[The following comments were written in response to an article posted by Mike Bull entitled "Church and State."  Article appeared on Preterist Blog.  Mike was gracious enough to send me a review copy of his book "Totus Christus," which I am now reading.  As this is one of the most in-depth books I've read in a long while, it will take some time to soak up everything he is saying. 

    The point of my comments is to expatiate on what I feel is a mistake concerning the "holy mother church" concept.   I am not accusing Bull or anyone else of endorsing this concept; merely suggesting that the idea of a "victorious visible church" prior to Christ's second advent lends itself to conclusions that at least moderately parallel Roman Catholic dominionism.  Therefore, I ask "Who is holy mother church?"  Is she a visible earthly institution, or the spiritual Body of Christ?  To read additional comments and responses by Dr. Kenneth Talbot of Whitefield Seminary, please go to Preterist Blog].

************

   According to my understanding, church and state will never merge until Jesus Christ returns.

   The issue really hinges on the definition of the word “church.” Paul clearly states that the church is the “PLEROMA of Him that filleth all in all” — not a visible earthly institution. It is the ‘body’ of which the ‘Head’ is in heaven. Hence it is spiritual (and not earthly) in nature. Its members are ‘not of this world.’ The church is ONE BODY (Eph. 4: 4), which has its administrative center in the heavenlies:

   “For our COMMONWEALTH (Gr. politeuma) is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself (Phil. 3: 20-21).

   To me, Paul deals a serious blow to the ‘holy mother church’ concept; for he teaches that our administrative center is heavenly — not earthly. Compare with Eph. 2: 6. According to Phil. 3: 20-21, it must remain in heaven until the resurrection — which most orthodox Christians believe will take place at Christ’s coming. [Note: Since I'm a post-tribulational Dispensationalist, I believe the parousia of Matt. 24 is the same as that mentioned in 1 Cor. 15: 23].

    Compare also with Galatians 4: 26, where our “motherhood” is stated as being heavenly in nature. The inference, then, is that both SONSHIP and CITIZENSHIP appertain to the heavenly regions, and are spiritual in nature. Because of the “one baptism” we receive (which is spiritual), we are positionally seated in heavenly places with Christ, and are “complete in Him” (Col. 2: 10).

   Therefore, it is questionable whether there will ever be a period of earthly victory for the visible church. The fact that all who are SONS must be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8: 29-30) by suffering BEFORE they can “reign with Him” (2 Tim. 2: 12) seems to make such a concept impossible.

   In my humble and unlearned opinion, history has already proven that the VVC idea can have no realization before the second coming. Romanism tried it once, and look what it got us into! A wholesale reform was needed. Now many Protestants want to do it again. That is not to say, of course, that it is technically impossible to achieve some balance between church and state. But all such efforts must be man-achieved. In order to get it to happen, Christians will have to bow-wow to the world system. The result will be a worldly Christianity, a mere repeat of the administrative mish-mash of Rome. I doubt this is the kind of ‘kingdom’ any of us really want.

    Only the awesome power of a returning Savior can enable the awaited kingdom to break into the physical realm. It is this that we are taught to pray for.

   “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6: 10).

***************

   Hi Mike,

   Well, thanks for those thoughts. I’m reading your book as we speak, so am learning more of your point of view. I guess my main disagreement with the whole ‘dominion’ idea is that I see Adam’s dominion having been transferred to Noah, and later to Israel. So in my opinion, Israel (not the church) is the channel through which dominion must come.

    “And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto THEE shall it come, even the first DOMINION; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem” (Micah 4: 8).

    Alot of folks think that just because the Jews rejected the kingdom in the first century, that God is finished with them. I do not believe that is the case! In my understanding, the church occupies a parenthetical interval in God’s dealings with Israel.

    That is not to say, though, that I disagree with efforts made to inaugurate social change, reform, etc. But all things must be kept in their proper sphere. One has to wonder, if God really intended the church to have dominion in this age, why hasn’t it come to pass??? The fact that the church has never been able to acquire such dominion would SEEM to imply (to me, at least) that it is no part of the Divine program. That’s just my opinion, though.

*************

   Dr. Talbot,

   Thanks for the detailed response. Well, without attempting to pose as any kind of ‘expert’ on theology, here’s how I see it. I agree that the term ekklesia means a “called out company.” My only question would be “called out of what, into what?” The church is called out of this aeon to partake of a heavenly inheritance and Sonship glory in the “aeon to come.” Eonian life is a gift of God (Rom. 6: 23). Therefore, authority must be vested in Him Who sits above. Frankly, I don’t believe Peter handed his ‘keys‘ to Linus, or anything like that. When the apostolic commission ceased at the (temporary) setting aside of Israel, all of God’s administrative principles were shifted from earthly to heavenly. Hence, many things connected with the organizational Christianity of the first century are no longer valid. The shift in God’s administrative principles can be seen most notably in Acts 28, when Paul pronounces the sentence of judicial blindness on the nation, affirming that salvation will be SENT (Gr. apostelo) to the Gentiles. This marks the beginning of a secret economy which Paul calls the “administration of the Mystery” (Eph. 3: 9). It is this economy which fills the interval between Israel’s rejection, and their ultimate “renewal.” Because of the administrative shift, Jews and Gentiles “in Christ” are placed on an equal footing — which wouldn’t be the case were the earthly organizational principles still in force. In that case, salvation would still be to “the Jew first.”

    Around A.D. 57, Paul wrote to the saints at Corinth: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is THE Christ.” (1 Cor. 12: 12). The Greek contains the definite article (ho Christos).

   Later he affirms: “There is ONE BODY, and ONE SPIRIT, even as ye are called in ONE HOPE of your calling; One Lord, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4: 4-6).

    I think we should take into account the ‘progressive revelation’ which went on in the first century. According to the above verse, water baptism had already given place to spirit baptism as early as A.D. 63. The administration of the sacraments IS NOT ONCE MENTIONED in any of Paul’s epistles written after Acts 28 [Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy]. Again, this reflects the shift from an earthly to heavenly administration.

   Pauline doctrine expresses Christ Himself as the Head of the Body, and individual Christians as members. This is distinct from any mere organizational Christianity. True, the New Testament contains traces of a sort of “corporate Christendom.” However, any visible expression of Christ’s body on earth must necessarily fall short of the true ideal.

   In absence of any ‘badges,’ we would do best, I think, to “hold the Head” (Col. 2: 19) “even Christ, FROM Whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4: 16).

    Although I admire John Calvin, I disagree with his position on the church and the sacraments. So, the true visible church is she who keepeth the sacraments properly?? That sounds like a sectarian war-cry to me. Such statements are generally followed by: “and WE are the true holy catholic and apostolic church!!” As far as I’m aware, nearly every denomination in Christendom claims to be the “TRUE CHURCH.” Some of them use baptism and the ordinances as a litmus test. But how can anyone tell if the sacraments are properly kept? It is open to debate whether we should sprinkle, dip, dunk, or take a nosedive down. Without being irreverent, I find it hard to place much credibility in these things, especially when Paul says:

    “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is CHRIST DIVIDED? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?“

   “For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to PREACH THE GOSPEL: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13, 17).

   If in Ephesians Paul says there is but ONE BAPTISM, we should beware of making it a material one — else we nullify baptism of the Spirit. Not trying to be contentious. I simply disagree with Calvin, that’s all.

MillennialSaint