# History and Idea of the Church



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 9, 2009)

I have been reading the book by McCrie and The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, and I've been having some trouble with some of the constructs of ecclesiology in history, vis-a-vis the Independents and Romish churches. I thought about posting this in Church Order, but since this has more to do with the theology of the church in history I thought it was more prudent to post it here. So my question has more to do with the difference with the visibility and invisibility of the church. 

Here are some of Augustine's ideas in the book by McCrie,


> In the same chapter Bellarmine, borrowing from Augustine, describes the Church as a living organism, made up of soul and body, the soul being the inward graces of the Spirit, the body an outward profession of faith and partaking of the sacraments. And he distinguishes three classes of members of the Church: (1) Those who are of the soul and of the body, members in the fullest sense; (2) those who are of the soul but not of the body, excommunicates and catechumens; (3) those are of the body but not of the soul, who have only a profession without any real faith.


 In the first place, I know this (1) is the classical view of the protestants throughout Europe during the reformation. But for those who don't understand what I am saying here--in effect what the church has said throughout the centuries--I will explain and outline. 
Presbyterian/Reformed view,
 Separatist/Independence view (Baptist),
Papist externalism or formalism.
 My problem is trying to make sense of (2) and (1). Some have stated that the church is not locally visible but _merely_ invisible, much like the Separatist. My problem has a lot to do with the compulsory responsibility of "churchless" Christians to become members of a church (visible). It is my belief that one cannot be a true member of the church (invisible) without belonging to the visible church (WCF 25.2). (I would like the add that I am not making the similar mistakes that the Popish church makes when they say that joining the visible church is joining the invisible church, for the eternal Word is what gives birth. The reason I think that is because I, as a Presbyterian protestant, hold to the two-fold distinction of the church, as did St. Augustine. In fact, throughout the history of the church I do not believe that Roman Catholics ever held to this two-fold distinction, as noted by McCrie.)


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 10, 2009)

So why hasn't anyone responded? This is a big problem in evangelicalism. A lot of evangelicals are likely to leave the church and still believe that they are in covenant communion with God. In a sense it may still be true that they are in communion with God, but my confession as with other confessions state that the ordinary means of salvation are not without the church (visible). Many books have been written to redefine this doctrine. Take for instance the responses from Kluck and DeYoung who are responding to a crowd whose cessation from the church is gaining ground in American evangelical thought. How do we gain a theological stance that is orthodox and enforces compulsory attendance? Should leaders compose such a doctrine or is there already a doctrine that teaches that?

-----Added 10/10/2009 at 06:40:16 EST-----

Here is a video that Kluck and DeYoung, authors of _Why We're Not Emergent_, put together on their new book, _Why We Love the Church_:
[video=youtube;co8DNQQcRUI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co8DNQQcRUI[/video]​


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 12, 2009)

"Why hasn't anyone responded?"

You said "My question has to do with..." but you never asked a question in your original post. Second post you seem to ask if we can make attendance mandatory.

If I understood you, what you've said isn't terribly provocative, namely that people should be enrolled in the church, and being enrolled they have an obligation to attend stated worship. Churches that practice good discipline should note failures to heed biblical admonition on worship, and shepherd accordingly.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Oct 12, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> "Why hasn't anyone responded?"
> 
> You said "My question has to do with..." but you never asked a question in your original post. Second post you seem to ask if we can make attendance mandatory.
> 
> If I understood you, what you've said isn't terribly provocative, namely that people should be enrolled in the church, and being enrolled they have an obligation to attend stated worship. Churches that practice good discipline should note failures to heed biblical admonition on worship, and shepherd accordingly.



Yeah I was afraid that I wasn't exactly clear. My problem is twofold really. Should people who are not members have an ethical responsibility to join a church that bear the marks of a true church, and those who are members of a church should be told or governed the by the elders to attend Lord's Day worship. Your thoughts?


----------

