In the last section of this article, the author discussed the general perception that the notion of an invisible church was influenced by the classical doctrine of predestination. He was concerned that the idea of election incapable of outward validation is incompatible with biblical injunction to remain in Christ, demonstrated by fruitfulness in righteous living (John 15:4-5). Favoring a corporate view of election, divine election unto salvation should be viewed as belonging to the covenant community, rather than isolated individuals.
There are significant implications to these ecclesial proposals: Firstly, although people are not Christians by outward association with the covenant community, they cannot be Christians if “they do not identify with the corporate body in the sacrament of baptism, in regular worship, and in the fellowship of the risen Christ in the sacrament of holy communion”. Mere intellectual assent without outward demonstration is as salvific as an “invisible ark” in the middle of a flood.
Secondly, it checks the bane of ‘lone-ranger Christianity’ where people claim to belong to an invisible church but have little concern for the visible actions of discipline by church authorities who act as God’s representatives (Heb 13:17).
Overall, I find the article helpful in articulating some possible theological reasons why many Protestant Christians have a low emphasis on ecclesiology. Today, the phenomenon of ‘church shopping’ is commonplace and discipline is difficult to enforce as a disgraced leader could just pack and join another church down the street. The author communicated his ideas with generous quotations from Reformed creeds and technical terms that would be appropriate for a scholarly readership. A non-Reformed reader may have issues with presuppositions about the continuity of the OT/NT church and predestination that he took for granted. However, I felt that his case would be stronger if he unpacked how an invisible church differs from the ‘remnant church’, a term he preferred, leaving the impression that it could be a semantic squabble.
The only difference seems to lie in the assertion that the remnant church would publicly demonstrate “demonstrates election in saving union with Christ through abiding in him and bringing forth fruit for his glory”. I doubt the classical formulation of the ‘invisible church’ would deny that the elect would bear visible fruit, but the issue lies in our inability to see the intentions and motives underlying the visible actions of the ‘remnant’. Only the Lord infallibly knows those who are His (2 Tim 2:19). Although the visible marks of the true church are necessary, it does not guarantee our ability to discern anyone’s spiritual status with absolute certainty. However, it needs to be said that if a person is unrepentantly living in rebellion against God, then he could not seek recourse in belonging to a supposedly ‘invisible church’.
There are significant implications to these ecclesial proposals: Firstly, although people are not Christians by outward association with the covenant community, they cannot be Christians if “they do not identify with the corporate body in the sacrament of baptism, in regular worship, and in the fellowship of the risen Christ in the sacrament of holy communion”. Mere intellectual assent without outward demonstration is as salvific as an “invisible ark” in the middle of a flood.
Secondly, it checks the bane of ‘lone-ranger Christianity’ where people claim to belong to an invisible church but have little concern for the visible actions of discipline by church authorities who act as God’s representatives (Heb 13:17).
Overall, I find the article helpful in articulating some possible theological reasons why many Protestant Christians have a low emphasis on ecclesiology. Today, the phenomenon of ‘church shopping’ is commonplace and discipline is difficult to enforce as a disgraced leader could just pack and join another church down the street. The author communicated his ideas with generous quotations from Reformed creeds and technical terms that would be appropriate for a scholarly readership. A non-Reformed reader may have issues with presuppositions about the continuity of the OT/NT church and predestination that he took for granted. However, I felt that his case would be stronger if he unpacked how an invisible church differs from the ‘remnant church’, a term he preferred, leaving the impression that it could be a semantic squabble.
The only difference seems to lie in the assertion that the remnant church would publicly demonstrate “demonstrates election in saving union with Christ through abiding in him and bringing forth fruit for his glory”. I doubt the classical formulation of the ‘invisible church’ would deny that the elect would bear visible fruit, but the issue lies in our inability to see the intentions and motives underlying the visible actions of the ‘remnant’. Only the Lord infallibly knows those who are His (2 Tim 2:19). Although the visible marks of the true church are necessary, it does not guarantee our ability to discern anyone’s spiritual status with absolute certainty. However, it needs to be said that if a person is unrepentantly living in rebellion against God, then he could not seek recourse in belonging to a supposedly ‘invisible church’.
Comments