Visible or Invisible?

[kceaster]

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]

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]

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 "theological" language not "Biblical" language. You are sounding like one of those "Scholastic Presbyterians" I have read about

 

[VanVos]

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]

[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 "theological" language not "Biblical" language. You are sounding like one of those "Scholastic Presbyterians" 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]

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

 

[luvroftheWord]

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]

[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?
"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." 1 Cor. 7:14.

 

[VanVos]

[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?
"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." 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]

[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}