This must be national Green Baggins Day. I want to post just a few comments about an article posted at that blog by the Rev. Wes White. In this article, he critiqued what he thought to be my take on the visible/invisible church distinction. My position on the visible/invisible church distinction is represented thusly:
“We shall deal first with the error of Rome, which is repeated in Douglas Wilson . . . that the word Church in the present time should only refer to what we call the visible Church. That is, those who are baptized and members of the Church are in the Church, and we cannot apply any other sense of Church to say that unbelieving baptized members who remain in the external communion are not in the Church at this point in history” (p. 2).
A bit later, in answering a point I raise, he says that I deny the visible/invisible church distinction. “The answer to these problems is not a denial of the invisible/visible church distinction” (pp. 5-6). The problem with all this is that I don’t deny it. I affirm it, and seek to add qualifications to head off errors of application at the popular level.
For example, here is one thing I said in my short essay on the subject in The Federal Vision.
“At the same time, the historic Reformed terminology can be applied in such a way as to cause some problems of its own. While it was a valuable distinction, it was still not an inspired distinction. I say this while embracing the distinction, as far as it goes” (p. 266, emphasis original).
There’s a robust denial for you.
I do not take an exception to Westminster’s definition of the invisible church as consisting of the entire number of the elect throughout all history. That same roster of names, incidentally, head for head, will be gathered around Jesus Christ at the eschaton, on the day when the invisible church will be made fully visible. My phrase eschatological church is nothing other than the invisible church on the day she is made visible. Neither do I take an exception to Westminster’s definition of the visible church as consisting of those who profess the true religion, together with their children. That church corresponds perfectly to what I call the historical church — same definition. I call it the historical church, and Augustine called it the pilgrim church. The only thing that my terms seek to do is ensure that we work with these two (unchanged) definitions within the flow of history and time.
If someone like Pastor White wants to take Westminster’s definition (all the elect), and reapply it as a stipulated definition to those who are currently regenerate, I am happy to go along with the stipulated changes to Westminster’s definition. Honest. But I do so knowing that this will cause some dislocations that we will have to iron out, and there might be confusion in the mean time. For example, election and regeneration are two different things, and if we bring a portion of the invisible church down into history (say, on April 6, 2007), we have to recognize that to limit it to those who are already effectually called excludes those among the elect who are alive on this day, but not yet converted.
On another point, White argues that true faith is not seen by us because it is an internal heart thing. True enough. But that is not the only reason why the true faith of invisible church members might not be seen. In some cases, it is because unconverted individuals who are elect don’t have any faith yet. In other cases, most cases actually, it is because their true faith is in the distant future. They aren’t born yet.
But Pastor White says that I don’t allow the word Church to be used in the present in any other way than the visible/historical church. This is glaringly, demonstrably false, and is yet another good example of how our positions are not being accurately stated before our opponents undertake to refute them. Invisible and visible? I affirm “the same doctrine” (RINE, p. 73). Invisible and visible? I “embrace that distinction” (RINE, p. 78).
God knows His elect, and He knows them today. He knows the true Church within His Church. He knows which branches will still be on the tree at the last day, and which branches will not be. A true Jew is not one who is one outwardly. A true Christian is not one who is one outwardly. A true church member is not one who is one outwardly. I would apologize for not having made this clear before, but there are at least five chapters on it in “Reformed” Is Not Enough.