091-Prop. 88. The Church is then a preparatory stage far this Kingdom.
Prop. 88. The Church is then a preparatory stage far this Kingdom. THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE PRECEDING, FOR THE CHURCH THEN RESOLVES ITSELF INTO AN ASSOCIATION OF BELIEVERS BY WHICH ITS GROWTH, PERPETUATION, ETC., IS INSURED BY THE USE OF MEANS OF GRACE CONNECTED WITH SUCH AN ORGANIZATION, AND BY THE CARE AND OVERSIGHT EXTENDED TO IT BY ITS LIVING HEAD. IT IS PREPARATORY, BECAUSE ITS OFFICE IS, UNDER DIVINE ASSISTANCE, TO GATHER OUT OF THE NATIONS THE ELECT, I.E. THOSE WHO ARE GRAFTED INTO THE JEWISH COMMONWEALTH, WHO SHALL, BY VIRTUE OF ADOPTION AS ABRAHAM’S SEED, BE ACCOUNTED HEIRS AND INHERITORS OF THE KINGDOM WITH ABRAHAM. IT IS SIMPLY CALLING AND PREPARING “THE HEIRS OF PROMISE,” THE “HEIRS OF THAT KINGDOM WHICH GOD HATH PREPARED FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM.” In this gathering out of believers to form this elect people-the inheritors-is found the ground for a firm belief in the perpetuity of the Church. God’s purpose, no matter how adverse at times the Church’s circumstances, how hostile the world, how corrupt her mixed condition, etc., will and must be inevitably carried out. The number that God has predetermined will be secured, so that His Theocratic Plan may be realized in power and glory.
OBS. 1. DISCARDING THE SIMPLE TRUTH OF THE PROPOSITION, EMINENT MEN OF ABILITY HAVE ARRAYED THEMSELVES AGAINST EACH OTHER, CONTENDING FOR SOME FAVORITE CHURCH THEORY, MANIFESTING AN AMAZING VARIETY OF DEFINITIONS, SUBTLE DIVISIONS, IMAGINARY DISTINCTIONS, AND IRRELEVANT DISPLAY OF LEARNING. THIS HAS RESULTED MAINLY FROM ELEVATING THE CHURCH INTO A KINGDOM UNDER THE MISTAKE THAT THIS DISPENSATION BEING FINAL, AND THE PROPHECIES LOCATING THE MESSIAH’S KINGDOM HERE ON EARTH, THE CHURCH MUST OF NECESSITY BE THE PREDICTED KINGDOM. THIS HAS BORNE ITS FRUIT IN THE WAY INDICATED, AND ALSO, WHAT IS MORE SAD, IN COVERING UP THE COVENANT PROMISES PERTAINING TO THE KINGDOM, IN SPIRITUALIZING THEM TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN OPINIONS, AND IN ARRAYING THEMSELVES AS HOSTILE TOWARD THE PREACHING OF THE DISCIPLES AND APOSTLES, UNTIL AT THE PRESENT DAY, WITH HERE AND THERE A FEW EXCEPTIONS IN ALL DENOMINATIONS, BUT LITTLE FAITH IS EXERCISED (AS PREDICTED), EITHER IN THE PRE-MILLENNIAL ADVENT OF THE KING, OR IN THE FUTURE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS KINGDOM, AS COVENANTED, HERE ON EARTH.
Obs. 2. If we are wrong in this, and other Propositions linked with it, it can be easily decided against us by producing a passage where the church is directly called a Kingdom. A due examination will reveal the fact that no such Scripture can be found. Such a vital, foundation doctrine is inferred; and the influence comes the more naturally, since, overlooking the postponement, and regarding the preparatory stage of the church in a light different from that which the covenant throws upon it, it was taken for granted that a Kingdom being preached as once nigh, must have come. And, as a literal Kingdom, such as covenant and prophecy describe, did not come, it was supposed that the church then must be it. The Origenistic interpretation, so destructive to early Millenarianism, appeared as the patron and champion of this inference, until under its wide-spread influence, the inference was changed into a supposed axiomatic truth. Being also in the line of ambition, etc., it was tenaciously held by all who were favorable to hierarchical tendencies, and any who rejected it as inference and assumption were regarded as heretics. Indeed even now, it is so deeply imbedded in religious belief and system, that to call it by its true name, a mere inference, is to excite prejudice, bitterness and wrath in the hearts of some who profess to love the truth for the truth’s sake.
Obs. 3. We are not surprised that the result just mentioned should follow, for if it can be shown that the covenanted Kingdom is something different from the church; that the Kingdom is held in postponement until a certain predetermined number of elect are gathered; that the church is appointed to gather and cherish these elect, and hence is preparatory in its action, then this view of the Kingdom, showing that the church’s relation to this Kingdom is a subordinate and preparatory one, prepares us to appreciate the claims of Popery, Puseyism, hierarchical tendencies, nationalizing churches, and a host of similar exclusive demands put on faith and practice, all of which are founded on the assumption that the church is not preparatory to the predicted Kingdom, but is in truth the covenanted Kingdom itself. Our doctrine is too humiliating for such, and therefore fails of acceptance. The Church-Kingdom idea is deeply rooted in prevailing Theology and Literature. It is a notion long held in veneration, embellished by eloquence and poetry, supported by philosophy, strengthened by policy, power, and age, enriched by the cumulative reason of many centuries, and the mistaken concessions of piety. Ideas consecrated and cemented by the expressed opinions, attachments, and submission of men of ability and learning are not to be eradicated, saving by a higher hand, when fulfilling His own counsels and covenanted promises. It will require the secret stage of the Second Advent with its momentous results, and the incoming Antichrist with his persecution of the Church, before this notion-so fruitful in causing unbelief-will be discarded by the Church.
OBS. 4. AS STATED, IT IS OWING TO THE VIEW TAKEN OF THIS KINGDOM, THAT SUCH WIDELY ANTAGONISTIC NOTIONS ARE PUBLISHED RESPECTING THE CHURCH. ONE WRITER, E.G. ACCEPTING OF THE PROPHECIES PERTAINING TO THE KINGDOM AND APPLYING THEM TO THE CHURCH AS NOW CONSTITUTED, EMPHATICALLY DECLARES THAT THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH IS A FAILURE. THIS IS ANNOUNCED BY A HOST OF WRITERS, AND IS HAILED WITH DELIGHT BY MULTITUDES WITH THE ADDITION, THAT HENCE PROPHECY (INSPIRATION) IS FOUND UNRELIABLE. ANOTHER WRITER, RECEIVING THE SAME PREDICTIONS AS ALSO DECLARATIVE OF THE CHURCH’S PRESENT POSITION, ENDEAVORS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PROPHECY BY EXAGGERATING THE CHURCH’S PROGRESS, ETC. ONE AUTHOR, SEEING A NON-FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECY, PLACES CHRISTIANITY ON A LEVEL WITH OTHER RELIGIONS, PREDICTING ITS MERGENCE INTO A UNIVERSAL RELIGION ADAPTED TO MEET THE LONGINGS OF THE PROPHETS. STILL ANOTHER WRITER RECEIVES THE SAME PREDICTIONS AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE CHURCH’S KINGDOM STATE, AND TO ESTABLISH THIS POINT, PROCEEDS TO FASTEN ON THE OBVIOUS GRAMMATICAL SENSE ANOTHER AND WIDELY DIFFERING ONE TO MAKE PROPHECY AND HISTORY CORRESPOND. WHILE ANOTHER ACCEPTS OF THE PREDICTIONS IN THEIR PLAIN GRAMMATICAL SENSE, FINDS IN THEM THE TRUE MISSION OF THE CHURCH WHICH IS NO FAILURE, LOCATES THEIR FULFILLMENT AS A COMPARISON OF SCRIPTURE INDICATES, NEEDS NO IMMODERATE EXALTATION TO MAKE CHURCH AND PROPHECY TALLY, SEES IN THEIR NON-FULFILLMENT NO REASON FOR INVIDIOUS COMPARISONS, AND FORCES UPON THEM NO SENSE THAT WOULD BE DISCARDED BY THE UNIVERSAL LAWS OF GRAMMAR AND RHETORIC. THIS, TO THE STUDENT, INDICATES WHAT INFLUENCE IS EXERTED UPON OUR THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS BY OUR VIEWS OF THE CHURCH. THIS ONLY POINTS OUT A FEW DIVERGING LINES, OTHERS WILL BE PRESENTED AS WE PROCEED.
Obs. 5. The Romanist and the Protestant have made the question of the church a battlefield, in which many a past strife is noted by history. The Romanist making the church the Kingdom of God (called in the Dog. Decrees of the recent Council “the Kingdom of Christ”) set up here under a specific form of government, held that by becoming obedient to that church the soul alone was brought to Christ, so that the Kingdom was the power that led to Christ, etc. The Protestant, who accepted of the Romanist idea of such a Kingdom, held that by faith, in and obedience to, Christ the soul was made to enter the Kingdom of heaven. The former made the church as a Kingdom a condition of salvation, the latter, a means of preservation and development to the saved. But both in one form or other, forced both by Scripture and the actual condition of the church, made this church or Kingdom a preparatory stage for another and higher Kingdom still in the future. A singular feature in the controversy is this: that both parties agreed in making this Church the Kingdom of Christ either as Son of Man, or as Son of God, or both united, and the higher Kingdom in the future at the end of the age, they made, against express Scriptures, to be exclusively the Kingdom of the Father or of the Divine. To the latter view, the student will find but few exceptions.
Obs. 6. Many, impelled by the idea that if the church is a Kingdom there ought, of necessity, to be a unity, have sought for this in various ways-in an outward union of believers, in an exact agreement of doctrine, in some form of church government, etc. Whereas, if they had retained the belief of the earliest age respecting the church, they would have seen that the uniformity they sought after is not a prerequisite. Diversity, as seen in the Apostolic Churches by contrasting the Jewish and Gentile, is not opposed to the Scriptural idea of the church. For, not being regarded as a Kingdom but as a preparatory stage for the Kingdom, some latitude was allowed in its external manifestation and even in non-essential doctrine and practice (see e.g. decision of Council at Jerusalem, Acts 15:19; Acts 15:28) while unity was based on fellowship with Christ and consequent adoption as Abraham’s seed.
Obs. 7. It is our deep conviction that the word ekklesia, translated church, was designedly chosen to express what the church really means. Let the reader notice how we have shown that to raise up a seed unto Abraham certain elect, those of like faith unto Abraham, are chosen out of the nations. The word therefore, ek out of, and kaleo I call, denotes to call out of, and hence means precisely what the Apostles in Council, Acts 15:14, denominated its object to be, viz.: to call out from among thenations a people, etc. Why was the word rendered church chosen in place of the more familiar one synagogue, unless it be that the former more explicitly expresses the idea intended? (Vide Prop. 175, and Comp. Hagenbach’s His. Doc., vol. 1, p. 194.)