The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the invisible church as “the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one” (XXV.i). Some of you may know that over the last several days, I have been commenting on Scott Clark’s blog, and trying to carry on a discussion there, albeit not very successfully. But one of the matters that came up from some of Clark’s defenders was the idea that the invisible church was made up only of those who are already effectually called. In other words, regeneration was necessary to membership in the invisible church. This definition is obviously out of line with the Westminster definition, which includes the “whole number of the elect.” But this novelty got me hunting around, and one of the things I discovered was that it is not a complete novelty.
Berkhof says that citizenship in the invisible church is “determined by regeneration” (Systematic Theology, p. 569). But he earlier says that “good definitions of the visible and invisible church may be found in the Westminster Confession” (p. 567). The first comment is in tension with the second, and part of the reason for this is that timelines keep getting in the way. Election happens outside human history, and regeneration happens within history. In his discussion, Berkhof also gives a list of ways the phrase “invisible church” has been interpreted, the second of which amounts to what I have been calling the eschatological church — “the ideal and completed Church as it will be at the end of the ages” (p. 565). Berkhof prefers to place his emphasis elsewhere, but this definition is consistent with the standard Reformed understanding.
For Dabney, the visible church is simply that entity which carries the same name as the invisible church “by accommodation.” For him, the true church is the invisible one: “Let us remember then, that the true Church of Christ is invisible, and consists of the whole body of the effectually called” (Systematic Theology, p. 726). The visible church is an approximation; the action is in the invisible realm. Dabney’s view is representative of a tendency in the American church, in which the visible church consistently receives shorter shrift.
Turretin, in proving the invisibility of the church, says that it consists “of the elect and believers alone” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. III, p. 35). But, as mentioned earlier, the question is when does it consist of the elect? Having said this, I learned a long time ago that no question in theology can arise but those which Turretin has already gone over quite thoroughly. He says this a bit earlier. For him, the invisible church “is taken for the mystical body of Christ constantly and intimately united to him as its head according to eternal election and efficacious calling . . . This is the catholic church which we acknowledge in the Creed. It may be regarded either universally and all together (kath’ holou) with respect to the whole multitude of believers (of which it is composed of whatever place and time) or particularly and as to its parts (kata meros) (now concerning that which reigns gloriously with Christ in heaven; then concerning this which labors and pursues its journey in the world and inasmuch as it is distributed into various particular churches which are designated by the same name as the whole) (p. 8).
As we saw at the first, the Westminster Confession defines the invisible church in accord with Turretin’s first sense — “the whole number of the elect.” And I think we could allow for Turretin’s second use by synedoche, where you speak of the whole in terms of a part, or vice versa. This is close to what the other commenters on Clark’s blog were saying, if I understand them right. Thus we could speak of the invisible church of this or that generation, speaking of those who are effectually called in that generation. But in order for this to be done with any kind of clarity, however, it has to be done loosely — because it is a rolling definition. At any given moment, in any generation, numerous saints are going to be with the Lord, and numerous unbelievers are coming to true faith. Thus the invisible church of January 5, 2007 is quite a different roster of names from the invisible church of March 5, 2009. Add to this the oddity that Smith, who is elect, but not yet converted, is a member of the invisible church in the Westminster definition, but not yet a member of the earthly invisible church. And because of this rolling change, I think it is best to follow Westminster here and define the invisible church in a way that doesn’t keep moving around.
This is how A.A. Hodge handles it, following Westminster.”Our Confession teaches in these sections . . . that there is a collective body, compirsing all the elect of God of all nations and generations, called the Church invisible” (The Confession of Faith, p. 311). He adds that “this entire body . . . has been constantly present to the mind of God from eternity” (p. 311). This is the sense in which Steve Wilkins affirms the invisible church, as do I. Defining the invisible church this way does not exclude affirming that at any given moment, there are a fixed number of effectually called people alive on the earth. I have always believed there is such a body — but it had never occured to me to call that body the invisible church. In my mind, the invisible church has always been defined in the Westminsterian sense, the “whole number of the elect” sense.
Hodge then makes a statement that shows that what he is calling the invisible church is identical to what I call the eschatological church. “This body, thus seen in its absolute fulness and perfection by God from eternity, will be at last revealed to the universe in all its completeness and glory, so that it will transcend all the other works of God in its visible excellences” (p. 311).
Exactly. The entire company of the elect, the whole number of them, invisible now to everyone but God alone, will be made manifest to everyone at the eschaton, and that church will be without spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. And that eschatological church I define as the “whole number of the elect.”