093-Prop. 90. Members of the Church, who are faithful, are promised this Kingdom.
Prop. 90. Members of the Church, who are faithful, are promised this Kingdom.
THERE IS ONLY ONE KINGDOM, PROP. 35, ETC. SAINTS WHO BECOME THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ARE TO RECEIVE, INHERIT THIS KINGDOM OF PROMISE,1TH 2:12; 2TH 1:5; 2PE 1:11; MAT 25:34, ETC. THE KINGDOM PREACHED BY THE BAPTIST, JESUS, AND THE DISCIPLES CONTINUES TO BE PROCLAIMED, ACT 8:12; ACT 14:22; ACT 20:25; ACT 28:31, ETC., AND BELIEVERS BECOME “HEIRS” OF IT, JAM 2:5. THE WICKED SHALL NOT INHERIT IT, 1CO 6:9. THE APOSTLES REPRESENT THEMSELVES AND CO-LABORERS AS WORKING FOR IT STILL FUTURE, COL 4:11; 2TH 1:5; 2TI 4:18; HEB 12:28, ETC.
Obs. 1. This Proposition is only intended to specify one of the results arising from preceding Propositions; and it is decidedly corroborative of our argument that the Scriptures employ language to indicate the futurity of the Kingdom. If the church is the Kingdom, and believers are now in it, why designate them “heirs,” etc., of a Kingdom? If the future Kingdom, as Theologians so confidently assert, is only a continuation of such a Kingdom, why employ then the specific language of inheriting a Kingdom still future, if that is only a prolongation, etc., of this one, and the inheriting has already commenced? If believers already by entering the church, enter into the promised Kingdom of God, and if this Kingdom is merged into a future one, it would be somewhat inconsistent to urge them to strive for that which they already possess; or, at least, the language ought to be so changed that they are urged to retain their hold upon a present Kingdom lest they forfeit the future prolonged one. The early Church view is content, and so are we, to receive the language unchanged as confirmatory of our doctrine, so that, as Clement (sec. Epis.), it exhorts all that “all may attain to the Kingdom of God,” asserting that in the future “we shall enter into His Kingdom, and shall receive the promises.” But such is not the teaching of monkish theology, Roman Catholic, and even in much of Protestant, Divinity, which declares that being already in the Kingdom you shall obtain the continued Kingdom. The incongruity, to say the least, of representing “heirs” as already possessing the Kingdom is scarcely noticed, and even the appointed time of inheriting, specifically located at the Second Advent, is ignored. This only shows how prejudice can refuse to receive the plainest statements of the Word. Believers are not in this Kingdom, but “called unto” it (1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5, etc.); the passages which are supposed to teach the contrary will be noticed in detail under following Propositions. For the present, it is sufficient to say that the Bible is not contradictory, and the few places which are alleged to be contradictory must, in the nature of the case, be explained by the general analogy on the subject. Oosterzee (Ch. Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 67, and vol. 2, p. 696) introduces a division, “Of the Church, or the Training School of the Kingdom.” The idea of a training school is excellent, suggested both by Scripture and experience, but to make the notion still more distinctive and Scriptural, we suggest “the Training School for the Kingdom,” which is one of the objects intended by the Church.
Obs. 2. Making the church the promised Kingdom, and believers in the enjoyment of it, has logically led some of our opponents (not all, for many recoil from it in view both of experience and the sad history of the church), to proclaim, that the promises relating to the reign of the saints are now also fulfilling. We leave one of the earliest give his view. Thus, e.g. Augustine (City of God, *) says: “The church could not now be called His Kingdom, or the Kingdom of heaven, unless His saints were even now reigning with Him;” and endeavors to make out such an existing Kingdom by showing that the saints now reign, summing up: “in fine, they reign with Him who are so in His Kingdom that they themselves are His Kingdom.” Leaving the reign of the saints for a distinct Prop. (154) it is sufficient to say that earlier Fathers distinctly oppose Augustine in his wholesale and mixed interpretation. Thus e.g. Barnabas (Epis. ch. 6) declares, that saints do not rule now; and speaking of the promised dominion adds: “We ought to perceive that to govern implies authority, so that one should command and rule. If therefore, this does not exist at present, yet still He has promised it to us. When? When we ourselves also have been made perfect (so as) to become heirs of the covenant of the Lord.” This notion that saints now possess the Kingdom, now have dominion, etc., has wrought great mischief, as Ecclesiastical History attests, not only in hierarchical tendencies, in perverted and extravagant claims of authority, but also in fanaticism, as e.g. Anabaptists, Mormons, Hackett, the Prophet who was proclaimed (July 16th, 1592) “the sole Monarch of Europe,” and many others. Our doctrine closes the door against all such claims and vagaries. The reign of the saints, as delineated in the outlines of the Divine Purpose, confirms our position.
Obs. 3. Only believers are promised this Kingdom. Faith and its fruits are essential to its inheritance. This is pointedly declared in Scripture, as e.g.Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5, etc. If the Jews were accounted unworthy because of lack of faith, etc., to receive this Kingdom-if they were rejected and a seed must be raised up unto Abraham, we may rest assured that it will be, it must be, “a righteous seed.” This becomes the more necessary in view of the position that this seed is to occupy in the Coming Kingdom, viz.: that of co-rulers with Jesus Christ. Therefore the Word assures us that even out of “the many” but “few” will be chosen, and those only because they are believing and faithful. In opposition to Holy Writ we have the theories of man. Thus e.g. Kingsley (Sers. on Nat. Subjects, 1 Ser., p. 14) makes man by nature a member of Christ and inheritor of the Kingdom of heaven. He so secularizes the Church, calling it the Kingdom of Christ, of heaven, etc., that the world is the Church and the Church the world, including all men, but specially manifested as a Kingdom when recognizing its relation to God. Some American Universalists entertain very much the same view, so that all men belong to it by right, and will ultimately be identified with it; now the Kingdom, however, is only exhibited in and through those who acknowledge the truth, etc. The same idea is given to us by Prof. Seeley, author of Ecce Homo (p. 339) when making the Church a Kingdom, he says that it is such because “based upon a blood-relationship, the most comprehensive of all, the kindred of every human being to every other.”143 [Note: 43 143. This idea of blood-relationship reminds one of what Bungener (The Preacher and the King, p. 205) states of a certain La Tremouville, who, in his pride of birth, his arrogant dependence on blood-relationship, declared: “God would look twice before He damned me.” Many, who make no such claim, still feel themselves good enough for God’s Kingdom, without any heart and life preparation, not realizing that God is no respecter of persons.] This notion is paraded by the Free Religionists, Humanitarians, etc., and is covertly stated by some who desire to be regarded as orthodox. Such opinions, however, are flatly contradicted by the Word of God, not only in the distinction made between the righteous and wicked, but by that feature which our entire argument enforces, viz.: that “Salvation is of the Jews,” not because it originated or was at one time identified with them, but because it pertains, by covenant relation, to them. To them the promises were given, not to all men; and the only way to obtain the promises with them is to be engrafted into the true olive tree. Now all are invited to become the seed of Abraham, but comparatively few accept of the terms of adoption. Instead of being related to the Kingdom of God by nature, by a common humanity, by the assumption of our nature by Christ, we must by the obedience of faith present ourselves in the line of the covenanted, chosen people; and when, in the predicted time, God shall restore that chosen people to its forfeited position, the engrafted ones inherit the Kingdom with the Son of man.
Obs. 4. In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus seems to distinguish between the church and the Kingdom by placing the Kingdom of heaven in opposition to it, enforcing the idea that the church leads to, or is appointed as a means to attain unto, the Kingdom. The church is founded and, in addition, the keys of the Kingdom are (Prop. 64) committed to it, so that through its instrumentality believing members may finally inherit the Kingdom. It would be an easy matter to select from our opponents a multitude of writers who endorse this view, that in this passage the church leads to the Kingdom, but in correspondence with their theory make the Kingdom one in the third heaven and not one on the earth. Others include in the expression both the church and the third heaven, while others confine it exclusively to the church. Its true meaning must be sought for in other passages, as in the covenant and specific announcements of the Kingdom.
OBS. 5. THE PASSAGE MAT 8:11-12, WHEN “MANY SHALL COME FROM THE EAST AND WEST, AND SHALL SIT DOWN WITH ABRAHAM, AND ISAAC, AND JACOB, IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM SHALL BE CAST OUT,” ETC., NOT ONLY CONFIRMS (1) THE PROPOSITION; (2) THE ELECTION OF THE JEWISH NATION; (3) THE OFFER OF THE KINGDOM TO THE COVENANTED PEOPLE, BUT IT ALSO ESTABLISHES (4) THE FACT, THAT THE CHURCH IS NOT THE KINGDOM HERE MENTIONED, SEEING THAT THIS KINGDOM IS RELATED IN THE COVENANTED MANNER WITH ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB. HENCE COMMENTATORS GENERALLY APPLY THIS KINGDOM EITHER TO THE THIRD HEAVEN OR TO THE ONE STILL FUTURE.
OBS. 6. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT (I.E. TO BECOME A RULER IN IT) THIS KINGDOM, 1CO 15:50. JUST AS IT IS WITH THE HEAD, THE MIGHTY ONE, THAT THE COVENANT AND PROMISES DEMANDED AN IMMORTAL RULER, SO IT IS WITH HIS MEMBERS, THE BODY. AS KING HE IS TO BE MANIFESTED IN HIS GLORIFIED FORM-A DAVID’S SON POSSESSING ALL THAT IS REQUISITE TO FULFILL THE WORD; SO ALSO THE SAINTS, AS CO-HEIRS, KINGS AND PRIESTS MUST BE IN THEIR GLORIFIED CONDITION BEFORE THEY RECEIVE THE KINGDOM. HENCE, WHILE IN THE CHURCH, IN FLESH AND BLOOD, THEY ONLY AWAIT THE PROMISES-HOPE AND PRAY FOR THEIR REALIZATION. THE CHURCH, THEN, INSTEAD OF POSSESSING A KINGDOM, AS ACTUALLY EXISTING ACCORDING TO PROMISE, ONLY POSSESSES IT IN ANTICIPATION, IN LOOKING FOR AND EXPECTING ITS ARRIVAL.
Obs. 7. Prophecy does not predict a Kingdom to exist between the First and Second Advents of Christ as a prelude to the Kingdom of the Eternal Ages. To make out such a prediction, Prophecy must be wrested from its connection, or else it must be spiritualized to make it sufficiently accommodating. The extravagances in this direction culminate when men of learning and ability make themselves out to be already in “the New Jerusalem state,” in “the enjoyment of Millennial glory,” in possession of “the latter day glory,” etc. The Church in its present imperfect state is eulogized until it assumes the portraiture of the predicted Kingdom, but such eulogies are at the expense of a consistent interpretation and of the real history of the Church. As this infatuation, derived from Origenistic sources, is so general, it may be proper to pass over some views in detail, although our argument, based on the covenant, scarcely needs the addition.