visible church / particular churches

[Scott]

To presbyterians and other non-independents, I have a question. What is the relationship between the visible church and particular churches (particular churches being local congregations)?

The WCF defines visible church to basically be all those throughout the world who profess the true Christian religion and their children. WCF 25.2. It does not really address membership in a particular congregation. The WCF also does mention that "particular churches" are "members" of the visible church. See WCF 25.4.

The meain reason I am asking to understand how to view people who separate themselves from all particular congregations yet maintain their Christian profession. Calvin, Turretin, and others view such separation as separation from the visible church. But is that consistent with the WCF provision, which focuses on simple profession?

Anyone? Matt?

Thanks

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

As far as I have read, separation from the visible church is not schismatic, but apostasy. (Remember - this is separation from the "church.")

Separation in terms of ecclesiology is not separation from the visible church, though a church may be more or less well ordered based on ecclesiology.

The visible church (one church) has many particular churches which make up its constitution. Without individual churches that make up the visible church, there is no visible church.

People who separate themselves from the church are basically excommunicating themselves in practice, and walking down the road of apostasy unless they repent. You cannot have God as your Father without the church as your mother (Iranaeus).

Membership, for the WCF, is set around the Form of Church Government that it purports.

Here is how that works:

Of Particular Congregations.

IT is lawful and expedient that there be fixed congregations, that is, a certain company of Christians to meet in one assembly ordinarily for publick worship. When believers multiply to such a number, that they cannot conveniently meet in one place, it is lawful and expedient that they should be divided into distinct and fixed congregations, for the better administration of such ordinances as belong unto them, and the discharge of mutual duties.

The ordinary way of dividing Christians into distinct congregations, and most expedient for edification, is by the respective bounds of their dwellings.

First, Because they who dwell together, being bound to all kind of moral duties one to another, have the better opportunity thereby to discharge them; which moral tie is perpetual; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.

Secondly, The communion of saints must be so ordered, as may stand with the most convenient use of the ordinances, and discharge of moral duties, without respect of persons.

Thirdly, The pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together, as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency.

So -

These fixed congregations (which implies their understanding of membership under PFoG) includes their views on the visible church.

The Confession revolves around the profession only as a means to making known the true church (doctrine, sacraments, discipline as marks). However, the FoPCG speaks at length to the well-ordering of the church.

 

[Scott]

Matt: That is helpful. Let me ask for your views / comments on this. The WCF defines the visible church as including all who make a profession of faith and their children. Say someone is not a member of any particular congregation and has no intent to join one but this person does profess the Christian religion (and say that they were also baptized as a child). How would we, under the confession, say they have left the visible church - as the definition of visible church is simply confessing the Christian religion?

I understand your point about you can't have God as your Father without having the Church as your mother. They would just say they do have the Church as their mother, as they are part of the visible church simply by their confession (which is distinct from church membership.). They would argue that the only way to leave the visible church is to stop professing the Christian religion.

Thanks

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The Westminster Divines were not talking about individuals for individuals sake, but individuals in a local church for the visible church's sake.

Follow their logic:

The visible church (NOT INDIVIDUAL), which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists (WHAT CONSISTS? INDIVIDUALS? NO.) of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.


Logic follows (Scripturally) -

Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

You can't apply "visible church" (i.e. the local gathering body) to an individual. That would, by definition, not be a church. Otherwise, "Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God" to an individual...to the end of the world.

 

[Scott]

Matt: That is a good point and I agree (I think I agree with you accross the board, BTW, but I just want to work through this). A couple of other points.

[1] WCF 25.4 provides in part: "This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them."

It seems to me that this is relevant. "Particular churches" are "members" of the visible church. What does membership mean? How does the membership of a particular church in the visible church relate to the visible church consisting of all those who profess the Christian religion and their children?

[2] Please give me your thoughts on this analogy. Say we ask if someone is an American. He says yes. Then we ask what state he is a citizen of. He says he is not a citizen of any state. This would ordinarily make no sense. Part of being a citizen of America means also being a citizen of specific state. There are exceptions, perhaps such as someone born abroad to American citizens. Similarly, for a person to be a member of the visible church, he would ordinarily need to be a member of a particular church. There are rare exceptions. For example, someone in a country hostile to Christianity may not be able to participate in church and must be separate. Or a person stuck on a deserted island. Or, say the person´s particular church dissolves or is destroyed before the individual changes membership. He is still a member of the visible church, even though not of a particular church. These are not normative, but exceptional.

Scott

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Scott
[2] Please give me your thoughts on this analogy. Say we ask if someone is an American. He says yes. Then we ask what state he is a citizen of. He says he is not a citizen of any state. This would ordinarily make no sense. Part of being a citizen of America means also being a citizen of specific state. There are exceptions, perhaps such as someone born abroad to American citizens. Similarly, for a person to be a member of the visible church, he would ordinarily need to be a member of a particular church. There are rare exceptions. For example, someone in a country hostile to Christianity may not be able to participate in church and must be separate. Or a person stuck on a deserted island. Or, say the person´s particular church dissolves or is destroyed before the individual changes membership. He is still a member of the visible church, even though not of a particular church. These are not normative, but exceptional.
Scott

Scott,

The WCF supports such an analogy:

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;490 and of their children:491 and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,492 the house and family of God,493 out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.494

Note that the confession does allow for believers outside a particular congregation, but only in rare circumstances (hence following your analogy).

It is interesting to note that in these rare circumstances, that the believer exists outside the visible church. In this, I think it supports Matt's conclusions that the visible church is not an individualistic entity, but rather a particular church that professes the true gospel.

 

[Scott]

The thing I am encountering is that people use the term "visible church" to simply mean those who profess the Christian religion (which they believe is consistent with WCF 25.1). So the only way to "leave the visible church" is to stop confessing the Christian religion. So, the guy that has no affiliation with any particular church is fine if he confesses the Christian religion.

 

[Scott]

No thoughts Matt?