His blog doesn’t like long comments. Therefore, I am going to have to post my response here.
Well, DW, I would have to say that a lot of the issue (it seems to me) depends on the definition of “visible.” Does the church have to be immediately seeable in the present in order to count as visible? We have lots of history books that allow us to see the visible church of the past. Therefore, the visible church is always visible to us, if not by immediate vision, at least with the eyes of history. Yeah, sure, it takes some digging and reading. But we can attain a vision of the visible church of the past. Otherwise, why would seminaries teach church history? Now, I know your next comment (maybe): “you used the term ‘history’ to describe the visible church: therefore ‘historical’ is better. The main problem with using (exclusively, for the distinction itself is perfectly legit) the historical/eschatological distinction is that it does not describe the present church as mixed. Now, to be fair, you have described the historical church with considerably more careful qualifications than other FVers have (I am especially thinking of Wilkins here). However, if one uses this distinction exclusively, the mixed character of the church will be obscured. Think of the parable of the dragnet, for example (Matthew 13:47-50). The term “historical” simply doesn’t capture the essence of that parable, imo. The terms “visible” and “invisible” do a much better job here. It describes explicitly the fact that there are fish now in the historical church, and that there is trash now in the historical church. The term “historical,” all by itself, indicates to me more the undifferentiated nature of the visible church, while the visible/invisible distinction (which is a different distinction, btw) indicates the mixed nature of the current church. Therefore, I would hesitate (to put it mildly) to use the term “clunky” to describe the visible/invisible church distinction.
DW, you have not dealt adequately with Andy’s point about LC 65: only members of the invisible church enjoy union and communion with the living God. They are, after all, special benefits. That word means “applying only to that particular group.” This is one of the most powerful arguments against the FV. Members of the visible church who are not elect do not enjoy union and communion with God.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Stewart said,
April 9, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Since it’s just your opinion that Wilson’s terms are unhelpful, is it really worth categorizing it as heresy?
Andy Gilman said,
April 9, 2007 at 1:50 pm
One of the points I hope was made clear in my earlier post, was that either the Westminster Standards contain an embarrassing self-contradiction with regard to the visible/invisible church, or else Doug Wilson has misinterpreted the WCF when he says:
[begin quote]
…if you want to have the invisible church existing “in history,” in a way that is distinct from the visible church, then you are out of accord with the Confession. That is because the invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect.” A partial number of the elect is not the invisible church because it is not the whole number of them.
[end quote]
In Doug’s reply to my criticism over on his blog, he doesn’t make clear which of the above he thinks it is. Are the Standards self-contradictory on this matter, or has he interpreted a phrase of the WCF out of context? If Doug thinks the Standards are self-contradictory, can he give any evidence that his interpretation is what the Westminster divines intended, or can he give an example of another WCF commentator who interprets WCF 25:1 the way he does?
There is more I want to say in response to Doug’s reply, but his website seems to be down at the moment and I want to read his reply again to make sure I’m not misquoting him.
Andy Gilman said,
April 9, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Since Doug’s blog is back up, here is something else Doug said which I want to comment on:
[begin quote]
Now, having said this, I agree with Andy’s point about the definition of the visible church in the Westminster Confession. It is an abstraction. But this does not hurt my point at all — it reinforces it. If my point is that the language of visible church and invisible church is clunky, how does it undermine my point to show another area where it clunks?
Andy said this, “My point is that the ‘visible church’ according to the WCF definition is no less an abstraction than is the ‘invisible church.'” But Andy, Lane . . . anybody! Doesn’t this reveal that according to this definition the visible church is just as invisible as the invisible church is? When we use a descriptive adjective like visible, it naturally raises the questions, “Visible to whom? From what vantage? When is it visible? Who can see it?” If the answer is that only God can see the visible church, and this is what we have set up by definition, wouldn’t it be good to find a phrase that points to the same group of people, but does not mislead in this way? To define it in a way that combines the limited perspective of human eyes, but then extend it way past the point where human eyes can take it in, is, it seems to me, clunky. I say this while agreeing that the elect deserve the name of the true Church, the ultimate Church, the real Church . . . dare I say it? the eschatological Church. I say this while agreeing that there are people who do not have a connection to this ultimate Church, but who have professed the true religion and are attached to the Church in time and in history. Let’s call them the historical church.
[end quote]
Doug concludes, that to recognize both the visible and the invisible church as abstract concepts is only to reinforce his point, and to somehow acknowledge that the language is “clunky.” Therefore, to use a descriptive adjective like “visible” naturally raises questions, but to use a descriptive adjective like “historical” is somehow less abstract and clunky.
But the adjective “historical” clarifies nothing, and since we are trying to speak to each other from a reformed confessional background, it only introduces confusion into the discussion. For example, when Doug talks about the historical church, I don’t know if he means what is traditionally described as the “church militant,” or if he means the institutional church? Does he mean what we mean when we say “visible church,” i.e., “all those throughout the whole world who profess the true religion, and their children,” or is the “historical church” comprised of all institutional bodies which call themselves “Christian?” Doug’s revision introduces more problems than it solves.
But speaking of abstractions as “clunky” I thought this quote from Doug’s paper on “Union with Christ” in the Knox Colloquium was a nice contrast:
[begin quote]
As we see it, the danger of systematic theology lies not in the fact of it, for rational and intelligent discourse is impossible apart from such summarization and abstraction. The danger lies in any process whereby such abstractions place themselves beyond the correction of Scripture.
[end quote]
As I’ve stated now in several posts, I think Doug at least feels the tension between the “Union with Christ” paradigm being championed by the FV, and Westminster’s insistence that “union with Christ” is for the elect only. Therefore, the “invisible church” is an abstraction which needs the “correction of Scripture,” and needs to be replaced by a new abstraction.
Tim Wilder said,
April 10, 2007 at 11:55 am
If the purpose of the terminology of “visible” and “invisible” is to distinguish what appears from two different perspectives, name that of man and that of God, and if we need, for theological and exegetical purposes, to refer to these perspectives, then it does not help to do away with this vocabulary.
The visible church is not all visible to me, because some of is in the third century, for example, and some of it today is in China. But it is still different the the church as seem by God who knows the heart and his elective purposes.
The problems of defining the visible church are inherent in the concept, namely that of what appears to man. For man, as he judges appearances, does see clearly or judge consistently, but he is not given the option of ignoring his responsibilities with this as a pretext. The concept is necessary, and it achieves nothing to abuse the concept because of its inherent difficulties.
The real problem with the Federal Vision and this concept is that the visible/invisible distinction gets at something that the FV people don’t like. When in the end the sheep and goats are separated, it will not correspond to the groups marked out by the clergy and their application of their ceremonies and judgments. Many goats will have “looked to their baptisms” for assurance of salvation, and will turn out to have been wrong.
Stewart said,
April 10, 2007 at 12:03 pm
“Many goats will have “looked to their baptisms” for assurance of salvation, and will turn out to have been wrong.”
Tim, many goats will have looked at their subjective feelings for the assurance of salvation, and will turn out to have been wrong.
markhorne said,
April 10, 2007 at 12:12 pm
It is impossible for me not to find the opposition boiling down to this: Many who will have thought they trusted God’s promises will find they have not trusted God’s promises.
Anti-FV theology provides no assurance at all.
Tim Wilder said,
April 10, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I hit a nerve.
tim prussic said,
April 10, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I think that both GB and DW are making helpful qualifications and distinctions with regard to our non-inspired descriptions of the church.
I partially agree with GB’s case above that the visible/invisible (v/iv) terminology is, by nature, more clearly expressive of the mixed nature of the historical church, but it only goes so far. The v/iv jargon needs clarification, too. If, for instance, I just utter the words “visible” and “invisible” to unread folks, they’ll simply think: “The church I see and the church I can’t see. Now, what in the heck is the church I can’t see?”
In any event, why couldn’t “historical” be defined as the mixed body of those baptized in history (or something like that)? Also, the historical/eschatological (h/e) has the advantage (which I think DW has been after from the beginning) of clearly and easily showing the unity of the visible church with the invisible. In other words, when all the dead branches are cut off and all the elect brances are grafted in, that will be the invisible church made quite visible in history – head for head all the elect and no one else. I think the h/e is just as helpful and not helpful and the v/iv. Let’s use them all with clarity of expression.
What I’m driving at is that all our adjectives are in dire need of explanation. They’re all so theologically charged that they need to be unpacked and shown to reflect biblical notions.
tim prussic said,
April 10, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Tim W. – If a man cannot see Christ in his baptism, he won’t see him in the preached promises of God either. The elect man coming to faith will begin to see Christ through ALL the means of grace, and will grow in that. The non-elect will not find Christ in ANY of the means of grace. I don’t think I’ve read any FVers (not even the radical ones) that say ceremonies and judgments of the clergy will be the line between the sheep and goats at the last day. If they have said something so insane, would you please provide some evidence?
You didn’t hit a nerve so much as you are just replaying a hyperbolic misconeption. It’s that kind of verbage that keeps us from moving forward.
Stewart said,
April 10, 2007 at 2:08 pm
TP, I have found both distinctions helpful. But what I like about the h/e is that it avoids the tendency to Gnosticize (is that a word?) the concept of the church. I have had discussions with well educated Presbyterians who see the invisible church as the *real* church and the visible church as sort of a card board popup. Now don’t get me wrong, I like the v/iv stuff just fine, and everything the WCF has to say about is accurate. I just think that in our Enlightenment saturated church culture, people tend to do nasty things with it. Many average church folks interpret Christianity through the lens of Greek dualism, and when they run across the visible/invisible distinctions, they (wrongly) place it in that framework. Now what I like about Doug Wilson is that it takes this problem seriously and addresses it head on.
greenbaggins said,
April 10, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Mark, this is ridiculous. Scads of FV critics say that we can find assurance in many places, baptism included. What we will *not* say is that assurance is based entirely on something we can see. That rather vitiates the nature of faith, since faith is by definition in something that we cannot see (Hebrews 11:1). The visual signs are God’s condescending mercy to our *weak* faith. He knows that we need visual signs. But that is not faith’s true nature.
So, Mark, why is baptism not mentioned in the WCF chapter on assurance, and plenty of subjective things are? Do you take an exception to that chapter? According to WCF 18.2, it is founded on the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the *inward* (take note, Mark) evidence of those graces…the testimony of the Spirit of adoption and the seal of the Spirit (which happens at the time point of faith, as Ephesians 1:13-14 clearly shows). Baptism is not mentioned, Mark. Of course, I firmly believe that baptism is *a* means of grace and assurance. But it is not *the* means of grace and assurance. Just because modern individualism has gone haywire in its navel-gazing doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit doesn’t give us inward evidence that results in assurance. So your comment, to use your own language of an earlier comment, is a flaming lie.
tim prussic said,
April 10, 2007 at 5:25 pm
GB and Mark, is not the external the usual route to the internal? Do we not gain the internal seal, adoption and testimony of the Spirit from the church through word and sacrament? Does not the church minister these things externally so that the Spirit would make use of those ordinary means of grace to work it all internally as well? This seems to me fairly basic Christian theology.
Let us avoid the internal/external false dichotomy. The internal is primary, the external functionary. The internal (ordinarily) necessitates the external, while the external can occur without the internal. Thus, those denying the external logically deny themselves the internal. While, on the contrary, those latching onto the external with no mind to the internal loose both.
It seems very easy to fall into a gnostic-type error when thinking through these things.
markhorne said,
April 11, 2007 at 5:46 pm
So, Mark, why is baptism not mentioned in the WCF chapter on assurance, and plenty of subjective things are? Do you take an exception to that chapter?
—————-
The fact that baptism is given (along with the LS) to confirm our interest in Christ is mentioned in a different chapter. The Confession is binary. You either agree with it or not. Just because something isn’t mentioned under the heading of “assurance” doesn’t vitiate a statement about assurance.
“Inward evidence” simply means knowledge that one believes. And I certainly think people should be without assurance if they don’t repent and trust in God.
I think I’ve affirmed many means of grace many times (in the process of defending what many would consider FV distinctives, but I simply hold to be Reformed Theology). I think your attributing denials to me to make yourself feel better. I gave my take on one quotation. Your response should be to deny the consequence or deny that it really applies to “anti-FV.” Not make up ideas about me.
The bottom line in terms of the quotation I was responding to: no “goat” improves on his baptism, only the “sheep” do so.
greenbaggins said,
April 11, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Mark, what I was referring to was your completely outrageous statement: “Anti-FV theology provides no assurance at all.” Would you care to, like, completely retract such a ludicrous statement, since it bears no resemblance to the facts?
BOQ Just because something isn’t mentioned under the heading of “assurance” doesn’t vitiate a statement about assurance. EOQ
This completely misunderstands my argument. 1. I believe that baptism is *a* means of assurance. 2. I believe that baptism is not the only (nor the primary) means of assurance. 3. The WCF teaches that examination of oneself is not necessarily morbid introspection. 4. Inward examination of one’s faith can produce assurance, since what one is looking for is the Holy Spirit’s work in one’s life.
What you utterly failed to prove is the assertion (groundless and without any proofs whatsoever) that anti-FV theology provides no assurance at all. You really need to retract this, as it is absurd and insulting to the vast majority of PCA ministers.
Todd said,
April 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“Would you care to, like, completely retract such a ludicrous statement, since it bears no resemblance to the facts?”
This blog doesn’t have such a great track record for retractions.
markhorne said,
April 11, 2007 at 7:19 pm
“What you utterly failed to prove is the assertion (groundless and without any proofs whatsoever) that anti-FV theology provides no assurance at all. You really need to retract this, as it is absurd and insulting to the vast majority of PCA ministers.”
But it was an ad absurdum argument against mocking and falsely portraying the call to improve on one’s baptism. What is missing here is some sort of agreed-upon definition of “faith” and “presumption.” Baptism can be no means of assurance whatsoever if it will only mislead into presumption.
I certainly not talking about “the vast majority of PCA ministers” since over and over again such majorities have welcomed me as a brother, unlike you. I am talking about where overblown rhetoric denigrating baptism ultimately leads.
I appreciate your much better words, but they weren’t the words I was responding to.
Douglas Wilson said,
April 11, 2007 at 10:04 pm
All, sorry for joining this party late. I have busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger. But let me clarify just a bit more. I don’t believe that the h/e distinction should be used to the exclusion of all others. But I would like to move it more toward the center, and provide the necessary qualifications through additional distinctions (v/i, and so on), along with explanations of what I mean by “historical” and “eschatological.” I think I have been clear about the latter — I mean the elect, chosen by God by name before all worlds. And by historical, I do not mean the ecclesiastical bureaucracy, but rather those who profess the true religion, together with their children. This latter understanding of historical includes the same group of people (the regenerate and the unregenerate) that the visible church does. It just doesn’t define them by one of the five senses. Throughout the history of the historical church, there have been those who are effectually and salvifically united to Christ. There are the others who are not. One biblical way of describing this latter condition is that of external connection. But there are other metaphors as well — the one thing that matters is that none of the metaphors implies final salvation.
greenbaggins said,
April 12, 2007 at 10:06 am
BOQ Baptism can be no means of assurance whatsoever if it will only mislead into presumption. EOQ Like I said this. Where have I ever said that baptism will only mislead into presumption? Find one single cotton-picking example, please. For someone who hates to be misrepresented, and claims that it happens all the time, the goose-gander thing ought to apply here. This is asgross a misrepresentation as any of the purported misrepresentations of the critics! BOQ overblown rhetoric denigrating baptism EOQ Like I did this. Where are you pulling these things from, Mark? The air is so thin as to be a complete vacuum where you pulled this from. BOQ I appreciate your much better words. EOQ They are no different from what I have said many times before. You have a striking penchant for trying to change the subject. Your claim is that anti-FV theology provides no assurance whatsoever. You still have said nothing on this score, except that it was a reaction against other words. But you have not said what those words are against which you are reacting.
DW, thanks for commenting. I have a question for you. (I have just finished reading RINE, and have started on MK). It has to do with the article in Federal Vision that you wrote. In the comment immediately above, you seem to acknowledge that the h/e distinction is not the same distinction as the v/i distinction. Is this a fair representation of (part of) what you’re saying? I am therefore puzzled at page 265, where you seem to equate the two distinctions. Ecclesia militans/ecclesia triumphans is by no means the same distinction as v/i. Could you clarify this point for me? Thanks.
Douglas Wilson said,
April 12, 2007 at 4:44 pm
GB, I am using h/e to refer to the same people, with the same distinctions, that are found in the v/i church. The difference is that I push the v/i distinction over on its side, so that the whole thing is located in history, and at the end of history. The Romanist understanding of ecclesia militans/triumphans is not what I am talking about. However, that terminology could easily be retrofitted in a classical Protestant way, simply by recognizing that history reveals election — history does not shape or determine election. So if you had a robust Augustinian talking about militans/triumphans, I would be cool with that. In other words, what do you get when you cross a high Calvinist evangelicalism with ecclesia militans/triumphans? You get h/e. What do you get when you cross semi-Pelagianism with militans/triumphans? You get modern evangelicalism.
Tim Wilder said,
April 13, 2007 at 11:06 am
Re: Wilson #17
“It just doesn’t define them by one of the five senses. Throughout the history of the historical church, there have been those who are effectually and salvifically united to Christ. There are the others who are not. One biblical way of describing this latter condition is that of external connection. But there are other metaphors as well — the one thing that matters is that none of the metaphors implies final salvation.”
The problem, though is that the perspective from the five senses is important. The visible church, the church from man’s point of view, needs to be contrasted with the invisible church, the church from God’s point of view. This is because men are often wrong, and the things that they do ecclesiastically, including the administration of sacraments and discipline, is done on the basis of their deficient five senses–at best, because their biases and bad ideas all corrupt matters–point of view, and is frequently mistaken, and sometimes malicious.
People, especially elders, need to be reminded that they are operating from insufficient information, so that they will make mistakes. This is the point the the FV people don’t want made. But it is the point that shows that the priorities and emphases of the FV are wrong, and that the FV is a move in the wrong direction.
Andy Dollahite said,
April 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Tim Wilder,
Regarding #20: You said that the visible church needs to be distinguished from the invisible church. You then imply that by using the five senses men have abused sacraments and discipline. Because of these abuses, elders must be reminded that they don’t know it all. You close by asserting that this is something the FV doesn’t want to acknowledge.
Your argument is confusing to me for at least two reasons. One, the FV does maintain a difference between those known perfectly to God (the elect), and those who profess the true religion, together with their children. As they often point out, the secret things belong to the Lord, but the revealed things belong to them and their children. Furthermore, because they readily acknowledge that they operate from insufficient information (they don’t know the secret things) it is the FV who wants the church to be more gracious in its distribution of communion and less caustic in our accusations against the brethren. On the other side, I recall reading within the last six months someone from the URC state that their church wouldn’t serve communion to John Piper. How in the world is that not exactly the type of abuse we should be avoiding.
Todd said,
April 13, 2007 at 4:24 pm
More retraction talk from Wes White:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=3761&data=2212#PostLogin
Todd said,
April 13, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“Doug, I agree with you that the word “external” does not completely describe their situation (cf. Heb. 6:4-6, which I believe refers to members of the visible Church who apostatize). You affirm the distinction that I asked you about. Are you willing to apply the visible/invisible Church distinction to said distinction, such that invisible applies to all those who are generate (Rom. 2:28-29) and visible to all those who profess the true faith? I’m sorry to go on like this, but I meant to make that more clear in my original post. And, yes, Todd, if Doug Wilson is willing to apply the visible/invisible distinction to the distinction that I mentioned in my question, then I will retract publicly, hopefully, on Lane’s blog.”
Andy Gilman said,
April 13, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Speaking of retractions, is Doug going to retract this?:
[BOQ]
…if you want to have the invisible church existing “in history,” in a way that is distinct from the visible church, then you are out of accord with the Confession. That is because the invisible church “consists of the whole number of the elect.” A partial number of the elect is not the invisible church because it is not the whole number of them.
[EOQ]