# Are these distinctions coterminous?



## Poimen (Aug 22, 2005)

I have been giving alot of thought to the matter of distinctions within our covenantal thinking and have come to the (preliminary) conclusion that these distinctions are (ultimately) saying the same thing but from different angles (especially #2 & #3).

1. Visible/invisible church
2. Administration/substance of the covenant
3. Internal/external relationship to the covenant

In particular I would like to ask, if we hold to #1 don't we by necessity hold to #2 & #3? 

However, before I begin shouting out my thoughts from the rooftops, I was wondering if folks here could reign me in on something I might be missing as to the danger of conflating these distinctions. 


Thanks. 

BTW, a helpful reference is:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/CovTheses.htm

[Edited on 8-22-2005 by poimen]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 22, 2005)

Daniel,

Yes, these distinctions are essentially doing the same thing. As I wrote in the other thread, without them our covenant theology comes to considerable grief.

It's very important for 21st century covenant theologians to recognize that much of the covenant theology written in 20th century was anomalous. Much of it was written under the influence of a serious misunderstanding of the history of Reformed covenant theology. Many early in the 20th century assumed that covenant theology was "invented" by Johannes Kok/Koch/Cocceius as an "antidote" to Calvin's allegedly "decretal" theology.

We may take for granted Vos' history of covenant theology, but until it was "Englished" it was unavailable to most Anglophones until the 60's and 70's and for some years it was only available as an unpublished typescript. Apart from G. Schrenk's Gottesreich und Bund, Vos' history was more or less the only reliable history of covenant theology for many years.

Dogmatically, Karl Barth radically re-configured covenant theology by eliminating the covenant of redemption and the covenant of works and by rejecting the Law/Gospel dichotomy in justification. Barth's influence on modern covenant theology cannot be overstated. 

Further, the sociological pressure of growth in popularity of dispensationalism pressed many Reformed folk to reconfigure covenant theology to be able to present the clearest possible alternative to dispensationalism. Again, this work was done in the absence of the influence of historic covenant theology.

For most of this period, the reigning adjective was "conservative." As long as one was a strong adherent to the inerrancy of Scripture and was opposed to and critical of the liberals, it seemed not to matter what revisions one made to covenant theology. 

Thus, things were only marginally better on the conservative side as many of the prominent conservative covenant theologians of the 20th century in Europe and in the USA (or North America for the sake of our Canadian brethren) rejected important features of confessional covenant theology (e.g., pactum salutis and the covenant of works) if for different reasons than Barth. 

Schilder and his followers who rejected the internal/external distinction have dialogued almost exclusively with A. Kuyper and his followers (who denied that the non-elect are really "in" the covenant of grace at all) or Hoeksema and his followers (for whom the decree really does swallow up the administration of the covenant of grace). 

In my reading and experience the Schilderites seem to have virtually no consciousness of the 16th and 17th century formulators of covenant theology. 

In this environment it may have seemed plausible to reject such an important distinction, but we certainly do not want to follow their example.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 22, 2005)

> *Westminster Confession of Faith. Of the Church.*
> I. The catholic or *universal Church*, which is *invisible*, consists of the whole number of *the elect*, that have been, are, or *shall be gathered into one*, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.
> 
> II. The *visible Church*, which is also catholic or *universal* under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is *the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ*; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.



The Invisible Church = The Elect = Those who are in a salvific communion of faith with God in the CoG
The Visible Church = The Kingdom of God = Those who are legally in the CoG

I don't find (along with Berkhof) the internal/external distinction to be helpful or valid. I also don't believe there is a dichotomy between the administration/substance of the CoG. If there were, we would have to give communion to all who are legally in the Covenant, and not only those who profess faith, right?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > *Westminster Confession of Faith. Of the Church.*
> ...



The internal/external distinction is simply a synonym for the invisible/visible distinction you quoted above from the Confession - no more, no less. 



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I also don't believe there is a dichotomy between the administration/substance of the CoG. If there were, we would have to give communion to all who are legally in the Covenant, and not only those who profess faith, right?



Do you mean _distinction_, rather than "dichotomy"? A Dichotomy is specifically a "you must pick one or the other" distinction, such as being for or against God. I also don't understand your connection with communion; the Reformed are against paedocommunion not because of small children's possession or the lack thereof of covenant status, but because they cannot examine themselves or discern the body as commanded in 1 Corinthians 11.


----------



## Poimen (Aug 22, 2005)

Thanks Scott that was very helpful. 

I think you are right about Schilder but it seems that few of us actually know the history of covenant theology within our Reformed churches so we seem to line up with what is novel (maybe Presbyterians too?). When I read these men they never seem to quote from the Nadere Reformatie but only from Calvin, and rarely from Ursinus and Olevianus. 

BTW, are you aware of or have read W. Heyns "Manual of Reformed Doctrine?" I read through some portions of it last night and it seems that he is a precursor to Schilder in the way that he dismisses some distinctions. For example, he holds to the visible/invisible church distinction but not the covenant in its administration and its essence. He holds to the covenant of works but maintains that Adam would not have merited eternal life but through his obedience received the reward as a 'free gift..'


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 22, 2005)

Well, if you say that we must administer the covenant in the visible/kingdom/external realm, then we must administer the sacraments to infants of believers, right?

Maybe I misunderstand.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, if you say that we must administer the covenant in the visible/kingdom/external realm, then we must administer the sacraments to infants of believers, right?
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand.



Let's not let this thread become a discussion on paedocommunion, but to answer your question, I would say the answer is yes by default, meaning yes unless Scripture gives further restrictions or instructions regarding one or more of the sacraments; and that is just what we have regarding communion, by precept in 1 Corinthians 11, and by example in the fact that infants could not partake of Passover. So because of those Scriptural guidelines, we know we are not to administer that particular sacrament to our infants.

But notice that that fact has no conflict with the fact that we are to administer the covenant in the visible realm any more than does the fact that we do not let infants vote on ruling elder candidates, even though having influence in the decisions of the Church regarding its officers is certainly a covenant privilege.

Furthermore, even apart from the example of infants, we must always "administer the covenant in the visible/kingdom/external realm" as you put it, as that is precisely the realm we are dealing in when we baptize an adult based on a profession of faith (visible/external), since we do not know the heart (invisible/internal). Likewise, the covenant privilege of voting in elder candidate decisions is one that is given to the external community rather than just the internal, even though it is given to them at different stages.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 22, 2005)

Agreed.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Aug 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Well, if you say that we must administer the covenant in the visible/kingdom/external realm, then we must administer the sacraments to infants of believers, right?
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand.



Gabriel,

We must administer the covenant of grace to the visible, Christ-confessing covenant community because Jesus instituted it (Mt 16 and 18 and 28; Rev 1-3). To it he entrusted the means of grace and over her it appointed elders and to it he gave ministers and deacons (in the three-office view; Eph 4). 

These officers, who administer the means of grace, must hear professions and exercise discipline, and they do so before God, according to Scripture, to the best of their ability. 

Because they are humans and cannot know God's providence before it is realized in history, they cannot know infallibly the true state of anyone's heart. That knowledge belongs to God.

Thus we are shut up to the Scripture as the constituting revelation of and to the church that norms all its acts. 

I'm simply arguing that 1) we don't know the decree until it comes to realization in history; 2) that we not confuse the decree with the administration of the covenant of grace in history. We must take seriously both facts (the decree and the administration).

From this structure, I'm not sure how paedocommunion would follow.

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 22, 2005)

Agreed, but with a misunderstanding of what you just explained so eloquently, many will (wrongly) accept Paedocommunion as a logical conclusion to Covenant Theology. Thus, the great problem today, I would assume.

I completely agree. We are to administer the Covenant to those with whom it legally is binding. However, just as circumcision means nothing without a regenerate heart as far as communion with God in a salvific, gracious, faithful sense, so also with baptism. We do not tell our children they are justified and elect simply because they are covenant members, but we tell them they are legally bound by their baptisms to live a life of penitence and faith, even a profession of their faith before the Church of God and pagans, by words and conduct. Thus, we cannot and should not administer the Lord's Supper, a sacrament of grace and salvific communion with Christ our God, to those who have not yet professed the faith which they are legally obligated to profess by God's grace and in His timing.

Somehow, paedocommunionists miss this, and see this viewpoint as "starving our children" and "hating kids." *sigh*


----------

