ECCLESSIOLOGY:

The Church as the Community of God

INTRODUCTION

The newly proposed and rejected tenth article to the Church of God’s declaration of faith possesses the potential to define a structure within which the denomination may understand it’s own identity within God’s plan for His Church. The phrase, “the Church is the one, holy people of God throughout history” facilitates an objective understanding of each believer and denomination of their own historical solidarity with the followers of the Christ from the beginning to end of God’s sovereign plan. Subjectively, the declaration enunciates the charismatic self-understanding of each body as “constituted by the call of God as a worshipping community” filled with dynamism of the Spirit by Christ’s redemptive work. By exploring the issues briefly touched upon as well as the logical conclusions of the statements made in the declaration, I hope to show the necessity of creating such a framework for cognitive and active enterprising of fulfilling God’s Cause in this fallen world.

THE CHURCH AS A PEOPLE AND COMMUNITY OF GOD

We shall start at the beginning—the origins of the Church community. Naturally, the Church’s purpose must be the kerygma, i.e. the proclaimed faith. Since Jesus Christ is himself the author of this faith (Heb. 12.2), he must accordingly have a key role in its advent into history. The earliest Christians obviously thought this to be true, for some went as far as to call their community the Body of Christ (cf. Rm. 7.4; I Cor. 10.16, 12.27; Eph. 12.4). Immediately, though, a problem rises to confront us. If one will peruse the Gospel texts, it becomes obvious that Jesus did not found a Church in His lifetime. Giving this observation an eschatological edge, Hans Küng writes regarding this fact:

It is not surprising then—indeed it is an argument for the authenticity of the Gospel accounts, which in this respect were certainly not inflated by the primitive Christian community—that the Gospels do not report any public announcement by Jesus of his intention to found a Church or a new covenant or any programmatic call to join a community of the elect. Such statements would have been interpreted as the founding of a separate synagogue and would have minimized and confused the uniqueness of Jesus’ preaching. The alarming message that the eschatological act of God had really begun and that the demand of the hour to each man to repent was imperative would have been weakened.[1]

Although Jesus did not found the Church during his lifetime, Jesus did gather around himself a group of followers and learners—disciples. In the Gospel accounts, these men he chose specifically, instructing them and equipping them with spiritual authority.[2] These men lived as the seed of the historical emergence of the Church out of the soil of time. Jesus, speaking to them, says, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God” (Mk. 4.11). In the message of the Kingdom that Jesus preached, He communicated that some would emerge as those who listened to His message as an eschatological, messianic people. By this hope, Jesus proclaimed that some would be different, called to serve God’s Cause here on earth. Thus, His preaching and ministry laid the foundations for the birth of a post-resurrection community proclaiming Him as God’s Son.[3]

“And He said to them, ‘This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many’” (Mk. 14.24). Until that night, where at the Lord’s Meal He spoke to them these climactic words, His band of disciples remained the secret followers of a secret King.[4] After Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection, an eschatological community of Jewish believers in a Messiah-King dawned upon the horizon of God’s redemptive work empowered by His Spirit—an ecclesia. How different they were from other parties claiming to be a true Israel. Their message was not one of political revolution as the Zealots’, nor one of compromise as the Saducees’, nor one of moral reform according to the Torah as the Pharisees’, and especially not one of withdrawal and purification as the Essenes’.[5] Bruce Metzger gives names communicating four basic ideas the early community gave to itself which “reveal what they thought of themselves”:

1. “the disciples” (mathetai) is the title given to those who gathered with Jesus during His ministry literally meaning ‘those who are learners’.

2. “the brethren” (adephoi) is a frequent term used in Acts that denotes the extension of the term from blood brothers to the spiritual kindred experienced under one Heavenly Father..

3. “saints” (hagioi) is in Paul’s letters and Acts and shows personal holiness reflecting upon dependence on and dedication to God whose holiness their norms must correspond.

4. “the believers” and “the saved” referring to faith in God’s gracious purpose and having been rescued from evil and kept safe by the Lord.[6]

At the same time, these followers of Christ were very similar to the rest of their Jewish brethren and indeed very centralized on the Jewish belief and ritual system (cf. Acts. 2.46; Mk. 13.9; Mt. 5.17-19, 23f, 10.17, 17.24-27).

Nevertheless, Christian communities did indeed begin distinctive forms of worship and ritual that made them unique from other Jews, and eventually, the inclusion of many Gentile believers further set them apart. Among the forms peculiar to this people loyal to a risen Messiah were: the initiation rite of baptism (Acts 2.38, 41; 8:12, 16, 36, etc.; 1 Cor. 12.13; Gal. 3.27), a service of prayer (Acts 2.46, 12.12), the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2.42-46), and leaders who were at first composed of the Twelve.[7] Very early on, the Church developed a Gentile constituency that would prove to dominate its future progress and strength, yet throughout this change, the Church’s understanding of itself as the people of God was only solidified. The true Israel became known as the new Israel that transcended culture, ethnicity, and even history. These people are, “not simply a new modus dispensationis but [partakers of] an utterly new dimension of salvation … vouchsafed . . . in the Holy Spirit.”[8]

By a historically progressive and constantly interpretive process, the Church slowly freed itself from its roots in Judaism. Of course, the introduction of Gentile believers into the community and their subsequent outnumbering of the Jewish believers caused a sense of ‘Jewishness’ soon to fade away from Christian identity. The destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the temple cult brought to a physical closure the process that had begun very early in Christian thought that set itself in stark contradistinction to Judaism. Essentially, three views caused this: Christ superseded ceremonial laws and cultic laws, racial and individual egalitarianism (i.e. no favoritism placed upon one race, lineage, or social class) in Christ, and the increased view of the irrelevancy of Old Testament laws.[9]

All of this has been written thus far without addressing a pivotal issue in regard to the Church as the People of God. If the Church is truly the one people of God, how does it relate to the ancient people of God, i.e. the Hebrews? First, I would like to enter this topic by answering the question in a negative fashion. Showing first the error made by the dispensationalists’ understanding of Israel and the Church as distinct entities,[10] I will then expound on a view more harmonious with Scripture and history that emphasizes both continuity and historical realities.

Conceptualizing Israel and the Church as mutually exclusive entities shows its deficiencies from the outset, and the ideological framework has gone through a number of revisions. Rodney J. Decker, himself a dispensationlist, demonstrates this when he summarizes the three major positions in dispensationalist circles on New Covenant,

A few dispensationalists argue that the church’s New Covenant differs from the New Covenant for Israel. Some contend that the church has no relationship to the New Covenant at all. Others—the majority position among dispensationalists—assert that the church participates in some aspects of the New Covenant.[11]

In recent years, the third view has become the majority one, the second one has become the minority, while the first has no existing adherents.[12] In these views, the Church is exclusively a Gentile institution. Whether the Church “participates in the new covenant… not as a legal party to the covenant, but as recipients of the blessings of the covenant [with Israel]”[13] as in the second view, or as “both continuity and relationship on the one hand, and discontinuity and distinction on the other”[14]as in the third view, the ethnic distinction constitutes the underlying presupposition that matures into the dispensationalist viewpoint. Historically, I am not willing to concede that the Church is Gentile—this Church “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col. 3.11; cf. Gal. 3.28).

The historical realities of the Scripture communicate that the Church began Jewish, while at the same time distinct from typical Jewish cultural forms and movements. Nevertheless, a probing question arises as to why there even developed a new term, “Church” (Gr. ekklesia), and did not instead designate itself with the title “Israel.” Paul is the only New Testament writer that could be observed calling this new people of God Israel, yet he does this ambiguously. The exegetical data making developed theological conclusions is absent. In 0 Corinthians 18.18, Paul refers to unbelieving Israel as “Israel after the flesh,” with the absence of the parallel title “Israel of the Spirit”; however, Galatians 6.16 stands as the one point in the New Testament that this new people of God is referred to as Israel by the phrase, “Israel of God.”[15] Hans Küng brings a balanced understanding of the New Testament data in regard to this issue:

[E]xegetical investigation shows two things. The name of Israel still applies to the ancient people of God, even after Christ, and cannot be taken away from it and simply transferred to the New Testament ekklesia. On the other hand the New Testament ekklesia clearly remains, outwardly and historically linked as well as inwardly and actually, linked to Israel, the ancient people of God. The transference of the name “Israel” to the Church can therefore never be exclusive in character, but at best an extended application according to Paul’s parable of the olive tree.[16]

The ekklesia of God, therefore, incorporates and is in continuity with the ancient Israel, but it is by no means identical with it.

Ekklesia itself carries strong connections to ancient Israel. The LXX used the word to translate the Hebrew qahal. Bruce Metzger comments,

The expression “the qahaI of Jehovah” came to signify, not merely a gathering of Israelites upon some particular, but the people of Israel as God’s people distinct from everyone else, whether assembled or unassembled—in short, the chosen of Jehovah for His service . . . [ekklesia] was particularly appropriate as a translation of qahal, for both are derived from verbs meaning “to call” or “to summon”. The phrase, “the ekklesia of the Lord,” therefore, became a common expression in the Greek Old Testament with exactly the same allusion [as] conveyed by the Hebrew, “the qahal of Jehovah.”[17]

Paul explicitly calls the church at Corinth the “ekklesia of God” in 1 Corinthians 1.2. The connection to the Old Testament idea of the people of God is “obvious.”[18]

To understand the role of the Jews in the formation of the Church is key. God did not create a Gentile substitute people of God because the Jews rejected the gospel; rather, the Gentile mission comes from a commission of the Lord that is executed by turning first to the Jews—a relationship based on the coordination of the mission.[19] Despite this, however, the church did become a Gentile institution, was Hellenized, and even became hostile to the Jewish people. Was this inevitable? Bosch argues this point:

How could the early church do anything but follow through on the logic of Jesus’ ministry and still, in the long run, embrace the Jewish law as a way of salvation? By the same token, how could Judaism have remained both true to itself and open to a mission of Gentiles free from the requirements of the law? Given these circumstances, was there, in the long run, any alternative to a parting of the ways? … The sociological (and therefore human) answer to all these questions is a resounding no.[20]

The Church, bound by historical realities, develops and evolves. Problems and blessings prod the ekklesia to become more structural and formal: heresies and teachings that undermined the apostolic tradition of the faith forced the development of a canon and law, increasing numbers demanded organization, and the delay of the parousia of Jesus Christ necessitated preservation. A historical structure of the Church was then developed to sustain the Church in history. Barth says this of the Church, “It exists in history. It is history. It makes history.”[21]

A question now arises to any astute believer in the Christian faith: Did the Church lose its soul over its history, and thus at any time, stop being the true Church? When observing the historical realities (often the failures appearing to be more real than the achievements!), can we with intellectual honesty and confidence assert that the Church is one, catholic Church (i.e. universal)? Karl Barth makes his position clear that the Church “exists only in change . . . [yet] it can never become anything other than itself.”[22] The Church’s catholicity implies depth that encompasses the temporal. There is a Church in all ages, times, and generations because it is not “ limited by the horizon of a particular time or generation.”[23] Above all, the Lord of the Church, the Head of the Body promises that the Church shall never be overtaken nor destroyed. “The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16.18). The Church

…cannot set aside its calling. It has it from God and no man can take it from it—just as Israel never could or can in any crisis of its history in the covenant of God with it cease to be the people elected and called and commissioned by God. The Church exists in unity with this people of the old covenant. The perennial nature of Israel as the people of Jesus Christ is that of the Church.[24]

Nevertheless, because the Church is eternally preserved, it must never be assumed that the Church is unchangeable:[25] “Thus says the LORD: "Behold, what I have built I will break down, and what I have planted I will pluck up” (Jeremiah 45.4; cf. 1.10).

Manifold forms of religious expression and practice label themselves as the Church, and many are observable today: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and then there are the Protestant traditions which are relatively much younger. All of these are vastly different—some more dissimilar in comparison. What, then, is the unifying principle, the scarlet thread running through the fabric of history which brings all these Churches together and, despite their differences, makes one Church? What, indeed, makes them worthy of the title “ekklesia of God,” designating them as called out, separated from the world as God’s chosen generation and holy nation?

Again, we must turn to Jesus. The essence of the ekklesia exists in Him, for He authored its faith. What does He want, anyway? That is what the community must reflect; however, it has too often not reflected what He wanted and wants today. From looking at the social context in which He lived, I hope to show what He was not for—a task certainly necessary to prevent what He is for from being profaned.

· The Religio-Politcal Establishment: Jesus showed little regard for the political and religious status quo. He was neither priest nor theologian (Lk. 2.41-52; Mk. 6.2; Jn. 7.15), and His authority was not from men. He even made threatening prophecies against the temple-cult (Mk. 13.2; cf. Mt. 24.2 and Lk. 21.6). Rather than legitimizing the establishments of his day, He awaited the eschatological fulfillment of all things (Matthew 24:32ff).

· The Revolutionary Movement: The Zealots hoping to overthrow the Roman empire and set a new order of Jewish power cannot be associated with Jesus. His message was certainly revolutionary, but not in that sense. He was not for resisting the evil forces with violence nor for setting up His own historical Kingdom on earth (Mt. 5, Jn. 18.36).

· Emigration from the World: Jesus did not preach an apolitical escapism or elitism of the Essenes, i.e. the Qumran community (Mt. 24.26). During his life, Jesus and disciples were chided often for not being ascetic enough (Mt. 9.14ff, 15.1ff; Mk. 2.18ff, 3.23ff; etc). God and not men, He preached, would separate the redeemed and damned (Mt. 25.31ff).

· Compromise and Survival: Jesus cannot be spoken of as the Pharisees who sought to strengthen their people by strict observance to the Law (Mt. 23). He recognized no ritual taboos, advocated neither asceticism nor fasting, and was not scrupulous in tithe or Sabbath observances.[26]

Thus, we have a meager negative outline of the figure of Jesus. Yet, we have asserted very little what He stood for positively.

Jesus wanted the Kingdom of God—God’s Cause and His Reign as a reality to every human being, as a hope for all races, and a liberation of the world from evil. The religious and political leaders were wrong—God’s Reign does not establish the present order but consumes all existence with a future eschatological kingdom. The Zealots were wrong—God’s unrestricted rule is to be awaited without recourse to violence. The Essenes were wrong as well—God’s Reign shall not be avenging judgment showing the superiority of an elite people; rather, it is glad tidings of God’s grace especially for the abased and oppressed. The Pharisees were wrong—God’s free act and not the moral ascension of men shall create the Kingdom. There, in the Kingdom of God, we find the “bare-bones Church.” It is this proclamation of Jesus for which He died. The unity of the Church is in the Kingdom of God, for the Kingdom creates the Church. The people of God witness the Kingdom and proclaim its immanence to all humankind.[27] God’s Kingdom has existed eternally and shall engulf all history as eschatological reality.

THE CHURCH AS A GATHERED, DYNAMIC COMMUNITY OF THE SPIRIT

God gathers the people whom He has redeemed. “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. These things I command you, that you love one another” (Jn. 15.16,17). This scripture expresses the heart of the gathered community—where solidarity and mission are all emphasized. Great thinkers have tried for centuries to produce objective terms with which to disclose this subjective encounter. Luther described a society of humans trusting completely on the merits of Christ. Calvin asserts that the community consists of the elect under God’s irrevocable and irresistible grace. Schleiermacher understood the community as an association of men with a common, religious experience that brings them to realize their total dependence upon God, the Ground of Being.[28] Yet Küng warns, “If the Church sees itself as the people of God, then clearly it can never be an association of like-minded religious people,”[29] and that is due to the fact that their gathering is based upon God’s call.

Despite diversity, God’s people are all one and equal before him. They are all members in the Body of Christ, meaning “that not just a few especially distinguished members, but all the members of the body of Christ are important and play their part.”[30] Peter puts the thought most eloquently,

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy (1 Peter 2.4-10).

From reading this scripture, the best term for designating the universal, fundamental equality and balanced importance of believers seems to be the “priesthood of all believers.”— a priesthood in that all believers share in: direct access to God (Rom. 5.2, 6.1-11; Eph. 2.18, 3.12; Heb. 10.22), spiritual sacrifice through one’s life (Rom. 12.1; Phil. 2.17, 4.18), the preaching of the Word (Mt. 5.14, 10.27; Acts 4.31; 1 Pt. 3.15), forgiveness of sin, baptism of the saints, partaking in the Lord’s Supper, mediating on behalf of the world (1 Tim. 2.1).[31]

A community of solidarity before God forms under a new dimension of living. We are children of God relying not only upon Him, but also upon each other. We “bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6.2). This is the message of the nature of the community to the world: “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35). The Spirit of God gives this solidarity in that all believers partake of God’s Spirit in that, “no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12.3).

“From the point of view of the history of salvation one can say that the New Testament came into existence on the day of Pentecost.”[32] When the Spirit of Truth came, the Church was born. From then on, the Spirit, as a mother, guided the Church into all truth (John 16.13). Barth, in accordance with his usual emphasis on the invisible and non-historical aspect of faith, says,

The community is not made the body of Christ or its members of this body by this event, by the Spirit of Pentecost, by the fullness of his gifts, by the faith awakened by Him, by the visible audible and tangible results of the preaching and receiving of the Gospel, let alone by baptism and the Lord’s Supper (the so-called sacraments). It is the body [of Christ], and its members are members of this body in Jesus Christ, and his election from all eternity.[33][emphasis mine]

The Church’s true “beginnings” transcend time and is not a historical event. Nevertheless, its emergence into history begins with Pentecost. [34] The Spirit empowers the historical manifestations of the Church. He works in institutionalizing the Church, who is a given witness to the fact that He gives His power to those activities and functions of the community, although they appear mundane.[35] The Church is the temple of the Holy Spirit in that it is made up of individuals who are each the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor. 3.16-17, cf. 6.19).

The ekklesia of God operates in dynamism inasmuch as it submits to the Holy Spirit.[36] The true life of the Church comes from God the Spirit; thus, human hands cannot form it. Empowered to complete its work on earth as the instrument of the Kingdom of God, the Spirit is life unto the Church. Klaas Runia gives five functions of the Spirit as He gives life to the Church: the Holy Spirit gives power (Acts 1.8, 2.1ff, etc.), guides (Jn. 16.13), is the critic of the Church (Rev. 2, 3), labours to bring true unity (Phil. 2.1-2; 1 Cor. 12.13; Eph. 2.18, 4.4), and keeps the eschatological expectations of the Church alive (Rom. 8.23; 2 Cor. 1.22, 5.5; Eph. 1.14).[37] Let us by no means forget that the Spirit gives life for a purpose. Speaking of these things in theological terms and citing source texts can never compare to actual practice.

The Church exists so that it may be an instrument of God’s Kingdom here on earth—a witness to all the Earth’s inhabitants. We are the salt and light, the city on the hill, those called out of darkness into his marvelous light, sons and daughters of God. Christ tells us, however, that we are not the concern here on Earth: “I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance” (Lk. 15.7). The existence of the Church is justified by its missionary task (Acts 1.8, 2.32, 3.15, 5.32, etc.).

In this way the church is in the service of the coming Kingdom. Or to put it another way: the church stands between the accomplished work of Christ and the Kingdom that is still to come. She lives between the times: the time of Christ’s first coming and the time of his second coming. She lives out of the first coming and towards the second coming.[38]

So with the Spirit we look into the ambiguous, uncertain future—awaiting our Lord with patience. Although the community is of the Spirit, “it is also a human society, made up of limited, weak, sinful human beings. The grace of God and gifts of the Holy Spirit take on a particular shape as they are received by these humans being in particular situations of time and culture.”[39] With the Spirit and eternity as our hope and destination, we shall not be discouraged or dismay—living as stewards of God’s call to be witnesses.

CONCLUSION

Relative to other traditions, Pentecostalism in general and the Church of God in particular have far to go in forming their own identity and carving a substantial niche into history. An important step in this process lies in initiatives like having declarations of faith and other standards to which members adhere. I have shown the dual importance of the underpinnings behind the recently proposed addition to the article of faith. Firstly, we as a movement have our place in God’s work in His church, and secondly, the Spirit is empowering us for that which he has called us to do.

For nearly two thousand years, the ekklesia of God has been upon this earth, a much longer time than anyone expected at its advent. Nevertheless, the Father knew that His Church would have a history. Perhaps Luke was one of the first Christians to realize this when he sat down to write the Book of Acts. Strangely enough, a people who doubted that there would be much more of a future left influenced humanity’s path so greatly that it is impractical to hypothesize the last two thousand years without the Church. The visible Church is easily criticized, for the Kingdom of God can truly never dwell purely in it in that the Church is always too connected to this world. The relationship between the Gospel and the Church will always be dialectical. The Church dissolves the Gospel, so humans can observe the unobservable and grasp the inconceivable. The Gospel dissolves the Church, reproaching it for its failures and sinfulness. This is a necessary tribulation until His Coming.

Anyone quick to criticize the Church should be quick to remember that he criticizes himself in the process. He is implicated in that while the Church testifies of God’s grace, its subjective experience and failures also testify to man’s fall. Condemned by one’s own nature as a human looking to God and hearing His call, one clearly sees the subjective nature of the Church. I am the Church, I am in the Body, and I must function. There is a realization of responsibility. I must act, I must make history, I must love, I must share my talents and being with humankind, I must believe in and witness of Christ in this world.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa. 21 March 1999.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV: the Doctrine of Reconciliation, part 1. Translated

by Rev. G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Publishers, 1956.

—. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. Sixth Edition. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1968.

Berkouwer, G. C. The Church. Translated by James E. Davison. In Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1976.

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991.

Brunner, Emil. The Misunderstanding of the Church. Translated by Harold Knight.

Piladelphia:Westminster Press, 1953.

Decker, Rodney J. “The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant: Part I.”

Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (July-September 1995): 209-305.

—. “The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant: Part II.” Bibliotheca Sacra 152

(October-December 1995): 431-456.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,

1998.

Küng, Hans. The Church. Translated by Ray and Rosaleen Ockenden. New York: Sheed

and Ward, 1967.

—. On Being a Christian. Translated by Edward Quinn. New York: Image Books, 1968.

Metzger, Bruce M. “The New Testament View of the Church.” Theology Today 19

(1964): 369-380.

Runia, Klaas. “The Holy Spirit and the Church.” Evangelical Review of Theology 4

(1985): 304-322.

Schepers, Maurice B. “The Work of the Holy Spirit: Karl Barth on the Nature of the Church” Theological

Studies 23 (1962): 625-636

Walvoord, John F. “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program? Part I.” Bibliotheca

Sacra 137 (1980): 17-31.

—. “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program? Part II.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980):

188-124

—. “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program? Part III.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980):

212-222.

Wright, John H. “The Church: Community of the Holy Spirit.” Theological Studies 48

(1987): 25-44.

[1] Hans Küng, The Church, trans. Ray and Rosaleen Ockenden (New York: Sheed

and Ward, 1967), 73.

[2] Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church, trans. Harold Knight (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 23.

[4] Brunner, 23-24; e.g. Mt. 8.4, 16.20, Mk. 7.36, 9.9, Lk. 5.14, 8.56.

[6] Bruce M. Metzger, “The New Testament View of the Church,” Theology Today 19

(1964): 374-375.

[7] Küng, 110-111; e.g. Gal 1.18, 2.9; Acts 12.17, 11.30, 15, etc.

[10] Rodney J. Decker, “The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant: Part II,” Bibliotheca Sacra 152

(October-December 1995): 434.

[12] Ibid.; 431, 436, and 441; cf. John F. Walvoord, “Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program? Part III”, Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (July–September 1980): 219.

[19] David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991), 95.

[21] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV: the Doctrine of Reconciliation- part 1, trans.

Rev. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Publishers, 1956), 704.

[23] G. C. Berkouwer, The Church, trans. James E. Davison, In Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1976), 165. Karl Barth makes the point in Church Dogmatics IV: the Doctrine of Reconciliation- part 1, pp. 704-5 that catholicity of the church is neither the claim of (1) the oldest church, nor (2) the most modern. The Church no matter how old is catholic only if it participates in the essence of the one Church. The Church, no matter how modern, is catholic only when it demonstrates a never tiring desire to reform and renew itself— bringing itself by the Spirit closer to the power that created the one Church.

[26] Hans Küng, On Being a Christian, trans. Edward Quinn (New York: Image Books, 1968), 177-213.

[27] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House 1998), 1052.

[28] Maurice B. Schepers, “The Work of the Holy Spirit: Karl Barth on the Nature of the Church” Theological Studies 23 (1962): 627-628.

[32] Klaas Runia, “The Holy Spirit and the Church” Evangelical Review of Theology 4 (1985): 304

[33] Barth, 667. Barth’s reasoning lies in that He sees history destined to oblivion and anything in history as subject to death; therefore, the true source of the Church cannot be a historical event but must transcend history. Thus, his focus on Christ’s election can be understood as beyond time. He often speaks of this concept as the eternal “Moment” especially in his commentary The Epistle to the Romans.

[34] Here human terms begin to break down, just as in John 16 and Acts 2 the Holy Spirit is spoken of as “coming.” How can He come when He is omnipresent? Obviously, an idea of being here or there is not meant in terms of ‘here’ or ‘there’; rather, the Spirit initiates a scope of work in men. For more on this principle, see Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, 1a, q. 13, aa. 5-6.

[39] John H. Wright, “The Church: Community of the Holy Spirit” Theological Studies 48 (1987), 25