New Testament Ecclesiology
This is a lecture submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course DR37360, New Testament Theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO) on September 6, 2025.
Introduction
Ecclesiology is an often-neglected field in terms of study for the average churchgoer; however, every Christian who takes seriously the need of the local gathering has benefited, and continues to benefit, from the concepts taught in and through ecclesiology. While the average layperson views the church as primarily a human institution, Scripture views the church as “primarily a consequence of the character and purposes of the trinitarian God.”[1] As such, a proper understanding of the church as a consequence of the character and purposes of God shapes how a Christian views themselves, the local gathering, and their relationship with God. This lecture seeks to provide a survey of New Testament (NT) ecclesiology for the purpose of informing and preparing the listeners to enter into the current state of scholarly debate concerning NT ecclesiology. This lecture does this by first defining terminology, showing the church and its origin throughout the NT, explaining how ecclesiology has evolved over centuries, before laying out the current state of the question and providing proposals to move forward in the study of NT ecclesiology.
Defining Terminology
As with most academic studies, it is important to define key terms that influence the rest of the study. In this case, the two terms that need defined are ecclesiology and church. Church etymologically stems from the Greek ἐκκλησία, which while modern Christians often assume means church in the same sense that we mean it today, originally referred to either simply a “regularly summoned legislative body” or “a casual gathering of people.”[2] The understanding of church, while still formulating in the NT, did not refer exclusively to the NT church as known today until later in history.[3] In the Christian context, church refers to the gathered body of believers—both universally and locally.[4] Within that context, Scripture utilizes a variety of images, metaphors, similes, and illustrations to show what the church is—the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Eph 1:22-23), the family of God (Eph 2:19), the fellowship of believers (Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:3,7), the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 3:16-17; Eph 2:21-22), the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27; Rev 19:7), the flock of the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 16; Acts 20:28), a holy nation and royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9), and the pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).[5]
Ecclesiology is then defined as the theological study of the origin, nature, structure, and purpose of the church, both local and universal, and its relation to Christ and the world.[6] In an academic study, ecclesiology is firmly rooted within the field of systematic theology. However, the study of the church, its origin, nature, structure, and purpose innately carries influence in not just systematic theology, but also both biblical theology and applied theology—as what one believes concerning ecclesiology influences hermeneutics, doxology, and praxis; as well as what someone believes concerning their own identity and their relationship with fellow believers and God, Himself.[7]
Distinguishing Between the Universal and Local Church[8]
Previously, a distinction between the universal and local churches was hinted. No study of ecclesiology would be complete without some expression of the differences or delineation between the local church and the universal church. BDAG provides a delineation between the local and universal church under their third definition for ἐκκλησία. Their third definition states that an ἐκκλησία is a “people with shared belief, community, congregation.”[9] Section 3bβ continues the definition with, “as the totality of Christians living and meeting in a particular locality or larger geographical area.”[10] Section 3c then defines ἐκκλησία as “the global community of Christians, (universal) church.”[11] This distinction between the universal and local church is also shared in many Christian confessions.[12]
Biblically, though the Bible does not outrightly define the different uses of the term ἐκκλησία, context shows the difference. For instance, some passages using ἐκκλησία clearly point to a spiritual or universal reality. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus states that Jesus states that He “will build [His] church [on a rock]; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” In Ephesians 1:22-23 Paul says, “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and made Him head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” And the author of Hebrews speaks about the heavenly Jerusalem and the general assembly “and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb 12:22-4). All three instances are clearly of a spiritual or universal nature. Alternatively, passages like Acts 11:22 use ἐκκλησία to speak of news reaching “the ears of the church in Jerusalem.” And many of the epistles are addressed to specific churches in specific locations (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:2). The context determines the meaning of ἐκκλησία in any particular passage—whether the author intended to refer to the universal church or local church.
The Church throughout History
Old Testament and Intertestamental Precursors
While it is commonly agreed that the NT church and thus, NT ecclesiology starts in Acts, whether or not one believes that there are precursors to the church and its start depends heavily on how much the person believes in continuity between the Old Testament (OT) and NT.[13] If a person believes in more discontinuity than continuity, than asking whether there are OT precursors to the NT church may seem moot.[14] However, if one believes in more continuity rather than discontinuity, then this belief opens the possibility of discussing biblical-theological themes that transcend just the NT. For example, one of the most significant treatments of such continuity is G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission. Beale connects the temple ideology with the NT church. In The Temple and the Church’s Mission, Beale begins with a cosmic perspective, narrows his focus to the OT, then transitions to the NT—ultimately showing that Revelation portrays the temple as returning to a cosmic scope.[15] This understanding of the temple is only possible if one holds to more continuity between the OT and NT than discontinuity.[16]
Of course, there are various other ideas and concepts that could be considered precursors to the NT church. For example, the very concept of a covenant assembly is first seen in Exodus 19:5-6 as Israel gathers at Sinai. The concept of a covenant assembly is then seen elsewhere as the people of Israel are reminded of their covenant with the Lord in passages like Joshua 24:14- 28 and Nehemiah 8—both passages in which the leaders of Israel remind the people of their responsibility to and role in their covenant with the Lord. The concept of a NT ἐκκλησία is similar—especially in churches that take seriously their membership covenants. Illustrations like God’s people being a household is prevalent in the OT (see Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1) and connects with how the ἐκκλησία is God’s household in the NT (Eph 2:19; consider adoption in Christ, Rom 8:15-17; Gal 4:4-7); the flock and sheep illustrations (Ps 23; Ezek 34; John 10:11-16; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2-4); remnant terminology (Isa 10:20-22; Mic 2:12; Zeph 3:12-13; Rom 9:27, 11:5; Rev 12:17); and even the post-exilic synagogue and its worship practices reflect the NT church’s worship practices (i.e., like the synagogue, NT churches gather for the Word, prayer, and song (Acts 2:42; 1 Tim 4:13; Col 3:16) with elders leading them).
The intertestamental period also shaped the environment into which the NT church was born. The synagogue system provided a regular rhythm of gathering for Scripture, prayer, song, and teaching, establishing patterns of worship that the early church inherited (Acts 2:42; 1 Tim 4:13; Col 3:16).[17] Sectarian communities like Qumran saw themselves as the purified remnant awaiting God’s Kingdom, a mindset echoed and transformed in the NT church’s understanding.[18] And apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra) fostered expectations of a coming kingdom, the outpouring of the Spirit, and a renewed people of God—all themes important to NT ecclesiology.[19]
The Church in the New Testament
The Gospel accounts, though they record time before the traditionally stated birth of the NT church, nonetheless provide anticipatory insights into NT ecclesiology. Jesus’ promise in Matthew 16:18 to build His church introduces the concept of a gathered people grounded in His identity as Messiah.[20] Similarly, Jesus’ teachings concerning discipline within the community of disciples assumes a corporate reality that foreshadows later church order (Matt 18:15-20).[21] The calling and commissioning of the twelve apostles (e.g., Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16) illustrates the foundational role of apostolic witness for the church’s future.[22] Likewise, John’s Gospel anticipates the church through Jesus’ High Priestly Prayer for those who would believe through the apostles’ word (John 17:20-23), highlighting unity, mission, and sanctification as marks of what would eventually be called His church.[23] Thus, while the Gospels focus on the ministry of Jesus prior to Pentecost, they lay the theological foundation for the church’s identity and mission, preparing the way for its fuller understanding in Acts and the epistles.24
As stated before, the NT church is traditionally taught to have started at Pentecost—the day when the Holy Spirit was poured out on all God’s people in Acts 2. After the Day of Pentecost, the church grew as the believers “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42) and “the Lord [added] to their number day by day” (Acts 2:47). However, again, depending on one’s view of continuity and discontinuity, the extent to which the NT church is a completely new entity or not is debated.[25] Regardless of this continual disagreement, as the NT continues, the church reveals itself as the primary people of God for the NT—as the text shifts from focusing on the life of Jesus in the Gospels to the life of His people in Acts and the following books.[26]
In Acts, the reader is treated to an historical record of the church’s beginning. Again, Pentecost is the starting point of the Church as a body of people worshiping and following the Lord together (Acts 2). As the Lord adds “to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47), the apostles continue in their own ministry involving preaching, miraculous events, and imprisonment (see Acts 2-4:1-31). As the apostles are preaching, performing miracles, and being imprisoned, the Church was “of one heart and soul” and had all things in common as they lived in community with each other (Acts 4:32-37). Eventually, the apostles see the need for more structure as the Church grows (Acts 6-7) and the reader is introduced to a man named Saul—initially a persecutor of the Church, Saul soon becomes an integral part of the Church (Acts 8-9). In fact, much of the rest of the book of Acts records the missionary efforts of Saul, who is then known as Paul, as he proclaims Christ, plants new expressions of the Church, and suffers for the sake of Jesus.
Much of the NT writings then center around Paul’s own communication with different regions and cities of the Church—both churches that he planted and churches that he did not plant (consider Rom 1). Throughout the Pauline epistles, Paul both builds on the doctrine of Christology while strengthening the local churches that he writes to—to encourage unity (Rom 12:4-5, 14-15; 1 Cor 1:10-13, 3:3-9, 12:2-27; 2 Cor 13:11; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-22, 4:1-16; Phil 1:27, Phil 2:1-4; Col 3:11-15, 1 Thess 5:11-15), corporate worship (1 Cor 10:16-17, 11:17-34), perseverance (2 Cor 4:7-12; Col 1:24), the use of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12-14; Rom 12:6-8; Eph 4:11-16), holiness and discipline (1 Cor 5; Eph 5:25-27; 1 Thess 4:3-8), and mission as a body (Rom 15:20-21; 2 Cor 5:18-20; Phil 2:15-16).[27] While making these statements, Paul describes the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-27; Rom 12:4-5; Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:18), God’s temple and dwelling place (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19-22), and the family of God (Eph 2:19; Gal 6:10; 1 Tim 3:15) with an eschatological identity (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor 15; Rom 8:18-25) marked by a distinguishing already-but-not-yet descriptor.[28]
Beyond Paul, other NT writers contribute complementary emphases concerning the church. Johannine writings emphasize unity within the community of faith; for instance, believers are repeatedly exhorted to “love one another” (1 John 3:11, 23, 4:7, 11-12), which serves as both the mark of true fellowship and evidence that one does belong in the body of Christ.[29] Petrine writings highlight the church’s priestly and covenantal identity. In 1 Peter 2:4-10, believers are portrayed as “living stones” being built into a spiritual house and as a “royal priesthood” and “holy nation,” signifying the church as both the temple and covenant community.[30] The author of Hebrews stresses the church’s eschatological and pilgrim nature—he insists that the readers are part of the “assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Heb 12:23).[31] Again, together these epistolary witnesses complement Paul’s writings concerning the church.
The final element of NT ecclesiology from the NT itself is its eschatological orientation. The church is not merely a present, organizational or sociological reality but a community defined by its future eschatological reality as it anticipates the consummation of all things. Paul describes believers as those “upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11), living in the tension of the “already and not yet.”[32] In Romans 8:18-25, the church groans along with creation as it waits for the redemption of all things. Of course, Revelation provides the climactic vision of the church’s eschatological identity. In Revelation, the people of God are portrayed both in their present tribulation and their future glory—the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev 2-3) are all exhorted to rectify what they had done wrongly or to persevere, the white-robed multitude, the redeemed are gathered as the bride prepares for her husband (Rev 19:7-8), and finally, the new Jerusalem descends as God’s dwelling with His people (Rev 21:1-3). These ideas and images underscore that the church is both present and future—marked by suffering witness (Rev 12:11) but destined to be the perfected bride and temple of God (Rev 21:9, 22). NT ecclesiology is not only a doctrine of the church’s origin and mission but also of her teleological end.[33]
Historical Echoes of the Church
Of course, NT ecclesiology as a study does not end with the NT itself. Rather, how the NT showcases and pictures the church shaped later ideas throughout church history. While later authors did not always repeat the exact imagery, their appeals to unity, holiness, and mission reveal a reception and application of the apostles’ concerns. The early church also emphasized the concern of the apostles for unity within the body of Christ. Ignatius of Antioch echoed the apostolic insistence that the church ought to be visibly unified as it participates in the Eucharist under the authority of the bishop.[34] In Ignatius’ writings, the single altar and the one Eucharist exemplify the same oneness that Paul saw in the Spirit’s work (consider 1 Cor 12-13). Cyprian of Carthage expanded this idea beyond the Eucharist to the church itself, that one cannot have God as Father without having the church as his mother.[35] For Cyprian, salvation itself was bound to visible communion with the Church.[36] Again, these early church voices repeat the NT concerns for unity even in early theological debates; and it is clear in early church history that there is a movement towards a more institutionalized understanding of the Church as a safeguard of apostolic teaching.[37]
In the medieval period, NT imagery of the church as Christ’s body and temple was developed in ways that emphasized sacramentality and the church as an institution. Thomas Aquinas described the church as both a visible organization and the mystical body of Christ united to its head through the sacraments.[38] The subsequent ecclesiology developed by Aquinas and then taught by the Roman Catholic Church increasingly defined their church as the universal, visible organization gathered under the authority of the papacy, who through apostolic succession had authority to preserve the church and orient it around their sacramental system.[39]
The Reformation era rediscovered and re-applied NT images and ideas as the Reformers returned to Scripture and Scripture’s understanding of the NT Church. Martin Luther emphasized the church as a community sustained by the Word of God and the sacraments rather than papal authority.[40] John Calvin also insisted that the true church could be discerned not necessarily under the authority of the papacy, but rather, wherever the Word was faithfully preached and the sacraments rightly administered.[41] Post-Reformation confessions continued to echo and refine these ideas with several confessions spelling out nuances of what they thought the church ought to look like. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession built on the Reformers and expressed a more comprehensive understanding of what the church ought to look like—including beliefs, polity, and governmental structure.[42]
Current State of New Testament Ecclesiology
In modernity, the challenge to understand NT ecclesiology in the most biblical sense continues with numerous issues debated amongst theologians and scholars. Many of the current debates were previously mentioned in passing but deserve further discussion here including concepts such as inaugurated versus future eschatology, church polity and posture towards the world, and the continuity versus discontinuity issue—particularly concerning Israel and its role or lack thereof in eschatology.[43]
Inaugurated Versus Future Eschatology
One issue concerning modern ecclesiology is that of inaugurated versus future ecclesiology. G.K. Beale deals with this issue at length in his books Union with Christ, God Dwells Among Us, and The Temple and the Church’s Mission in which he argues for the temple motif as an image of what the church is with the understanding that some eschatological realities of the temple are already present within the church itself. Of course, this understanding that the Church is already partly fulfilling its eschatological teleological aim then influences the life of the church itself—how the church views its mission, its purpose, and even its vision. Beale states that “we, as God’s people, have already begun to be God’s end-time temple where his presence is manifested to the world, and we are to extend the boundaries of the new garden-temple until Christ returns, when, finally, they will be expanded worldwide.”[44] As Beale considers further ramifications of his temple motif ideology, he explains that “all Christians are now spiritual Levitical priests [with an] ongoing task . . . to serve God in his temple in which we always dwell and of which we are a part.”[45] Of course, Beale’s framework of thinking concerning an inaugurated eschatology relies on an understanding of ecclesiology in which the current church fulfills the OT people of Israel, receives many of the blessings of OT Israel, and is not distinct from the people of Israel.[46]
There is not a singular alternative perspective for Beale’s ideology, but rather, several different perspectives that offer differing views of whether eschatology is inaugurated or even how Israel and the church are to be understood. Time prohibits spending a significant time exploring these other options, though the other options are not difficult to find. For instance, Beale’s whole ideology with its dependence on Covenant Theology is opposed by most Dispensational theologians.[47] Inaugurated eschatology, though it seems more like a theological issue concerning eschatology influences how one understands the church itself—it is an ecclesiological issue.
Church Polity and the Church’s Interaction with the World
Of course, the issue of church polity is an unending debate—even within denominational entities.[48] However, there are four basic structures for church government that seem to provide insight into how most churches function—episcopalism, Presbyterianism, single-elder congregationalism, and plural-elder congregationalism.[49] Each governing system is distinctive for various reasons, and each has their strengths and weaknesses. For example, episcopalism and Presbyterianism both offer an ingrained system of accountability for church leadership—a presbytery or bishop can step in to stop abuses within the local church when the system works properly. Or, for example, in both single-elder and plural-elder congregationalism, the local congregation has far more say in what their church does, which can protect the congregation from theological shifts from presbyteries and bishops; however, congregationalism runs the risk of unqualified leadership and sway from the congregation for unbiblical reasons. The reality of differing governing structures reminds modern Christians that there is disagreement about how churches ought to structure themselves because Scripture itself does not—a significant ecclesiological issue.[50]
Likewise, local churches, particularly that of a congregationalist bent—though not exclusive to congregationalism—regularly deal with the issue of how the local church is to interact with the world surrounding it. Augustine writes of a two-kingdom perspective in which a believer is no longer of the world’s kingdom and thus, should live in light of that truth.[51] Fundamentalists in the modern era have written about cultural engagement more from a separatistic standpoint.[52] H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture has provided several different paradigms for how Christians have historically viewed the church’s role within culture, which is a reminder, that there is disagreement about how churches ought to interact with society itself—another significant ecclesiological issue.[53]
Israel and the Church
Finally, as previously mentioned repeatedly, the issue of continuity and discontinuity within the OT and NT plays out significantly in someone’s understanding of Israel and the church. In fact, Brent Parker and Richard Lucas explain that the issue of continuity is “one of the most complex and difficult issues for Bible readers” and how one understands continuity within the Bible directly affects hermeneutics, eschatology, ecclesiology, and various other theological categories.[54] For example, Schreiner’s New Testament Theology essentially culminates in the understanding that the NT church of Jesus Christ is how God fulfilled Abrahamic promises as the true Israel.[55] This understanding of the NT church’s ontological role as essentially a continuation of OT Israel colors how he then speaks about church’s purpose within the surrounding culture and society.[56] Likewise, someone who holds to a discontinuity or discontinuity-adjacent perspective would then view the NT church’s ontological role differently than Schreiner would. Since one’s perspective concerning continuity versus discontinuity and Israel and the church affects other areas of theology, doxology, and praxis, it is clear that this is yet another ecclesiastical issue.[57]
Conclusion
Realistically, NT ecclesiology is a multifaceted, complex, and often-debated collection of topics within the discipline of NT theology that has ramifications in nearly every aspect of Christian life. Even topics within ecclesiology that seem more theological rather than practical still carry within them significant practical ramifications—e.g., the temple motif and illustrations of the church as the body of Christ, household of God, and an eschatological people. One simply cannot be a Christian without considering the significance of the church, which is evident from the various opposing views, concepts, and writings concerning ecclesiology throughout church history. While this lecture gave a survey of the development, history, and current issues concerning NT ecclesiology, the topic of NT ecclesiology is vaster than any one lecture could cover comprehensively. Perhaps the concept of NT ecclesiology as an unending mine of debate truly reflects the richness of what the church is and how it relates with its God—no singular NT theological exercise will fully comprehend all that God has for His church.
[1] D.J. Tidball, “Church,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 407.
[2] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000), s.v. “ἐκκληςία, ας ἡ.”
[3] It is worth noting that English translations for ἐκκληςία often translate the word differently depending on context. Occasionally ἐκκληςία is translated as church (see Acts 9:31) and occasionally it is translated as assembly (see Acts 19:40).
[4] Recognizing, of course, that there is no way locally to differentiate between believers and unbelievers correctly without error; whereas, the universal church is purely believer only; See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 273-275 for an insightful conversation concerning the meaning of church and the difference between the local church and the true church.
[5] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this lecture are to the New American Standard Bible (NASB) (La Habra: Foundation Publications, 2020).
[6] See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1938), 555-557; Harman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 281-285; and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 853.
[7] See Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Daniel J. Treier, Theology and the Mirror of Scripture: A Mere Evangelical Account (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015), 15-20; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church and New Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2008), 281-290.
[8] In this lecture, universal refers to what the ecumenical creeds and many confessions call catholic.
[9] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000), s.v. “ἐκκληςία, ας ἡ.”
[10] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000), s.v. “ἐκκληςία, ας ἡ.”
[11] A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2000), s.v. “ἐκκληςία, ας ἡ.”
[12] See WCF, 25.1-3; LBCF 26.1, 2, 5; AC VII; 39A XIX; AG-SFT, Art. XI; and even CCC §831-832.
[13] D.A. Carson, Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 20.
[14] This position (of discontinuity) is common amongst dispensationalism, but exists outside of dispensationalism as well. cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology; Grudem, Systematic Theology; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics; Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, etc.
[15] G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pgs. 29-80 concerns the cosmic temple, pgs. 81-168 concerns the OT, pgs.169-312 concerns the NT, and pgs. 313-334 concerns the eschatological temple.
[16] Of course, this recognizes that Beale’s idea concerning the temple motif is an outworking of his Covenant Theological perspective; and, of course, there’s exegetical work that backs up Beale’s ideas concerning the temple motif, but to express the work here would be excessive. See G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); G.K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023).
[17] E.P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63 BCE-66CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 189-214; James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 2006), 44-56).
[18] Lawrence H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 231-259.
[19] N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), 280-338; John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016).
[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008, 41-79.
[21] Craig L. Blomberg, A New Testament Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), 341-382.
[22] Beale, Union, 420-452.
[23] Matthew Emerson, Christ and the New Creation: A Canonical Approach to the Theology of the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013), 38-64.
[24] Worth considering Hasel’s discussion of “people of God” as a candidate for the center of NT theology in Gerhard Hasel, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 167–175.
[25] Cf. Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introduction Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids, MI Baker Academic, 2006) vs. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006). In addition, it is worth noting that Gerhard Hasel speaks about the continuity vs. discontinuity debate in New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 173-203.
[26] Schreiner, 717-719; Blomberg, A New Testament Theology, 101-137.
[27] Schreiner, 305-379, 694-742; Blomberg, 177-305, 455-495; the mission being the Great Commission, “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to follow all that I commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20).
[28] See G.K. Beale, Union with the Resurrected Christ: Eschatological New Creation and New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023), The Temple and the Church’s Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004); Schreiner, 716-730, 829-840); Blomberg 645-675; Matthew Emerson, Christ and the New Creation: A Canonical Approach to the Theology of the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2013), 119-145.
[29] Blomberg, 579-690.
[30] Blomberg, 537-578.
[31] Blomberg, 497-536.
[32] Schreiner, 829-855; Blomberg, 670-675; see also Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission.
[33] This assumes a futuristic view of Revelation—those holding to any form of Preterism will typically disagree with some of these statements.
[34] Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, edited by Alexander Roberts, et al. vol 1. The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company), 89-90.
[35] See Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, et al. vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 421-429. Of course, Cyprian’s understanding of the Church is Catholic—the full name of this treaty is On the Unity of the Catholic Church.
[36] Augustine was a little more nuanced with his view of the church—recognizing that every local church was a mixed body awaiting eschatological purification. See Augustine, “On Baptism, Against the Donatists,” in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature
Company, 1887), 497.
[37] Ignatius, “Smyrnaeans.” 8.2; Cyprian, “Unity,” 6; in addition, consider the Nicene Creed itself, which posits one holy, catholic, and apostolic church—while not institutionalizing the church itself, the wording lends itself to those who seek to institutionalize.
[38] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q8-9 and 60-65.
[39] See Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 771-772 for the church as both visible and yet mystical, CCC 882 and 936 for the authority of the Holy See and apostolic succession, CCC 1118 and 1129 for the sacramental system’s necessity within Catholicism.
[40] Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church, in Luther’s Works, vol. 41, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1966), 148-149.
[41] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.1.7-9.
[42] It is worth noting that these are not the only confessions that came out of the Reformation (e.g., Belgic Confession, Second Helvetic Confession, etc.). It is also worth noting that the Westminster Confession has a more mixed view of who makes up the local church while the Second London Baptist Confession insists on a regenerate church membership.
[43] This list is not exhaustive, however, it does deal with several of the issues touched on in this seminar.
[44] Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 395-402.
[45] Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 398.
[46] This conversation can very easily get tied up into talking about the differences of Covenant Theology with other theological systems. A good primer for getting introduced in the topic is Reformed Covenant Theology: A Systematic Introduction by Harrison Perkins.
[47] Most is the operative word as some dispensationalists might affirm inaugurated eschatology while still denying a singular people of God or Covenant Theology as a whole; in addition, since dispensationalism as a system was not a point of this seminar, this lecture does not explain the system; however, Charles Ryrie’s Dispensationalism has aided in making the system of dispensationalism palatable for laypeople and is worth reading.
[48] A good example of differing polity within the same denominational structure is that of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Many SBC churches still follow a singular pastor, top-down organizational structure with congregational elements. Some SBC churches have moved to a plurality of elders with less congregational elements within their polity (perhaps due to the influence of organizations like 9Marks).
[49] Of course, the various arguments concerning church government relies heavily on various passages of Scripture that are interpreted differently depending on one’s convictions. If Scripture was abundantly clear on the topic, there probably would not be as many differing opinions.
[50] Zondervan’s Counterpoints series has an entry dealing with church government structures titled Four Views on Church Government: Who Runs the Church? and is worth reading for anyone wanting a general survey of the different governing structures.
[51] Augustine, City of God.
[52] See George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006).
[53] H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1996).
[54] Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022), 1-2.
[55] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 753-754.
[56] Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 755-801.
[57] While trying to wrap ups this section, other ecclesiastical issues that are currently debated were remembered—e.g., Christian nationalism (and its various derivatives), the New Apostolic Reformation movement, so-called “Red Letter Christianity,” etc. This list is unending as ecclesiology is so integrally linked to who Christians are and who God is—it influences more than what is often realized. In addition, dealing with differing views of Christology and even the New Perspective on Paul could also be considered under the heading of ecclesiology; however, those issues would best be considered when dealing primarily with Christology or Pauline theology.
