The Church
The church is one of the most misunder- stood doctrines in the church today, especially in the so-called Federal Vision. The FV wants to erase the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. However, this distinction is quite biblical, as can be proved conclusively from Romans 9:6, where Paul makes a distinction between biological descent and the household of faith. It was God's purpose in election that the promises of the covenant always be by faith and not by sight. This is the fundamental error of the Federal Vision: they want their belief to be by sight and not by faith. That is why they want to see the people of God. That is so very important to them. You just have to be able to see the people of God in order for faith to work. This is why baptism is over-emphasized among FV advocates: baptism is something visible to which one could point to say that they are a Christian. Now, I am by no means denying that baptism is one of the means of grace. But it is that: one of the means of grace. It is not the means of grace. And no saving grace comes by it apart from faith. Baptism does not bring us into the state of salvation. This is where the distinction between visible and invisible is so crucial. Baptism brings us into the visible church. If it is accompanied by faith, then also into the invisible church. Apart from faith, our baptism becomes condemnation in the face of rejection of Christ, just as circumcision did in the OT if someone cut himself off from the people of God. Circumcision did not make one of the invisible Israel, as Paul would say in Romans 9. Neither does baptism automatically make us a member of the invisible church.
Our assurance of salvation does not rest on baptism alone, for there are many baptized people who are cheerfully on their way to hell. According to the FV, heaven forbid that election might actually distinguish among people in the visible church before apostasy. They will usually say that the ontological distinction will only come about when people apostatize, and that there is no difference of any sort between the non-elect and the elect until the non-elect apostatize. Romans 9:6, quoted earlier, all by itself should have put the lid on such wanderings, but it doesn't seem to have phased them much. One needs to ask about apostate churches here. Are those who are baptized into an apostate church regenerated? Baptism is not fully realized (that is, the reality to which the sign points) until the time point of faith, which can occur before, during, or after baptism itself. More on baptism in a later post.
That being said, it is important also to note that there is still only one church. The distinction of visible and invisible does not make two churches. This distinction is vitally important to maintain, but so also is the unity of the church. This is evident from the WCF 25, where both the visible aspect and the invisible aspect are both called catholic (not Roman Catholic, but universal, which is what the word actually means: hence Roman Catholic is a contradiction in terms: Rome being limiting, catholic being universal).
The Head of the church is Jesus Christ. We need no other Mediator between God and man. We certainly need no pope.
One of the most disturbing trends that I have seen in seminaries recently is a devaluing of the church. Professors are wanting to engage in academics not for the purpose of edifying the church, but for some other unstated purpose. They are not then in the business of training ministers, but academics. This should never be. Even academics, in the field of theology, should be wholly subordinated to the good of the church. Academics should not live and move and have its being outside of the church, but inside the church, subject to church discipline and oversight. Errors are much easier to correct in a seminary that way, than if the seminary considers itself autonomous, and beyond the criticism and oversight of the church. It breeds arrogance in the seminary.
posted by Mr. Baggins @ 9/12/2006 10:39:00 AM
links to this post
16 Comments:
Lane, what is your view of Murray's essay on the visible-invisble church distinction?
"They will usually say that the ontological distinction will only come about when people apostatize, and that there is no difference of any sort between the non-elect and the elect until the non-elect apostatize."
No difference of any sort? Any quotations to back this up, Lane?
Murray overstates his case, even while his foil is certainly a problem. His foil can be seen on 235 of volume 1, where lack of corporate responsibility and recourse to "the invisible church" is used to justify rifts in the body of Christ. That is Murray's foil. He is not absolute in his rejection of the terms, by the way, since he acknowledges invisible aspects to the visible body of Christ. But he goes too far in his conclusion. The solution to the problems that Murray sees is not to throw out the distinction, but to guard it against abuse by seeing that it is in fact in the visible church in which we are to exercise the fruits of the Spirit and all our spiritual gifts, and that keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace is addressed to the concrete church. Again, Romans 9:6 indicates that there is a distinction to be made *within* the visible body. Of course, we cannot read human hearts to see if some are elect and others are not. Therefore, we should treat membes in good standing as if they were elect (as Paul does), even if some are not.
With regard to the lack of difference, see the Beisner book, in the essay by Steve Wilkins, pg 261, lines 292-295, pg 262 line 306, and Wilkins' exegesis of John 15, where he posits that all in covenant have the same sap, and that there is no difference between the branches. I am not sure why you even asked me for quotations on this, since this is patently what most FV advocates teach (Wilson seems to be an exception: I consider his essay to introduce a distinction that doesn't advance the discussion at all).
On visible/invisible, do you see any of the FV guys going any further than Murray did? Examples?
On both issues, here are statements from the AAPC session:
4. We affirm the distinction between the "visible" and "invisible" Church that is made in our confessional Standards.
The Confession, however, does not view the "invisible Church" as an entity that exists above or beyond the visible church but rather defines it as the "whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof;"— in other words, the invisible Church does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God and will surely and certainly exist at the last day. It is only "invisible" in that we can’t see all the members of it now. It seems better to us to speak of the "invisible" church simply as the "eschatalogical church"— i.e., the church in its perfection as it will exist at the last day. Ultimately, only the "invisible Church" will partake of the blessings of eternal salvation. In history, however, the Church consists of those who are elect unto final salvation and those who are not. There are those who are members of the church but who are not ordained to persevere in faith, yet they are, like unfaithful Israelites, still members of the Church, though in the sense that they harbor unbelief, they can be said to be not "of" the Church. But here again all we’re acknowledging is that the Church in history is a mixed body.
6. We do believe that there is a distinction between those elect unto eternal salvation and the reprobate who are members of the Church.
Contrary to numerous accusations, we have affirmed this in our "Summary Statement":
"Once baptized, an individual may be truly called a ‘Christian’ because he is a member of the household of faith and the body of Christ (I Cor. 12). However, not all who are ‘Christians’ in this sense will persevere to the end. Some will ‘fall from grace’ and be lost (Gal. 5:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-5). Though the difference between those who are predestined to eternal life and those who ‘believe for a while’ is not merely one of duration (i.e., God works ‘effectually’ in those whom He has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief), the Bible does not explain the distinction between the nature of the work of the Spirit in the reprobate and the nature of His work in the elect, and even uses the same language for both."
This reality is reflected in the covenant relationship of marriage. Though men may be equally married in the eyes of the law, they may have quite different marriages in terms of the quality of their relationships with their wives. The presence or absence of biblical love makes a huge difference in the quality of the marital bond, though it does not affect their legal status as married men. So it is in the Church. Some members of the Church are "effectually" (savingly) joined in union with Christ by faith while others are not.
These accusations continue to be repeated by others against us. We publish these affirmations and denials simply to testify to our actual theological position and to expose these accusations as inaccurate, unfounded, and irresponsible.
The fact is that we continue joyfully to affirm the doctrines set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms — apart from the exception we have taken regarding the admission of baptized children to the Lord’s Supper [and we should note that in submission to the church and to our Standards, we do not practice our view but require professions of faith from all children before their admission to the Lord’s table in accordance with our BCO]. Though, we do not believe that our Standards say all that can be said about these doctrines (what man-made document can?) and though we do encourage doctrinal development and maturity along the lines suggested in our "Summary Statement" (in the spirit of "semper reformanda") this in no way means that we have rejected those truths contained in our doctrinal standards. Those who make accusations to the contrary are bearing false witness against us.
Well, since I am not in a position to exercise church discipline on that church, I will refrain from commenting on the church's statement. I will only say one word: double-speak.
Even in this statement, though, we can see that they define a Christian as someone who is baptized. This is not an acceptable definition of a Christian. A Christian is someone who is in Christ by faith. Faith must be there for someone to be a Christian. Faith is certainly possible at a very early age (in fact, from conception). We live by faith, not by sight. Why should we concern ourselves so much about being able to say "that person is a Christian?" FVers have said repeatedly that they are not trying to read the hearts of people, the implication being that we "decretal" people are. Actually, the reverse is the case: it is the FV that is trying to nail down everything so that one knows who is and who isn't part of the church.
But, as I sais in my post on assurance, the FV has zero room for absolute assurance, since for them it is based on baptism, which is *not* an infallible assurance of salvation.
Lane, the AAPC statement shows that you were sloppy, at best, when you wrote: "They will usually say that the ontological distinction will only come about when people apostatize, and that there is no difference of any sort between the non-elect and the elect until the non-elect apostatize."
You are proving yourself a not very reliable guide for FV matters.
Todd, I would say that Steve Wilkins is proving himself a not very reliable guide to consistency. He cannot hold both positions. And you cannot hold page 58-59 of the _Federal Vision_ against the statement of the church, and tell me that they are compatible. They are not.
I suspect that my non-reliableness in your own very limited opinion has more to do with the fact that I disagree with it, than that it has to do with anything like sloppiness.
About sloppiness: Lane, had you read the AAPC statement before I pointed it out to you?
In your view, Lane, on what basis does Paul say the things he says to the church in Corinth, the things listed by Wilkins on page 59 of FV? Is Paul speaking to the whole church, or just to the eternally elect?
Lane writes: "the FV has zero room for absolute assurance, since for them it is based on baptism." Do you believe this is a responsible summary of the FV position on assurance? Care to expand on it a bit?
The answer is yes, I had read the AAPC statement before I posted this.
I am quite aware that FV guys wil typically claim that they are in accordance with the standards. But then they will make such outrageously incompatible statements as Steve Wilkins does when he says that we are united to Christ by baptism, and therefore have all the blessings of being united to Christ simply by virtue of baptism. In his article in the _Federal Vision_, he nowhere qualifies this statement with faith. there is a constant confusion of sign and thing signified.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is speaking to the elect, when he enumerates such ordo salutis benefits. But he addresses the entire church, because those who are currently in fellowship with the church are assumed to be (notice the vast difference between assumption and reality) elect. There is the judgment of charity going on here. I really get tired of FV advocates who simply quote Paul as addressing the entire church as elect, and then assuming that that must mean some different definition of election. They obviously haven't dealt properly with the judgment of charity argument in so many of the Reformers' exegesis.
With regard to assurance, it is quite easy. The FV typically assumes that baptism unites one to Christ. then, as Steve Wilkins says, all the benefits of Christ accrue to those who are baptized. However, if one who is baptized apostatizes, then they lose all those real benefits of being united to Christ. Hence, there can be *no* basis for assurance in the FV system. The WCF argues that one can know *for certain* that one is elect in the decretal sense. This is proved from 18.1. The basis in the WCF is as follows: promise, the inward evidence of that promise of salvation, the tesimony of the Holy Spirit to our spirit. Notice that baptism is not even mentioned here. I wonder why: is that because baptism is no guarantee at all? I think so.
"In his article in the _Federal Vision_, he nowhere qualifies this statement with faith."
Did you get to page 64 when you read, Lane? That's where the section entitled "The Necessity of Faith" begins. Come on, Lane! You can do better than this!
"Covenant life is always founded upon persevering faith in the faithful One." "The gospel is only saving to those who hlod fast to the word." "Unbelief is a denial of God's image and breaks covenant, cutting us off from the blessings of salvation." (page 66).
But that is not a statement modifying his claim that all the benefits of union with Christ come by baptism. He completely leaves out faith *in that discussion.* And therefore, the statement you have quoted is not germane to my point. The statement you quoted has much more to do with the continuing of the Christian life, not the inception of it. Therefore, my criticism holds quite fast. You don't have to say everything that comes off the top of your head. My statement in my reply was that he did not modify the *baptism* statement anywhere in his article, which in fact, he does not.
Of course he doesn't. He believes everything he writes about baptism. You want him to qualify what he writes about baptism with something about faith, but you are holding him to a standard that some NT passages would fail. How soon should Paul mention faith in Romans 6 before you accuse him of heresy?
He proabably should have fit it into Galatians 3:27, too. By itself, it's encouraging the FVers. Paul does not modify the *baptism* statement anywhere in his letter.
Well, I'm glad to see you back off your criticism of my criticism at least a little in the sense that you agree with me that Wilkins does not qualify his baptism statements. With regard to Romans 6 and Galatians 3:27, I will write a whole separate post on that.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home