way, he underlines the unity of faith through the centuries. With his answer, Boer says three things. Firstly, he says something about the nature of salvation, namely that Jesus Christ is a Saviour from sins. Here he is fully in agreement with the Apostles’ Creed, in which the confession of the deeds of the Triune God leads to the confession of the forgiveness of the sins in the church. Secondly, Boer says that the culture does not determine the interpretation of the Scriptures. Although every culture shows something of the wealth of the Scriptures and every interpretation of the Scriptures is marked by the culture in which we live, in the end we are not led by the questions that the culture asks us, but by the questions that God asks us. The most modern questions are the oldest questions, because catholicity contains premodernity, modernity and postmodernity. Questions which are now modern, may be outdated in twenty-five years. Here the expression is true that theology will soon be a widow when she marries the zeitgeist.168 This understanding also makes us reluctant to speak of a “theology after Auschwitz”. We should never play down the terrible drama of the Second World War and we have to recognize that theology was forcefully shaken here, but we cannot speak of a whole new theology. The theology after Auschwitz differs from the theology before Auschwitz, just as the theology of Augustine differs from the theology of Warfield. It is not a different Christ, but the same Christ in a different context. Bonhoeffer makes us sensitive for these questions in a context of secularization and Keller draws our attention to our calling in postmodern society, provided that these understandings function in a catholic framework. It goes wrong when the interpretation of the modern culture or a Reformed subculture speaks louder than the classical credo of the living Christ.169 If our faith is not 168 It is remarkable that H. Berkhof can also put the centre of gravity in the Gospel instead of in the culture, Inleiding tot de studie van de dogmatiek, 57-62. 169 Van de Beek, ‘Cultuur en katholiciteit’, 194-195.

Whole body and individual

always valid, it is not valid at all. Therefore, catholicity is not a sum of various modern ecumenical truths, but communion with the church of all ages. Thirdly, Boer shows that no single crisis of the culture is too big for the Gospel. Perhaps Berkhof fathomed the crisis of secularisation more deeply than Boer did. When we see the power of secularization, the complete relativization of any truth in postmodernism, the lawlessless of modern man, the total absence of God in the culture, the inward estrangement from the faith among younger and older churchgoers and the resistance in the heart of any man, we shake. That is why it can never be a cheap confession that the Gospel is able to face up to any culture and that is why theologians are necessary who have thoroughly studied the questions of their own times. And still we may say that there was never a cultural crisis in which Christ was not there. He who has become drawn into the crisis on Golgotha, receives the power of the light of the Gospel in the darkness of his heart. Our God is the God Who called Israel from under the scourge of Pharaoh and made a path through the Red Sea. He caused the walls of Jericho to fall down without using a human hand. This God helped Gideon against a great superior power and powerfully showed His help to David in afflictions. While the captivity was a powerful proof of the apparent powerlessness of Israel’s God, the Lord was also in the captivity and He delivered His people. The impossible happened. This history of crisis was fulfilled in the greatest crisis, namely the death of the Crucified One. According to Israel’s theology, a crucified person could not be raised from the dead, the powers of death appeared to triumph, but Christ is risen. God’s Gospel cannot be deducted from the circumstances and it never fits the frameworks of the here and now. It is a message that no ear has heard and has never entered the heart of man.170 Just as the apostles preached with the greatest certainty that Christ has risen from the dead, we may confess today that we have a living Christ, who has all power in heaven and on earth. Our faith can be terribly assaulted, we can have a sense of absolute desolation, a profound darkness can press us down like a heavy blanket and powerlessness can numb us, and yet nothing can prevent it that the light of the Gospel breaks through into our dark heart or into our dark culture. Then an expectation is born from the Gospel, there where there is no expectation. Then we strengthen ourselves in the Lord and praise His infallible Word. This is not a formal confession that we simply ought to recite, but this is where the heart of the Christian faith beats. The Gospel of the risen Prince of life is at stake here. That is why we have to interpret the confession as an existential doxology.

170 1 Cor. 2:9.

207

16.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

One of the most striking observations in the Early Church is the unity that they see in Christ’s body, His Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy. This cannot but draw our attention, because in modernity we are used to making endless distinctions and to see a great contrast between external baptism and the internal work of the Spirit. We can also distinguish between the orthodox doctrines intended for the heart and the Spirit Who works in the heart. In this chapter we will explore how we can make the structures of catholicity in the Early Church fertile once again, and what this means for the orthodox understanding of the truth. 16.1

The indwelling of the Spirit

The approach of the unity between the Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy in the Early Church challenges us to think separate from our own patterns and to recapture this unity. Then we will begin to think from the perspective of the Holy Spirit. The body of Christ is a temple of the Holy Spirit. This fact does not deny the work of the Spirit in the creation, but it does underline the place where the Spirit has His centre, namely in the body of Christ. After the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, He no longer has His residence in heaven; the church becomes the temple of the Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit is no longer given to individual kings or prophets, but to the whole of the church, in order that it shall be the fullness of Christ. This understanding gives us much appreciation for the church and it fills us with respect, modesty and desire. The church is the place where the Triune God enters into communion with sinners through the Holy Spirit. Through faith we may know that we are loved by the Triune God in His worship. That is why we cannot do without the mystery of the application by the Spirit, in ecclesiology. The participation in the Triune God is not a sum of several parts, or automatism, but it is the apex of the work of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit does not add anything to the reality in Christ, but He applies it, in such a way that the reality in Christ functions in our hearts. Without the Holy Spirit, we would be taken out of the water like a stone, but through the Holy Spirit we are like a sponge, and we are filled with the reality in which we are. Holy Baptism witnesses of this reality. The choice for this perspective in the Early Church and the Reformation shows that baptism was not considered a dead, objective ritual, but an expression of the living reality of Christ, in such a way that being ‘sanctified in Christ’ and being a ‘member of His church’ could

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

be connected. In this living reality of Christ and His body there is hope for dead sinners. That we why we approach this wrongly if we choose our starting point in the dead sinner, and judge the power of baptism by the possibilities of the dead sinner. We may choose our starting point for our thinking here in the living reality of Christ and the Spirit Who is sealed by Holy Baptism. The indwelling of the Spirit is not a static situation. On the contrary, the indwelling of the Spirit is not a replacement of the human personality, so a distinction remains between God’s Spirit and the human spirit. This means that the indwelling of the Spirit is very dynamical and that the church is not infallible. Nevertheless, we may say that the Spirit guides into all truth. So, there is a positive connection between orthodoxy and the Spirit, provided that we realize that orthodoxy cannot be identified with a rationalism that manages to formulate the propositions more and more precisely. Proper doxa has a rational structure, but at the same time it surpasses the limited human ratio. This is not the modern understanding of knowledge that implies mastering the truth, but is knowledge of the Truth Which controls us. Knowing the truth is knowing the Beloved One from whence astonishment, confidence, adoration and dependence, assurance and salvation, love and praise grow and flourish. For example, we discover that the Truth involves adoption. Adoption is not an intellectual theory, but a living reality, although it is not separated from our understanding. In Christ we can also speak of justification. In order to explain this mystery, we use legal terminology, even though we know that personal reconciliation with God is endlessly richer than we can ever express in terms of a legal transaction. The spiritual union with Christ places everything in the perspective of Christ, so the question about my identity (who am I?) is surpassed by the question about His identity (Whose am I?). In this way, the Spirit and orthodoxy fully belong together. It is a delicate thing to understand the truth intellectually, because we want to praise our heavenly Bridegroom with the language of our hearts in the purest tones. In this way, in the orthodox language, all strings of the believing soul are heard, because in this language the depth of God is expressed and mediated. It is better to experience this than to try and put it into words. 16.2

Reformed exclusivity

A question that arises in this context, is the relationship between a Reformed and a catholic identity. Isn’t Reformed thinking at odds with catholic thinking, and doesn’t this imply exclusivity for Reformed Christians? The well-known Scottish theologian rabbi John Duncan was afraid of this Reformed exclusivity: ‘I am first a Christian, next a Catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a Paedobaptist,

209

210

C. Systematic part

and fifth a Presbyterian and I cannot reverse this order.’171 In order to illustrate this saying, he used the metaphor of a tower with a broad footing and a top which becomes narrower the higher it is. This is how he shows in words and image how the Reformed is a particularization of the catholic. It is possible to belong to the catholic church of Christ without having a Reformed identity. It seems that a lot is gained by this approach. If we continue this line, the Reformed is a specialization within the catholic. Consciously or unconsciously, this may be accompanied by the impression that the Reformed is a pinching of the space of the catholic. Duncan is right in saying that we cannot absolutize the Reformed confession, as if there are no true believers without a Reformed account of their faith. Then Athanasius and Augustine would have been without true faith and even Anselmus would not partake of it.172 The Reformed tradition has never absolutized itself. In the Reformed tradition, a distinction has always been made between person and doctrine. It was believed that a member of the Roman Catholic Church could have true faith in his heart without confessing the true faith. Other examples of this could be given. Whitefield esteemed Wesley, as a believer, much higher than himself, but he clearly dissented from his Arminianism. Duncan can also wonder how many errors a person may have and still be a true believer. The understanding that a grain of grace can be hidden in a dungheap of sins or errors has always led to much hesitation in judging the hearts of others. In this sense, it is Reformed to be strict towards oneself and gentle for another person.173 This attitude gives room to discover true Christians in the EasternOrthodox church, the Roman-Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran church, the Pentecostal churches, among the Methodists, the Baptists and all sorts of Reformed people. There may even be true believers in sects. The absolutization of this approach means a relativization of the Reformed confession. This relativization of the Reformed confession with an appeal to a catholic Christianity perfectly suits our postmodern climate in which we tend to have problems with too absolute statements about God’s kingdom. Moreover, it is a reassuring thought that the Father in heaven does not use a checklist of beliefs to test people at the gates of heaven. This relativization of the Reformed confession is characterized by the assumption that the Reformed confession is a limitation of catholic Christianity; as if it is a kind of a harness in which one is tied up and an accumulation of 171 Knight, Colloquia Peripatetica, 8. 172 Cf. Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 79. 173 Mark 9:40 teaches us to be big-hearted towards others, Matt. teaches us to be strict for ourselves.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

strict rules; as if the Reformed doctrines intend to judge others. Undoubtedly, examples of this can be given and exciting novels have been writing about these issues. However, these abuses do not change that fact that we must distinguish between the character of the Reformed confession and the abuse of it. This consideration leads us to the peculiar character of the Reformed expressions of faith.174 People often think that there is no Reformed identity outside the Reformed circles. However, this is not correct because in the Reformed tradition dozens of confessions have been developed each with its own approach. In contrast to the Lutheran tradition, the Reformed tradition has not allowed itself to be laid down in a Book of Concord. Nor can Reformed be identified with Calvinism, since so many more reformers contributed to the Reformation. Nor can we equate the Reformed identity with the doctrine of election, the doctrine of the covenants, the doctrine of justification, the extra calvinisticum or the concept of the unio mystica, because all of these concepts were already known before the Reformation. The same is true for the acronym TULIP (= Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of Saints) to characterize the doctrines of faith, because this does not do justice to the delicate nuances in the Canons of Dort or earlier theologians, even apart from the fact that the Canons of Dort were not meant to be a summary of the whole of Reformed theology. Undoubtedly, the abovementioned characterizations are characteristic of the Reformed tradition, but they cannot be used as an exclusive definition of the Reformed identity. Moreover, an exclusive definition gives rise to the question about the boundaries of being Reformed. Is it possible to be Reformed while limiting baptism to adult persons? Was Bullinger Reformed with his doubts about reprobation? Is a Congregationalist Reformed? Is a person Reformed who accepts chiliasm? Or if one has doubts about the unabridged Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith? These questions make clear that it is not easy to lay down the Reformed identity. That is the reason why some people have advocated using plural forms when speaking of Reformed theologies and traditions. The word ‘re-form’ already shows that Reformed theology intends nothing but to reembrace the doctrines of the Early Church. That is why the Reformed position is not a separation from the catholic, but a preservation of the catholic,

174 This paragraph and the next are based on Van den Brink and Smits, ‘The Reformed Stance’. They conclude that the ultimate appeal to the whole Scripture is most characteristic for Reformed theology. For a similar approach, see Wentsel, De Heilige Geest, de Kerk en de laatste dingen, 400-430.

211

212

C. Systematic part

not a ‘plus’ in addition to the catholic, but ‘just’ catholic.175 That is why the confession of the refugee churches of Frankfurt am Main and London started with the words ‘Confession of the catholic faith’.176 In the classical Form for the Administration of Baptism, one made confession of faith from the ‘articles of the Christian faith’. The Apostles’ Creed is also present in the Form for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper, while the Heidelberg Catechism deals with the Apostles’ Creed as the substance of true faith. The reformers did not object to catholicity as such, but they criticized the limitation of catholicity to Rome. C.S. Lewis wrote: “The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specifically from apostolic Christianity I reject (...) I a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much as provincial or local variation from the ancient tradition as any particular sect is.”177 The analysis of Ph. Schaff is worth to refer to: “The Reformation of the sixteenth century is (...) the greatest event in history. Is was no sudden revolution (...) It was not a superficial amendment, not a mere restoration, but a regeneration, not a return to Augustinian, or Nicene, or ante-Nicene age, but a vast progress beyond any previous age or condition of the church since the death of St. John. It went, through the intervening ages of ecclesiasticism, back to the fountain-head of Christianity itself, as it came from the lips of the Son of God and his inspired Apostles. It was a deeper plunge into the meaning of the Gospel than even St. Augustine had made.”178

A.A. Van Ruler considered the Reformed position the ‘most beautiful and richest form of the catholic-Christian’.179 He could say: The Reformation of the sixteenth century also was fully a reformation of the catholic church. It was not a removal, in which a new house – ‘Reformation church’! – was built and inhabited besides the old house of the catholic church. It was not a great cleaning in which the building remained and continued to be inhabited, but was cleansed and reorganised on the inside and the outside. The reformed church is the 175 G. Boer says: ‘The church of the Reformation is truly connected to the Church of all ages. In the Apostles’ Creed, it praises the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Herein it has preserved its catholic character’, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 610. 176 Koolhaas, ‘De Katholiciteit der Kerk’, 18. 177 C.S. Lewis, The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis 2:646-647. See also K.J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 148. 178 Ph. Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom I:204. 179 Van Ruler, Verzameld Werk deel 4B, 721.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

catholic church – in its Reformed shape. And this involves that not only all catholic things must be experienced in a Reformed way, but also vice versa, that all Reformed things must be experienced in a catholic way. That is what we have to be looking for, zealously and fervently: for the catholicity of its Reformed religion and church! Otherwise one will end up, with their reformation, in the dead end of the sect.180

The words of G. Boer are in line with this: Being Reformed is not a luxury item. It is a gracious gift which is received and kept in the church and personally in the spiritual condition of the publican. Reformed means being risen from the dead and always rising again, hearing and believing God’s Word, being in Christ and living from the full treasure of the Word of God (…). That is why, in my opinion, Reformed is not a smaller or larger plus to universally Christian. Today we sometimes see that Reformed is changed for universally Christian, because being Reformed would be more or less a luxury item. This is a serious misunderstanding. Because then Dort – no matter how much the church is at conflict here – is an indispensable redundancy. Being Reformed means being thoroughly Biblical.181

He also emphasizes that this order cannot be reversed. The Bible is much richer than the Reformed confession will ever be able to express. In this connection to the Scriptures, we find the deepest motivation for the Reformed confession. In the Reformed confession, no questionable theoretical opinions are confessed, but that which is inseparably connected to the deepest reality in Christ. In spiritual communion with the ancient church, the Father of Jesus Christ was recognized as the Creator of Heaven and Earth. With Athanasius, they confessed the divinity of God’s Son in a Trinitarian framework, in which God’s pleasure to do well has assumed flesh and blood, namely in the incarnation. With the Apostles’ Creed, salvation was summarized in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and eternal life. In the Augustinian revival of the Reformation, the gracious character of salvation was made relevant in the confession of God’s election, and the distinction between the visible and invisible church, which revolved around the personal character of the participation in salvation. In line with Anselm, it was expressed that in the cross not only something about God is shown, but also something happens.182

180 Van Ruler, ‘Hervorming’, 161. Translated by Peter Meeuse. 181 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 613. Translated by Peter Meeuse. 182 Sell, Confessing the Faith Yesterday and Today, 269.

213

214

C. Systematic part

The catholic faith can be practically summarized in these few key terms. This once again reminds us of the metaphor of the one sun that Irenaeus used. God’s truth is not a sum of separate truths, but an undivided truth.183 If we allow the truth to fall apart into separate parts, the Person of the speaking God becomes invisible: ‘Only an unending series of human singulars [can] be a reference to the inexhaustible riches of the one Truth’184 , because God is without end. In this sense, the catholic-Reformed faith is plain and deep. Of course, more words can be used that further explain and concretize this deep truth. We can speak of the creation, fall, Scripture, sacraments, church, Spirit, second coming, etcetera. All these loci cannot be isolated from each other, because the multitude is an expression of unity: ‘In the Christian church, there are not so many doctrines.’185 ‘Perhaps it would be wise for the church not to make its confession too broad, and then to guard its centre.’186 The other side of this, is that catholicity fades away when these foundational elements in faith and theology fade away. When we doubt the true divinity of Christ we do not essentially differ from a Muslim. A faith that does not arise from the reality of the new creation in Christ cannot be called a catholic faith. All sorts of modern theology that have the here and now at its centre, have lost their catholic character. This is also true for a faith that does not focus on forgiveness, a faith from which the corporeal resurrection has practically disappeared, a faith without the personal dimension which is anchored in the electing God Himself, or a faith that is not born from God’s speaking. He who tampers with God’s speaking in the Scriptures, also tampers with God’s speaking in creation. Trifling with the Word that has become Scripture cannot but have consequences for the understanding of the Word that has become Flesh. If our thinking about the Word that has become flesh is no longer anchored in the Word that has become Scripture, our theology of Christ’s work is also at risk. There is a deep relationship between the different aspects of God’s undivided truth. This undivided truth involves passion. When this undivided truth is at stake, we have to be just as careful as a person who walks on a rope above the Niagara Falls. Athanasius was willing to be exiled for the sake of the difference of one letter, homo-ousios or homoi-ousios. The matter was about the subtle difference whether God’s Son is of the same substance as God or of a similar substance to 183 Cf. Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 594. 184 Berkhof, De katholiciteit der kerk, 76. On the next page, Berkhof refers to a meaningful saying of Noordmans: ‘Doctrine has the singular as its limit.’ 185 Van Ruler, ‘De pretentie van de kerk’, 73. 186 Boer, Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap, 612. According to O. Noordmans, the confession of the main points of faith are characteristic of Calvinism, ‘Het calvinisme en de oecumene’, Verzamelde werken deel 6, 408.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

God. Later Wilhelmus à Brakel would say about it: ‘Athanasius would rather forsake and lose his position than one letter of the truth.’ Luther used to say: ‘I would rather have the heavens fall down, than that one crumb of truth would perish.’187 Calvin also preached with this understanding of the preciousness of God’s truth: ‘It is the universal duty of all pastors or shepherds, to defend the doctrine which they proclaim, even at the expense of their life, and to seal the doctrine of the Gospel with their blood.’188 Samuel Rutherford was exiled to Aberdeen for the confession of Christ’s kingship. This gives so much force his appeal “Be fixed and fast for Christ and His truth”.189 That is why it is truly Reformed to remain in a living communion with the catholic church and to exercise ourselves in this communion. In this way, we prevent the Reformed confession from being absolutized, the relativization of the Reformed identity can be countered and we can share in the full wealth of the catholic faith. 16.3

Reformed 2.0

In the Reformed tradition, it is not only a problem to interpret the common heritage, but there is also the question how to deal with present-day theological questions. A.L.Th. de Bruijne wrote a striking column in the Dutch newspaper Nederlands Dagblad of 9 April 2016. Because of the international character of this issue, I have included the whole column: There are two types of being Reformed and they cannot get along with each other. I had already been half-conscious of it for a long time, but my time in America and my contacts with foreign theologians and students made this very clear once again. The first type considers Reformed as a fixed identity, which is in particular defined by the sixteenth and seventeenth century confessions. For example, the Belgic Confession or the Westminster Confession contain the authoritative expression of faith. That is the basis of your thinking. The opinions of others are measured by it. You do not tolerate any deviations. You apply the once-defined truth to a changing practice. In America I have met many Presbyterian Christians who are Reformed in this way. It felt familiar because I recognized my own past in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated). At the same time, I felt alienation. And strangely, I felt more affinity with a second category of Reformed people. They often belonged to churches 187 À Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service 4:95. 188 Comm. John 10:12. 189 Rutherford, Godsdienstige brieven, 355.

215

216

C. Systematic part

that were a little less rigidly confessional and who adorned themselves with vague characterizations such as evangelical-Reformed or open-orthodox. Why did I feel more at home with them? They approach Reformed as a story that is not finished yet. They do not know what is coming and the end is still unknown to them. You may never forget that the story started with the confessions of the Reformation, you may not stand still there. The Reformation only formed a phase in the history of the church and its products irrevocably reflect the limitations of their time. With this approach, there is room for criticism and alternate views. It takes less effort to recognize failures and one-sidedness in the Reformed way of believing and to honour valuable elements from other traditions. I perceived that Reformed people in America often harshly judge this second category of Reformed people. I am sorry to say that this also felt familiar. Today in the Netherlands we experience a special rapprochement between different Reformed and even somewhat less Reformed denominations. This may seem possible because we build lower church walls and emphasize Christian love. But I think there is also something else behind it: a shift towards a different way of being Reformed. (…) Today, for example, in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated), we hear views on justification and sanctification, the position of the law, or the character of God, that do not easily fit in with the confession. And now that we have become contextually and culturally sensitive (…) we think about many things, but while doing so we less frequently start with the confessions than that we do start with them. Rigid certainties are replaced by the understanding that many views with respect to faith remain limited and provisional. Voices from other traditions are very welcome. We also tolerate those who are worried about this. In my opinion this proves that we are now on our way to the second way of being Reformed. Am I worried about it? Certainly not, but that is not my point here. In my opinion, we should become more conscious of this shift and not just naively let it happen. Do we want to be on our way to Reformed 2.0?190

We hear several things in De Bruijne’s argumentation. Firstly, we hear an interpretation of the conflict between a strict and rigid confessionalism on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a Reformed theology that has much more

190 A. de Bruijne, ‘Willen wij op weg naar ‘gereformeerd 2.0’?’, Nederlands Dagblad, 9 April 2016. A. Huijgen responded to it, ‘Theologenblog: Gereformeerde belijdenis is geen koude meetlat’, Nederlands Dagblad, 19 April 2016.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

sensitivity for the questions that arise from the culture. This causes a short circuit. Secondly, in this column we hear that some Reformed people have discovered the ‘light’ and are moving towards the modern Reformed. Because they have given up their rigid confessionalism, there is more familiarity between the different types of being Reformed. Thirdly, De Bruijne highlights the fact that there are two types of Reformed people, both nationally and internationally. There are Reformed people in America who are Reformed in a rigidly confessionalistic way, and there are Reformed people who have adopted a new version of the Reformed identity. Both ways of being Reformed are incompatible. Next De Bruijne also puts this development in a broader ecclesiastical context when he accurately states that this is the process that several churches are now in, and that this leads to mutual recognition. How should we weigh Reformed 2.0 in light of the catholicity of the church? It is possible that De Bruijne is critical towards confessionalism. Confessionalism makes the confession an unwaveringly logical and legal system of truths, in which one almost mathematically manages to see deviations, which leads to deposals and schisms, suspensions and breaks. In this situation, the confession functions as the statutory basis of an association and it is separated from the broad riverbed of history and covenant, Pneumatology and liturgy, sacrament and orthopraxy. In this way, the church becomes a school.191 An intellectualisation takes place, while the reality of the church as the body of Christ fades. Then the confession is not a function of the church in which she as the bride of Christ expresses her love. God is served with a ‘zeal not according to knowledge’. The question is, however, whether the critical response to this way of being Reformed must be a new way of being Reformed, in which views on justification and sanctification are adopted that “do not easily fit in with the confession”, in other words: views that are in conflict with the Reformed confession. Partly influenced by the cultural context, any certainty about the confession disappears and a far-reaching relativization and fading of the Reformed confession takes place. This process of relativization is strengthened because the historically confessed faith is considered a phase of the Christian faith. Is this catholic? We have seen that it is catholic to believe in the guidance of the Spirit in tradition. That is why we do not start out a substantive theological conversation with nothing, but in the framework of the one faith that will be expressed on different moments in history. Through the confession we are connected to previous generations because it is not a different faith, but the same faith. I wonder if the suprahistorical unity in Reformed 2.0 actually functions. 191 Cf. Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 88.

217

218

C. Systematic part

Here, in a formal sense, a parallel arises with the history of the Arminians who wanted an open discussion about the doctrines of salvation without starting from the faith that had been confessed before. Moreover, De Bruijne places the confession in a historical context without taking into account the suprahistorical aspect of faith. It seems as if the confession is seen as a scientific theory that continually develops in the course of the centuries, the newest version being the most reliable one. However, the catholic understanding is precisely that the confession of faith does not develop like a scientific theory, and that the idea of progress (from the nineteenth century) is not a presupposed framework in the church, but that there is a unity of believing throughout the ages. There is a growth and deepening of faith, at certain moments in history a very deep insight can develop into a certain aspect of the belief as in the Reformation, but it is still the same faith. The example of Vincent is striking and useful: our limbs will grow, but there are no new limbs. The historical faith can be retrieved, reinterpreted and reapplied, but it retains the same content. It is important to hold to this historical faith, in order that the sharp contours of doctrine do not fade into the fog of innovation.192 De Bruijne goes from bad to worse when he replaces Reformed 1.0 by Reformed 2.0. This change is characterized by a response theology, which is never catholic. He rightly resists the view that the truth is completely crystallized in clear principles in such a way that they only have to be applied, but he goes to the other extreme when he no longer takes his starting point in the confession. Reformanda (to reform), but no reformata (being reformed).193 Since confessionalism is not the catholic-Reformed confession, Reformed 2.0 is a wrong response to a wrong Reformed 1.0. Reformed 1.0 is characterized by believing the confession, but the authentically Reformed is the confession of the faith.194 If we are in tune with the historical confession, we do not need an alternative Reformed identity, but we can experience, confess and exercise the faith from spiritual union with the church of all ages. Reformed 2.0 eventually goes back to the relationship between ‘doctrine and the Lord’. Ethical theologians place them opposite each other: ‘Not doctrine, but the Lord.’ This was in response to confessionalism, where the opposite was practised: ‘Not the Lord, but doctrine.’ The living Reformed faith identifies best with the doctrine in which the Lord is confessed. We speak in terms of doctrine about the Lord Jesus Christ. On the one hand, this means that doctrine is not an abstract system that 192 Cf. Van Ruler, ‘Het einde van een huishoudelijke twist’, Theologisch Werk vol. 2, 209-219, here 215. 193 Cf. Van ’t Spijker, Eenheid in verscheidenheid?, 35. 194 W. van ’t Spijker opposes a shift to the religion of the confession, Eenheid in verscheidenheid?, 54-55.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

is always repeated, and on the other hand it means that doctrine is based on the deepest reality in Christ. 16.4

Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda

Reformed catholicity is full and rich, wide and deep. In the seventh Article of the Belgic Confession of Faith this is clearly expressed by the recognition that the truth is above everything else. Apparently, it is reformed par excellence to have a passion for the truth. This implies that it is Reformed to seek all the truth and to hunger for the catholic fullness of truth in the understanding that all truth is God’s truth: Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda. The receptivity to the discovery of God’s truth and the openness to addition to and correction of the understanding of it, also involves communication. If, in sectarian ways, we are convinced that we possess the truth, then we avoid discussions, condemn others without listening to them, or we focus on proving that we are right. A catholic understanding, however, causes us to listening to the other person, also when we initially do not agree with him. We even try to find an aspect of truth behind the error. Apparently, the certainty of Christ and His Word gives so much certainty and relaxation to the catholic person, that he is prepared to consider everything in that light. It is catholic to give the best of each tradition a place in our theology, liturgy and piety.195 Then we do justice to the church and the offices, preaching and sacraments, confession and liturgy, mystics and ethics, church and state, person and whole, predestination and covenant, experience and doctrine, intellect and affection. Unlike any other interpretation of the Christian faith, Reformed theology does justice to the Old Testament and enters into conversation with the exegesis of the rabbis. It does not avoid questions about the government of the church. In Reformed theology, there is no exclusive focus on the doctrine of justification, like there is in the Lutheran tradition, but all aspects of creation and recreation are highlighted. In this section we ask ourselves how this continuing reformation is given form. We will first look at the historical line, next to the present-day conversation, and finally we will ask ourselves what the effect is on Reformed doctrines. Looking at the historical line, we cannot ignore the conversation with Rome. If the Reformed tradition was critical towards the Roman-Catholic institution and could nevertheless hold a positive interaction with the members of this institution, we should not feel embarrassed when we permit ourselves to learn

195 Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 81.

219

220

C. Systematic part

from Christians in this institution with respect to doctrine, life or spirituality.196 The belief that the Scriptures were or are absolutely forbidden in the Roman Catholic Church is undoubtedly a caricature.197 The same is true for the view that only Mary was worshipped in the monasteries and that lust (for power) was rampant.198 These abuses existed and they had increased in particular during the late Middle Ages, but we do not do justice to the mediaeval church when we raise the impression that this was the only thing. Moreover, there were and there still are Roman Catholic theologians who called for a return to the theology and piety of the Early Church, such as H.U. von Balthasar and Th.G. Weinandy, without forgetting that the former is a universalist and the latter places so much emphasis on transcendence that God’s wrath and reconciliation actually cannot function. We can have the same critical interaction with the work of Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI who teaches us a lot about the Person and the work of Jesus.199 Which experiential Protestant cannot spiritually identify with the following poem by the Roman-Catholic priest and poet Guido Gezelle (1830–1899)? Thou prayedst alone on a mountain, and … Jesus, I find nothing where I can climb high enough to find Thee alone: The world wants to go behind me, wherever I go or stand or ever look and nobody is as poor as I am; not one, who is in need and cannot complain; who is hungry and cannot ask; who is in pain and cannot tell how much it hurts! o teach me, poor fool, how I must pray!

196 Andrew Bonar, a friend of McCheyne, several times led a marriage service in a Roman Catholic Church, Diary and Life, 320. 197 Selderhuis, Luther. Een mens zoekt God, 28-29. 198 Mackay, ‘Trias canonica, naar een herijking van het traditiebegrip’, 86. 199 Ratzinger, Jezus van Nazareth.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

The legendary Rev. Doornenbal said he never cried, but his tears ran down his cheeks when he read the autobiography of Thérèse of Lisieux. Later he visited her and, as he revealed, burned a candle. He felt a bond to the lady who wrote in The Story of a Soul: “These words threw a clear light upon the mystery of my vocation and of my entire life, and above all upon the favours which Our Lord has granted to my soul. He does not call those who are worthy, but those whom He will. As St. Paul says: ‘God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.’”200 Two years before her death, she could write: “When comes the evening of life, I shall stand before Thee with empty hands, because I do not ask Thee, my God, to take account of my works. All our works of justice are blemished in Thine Eyes. I wish therefore to be robed with Thine own Justice, and to receive from Thy Love the everlasting gift of Thyself. I desire no other Throne, no other Crown but Thee, O my Beloved!”201 Despite all sorts of Roman-Catholic baggage, we find in her life a spirituality that arises from union with Christ. Similarly, it is possible to learn from the Eastern church to find out why it still resists the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son) or we may wonder if we might get a deeper understanding of the Scriptures when we listen to what they mean by theosis (= deification). If we want to enter into conversation with Christians, we can look into many directions. Western Christianity is no longer the defining face of Christianity and hasn’t been so for a long time, and there is much reason to speak of a ‘new catholicity’.202 While Western Christianity is strongly marked by the conflict with the Enlightenment, in Africa, Asia and Latin-America we find a Christianity that looks to the Scriptures with much more frankness, in which the non-material creation of angels and demons is much more a living reality, in which one lives from the collective whole instead of from postmodern hyperindividualism and in which God’s presence in creation is also substantially experienced. Perhaps this explains why, south of the Sahara, the fastest growing Christianity is found in the form of Pentecostalism. According to the recent survey of ‘Christianity 2015’ these Pentecostals consist of more than 640 million Christians, more than a quarter of the total number of Christians worldwide.203 A Reformed Christian will look critically at how the relationship between Word and Spirit functions in this Christianity. Moreover, the theology of the cross 200 201 202 203

Van Lisieux, Mijn roeping is de liefde, 17. Translated by Peter Meeuse. Hegger, Bijbelse elementen bij rooms-katholieke mystici, 37. Translated by Peter Meeuse. Schreiter, The New Catholicity; Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity. Cf. Van den Toren, ‘Geliefde, ik wens dat het u in alles goed gaat en dat u gezond bent’.

221

222

C. Systematic part

will give a critical approach of any form of prosperity theology. However, this does not change the fact that we as modern people may learn something from the experience of God’s presence in daily life, in contrast to our mechanized understanding of divine providence.204 While Reformed religion in the Western world encompasses the civil middle class, we see that in Pentecostalism the boundary of society is addressed by the Word of God. This reminds us of the ministry of Jesus, Who related “real” sinners to His message.205 Do we miss something, or do we have too much? If the Reformed tradition, despite 1054 and 1517, thought and lived in an ‘outer-Reformed catholic’ way, it must be possible to practise ‘inner-Reformed catholicity’ in this tradition. If we consider our own (sub)traditions normative, catholicity withers. But when we live from the catholic understanding that the truth is greater than our understanding of it, valuable encounters around the Word could take place. We really need each other in order to understand the full wealth of the Word ‘with all the saints’. Probably we learn most from Christians whom we initially feel the least familiar with. That is why we should never say: ‘I am of Calvin, of Comrie, of Kohlbrugge, of Kuyper or of Kersten’, but from universality: ‘Calvin, Comrie, Kohlbrugge, Kuyper and Kersten belong to the church.’ All these different traditions contain experiences with and understandings of the Word that we cannot ignore. After all, we are not the first and the only ones who have received the Spirit. This affords a rich variety in the catholic faith. We have seen this variety with respect to covenant theology, but this variety is much wider. There are differences in justification theology and sanctification theology. There are numerous variations with respect to Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity. We have already seen that the structures of the doctrine of atonement have changed within the Reformed tradition in the course of time. Theologians also have had different opinions about the nature and assurance of faith. There have been differences with respect to the nature and the destination of paradise or with respect to the new earth. Luther and Calvin were exceptions in the great Christian tradition in their denial of the freedom of the will. There have also been numerous variations with respect to the future. The understanding of the relationship between Word and Spirit may vary, and differences may be found with respect to the position and the work of the Spirit. It is needless to say that the doctrine of the church has been interpreted in very different ways. Undoubtedly, there is a connection between the different views of baptism and the understanding of the Lord’s Supper. 204 P.L. Berger edited a challenging title: The Desecularization of the World. Resurgent Religion and World Politics. 205 Luke 15:1-2.

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

That is why it is so important to ask what exactly is meant. When Luther denies the liberty of the will, does he mean something else than a representative of reformed orthodoxy who advocates speaking of the freedom of the will?206 And what does a Baptist from Moldavia mean when he speaks of the freedom of the will? What is the connection to the denial of free will in neurobiology?207 A similar thing is true with respect to the important point of infant baptism. In the Reformed tradition, there is no doubt that God includes children in the marriage covenant with His people. This makes re-baptism a serious thing. The reliability of God is questioned by it, because He will never revoke what He once said (in baptism). We must be baptized only once in order to enter into God’s kingdom.208 When we use this confession as a rule from the church regulations, we easily draw our conclusions about today’s re-baptizers. We can conclude that they have joined a different congregation and next remove them from the administration of the church. Does this formal reasoning do justice to the mystery of the catholic church? Undoubtedly, there are re-baptizers who reject their infant baptism. But is this always the case? Isn’t it possible that they actually mean a renewal of the covenant?209 Isn’t there the risk that we allow the church order to reign instead of serve? Is it necessary for us to dismiss Bunyan, Spurgeon and Philpot as church members? Is it possible that we, as a result of the hyper-individualism of our culture, all have some embarrassment to describe the reality of baptism and that re-baptizers draw the consequences from the individualism that we are all full of? We can also enter into a conversation with theologians in the recent tradition. Despite the critical review of Bavinck in this book, his consideration of the Christian faith is deep in particular because he entered into a real conversation with people who thought differently and allowed them to say what they wanted to say before he gave his analysis. Kuyper is known for his presumptive regeneration, but it is very possible that we, in reaction to him, have lost something of the wealth that our tradition found in baptism. Noordmans’ appeal to the Scriptures gives rise to questions, but he is right in highlighting Kuyper’s culture theology. There are numerous reasons not to agree with the theology of Karl Barth, if only this is not an excuse to think that we have God and His Word in our pocket. A.A. van Ruler (1908–1970) lacked the fundamental distinction 206 207 208 209

Cf. Van Asselt, Bac and Te Velde (ed.), Reformed Thought on Freedom. Swaab, We Are Our Brains, 326-338. Art. 34 Belgic Confession of Faith. Cf. Graafland, Volwassendoop, kinderdoop, herdoop, 59-70. Because baptism does nothing, but is a seal, W. à Brakel says: ‘Since, however, baptism is only a seal of regeneration, there is no objection as such if someone were to be sealed twice in reference to the same matter (…) This concern issues forth from the Papist position concerning the efficacy of baptism’, The Christian’s Reasonable Service 2:491.

223

224

C. Systematic part

between enjoying God and enjoying the world, but he caused whole generations to be in debt to him for his thinking about theocracy, so that we can never have a neutral view of the state. W. Aalders (1909–2005), responding to Van Ruler, drew attention to citizenship of two worlds in moving terms. H.N. Ridderbos (1909–2007) advocated giving attention to the history of redemption, in such a way that it was not necessary to go back behind the text, but to reckon with a continuing revelation of Christ and His salvation. Van de Beek does not do justice to the state of innocence and to a life from the risen Christ, but he was right in drawing attention to the theology of the cross and the eschatological tension in which we live. Van den Brink and Van der Kooi understand the Scriptures as a testimony of Christ in a Trinitarian perspective, while the catholic-reformed understanding of the creation, the Scriptures, personal election and eternal punishment has lost significance. Wright has taught us to understand the Scriptures as a great narrative, but the doctrine of personal justification was lost in the process. Many more names could be mentioned. Also when theology is even substantively, diametrically opposed to the Reformed confession, it may address problems or insights that we have overlooked. Our deepest struggles to obtain a better understanding of God’s truth usually take place in confrontation with those who differ from us most. If we truly try to fathom the other person’s thinking, we discover where the crux points are and where theological decisions are made. In this way, we discover how valuable God’s truth is, in a pathway of conflict. This does not mean that catholicity leads to an endless extension of perspectives and insights. Qualitative catholicity remains the criterion for quantitative catholicity. That is why we also critically look at ourselves and our tradition. It is quite possible that there has been much naivety which, due to continuing theological development, began to have an undesired effect. A well-known example of this is the discussion about the position of philosophy in theology. Luther stated that we can only be Christian theologians without Aristotle. Still it becomes clear in history that we cannot do without thought structures. Reformed orthodoxy amply uses it. The critical moment occurs when human thought structures influence theology so much that it becomes a theology from below to above instead of a theology from salvation above. In this interaction with representatives of all ages, of all places and of all denominations, it is important to recognize the catholic character of theological and spiritual approaches. After all, we may never allow our agenda to be determined by our culture and by our needs. Our (post)modern glasses are not normative for reading and understanding God’s Word. This makes us critical towards ourselves, because we quite often (unconsciously) make our own problems, questions and restless modern theology normative for historical theology, whereas catholic mindedness works the other way around. Then the

Spirit, baptism and orthodoxy

Scriptures come first, as they have been interpreted in the community of the catholic church of all ages. We conform to the understanding of this church, rather than imposing our own interpretive frameworks on this church. The understanding of communion with the Triune God is central here. The ultimate criterion for a catholic-reformed theologian is obedience to the Scriptures.210 The appeal to the Scriptures is not a virus that destroys the body of the church, but the antibody that attacks the infections of the body of the church.211 Vanhoozer rightly writes: “The Reformation was the curative process that restored the health and organic unity to the body of Christ, precisely by recovering the wealth of catholic tradition.”With all insights from our time and from the past, we always return to God’s Word: “Order my steps in Thy Word.” This criterion makes us, on the one hand, unhindered in our theology, and on the other hand unambiguous in our confession. We are afraid to cross the boundaries of the Word, and we experience that God’s truth liberates us. The awareness that many wolves try to break into the fold, puts pressure on us to lose the liberty in God’s reality, and withdraw into a safe subculture. At the same time, we realize that the lack of catholic fullness makes Christianity defenceless against the emptiness in our culture, so this emptiness can be filled by Islam or other religions. This tempts us to allow the Gospel to fade, and to accept everything to take the stumbling blocks out of the exclusive Gospel. From these extremes it is clear that the catholic life is a narrow path, in which we live in the room of inexhaustible salvation in Christ. Finally, what is the effect of this continuing reformation and what is the relationship between the continuing confession and previous confession? We have already seen that continuing confession does not have its own dynamics by which it is separated from previous confessions, but that previous confession is cumulatively included in the continuing confession. So, it is also true that continuing confession is not a repetition of the historical confession. Words from the past may have a very different meaning now. When we use these words, we may say something else with the same words. Sometimes we have to say things differently to say the same thing. This is true within one person’s life or within one denomination, let alone in a broader context. The continuing confession moves between these two extremes of static repetition and revolutionary dynamics. For example, Calvin continued to develop his Institutes, the Canons of Dort spoke more concretely about election and reconciliation, Owen developed his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Kohlbrugge brought up the meaning of the fulfilled history of redemption, and today we have to speak out about the meaning of the Scriptures. When we confess the authority of Scripture 210 Van den Brink and Smits, ‘The Reformed Stance’. 211 Cf. K.J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 200.

225

226

C. Systematic part

today, we no longer have to deal with a church in which tradition has equal authority to the Scriptures, but we have to deal with numerous churches each of which appeals to the Bible, so a re-appraisal of the tradition is necessary in response to the soloistic sola scriptura. Due to an increased historical awareness and the rise of historical science, the historical reliability has been questioned. Philosophical reflection on the foundations of knowledge has given rise to the question whether the authority of Scripture in the Reformed tradition was not used as a rational epistemological principle. In our culture, a division of joint property has taken place between the visible and the invisible, and it has been stated that our words about above come from beneath, even if we say that they come from above (Kuitert). We have to deal with a postmodern climate in which any authority is doubted in advance, just like any absolute claim to truth. Moreover, the modern questions of hermeneutics question the unambiguous interpretation of the Scriptures, and give the reader a substantial say in the understanding of the Scriptures, so that we can speak of the crisis of Scripture principle.212 If, in this crisis, we only quoted Article 2–7 from the Belgic Confession of Faith, we actually confess nothing, and we deny our calling to confess. From a deep understanding of the crisis of Scriptural faith, we need to listen again to the witness of the catholic church of all ages in order to reformulate this ancient faith in our present context. In short, not a static repetition but a spiritual, not a revolutionary dynamic, but the dynamic of the ancient Scriptural faith. The reformulation of Scriptural faith is just one example. From the understanding of the Scriptures, the Great Awakening led to the criticism and the abolition of slavery. It also involved a great revolution in thought when the task of mission was actually put into practice at the end of the eighteenth century. Who knows where a continuing reformation will lead the church in the twenty-first century, and what this will mean for ecology or economy. We long for a reformed catholic church in which we, with all the saints understand a little of the depths and riches of the catholic Christ. In union and communion with Him the body of Christ is more important than in Rome, the church is more catholic than the Roman-catholic church, tradition is valued higher than in the church of the Middle Ages, the unity of the church functions better than in ecumenism, Scripture is more highly esteemed than by Luther, the Holy Spirit is more trusted than in the Pentecostal movement, the confession is valued more highly than in strict confessionalism and the human individual is more respected than in humanism.213 Reformed Christians are reformed Catholics who honor Christ’s own words and who are conscious of his body. 212 Pannenberg, ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’. 213 Cf. K.J. Vanhoozer, Biblical Authority after Babel, 195.

17.

Being a holy stranger and pilgrim

In the Early Church, living from the catholic fullness in Christ was combined with being strangers and pilgrims. Bavinck brought up the question if this critical dissociation from the world and its culture does justice to Christ’s cosmic mediatorship. Before we address this question, we will investigate how the holiness of the church and the virtues of the Christian are related to a life of being a stranger and pilgrim. We can here speak of the expression of catholicity. 17.1

Forgiveness of all sins

The nobility of holy marriage to the heavenly Bridegroom Christ is firstly a privilege and secondly a calling. It is calling for the bride of Christ to be devoted to the heavenly Bridegroom. This is a great calling, since everything in this world is opposed to our belonging to Christ. The powers to draw us away come from outside, but they are also certainly present in the church. The history of the church is a great testimony to the struggle for the holiness of the church. The credibility of the church is at stake here. Many people are willing to listening to the message of Jesus Christ, but they are put off by those who confess His Name. Undoubtedly, this is often an argument to keep Jesus at a distance, but apparently the church gives them reason to use this argument. We should be aware that the devil makes ten times as many efforts to make Christians stumble, than he does to keep unbelievers continuing in sin out of the church. He is quite often successful in doing so, as a result of which the reverse effect of the holiness of the church occurs. After all, words are good, but examples are better. If Christians are not the lived-out Bible that unbelievers read, what will they think of the Christian faith? If the corruption of the best is the worst, a continuous watchfulness is needed. The holiness of the church also has a relationship with devotion. This means that we cannot make a contrast between the holiness of the church and the holiness of its members. The members of the church participate in the holiness of the church. A church which is characterized by lukewarmness denies its essence. In the Scriptures, the rebuke for a lukewarm church is more serious than for an erring church.214 Moreover, lukewarmness is so deceptive, because it can go hand in hand with orthodoxy and a well-organized church life. If a little self-sufficiency creeps into church life, it is like “death in the pot”. The church of Ephesus was told that it had left its first love and that this was the reason why the 214 Rev. 3:15-16. Cf. Rev. 2:4-5.

228

C. Systematic part

candlestick of the Gospel would be removed. This makes the history of revivals so relevant, because there the spiritual devotion to the heavenly Bridegroom is clearly seen. A self-sufficient denomination, however, is conformed to this world. The church denomination becomes similar to a well-organized human business. When we no longer see the distinction between the church of Christ and academic understanding, secular methods, business processes, civil industriousness, human activism, or sociability, the church is encapsulated and it loses its holiness. A particular aspect of this likeness to the world is the way in which the church is governed. In the world we have hierarchy. Despite all the efforts to achieve equality and anti-discrimination, at universities and in businesses people are very sensitive to hierarchical relationships. He who is at the top, is in charge of other people. In Christ’s church, it is exactly the other way around. He who serves most, is the most,215 because Christ did not come to be served, but to serve. Precisely at this point, the church must be very different from the world, and any demonstration of power is ‘not done’. If the church is Christ’s body in this world, we should first think from the perspective of the whole of the church and ask ourselves if the church as a body has a serving character. We can also relate this to the government of the church. The serving Christ, in the days of the Reformation, gave reason to criticize the figure of the bishop, in particular the pope. Today, this concept remains a critical mirror for any form of dominocracy or synodocracy. Moreover, this highlights any identification of the church with today’s rulers. Deeper than these questions about the government of the church, this is about the mind of Christ in the priesthood of all believers or in a special office. The mind of Christ underlines that the holiness of the church can never be a pretence: “Keep to yourself, do not come near me, for I am holier than you!”216 This is the attitude of the Pharisee in the temple who looked around and then saw the publican.217 He compared himself to him and found many reasons to thank God that he was not like this publican. Also ecclesiastically we can compare ourselves to others and be satisfied with our orthodoxy, our loyalty to the Bible, our theological quality, humility, missionary activities, social relevance or cultural sensitivity, even if we say that these things do not make us more acceptable in God’s sight. This point yields a particular tension. The church is aware that it has a heavenly identity and that is the reason why it denies a secular way of thinking and living. At the same time, it does not say 215 Matt. 20:20-28. 216 Is. 65:5. 217 Luke 18:9-14.

Being a holy stranger and pilgrim

it is better than this world. Its being different from the world is expressed in the mind of Christ Who ate with public sinners.218 How often has the holiness of the church led to an isolation from sinful fellow people, as a result of which they have felt condemned by churchgoers and stayed away from Christ’s body? How often, on the other hand, have people thrown away the holiness of the church by an uncritical identification with the sins and thinking patterns of their own times? Here lies a sensitive nerve for the church: how does the church deal with the unholiness of its members? Because the church is holy, its members must be holy. Holiness is not an impossible moral achievement, but preceding corporate holiness underlines that holiness is first a gift and a position. Next it is also a command. It is just like a power cable, the privilege of which comes first. At the same time, one needs to be careful with it. We shake and tremble when we consider the holiness of God’s church. The Old Testament account of the death of Nadab and Abihu who took strange fire to the altar, shows in a moving way how holy our God is.219 We cannot just mess around, do as we please or allow ourselves to be guided by the voices from the culture. This is confirmed by the history of Uzza’s death.220 Despite his good intentions to prevent the sliding ark from falling, he fell down dead, because he was disobedient to God. The terrifying death of Ananias and Sapphira shows that this strict holiness of God is not limited to the Old Testament, but that we serve the same precise God of the Old Testament.221 In our postmodern relativization of truth, order and norms, these facts are an important message for us to take the holiness of the church seriously once again, and not to allow it to slide away. This holiness concerns Holy Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but just as much the “sacred ministry” as such. Is voting for an office-bearer less holy than administering baptism? When we offer our gifts in the collections, is a different holiness demanded from us than the purity that was demanded from Ananias and Sapphira. Moreover, the history of Ananias and Sapphira shows us how seriously truth is taken in the church. This means that it is not a cheap thing to be a member of this church. It takes self-denial and a lifelong struggle against indwelling sin. This history also draws our attention to the issue of discipline. The distinction between the corpus Christi and the previous corpus christianum is so clearly seen here. While we, in a culture of relativization, tend not to make the threshold to enter the membership of church too high, its effect may be the opposite to its purpose. Rather than 218 219 220 221

Matt. 9:10-13. Cf. Luke 15:1. Lev. 10. 2 Sam. 6:1-11. Acts 5:1-11.

229

230

C. Systematic part

causing respect for the church to increase, it actually weakens its esteem in society. The history of Ananias and Sapphira shows us that the exercise of discipline, paradoxically, led to growth and flourishing in the church. In our Western context, questions about disciplinary cases are about truth and honesty, addiction and moderateness, homosexuality and divorce, abuse and violence. It is not a good thing in the church to strive for adaptations of structures that it has always used based on the Word of God, but it is better to struggle with ourselves. Also today the church has to take the Word of God seriously, take itself seriously and thus be credible towards others inside and outside the church. This is the only way to break through the spiral of evil, and also to take victims seriously, in order that they feel safe. Only in this way, the forgiveness of sins can function in the church without degenerating into cheap grace. Bonhoeffer, in his The Cost of Discipleship, showed in an inimitable way that cheap grace is the archenemy of the church, because sin itself is justified by it while everything in our lives can stay as it is.222 Cheap grace removes penitence from the Christian life, as a result of which the Gospel becomes a reassurance. Whereas grace causes us to break with all sins, cheap grace causes a hardening in sin. In this context, the public confession of sins deserves to be seriously reconsidered. As far as I know, this only happens in some Reformed churches when people have sinned against the seventh commandment. The question is why this principle is not practised more widely in the churches, and why it is not practised with respect to all sins. He who takes breaking with sin seriously, also desires to make a public confession of it. In the pathway of confession of guilt, there is also public forgiveness, as a result of which a new situation emerges. The confession of sins makes us free and leads to a new beginning. Or are we no longer tuned to “real” sinners in the church? The mystery of the forgiveness of all the sins in the church is closely connected to the testimony that we as a church present that all sinners are welcome. In the ministry of Jesus Christ, we see that sinners and publicans are the ones that feel attracted to Him.223 The “real” sinners listen very carefully, even when no words are spoken. It is very easy for church members to give the impression that they feel morally better, as a result of which a distance to the “real” sinners develops, and they are excluded. A lot of compassion of Christians is a subtle form of self-justification. If the church wants to be really credible, then a deep humiliation and humbleness is needed in the church, as a result of which we tend to serve others, also the “real” sinners – with the mind of Jesus. 222 Bonhoeffer, The cost of discipleship, 43-57. 223 Matt. 9:10-13; Luke 15:1.

Being a holy stranger and pilgrim

17.2

All virtues

It is striking that Cyril, in the context of the catholicity of the church, speaks of all virtues. Cyril does not emphasize that which is forbidden, but that which is commanded.224 We can certainly copy this positive morale from him. In particular because the Christian faith is often known for its resistance again ethical developments, it is always good to show a positive attitude. From a Reformed-Protestant perspective, there is sometimes a certain hesitation to speak about virtues in a positive sense, because this may easily give the impression of meritoriousness. Given the fact that the Gospel is a power of God to change lives, this hesitation is completely wrong. Forgiveness and renewal are inseparably given in Christ. The Early Church reminds us not to lose these concepts. Mercy and chastity, long-suffering and soberness, humility and love, compassion and justice, willingness to forgive and philanthropy, hospitality and joy, heavenly-mindedness and boldness are all various facets of the one diamond of God’s grace. According to Joseph Ratzinger Benedict XVI, these virtues must be visible in the whole of the worldwide church, so not every Christian personally practices all virtues.225 There is an aspect of truth in this. Longsuffering goes with the situation of suffering, and perseverance becomes clear in the context of oppression.226 Thinking from the whole of the worldwide body of Christ’s church, frees us from a certain franticness to try to practise all good works. Ratzinger is wrong, however, when he states that Christians can live substitutionary in all virtues for other Christians. The personal and corporate aspects cannot be played off against one another like this. Every Christian is united to the whole Christ and the whole Holy Spirit. Galatians 5:22 uses the singular for the fruit of the Spirit, thus the different facets of the one fruit of the Spirit cannot be separated from each other. This also means that we cannot limit the suffering of Christians to Christians in other parts of the world. Even though the Christian faith can assume the hue of any culture, it does not fit into any culture. That is why suffering belongs to Christians in every culture. Moreover, the worldwide unity of Christ’s body implies that we suffer with those who suffer. Because of the sensitive nerve of faith and love in God’s worldwide church, we remember those who are imprisoned as if we are with them in prison.227 In 224 Cf. Van Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 220 ; Van Vlastuin, ‘The joy of Law’. 225 Ratzinger, Jezus van Nazareth, 154-155. Cf. for the main line of this section Van Vlastuin, ‘Van ecclesiologie naar economie’. 226 Cf. Von Balthasar, Prayer, 90. 227 Heb. 13:3.

231

232

C. Systematic part

this way, we learn with them the preciousness of Christ, Who is more precious to us than the lack of suffering. It is better to suffer with Christ than to have no suffering and no Christ. At the same time, we may ask ourselves in what way each Christian in the Western world has personal opportunities to express the power of God’s grace in his life. Willingness to sacrifice would suit the church in the West. Perhaps Western Christians should excel in marital fidelity in a context of noncommittal relationships, and in temperance in a situation in which people die from lifestyle diseases.228 Let us further explore the virtue of temperance. In our time, people become increasingly aware that the resources of this world are finite. It is the first time in history that man is a greater threat for nature than the other way around. That is why we should once again consider the way we deal with the ‘cake’ of this world. Why would Western people take a bigger part of this cake than people from the south or the east? Chrysostom already said: “With every piece of bread, one eats from the bread that belongs to everyone, the bread of the world.”229 These words immediately evoke the metaphor of several people around one table. Together they pray: “Give us this day our daily bread’ and the Western person takes 80 percent of the bread for himself. Who do we think we are to take more of the resources, clean air and energy for ourselves than others can get? And furthermore, we are wasteful in using it. The Christian faith offers a fullness of salvation, so for our happiness we do not depend on the furthest journeys, the best positions, the greatest development, the greatest comfort, the most luxurious facilities or the best guaranteed certainties. The hope for the new heaven and the new earth offers such a great perspective that we can easily relativize prosperity and adversity. In this way, the Christian hope functions as a medicine against the earthly-mindedness of Christians. By this lifestyle, Christians would be a light in the whole of society, just as the Christians in the Early Church were remarkable because of their behaviour230 and just as they highlighted the evil of slavery in the days when it was common practice. And in this way we might take away the impression that Calvinism is the source of capitalisms.231

228 N.T. Wright emphasizes that Christians should practise that which forms a contrast to society, New Tasks for a Renewed Church, 124-160. 229 According to Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, 154. 230 Cf. Stark, The Rise of Christianity; Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World. 231 According to Max Weber, the Calvinist attitude leads to a devotion to the exploitation of the earth until ‘der letzte Zentner fossilen Brennstoffs verglüht ist’, Die protestantische Ethik und der „Geist“ des Kapitalismus, 224. For criticism of Weber’s thesis, see Van Vlastuin, ‘Calvin, Weber and the Soul of Europe: Weber’s thesis tested and reapplied’, in process of publication.

Being a holy stranger and pilgrim

Lack of temperance is an expression of decadence and pride. Temperance is immediately connected to the virtue of humility.232 Humility is not just a skill that we should develop in order to be more useful in God’s kingdom, but pride locks us out of God’s kingdom. The only way to participate in God’s catholic fullness, is a humble heart. We do not need to climb a high ladder to reach God, but we must bow down in the depths in order to participate in His fullness. No-one expressed this humility more clearly than Jesus. While He makes clear that His authority greatly surpasses Moses’ authority, He tells us that He is meek and lowly of heart.233 While it is said of Moses that he was the meekest of all men234 , Jesus states that only He is meek. As the Son of God, the Creator of the entire cosmos and Heir of all things, He is lowly in heart. He does not pretend to be humble, but He is humble. Apparently, the slave’s job of washing the sweating feet of His disciples was something that suited Him very well, because it revealed His humble heart. After all He had told His disciples that He is greatest who is most in serving.235 This catholic concept confronts Protestant churches with the necessity to put these Christian virtues into practice. If the church is the temple of the Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit cannot remain absent. This is even more telling when we see the church as a first form of God’s eschatological kingdom. Then we may expect in the church a mindedness that surpasses that well-behaved morality in the world, and that shows something of the power of the future world. In this context we can take to heart the words of Augustine, that God is already humble and man is proud.236 We are so proud! There is cultural pride, scientific pride, ecclesiastical pride and spiritual pride. We continually compare ourselves to others to justify ourselves. We are so busy to please our own ego, and we are so hypersensitive when someone does not show enough respect for us. The attitude of Haman who wanted to hang Mordecai on the highest gallows is a confronting mirror for our pride – while everything is vanity! What do we have that we did not receive and that we cannot lose any time? Couldn’t the lack of humility be an important reason for so much division in the church? Van der Poel gave a pithy analysis: ‘Today a lot of schisms are justified with doctrines, while the root of bitterness is in the leaders.’237 If the church is an expression of communion with Christ, His humble mindedness can be clearly seen. Then we are little and God is great, so we will also 232 233 234 235 236 237

Ps. 99:5, 138:6; Is. 57:15; Luke 1:52; 1 Pet. 5:5-6. Matt. 11:29. Cf. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, 94-95. Num. 12:3. Matt. 20:28. Sermo 142.6. Cf. Van Vlastuin, Be Renewed, 99-103. Van der Poel, Bijeen vergaard, 242.

233

234

C. Systematic part

magnify Him. Then we will not only see God’s greatness in special things, but in particular in the ‘ordinary’ things of His creation and providence. Then we are no longer special as a church denomination, but only God is special. Then we no longer need to criticize the gifts and the grace of our neighbour, but we admire God’s gift to our neighbour. Then we no longer number our troubles and problems, but God’s blessing. Then we no longer need to be served by others, but we serve each other inside and outside the church, including our opponents. Then those on the boundary of society no longer have to feel condemned by the proud and civil middle class of the church, but “real” sinners are really welcome in the church. Then the church no longer has to be a matter of power that extends influence everywhere, but it extends influence by the disarming mindedness of Christ’s humility. Then we as a denomination no longer need to be better than another denomination, as a result of which the road to spiritual recognition is easily found, because, also denominationally, we esteem others better than ourselves. 17.3

Citizen of two worlds

In the discussion of Bavinck’s understanding of catholicity, we also encountered Bavinck’s cosmic understanding of catholicity. Undoubtedly, Bavinck is right in his resistance to dualism. Ultimately, God is concerned about the salvation of His world.238 He also reveals deep Biblical insight when he underlines that Christ is the Heir of this world.239 The world was not only made by Christ, but also for Him. Similarly, also Bavinck’s saying that God already depended on Christ during the creation, can be appreciated. These fundamental convictions also involve a ‘theocratic’ attitude. There is no area of life that goes beyond the perspective of God’s dominion. Whether it be ethics or law, culture or science, economics or ecology, this whole life exists in the light of Christ’s kingdom. The fact that God will recreate this world places everything in its history in a framework of hope. At the same time, this perspective gives brokenness a place in the Christian life, instead of separating it from the unruly reality of here and now. We make this separation if we do not take responsibility for the society in which we live, and if the preaching is a spiritual bath in which we forget our hungering and fleeing fellow-people, show no interest in yuppies whose god is their belly, 238 Cf. for the unity between soteriology and cosmology Jipp, ‘Sharing the Heavenly Rule of Christ the King’, 267-270. 239 Heb. 1:2. It is striking that Christ is also seen as Creator, Col. 1:15-20. The cosmic Christ lives in the church, Collins, The Many Faces of the Church, 64-65.

Being a holy stranger and pilgrim

without God and without hope, and in which we pay no attention to broken marriages or the Internet addiction even in our own church.240 Catholic Christianity lives with the full Bible, including the roughness and rawness of the Old Testament and the holy wrath of God that we are confronted with. From this perspective, it is self-evident to relate Christ’s Mediatorship to the whole of created reality. In imitation of Bavink, Van Ruler pays much attention to this point. He also deliberately widens catholicity to the kingdom of God that comprises the world.241 That is why he places avoidance of the world in contrast to theocracy, and he places attending a football match in the context of sanctification.242 In this way, the corpus christianum is of greater importance than the corpus Christi. He blames Calvin for esteeming heaven higher than the earth, while politics is a sacred thing for the reformer. This approach is representative for modern (Reformed) theologians. Also Moltmann and Wright apply God’s kingdom to the whole of culture and the earth. If we call to mind Cyril’s understanding of catholicity, it seems to be fully in agreement with the early Christian approach to relate catholicity to all areas of life. However, it is just as striking that Cyril himself did not do it in this way. He makes a fundamental distinction between an ontological participation of the whole of creation in Christ and a soteriological participation of believers in Christ.243 This distinction should be a framework to think theologically about the Christian life, culture and the earth. In this way, Cyril and the Early Church did justice to the Scriptures, which show in numerous ways that the citizenship of Christ’s church is not on earth, but in heaven.244 In his rightful resistance against dualism, Bavink eventually loses this Biblical dualism as a decisive framework to value the earth and the culture positively. Moreover, he contextualized the concepts of sojourning and persecution of Christ’s church in the New Testament to such an extent, that they are no longer characteristics for the church of all ages. By doing so, important New Testament concepts were weakened and lost, as a result of which the faith can be seen as worldly. The primacy of qualitative catholicity expresses the reality that Christ and His salvation transcend this world. The participation in this definitive salvation of Christ is a matter of faith. We do not dispose of it, we do not control it, often 240 A recent example of this issue was given by Van der Louw, ‘Kunnen protestanten in Mexico zonder het Oude Testament?’. 241 Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 81. 242 Van Ruler, ‘Perspectieven voor de gereformeerde theologie’, 97-99. 243 Naar Vanhoozer, ‘From “Blessed in Christ” to “Being in Christ”, 22. 244 Cf. Matt. 6:20; John 15:18-19, 18:36; Eph. 1:3; Phil. 3:20. See also my discussion in Be Renewed, 113-122; Van Vlastuin, ‘The Estimation of the World’.

235

236

C. Systematic part

we do not even see it, and sometimes we only see the opposite. Still, precisely for this reason, there is a deep assurance, joy and comfort in living from this salvation.245 The categories of faith and hope underline the fact that catholicity cannot be generalized or secularized. This history does not travel towards the eschatological revelation in a continuous development. In between is the drama of divine judgment, in which also the transformation of this world will take place, as well as the solemn separation between believers and unbelievers. In this sense, the salvation of the whole earth is an eschatological category that cannot directly connected with the catholicity of the church in the present. If we do relate this eschatological category to the catholicity of the church, we generalize catholicity, as a result of which the exclusivity of the fullness of Christ is abandoned. From the exclusivity of Christ’s fullness, we can speak inclusively about Christ in this world, but if we start with general categories, we will never reach the exclusivity of Christ. Our direction of view is from the church to the world, and from special grace to common grace (apart from the appropriateness of this term).246 This guards the church against a certainty about politics as if it was about the cross. The drawback of a concentration on the present, is that asceticism withers and that the mortification of the old man disappears.247 Therefore, it is fatal for the church when the dimension of eternity disappears in theology, preaching and spirituality. While it seems as if a fuller catholicity is broached as a result of the secularization of the Gospel, in fact catholicity is abandoned. In this way, the church becomes a worldly category that makes itself superfluous. That is why Noordmans says that neocalvinism would sooner cause people to leave the church on the gangway of common grace then to enter it. This means that we cannot do without dualism in speaking of the cosmic meaning of Christ. The church is, in the first place, the body that was raised with Christ and has a heavenly citizenship. From this heavenly citizenship, we can say that Christians are also citizens of this world. In this way, we groan with the whole of creation and we look forward to the revelation of the full catholicity in the recreation in Christ.

245 H. van den Belt states that Bavinck and Berkhof understand catholicity as a future eschatological category, ‘De katholiciteit van de kerk als kwaliteit van het christendom’, 286-287. Given the faith participation in the present this is wrong. 246 Cf. Van ’t Spijker, Eenheid in verscheidenheid?, 61, 131. 247 Cf. Van ’t Spijker, Eenheid in verscheidenheid?, 73.

Bibliography Aalders, W. et al, Tien keer gereformeerd, Kampen 1973. Aalders, W., De grote ontsporing. Over de verhouding van de Reformatie en de moderne theologie, Den Haag n.d.. Adam, K., The Spirit of Catholicity (translated by D.J. McCann), New York 1977. Allen, M. and S.R. Swain, Reformed Catholicity. The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids 2015. Allen, M. and S.R. Swain, Christian Dogmatics. Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, Grand Rapids 2016. Asselt W.J. van and E. Dekker (ed.), Reformed Scholasticism. An Ecumencial Enterprise, Grand Rapids 2001. Asselt, W.J. van, J.M. Bac and R.T. te Velde (ed.), Reformed Thought on Freedom. The Concept of Free Choice in Early Modern Reformed Theology, Grand Rapids 2010. Backus, I. (ed.), The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West. From the Carolingians to the Maurists, 2 volumes, Leiden 1996. Bakhuizen van den Brink, J.N., De Nederlandse belijdenisgeschriften [1940], Amsterdam 1976. Bakker, H.A., Exemplar Domini. Ignatius of Antioch and His Martyrological Self-Concept, Leuven 2003. Bakker, H.A., ‘Ze hebben lief, maar worden vervolgd.’ Radicaal christendom in de tweede eeuw en nu, Zoetermeer 2005. Bakker, H.A., ‘Towards a Catholic Understanding of Baptist Congregationalism. Conciliar Power and Authority’, Journal of Reformed Theology 5 (2011), 159–183. Bakker, H.A., P. van Geest and H. van Loon (ed.), Cyprian of Carthage. Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, Leuven 2010. Balke, W., Gunning en Hoedemaker. Samen op weg, ’s Gravenhage 1985. Balke, W., ‘De eigenschappen van de kerk’, in: W. van ’t Spijker et al (ed.), De kerk. Wezen, weg en werk van de kerk naar reformatorische opvatting, Kampen 1990, 259-282. Balthasar, H.U. von, Church and World, Montreal 1967. Balthasar, H.U. von, Prayer, San Fransisco 1986. Barrett, M. and M.A.G. Haykin, Owen on the Christian Life. Living for the Glory of God in Christ, Wheaton 2015. Barth, K., Kirchliche Dogmatik, Zürich 1953. Bavel, T.J. van, ‘De idee van Christus totus’, in: T.J. van Bavel (ed.), SintAugustinus, Brussel 2011, 263-271.

238

Bibliography

Bavinck, H., Reformed Dogmatics, four volumes, ed. by J. Bolt, translated by J. Vriend, Grand Rapids 2003 (originally Kampen 1930). Bavinck, H., The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church, in: Calvin Theological Journal 27 (1992), translated by John Bolt, from H. Bavinck, De Katholiciteit van Christendom en Kerk, Kampen 1968, 220-251. Bavinck, H., Als Bavinck nu maar eens kleur bekende. Aantekeningen van H. Bavinck over de zaak-Netelenbos, het Schriftgezag en de situatie van de Gereformeerde Kerken (November 1919) (ed. G. Harinck, C. van der Kooi and J. Vree), Amsterdam 1994. Bavinck, H., ‘De navolging van Christus en het moderne leven’ (1918), in: H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde katholiciteit (1888-1918), Barneveld 2008, 255-294. Bavinck, H., Geloofszekerheid. Teksten ingeleid en geannoteerd door Henk van den Belt, Soesterberg 2016. Beck, A.J. and W. van Vlastuin, ‘Sanctification between Westminster and Northampton’, Jonathan Edwards Studies 2/2 (2012), 3-27. Beek, A. van de, De kring om de Messias. Israël als volk van de lijdende Heer, Zoetermeer 2002. Beek, A. van de, ‘Cultuur en katholiciteit’, in: J. Kronenburg en R. de Reuver (ed.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 189-202. Beek, A. van de, God doet recht. Eschatologie als christologie, Zoetermeer 2008. Beek, A. van de, Lichaam en Geest van Christus. De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest, Zoetermeer 2012. Beek, A. van de, ‘Vrijgemaakten en ecclesiologie’ in: A. de Bruijne, H. Burger and D. te Velde (eds.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 213-224. Beeke J.R. and R.J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans, Grand Rapids 2006. Belt, H. van den, ‘Autonomie van de mens of autopistie van de Schrift’, in: G. Harinck en G. Neven (ed.), Ontmoetingen met Bavinck, Barneveld 2006, 287-305. Belt, H. van den, ‘De katholiciteit van de kerk als kwaliteit van het christendom’, Theologia Reformata 54/3 (2011), 270-287. Belt, H. van den, ‘‘Kan een mens wel zeker zijn?’ Een moderne vraag in een disputatie van Herman Ravensperger (1586-1625)’, (Groningen: faculteit Godgeleerdheid en Godsdienstwetenschap, 2013). Berger, P.L. (ed.), The Desecularization of the World. Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Grand Rapids 1999. Berkhof, H., De katholiciteit der kerk, Nijkerk 1962. Berkhof, H., Inleiding tot de studie van de dogmatiek, Kampen 1982. Berkhof, H., Christelijk geloof. Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer, Nijkerk 1985.

Bibliography

Berkouwer, G.C., The Church. Studies In Dogmatics, Grand Rapids 1976, translated by J.A. Davison (originally Kampen 1970). Berkouwer, G.C., ‘Katholiciteit. H. Bavinck’, in: G.C. Berkouwer, Zoeken en vinden. Herinneringen en ervaringen, Kampen 1989, 40-70. Bierma, L.D., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism. Sources, History, and Theology. With a Translation of the Smaller and Larger Catechisms of Zacharias Ursinus, Grand Rapids 2005. Billings, J.T., ‘United to God through Christ. Assessing Calvin on the Question of Deification’, Harvard Theological Journal 98/3 (2005), 315-334. Billings, J.T., Calvin, Participation, and the Gift. The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford 2008. Billings, J.T., Union with Christ. Reframing Theology and Ministry for the Church, Grand Rapids 2011. Blocher, H., ‘Old Covenant, New Covenant’, in: A.T.B. McGowan (ed.), Always Reforming. Explorations in systematic theology, Leicester 2006, 240-270. Boer, E.A. de, ‘De katholieke ecclesiologie van de Confessio Belgica in het licht van Le Baston de la Foy’, Theologia Reformata 55/3 (2012), 264-277. Boer, E.A. de, ‘Verspreid en verstrooid’. Ecclesiologie van de diaspora van de reformatie van de Lage Landen (inaugural address 19 February 2016 Theologische Universiteit Kampen). Boer, G., Tijdbetrokken vreemdelingschap. Verzameld werk van ds. G. Boer (ed. by J. van der Graaf), Apeldoorn 2016. Boersma, H., Nouvelle Théologie and Sacramental Ontology. A Return to Mystery, New York 2009. Boersma, H., Heavenly Participation. The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry, Grand Rapids 2011. Bonar, A., Diary and Life [1893] (ed. M. Bonar), Edinburgh 2013. Bonhoeffer, D., The cost of discipleship [1964], translated by R.H. Fuller, New York 1995. Boom, W.H. ten, ‘Leeswijzer, in: .HK. Barth, De verkiezing van de gemeente. Paragraaf 34 uit de Kirchliche Dogmatiek, Zoetermeer 2016, 9-12. Boon, R., ‘Vroege Kerk, Reformatie en katholiciteit’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (red.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 55-64. Borght, E.A.J.G. van der, ‘Oecumene en katholiciteit. Samen groeien naar de volheid van Christus’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (ed.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 159-174. Borght, E.A.J.G. van der (ed.), The Unity of the Church. A Theological State of the Art and Beyond, Leiden 2010. Borght, E.A.J.G. van der, ‘Katholiek en daarom flexibel. De kerk in de Nederlandse Geloofsbelijdenis’, Theologia Reformata 55/3 (2012), 278-293.

239

240

Bibliography

Borght, E.A.J.G. van der, ‘The Heidelberg Catechism and the Church’, Acta Theologica, Supplement 20 (2014), 261-279. Braaten, C. and R. Jenson (ed.), The Catholicity of the Reformation, Grand Rapids 1996. Brakel, W. à, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, translated by B. Elshout, edited by J.R. Beeke, Grand Rapids 1992 (originally De Redelijke Godsdienst 1700). Bremmer, R.H., Herman Bavinck als dogmaticus, Kampen 1961. Brink, G. van den, ‘Reformed Scholasticism and the Trinitarian Renaissance’, in: M. Wisse, M. Sarot and W. Otten (ed.), Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, Leiden 2010, 322-340. Brink, G. van den and C. van der Kooi, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction, Grand Rapids 2017. Brink, G. van den and J.C. Smits, ‘The Reformed Stance. Distinctive Commitments and Concerns’, Journal of Reformed Theology 9/4 (2015), 325-347. Brink, G.A. van den, Tot zonde gemaakt. De Engelse antinomiaanse controverse (1690-1700) over de toerekening van de zonden aan Christus, met bijzondere aandacht voor Herman Witsius’ Animadversiones Irenicae (1696), Kampen 2016. Brinkman, M.E., ‘Bavinck en de katholiciteit van de kerk’, in: G. Harinck and G. Neven (red.), Ontmoetingen met Bavinck, Barneveld 2006, 307-324. Brinkman, M.E., De niet-westerse Jezus. Jezus als bodhisattva, avatara, goeroe, profeet, voorouder en genezer, Zoetermeer 2007. Broeyer, F.G.M., ‘De irenische Perkins-vertaling van de Arminiaan Everard Booth (1577-1610)’, Nederlands Archief Kerkgeschiedenis 71 (1991), 177-210. Brook, B., The Lives of the Puritans [1813], Pittsburgh 1994. Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo, a biography, London 1967. Bruijne, A. de, ‘Abraham Kuypers pluriformiteitsleer en het streven naar kerkelijke eenheid’, in: A. de Bruijne, H. Burger and D. te Velde (eds.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 225-236. Buijs, P.D.J., ‘Kerken in de crisis. Gereformeerde gezindte anno 2013’, in: I.A. Kole (ed.), Verscheurd verlangen. De uitblijvende eenheid van de gereformeerde gezindte, Apeldoorn 2013, 123-135. Burger, J.M., Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective, Eugene 2008. Butner, D.G., ‘Reformed Theology and the Question of Protestant Individualism. A Dialogue with Henri de Lubac’, Journal of Reformed Theology 10/3 (2016), 234-256. Calvin, J., Institutes. Calvin, J., Calvini Opera.

Bibliography

Calvin, J., ‘Reply by John Calvin to a Letter by Cardinal Sadolet to the Senate and People of Geneva’, in J. Calvin, trans. by H. Beveridge, Calvin’s Tracts relating to the Reformation (Eugene: Wipf and Stock 2002), 1:25-68. Calvijn, J., Come Out From Among Them. ‘Anti-Nicodemite’ Writings of John Calvin (translated by S. Skolnitsky), Dallas 2001. Campbell, C.R., Paul and Union with Christ. An Exegetical and Theological Study, Grand Rapids 2012. Campbell, C.R., ‘Metaphor, Reality, and Union with Christ’, in: C.R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ. An Exegetical and Theological Study, Grand Rapids 2012, 61-86. Canlis, J., Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension, Grand Rapids 2010. Chadwick, H., The Church in Ancient Society. From Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford 2001. Cleveland, C., Thomism in John Owen, Farnham 2013. Collins, R.F., The Many Faces of the Church. A Study in New Testament Ecclesiology, New York 2003. Congar, M.J., Chrétiens desunis. Principes d’un ‘oecuménisme’ catholique, Paris 1937. Cross, A.R., Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament. Baptisma Semper Reformandum, Eugene 2013. Cunningham, L., An Introduction to Catholicity, Cambridge 2009. Cyprianus, Eenheid en eensgezindheid. 81 brieven en 2 traktaten (translated and explained by C. Tazelaar), Budel 2013. De belijdenisgeschriften volgens artikel X van de Kerkorde van de Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk, ’s Gravenhage 1966. Denlinger, A.C., Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei. Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-Reformation Reformed Theologians, Göttingen 2010. Dennison, J.T., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, Grand Rapids 2008. Dixhoorn, C. van, Confessing the Faith. A reader’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Edinburgh 2014. Dulles, A., The Catholicity of the Church, Oxford 1985. Dutton, M.L. and E.K. Stucky (ed.), Globalization and Catholicity. Ecumenical Conversations on God’s Abundance and the People’s Need, Beiheft zu IKZ 100, 2010. Edwards, J., The Works of Jonathan Edwards, New Haven 1972-2006. Ferguson, S.B., John Owen on the Christian Life, Carlisle 1987. Fesko, J.V., ‘The Doctrine of Scripture in Reformed Orthodoxy’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, Leiden 2013, 429-464.

241

242

Bibliography

Ford, A., ‘Ussher, James (1581-1656)’, in: B. Harrison and H.C.G. Matthew (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography deel 56, Oxford 2004, 6-14. Ford, A., James Ussher. Theology, History, and Politics in Early-Modern Ireland and England, Oxford 2007. Gootjes, N.H., The Belgic Confession. Its History and Sources, Grand Rapids 2007. Goudriaan, A., ‘Cyprian’s De ecclesiae catholicae unitate. Why Did Reformed Theologians Consider It a Useful Book (1559-1655)?’, in: H.A. Bakker, P. van Geest and H. van Loon (ed.), Cyprian of Carthage. Studies in His Life, Language, and Thought, Leuven 2010, 225-241. Graafland, C., Volwassendoop, kinderdoop, herdoop. Een bijbelse verkenning, Amersfoort 1979. Graafland, C., ‘De kerk in de Nadere Reformatie – Wilhelmus à Brakel (16351711)’, in: W. van ’t Spijker (ed.), De kerk. Wezen, weg en werk van de kerk naar reformatorische opvatting, Kampen 1990, 163-186. Gregory, B.S., The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, Cambridge 2012. Groen van Prinsterer, G., Het regt der hervormde gezindheid, Amsterdam 1848. Haar, J. van der, ‘Inleidend woord’, in: D. Fraser, Leven en dagboek van Ralph Erskine (translated by J. van der Haar), Veenendaal 1979, 9-10. Halík, T., Geduld met God. Twijfel als brug tussen geloven en niet-geloven (translated by P. Morée), Zoetermeer 2014. Han, B.S., Symphonia Catholica. The Merger of Patristic and Contemporary Sources in the Theological Method of Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), Göttingen 2015. Hegger, H.J., Bijbelse elementen bij rooms-katholieke mystici, Kampen 1990. Heller, D. and P. Szentpétery (eds.), Catholicity under Pressure. The Ambiguous Relationship between Diversity and Unity, Proceedings of the 18th Academic Consultation of the Societas Oecumenica, Leipzig 2016. Helm, P., John Calvin’s Ideas, Oxford 2004. Hengel, M., The Son of God. The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion, Eugene 1976. Hengel, M., The Atonement. The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, Eugene 1981. Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus. Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Berücksichtiging Palästinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh.s v. Chr., 3rd ed, Tübingen 1988. Hesselink, I.J., ‘Calvinus Oecumenicus. Calvin’s Vision of the Unity and Catholicity of the Church’, in: E.A.J.G. van der Borght (ed.), The Unity of the Church. A Theological State of the Art and Beyond, Leiden 2010, 69-93.

Bibliography

Hill, D.E., ‘”The Truth Above All Demonstration”. Scripture in the Patristic Period to Augustine’, in: D.A. Carson (ed.), The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, Grand Rapids 2016, 43-88. Himes, M.J., The Ongoing Incarnation. Johann Adam Möhler and the Beginnings of Modern Ecclesiology, London 1997. Hodge, Ch., Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids 1970. Hof, W.J. op ’t, ‘Everhardus Booth een irenist?’, Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 82/1 (2002), 95-107. Horton, M., The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, Grand Rapids 2011. Horton, M., ‘The Church’, in: M. Allen and S.R. Swain (eds.), Christian Dogmatics. Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic, Grand Rapids 2016, 311-338. Hurtado, L.W., Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, Grand Rapids 2003. Husbands, M. and D.J. Treier (eds.), The Community of the Word. Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, Downers Grove 2005. Huttinga, W., Participation and communicability. Herman Bavinck and John Milbank on the relation between God and the world, Amsterdam 2014. Huttinga, W., ‘De ademruimte van het geloof. Katholiciteit en het leven in al zijn volheid’, in: A. de Bruijne, H. Burger and D. te Velde (eds.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 257-265. Janse, W., ‘Sacraments’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids 2009, 344-355. Jenson, R.W., Systematic Theology, Oxford 1999. Jipp, J.W., ‘Sharing the Heavenly Rule of Christ the King. Paul’s Royal Participatory Language in Ephesians’, in: M.J. Thate, K.J. Vanhoozer, C.R. Campbell (eds.), “In Christ” in Paul. Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, Tübingen 2014, 253-279. Jochemsen, H., ‘De betekenis van tradities, in het bijzonder in het godsdienstige leven’, in: J. van Kleeff and J. Methorst (eds.), Traditie in transitie. De plaats van tradities in een veranderende wereld, Amsterdam 2016, 17-33. Jüngel, E., ‘Einheit der Kirche – Konkret’, in: E. Jüngel, Wertlose Wahrheit. Zur Identität und Relevanz des christlichen Glaubens, Tübingen 2003, 335-345. Kamphuis, B., ‘Herman Bavinck on Catholicity’, Mid-America Journal of Theology 24 (2013), 97-104. Kapic, K.M. and M. Jones (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to John Owen’s Theology, Farnham 2012. Kärkkäinen, V.M., An Introduction to Ecclesiology. Ecumenical, Historical an Global Perspectives, Downers Grove 2002.

243

244

Bibliography

Kay, B., Trinitarian Spirituality. John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion, Milton Keynes 2007. Keller, T., Preaching. Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism, New York 2015. Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds [1950], 3rd ed., London 1972. Kelly, R., Reformed and Reforming. John Owen on the Kingdom of Christ (PhD diss. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 2015). Klaassen, M., In Christus rechtvaardig. Reformatorische perspectieven op rechtvaardiging en eenheid met Christus, Apeldoorn 2013. Knight, W., Colloquia Peripatetica. Deep see soundings: being notes of conversations with the late John Duncan LL. D., professor of Hebrew in the New College, Edinburgh 1879. Kohlbrugge, H.F.K, Romans 7: A Paraphrase and ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit’, with introductions by Rev. Dr. Meine Veldman, Minneapolis 2009. Kooi, A. van der, Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans. Een schets van zijn pneumatologisch ontwerp, Kampen 1992. Kooi, C. van der, ‘The appeal to the inner testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck’, Journal of Reformed Theology 2/2 (2008), 103-112. Kooi, C. van der, ‘Inleiding’, in: H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde katholiciteit (18881918), Barneveld 2008, 7-16. Koolhaas, A.A., ‘De Katholiciteit der Kerk’, Wapenveld 12/1-3 (1963), 5-7; 16-18; 28-30. Koopmans, J., Het oudkerkelijk dogma in de Reformatie, bepaaldelijk bij Calvijn, Amsterdam 1983. Kooten, G.H. van, Paulus en de kosmos. Het vroege christendom te midden van de andere Grieks-Romeinse filosofieën, Zoetermeer 2002. Kooten, G.H. van, Paul’s Anthropology in Context. The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity, Tübingen 2008. Kronenburg, J., ‘Protestantse identiteit en katholieke horizon’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (eds.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 13-38. Küng, H., The Church (translation of Die Kirche, 1965), London 1968. Küng, H., De katholieke kerk. Een geschiedenis (translation of Kleine Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche, 2001), Amsterdam 2003. Lane, A.N.S., John Calvin. Student of the Church Fathers, Edinburgh 1999. Lane, A.N.S., Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue. An Evangelical Assessment, London/New York 2002. Lane, A.N.S., ‘Twofold Righteousness. A Key to the Doctrine of Justification’, in: M. Husbands en D.J. Treier (ed.), Justification. What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, Downers Grove 2004, 205-224.

Bibliography

Lane, A.N.S., ‘Calvin and the Article 5 of the Regensburg Colloquy’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (red.), Calvinus Preacepter Ecclesiae, Genève 2004, 231-261. Lane, A.N.S., ‘Calvin’s Attitude towards Catholicity’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), Calvinus clarissimus theologus. Papers of the Tenth International Congress on Calvin Research, Göttingen 2012, 206-227. Lange, A. de, ‘J.H. Gunning jr. (1829-1905)’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (ed.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 239-242. Latzell, T., Theologische Grundzüge des Heidelberger Katechismus. Eine fundamentaltheologische Untersuchung seines Ansatzes zur Glaubenskommunikation, Marburg 2004. Leigh, E., A Systeme or Body of Divinity Consisting of Ten Books, Wherein the Fundamentals and Main Grounds of Religion Are Opened, London 1662. Lewis, C.S., ‘On the Reading of Old Books’ [1944], in: Essay Collection & Other Short Pieces, London 2000, 438-443. Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, London 1953. Lewis, C.S., ‘Introduction’, in: St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation. De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (with an introduction by C.S. Lewis), revised edition, New York 1996, 3-12. Lewis, C.S., The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, New York, 2004, 2 volumes. Linde, S. van der, De leer van den Heiligen Geest bij Calvijn. Bijdrage tot de kennis der reformatorische theologie, Wageningen 1943. Lisieux, Th. van, Mijn roeping is de liefde, Bussum 1957. Lodensteyn, J. van, Beschouwinge van Zion ofte Aandagten en Opmerckingen over den tegenwoordigen toestand van ‘t Gereformeerde Christen Volck, derde druk, Utrecht 1683. Lodensteyn, J. van, De geesteloosheid in de godsdienst, reprint, Amsterdam 1835. Louw, Th.A.W. van der, ‘Kunnen protestanten in Mexico zonder het Oude Testament?’, Theologia Reformata 58/3 (2015), 271-281. Lubac, H. de, Catholicitye. Les aspects sociaux du dogme, Paris 1938. Luther, M., Psalm 51 (translated by K. Exalto), Rotterdam 1989. Luther, M., WA=Weimarer Ausgabe of Luthers Works. Mackay, E., ‘Trias canonica, naar een herijking van het traditiebegrip’, in: J. van Kleeff and J. Methorst (eds.), Traditie in transitie. De plaats van tradities in een veranderende wereld, Amsterdam 2016, 80-94. MacRae, K., Diary of Kenneth MacRae (edited with additional material by I.H. Murray), Edinburgh 1980. Mara, M.G., ‘De kerk bij Augustinus’, in: T.J. van Bavel (ed.), Sint-Augustinus, Brussel 2007, 205-217. Marsden, G.M., Jonathan Edwards. A Life, New Haven 2003.

245

246

Bibliography

Mastricht, P. van, Theoretico-Practica Theologia. Qua, Per Singula Capita Theologica, Pars Exegetica, Dogmatica, Elenchtica & Practica, Perpetua Successione Conjugantur, Amsterdam 1715. McGowan, A.T.B., Adam, Christ and Covenant. Exploring Headship Theology, London 2016. McGrath, A.E., A Life of John Calvin. A Study in the Shaping of Western Culture, Oxford 1993. McRaw, R., A Heavenly Directory. Trinitarian Piety, Public Worship and a Reassessment of John Owen’s Theology, Göttingen 2014. Meer, F. van der, Augustinus de zielzorger. Een studie over de praktijk van een kerkvader, Utrecht 1949. Meijering, E.P., Kennis is niet alles, maar alles is wel kennis. Karl Barth over de Heidelbergse Catechismus, Amsterdam 2016. Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Latina, 1862-1865. Moor, B. de, Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Compendium of Christian Theology, vol. 1, Culpeper 2014. Moore, J.D., ‘James Ussher’s influence on the synod of Dordt’, in: A. Goudriaan and F.A. van Lieburg (eds.), Revisiting the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), Leiden 2011, 163-179. Muller, R.A., ‘Scholasticism in Calvin. A Question of Relation and Disjunction’, in: R.A. Muller, The Unaccomodated Calvin. Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, New York/Oxford 2000, 39-61. Muller, R.A., Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, 4 vols., Grand Rapids 2003. Muller, R.A., After Calvin. Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford/New York 2003. Murray, J., ‘Tradition: Romish and Protestant’, in: Collected Writings of John Murray, Edinburgh 1982, vol. 4, 264-273. Nauta, D., ‘Calvijns afkeer van een schisma’, in: W. de Boer and H.J. Selderhuis (eds.), Opnieuw Calvijn. Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, Apeldoorn 2009, 853-870. Needham, N., ‘Justification in the Early Church Fathers’, in: B.L. McCormack (ed.), Justification in Perspective. Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges, Grand Rapids 2006, 25-53. Niesel, W., Die Theologie Calvins, München 1957. Nijenhuis, W., Calvinus oecumenicus. Calvijn en de eenheid der kerk in het licht van zijn briefwisseling, ’s Gravenhage 1959. Nijenhuis, W., ‘De eenheid der kerk bij Luther en Calvijn’, in: W. den Boer and H.J. Selderhuis (eds.), Opnieuw Calvijn. Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, Apeldoorn 2009, 943-961.

Bibliography

Neuser, W.H., ‘Calvin and the Refugees’, in: A.D. Pont (ed.), Calvin – France – South Africa. Papers read at the third South African Congress on Calvin Research Stellenbosch, 26-27 July 1988, Pretoria 1990, 1-10. Newton, J., Works of John Newton [1839], reprint, Edinburgh 1985. Niet, C.A. de, ‘Inleiding. Aspecten van Voetius’ praktische vroomheidsleer’, in: C.A. de Niet, Gisbertus Voetius, De praktijk der godzaligheid (text publication with intr., transl. and comm.), Utrecht 1996, xxi-lxxxii. Noordmans, O., Verzamelde Werken, 10 vols., Kampen 1978-2004. Oberman, H.A., The Dawn of the Reformation. Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought, Edinburgh 1986. Oberman, H.A., The Two Reformations. The Journey from the Last Days to the New World, New Haven 2003. Oberman, H.A., John Calvin and the Reformation of the Refugees, Genève 2009. Oberman, H.A., ‘De katholieke kerkvader. De hele waarheid voor de gehele wereld’, in: W. den Boer and H.J. Selderhuis (eds.), Opnieuw Calvijn. Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, Apeldoorn 2009, 2 vols., 988-998. Ouweneel, W., Vijf olifanten in een porseleinkast. Vijf brandende onderwerpen waarover christenen verdeeld zijn, Vaassen 2009. Owen, J., The Works of John Owen [1862] (ed. W.H. Goold), Edinburgh 1990. Paas, S., Vreemdelingen en priesters. Christelijke missie in een postchristelijke omgeving, Zoetermeer 2015. Packer, J.I., A Passion for Holiness, Nottingham 1992. Packer, J.I., Among God’s Giants. The Puritan vision of the Christian Life, Eastborne 1993. Pannenberg, W., Systematische Theologie, Göttingen 1993. Pannenberg, W., ‘Die Krise des Schriftprinzips’, in: W. Pannenberg (ed.), Grundfragen systematischer Theologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze, vol. 1, Göttingen 2011, 11-21. Paul, H., ‘Inleiding: een theologie van verlangen’, in: B. Wannenwetsch, E. Jonker and H. Paul, Verlangen. Een theologische peiling, Zoetermeer 2014, 7-23. Perkins, W., A reformed Catholike: or, A declaration shewing how neere we may come to the present Church of Rome in sundrie points of religion: and vvherein we must for euer depart from them with an advertisment to all fauourers of the Romane religion, shewing that the said religion is against the Catholike principles and grounds of the catechism, Cambridge 1598. Plasger, G., ‘Ecclesiology’, in: H.J. Selderhuis (ed.), The Calvin Handbook, Grand Rapids 2009, 312-332. Poel, J. van der, Bijeen vergaard, Veenendaal 1980. Polanus, A., Syntagma Theologiae Christianae Ab Amando Polano a Polansdorf. Juxta Leges Ordinis Methodici Conformatum, Atque in Libros Decem Digestum Jamque Demum in Unum Volumen Compactum, Novissime Emendatum,

247

248

Bibliography

Hanoviae 1610. Quantin, J.L., The Church of England and Christian Antiquity. The Construction of a Confessional Identity in the 17th Century, Oxford/New York 2009. Ratzinger, J. (Pope Benedict XVI), Called to Communion. Understanding the Church Today (translated by A. Walker), San Fransisco 1996. Ratzinger, J. (Pope Benedict XVI), On the Way to Jesus Christ (translated by M.J. Miller), San Fransisco 2005. Ratzinger, J. (Benedictus XVI), Jezus van Nazareth, vol. 1, Van de doop in de Jordaan tot de Gedaanteverwisseling (translated by M. ter Steeg), Tielt 2006. Renihan, S.D., From Shadow to Substance. The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704) (PhD diss. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 2017). Reuver, A. de, ‘Calvijn (1509-1564)’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (eds.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 231233. Reuver, R. de, Eén kerk in meervoud. Een theologisch onderzoek naar de ecclesiologische waarde van pluraliteit, Zoetermeer 2004. Reuver, R. de, ‘Gemeente en katholiciteit. Katholiciteit als graadmeter voor het kerkelijk gehalte van de gemeente’, in: J. Kronenburg and R. de Reuver (eds.), Wij zijn ook katholiek. Over protestantse katholiciteit, Heerenveen 2007, 143-157. Richardson, D., Eternity in Their Hearts. Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World, Grand Rapids 2014. Richel, P.J., Het kerkbegrip van Calvijn, Franeker 1942. Ruler, A.A. van, De vervulling der wet. Een dogmatische studie over de verhouding van openbaring en existentie, Nijkerk 1947. Ruler, A.A. van, Verzameld werk, 9 vols., Zoetermeer 2007. Ruler, A.A. van, Theologisch Werk, 6 vols, Nijkerk 1969-1973. Rutherford, S., Letters, Edinburgh 2006. Scheers, G.Ph., Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker, Leiden 1989. Sanders, E.P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism. A Comparison of Patterns of Religion, London 1977. Schaff, Ph., The Creeds of Christendom [1877], 3 vols, Grand Rapids 1996. Schilder, K., ‘Vrijgemaakten en ecclesiologie’, in: A. de Bruijne, H. Burger and D. te Velde (eds.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 213-224. Schmidt, A.J., How Christianity Changed the World, Grand Rapids 2001. Schoedel, W.R., Ignatius of Antioch. A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Hermeneia 1985.

Bibliography

Schreiter, R.J., The New Catholicity. Theology between the Global and the Local, Maryknoll 1997. Selderhuis, H.J., Luther, een mens zoekt God, Apeldoorn 2016. Sell, A.P.F., Confessing the Faith Yesterday and Today. Essays Reformed, Dissenting, and Catholic, Cambridge 2013. Shaw, R., An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, Lochcarron 1980. Sheldrake, Ph., Spirituality and Theology. Christian Living and the Doctrine of God, London 2004. Smilde, E., Een eeuw van strijd over verbond en doop, Kampen 1946. Snoddy, R., The Soteriology of James Ussher. The Act and Object of Saving Faith, Oxford 2014. Spijker, W. van ’t, Eenheid in verscheidenheid? De identiteitscrisis binnen de Gereformeerde Gezindte, Kampen 1974. Spijker, W. van ’t, Reformatie en geschiedenis, Goes 1986. Spijker, W. van ’t, ‘De kerk bij Calvijn: theocratie’, in: W. den Boer and H.J. Selderhuis (eds.), Opnieuw Calvijn. Verzameling Nederlandse Calvijnstudies, 2 delen, Apeldoorn 2009, 1515-1531. Spruyt, B.J. (ed.), Romantiek en Stichtelijkheid. Nagelaten geschriften van ds. J.T. Doornenbal, Apeldoorn 2016. Stählin, W., ‘Katholizität, Protestantismus und Katholizismus’, in: W. Stählin (ed.), Die Katholizität der Kirche, Stuttgart 1957, 179-204. Stark, R., The Rise of Christianity. A Sociologist Reconsiders History, Princeton 1996. Steinacker, P., ‘Katholizität’, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie vol. 18, Berlin/New York 1989, 72-80. Steinmetz, D.C., Calvin in Context, New York/Oxford 1995. Steinmetz, D.C., ‘The Scholastic Calvin’, in: C.R. Trueman and R.S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism. Essays in Reassessment, Carlisle 1999, 16-30. Stendahl, K., ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, The Harvard Theological Review 56/3 (1963), 199-215. Stolk, J.M., Johannes Calvijn en de godsdienstgesprekken, Kampen 2003. Strange, D., Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock. A Theology of Religions, Grand Rapids 2014. Swaab, D., We Are Our Brains. A Neurobiography of the Brain from the Womb to Alzheimer’s, transl. J. Hedley-Prôle, New York 2014 (originally Amsterdam 2012). Taylor, Ch., Sources of the Self. The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge 1989. Taylor, Ch., A Secular Age, Harvard 2007.

249

250

Bibliography

Tennent, T.C., Theology in the Context of World Christianity. How the Global Church is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology, Grand Rapids 2007. Thiselton, A.C., The Holy Spirit, in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today, Grand Rapids 2013. Toren, B. van den, ‘“Geliefde, ik wens dat het u in alles goed gaat en dat u gezond bent, zoals het uw ziel goed gaat”. In gesprek met Afrikaans (neo)pentecostalisme over de aard van het heil’, Theologia Reformata 60/1 (2017), 44-59. Trueman, C.R., The Claims of Truth. John Owen’s Trinitarian Theology, Carlisle 1998. Trueman, C.R., John Owen. Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, Farnham 2007. Ussher, J., A Briefe Declaration of the vniversalitie of the chvrch of Christ, and the Vnitie of the Catholike Faith professed therein. Delivered in a sermon before His Majestie the 20th of Iune, 1624 at Wansted, London 1625. Vanhoozer, K.J., ‘From “Blessed in Christ” to “Being in Christ”. The State of Union and the Place of Participation in Paul’s Discourse, New Testament Exegesis, and Systematic Theology Today’, in: M.J. Thate, K.J. Vanhoozer and C.R. Campbell (eds.), “In Christ” in Paul. Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, Tübingen 2014, 3-33. Vanhoozer, K.J. and D.J. Treier, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture. A Mere Evangelical Account, Downers Grove 2015. Vanhoozer, K.J., Biblical Authority after Babel. Retrieving the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity, Grand Rapids 2016. Visscher, W., ‘Om de levende kerk’, in: I.A. Kole (ed.), Verscheurd verlangen. De uitblijvende eenheid van de gereformeerde gezindte, Apeldoorn 2013, 142-157. Visser, P.L.D., ‘Zeg de kinderen Israëls dat zij voorttrekken’, in: I.A. Kole (ed.), Verscheurd verlangen. De uitblijvende eenheid van de gereformeerde gezindte, Apeldoorn 2013, 169-178. Vlastuin, W. van, De Geest van opwekking. Een onderzoek naar de leer van de Heilige Geest in de opwekkingstheologie van Jonathan Edwards (1703-’58), Heerenveen 2001. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘Personal Renewal between Heidelberg and Westminster’, Journal of Reformed Theology 5 (2011), 49-67. Vlastuin, W. van, Be Renewed. A Theology of Personal Renewal, Göttingen 2014. Vlastuin, W. van, Naar het hart van Jeruzalem. Over de betekenis van de geestelijke gemeenschap met Christus voor de prediking, Houten 2012. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘En uw kinderen. Het genadeverbond in relatie tot de doop van kinderen bij drie vertegenwoordigers van de nadere reformatie’, Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 36/2 (2012), 131-151.

Bibliography

Vlastuin, W. van, ‘The Estimation of the World. A Comparison between Calvin and Van Ruler’, Calvin Theological Journal 49/2 (2014), 186-200. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘The joy of Law. A revisitation of the usus normativus in the Heidelberg Catechism’, Journal of Reformed Theology 9/2 (2015), 166-181. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘Katholiciteit en Credo’, in: J.M. Burger, A.L.Th. de Bruijne and R.T. te Velde (eds.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 287-297. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘Puriteins Katholiek. De relevantie van het katholiciteitsbegrip bij James Ussher (1581-1656)’, in: E.A. de Boer and H.J. Boiten (eds.), Godsvrucht in geschiedenis. Bundel ter gelegenheid van het afscheid van prof. dr. F. van der Pol als hoogleraar aan de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, Heerenveen 2015, 338-349. Vlastuin, W. van, ‘Van ecclesiologie naar economie. De relevantie van het katholiciteitsbegrip van Cyrillus’, in: A. Huijgen, E. Peels and C. Smits (eds.), Schuld & vrijheid. Opstellen aangeboden aan prof. dr. G.C. den Hertog, Zoetermeer 2017, 294-304. Vries, P. de, Die mij heeft liefgehad. De betekenis van de gemeenschap met Christus in de theologie van John Owen (1616-1683), Heerenveen 1999. Walker, G.S.M., ‘Calvin and the Church’, in: D.K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin’s Theology, Grand Rapids 1984, 212-230. Ward, P., Participation and Mediation. A Practical Theology for the Liquid Church, Londen 2008. Ward, P., Liquid Church. A bold vision of how to be God’s people in worship and mission – a flexible, fluid way of being church, reprint, Eugene 2013. Warfield, B.B., The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed, New York 1898. Weber, M., Die protestantische Ethik und der „Geist“ des Kapitalismus (ausgewählt und herausgegeben von Dirk Kaesler), Stuttgart 2002. Webster, J., ‘Theologies of retrieval’, in: J. Webster et al (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, Oxford 2007, 583-299. Welker, M., ‘Theological Realism and Eschatological Symbol Systems’, in: T. Peters, R.J. Russell and M. Welker (eds.), Resurrection. Theological and Scientific Assessments, Grand Rapids 2002, 31-42. Welker, M., ‘Article review. Wright on the resurrection’, Scottish Journal of Theology 60/4 (2007), 458-475. Wendel, F., Calvin. Origins, and Developments of His Religious Thought, Grand Rapids 1997. Wentsel, B., De Heilige Geest, de Kerk en de laatste dingen, Kampen 1998. Wenzel, K., ‘Katholisch’, in: W. Kasper et al (ed.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche vol. 5, 3rd ed., Freiburg im Breisgau 1993-2001, 1345-1346.

251

252

Bibliography

Westerholm, S., Perspectives Old and New on Paul. The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics, Grand Rapids 2004. Westerholm, S. and M. Westerholm, Reading Sacred Scripture. Voiced from the history of biblical interpretation, Grand Rapids 2016. Westra, L.H., The Apostles’ Creed. Origin, history, and some early commentaries, Turnhout 2002. Wijnen, H. van, Faith in Small Groups of Adolescents. Being Together as a Basic Given, Delft 2016. Williams, D.H., Evangelicals and Tradition. The Formative Influence of the Early Church, Grand Rapids 2005. Williams, R., Why Study the Past? The Quest for the Historical Church, London 2005. Willigen, M.A. van, Dagboek Vroege Kerk. Twaalf preken over de Psalmen van Ambrosius, Augustinus, Chrysostomus en Eusebius van Caesarea, Heerenveen 2010. Wisse, P.M., ‘“Hun heil verwachtend in Jezus Christus”. Een andere fundering voor een fluïde kerkbegrip’, Geestkracht 66 (2010), 22-34. Witkamp, N., Tradition and Innovation. Baptismal Rite and Mystagogy in Theodore of Mopsuestia and Narsai of Nisibis (dissertation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2016). Wright, N.T., New Tasks for a Renewed Church, London 1992. Wright, N.T., The Resurrection of the Son of God, Minneapolis 2003. Wright, N.T., Justification. God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, London 2009. Yoo, H., ‘Catholicity, Denomination, Denominationalism’, in: A. de Bruijne, H. Burger and D. te Velde (ed.), Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, Zoetermeer 2015, 310-320. Zillenbiller, A., Die Einheit der katholischen Kirche. Calvins Cyprianrezeption in seinen ekklesiologische Schriften, Mainz 1993. Zwaag, K. van der, Augustinus, de kerkvader van het Westen. Zijn leven, zijn leer, zijn invloed, Heerenveen 2008. Zwanepol, K. et al (ed.), Belijdenisgeschriften van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, Heerenveen 2009.