The discussions of unity in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 2, 4, both mention church officers, but as gifts to his church that is one (1 Corinthians 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11-16). Nothing in these texts suggests that the officers constitute the unity as Rome believes. Rather, officers serve the one church. In 1 Timothy 3:1-13, which gives qualifications for officers, nothing points in a different direction. If anything, it indicates that the church as household of God already exists, and the way to behave in it is to appoint qualified officers (3:14-15). Similar in Titus 1:5-9. Obviously, it would be impossible to express our unity without believers being brought together in institutional structures. But a single, worldwide body is not necessary for such unity. Christians and churches can express much unity across ecclesiastical lines. We can and do participate in each others’ sacraments, etc.

Having considered the marks of the church, we now move on to consider the attributes of the church.  
There are four classical attributes of the church as expressed in the Nicene Creed which are held in common by all major Christian traditions.  These are:  1).  Unity, 2).  Holiness, 3).  Catholicity, and 4).  Apostolicity.  The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Reformation churches all confess these same attributes, yet understand them in fundamentally different ways.  The Lutherans, for example, add “invisibility” to the four marks expressed above as a polemic against Rome’s claim of the visibility of the true church (Rome claims to be the true church because of its visibility).[1]
James Bannerman, a Scottish Presbyterian, who wrote what many consider to be the definitive volume on Presbyterian polity (The Church of Christ) offers a number of reasons why discussing the marks of the church should be done before considering the attributes of the church.  He lists the four attributes of “Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity.”  But then notes that these “belong . . . to the Christian Church, in consequence of the Church holding and professing the true faith of Christ.”[1]  Herman Bavinck also considers the marks before addressing the church’s attributes since, as he contends, it is important to distinguish a true church from a false church since this determination defines how we are to understand the attributes of the church.[2]
As some Reformed theologians point out, the classical attributes are not merely descriptive but also function as exhortations.  According to Heyns, unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity “provide, not only a factual description of the current situation, but also a factual command:  they set the ideals to be realized, the objectives for which the Church must strive.  They are both a gift and a mandate.”  Heyns also adds that these attributes are to be viewed in terms of the already/not yet.[4]  As attributes of the church militant, they point ahead to the church triumphant in which all four attributes will be fully realized.
The seminal biblical text when discussing the attributes of the church is 1 Corinthians 1:1–2.  Paul opens the letter with an important declaration about the nature of the church.
I Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.
First, Paul speaks of unity as an attribute of the church when he identifies the church in Corinth as a “church of God,” composed of those who are called together with all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus.  Second, Paul identifies holiness as an attribute.  Paul says the Corinthians are the sanctified but also called to be holy.  This speaks both of the church’s status (holy) but also the importance of reflecting such holiness in the life of the church (aspirational).  Third, Paul speaks of the church’s catholicity.  The apostle declares that the Corinthian Christians are called together with all those who in every place call on the name of Christ.  Finally, Paul speaks of the church’s apostolicity–they are authoritatively addressed by Paul, who was called by the will of God to be an apostle.
The First Attribute in the Creed: Unity
Roman Catholicism understands unity in terms of the church as an external, visible organization united in the Pope.  “Where the Pope is, there is the church” (ubi papa ibi ecclesia).  Also, “where the Pope is, there is the true church, pure doctrine, and apostolic succession.”[5]  In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, the second chapter begins with Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) connecting the primacy of Peter with the unity of the church.  That is not accidental.  At the end of the chapter he states: “The Roman primacy is not an invention of the popes, but an essential element of ecclesial unity that goes back to the Lord and was developed faithfully in the nascent Church.”[6]
The Eastern Orthodox understand unity in terms of visible communion of the saints in the Eucharist.  Timothy (Kallistos) Ware (an Anglican convert to Eastern Orthodoxy) writes:
In its teaching upon the visible unity of the Church, Orthodoxy stands far closer to Roman Catholicism than to the Protestant world.  But if we ask how this visible unity is maintained, Rome and the east give somewhat different answers.  For Rome the unifying principle in the Church is the Pope whose jurisdiction extends over the whole body, whereas Orthodox do not believe any bishop to be endowed with universal jurisdiction.  What then holds the Church together? Orthodox answer, the act of communion in the sacraments . . . . The Church is not monarchical in structure, centered round a single hierarch; it is collegial, formed by the communion of many hierarchs with one another, and of each hierarch with the members of his flock.  The act of communion therefore forms the criterion for membership of the Church. 
Ware concludes that “Orthodoxy, believing that the Church on earth has remained and must remain visibly one, naturally also believes itself to be that one visible Church. [7]
The Reformed Understanding of the Attribute of Unity
The Reformed understand the attribute of unity in terms of both the invisible and visible church.  Members of the invisible church enjoy common union with Christ, by one Spirit, through one faith, hope, and love (cf. Ephesians 4:5-6).  God calls Christians to strive to give expression to this unity visibly, in part, but not exclusively, through external organization.  The Belgic Confession, Article 27 (of the Catholic Christian Church), states “We believe and confess One single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.”  Throughout article 27, the Belgic Confession speaks of the church in the singular.  The article concludes by confessing that the church is “joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith.”
In regard to the invisible church, Bannerman writes that the unity which is characteristic of the church is “a spiritual unity.” 
Read More
Related Posts:

These two volumes deserve to be the shelf of every busy pastor and every serious theological student. While the work should not be read as the final word on every theological question it raises, there is no doubt that the Synopsis will help the careful reader arrive at purer and better understanding of the historic Reformed orthodox.

This article appears in Volume 8 Issue 2 of the Spring 2024 RTS Journal Reformed Faith & Practice.

Let me state my conclusion up front: Every English-speaking Reformed pastor and studentwould do well to own these two outstanding volumes. That may sound hyperbolic, or evencliché, but it’s true. This is an invaluable resource that can serve as a wise, reliable, profound, and easy to use (which does not mean simple) reference for anyone interested in defining and defending Reformed theology.

A New Edition of an Old Book

This new edition of the Synopsis of a Purer Theology uses the English translation (with minor changes and corrections) from the three-volume academic Brill edition published from 2014 to 2020. Davenant Press has done the church a great service by presenting the same content, but now in a more accessible and more affordable format. The Synopsis, first published in 1625, was composed between 1620 and 1625 by four professors at Leiden University: Antonius Thysius (1565–1640), Johannes Polyander (1568–1646), Andreas Rivetus (1572–1651), and Antonius Walaeus (1573–1639). Based on academic disputations at Leiden, the Synopsis represents a full, yet streamlined, summary of theology as it was understood in the Netherlands following the Synod of Dort (1618–1619).

The Synopsis was meant to be an academic textbook that offered a theological and philosophical exposition of the orthodox (“purer”) Reformed faith. The two volumes are composed of fifty-two disputations which move through the standard theological loci: prolegomena, doctrine of Scripture, God and his attributes, the Holy Trinity, creation, providence, anthropology, the decrees, the person of Christ, the work of Christ, soteriology, Christian worship, ecclesiology, sacraments, the civil magistrate, last things. For the contemporary reader, it is interesting to note which topics, that we might ignore or deal with quickly, are given their own disputation. For example, there is a disputation “Concerning the Good and Bad Angels,” another one on idolatry that deals with physical art and iconography (not with idols of the heart), a long disputation on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day, a disputation each on almsgiving and fasting, on vows, on purgatory and indulgences, on the calling and duties of ministers, and on church discipline.

The Synopsis is a potent expression of Protestant scholasticism. The prose is not dry or lifeless, but it is often technical and presumes a certain familiarity with theology as an academic discipline. In the chapter on justification, for example, mention is made of the efficient cause for justification, the assisting cause, the internal impelling cause, the initiating external cause, and the material cause. Distinctions like this are not uncommon. The work as a whole is well-organized, with clearly stated topics and with each disputation consisting of dozens of numbered paragraphs. This makes the Synopsis, though dense, surprisingly accessible. One can easily look at, say, Disputation 29 “On the Satisfaction by Jesus Christ” and see what the Leiden professors thought about the atonement.

As a textbook for theological students, the Synopsis often speaks deliberately out of, and with reference to, the church’s long tradition of theological exploration. For example, in a single paragraph in the chapter on the Sabbath, Antonius Thysius (who was responsible for this disputation) references no fewer than thirteen church fathers: Eusebius, Ignatius, Jerome, Justin Martyr, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Sozomen. Of course, the Bible is far and away the most important source for the Synopsis, but the disputations also refer to historical and literary texts from classical antiquity, cite Medieval authors like Aquinas, Lombard, and Scotus, and engage with Roman Catholic apologists like Robert Bellarmine and Gregory of Valencia.

What Curious Minds May Want to Know

Given the nature of the Synopsis, it would be impractical to provide anything like a proper summary. The Synopsis is a work of systematic theology, so one can fairly surmise what the book is about.

Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R.C. Sproul |
Saturday, May 14, 2022
Jesus says that their hearts will not simply be touched by sorrow or grief or disappointment, but there will be a fullness of sorrow that saturates the chambers of their hearts. They will be overcome with grief. Their mourning will reach the limits of its human capacity. But Jesus says the condition that they will experience will be temporary, that the sense of abandonment they may feel for a moment will give way to unspeakable joy.

These men had spent three years in a state of unspeakable joy. They had witnessed what no human beings before them had ever seen in the entire course of history. Their eyes peered openly at things angels themselves longed to look into but were unable. Their ears heard what ancient saints had a fierce desire to hear with their own ears. These men were the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. They were His students. They were His companions. Where He went, they went. What He said, they heard. What He did, they saw with their own eyes. These were the original eyewitnesses of the earthly ministry of the Son of God.
But one day, these men heard from the lips of their teacher the worst of all possible news. Jesus told them that He was leaving them. He told them that the days of their intimate companionship in this world were coming to a hasty end. Imagine the shock and profound panic that filled the hearts of these disciples when Jesus said that it was just about over.
In John 16 we read what Jesus said:
A little while, and you will see me no longer; and again a little while, and you will see me. So some of his disciples said to one another, “What is this that he says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’; and, ‘because I am going to the Father’?” So they were saying, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We do not know what he is talking about.”
“Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, ‘Is this what you are asking yourselves, what I meant by saying, “A little while and you will not see me, and again a little while and you will see me”? Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you’ ” (John 16:16–22).
Just shortly before this enigmatic statement, Jesus had said to His disciples:
But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, “Where are you going?” But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. (John 16:5–7)
In the first instance, Jesus says that their hearts will not simply be touched by sorrow or grief or disappointment, but there will be a fullness of sorrow that saturates the chambers of their hearts.
Read More
Related Posts: