This sermon marks the beginning of a new section in our study of covenant theology. The next topic for our examination will be: The Doctrine of the Church. When I talk about the doctrine of the Church, I am dealing with a subject that is fundamental to the Christian faith. The doctrine of the Church touches every aspect of our experience as the redeemed of God. The doctrine of the Church is related to such important issues as the worship of God, the administration and meaning of the sacraments, salvation, sanctification, evangelism, marriage, family life, vocation, politics, economics and sociology.

Beyond these issues, the doctrine of the Church is related to the meaning and interpretation of history itself. It is no exaggeration to declare that history has no meaning and cannot be rightly interpreted apart from the doctrine of the Church. In fact, we may say, with Biblical support, that history is nothing less than the record of the Church's construction and development. History is the record of God's restoration of the fallen human race and that restoration takes place in and through the Church.

The reason we have difficulty conceiving of the Church and history in this manner is because the doctrine of the Church is a neglected area of study among contemporary Christians. This particular area of systematic theology is virtually untouched by modern theologians and writers. Nevertheless, it is my personal conviction that the Church must understand Herself and Her mission before She can hope to have any kind of lasting and saving influence in this world.

Today, I will begin an overview of the doctrine of the Church consisting of three points: 1) The Foundation of the Church, which will be a study of Christ's words in Matt. 16; 2) The Character of the Church, which will be concerned with the Church's holiness; and 3) The Mission of the Church, which will deal with the Great Commission and the relation between the Church and salvation.

When I use the term, “Foundation of the Church,” I am, of course, referring to a truth that serves as the theological ground upon which the Church rests. What is it that forms the doctrinal “base” of the Church? If we picture the Church as a building, what do we see supporting the weight of the edifice? What truth is of such magnitude that it alone deserves the title of “foundation”? To answer these questions, let's consider a portion of Matt. 16:

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

This passage begins with a simple question from Jesus. By this time in His ministry, the disciples had witnessed much; they were aware of Jesus' claims and also aware of what others were saying about Him. Just prior to these verses, Matthew records an incident that underscores the theological dullness of the disciples. The exchange that we just read, therefore, is an encouraging contrast.

In preparation for a most essential teaching, Jesus asks this question: “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (v. 13) As this brief episode unfolds, it becomes clear that Jesus had one purpose in mind when asking this question. His chief concern, of course, was to instruct the disciples regarding His identity and teach them a major and essential theological truth in the process. The identify of Jesus Christ, as we will see, is directly related to the character and mission of the Church. To put it another way, to know the identity of Jesus Christ is to know the nature of His Church and the calling of His Church.

After listening to the disciples report on the various theories that were circulating regarding His identity, the Lord focuses their attention more definitively by asking a second question: “But who do you say that I am?” (v. 15) The arrangement of words in the Greek emphasizes that Jesus' intention was to reveal the convictions of the disciples. Literally, this phrase reads: “But you, who do you say that I am?” We would represent this construction in English by saying it this way: “But who do you say that I am?” Some thought that Jesus was John the Baptist, some thought He was Elisha and others thought He was Jeremiah. These opinions were interesting, but not nearly as important as the opinion of Jesus' disciples. The disciples would soon begin the task of establishing and nurturing the Church after the Lord departed this world. Now was the time, in Jesus' estimation, for them to come to grips with what they had previously claimed to believe (cf. 14:33 “You are certainly God's Son!”).

In response to the second, more direct and personal question, the Scripture says that Simon Peter answered: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This confession of Peter is most significant for it identifies Jesus as the Messiah. Bound up in Peter's statement is the truth that Jesus is the One sent by God the Father to redeem fallen man; He is the One who would bring salvation to the world, He is the One who would call out a people to Himself, intercede for them and rule over them. Peter confesses that Jesus is the God-Man, the Mediator promised by God in the Garden of Eden so many centuries before; Peter identifies Jesus as the Savior, the One who soon would bear the sins of His people on the cross, would die for them and would be raised triumphantly to commence the gathering of the elect from across the earth.

Before going further, I want to emphasize the covenantal nature of this confession by Simon Peter. To declare Jesus to be “the Christ,” is to declare God's faithfulness in keeping His promise to Adam and Eve, to Abraham and the other patriarchs, to the prophets of the Old Testament and through them, to His people in Israel. God promised to send One to restore fallen man; He elaborated on this promise, first made in Eden, in a series of covenants. For Peter to stand before Jesus and declare, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” is the same as saying “God has kept His covenant promises and the long-awaited Savior is here in our midst!”

Let us now consider Jesus' response to Peter's confession. He says to him: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (v. 17) There are two things to note in this statement. First, knowing and understanding the identity of Jesus Christ is not a matter of exercising unaided human reasoning. Second, knowing and understanding the identity of Jesus Christ is a matter of revelation; it is a truth of supernatural origin and comprehension.

Notice the name that Jesus uses to address Peter: “Simon Barjona,” which means, “Simon, son of Jona.” Why does Jesus use this terminology? He does so to emphasize Simon Peter's humanity and further to emphasize that mere human calculations cannot lead to the knowledge of who and what Jesus Christ is. Moreover, Jesus adds, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you.”

This response to Peter sets the stage for the second half of Jesus' announcement, which is that His Father in heaven had revealed the identity of Jesus to Peter and the others. Jesus means that God had so worked in the hearts of the disciples, had so used the words and works of Jesus, that they had been led to a point of understanding and conviction regarding the identity of the Lord. Jesus' statement to Peter leads to the unmistakable conclusion that what Peter knew and had just confessed was a result of God's supernatural activity in his heart. The very use of the term “reveal” in this verse supports what I've been saying about the divine origin and understanding evidenced in Peter's confession. The word translated “reveal” (apokalupto) is the typical New Testament term for the supernatural disclosure of truth.

This brief exchange teaches that there is a connection between a right comprehension of Jesus Christ's identity and salvation. Coming to a knowledge, a saving knowledge, of Jesus Christ is beyond human capabilities. Therefore, this exchange also underscores the importance of doctrinal correctness. What I mean is that it is not acceptable for a human being to believe just anything he pleases about Jesus Christ; God requires us to believe the truth as He has revealed it to us. Those who downplay the importance of doctrinal precision and take pride in their intellectual “simplicity,” need to be careful that they do not go too far and offend God who, according to this passage, sovereignly reveals knowledge of His Son as He sees fit.

As an aside, let me state that to “believe” in Jesus is to accept all that God has caused to be written about Him, it is to embrace Jesus Christ fully as the God-Man. Ignorance of what the Bible teaches about Jesus is no badge of piety; nevertheless, it is not unusual to find professing Christians who think that a well-reasoned and studied understanding of the God-Man somehow diminishes the glory of their salvation. In some circles, it's as though the less you know about doctrine, the holier you must be (“I don't want doctrine, I want Jesus.”). But the Savior's words to Peter are a warning to all of us to guard against efforts to “dumb down” the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Jesus continues speaking and uses the confession just uttered by Peter to explain that the truth contained in that confession would serve as the theological and spiritual foundation for an institution that He intended to bring into being. Addressing Peter again, Jesus says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church...” (v. 18) In the Greek, this phrase reads: “You are Petros (“Rock”) and upon this petra (“rocky ledge” or “bedrock”) I will build My church...”

Much has been written about this statement; some have insisted that Jesus is bestowing upon Peter a unique status among the others. There's no denying that Peter was an important figure in the early Church, but there is no evidence that he was viewed as one having a unique authority among the other apostles. Peter and the other apostles were not the foundation of the Church, as we will show clearly in a few minutes; but their teaching was the foundation for the Church. This is what Jesus means.

The correct interpretation of this statement begins with a recognition that Jesus is using a play on words to draw the connection between Peter's recent confession and the nature of the Church that soon would be formed. The truth represented in Peter's confession of Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” would serve as the solid doctrinal foundation upon which Jesus would erect a spiritual house. That spiritual house, consisting of the redeemed, would bear the characteristics of the foundation. In other words, Jesus Himself, His teaching and what is taught about Him, would determine the nature of the Church; only those who embraced the truth represented in Peter's confession would be or could be part of Christ's institution.

Jesus is teaching that He intends to gather a people, a Church, to Himself and the basis for their gathering will be the truth that Jesus Christ is the God-Man, the Savior sent from heaven to redeem and restore fallen humanity. Christology, then, which is the doctrine of and about Jesus Christ, would be the organizing principle for this redeemed and restored body; Christology, the doctrine of and about Jesus Christ, would be the sole determining factor in regard to the nature of this Church that the Savior promises to build. The Church would be built upon a Christological foundation and Her doctrine would be, therefore, Christo-centric. Everything about the Church would bear the marks of Christ; She would look like Him, talk like Him, do His will and exist to serve Him. This is what the Bible teaches about the Church and this passage is where the seed of this truth is to be found.

Jesus adds: “â€¦ and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” I understand this statement as applying to the Church. “Hades” represents the domain of Satan. Jesus teaches that His Church, founded on, revolving around and permeated with the truth represented in Peter's confession, would overcome this demonic kingdom. I'll remind us that the Scripture says: “The Son of God appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8) Following this interpretation, we could say that long before the apostle John wrote those words, Jesus, Himself, predicted this triumph through His Church. Additionally, in this interpretation, the Church of Christ is represented as being on the offensive: “the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.” Gates are defensive barriers intended to keep intruders outside. Jesus promises that the institution bearing His name and characteristics will not only stand strong, She will advance against the kingdom of Satan and overcome it.

Finally, Jesus indicates that those who would serve as the founders of the Church would exercise delegated authority. Christ would give them “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Following the words of Jesus, we note that whoever has the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” obviously is in a position to determine who is admitted and who is denied admission. These “keys,” therefore, represent the authority of Christ that He would delegate to the disciples. Having the “keys,” they would operate as His representative. By faithfully preaching the gospel of Christ, the disciples would declare the terms by which a sinner is received into the Church and, subsequently, into heaven; at the same time, the faithful preaching of the gospel of Christ would serve as a barrier to sinners who rejected God's gift of salvation. The power of the keys, then, would be manifested in the declaration of the gospel, which would be in the hands of these same men within a short time.

This perspective helps us understand the phrase, “whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The terms “bind” and “loose” mean “forbid” and “permit” in this context. Jesus is teaching that there should be and will be a “one to one” correspondence between the acts of the disciples and His will; as the disciples exercise their delegated authority in the Church, Christ would be ruling in and through them. The preaching and, of course, the discipline of the Church are in view here. What this statement implies is harmony between the beliefs and actions of the Church on earth, on the one hand, and the will of Christ who is in heaven, on the other.

Consequently, the Church cannot say or demand anything more than what Christ says and demands; and, to put it in a different way, the Church must say and demand what Christ says and demands. For this “one to one” correspondence to exist between the beliefs and actions of the Church on earth and the will of Christ who is in heaven, the Church must faithfully and diligently declare the words of the Savior and She must faithfully and diligently require compliance with the words of the Savior. The Church may not add to the Lord's teaching and She may not fail to proclaim all of the Lord's teaching. Only in this way can it be true that what the Church forbids or permits on earth will be forbidden or permitted in heaven.

Before offering some application, I want to mention that the apostles used this theme of Christ as the foundation for the Church in their writings. One clear example of this is found in 1 Cor. 3 where Paul writes:

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul indicates that he clearly understood the Christological nature of the Church. The apostle knew that it was not his task to conceive of and then establish a doctrinal foundation for the institution known as the Church. That work had been done by the Savior when, in response to Peter's confession, He said: “...upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.”

Doctrine about Christ and doctrine from Christ formed the foundation for the spiritual entity known as the Church of Jesus Christ and Paul understood this. Moreover, having understood this, he also understood the absolutely essential nature of the Church's Christological basis. The institution brought into being by the Savior had no identity apart from Him. The Church is Christologically oriented or She ceases to be the Church. So, Paul rightly believed that his job as an apostle was to see that the Christological foundation for the Church was in place, well-founded, guarded and kept intact for the next generation.

Therefore, he warns those who labored with him and those who would labor after him: “But let each man be careful how he builds upon [this foundation].” This warning from Paul and the basis for this warning, which is given in v. 11, rule out theological innovation and theological independence. It is not the place of a theologian, a minister, an elder or a seminary to originate a definition for the nature of the Church or the mission of the Church. The task of those who labor for Christ is to keep calling attention to the foundation, to keep correcting error by referring to the foundation, to judge, discipline and teach with reference to the foundation. The Church has a theological foundation, which determines Her theological identity, and that foundation is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

It is worth noting that Paul continues and explains what happens to the labors that are invested in the Church of Christ (vv. 12-15). Those who labor according to the foundation, that is, those who conform their ministry to the one and only holy foundation, which is Christ, will see their work endure; but those who do not conform their ministry to the one and only holy foundation, which is Christ, will see their work consumed in the fires of judgment.

I've talked a lot about the Christological foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ. If the Church, as a spiritual entity, rests upon doctrine about Christ and doctrine from Christ, how does this affect the local manifestations of the Church known as congregations? In the application, I want to explain just what this means in terms of the local church and our efforts at ministry. Practically speaking, then, what should be some of our goals if we are going to be the kind of church that rests upon the foundation of Christ?

One of our goals will be to handle the gospel message properly. We will emphasize the core truth of the faith, which is God's restoration of fallen man in Christ and we will ensure that our members understand the issue salvation. Therefore, we will preach the gospel consistently. Our message will not change over time, regardless of various factors, such as the desires of culture or the theological instability of other parts of the Church. We also will preach clearly. Our message will be no more complicated, on the one hand, and no less complicated, on the other, than the Bible itself; no attempt will be made to simplify what God has said and no effort will be made to make what God has said more intellectually acceptable to the human mind.

Beyond this emphasis on the gospel message itself, our goal should be to develop a decided interest in systematic theology and its relation to life. With the gospel message serving as the core of our doctrinal convictions, we will, in time, be marked by maturity and stability simply because we exist to proclaim the gospel and to explain the implications of the gospel. If this is what we are doing, then we are doing what Christ intends and will reap the benefits of pursuing what we were designed for.

The test for us, of course, is to remain faithful to this goal even when there are so many distractions suggesting that this is not the road to success. But, as an encouragement, let me say that it is impossible for a local congregation to have a Christological orientation in the way I'm describing it and still remain immature, unstable and subject to the kind of schism that seems so prevalent in contemporary evangelicalism.

Another goal for us involves the matter of accountability. If we take seriously the idea that the gospel message and its implications are to be the leading marks of our ministry, then we also will take seriously the adoption of this conviction by all of our members. A church true to Christ's words in Matt. 16, will make sure that her members know well what God expects of His people who have been redeemed in His Son. So, we will make sure that our people receive instruction in responsibility as well as liberty. A church that proclaims Christ and Him crucified in her ministry can hardly endorse anything less in the lives of the congregation.

Our goal then, is to emphasize the practical side of doctrine. We will want to understand that there is more to Christianity than simply knowing a set of doctrinal propositions; we will understand that those doctrinal propositions are not grasped fully until they show up in our day-to-day routine and can be observed in our homes and on our jobs. We should find ourselves frequently wrestling with the implications of something we hear from the pulpit; we should be able to observe growth in our lives and in the lives of our family members.

I do want to make clear, however, that our goal is not to have the church live our lives for us. Here, again, we are touching upon a problem in contemporary evangelicalism. Modern Christians are all too accustomed to letting their church fulfill those responsibilities that God has assigned to them as husbands, fathers, wives, mothers and adults. All kinds of programs are developed to keep families together while those very programs run counter to a Christological emphasis and are, in reality, destructive to the family. Our aim, however, is to teach our congregation how to meet our responsibilities as God intends. Our business is to be equipped to honor God with our lives.

Let me challenge you to embrace this view of Christ's Church and these goals for our congregation. Pray that we understand our calling and that we remain true to it forever. Don't be reluctant to let others know that you go to the kind of church where doctrine is important-that is, after all, what the Savior Himself said would be the foundation upon which He would build His Church.

It hardly needs to be said that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper fits perfectly into what Jesus described. This sacrament assures that our attention is on Christ as we conclude our worship and prepare to return to our various duties this week. It reminds us that we live in and through Him and that He lives in and through us; it reminds us, in other words, that our whole life is oriented in and around the Savior.

Let's REALLY get this thread off of the original idea by get the Mac vs PC riot going as well as the A vs C and the L vs W one!!!

WAIT!!!

What about the RC's vs Prot and the LDS vs 'real' Christians, as long as we're doing this!!

Let's REALLY get this thread off of the original idea by get the Mac vs PC riot going as well as the A vs C and the L vs W one!!!

Absolutely! i do have one minor bit of "housekeeping" to get out of the way, CONGRADUALTIONS ON THE MARRIAGE!

Now, the original topic of this thread was a subdivision of a teaching series on Covenant Theology called The Church. Calvinists and Lutherines (who are Reformational in their thinking, but NOT Calvinists) see the church as existing where there are the following elements:

The Faithful preaching of the Word.
The Administration of the Sacrements.
Discipline of it's memebers.

Some dispute about the last one, in that it is usually bundled under the first point. drstevej wrote a pretty good article on Calvin's view of Church Discipline (no Servetus Jokes, ok?) For the Westminster Theological Journal.

On Your last point Elsie If we get a good discussion of topic going here, the trolls will come. Soon enough it should get interesting.

To hell with english lessons I do just fine Period or no period And what this the ping list from gates of hell If you can't answer the question pose to you concerning the ROCK in greek, get another life A rock is a rock and a rock ledge is something you are having a hard time comprehending or excepting in greek If you cannot except the word for what it says in greek, why bother? Unless you have your own agenda, and not God's agenda in mind

So then, is the author maintaining that the church is where correct doctrine (extrapolating from the Christological comment he gave) is given, or is he saying that the church exists external to correct teaching?

And it was no accident that Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount, just as Moses presided at Sinai

Could you explain your remarks a bit further? i think you're making a "shadow/substance" distinction, but not quite sure. Sorry for the confusion.

Dude! I might be tempted to respond to you, but I have yet to figure out about what precisely you are complaing. The only thing that I am discerning so far is that you seem to be in a bad mood on this thread. You know, with comments like "ping list from [the] gates of hell."

Woody.

Sorry It was a supid offhand remark to what Calvinist_Dark_Lord said earlier.

Hope you brought your flame proof clothing when my Catholic freind see this.

Therefore my response was mean in gest, not seriously. And it takes alot to get me angry. If I do, you will know it.
Again sorry for the confusion. It was mean to be a play on words. Until we meet again my freind!!!!!!!!!!

Hope you brought your flame proof clothing when my Catholic freind see this.

First i didn't say that. Read the post. Second, at least i know where you're coming from now. Ok, No blood, no foul, you're ok with me.

If you look again you'll see that i brought Elsie to this thread to prevent the Catholic Caucus from jumping in on that part of the article. You haven't been around long enough to know yet, but we've all had that argument about 6,000 times now, and none of us want number 6,001, it got old after about 2000. i didn't reply to Elsie because i agree with him on that point.

Are we clear and free now?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.