« The Church is not ONLY Invisible | Main | The in/visible church »

The Church is not ONLY Visible

Posted on Monday, March 10, 2008 at 10:05AM by Registered CommenterMichael Brown in | Comments2 Comments

hd%20church.jpgMany professing Christians have grown up in churches in which they have been taught – either by formal doctrine or a cultural tradition – that their salvation depends more on their baptism and church membership than on the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone. While this sort of teaching comes in a wide variety of forms and churches (everything from Rome to certain cults), it can also exist in certain Protestant groups who have rejected the visible-invisible church distinction. There is even a trend in some Reformed circles to speak of every baptized person in the church – “head for head” – as being truly elect and united to Christ. The recent controversies within NAPARC churches over the notorious "Federal Vision" teachings is a sterling example.

But it must be understood that membership in God’s visible covenant community does not guarantee membership in God’s elect people. This is Paul’s point in Romans chapter nine in which he defends the fidelity of God’s promise to Abraham: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom 9.6). In other words, not all in the visible church belong to the invisible church. While the visible church is no longer identified with a national, geo-political Israel, it still contains a mixture of both Jacobs and Esaus, that is to say, true believers and hypocrites. Like Esau, it is still possible for one to be in the covenant externally but not actually united to Christ through faith.

This is why the writer to the Hebrews includes many warnings in his letter about the necessity of true faith; he doesn’t want his readers to rely solely upon their membership in the visible church. In 3.7-4.11, he reminds them of the Israelites who fell dead in the wilderness; although they belonged to the visible covenant community and heard the gospel, they did not respond to it in true faith. Consequently, they did not enter the Promised Land. The writer deliberately uses this as a warning to the New Testament heirs of the same covenant of grace: “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” (3.12)

Being baptized into the visible church is very important, but every baptized member still has the responsibility of embracing with true faith the promise made to him in his baptism, apart from which he will not enter the eternal Sabbath rest.

Reader Comments (2)

It becomes rather clear as to why most FVers seem to be also paedo-communionists. That connection makes sense to me. It seems they affirm what most Evangelicals I know mistake in our doctrine of the VISIBLE church, namely, that we believe in some sort of baptismal regneration or over-realization of just what covenant membership means or implies, etc. FVers go the whole way of Rome, while the Evangelicals pull way back and under-realize the doctrine of the visible church. "Depending on" membership in the visible church is simply not the same as having a a high view of it.

And there is a parallel to views of the confessions or the confessed propositional truth. Evangelicals make the same mistake, it seems to me, in how they read our high view of the confessions to be "infallible." But that's Rome, not us. A high view is not the same as an infallible one.

Zrim

March 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZrim

Good stuff, Zrim! You're stealing my thunder for my next post!

March 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMike Brown

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>