Ecclesiology: Wagging the Dog

Here are four views of the church, more or less, and how they imply particular doctrines.

1. The Church is the organic successor to Judaism.  In the fulfillment of the law, Jesus created something new.  The rituals of Judaism were physical shadows to illustrate the spiritual reality that is in the Church. [~1670]

2. The Church is the institutional successor to Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, transforming Judaism into Christianity.  Rituals are transformed from instruments of law to instruments of grace. [2nd century]

3. The Church is the replacement of Judaism.  Jesus fulfilled the law, but replaced Judaism with Christianity.  The old rituals were replaced by new physical instruments of grace. [Calvin, ~1535]

4. The Church is completely different from Judaism. The Jews were under a different covenant, one of works, while this age is a covenant of grace.  Obedience to the present law is the yardstick of being saved. [Darby, ~1835]




We are fallible.

Ecclesiology and doctrine inform each other.  If you change your mind about what the Church is, your doctrine will probably eventually change.  Similarly, if you change your mind on certain points of doctrine, your view of the Church may eventually change as well.

We are imperfect. I'm perfectly capable of believing a doctrine that conflicts with my view of the Church, and vice versa.  Though it seems that one is eventually brought into line with the other.

Is it "wagging the dog" to derive your doctrine from what you believe about the Church?  That depends on you, and how certain you are of the authority you base belief on.



For example.  Though point #1 really only surfaces in the 1600s, it was implied in the Didache and early patristic writings via the rite of believer's baptism; i.e. to these early Christians, circumcision was not transformed into baptism, but rather was a shadow.