# Visible or Invisible?



## luvroftheWord (May 24, 2004)

Which church is the &quot;real&quot; church? The visible church or the invisible church?

Now, I don't need to be reminded that that dirty heretic Doug Wilson called this into question. I don't need to be reminded that it is readily identified with the Federal Visionists. I don't need to be reminded what the WCF or any other confession says. I don't need references to books on this subject. I don't need to be reminded that this distinction has been part of Reformed theology ever since the Reformation.

I'm just interested in your thoughts on this subject. And if you think there's a problem with asking the question this way, you can show me why you think that. But this issue has bothered me for a long time. So what do you guys think?


----------



## Ianterrell (May 24, 2004)

The elect will make up Christ's real bride. That's who he's coming back for, not gospel hypocrites.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 24, 2004)

The elect ultimately are the true church. But, we can't see the heart, so we must presume (or take an educated guess) who they the elect are.


----------



## andreas (May 25, 2004)

The body of Christ is the church,with Christ as the head of the body.Since God is a spirit and not visible,then the true church is the invisible church.
andreas.


----------



## Scott (May 25, 2004)

Criag: 

I am not sure exactly what your question means, as I think that both are &quot;true.&quot;

I think the inordinate preoccupation with the invisible church in our day is largely responsible for the marginalization of the institutional church in our world. It is more a product of anabaptistic thought than Reformation thought. 

Anyway, as the others have emphasized the invisible church, I will emphasize some important things about the institutional church, which is &quot;true.&quot;

[1] The scriptures were written to and for the institutional church, not the invisible church.

[2] The scriptures are incomprehensible outside of the institutional church, not the invisible church. The institutional church is the very atmosphere of scripture.

[3] Officers are appointed to the institutional church, not the invisible church. These officers of the institutional church - to use scriptural language - have the power and authority to &quot;command&quot; the laity and the laity have an obligation to &quot;obey.&quot;

[4] The focus of scriptures is more regarding the organization and life of the insitutional church than an individual &quot;personal relationship&quot; with God (although that is part of it). It is more like a team playbook than a individualistic self-help manual. The Old Testament teaches how to form and live with institutional Israel. The New Testament teaches how to form and live within the organized church of God.

[5] The scriptures were written to be read and taught in the institutional church, not the invisible church.

[6] The keys of the kingdom are given to the institutional church, not the invisible church.

[7] These keys involve the retaining and remitting of sins thorugh censure and absolution, among other things. 

[8] The institutional church is our mother. We cannot have God as our Father without the church as our mother. God does not have bastard children.

[9] There is no possibility of salvation ordinarily available outside of the visible church.

Based on your strong preamble, I am resisting the urge to cite Reformed and other sources to support these propositions. 

Scott

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by Scott]

[Edited on 5-25-2004 by Scott]


----------



## Ianterrell (May 25, 2004)

Scott,

I think you make some excellent points. I do think in the sense that you describe the visible church is the true church. But the elect are the true inward covenant keepers. From there we might describe them as a &quot;truer&quot; church. But you're right to bring up the trueness of the visible church.


----------



## kceaster (May 25, 2004)

*Craig...*

To be completely honest, I'm tired of this question. It seems like a question chasing its tail to me, because we do not have the sight to see the invisible church.

I think it is an important distinction between the visible and invisible church, and we need to maintain that. But now people want to define who is in which. Well, that's just nuts. We don't know who is in the invisible church, so trying to figure that out is an exercise in futility.

If we're trying to figure out who's in the visible church, I really don't know what all the fuss is about. If they come, and they are a member in good standing, then they are members of the visible church. They may even be censured and be in the visible church. But if they're excommunicated, and that is upheld by sound churches everywhere, then they are put outside the visible church with the rest of the world.

But really, why is it necessary for us to identify members of the visible church? Once they're identified by our mostly subjective criteria, does that change their standing before God? We don't place them anywhere. It is not we who make them to stand.

I say count them as sheep, those who subject themselves to the leadership of the church. If they do not, keep preaching, keep rebuking, and admonishing. Frankly, God has not charged each particular person to make an account of who is and who ain't. Disciple those who come in the doors. Discipline them if they stay and are disobedient. Invite them back. Love them. Care for them.

But defining who is and who is not a Christian is simply not helpful. By the very defining, we are placing a mostly subjective criterion to it.

Church Membership should be the answer to this question. Who is in the invisible church? The elect and God has not given us the ability to see these. Who is in the visible church? All who respond to the gospel call to be membered among the saints; who submit themselves to the Word of God and the discipline of the leaders He has placed over them.

It seems to me that any other model strives to place individuals into the invisible church. We want to see their fruit, so we admonish them to good works. We want to know they're believers, so we await a profession of faith - and a particular one, at that. These are requirements we have placed on those who would be in the fold of God because we want to make sure they're really regenerate.

I don't believe we're called to this. 

We are to discipline those who disobey, admonish, rebuke, exhort, and preach the good news of Christ. If they come back, they are disciples, plain and simple. They are members of the visible church. If they do not come back, we plead with them to consider their soul. We pray for them. We extend fellowship to them. If they do not come back because we sent them away, then we pray for them, having given them the appropriate warning.

Are we called to anything more?

If we would keep our eyes to our own souls; pastors and elders would keep their eyes to the sheep in their own fold, and the fold of expanding influence as it may happen; and the church as a whole, greater than the local body, would keep their eyes on the ministers and the elders to ensure that they are shepherding properly; then would not all this business about who is and who ain't be placed away from us. I consider this mindset a detriment to the gospel ministry. We're trying to solve a puzzle that is not given us to solve, mainly because we want to make sure that everyone in our church is in the invisible church as well.

THAT IS NOT UP TO US. We overstep the command of God if we attempt this.

What are the three marks of the visible church? Right Preaching, Right Administration of the Sacraments, and Right discipline. This doesn't say anything about right discernment as to who is and who isn't a part of the invisible church.

Craig, I know you said you didn't want the Auburn stuff brought up, but indulge me. Wilson said in the 2002 conference that we Reformed have a lot of baggage. Well, I don't believe we've come to realize how much ALL OF US HAVE. I think the very reason the A4 want to make these distinctions is so that they can be satisfied with the people around them, that they are in the invisible church.

Well, this is a product of Arminian Revivalism that began in the late 18th century. We want people to make a choice. We want to see them live that choice so that we may prove that they made it. Once they've proved it, then we can rest easy.

This is not the way it is supposed to be. We hold everyone to the same standard who comes in our doors. We preach to them, we rebuke them, we hold them accountable. If they live with that, we are stuck with them no matter how we may feel they don't show fruit. We exhort them to good works, having confidence that their faith, which is authored by Christ and not us, will produce fruit in their lives. God created the works that all the elect do, before they even had one day of existence. He does not clue us in, for the most part, in these works. So, we cannot be the Holy Spirit in these people's lives. We need to hold them accountable for obedience and godly living. That is all we are to do.

I am not ranting against you, Craig. I am ranting against a question that should not even be in the forefront, but sadly is.

We need to trust God more for the sheep and the goats He has placed within our midst. Not one thing we do, will change His immutable will for them or for us.

We need to ask God for more grace to trust Him to place in His fold, those whom He calls by His Spirit.

We need to stop acting like we are the owners of the vineyard and realize that we have been called to tend it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## wsw201 (May 25, 2004)

The &quot;real&quot; Church is made up of all of those who have been CALLED out of sin and death into the KINGDOM OF Christ. Regarding the distinction between the visible and invisible church, I am sure you are aware that the visible church is made up of those who have answered the general call of the Gospel and those who have been effectually called. Those who have been effectually called by God are the elect, which exclusively make up the invisible church. Therefore, the &quot;real&quot;church is both.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 25, 2004)

I know you're not ranting at me, Kevin. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that God has not commanded us nor enabled us to see who is in the invisible church, but that's not really what I'm concerned with. I'm just concerned with the terminology itself.

Wayne said:

[quote:729d75bf4a]Therefore, the &quot;real&quot;church is both.[/quote:729d75bf4a]

I agree, which is why I like the language Doug Wilson uses better than the traditional language. Don't get me wrong. I don't disagree with the theology behind the &quot;visible/invisible&quot; terminology. There most certainly is a different between those in the church that are elect and those that aren't. Those that are elect enjoy the blessings of fellowship with Christ while the non-elect do not. But if we create such a strict dichotomy between visible and invisible, with such a high priority given to the invisible, the visible church will suffer as a result. There's no wonder that church membership and church involvement isn't taken more seriously today than it is. I cannot count on one hand the number of Christians I have met that do not commit to a single congregation because &quot;church membership isn't important&quot;. I think that if we had a proper doctrine of what the church is, we may be able to correct the passe view of the visible church that we have.

The church is our mother. That's not Romanism either.

Also, as to the question of who the bride of Christ is, she is the church CORPORATE (I just know I'm gonna be accused of Auburnism for using the dreaded &quot;c word&quot; ). That is just to say, she is the &quot;real&quot; church, which as Wayne said is both the visible and invisible church. But the bride is not without spot or blemish YET. When Christ returns to receive his bride, then the bride will be perfect, but not until then. This is all part of the already/not yet. In the &quot;already&quot; phase, there are non-elect members in the church, and they are really and truly church members. But in the &quot;not yet&quot;, this will not be so.

Now, on the INDIVIDUAL level, the you and I are not each a bride of Christ. We are only Christ's bride on the corporate level. As individuals, the elect are not brides, but we are sons and daughters of God, while the non-elect are the sons of the devil, dogs that return to their own vomit.

I just feel that the traditional language makes it more difficult to understand these things, that's all. And what I'm suggesting is that on this particular issue we should give Wilson a sympathetic hearing. Modifying our language is not the same as rejecting the theology behind our terminology.

Okay. Whoever wants to can begin throwing their heresy tomatoes at me now.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 25, 2004)

[quote:8af16a79ff][i:8af16a79ff]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:8af16a79ff]
I know you're not ranting at me, Kevin. Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that God has not commanded us nor enabled us to see who is in the invisible church, but that's not really what I'm concerned with. I'm just concerned with the terminology itself.

Wayne said:

[quote:8af16a79ff]Therefore, the &quot;real&quot;church is both.[/quote:8af16a79ff]

I agree, which is why I like the language Doug Wilson uses better than the traditional language. 

Okay. Whoever wants to can begin throwing their heresy tomatoes at me now. [/quote:8af16a79ff]

No heresy tomatoes, but you do realize that if you agree with the above statement, the traditional langauge is both more accurate and more sympathetic.

take the Belgic:
[quote:8af16a79ff] ART. 27:
We believe and profess [b:8af16a79ff]one catholic or universal Church, which is a holy congregation of true Christian believers[/b:8af16a79ff], all expecting their salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by His blood, sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
This Church has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof; which is evident from this that Christ is an eternal King, which without subjects He cannot be. And this holy Church is preserved or supported by God against the rage of the whole world; though it sometimes for a while appears very small, and in the eyes of men to be reduced to nothing; as during the perilous reign of Ahab the Lord reserved unto Him seven thousand men who had not bowed their knees to Baal.
Furthermore, this holy Church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or to certain persons, but is spread and dispersed over the whole world; and yet is joined and united with heart and will, by the power of faith, in one and the same Spirit.

ART 28:
We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty [b:8af16a79ff]bound to join and unite themselves with it[/b:8af16a79ff]; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.
And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the Word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to [b:8af16a79ff]join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God has established it[/b:8af16a79ff], even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those who separate themselves from the same or do not join themselves to it act contrary to the ordinance of God.[/quote:8af16a79ff]

Calvin's French Confession:
[quote:8af16a79ff]
XXVI. We believe that no one ought to seclude himself and be contented to be alone; but that all jointly should keep and maintain the union of the Church, and submit to the public teaching, and to the yoke of Jesus Christ, wherever God shall have established a true order of the Church, even if the magistrates and their edicts are contrary to it. For if they do not take part in it, or if they separate themselves from it, they do contrary to the Word of God.[/quote:8af16a79ff]

The excellent work of the Second Helvetic:
[quote:8af16a79ff]
The Church Has Always Existed and It Will Always Exist. But because God from the beginning would have men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4), it is altogether necessary that there always should have been, and should be now, and to the end of the world, a Church.

What Is the Church? The Church is an assembly of the faithful called or gathered out of the world; a communion, I say, of all saints, namely, of those who truly know and rightly worship and serve the true God in Christ the Savior, by the Word and Holy Spirit, and who by faith are partakers of all benefits which are freely offered through Christ. 

Citizens of One Commonwealth. They are all citizens of the one city, living under the same Lord, under the same laws, and in the same fellowship of all good things. For the apostle calls them fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Eph. 2:19), calling the faithful on earth saints (I Cor. 4:1), who are sanctified by the blood of the Son of God. The article of the Creed, &quot;I believe in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,&quot; is to be understood wholly as concerning these saints.

Only One Church for All Times. And since there is always but one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, Jesus the Messiah, and one Shepherd of the whole flock, one Head of this body, and, to conclude, one Spirit, one salvation, one faith, one Testament or covenant, it necessarily follows that there is only one Church. 

The Catholic Church. We, therefore, call this Church catholic because it is universal, scattered through all parts of the world, and extended unto all times, and is not limited to any times or places. Therefore, we condemn the Donatists who confined the Church to I know not what corners of Africa. Nor do we approve of the Roman clergy who have recently passed off only the Roman Church as catholic.

Parts of Forms of the Church. The Church is divided into different parts or forms; not because it is divided or rent asunder in itself, but rather because it is distinguished by the diversity of the numbers that are in it. For the one is called the Church Militant, the other the Church Triumphant. The former still wages war on earth, and fights against the flesh, the world, and the prince of this world, the devil; against sin and death. But the latter, having been now discharged, triumphs in heaven immediately after having overcome all those things and rejoices before the Lord. Notwithstanding both have fellowship and union one with another.

The Particular Church. Moreover, the Church Militant upon the earth has always had many particular churches. Yet all these are to be referred to the unity of the catholic Church. This [Militant] Church was set up differently before the Law among the patriarchs; otherwise under Moses by the Law; and differently by Christ through the Gospel.

The Two Peoples. Generally two peoples are usually counted, namely, the Israelites and Gentiles, or those who have been gathered from among Jews and Gentiles into the Church. There are also two Testaments, the Old and the New. Yet from all these people there was and is one fellowship, one salvation in the one Messiah; in whom, as members of one body under one Head, all united together in the same faith, partaking also of the same spiritual food and drink. Yet here we acknowledge a diversity of times, and a diversity in the signs of the promised and delivered Christ; and that now the ceremonies being abolished, the light shines unto us more clearly, and blessings are given to us more abundantly, and a fuller liberty.

The Church the Temple of the Living God. This holy Church of God is called the temple of the living God, built of living and spiritual stones and founded upon a firm rock, upon a foundation which no other can lay, and therefore it is called the pillar and bulwark of the truth (I Tim. 3:15). It does not err as long as it rests upon the rock Christ, and upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles. And it is no wonder if it errs, as often as it deserts him who alone is the truth. This Church is also called a virgin and the Bride of Christ, and even the only Beloved. For the apostle says: I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to Christ (II Cor. 11:2). The Church is called a flock of sheep under the one shepherd, Christ, according to Ezek., ch. 34, and John, ch. 10. It is also called the body of Christ because the faithful are living members of Christ under Christ the Head.

Christ the Sole Head of the Church. It is the head which has the preeminence in the body, and from it the whole body receives life; by its spirit the body is governed in all things; from it, also, the body receives increase, that it may grow up. Also, there is one head of the body, and it is suited to the body. Therefore the Church cannot have any other head besides Christ. For as the Church is a spiritual body, so it must also have a spiritual head in harmony with itself. Neither can it be governed by any other spirit than by the Spirit of Christ. Wherefore Paul says: He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent (Col. 1:18). And in another place: Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior (Eph. 5:23). And again: he is the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all (Eph. 1:22 f.). Also: We are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together, makes bodily growth (Eph. 4:15 f.). And therefore we do not approve of the doctrine of the Roman clergy, who make their Pope at Rome the universal shepherd and supreme head of the Church Militant here on earth, and so the very vicar of Jesus Christ, who has (as they say) all fulness of power and sovereign authority in the Church. For we teach that Christ the Lord is, and remains the only universal pastor, the highest Pontiff before God the Father; and that in the Church he himself performs all the duties of a bishop or pastor, even to the world's end; and therefore does not need a substitute for one who is absent. For Christ is present with his Church, and is its life-giving Head. He has strictly forbidden his apostles and their successors to have any primacy and dominion in the Church. Who does not see, therefore, that whoever contradicts and opposes this plain truth is rather to be counted among the number of those of whom Christ's apostles prophesied: Peter in II Peter, ch. 2, and Paul in Acts 20:2; II Cor. 11:2; II Thess., ch. 2, and also in other places?

No Disorder in the Church. However, by doing away with a Roman head we do not bring any confusion or disorder into the Church, since we teach that the government of the Church which the apostles handed down is sufficient to keep the Church in proper order. In the beginning when the Church was without any such Roman head as is now said to keep it in order, the Church was not disordered or in confusion. The Roman head does indeed preserve his tyranny and the corruption that has been brought into the Church, and meanwhile he hinders, resists, and with all the strength he can muster cuts off the proper reformation of the Church.

Dissensions and Strife in the Church. We are reproached because there have been manifold dissensions and strife in our churches since they separated themselves from the Church of Rome, and therefore cannot be true churches. As though there were never in the Church of Rome any sects, nor contentions and quarrels concerning religion, and indeed, carried on not so much in the schools as from pulpits in the midst of the people. We know, to be sure, that the apostle said: God is not a God of confusion but of peace (I Cor. 14:33), and, While there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? Yet we cannot deny that God was in the apostolic Church and that it was a true Church, even though there were wranglings and dissensions in it. The apostle Paul reprehended Peter, an apostle (Gal. 2:11 ff.), and Barnabas dissented from Paul. Great contention arose in the Church of Antioch between them that preached the one Christ, as Luke records in The Acts of the Apostles, ch. 15. And there have at all times been great contentions in the Church, and the most excellent teachers of the Church have differed among themselves about important matters without meanwhile the Church ceasing to be the Church because of these contentions. For thus it pleases God to use the dissensions that arise in the Church to the glory of his name, to illustrate the truth, and in order that those who are in the right might be manifest (I Cor. 11:19).

Of the Notes or Signs of the True Church. Moreover, as we acknowledge no other head of the Church than Christ, so we do not acknowledge every church to be the true Church which vaunts herself to be such; but we teach that the true Church is that in which the signs or marks of the true Church are to be found, especially the lawful and sincere preaching of the Word of God as it was delivered to us in the books of the prophets and the apostles, which all lead us unto Christ, who said in the Gospel: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life. A stranger they do not follow, but they flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers (John 10:5, 27, 28).

And those who are such in the Church have one faith and one spirit; and therefore they worship but one God, and him alone they worship in spirit and in truth, loving him alone with all their hearts and with all their strength, praying unto him alone through Jesus Christ, the only Mediator and Intercessor; and they do not seek righteousness and life outside Christ and faith in him. Because they acknowledge Christ the only head and foundation of the Church, and, resting on him, daily renew themselves by repentance, and patiently bear the cross laid upon them. Moreover, joined together with all the members of Christ by an unfeigned love, they show that they are Christ's disciples by persevering in the bond of peace and holy unity. At the same time they participate in the sacraments instituted by Christ, and delivered unto us by his apostles, using them in no other way than as they received them from the Lord. That saying of the apostle Paul is well known to all: I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you (I Cor. 11:23 ff.). Accordingly, we condemn all such churches as strangers from the true Church of Christ, which are not such as we have heard they ought to be, no matter how much they brag of a succession of bishops, of unity, and of antiquity. Moreover, we have a charge from the apostles of Christ to shun the worship of idols (I Cor. 10:14; I John 5:21), and to come out of Babylon, and to have no fellowship with her, unless we want to be partakers with her of all God's plagues (Rev. 18:4; II Cor. 6:17).

Outside the Church of God There Is No Salvation. But we esteem fellowship with the true Church of Christ so highly that we deny that those can live before God who do not stand in fellowship with the true Church of God, but separate themselves from it. For as there was no salvation outside Noah's ark when the world perished in the flood; so we believe that there is no certain salvation outside Christ, who offers himself to be enjoyed by the elect in the Church; and hence we teach that those who wish to live ought not to be separated from the true Church of Christ.

The Church Is Not Bound to Its Signs. Nevertheless, by the signs [of the true Church] mentioned above, we do not so narrowly restrict the Church as to teach that all those are outside the Church who either do not participate in the sacraments, at least not willingly and through contempt, but rather, being forced by necessity, unwillingly abstain from them or are deprived of them; or in whom faith sometimes fails, though it is not entirely extinguished and does not wholly cease; or in whom imperfections and errors due to weakness are found. For we know that God had some friends in the world outside the commonwealth of Israel. We know what befell the people of God in the captivity of Babylon, where they were deprived of their sacrifices for seventy years. We know what happened to St. Peter, who denied his Master, and what is wont to happen daily to God's elect and faithful people who go astray and are weak. We know, moreover, what kind of churches the churches in Galatia and Corinth were in the apostles' time, in which the apostle found fault with many serious offenses; yet he calls them holy churches of Christ (I Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:2).

The Church Appears at Times To Be Extinct. Yes, and it sometimes happens that God in his just judgment allows the truth of his Word, and the catholic faith, and the proper worship of God to be so obscured and overthrown that the Church seems almost extinct, and no more to exist, as we see to have happened in the days of Elijah (I Kings 19:10, 14), and at other times. Meanwhile God has in this world and in this darkness his true worshippers, and those not a few, but even seven thousand and more (I Kings 19:18; Rev. 7:3 ff.). For the apostle exclaims: God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal, 'The Lord knows those who are his,' etc.. (II Tim. 2:19). Whence the Church of God may be termed invisible; not because the men from whom the Church is gathered are invisible, but because, being hidden from our eyes and known only to God, it often secretly escapes human judgment.

Not All Who Are in the Church Are of the Church. Again, not all that are reckoned in the number of the Church are saints, and living and true members of the Church. For there are many hypocrites, who outwardly hear the Word of God, and publicly receive the sacraments, and seem to pray to God through Christ alone, to confess Christ to be their only righteousness, and to worship God, and to exercise the duties of charity, and for a time to endure with patience in misfortune. And yet they are inwardly destitute of true illumination of the Spirit, of faith and sincerity of heart, and of perseverance to the end. But eventually the character of these men, for the most part, will be disclosed. For the apostle John says; They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would indeed have continued with us (I John 2:19). And although while they simulate piety they are not of the Church, yet they are considered to be in the Church, just as traitors in a state are numbered among its citizens before they are discovered; and as the tares or darnel and chaff are found among the wheat, and as swellings and tumors are found in a sound body, when they are rather diseases and deformities than true members of the body. And therefore the Church of God is rightly compared to a net which catches fish of all kinds, and to a field, in which both wheat and tares are found (Matt. 13:24 ff., 47 ff.).

We Must Not Judge Rashly of Prematurely. Hence we must be very careful not to judge before the time, nor undertake to exclude, reject or cut off those whom the Lord does not want to have excluded or rejected, and those whom we cannot eliminate without loss to the Church. On the other hand, we must be vigilant lest while the pious snore the wicked gain ground and do harm to the Church.

The Unity of the Church Is Not in External Rites. Furthermore, we diligently teach that care is to be taken wherein the truth and unity of the Church chiefly lies, lest we rashly provoke and foster schisms in the Church. Unity consists not in outward rites and ceremonies, but rather in the truth and unity of the catholic faith. The catholic faith is not given to us by human laws, but by Holy Scriptures, of which the Apostles' Creed is a compendium. And, therefore, we read in the ancient writers that there was a manifold diversity of rites, but that they were free, and no one ever thought that the unity of the Church was thereby dissolved. So we teach that the true harmony of the Church consists in doctrines and in the true and harmonious preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and in rites that have been expressly delivered by the Lord. And here we especially urge that saying of the apostle: Let those of us who are perfect have this mind; and if in any thing you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you. Nevertheless let us walk by the same rule according to what we have attained, and let us be of the same mind (Phil. 3:15 f.).[/quote:8af16a79ff]


And of course the Westminster Confession, which I do not need to cite here.

The answer to the question is both, it has always been both. Wilson's answer is to denigrate the invisible. So if you answer both, stick with Guido (de Vries), John (Calvin), Heinrich (Bullinger) and the rest of the reformers.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 25, 2004)

Scripture clearly speak of both.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 25, 2004)

[quote:ea3840c049][i:ea3840c049]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:ea3840c049]
The answer to the question is both, it has always been both. Wilson's answer is to denigrate the invisible. So if you answer both, stick with Guido (de Vries), John (Calvin), Heinrich (Bullinger) and the rest of the reformers. 
[/quote:ea3840c049]

That's it right there. You must have both. Wison creates false dilemmas to advance his view. Historically the reformed churches have stressed both. We must maintain it. If we remove the invisible stress then we lose sight of what the visible church should be like. The visible is patterned after the invisible, and tries to conform as much as possible to it.


----------



## Scott (May 26, 2004)

Craig: I think you make good points. I am also very sympathetic to your frustration with Christians who will not commit themselves to the visible church. I am in a congregation with many people who have this view. Church is viewed as a sanctified club by many. If someone gets tired of the club, he goes out and finds another. Or, people stop going altogether. After all, they have a &quot;personal relationship&quot; with Jesus - who needs to be together? This view is inculcated from the beginning of the evangelization process, if you use any of the ordinary materials. 

This view is very anabaptistic. I think historic reformed teaching on the church is right and is adequate to address the problems. After all, our Confession says that salvation is not ordinarily possible outside of the visible church. And, as you mention, the visible church is our mother. You can't have God as your Father without the church as your mother.

To me, though, this raises a host of ecclesiastical questions on points that the Reformation writers were most ambiguous about - the practical governmental relations among different churches. Their clearest writings on ecclesiology were at a congregational level - the traditional Word and Sacrament (and sometimes discipline) formula for identifying a true congregation. There were some writings on state or national churches too (such as organizing a presbytery).

Yet, there is not much clear writing on the governmental relations of churches internationally or different denominations within the same country. I know that during the second reformation there was an attempt to create an international alliance of state churches but that it did not work out. 

So, to say that the visible church is your mother implies almost a congregational view for those willing to recognize congregational churches as part of the visible church (as most are these days - I am). What do you think?

I suppose whatever view one holds will determine his answer to this question from a new believer: &quot;Which church may I join and still be considered Christian?&quot;

I will say that I am skeptical about seeing a start-up congregational church as being a visible church who is the mother of believers. Yet, I suppose I do.

Scott


----------



## Scott (May 26, 2004)

What exactly does Wilson say? I have not read him on this.

It seems to me that nearly every church has some idea of the invisible church, even if they don't use that terminology. For example, the Catholic Church teach that baptized Roman Catholics go to hell if they die with mortal sin on their soul. That means that within the Roman Catholic church there are two groups - one destined for hell and one for heaven. Isn't this a sort of visible/invisible church distinction?

Scott


----------



## wsw201 (May 26, 2004)

Scott,

You can read Wilson's view in his book &quot;Reformed is not Enough&quot;. 

Craig,

One of the main problems Wilson has with the Confessional view of the Church is that he considers it &quot;Hellenistic&quot;, which I assume he is really saying &quot;gnostic&quot;. His view has absolutely no support WHATSOEVER!!!! His idea of the Historical and Eschatological Church adds absolutely nothing.

The problem isn't how the Church is defined in the WCF but how it is taught by the Church! The point that Scott makes concerning how the Church is currently viewed by the vast majority of Christians is correct. The view today is that Christianity is not about a religion but about a &quot;relationship&quot;, a personal relationship. Since it is personal, why do we need the Church? All one needs is &quot;me and my bible&quot; and no one else, much less &quot;organized religion&quot;.

Until Christians read and understand the Scriptures, they will never understand what it means when the confession states that &quot;there is no ordinary means of salvation outside of the Church&quot;.


----------



## Scott (May 26, 2004)

I was lamenting just Sunday how some parents and their children went to Sunday School but missed the service so that they could make a 1:00 pm baseball game their children were playing in. It is not surprising that 88 percent of children raised in evangelical households leave the church at age 18 and never return. 

It weighs my heart down heavily. :no:

Scott


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 26, 2004)

Wayne,

Your last post was good. 

In your opinion, what would be the problem with speaking of the historical/eschatological church rather than the visible/invisible church (other than the fact that the confession uses different lingo)?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2004)

[quote:3df58b4499][i:3df58b4499]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:3df58b4499]
Wayne,

Your last post was good. 

In your opinion, what would be the problem with speaking of the historical/eschatological church rather than the visible/invisible church (other than the fact that the confession uses different lingo)? [/quote:3df58b4499]

It relegates the invisible church to an entirely future state, which is unbiblical. The invisible church is not merely eschatological, it is historical as well.

Also, there is a sense in which the visible church is eschatological as well - it will simply be coterminus with the invisible church at that point. Wilson's designation blurs this fact.

It is an &quot;improvement&quot; that obscures, and therefore, frankly, is of no use to the church.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2004)

[quote:3282c6bbfd][i:3282c6bbfd]Originally posted by Scott[/i:3282c6bbfd]
I was lamenting just Sunday how some parents and their children went to Sunday School but missed the service so that they could make a 1:00 pm baseball game their children were playing in. It is not surprising that 88 percent of children raised in evangelical households leave the church at age 18 and never return. 

It weighs my heart down heavily. :no:

Scott [/quote:3282c6bbfd]

This is indeed grievous. What should be a great boon to covenant children becomes a hindrance through inattention and laziness.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 26, 2004)

[quote:b401bc1510][i:b401bc1510]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b401bc1510]
It relegates the invisible church to an entirely future state, which is unbiblical. The invisible church is not merely eschatological, it is historical as well.

Also, there is a sense in which the visible church is eschatological as well - it will simply be coterminus with the invisible church at that point. Wilson's designation blurs this fact.

It is an &quot;improvement&quot; that obscures, and therefore, frankly, is of no use to the church. [/quote:b401bc1510]

Good point. My whole concern is to just have one church. I suppose you can affirm one church using the traditional language. If we view the visible/invisible distinction as two different perspectives on the same church rather than two different churches, I can handle that.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2004)

[quote:22f382a8f8][i:22f382a8f8]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:22f382a8f8]
[quote:22f382a8f8][i:22f382a8f8]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:22f382a8f8]
It relegates the invisible church to an entirely future state, which is unbiblical. The invisible church is not merely eschatological, it is historical as well.

Also, there is a sense in which the visible church is eschatological as well - it will simply be coterminus with the invisible church at that point. Wilson's designation blurs this fact.

It is an &quot;improvement&quot; that obscures, and therefore, frankly, is of no use to the church. [/quote:22f382a8f8]

Good point. My whole concern is to just have one church. I suppose you can affirm one church using the traditional language. If we view the visible/invisible distinction as two different perspectives on the same church rather than two different churches, I can handle that. [/quote:22f382a8f8]

Craig,

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you parse it out a bit for me? The visible church is not coterminus with the invisible church, so they can't exactly be &quot;one&quot; church I think. But the invisible church is true and real, and the visible is true and real. The great thing about glory is that they will be exactly the same THEN.

Make sense?


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 26, 2004)

What I mean is just that I do not believe there are two churches. I don't believe there is one church in heaven with one roster and another church on earth that has a different roster. If you say there are two churches, then which one is the most important? If you must believe there are two churches, then you can't say that &quot;both&quot; are the true church because 2 does not equal 1. Now, I think the invisible/visible terminology can work if we view them as two perspectives on the one church. The invisible perspective sees only the elect redeemed individuals, while the visible sees a mixture of both elect and non-elect in the church on the earth. Brian Schwertley seems to agree with what I'm saying when he says, &quot;...Reformed theologians emphasize that this distinction does not mean that God has two separate churches. Indeed, they assert that Jehovah has founded one church, that Jesus has only one bride, people, church, or body. Our Lord does not have two churches but only one. The terms "invisible" and "visible" are used to describe two distinct aspects of the one church; or, to put it another way, the church is considered from two different perspectives.&quot; (A Defense of Reformed Orthodoxy)

But having said all of that, I know why the visible/invisible church distinction has been developed in Reformed theology. It is an attempt to reconcile the fact that there are church members that are not elect with the texts that speak of the church being redeemed. I'm not suggesting we throw away any of that, but I'm only suggesting that we think about our terminology more.

By the way, Schwertley's article linked above is interesting. He makes some good points but blows it on others, in my opinion. But it is a worthy read.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 26, 2004)

Yes, but the bride is still being purified.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 26, 2004)

Ok. In that sense there is one church, but not all Israel is Israel.

That is why it is crucial to always have in mind both aspects. As in Scott's excellent example above, the worst thing that we can do to the 18 year old covenant child who has fled the church is to say, &quot;you are a Christian because of your baptism.&quot; Rather we would say, you are in danger of proving yourself a wicked apostate by your lack of profession.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 26, 2004)

[quote:934a63c99c]Ok. In that sense there is one church, but not all Israel is Israel.[/quote:934a63c99c]

Wow, a lightbulb just came on in my head with that statement. If Paul can speak of (if I may read between the lines) visible and invisible Israel, then we can surely speak of the visible and invisible church. Now I feel a lot better about the distinction. Thanks, Fred! 

I'm an idiot.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 27, 2004)

[quote:ddaa79c7e2][i:ddaa79c7e2]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:ddaa79c7e2]
[quote:ddaa79c7e2]Ok. In that sense there is one church, but not all Israel is Israel.[/quote:ddaa79c7e2]

Wow, a lightbulb just came on in my head with that statement. If Paul can speak of (if I may read between the lines) visible and invisible Israel, then we can surely speak of the visible and invisible church. Now I feel a lot better about the distinction. Thanks, Fred! 

I'm an idiot.  [/quote:ddaa79c7e2]

You are most certainly not an idiot! But you are very welcome.

Have a great night and God bless!


----------



## wsw201 (May 27, 2004)

[quote:61ba87bf41][i:61ba87bf41]Originally posted by Scott[/i:61ba87bf41]
I was lamenting just Sunday how some parents and their children went to Sunday School but missed the service so that they could make a 1:00 pm baseball game their children were playing in. It is not surprising that 88 percent of children raised in evangelical households leave the church at age 18 and never return. 

It weighs my heart down heavily. :no:

Scott [/quote:61ba87bf41]

Scott,

You are not alone in your frustration. We see the same thing at our Church. We have folks in our church who will miss Sunday services because it conflicts with their kids soccer game. But one thing I have found is that there is more to it than meets the eye. Unfortunately we have a number of parents who do not train up their children in Christ. We can tell in our Sunday School classes which kid's parents are involved in teaching their kids and take raising their children in Christ seriously. The parents who are not involved have kids who end up leaving the church.

Craig,

Have you read that book on the Knox Colloquy yet?


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 27, 2004)

Wayne,

I got it in the mail finally and have been reading it. I was disappointed that this issue wasn't discussed in it anymore than it was. I figured that since the visible/invisible distinction was one of the lectures at AAPC 2002 that there would be a chapter in the book on it, but there wasn't.

Having read a large portion of the book, I find that my main concern is still over the FV view of the sacraments.


----------



## wsw201 (May 27, 2004)

[quote:cd85355d87]
Having read a large portion of the book, I find that my main concern is still over the FV view of the sacraments.
[/quote:cd85355d87]

That is a biggy! 

Have you gotten to the part about corporate election? Both Wilson and Barach talk about it.


----------



## VanVos (May 27, 2004)

I wouldn't say that external Israel is the same as external church because Christ has fulfilled the external aspects of Israel. I think we have true church and hypocrites. But maybe i'm spliting hairs. Just want to make sure we don't &quot;Judaize&quot; the New Testament church. 

VanVos


----------



## kceaster (May 28, 2004)

*Pastor Goundry...*

Paul didn't seem to have a problem Judaizing the NT church.

Don't get me wrong, there is a difference between men's standards and traditions and the ultimate standard of God. In this way, Paul rightly speaks against any Judaizer because they want to mix their tradition with the truths of the gospel. They speak things against the gospel when they add requirements that are just not there.

But make no mistake, salvation is of the Jews. And, not all who are of Israel are Israel. Further, we are the Israel of God. Paul had no reason to say these things unless there is one continuous thread through all of redemptive history.

Therefore, we should not look for discontinuity between the church of the OT and the church of the NT. God's people have always been blended with those who are truly His elect and those who are not. This is not Judaizing. It is seeing God's people in all times as one and recognizing, just as Paul did, that some are sheep and some are goats.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Ianterrell (May 28, 2004)

Rev Goundry,

I agree with KC. I feel that it is helpful to see God as the one seperating the sheep from the goats. There are people who are truly part of the church who are not elect. They have entered into covenant with God and yet this cannot be said of them inwardly. Those who persevere to the end are the elect.


----------



## wsw201 (May 28, 2004)

Fred,


[quote:041f0a6426]
It relegates the invisible church to an entirely future state, which is unbiblical. The invisible church is not merely eschatological, it is historical as well. 

Also, there is a sense in which the visible church is eschatological as well - it will simply be coterminus with the invisible church at that point. Wilson's designation blurs this fact. 
[/quote:041f0a6426]

I think I see your problem. You are useing &quot;theological&quot; language not &quot;Biblical&quot; language. You are sounding like one of those &quot;Scholastic Presbyterians&quot; I have read about


----------



## VanVos (May 28, 2004)

I would agree, but I do see the external covenant holiness rituals as passing away with the coming of Christ. Heb 8:13. But we do indeed have the Israel of God Gal 6:16 as we did in the remnant of Israel in the Old testament Rom 9:27. The church has always existed. 

VanVos


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 28, 2004)

[quote:7276e99033][i:7276e99033]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:7276e99033]
Fred,


[quote:7276e99033]
It relegates the invisible church to an entirely future state, which is unbiblical. The invisible church is not merely eschatological, it is historical as well. 

Also, there is a sense in which the visible church is eschatological as well - it will simply be coterminus with the invisible church at that point. Wilson's designation blurs this fact. 
[/quote:7276e99033]

I think I see your problem. You are useing &quot;theological&quot; language not &quot;Biblical&quot; language. You are sounding like one of those &quot;Scholastic Presbyterians&quot; I have read about  [/quote:7276e99033]



That was funny.

But in all actuality, we do need to realize how we have been influenced in our theology throughout history. Medieval Scholasticism did have an important role in the development of Reformed Theology. Thomas Aquinas, the great Scholastic theologian, relied very heavily on Aristotlean categories and ideas. The Reformed Scholastics after the Reformation followed Aquinas' methodology. Systematic Theology is basically a Scholastic discipline. The theological terms that we often use in Systematic Theology are usually hybrids of philosophical and Biblical terms. Also, if you lay Thomas Aquinas' [i:7276e99033]Summa Theologiae[/i:7276e99033] along side Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology or the WCF you will find that there are some interesting similarities. I think Reformed Theology needs to acknowledge the debt it owes to Scholasticism in its development.

Now, having said all of that, is Scholasticism evil? Is it a bad thing that Reformed Theology has been influenced by Scholasticism? I don't think so. The Auburnites speak of the Hellenisation of Reformed Theology as a hindrance to understanding the Scriptures. But I think this is only true if you ONLY do Systematic Theology. I think the Systematicians need the Biblical Theologians. And the Biblical Theologians need the Literary Theologians. They all need one another because each discipline emphasizes areas that the other disciplines do not.

I do think that the invisible/visible church distinction is by and large a Scholastic distinction. But that in itself should not be a reason to reject it or accept it. That was never my objection to it. But it would probably do us some good to recognize just how Scholastic we really are, not because it is wrong for us to be that way, but just so we can take steps toward understanding why we think about things the way we do. I also think the Auburnites need to realize that their constant ranting on how Hellenistic we are is not all that helpful.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 28, 2004)

What is a Literary Theologian? I've never heard of that before.


----------



## luvroftheWord (May 29, 2004)

It's something relatively new that focuses on literary devices and genres in the Bible to help understand the authors' intentions in what they say and how the audiences understood them. It is Richard Pratt's big thing, and I think I remember Richard mentioning Tremper Longman and Phillip Ryken as being some other advocates of it.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 29, 2004)

[quote:b1650b43e7][i:b1650b43e7]Originally posted by VanVos[/i:b1650b43e7]
I would agree, but I do see the external covenant holiness rituals as passing away with the coming of Christ. Heb 8:13. But we do indeed have the Israel of God Gal 6:16 as we did in the remnant of Israel in the Old testament Rom 9:27. The church has always existed. 
[/quote:b1650b43e7]

What kind of covenant holiness is being spoken of here? External or internal? 
&quot;For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.&quot; 1 Cor. 7:14.


----------



## VanVos (May 29, 2004)

[quote:dc09a347df][i:dc09a347df]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:dc09a347df]
[quote:dc09a347df][i:dc09a347df]Originally posted by VanVos[/i:dc09a347df]
I would agree, but I do see the external covenant holiness rituals as passing away with the coming of Christ. Heb 8:13. But we do indeed have the Israel of God Gal 6:16 as we did in the remnant of Israel in the Old testament Rom 9:27. The church has always existed. 
[/quote:dc09a347df]

What kind of covenant holiness is being spoken of here? External or internal? 
&quot;For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.&quot; 1 Cor. 7:14. [/quote:dc09a347df]

External, Christ fulfilled everything Israel failed to do. Consequently we have the passing away of the old covenant order in all externalities. Although people outside the covenant can receive temporal blessings because of people who in the covenant. i.e. the reprobate is allowed to live as God brings in the elect, unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife etc etc.

God Bless VanVos

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## fredtgreco (May 29, 2004)

[quote:33e88e3708][i:33e88e3708]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:33e88e3708]
[quote:33e88e3708][i:33e88e3708]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:33e88e3708]
It's something relatively new that focuses on literary devices and genres in the Bible to help understand the authors' intentions in what they say and how the audiences understood them. It is Richard Pratt's big thing, and I think I remember Richard mentioning Tremper Longman and Phillip Ryken as being some other advocates of it. [/quote:33e88e3708]

fred doesn't hold to anything that's new [/quote:33e88e3708]

Ahhh....

To be understood!

:bs2: 


{chained to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints}


----------

