Christ is Building His Church
BIBLICAL APPEARANCE OF CHRIST’S CHURCH
OR
CHURCH IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT
Mat
16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon
Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And
Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell
you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
II. How should we go about studying the
development of church in particular?
(In seeking to answer this question, I will propose and seek to explain two
basic principles. If we would properly
study church:
A. We must keep before us the biblical
appearance of church. And:
B. We must keep before us the biblical categories
of church.
Let us at this point consider the first
basic principle for the proper study of church history, which again is:
A. We must keep before us the biblical
appearance of church’s development.
I.e., we should understand and remember what the development of church
looks like according to the Word of God.
In order to begin painting the biblical picture of church’s growth,
consider once again the key text we considered earlier - Mt 16:15-19 - where we
find Christ's first recorded explicit (clear/plain) mention of the church. Notice first of all from this text:
1. The
key element of the biblical picture of development of church. The key phrase of this passage for our
purposes is found in vs. 18 where our Lord declares, ". . . I will build
my church . . .". If we
learn anything from this passage, we learn that church will appear as a process of development. Here is the key element of what church’s
development looks like. It is not a still photo or snapshot. It is a like a moving picture - a video -
full of continuous movement and change and development.
Building upon this foundational view of the
development of church, let us begin to consider some:
2. Further descriptions of this key
element of the picture. There
are at least nine further descriptions of this process of development
which may be gleaned (collected slowly and patiently or perhaps indirectly)
from our standard, the Scriptures - descriptions which will help us to
accurately portray (represent/describe/revel/expose) church history. The first four grow out of the key text we
have already begun to study:
a. First,
this development is a predicted development. Consider with me three things about this
fact. First of all, notice:
(1) The
two indications that this is predicted development:
(a) At the time Christ spoke, the church did
not yet exist in fully-recognizable form. It was in its earliest formative (shaping)
stages. Christ had not yet instituted
the Lord's Table. He had not yet initiated the New Covenant by His death and
resurrection. He had not yet poured out
His Holy Spirit upon His church at Pentecost and begun gathering sizeable
(large/ample/significant) numbers into it.
And he had not yet openly begun to include the Gentiles. So when Christ spoke of His church, those who
listened probably wondered what it was to which He was referring. For it had still to become a reality in the
future.
(b) But also, the development of the church was clearly a predicted
development because Christ here spoke in the future tense. He was saying, "I will build my church", building upon the foundation
rock which in the context here is either the Christ confessed by Peter, or the
Peter who was confessing Christ. Jesus
spoke of events which at that time were only in their initial stages, just as
the laying of a foundation is but the earliest part of the process of building
a building.
So Christ's words were a prediction of
future development. But how certain was
this prediction? This brings us to:
(2) The
well-founded certainty of this predicted development. Here was no blind prediction by a mere
limited man. Christ's words were
not like something I heard regarding an earthquake which occurred in California
in 1989. At the time of the quake, a
news commentator said that a study conducted before the earthquake occurred had
concluded that there was a 50% probability of an earthquake of a magnitude of
7.0 or greater on the Richter scale sometime during the next 30 years. After giving these details of the prediction,
the commentator concluded that the crystal ball[1] of the scientists was working well
because of what had happened. The
problem was that this earthquake was slightly less that 7.0 on the Richter
scale, only a 50% chance was given in the first place, and it could have
happened anytime over a period of 30 years.
What a great prediction!
But such was not the case with the
prediction of Christ. Here were not the
words of a mere man. The One who here
spoke was none other than Immanuel - God with us. It was God incarnate who predicted. Here was no uncertainty. Here was only definiteness. And this well-founded certainty regarding
Christ's prediction was borne out by:
(3) The
early fulfillment of this predicted development. It should not surprise us that the
earliest history of the church found in the pages of the infallible Scriptures
records the beginning of the accurate fulfillment of Christ's Words, so
that we read:
(a) ". . . there were added that day
about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41b)
(b) "And the Lord was adding to their
number day by day those who were being saved." (Acts 2:47b)
(c) ". . . the number of the men came to
be about five thousand." (Acts 4:4b)
(d) "And all the more believers in the
Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number. .
." (Acts 5:14b)
(e) "And the word of God kept on
spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in
Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the
faith." (Acts 6:7)
(f) ". . . the church throughout all
Judea and Galilee and Samaria . . . being built up; and, going on in the fear
of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to
increase."(Acts 9:31)
We could multiply the examples, but there
was indeed a solid basis for Paul's later words to the Ephesian believers found
in Eph. 2:19-22. Please read that
passage, and also Peter's words to the Hebrew believers in 1 Pet. 2:4-5a. Even during the days of the Apostles, the
building process had begun and was continuing to take place.
So this development is predicted
development. But in the second place, it
is:
b. Personally
purposeful development. Christ's prediction in Mt. 16:18 was
certainly not made only because He as God could perfectly see what would happen
in the future. It was even more certain
because the resurrected Christ, who declared "All authority has been given
to Me in heaven and on earth" before He returned to heaven, is the One who has personally purposed
to build His church and is fully qualified to sovereignly do what He's purposed
and promised to do. In the 1st
person singular He declared, "I
will build My church."
Christ
spoke as Sovereign Lord and Head of the church when He made His declaration that He
would build His church. And He is accomplishing His purpose through the
power of His Holy Spirit, the
third Person of the Trinity, who was poured out upon the church at
Pentecost, was active in the Early Church as recorded in the book of Acts and
elsewhere in the New Testament, and has continued to be active in building the
church since.
Therefore, we should hold as a basic
assumption that when we study church history, we are witnessing the
personally purposeful, sovereign building activity of none other than Jesus
Christ through His Spirit. This was
the historian Luke's assumption when he wrote in Acts 1:1-2, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about
all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up.
. ." Luke here clearly implied that
in the book of Acts he was now going to describe what Christ had continued to
do in building His church since He returned to heaven.
Church history is indeed personally
purposeful development. However, the
building of the church by Christ, as predicted in Mt. 16:18, is not only
certain because Christ knew ahead of time what would happen, and because He was
personally determined to act to make it happen.
It was also certain because this development is:
c. Priority
development. Christ's
church building activity was of the greatest personal interest for Him. He declared, "I will build my church". The church He would build is the church which
He had loved from all eternity, and for whom He became a man and came to
earth. She is the church which He
purchased by His own precious life blood, which He is presently preparing and
purifying, and for which He is praying.
She is that church which is His body and is described as being His
fullness. He declares that He will build it, and we
therefore, may rest assured that when we study church history, we are
witnessing Christ's sovereign building activity being carried on with His
deepest personal interest in what He is doing. The church's development is priority
development with Christ.
How then should we apply the
predicted and personally purposeful and priority development of the church as
we approach our study of church history?
(Here I have been helped by a former teacher.)
1. When we come to study the history of
the church, we should do so with full confidence and expectation of finding
precisely what Christ predicted would happen, and what actually began to happen
in the earliest days of the church.
The intellectually-proud skeptic might say, "What? You expect me to conclude what I will find in
church history before I even begin to study it?
That's not objective scientific study!" However, we must respond, "Yes it is
objective scientific study because the God of science has told us what church
history will look like in advance.
Therefore, any other conclusion is in error and foolish and the mark of
a heart in rebellion against that God."
(We might add, that we not only may look to the past with certainty that
Christ has already built His church; but also, that we may look to the future
with the greatest certainty that Christ will continue to build His church,
because He has not yet finished the job (or He would be here already!).)
But there is a second application which
also flows from what we have already seen.
2. There is no room for neutral
objectivity in the study of church history.
There is no room for the attitude of cool indifference assumed by
so many supposed church historians who try to appear scholarly by being so
neutral that it appears that they could care less whether the church was built,
or whether it was blown to tiny pieces by a hydrogen bomb. You see, you cannot be neutral in the
study of church history because you cannot be neutral toward the One who is
active in church history. You have
to choose which side you are on, and a failure to choose to be for Christ and
His church is a choice to be in opposition to them. This reality does not allow us to be
dishonest in our studies. But it does
demand that we be biased in our studies (which everyone ultimately
is). An approach of supposed neutral
objectivity usually reflects a heart unwilling to be openly supportive of, and
identified with, the Christ who is building His church.
Furthermore, you dare not and ought not to
be coolly (calmly) indifferent to church history because the King of Kings who
is building His church is intensely interested in what He is doing. We
should reflect His attitude as His image-bearers if we would be pleasing to
Him.
So there is no room for neutral
objectivity or cool indifference in the study of church history. But a third application remains:
3. We are called to godly wonder and awe,
and the greatest of care in our study of church history. When we come to the study of church history,
we come to a Holy of Holies of scholarly study.
We come to that handiwork of Jesus Christ which is His most prized work
and possession of all - the outworking of His costly redemption and the
extension of His glorious kingdom through a developing church. Such realities call us to approach our study
with wonder and awe, and to use great care in order to properly see and apply
the handiwork of our Lord.
Now we turn to another description of the
development of the church. It is:
d. Positive
development. Although
this fact is implied to some extent in the word "development" itself,
I believe that this fact needs to be underscored.
What is the imagery of Mt. 16:18 (and of
Eph. 2:19-22 and I Pet. 2:4-5a)? As we have noted, it is that of building
a building. Christ speaks of using either Himself as testified by Peter,
or the Peter who testified of Him (take your pick) as the foundation rock for
erecting a building which is the church.
Even as the erection of a building
is a positive process leading up to a worthwhile, useful end-product, so
Christ's building of His church is a positive process with advance and increase
and improvement until ultimate arrival at the desired, useful, end-product of a
completed and purified and glorified church. How then do we apply this positive
development of the church?
When we study church history, we should
approach it expecting to find, and looking for such positive progress and
development. We should view it as
the continued raising up of a building.
Therefore, at the beginning, we should look for foundation building,
then the erecting of superstructure and finishing work. Granted, there will be periods such as the
Middle Ages when progress was very slow, and when there seemed to be more
decline than advance. (We will consider
this reality further below.) But over
longer periods of church history we should expect to find, and therefore should
look for, the overall positive fruit of Christ's construction work. The line of development will keep moving in
an overall upward direction.
If we respond in this way, two sinful
attitudes toward church history will be excluded:
(1) Excluded will be a cynical
(pessimistic/mocking/sarcastic) spirit which is regularly,
sneeringly (scornfully) questioning the goodness of Christ's church and the
sincerity (honesty/genuineness) of men - especially the sincerity of men in
their religious beliefs and convictions.
There will not be room for a spirit of constantly looking for and
focusing upon and magnifying the sins and blemishes of the leaders and members
of Christ's church as an excuse for remaining in rebellion against God the
Father and His exalted Son. Such a
cynical spirit will be excluded because the emphasis of Scripture is upon
improvement and growth and development in the church. God's Word emphasizes the progressive washing
away of more and more of the church's spots and blemishes.
However, you may not fit the role of a
cynic. There may be another more
appropriate application for you:
(2) A proper response to the positive
development of the church will also exclude a pessimistic spirit which
too much focuses upon the all too real and common problems in the church - upon
the sins and divisions and battles and false teachings within the church - and
therefore becomes discouraged. We should
be optimistic, not pessimistic, as we look at church history. We should give first priority to looking for
the evidences that the church has been advancing and improving throughout her
history. We should do so because
ultimately Christ has been building His church - not sinful men.
Thus far, we have seen that the
development of the church is predicted, personally-purposeful, a priority and
positive. Closely-related to the idea of
positive development is the additional one of:
e. Organic
development. Here we will
notice two key texts and then will seek to draw conclusions:
(1) First of all observe the first key text
- Mk. 4:26-29. This parable tells what the kingdom of God is
like. Remember, it is the church which
is presently the chief visible expression of God's kingdom on earth, and which
is His primary instrument in extending His kingdom. (Mt. 16:18-19, which we noted earlier, ties
church and kingdom closely together.) So
this parable regarding the kingdom of God provides us with helpful instruction
regarding church history. Let's answer
several questions drawing from it:
(a) What is the imagery here? Growing
grain plants.
(b) What is the point being made? The
organic development and growth and maturity of the kingdom of God even as
plants grow and mature.
(c) When does the process end? On
harvest day which is the final return of Christ and the day of judgement.
But notice also:
(2) A second key text - Eph. 4:11-16. (Observe that the context of these verses in
the book of Ephesians is primarily the universal church, not just the local
church). Let's again answer several
questions flowing from this passage:
(a) What is the imagery here? A
human body.
(b) What is the point being made? That
the body of Christ - i.e., the church - should grow up and mature.
Having considered two key texts, what
should be our:
(3) Conclusions?
(a) When a wheat (or rice) plant has emerged
from the ground only within the last week, would you expect it to have a
fully-developed head of grain on it already?
Of course not. The potential
(possible/impending) is present to produce such a seed head, and all the parts
are present in embryo (Kernel/origin/seed) form, but the plant is still a young
seedling (sprout/sapling).
(b) When a baby is three months old, do you
expect her to be already carrying on an adult conversation (even though she may
think she is!)? Of course not. In God's ordained process of development,
babies must learn first things first, and go through a long process of
development before they are adults.
What is true for the wheat plant, and for
the human baby, is also true for the church of Jesus Christ. (Here we come to a very important truth regarding
the study of church history.)
After the foundation of the church had
been laid during the period of the living Apostles, what do we find in the
generations which immediately followed the Apostles? We find spiritual "baby talk" when
we read the earliest writings. Great
immaturity of understanding of the truths of God's Word is apparent
(plain/clear). All that Christ intended
the church to be was present in embryo form.
But she was far from the mature plant.
This reality of the organic development of the church affects greatly how we should
view earlier periods of church history as compared with later periods. We should not expect the same precision of
understanding of doctrine and even of practice which we find later and which
the church now possess. At times it
will be true that what an earlier church father said in 200 A.D. would have
been heretical if stated either in 400 A.D. or today. However, this early church father's comments
were not necessarily heretical at the time at which he spoke due to the
church's fuzzy (unclear), indistinct (blurry/dim) grasp of the relevant truths
at that time. Often this fuzziness
(ambiguity) of understanding was due to the fact that a heresy or doctrinal
controversy had not yet arisen to bring the church to clearer views of the
specific issue. And such relevant
controversies had not yet arisen because the church was still wrestling with
more basic issues. She had to learn to
speak baby talk before she could speak fluently. She had to learn to crawl before she could
walk, and to walk before she could run.
Therefore, when we study church history,
it is crucial that we determine and understand the historical contexts of the
individuals whom we are studying. We
must be very careful to always view these individuals in their historical
settings, instead of unfairly transplanting them into our present day situation
which reflects more maturity and growth in the church than had taken place in
their day. (Modern, Christian historical novels or
movies can frequently err at this point.)
Here is a temptation which we must constantly resist (oppose). And here is a principle we will have to
continually apply as we study the history of the church.
I might add that this principle is one
which also should be applied in our dealings with others who may not have had
the benefits of the biblical instruction and of the Spirit's illumination which
we have had. We need to patiently deal
with such people by beginning our dealings with them at the point where they
are in their spiritual understanding and not getting frustrated when they do
not see right away truths which are (now) clear to us. And we should remember that many of us were
ignorant of some of those very same basic truths for many years before the Lord
opened our eyes.
By way of summary of our present
area of study thus far, we have been seeking to paint the biblical picture of
what church history looks like. Thus far
we have seen that church history is a process of development; and that this
development of the church is predicted, personally-purposeful, a priority,
positive, and organic. Until now, the
development of the church in church history has been pictured only in a
positive way. But there are other
biblical realities regarding the appearance of church history as well. Therefore, we also need to observe that this
development is:
f. An opposed
development. Notice again
the words of our key text - Mt. 16:17-18. This text tells us that there are forces hostile to Christ and His church, and that therefore,
there will be warfare during the history of the church.
The
hostile forces here are described as the gates of Hades or hell.
The word translated "Hades" in the New American Standard Bible
may mean simply the "grave", but also may refer to the dwelling place
of the ungodly after death. In our text
this term is apparently used more broadly as a picture for the kingdom of
darkness which stands in violent opposition to the kingdom of God and His
church during this age.
But notice further that this opponent
is described as the gates of
Hades or hell. Here is the imagery
of an ancient walled city where the gates were the strategic part of its
defenses and the place through which its attacking armies poured out on the
offensive. Because the gates were such
an important place, the one who controlled them was viewed as the one presently
having control over the city. Therefore,
in the Old Testament we often find the elders of the city or the king sitting
in the gate as he exercised his authority and power. In the case of our text, the imagery of the gates of hell probably
points to Satan's power or authority as head of the kingdom of darkness - an
authority which is exercised in opposition to the church in an attempt to
weaken her and ultimately overthrow and destroy her.
This active opposition against the church
is also predicted in the Parable of the Tares.
Please notice the details of this parable recorded in Mt. 13:24-30;
37-43. Here is the picture of a growing
field of grain which is the world. The
Devil sows his sons among the sons of the kingdom like weeds sown in
wheat. As weeds hinder and harm the
growing crop, so wicked men alongside the righteous hinder them as they labor
as part of God's church. And this
opposition continues until the harvest day at the final judgment.
The reality of this spiritual opposition
to Christ's building activity is repeatedly brought out in the biblical records
of the apostolic church.
What do we learn from this opposition?:
1. We
had better expect to find conflict and opposition and spiritual warfare when we
study the history of the church, (and also when we live and work together as
members of Christ's church). There
always has been, and will continue to be, such warfare until Christ
returns. This is what church history
looks like.
2. We
should still be optimistic as we study the conflict-ridden history of the
church (and as we battle in our present spiritual warfare), for the gates
of hell will not prevail against Christ's church, and the judgment day is
coming when Satan's wicked plotting and ability to assault God's kingdom will
be totally overthrown. We should be
looking for Christ at work in building His church even in the seemingly darkest
hours of her history.
As a result of this opposed development,
we find that church history is therefore also:
g. A mixed
(or variable) development.
(1) Because of the real spiritual opposition
against Christ's church, we first of all find an outwardly mixed pattern of
development between different periods of church history. Even as during an extended
(total/wholesale/complete) war, the fortunes of the two opponents may seem to
switch back and forth, and ebb (tide) and flow for each, so during church
history there are periods when the church appeared to be mightily developing
and advancing, and other times when she appeared to be in full retreat.
This is what happened in the book of Acts.
The first local church at Jerusalem was prospering mightily. Then persecution broke out and that church
was scattered to the four winds and it appeared that Satan was triumphing. But then it became apparent that this dark
hour was but a sowing of the seeds of greater triumphs for our Lord. The Gospel was spread as Christians were
scattered, Satan's most fervent human instrument - Saul of Tarsus - was
converted and became a mighty herald (messenger) of the Gospel, and the church
in Antioch was planted from which missionary labors to the Gentiles were
launched.
This is what has since happened in
church history as well. The church
prospered, Roman persecutions broke out, the Roman emperor professed Christ and
the persecutions greatly eased, the barbarians sacked Rome, the barbarians were
converted, Moslems swept in, they were thrown back and the Gospel made an end-run
around their region to the nations beyond, the church declined during the
Middle Ages, the Reformation and revival occurred, the Protestant churches
declined, the Great Awakening and related revivals took place, major missionary
ventures were launched, then liberalism and neo-orthodoxy swept in, but in our
day conservative, evangelical churches to a large extent have far outstripped
(outshine/surpass) the dead apostate churches.
And throughout it all, Christ has been, and still is, building His
church. But outwardly, the fortunes of
the church from one period to the next have been mixed or variable, with ebb
and flow.
Unfortunately, this is not the only way in
which this spiritual opposition has led to a mixed result in church history.
(2) There is also a mixture of good and
evil to be found at any specific point in church history in the individuals,
churches, and broader groups involved in that history. Satan and his hosts not only make
frontal assaults from the outside. They
also seek to subtly attack from within as well. When they do so they use at least 2
powerful allies (associates):
(a) There is the remaining corruption
within the hearts of true believers who make up Christ's church (Rom.
7:14-25; 1 Jn. 1:8-10). Therefore when
we study the lives of the godliest saints, and when we study the churches made
up of the most mature Christians, we still find a mixture of good and evil. Good increasingly is triumphing over evil if
true believers are involved, but the sad mixture yet remains nonetheless. There are still spots and blemishes which
Christ is purifying from His church (Eph. 5:27).
Thus in the early church you have a young
man falling asleep while no less than the Apostle Paul preached, an Apostle
Peter compromising the Gospel by refusing to associate with Gentiles, a Timothy
apparently tending to be too timid in carrying out his duties, a Barnabas and a
Paul disagreeing over John Mark and parting company, and a Corinthian church
with all its problems.
But Satan also has a second ally on the
inside of Christ's church:
(b) There are false professors, apostates
and false teachers who manage to become a part of the church - at least
for awhile. Thus in the parable of
the Sower in Matthew chapter 13, some initially receive the Word gladly and
profess Christ, but later fall away due to trials and persecutions, or the
cares of this life, or the deceitfulness of riches. Christ and Paul must repeatedly warn
regarding false teachers and divisive men.
In the Apostolic church, Ananias and Saphira are struck dead for
their lie to the Holy Spirit; Simon the Sorcerer tries to buy the gift of the
Holy Spirit, Demas forsakes Paul having loved this present world, and whole
churches in Revelation chapter 2 & 3 are on the verge of becoming apostate
and synagogues of Satan.
What do we then learn from the church's
mixed development?
1. We
must be biblically realistic in our approach to church history or we may become
disillusioned. There are real
periods of serious outward setback in Christ's church. There are real areas of weakness and sin in
the lives of the godliest of saints and in the best churches and groups of
churches throughout the church's history until the return of Christ.
2. We
must also be biblically realistic in our approach to church history or we may
over-simplify and become seriously inaccurate in our assessments. There is a tendency for many to want to tag
(mark/label) every individual or church or larger group in church history as
being either very, very good, or very, very bad. Biographies of great saints often fail to
adequately note their failings, weaknesses and sins; and paint an untrue
picture of such "holy" people.
However, in general, such totally black
and white conclusions are simply not possible nor truthful. They especially are difficult to make during
the early church period following the time of the Apostles because doctrinal
and practical distinctions were much less clear at that time than they were later. There is a real sense in which distinctions
between truth and error, evil and good, have been increasingly crystallized as
church history has progressed and the church has matured, even as individuals
tend to become fixed more and more in a path of righteousness or of wickedness
as they get older.
As a result of the mixture of good and
evil, we must avoid "idealizing any stream of church history which
practically assumes that error is not mixed with it".[2]
This is what some Baptists have done in supposedly tracing "the
pure baptistic church" all the way back to John the Baptist. We must avoid the "trail of blood"
mentality which assumes that anyone who was persecuted was the good guy, and
the persecutor was the bad guy. This
leads to the fact that we also must beware of "vilifying (or condemning)
of any stream of Church History which denies the good mixed with it".[3]
Especially in the Early Church, truth often was shared almost equally by
opposing sides, and to reject one side would be to lose part of the truth. We should ask regarding every individual and
movement, "Where were they right? And Where were they wrong?" (and
might I add, such biblical realism should cause us to maintain a humble
perspective upon ourselves, our own local church and our particular group of
sister churches as well.)
h. It is a principled development. We
have seen that the development of the church is opposed, and therefore
mixed. But we also need to observe that it is a principled development. Even unconverted historians find that history
not only in some ways makes overall advancement, but also seems to move in
cycles of advance and decline. When we
come to the Bible, we learn the major reason for these cycles in history
in general, and in church history in particular. It is the moral principle that
ultimately ". . . those who honor Me (God) I will honor, and those who
despise Me will be lightly esteemed" (I Sam. 2:30c).
Thus we find churches and groups of
churches which prosper as they seek to follow Christ faithfully with the light
they have during their period in history.
And we find decline and decay and ultimate rejection by Christ of
churches and groups of churches as they move away from their Head and His will
for His church.
This is much of the focus of Revelation
chapters two and three where most of the seven local churches addressed there
are warned because of serious decline and defects in them. Serious threats of having their lamp-stand
removed and of being spit out of Christ's mouth are issued to two churches
(Ephesus and Laodicea). And evidently
these churches eventually failed to heed Christ's warning, because they have
since ceased to exist, in accordance with Christ's threats.
What does this tell us about our
study of church history? That as we
study, we should expect to find evidences of God's blessing where He was
honored, and of God's chastening and judgment where He was despised, even
though these results are delayed. And
when we see such a pattern in history, we should recognize and evaluate it as
such:
(1) When we see Athanasius ultimately
vindicated after repeated exiles, we should recognize God's hand of blessing
upon his faithfulness.
(2) When we see Martin Luther used by God to
shake Europe with Reformation and revival, we should see God honoring the man
who honored Him and His Word and Gospel.
(3) When we see largely liberal and
neo-orthodox denominations dying a slow death, we should see the judging hand
of God for their apostasy.
You see, as one writer has said, "the
way a man interprets providence proves his real theology".[4] Everyone starts with presuppositions
when he comes to study history. For
ourselves, we need to make certain that our presuppositions agree with the
revelation of God. For the biblical,
moral principle enables us to interpret history accurately when we interpret in light if it. Furthermore, since the biblical, moral
principle is the Word of God, it rightly demands
that we interpret history in light of it.
However, there is at least one final
element of the appearance of church history which we must not ignore and which
balances what we have just seen:
i. Church history
is puzzling development.
Some secular historians look at history in general and conclude that
there is no identifiable pattern to be found.
They conclude that history therefore is the product of chaos - that
there is ultimately no meaning and purpose to be found in it. We at times might be tempted to conclude the
same thing. Why is God's blessing
sometimes seemingly so long delayed when there is faithfulness? And why is God's judgment seemingly often so
long delayed where there is unfaithfulness?
Why did Christ allow the early Apostolic Church to decline if He's
building His church? And why did the
revivals of the 1730's and 1740's in Britain break out when there was such
spiritual darkness just before? Why does
an apostate Roman Catholic Church seem to continue to prosper and grow in at
least some ways?
Two passages of Scripture answer these
questions at least in part:
In
Isa.55:8-9 we read,
"`For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,'
declares the Lord. `For as the heavens
are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, and My
thoughts than your thoughts. . . . '
And
in Rom.11:33-34 we read,
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and
unfathomable His ways! FOR WHO HAS KNOWN
THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR?"
What then should we learn from this
puzzling development found so often in church history?
1. We
should humbly acknowledge and submit to God's wise ways before those
aspects of church history which we are unable to understand and evaluate.
2. We
should patiently wait until God makes His purposes known more fully -
either before, or at, the return of Christ.
The often puzzling nature of church history is why, generally, time must
pass before we can begin to more fully understand what Christ has been doing in
building His church. Only then can we
start to sort out seemingly meaningless pieces of God's providence and begin to
see the outline of what He was doing.
I.e., only after some time has passed can we get far enough away from
the individual trees to be able to see the whole forest.
Conclusion
a.
This development is a Predicted development.
b.
Personally purposeful development.
c.
Priority development.
d.
Positive development.
e.
Organic development.
f.
An Opposed development.
g.
A Mixed (or variable) development.
h.
It is a Principled development.
i.
Church history is Puzzling development.
This then has been the first specific
principle for the study of church history. We must keep before us the biblical appearance
of church history. But briefly, a
second principle is that:
B. We must keep before us the biblical
categories of church history. Here I
want to briefly give a biblical rationale for the approach adopted for our
study of the different periods of church history. Consider once again the words of Mt.16:17-19.
1. In the person of Peter, our Lord tells us
in this passage that He will use
human instruments in building His church. The inspired records of the apostolic church
portray for us how Christ began to work this out. The book of Acts is filled with the role of
human instruments in building Christ's church.
However, the inspired historical record of Acts does not deal with each
human instrument equally. It instead
focuses primarily upon the labors of two key individuals in the history of the
church - Peter and Paul. Based upon this
inspired approach to church history, we will seek to especially focus on the
primary human instruments whom Christ has used in building His church during
other periods of church history as well.
Where we are able, we will study key biographical sketches of the most
prominent servants of Christ, as you can see in the course syllabus.
2. Our Lord also in Mt. 16:18 tells us that Christ will build His church.
This construction work began in the apostolic church and continues to
this day. Therefore we will seek to
review the growth and building of the church during the periods of her history
which we study. We will look at her:
a. Quantitative growth. In our studies, we will seek to survey the
quantitative increase of the church in numbers and geographic area during her
history. In a real sense, the entire
book of Acts is a record of this quantitative growth during the apostolic
church period, and provides us with a pattern for our study of the rest of
church history.
We will also consider the church's:
b. Qualitative growth. Eph. 4:11-16 tells us that internal growth in
the quality or health or maturity of the church will take place in at least two
areas:
(1) There will be increasing maturity in the
knowledge of the truth, and:
(2) There will be increasing development in
the practice of the truth.
Once again, we find descriptions of this
qualitative growth in the apostolic church in the book of Acts and elsewhere in
the New Testament which provide a pattern for our church history studies.
3. Finally, Mt. 16:18 tells us that the
church will be faced with stiff opposition. The book of Acts and the New Testament books
which follow are filled with records of such spiritual warfare. Therefore, as we pursue our study of church
history, we will review the persecutions and warfare of the church during
her history.
These then are the biblical categories
which we will follow in the studies which follow. Please consider the Church History Study
Outline (1C) which has been provided with these notes and observe how these
categories are reflected in the path laid out there.
In concluding this last part of our
overall introduction to church history, we once again need to do two things
when we begin to study the history of the church:
1. We
must ever keep before us the biblical appearance of church history. We must not forget that church history is development which has been predicted;
which is purposeful; which is a priority with the Master Builder; which is
positive; which is organic; which is opposed; and which is mixed, principled
and puzzling. Only as we approach the
history of the church with a biblical and therefore accurate concept of what we
will find there will we be able to properly study the mighty redemptive works
of Jesus Christ on earth since He returned to heaven.
2. But
also, we must keep before us the biblical categories of church history. We need to remember what the Bible emphasizes
as being of major importance in the history of the church, and be sure that we
focus upon those same priority categories in our own studies. Otherwise we will be in danger of drifting
aimlessly into unprofitable diversions and side trails, and we may lose sight
of the elements of Christ's works which He intended for us to see and from
which He desires that we profit.
By Rameshwar Yadav
Christ is building His Church. So None can stop it because He has been building His church for 2000 years. Many rose against the Christ's church but passed away. Still He is working as His Father is at work.
ReplyDelete