Being Built Together.
Being Built Together.
Between Cyprian's Ark and Augustine's Church. Mapping other church typologies from Scripture to paint an eschatological image of the One True Church.
For greater context, please read Part 1, The Ark of Christ and the Fullness of the Faith. This entry is an immediate continuation of the previous article.
“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ...”
– Ephesians 4:11-14
Anonymous, “Noah’s Ark” (c.1100AD). Fresco.
First, we have to recognize the limitation of a rigid Cyprianic interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus for its lack of inner coherency. Despite some traditional Catholics and Orthodox protesting against Protestantism for espousing the belief in a visible and invisible church, rejecting any distinction whatsoever, it turns out everyone believes in a visible and invisible church, even them. Consider it; in almost all high church ecclesiologies, especially Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, there is no certainty or assurance of salvation—you do not know if you are saved. For all intents and purposes, you can be inside the visible Ark, say, receiving the sacraments and going to Mass, and still fall overboard invisibly, say, as a wolf in sheep’s clothing or merely receiving sacraments without faith or not confessing a mortal sin before death such as skipping Mass, which would not be visible or known by the body until the Head returns. Nominal Christians exist everywhere. There is an invisible church within the visible church. So the visible borders are not so visible, especially when those clinging to a life raft for survival may just in fact be saved, while those roasting their feet by a warm fire deep inside the Ark may not be so lucky. Or, perhaps, they played it too close to the edge; it’s besides the point. The point is there is no assurance of salvation within the visible Church, otherwise you would have assurance of salvation (so long as you stayed within the visible boundary lines), which means there is necessarily an invisible church and, therefore, a distinction between the two—invisible is known by God alone, visible is known by all—despite what some RadTrads and OrthoBros contend. So the visible Church, defined by its institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical boundary lines, is not an indicator of salvation necessarily. Whence the visible Church?
Protestants have traditionally believed that the fullness of the One True Church is invisible, defined by the Presence of Christ, and, therefore, extends beyond the visible church, which is the new trend seemingly appropriated by these apologists and theologians. The visible church is bound to our earthly epistemic faculties necessarily, and warrants soteriological assurance as well as institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical purity to have clean-cut, hardline visible borders. That is not to say the Church at large is not authoritative and plays no role in salvation—all those who are truly members of the body of Christ are saved—it just means the visible Church is not the chief arbiter of salvation. It is only the body, it is not the Head. The Head tells the body what’s what, and the Head is invisible.
Augustine v. Cyprian
Augustine expressed this same sentiment against Cyprian’s teaching when addressing the issue of the sufficiency of baptism inside and outside the Ark, prioritizing an invisible Ark over a visible Ark:
“Wherefore, if those appear to men to be baptized in Catholic unity who renounce the world in words only and not in deeds, how do they belong to the mystery of this ark in whom there is not the answer of a good conscience? Or how are they saved by water, who, making a bad use of holy baptism, though they seem to be within, yet persevere to the end of their days in a wicked and abandoned course of life? Or how can they fail to be saved by water, of whom Cyprian himself records that they were in time past simply admitted to the Church with the baptism which they had received in heresy? For the same unity of the ark saved them, in which no one has been saved except by water. For Cyprian himself says, “The Lord is able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever from the gifts of His Church those who, being in all simplicity admitted to the Church, have fallen asleep within her pale.” If not by water, how in the ark? If not in the ark, how in the Church? But if in the Church, certainly in the ark; and if in the ark, certainly by water. It is therefore possible that some who have been baptized without may be considered, through the foreknowledge of God, to have been really baptized within, because within the water begins to be profitable to them unto salvation; nor can they be said to have been otherwise saved in the ark except by water. And again, some who seemed to have been baptized within may be considered, through the same foreknowledge of God, more truly to have been baptized without, since, by making a bad use of baptism, they die by water, which then happened to no one who was not outside the ark. Certainly it is clear that, when we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body, since all who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark through the same water, through which all who are in heart without, whether they are also in body without or not, die as enemies of unity. As therefore it was not another but the same water that saved those who were placed within the ark, and destroyed those who were left without the ark, so it is not by different baptisms, but by the same, that good Catholics are saved, and bad Catholics or heretics perish.” (On Baptism: Against the Donatists, V.28)
Augustine is clear: the same visible water of baptism saves and destroys. There is profitable baptism outside the Ark just as there is unprofitable baptism inside the Ark—a unified heart with Christ and His Church is what saves. The invisible takes precedent over the visible, for it is the invisible God who is at work. Whence the visible Ark?
If the visible—institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical—borders do not and cannot define the invisible borders, why would the invisible church be restricted or confined to the visible Church? There is no precedent to define the Church by visible borders in the first place. But there is precedent for invisible borders.
Augustine would go on in his next book to challenge Cyprian and the other bishops who took such a rigid stand on the logical sufficiency of their resolve, followed by the authoritative support of a plenary Council.[1]
“[A]s many sheep wander outside, so many wolves lurk treacherously within, among whom the Lord yet knows them that are His, which hear only the voice of the Shepherd…. Wherefore, while rendering due reverence, and paying, so far as I can, the fitting honor to the peaceful bishop and glorious martyr Cyprian, I yet venture to say that his view concerning the baptism of schismatics and heretics was contrary to that which was afterwards brought to light by a decision, not of mine, but of the whole Church, confirmed and strengthened by the authority of a plenary Council.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, VI.1, 2)
The doctrine of the invisible Church is a natural outpouring of meditating on the immeasurable depth of God’s mercy, a mercy that triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), which informs our subsequent charity.
Visible within the invisible Ark
But as time would have it Cyprian’s view would develop into the dominant medieval position, in my assessment, held hard-and-fast by both the Greeks and the Romans, intensified by the Great Schism, even though it was not the original consensus held by the early Church according to Augustine. Schismatics seem to always require immediate gratification and visible exactitude with the invisible, uplifting their lust for knowledge to that of God’s. Be that as it may, this does not negate a visibleness to the Church, nor does it negate the visible Church-Ark typology, even if it is difficult to pin down precisely. The traditional Church-Ark typology is right in its emphasis of a single and necessary authoritative visible Church, hence the general authority of a plenary Council, which is heavily deemphasized in Protestantism. A visible manifest assembly of Godfearing believers who love one another was Christ’s desire and prayer (John 17:14-26). A unified visible Church, that which presents their visible bodies as living sacrifices, is the optimal form of evangelism (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 13:12-14). After all, true members of the invisible Church are, technically, visible right now, even if we ourselves do not see them, appearing as thunder and lightning to hardened hearts (John 12:28-32). So, it is our interpretation of Christ’s body that needs to be transformed by the renewal of our minds, not the typology itself, that through trials and tests, which is often invisible to those suffering and persevering, we may discern the perfect will of God by the sanctification of Christ’s Spirit. Even so, at bottom the Church is defined by the Presence of God, which is invisible—for now.
Even though there is a distinction between the two here and now, what Christ assures is that the invisible Church will radiate visible as the sun one Day, revealed by Him upon His return, and that those who many thought were of Christ may turn out to have made a shipwreck of their faith, puffed up in prestige, self-righteousness, and presumption (1 Timothy 1:19; 2 Peter 3:9-13). The Ark has not reached the Promised land, after all. And that’s the point we need to keep in mind, here. While God knows who will shout land ho! and who will fall overboard, we do not. As Christ alluded in his Olivet Discourse, there is an eschatological undercurrent to extra Ecclesiam nulla salus that cannot be dismissed. Hence, the precedent for the One True Ark’s temporal invisibility and ultimate visibility regarding its celestial assembly (cf. Matthew 25:1-13).
Cyprian overemphasized the visible mark of a believer, akin to the requirement of circumcision, even though baptism is an invisible mark. Where the Cyprianic view flounders, then, is in its understanding that the visible and invisible have a 1:1 correlation right here and now, that the invisible is subsequent of the visible rather than the other way around, and that the visible takes precedent over the invisible for defining the One True Church. If the reverse is true, which I believe it is, then the Presence of Christ can live in “other” Christians outside the visible Church. The institutional, sacramental, confessional, and canonical boundary lines are invisible first, and then manifest visible second. The Ark, then, like the Presence of God, is invisible and manifests visibly right now through, say, good works and preaching the gospel, though such can only be understood as holy and divine by invisible means—the Spirit and heart unhardened (1 Corinthian 1:18; cf. Matthew 13:10-17).
The Cyprianic view of the Church only accounts for Peter’s typology, but does not fully account and properly map Christ’s eschatological Flood imagery over Peter’s typological reversal of the Flood narrative, which portrays a very different image of the Church through time. In doing, it fails to synthesize other biblical Church typologies, including the Church as the Temple, Christ’s body, and bride, with Peter’s Church-Ark typology. The result of which has significant consequences.
So—is there Scriptural warrant for a temporal invisible Church, which is an eschatological view of the One True Church and the fullness of the faith?
I believe there is.
Fullness is to come.
In Ephesians, Paul synthesizes two types, the Church as the Temple and as Christ’s body, which aligns with Christ’s eschatological Ark typology. In Ephesians 2:18-22, Paul says:
“For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” (Emphasis added)
The Church is in the process of being built into a holy temple. Later in Ephesians 4:1-7,11-16 Paul continues his point and then harmonizes the Church-Temple type with the Church as Christ’s body:
“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift…. And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (Emphasis added)
Notice that it is “we”, the plural form, who are actively “being” built together, in the present progressive tense. The Church is still being built “until we” grow “to mature manhood” and “attain to the unity of the faith” and to “the fullness of Christ”. Paul is indicating a future time when this will happen. The fullness of the faith was truly given once for all by Christ, but we—together—have not yet attained to the maturity and fullness of Christ. The Ark is still being built for the flood of fire which is to come (Matthew 24:37-39)
Like Noah, who had 120 years to build the Ark before the Flood, the Church is in the process of being built by Christ over time, where the structure itself is the community of believers until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Romans 11:25) and we have reached maturity. An Ark being built over time also suggests that our doctrinal understanding is developing and growing and maturing over time, with each generation of new believers. Fundamental truths have not changed, but our understanding of doctrines “and of the knowledge of the Son of God” as well as each other through “the unity of the faith” is truly deepening, and so is the size of the Ark (number of people), which means the fullness of the faith has yet to come. The Cyprianic view, then, seems to forgo the process of maturity because it so heavily favours doctrinal and sacramental purity as the defining line of the Church over and above the assembly of believers. It supposes a fully mature and completed Ark floating through history from the time of the apostles onward—and granted, that is not entirely wrong from a divine vantage point, but it is not the whole prophetic picture painted in Scripture, especially when we harmonize other Church typologies together.
Fullness is to maturity.
So, when does the Church stop growing in maturity? When the Ark either reaches (or, perhaps, is about to reach) the mountain of God—the new heavens and new earth. When we attain “to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ”. No church institution can lay claim to this. It has yet to happen. Not even Peter and Paul claimed the whole Church possessed the fullness of the faith! Even though they knew the essential and necessary doctrines and sacraments and confessions of the visible church, they also knew that each part of the body—the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, the teachers, and so forth—must be working properly together, so that the body can grow and build itself up in love. Again, in Hebrews 6:1-3, it says:
“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.” (Emphasis added)
Notice, again, it is plural of all members of the Church in the present progressive and future tense. But notice, here, that it is about transcending the elementary doctrines of Christ in order to move toward maturity, to attain the fullness of the faith as a mutual goal for all believers. Love is what matures. And who is love?
Again, this has yet to happen on a corporate and communal and global scale, as far as I can see. Just look around you. Go online. It’s all we debate about. We can’t get enough of it! Good grief.
Between Cyprian and Augustine.
The fullness of the faith—the One True Church—cannot be represented by its doctrines and sacraments and confessions and dogmas alone, it cannot be reduced to the community of believers alone, and it cannot be restricted to the Presence of God alone, even though Christ is the life and breath of the Church. You need all three. Two are fulfilled, one is yet to come.
To be ‘outside’ the Church is the conscious and willful rejection of Christ and His Church, both His head and His body. Where Protestants differ from Catholics and Orthodox, here, is the belief that by rejecting another part of the body one rejects the head necessarily—Protestants are content with one body part disagreeing with another, with the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, perhaps a bit too loosely—granted. Catholics and Orthodox maintain a whole body typology, that is to reject a member of the body, say, if the hands condemn the feet, or even doctrinally disagree, is to reject the head necessarily. Such folk are considered by them to be schismatics, people who stir rivalries and strife, sedition and dissensions, factions and divisions, and not of the body of Christ (Galatians 5:19-21). Again, perhaps a bit too tightly.
Regardless of our leanings, whether toward Augustine or Cyprian, we ought to strive for visible and invisible unification—and Lord willing, we will—on earth as it is in heaven. Whence the visible Church? If the unity of the faith and the fullness of Christ is lived visibly, we will attain maturity—built up in love. For maturity is the invisible fully manifested visible, sanctified and conformed to the image of the invisible God.
Continue Reading >
Matlock Bobechko | March 20, 2024 – 12:00 PM EST
[1] As a side note, here, Augustine was quick to clear Cyprian’s name of causing division or strife. He esteems Cyprian’s heart and zeal for maintaining unity in the body of Christ over and above his personal desires, proclivities, and teachings. Augustine simply challenges his rationale.