J. L. Dagg: Interview Continued

My regrets offered to those who regularly read SBCTomorrow.  I meant to post the "interview" with Mr. Dagg at closer intervals.  Below is part two (first one here).  I trust you enjoy...

 

       Peter:  Ahhh...There is nothing like a great cup of coffee in the evening as far as I'm concerned. 

Mr. Dagg:  I've been in Georgia since 1844, but I've never eaten an Ellijay fried apple pie.  I now shall eat them till I meet my Maker in Glory. 

Peter:  I'd like to move on in our conversation to the Church.  You left me hanging!  Mr. Dagg, when we speak of the Church, what is it we are talking about?

Mr. Dagg:  Well, let me begin with this definition and then we may proceed:  A Christian Church is an assembly of believers in Christ organized into a body, according to the Holy Scriptures, for the worship and service of God (p.74).

Peter:  All right.  There's quite a chunk to unpack there.  You say the Church is an assembly?

Mr. Dagg:  Yes.  The Greek word ekklesia denotes an assembly; and is not restricted in its application to a religious assembly. But every reader of the New Testament discovers, that the first Christians were formed into religious assemblies, to which epistles were directed; and which acted, and were required to act, as organized bodies. The word is ordinarily used, in the New Testament, to denote these assemblies; and it is only with this use of the term, that we are at present concerned (p.75).

Peter:  So, are these so-called "assemblies" local assemblies?

Mr. Dagg:  They are.  But not exclusively so.

Peter:  So, the New Testament makes a distinction between say "local" assemblies on one hand and larger, *invisible* assemblies on the other hand.  Is this the classic distinction made in Church history between the "visible" church which is local and the "invisible" church which contains all the people of God?  Is this what you are saying?

Mr. Dagg:  That, Peter, is precisely what I am not saying.  The epithet "invisible" applied to the true church of Christ, is not only incorrect, but it has led into mistake (p.124).  How is it that our Lord has called any of His people to be "invisible"? 

The visibility of the church consists in the visibility of its members. Our Divine Master came, "a light into the world;" and all his followers are lights. 

Writers on theology have distinguished between the church visible, and the church invisible.  By the church invisible, they mean all true Christians; and by the church visible, all those who profess the true religion. The invisible consists wholly of those who are sons of light; and the visible includes sons of light and sons of darkness in one community. The New Testament knows this as nonsense.

Here's why:  Christ does not recognize mere professors as his disciples.  Nor has He taught us to so recognize mere professors as His disciples.  A universal church, therefore, which consists of all who profess the true religion, is a body which Christ does not own. To be visible saints, a holy life must be superadded to a profession of the true religion; and they who do not exhibit the light of a holy life, whatever their professions may be, have no scriptural claim to be considered members of Christ's Church (p.122-123).

Peter:  So the distinction between visible and invisible as it pertains to Christ's Church is mistaken.

Mr. Dagg:  Precisely.  Christ knows of no such people as an invisible people. 

Peter: How, then do we properly distinguish between the "visible" Church which we can see with the "invisible" Church which presumably transcends any local barrier? 

Mr. Dagg:  Did you not hear what I just said?  There is NO SUCH THING as an invisible Church.  Consequently, you cannot distinguish when there is no distinction!

Peter:  Oops. Forgive me, Mr. Dagg.  I think we need to break for another cup.  I need one bad.  But before we do, I'd like to ask--and please bear with my ignorance, Mr. Dagg--what did you mean when you said the assemblies, that is the Churches, were not exclusively local? 

Mr. Dagg:  The proper distinction we see in the New Testament is not between visible Churches and invisible Churches.  As I've suggested, Christ knows of no invisible people.  We're all called as visible saints.  Rather the distinction is between the local assembly of God's people and the universal assembly of God's people. 

Ekklesia is applied to local Churches and is also applied to the Church universal.  It applies to a local Church, because the members of it actually assemble; and it applies to the Church Universal, because the members of it will actually assemble in the presence, and for the everlasting worship of God (p.143).  I'll have that coffee now.

Peter:  I'm definitely ready.

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Joe Stewart]

Excellent interview. I love this quote of Dagg's

We are bound to obey God in everything. No command which he has given can be so unimportant that we are at liberty to disobey it at our pleasure. When the finger of God points out the way, no place is left to us for human preferences. And when we know the will of God, we are not only bound to obey for ourselves, but also to teach others to obey, so far as they are brought under the influence of our instruction. We may, without arrogant assumption, declare what we are firmly persuaded to be the will of God; and we must then leave every one to the judgment of him to whom all must give account. The man who can disobey God, because the thing commanded is of minor importance, has not the spirit of obedience in his heart; and the man who, knowing the will of God, forbears to declare it, because the weight of human authority is against him, fears men more than God.

Blessings,
Joe

[peterlumpkins]

joe

thanks. dagg always strikes fire...

All

I am out of town. a I have is my handheld. so I can't respond so well.

grace to you. with that, I am...
peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Great interview! One question. Am I understanding Dr. Dagg never pointed to a universal church in the sense all churches that are local are also universal?

Blessings,
Tim

[Richard Coords]

Excellent work, Peter. I frequently recommend your site to other Christians.

Have you done one of these types of interviews with Jacob Arminius? That might be a lot of fun.

[Keith Schooley]

Since Dagg admits a universal sense of ekklesia, it seems to me that his argument boils down largely to terminology: he prefers "universal" to "invisible." Granted, he rightly roots his understanding of ekklesia in the concept of "assembly," and so the "universal church" is a church only because it will one day "assemble" in the presence of the Lord. Would it then follow that the "universal church" may only be spoken of in the future tense?

If we're not to use the terms "visible" and "invisible," I'm not sure how we're supposed to make the distinction between the colloquial "church," (i.e., all the people who gather together on Sunday) and the true "church" (i.e., the actual blood-bought saints of God). Would that the two were identical, but as we all know.....

[Byroniac]

Keith Schooley, you expressed the thought that was on my mind. Since we cannot always distinguish between true believers and false professors (but knowing that most likely we have both in any local congregation), we must use some figurative distinction between the "visible" mixture and the "invisible" who are truly regenerate. Someone who is merely a professor but not a possessor of faith in Christ cannot be included in Christ's body in any meaningful sense that I can see, but because such things are hidden from our eyes, we can only talk in absolute terms about (the unseen) true believers belonging to Christ. If this can be true at a local congregational level, it can be true with all the churches since the Ascension of Christ, so it makes sense to speak of a "universal, invisible church" in my perspective, at the very least.

On another note, I'm getting really annoyed with Typepad. This is the third or fourth time that the Typepad site has pretended that I am logged in only to tell me I am not when I go to post my comments as all of the sudden my name and email address are required, which would not be case if I were truly signed in. I know what is happening: I have been deleting my cookies (to purge all tracking cookies and other web barnacles that afflict Internet surfers) by doing a "purge all" operation instead of laboriously deleting only the garbage ones. But I keep forgetting to truly sign in thinking that the Typepad site will recognize my status properly and require a full sign-in. Perhaps I am doing something wrong?

[Joe Stewart]

Peter:
Would B. H. Carroll and Dagg enjoyed a cup of brew and similar sentiments on the ecclesia? Just wondering if you knew
Blessings
Joe