The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum 'Visible/invisible' Church

Hi all,
I promised William an explanation of my views on the 'visible/invisible' Church. Since the thread we started on has become so large, I thought it might be better to start a new one.

William directed me to a part of Calvin's Institutes where, speaking of the 'Invisible Church', he wrote, '[It] includes not only the saints presently living on Earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world.'

Calvin was doubtless thinking of Heb 12:22-23, and I quite like the concept of being in union, not only with Christians worldwide, but also with the Church in time. I only observe that 'invisible church' is his name for it. It does not appear in the Scriptures.

Calvin continued, 'Often, however, the name 'church' designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth who profess to worship one God and one Christ.' Here I start to have problems. The great majority of the usages of the word ekklesia are for a local church, a specific one such as Corinth, Ephesus, Smyrna etc. It is also used of the whole company of the elect (eg. Eph 5:25ff). However, for the moment, let us move on because Calvin continues, 'In this church are mingled many hypocrits who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance.'

Now in the Church of Geneva and elsewhere at this time, this was undoubtedly true. Every single person born was baptized into the church, and they were presumed to be Christians. Openly professing atheists would have had a hard time in Geneva and Anabaptists a harder one. So inevitably, there was a mass of people in the church who were told that they were Christians, who thought they were Christians, but who were no more born again than a dog. So long as they showed up in church and were outwardly pious and moral, and didn't listen to Calvin's preaching too hard, there was nothing to disturb their consciences. Outward morality was rigidly enforced. Apparently in 1542-46, 58 people were executed and 76 banished in a town of 16,000 inhabitants. The power of the State was extensively used to enforce the edicts of the church. Of course, it had to be, because the majority of the church was unregenerate.

But is this the biblical pattern? I don't think so. Ekklesia means 'that which is called out.' Paul writes, 'To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints' (1Cor 1:2). A little later he says, 'And such were some of you. But you (all of you) were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.' He assumes that everyone in the ekklesia is a born again Christian, and this is the pattern throughout the NT letters. Check it out!

The ekklesia is the bride of Christ. Israel is described as a mixed multitude, an unfaithful wife, a harlot, Oholah and Oholibah, but the Church, never. Of Israel it is said, 'There is [only]a remnant saved by grace', but of the ekklesia it is written, 'We are bound to give thanks to God for you ['all of you'], brethren loved by the Lord, because God, from the beginning chose you for sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth' (2Thes 2:13); and again, 'But you [all of you] have an anointing from the Holy One' (1John 2:20).

Now of course it is true that 'certain men have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4). Paul knew that 'savage wolves will come in among you' (Acts 20:29), but such people are not part of the ekklesia. They are 'spots in your love feast' not to be tolerated in the House of God. 'Take heed!' says Paul; 'watch!'. The Church must be kept pure, so far as in us lies. What we are not to do is to mutilate so dreadfully the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13:24ff) by thinking that the field represents the Church, when our Lord clearly tells us that it is the world.

The church in Geneva fell, just as the English Commonwealth under Cromwell fell, because it tried to impose Christian values upon an unregenerate people (cf. 1Cor 5:12-13). We are the Ekklesia, the Called-out ones. Let us keep our churches pure, 'without fault in the midst of a crooked generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast [KJV: 'holding forth'] the word of life.'

I suspect I may be in a very small minority on this, so I shall back off for a while, and let you guys tear strips off me. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bravo.gif" alt="" />

Blessings to all,
Steve

Hello Steve, <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" />


If Paul is assuming that everyone in the ekklesia is a born again Christian why did he write “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor 13:5).

Paul used the phrase, “To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” and others like it, as a general greeting to the invisible Church within the visible Church (but his letter affected both)–for he himself did not know "everyone" who was saved either, but trusted that some were (like the ones he baptized, et. al)— What else did Paul write to the Corinthians:

God, nor Paul thought that EVERY Corinthian baptized Church member was saved! You have a choice here (1) to say there is lost and saved members in "the Church" with no distinction of visible and invisible and thus understand verses like Matt 16:18; Eph 5:27; Heb 12:23, etc. to speak of the saved and unsaved <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />, or (2) understand the distinction that is clear in Scripture of the visible/invisible Church.

Then what pray tell did they creep into—the bathroom? They crept into the visible Church. Read the first 3 chapters of Revelation—heretics in the visible Church everywhere. But, note not a single heretic was a member of the invisible Church—which are only the elect.

If you do not keep a proper visible/invisible Church distinction then you will never understand the Scriptures. Church (ekklesia) is used several ways in Scripture--and not just as "the called out ones" (i.e. ekklesia is a generic word depending on "who" is assembling. It can also mean the day of assembly. It is used of Israel several times--of whom we know there were lost/saved: Deut 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 4:10; Psa 22:22, 26:12, 35, 35:18; 68:26; 107:32; 149:1, in the LXX).

There is one place though your definition of baptism will work. In Heaven baptism could be an outward sign of an inward reality! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

A Critical Review of A String of Pearls Unstrung: A Theological Journey Into Believers' Baptism

Act 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
Act 8:10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.
Act 8:11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.
Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Act 8:19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Act 8:21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Act 8:24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

Between verses 13 and 20, what was Simon part of? Because his baptism wasn't believers, yet he was recognised as having believed, by profession.

Luk 22:21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Yet it is never mentioned that Judas was ever thought of as anything but part of the visible assembly prior to this time. Just as Israel, some within the church, even professors, are false.

Emphasis mine.


God bless,

william

Church, Church Visible, Church Invisible

The word Church was derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., "the Lord's house"), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship. In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the "Church of England," the "Church of Scotland," etc.

We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:


(1.) It is translated "assembly" in the ordinary classical sense (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

(2.) It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church (Eph. 5:23, 25, 27, 29; Heb. 12: 23).

(3.) A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an eccesia (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15).

(4.) All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church (Acts 13:1); so also we read of the "church of God at Corinth" (1 Cor. 1:2), "the church at Jerusalem" (Acts 8:1), "the church of Ephesus" (Rev. 2:1), etc.

(5.) The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Matt. 16:18) are the church of Christ.

The church visible "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children." It is called "visible" because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of "wheat and chaff," of saints and sinners. "God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church."

A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is "the kingdom of heaven," whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matt. 13. The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents (Gen. 9:9-17; 12:1-3; 17:7; Ex. 20:5; Deut. 29:10-13).

Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. "The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children" (Acts 2:38, 39). The children of believing parents are "holy", i.e., are "saints", a title which designates the members of the Christian church (1 Cor. 7:14). (See Baptism.)

The church invisible "consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof." This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. it is called "invisible" because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who "searches the heart." "The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tnn. 2:19). The church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ's kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.

(1.) Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isa. 49:13-23; 60:1-14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into "their own olive tree" (Rom. 11:18-24; comp. Eph. 2:11-22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were "added" to the "church" already existing (Acts 2:47).

(2.) Its universality. It is the "catholic" church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world.

(3.) Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an "everlasting kindgdom."

(Easton Illustrated Dictionary)


Wes

Thanks for your contributions, chaps.
First of all, ekklesia. Etymologically, thois comes from two words, ek meaning 'out' and kaleo, meaning to call. It is that which is called out. Its secular meaning is seen in Acts 19, those who are called out to a meeting. In Acts 7:38, there is a reference to the ekklesia in the wilderness. This is the only time that the word is used with reference to the people of the Old Covenant. Elsewhere the are called 'Israel after the flesh' or somesuch description. In Acts 7:38, the reference is to those who were called out of Egypt into the wilderness, where God gave them a covenant. In just the same way, Christians are those who have been called out of the world (1John 2:15-17), and led by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:12-14) through the wilderness of this world to the promised land, the City which hath foundations.

Only those who have been effectually called by God are in the ekklesia. You can go on with your human logic as long as you like, but you won't change the facts. To those who think they are in but whose hearts are not changed, our Lord will say, "I never knew you!" Not, "I knew you once but have rejected you," but I never knew you! Not when you were a baby having water splashed on you and a minister mumbling prayers over you, not when you sat in church, nor when you taught Sunday School or anything else you might have done, because your heart was never changed and you never left the world. Not at any time did I know you. You were never in the ekklesia , whatever you might have thought or been told."

Wes,
I'm sure you could have written a much better case or paedo-baptism than the article you posted.

'Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man.'
Not in the New Covenant, they're not (Jer 31:29ff). Nor are they included in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is an adumbration of the NC. 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7- again!). Nor are they in the Davidic Covenant properly understood, but let that pass for the moment.

He quoted Acts 2:38-39; 'The promise is to you and your children and to all that are far off.' OK, what is the promise? That if they repent and are baptized, they will receive remission of sins and the Holy Spirit. Amen! The promise of the NC is, 'Whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.'

He went on, 'The Apostles did not set up a new organization.'
I can't think how he could write this with a straight face! Matt 21:43; Mark 13:2; Acts 6:14.

Finally, he quoted 1Cor 10:1ff (or was it Joe?). Gosh! Is this the covenant you are baptizing your children into? Where their bodies will fall in the wilderness, and they never reach the promised land? God forbid!

Joe posted an article by Gregg Strawbridge. He repeats that most egregious error of ascribing the Parable of the wheat and the tares to the Church, when Our Lord clearly states that it refers to the world. He must surely know how wrong this is; how can he and others keep trotting out this obvious and appalling falsehood. If paedo-baptism depends on this, then it's time to ring down the curtain on it.

He is also wrong on his Greek. I will come back on Matt 28:19 tomorrow, because its past my bedtime.

Blessings to all,
Steve

OK. So we must be elect to be baptised. How do we decide who is elect?


God bless,

william

Steve as you pointed out yourself the term ekklesia has different meanings. But, even if we accept your definition of it as the sole definition you still have the same problem. For Israel itself were the called out ones and they had both lost and saved in their ranks. Of course, dispensationalists do not believe that Israel in the Old Testament was the Church (both lost and saved)! Steve what do you believe?

Steve you have displayed this type of reasoning several times now. So let me ask you some questions: Does London have any “physical” churches in it? Does London have any “physical” people in it? Is London in the world? Are these churches in the world? Are these people in this world? Steve, if the church and its people are still in this world then there are “wheat and tares“ in the church!

Another problem with your interpretation is that you have ALL the WHEAT (saved) OUTSIDE the Church and ONLY in the world. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

I see the 'Visible' church as being everyone who is active in the church. I see the 'invisible' church as the body of saints.

As for Baptism, It is only by God's Grace that we have been called. Where upon we receive Christ as our Lord and are baptised by the Holy Spirit.

Y.B.I.C,

Dave.

The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXVI
Of the Church:

I. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any error everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

It's right there, in the LBC. Underlines, italics and bold, my emphasis. And here in

The Second Helvetic Confession - Chapter XVII
Of the Catholic and Holy Church of God, and of The One Only Head of The Church:

Not All Who Are in the Church Are of the Church. Again, not all that are reckoned in the number of the Church are saints, and living and true members of the Church. For there are many hypocrites, who outwardly hear the Word of God, and publicly receive the sacraments, and seem to pray to God through Christ alone, to confess Christ to be their only righteousness, and to worship God, and to exercise the duties of charity, and for a time to endure with patience in misfortune. And yet they are inwardly destitute of true illumination of the Spirit, of faith and sincerity of heart, and of perseverance to the end. But eventually the character of these men, for the most part, will be disclosed. For the apostle John says; They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would indeed have continued with us (I John 2:19).


God bless,

william

Have we determined that Steve holds to the LBC or the SHC? As I stated before many of the radical reformers (anabaptists) didn't hold to the idea of the visible church. And while I myself do hold to the idea of both invisible and visible church doesn't mean that the idea was accepted all the time by everyone.

No, we have not established that. However, since Steve seemed to be baptist, I was hoping that the LBC might help shed some light on the subject. The LBC has scriptural supports for it's positions below each statement in my REFCON program. I added the SHC because I thought it explained it a bit clearer.


God bless,

william

FYI, I hold loosely to the 1689 Confession, though I actually prefer the 1646 one.

If you look at the 1689 Confession carefully, you'll see that while it talks of 'visible saints', I do not see where it speaks of a visible church. It is a very important difference IMHO.

Blessings,
Steve

Matt 28:19 NKJV: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.'

This post is in reply to the article by Greg Strawbridge that Joe posted. Strawbridge suggested that a better translation would be, 'Disciple all nations, baptizing them.....'. He claimed that 'them' agrees with 'nations.'

'Matheteusate panta ta ethne' could indeed be translated, 'Disciple all the nations' so why do all the serious translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV) not translate it that way? [Obviously, we know by the analogy of scripture that all the nations are not going to become disciples, only certain people out of the nations]

'Ethnos' meaning 'nation' is a neuter noun. In Greek, all adjectives and pronouns have to agree with the noun in number and case. 'Panta ta' agrees in just that way with 'ethne' which is the plural of 'ethnos.' but when we get to 'baptizing them', the word 'autous', which means 'them' is not neuter, it is masculine; therefore the 'them' referred to is not 'all the nations'. If it were then it would be 'auta' to agree with 'ethne'. So who are the 'autous', the 'them'? In the context, it can only be those who have been discipled. It is they, and they alone, who are to be baptized.

This is the reason that all the translations render 'matheteusate pants ta ethne' as 'make disciples of all the nations'; to throw the emphasis on the discipling rather than on the nations, because it is the disciples who are to be baptized and taught.

Blessings to all,
Steve <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" />

Steve,

Clearly you and I are on a different page when we’re talking about the covenant. Since all of your arguments have been addressed in previous replies I’m sure if I were to repeat them it wouldn’t change a thing. Your view that the Apostles set up a new organization speaks volumes about how you see Israel and the Church. Even Dr. Fred Malone who espouses your view admits that the Baptist position is not classic covenant theology.

I hope at least you have gained a better understanding of Reformed Covenant Theology through our dialogue even though you don’t embrace it.


Wes

Wes,
I'm sure you're right that we've flogged this issue to death- for a while at least! Yes, I've found your posts most interesting and enlightening. Although in the heat of debate, I may have written forcefully, let me assure you that I have friends whom I admire greatly in both the Anglican and Congregational churches (no Reformed Presbys within 45 miles of me! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />). You, Joe and William would be eligible for membership and welcome at my church any time you choose to emigrate <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

However, until someone finds those missing verses in Acts where Paul baptizes Cornelius's infant children or 3Timothy where he gives regulations for infant baptism, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be convinced.

Let's move on to something else.

Every blessing,
Steve