During the Reformation of the 16th Century, both Protestants and Roman Catholics affirmed the attributes of the church articulated so well in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Church was one—holy, catholic, and apostolic. Each group, the Protestants and the Romanists, however, claimed to be in sole possession of the list.

This produced an obvious question. If both laid claim to the attributes, then how could a decision be made as to which is the true church? The Protestants answered that question by introducing what has come to be known as the marks of the church. (A good resource is Dr. Barry York’s book, Hitting the Marks [Crown & Covenant].)

The Marks of the Church and Unity

The Protestant church listed three notes, or marks, that would provide shape to the attributes.

The first mark is the faithful preaching and hearing of God’s Word. It is not surprising that Protestants would place such a premium upon the consistent and faithful exposition of God’s Word. However, the Word is not preached in a vacuum. It is meant to be heard. Thus, the 160th question of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, “What is required of those that hear the Word preached?” Preaching and hearing go hand in glove.

The second mark is the rightful administration of the sacraments. This mark distinguished Protestants from Rome, but it did more than that. Protestants always valued the Word, and they considered the signs and seals of the covenant to be visible words. These words must always be accompanied by the spoken Word but were, nonetheless, God given.

The third mark is the proper exercise of church discipline. These last two marks brought a sense of elasticity. For example, the nature of the Lord’s supper varied from the Lutherans to the Zwinglians to the Calvinists. However, what did not vary was their understanding of the supper’s efficacy. It was God who conveyed His grace, and it was not communicated ex opera operato, or from the work performed. (An excellent book dealing with this matter is Benjamin B. Warfield’s The Plan of Salvation [Simpson, 1989].)

Nevertheless, unity was a real issue among Protestants. While there was agreement on the efficacy of the sacraments, there was surely radical disagreement as to their nature. The Marburg Colloquy, an important debate on the Lord’s supper held in 1529 in Marburg, Germany, between the Reformers of Germany and Switzerland, was evidence enough. This debate attempted to bring the German and Swiss branches of the Reformation together. The sticking point was the nature of the Lord’s supper. Though the story of Martin Luther carving Hoc est corpus meum (“This is my body”) into the table with a knife may be apocryphal, Luther’s statement to Zwingli about having a different spirit was not.

I don’t think any Reformed brothers, sitting down to discuss the nature of the Lord’s supper or the content of congregational singing or some other matter upon which we differ, would pull out a knife and begin carving Latin phrases into the table! But there are differences even among the closest of brethren. So, how can we deal with these divisions? This series of RP Global Alliance articles has been an attempt to do just that. But before we can talk unity, we must talk theology.

The Progressive and Constructive Nature of Systematic Theology

Benjamin B. Warfield made a helpful distinction between the existence and perfection of the Church. To grasp this distinction, we need to begin with Warfield’s general but vital claim that “all that is essential to the foundation of unity must be found in the Church of every age—the very existence of the Church provides it” (“True Church Unity: What it is,” The Homiletic Review, 20.6 [December 1890]: 488). This means there is nothing new in terms of what God has revealed concerning His Church. As Warfield said, “[The] Scriptures form the only sufficing source of theology” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Baker, 2000).

However, this does not mean that everything in Scripture has been mapped out, schematized, and systematized from the beginning. Take the organization of the Apostolic Church as an example. With regard to it, Warfield wrote, “The absence of such an organization is obvious on the face of the New Testament record, nor do its pages contain any clear promise of or prominent provision for it for the future” (“True Church Unity: What It Is”). Warfield’s point is clear enough; the Apostolic Church had no organization beyond its local government.

But contrary to first impressions, Warfield was not saying that there is no promise or provision for a future ecclesiastical organization beyond the local government. Rather, he was saying that no “clear” promise or “prominent” provision exists for the future, which is a far cry from saying that no promise or provision exists. The obvious point is that an extensive systematic theology is not a corollary to the bare existence of the Church. However, equally true for Warfield is that the existence of the Church does not mean the absence of all the propositional revelation required to construct a fuller ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) within a robust theological system. In fact, fuller theological development is expected from the Church. To put it another way, a robust systematic theology is a corollary to the Church’s perfection. Surely, this point is obvious if, in fact, the Church truly is God’s instrument for the preservation and propagation of the truth and is, therefore, the pillar and ground of the truth.

This theological growth and development that Warfield had in mind is brought forcefully into focus when he argued for the Church’s eventual and inevitable perfection. For example, according to Warfield, visible ecclesiastical unity is not dependent upon the existence of the church so much as it is on the Church’s perfection (“Truth Church Unity: What It Is”). In other words, even from the beginning, the Church’s formulation of ecclesiology, not to mention other theological points, was like a seed. It was intended to grow and mature. Therefore, its unity, a fruit of the Church’s theological maturation, depended on the perfection that was inherent in its DNA, a code that could be found in Scripture.

So, the Church must hammer out its theology in order to attain what Warfield called “absoluteness” and so be presented to the Bridegroom without spot or blemish, perfect (“Christian Unity and Church Union; Some Preliminary Principles,” The Presbyterian Banner, vol. 91, June 1904/1905: 7). According to Warfield, reaching for this absoluteness is the goal and aim of theology.

In his 1896 article “The Idea of Systematic Theology” he wrote, “The task of thoroughly exploring the pages of revelation, soundly gathering from them their treasures of theological teaching and carefully fitting these into their due places in a system whereby they may be preserved from misunderstanding, perversion, and misuse, and given a new power to convince the understanding, move the heart, and quicken the will, becomes thus a holy duty to our own and our brothers’ souls as well as an eager pleasure of our intellectual nature” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield).

Thus, the way in which we systematize the truth handed down to us by biblical exegesis is not a matter of indifference. On the contrary, Warfield contended, “if we misconceive it in its parts or in its relations, not only do our views of truth become confused and erroneous, but also our religious life becomes dwarfed or contorted” (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield). Thus, the theologian is reaching beyond existence to perfection, knowing that he will only attain such a state in glory; yet it is his holy duty to make theological progress that the Church might mature from seed to blossom.

The Denominational Question

For Warfield, one important implication of the systematic theological expression of truth was the existence of denominations. In fact, Warfield contended, differing denominations do not arise from being sinfully separate but from duty. What is more, Warfield saw the trend in his own day toward a mere visible unity as disobedience to the Lord’s prayer in John 17. In other words, mere visible unity is a sign “of the decay of doctrinal consciousness, not to say of vital religion” in the Church (“Church Unity and Church Union: Some Primary Principles”). For Warfield, despite sounding paradoxical, separate denominations in pursuit of the expression of truth systematically stated could more fully express the unity for which Christ prayed than being “forced into the bonds of galling external unification” (“Church Unity and Church Union: Some Primary Principles”). He believed that nothing threatened unity like doctrinal minimalism, and theological reduction in ecclesiastical situations is always the effect of mere visible expressions of unity.

This also means that we must act like spiritual adults. We must listen to one another without wrath, bitterness, or anger. We must listen in love. We must be willing to change and hold fast with grace and brotherly affection when Scripture warrants. Warfield urged us to be faithful theologians and gracious churchmen. And we should listen.

For a fuller treatment of Warfield and church unity see my article, “Benjamin B. Warfield and True Church Unity,” The Westminster Theological Journal, 79:2 (fall 2017).