The Purpose Of The Church - Article

[matthew11v25]

I was hoping to get some thoughts on this article.

The article is from John Robbins (Trinity Foundation)...

The Purpose of The Church

 

[ddharr]

He states the purpose of the church is for education. I believe there is more purpose than that. The three marks of a true church suggest 1. Sound preaching 2. Proper administration of the sacraments 3. Disclipline

 

[matthew11v25]

Thanks Darren,

This was primarily the issue I was thinking about. Can you say that "Education" is purpose of the Church? Seemed a little funny to me so I thought I would ask.

Curious if there is other input?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Thanks Darren,

This was primarily the issue I was thinking about. Can you say that "Education" is purpose of the Church? Seemed a little funny to me so I thought I would ask.

Curious if there is other input?

There is the church militant. That is our evangelical and apologetics arm.

The fundamental purpose of the church is to glorify God. That is done in many ways. There are benefits to everyone involved in the church.

 

[jwithnell]

The primary purpose of the church is to glorify God in worship. Out of that flows the education, missions work, mercy and the many other activities that some might champion as the main duty of the church. What is particularly reassuring to me is that the church will continue in this purpose throughout all eternity.

 

[Reformation Monk]

Just off the cuff here without looking at the WCF or anything like that, I would say that the purpose of the Church is to be sanctified or called out. Called out from the world by the washing of the water and the word. This involves worship, prayer, proclamation/protecting and teaching the truth, training up, disciplining etc.. etc.. a people for God the Father in Christ.

? does that make any sense? just some thoughts.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

J.Robbins, may he rest in peace, elevated a version of rationalism (probably what he would call true, intellectual virtue) to an equation of saving faith. Only Christians could be such true-rationalists, but to be fully Christian meant a peculiar kind of devotion to Christ as the divine Logos, which G.Clark had translated/rendered Logic.

Therefore, if saving faith is logic--pure and perfect rationality--then to know the Logic (truly) is to know God. That knowledge is lodged in Jesus, of course. Thus, it is a most rational conclusion of these postulates to think that the main goal of the church is to educate, to get people to think rationally concerning God and all of created reality (for in that the whole of his works bears witness to him). So, the more sensible/sane a man is, the more Christian he must necessarily be. And for a putatively sane man to be rational, but not Christian, is contradictory and thus fundamentally flawed. He must be shown (and cognitively embrace) the truth as it is in Jesus.

At the very least, the only suitable leaders of the church (according to this mind) are the Christian-rationalists. They are the only safe guides through the minefield of irrationalistic religious confusion.
_______________________

I believe in rationality, but I am neither a rationalist nor a Christian-rationalist. To say that Christianity (and the purpose for the church) is education, reveals a particular bent of mind that is polemical against a particular current of irrationalism that is common enough in our day, outside and inside the church. But there is a reductionistic quality (among the other problems) with this approach. We need the "golden mean" between the irrationalism of the one philosophy, and the rationalism of the other. Let rationality have pride-of-place, but do not let it swell to even theoretical omniscience. There is a mediating point that the humble Christian acknowledges is God's reserved place for him, between understanding and mystery.

We were not created (ideally) to live as deductive automatons, to walk and to choose according to a strict logical determination of the one uniquely best choice, or an algorithmic probability generator. Any other choice would necessarily be sin. There is no "freedom of the will" whatsoever under that scheme. And Calvinists affirm "free will" (WCF.9) within its true boundaries. We don't affirm libertarian free-will, but we do not deny that there are matters of indifference (adiaphora), even while we hold firmly to the predestinating and comprehensive divine decree.

There is no possibility for the creature to obtain omniscience. Where there is uncertainty as to whether one course of action is sinful or not, we have recourse to prayer for guidance. But even in the Garden, there were choices (which allowable tree should I eat from?) that were not sinful, one choice or another. Banana or Apple?--not something Adam had to take to God to get a "ruling" on. But, to hear the rationalist, there must have been a "right" or "best" choice in that, and consequently other, "sinful" choices. Because if it wasn't a RATIONAL choice, but a random or a hesitant choice, then it could not have been godly. The rationalist answer would be that Adam, in such a case, would have refrained from making a choice until he was sufficiently educated to know exactly which fruit-choice was virtuous in that situation.

If my children had to live like that around me, as their law-giver, they would be among the most miserable children anywhere. Law, law, law, law--life according to laws at every turn, especially the cold, merciless laws of logic. I'm not AGAINST logic, or its laws. But it is not just SIN that wants to put logic in its place. Because it's place is not everyplace. In the perfect world, my wife is not my perfect complement by some mathematical formula. We don't relate to one another by the exclusive virtue of logic. There is some benevolent "irrationality" between us that is not sinful.