New Covenant Community Series
Covenant Theology's Understanding of "Church"
The purposes of God will one day culminate in a people who worship Him for eternity with no possibility of even sinning, much less falling away. However, our present experience illustrates that we have not yet arrived at this reality. Among us we see hypocrites, apostates, and even youths who do not follow the faith of their parents. At the same time, the New Testament says extraordinary things about the Church, her security, and the people among the church. Covenant Theology - most predominantly in its paedobaptist articulation - has attempted to articulate these difficulties through the terminology of the visible and invisible church; however, these are loaded terms which often carry more baggage than biblically warranted.
The following three articles will seek to establish a more biblical way to describe the relationship of who the people of God are to those who merely appear to be the people of God. Eventually, I will contend that understanding the inauguration of God’s purposes among His people will lead us to see more eschatological realities as already present among the people of God than what Covenant Theology’s visible/invisible church distinction intends to convey.
This first article in this series will attempt to summarize the concepts of what covenant theologians mean by the terms visible and invisible church. The second article will establish what I believe to be a better theological formulation of the concepts that “invisible and visible church” attempt to convey. Lastly, I intend to conclude the series by answering a few objections that Covenant Theology has posed to baptist ecclesiology.
As a disclaimer, I will refer to “Covenant Theology” throughout these articles, although it has had significant variety throughout the centuries. Also, in this article I will interact with some central tenets of Covenant Theology while also including some discussion on the Federal Visionists, who may not be considered as covenant theologians by others who claim the moniker.
The following three articles will seek to establish a more biblical way to describe the relationship of who the people of God are to those who merely appear to be the people of God. Eventually, I will contend that understanding the inauguration of God’s purposes among His people will lead us to see more eschatological realities as already present among the people of God than what Covenant Theology’s visible/invisible church distinction intends to convey.
This first article in this series will attempt to summarize the concepts of what covenant theologians mean by the terms visible and invisible church. The second article will establish what I believe to be a better theological formulation of the concepts that “invisible and visible church” attempt to convey. Lastly, I intend to conclude the series by answering a few objections that Covenant Theology has posed to baptist ecclesiology.
As a disclaimer, I will refer to “Covenant Theology” throughout these articles, although it has had significant variety throughout the centuries. Also, in this article I will interact with some central tenets of Covenant Theology while also including some discussion on the Federal Visionists, who may not be considered as covenant theologians by others who claim the moniker.
Israel = Church
Covenant Theology envisions profound continuity in the nature of the covenant community in comparison to other biblical-theological frameworks. While admitting some linguistic and semantic difficulties, Bavinck identifies the universal church as a foundational reality to all times and places whereby the present local church is established.[1] Furthermore, the Covenant of Grace and its Mosaic administration entailed that there were covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers in Israel.
Likewise, once we consider the realities of the New Covenant, Covenant Theology assumes continuity at this point, since - by their reasoning - the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic Covenant does not seem to be refuted by a new administration of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, there may be covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers in the New Covenant Church as well. Akin to Israel, covenant-breakers can be said to “in” the church, but not “of” the church; just like Old Covenant circumcised Jews who did not experience the circumcision of the heart. They partake of the benefits of the covenant community while simultaneously lacking the substance of justification before God. So who is the church then?
Likewise, once we consider the realities of the New Covenant, Covenant Theology assumes continuity at this point, since - by their reasoning - the genealogical principle of the Abrahamic Covenant does not seem to be refuted by a new administration of the Covenant of Grace. Therefore, there may be covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers in the New Covenant Church as well. Akin to Israel, covenant-breakers can be said to “in” the church, but not “of” the church; just like Old Covenant circumcised Jews who did not experience the circumcision of the heart. They partake of the benefits of the covenant community while simultaneously lacking the substance of justification before God. So who is the church then?
The Invisible and Visible Church
John Calvin is the first theologian to use the term “invisible church” in his Institutes of the Christian Religion of 1543 by which he designates the elect of all places and all times.[2] In one sense, one could simply call this the one, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of the Christian Creeds. This distinction becomes important, however, once we consider the presence of covenant-breakers. Due to them being “in” the church but not “of” it, they are both part of the church and not part of the church. Since this reality is not seen, the corporate expression of those truly “of” the church is the invisible church.
One aberration in Covenant Theology, although it is not without historical predecessors, is the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson, a proponent of this system of thought, has argued the following:
One aberration in Covenant Theology, although it is not without historical predecessors, is the Federal Vision. Doug Wilson, a proponent of this system of thought, has argued the following:
Instead of thinking of the elect as composing an invisible Church in hyperspace, we should think of the full number of the elect as composing the eschatological Church – the Church as it will visibly be on the last glorious day of history[…] And rather than thinking of a visible Church, we should think of the historical Church […] This distinction helps us to understand the relationship of unregenerate professing Christians to the Church as well. The Bible teaches clearly that in the historical Church there are fruitless branches (but real branches nonetheless) which will not be there in the eschatological Church.[3]
Doug Wilson
Pastor of Christ's Church in Moscow, Idaho
While Calvin and most of the Reformed Tradition argue for a distinction of partaking of the substance and merely participating in the administration of the covenant, Wilson seems to blur those lines even further. According to him, the fruitless branches are real parts of the historical Christian expression. Thereby, he invites much critique from his reformed brethren since this does not seem too far from Rome. It creates provisional covenant members rather than mere covenant-breakers. The Federal Vision bucks the objective inclusion in election for a kind of provisional election or possibly two kinds of election; I will address this issue shortly.
Scott Clark holds the main Covenant Theology line when he teaches that “there is a distinction to be made between those who have the substance of the covenant of grace, i.e., union with Christ, justification, and sanctification, and those who are in the covenant of grace but who participate only in its external administration.”[4] Thereby, through participation in the ministry of the Word and Sacrament, the covenant-breaker is made visibly a party to the covenant. When this is expanded to a corporate reality and includes the members of the invisible church also present, Covenant Theologians call this the visible church.
Clark also contends that “the Apostles addressed the congregations on the basis of their profession of faith, but they also distinguished those who participated only in the administration of the covenant of grace from those who received its substance.”[5] Therefore, the warning passages of Scripture in particular serve necessary nuances to the passages of Scripture that appear to address all the baptized as among the elect.
Scott Clark holds the main Covenant Theology line when he teaches that “there is a distinction to be made between those who have the substance of the covenant of grace, i.e., union with Christ, justification, and sanctification, and those who are in the covenant of grace but who participate only in its external administration.”[4] Thereby, through participation in the ministry of the Word and Sacrament, the covenant-breaker is made visibly a party to the covenant. When this is expanded to a corporate reality and includes the members of the invisible church also present, Covenant Theologians call this the visible church.
Clark also contends that “the Apostles addressed the congregations on the basis of their profession of faith, but they also distinguished those who participated only in the administration of the covenant of grace from those who received its substance.”[5] Therefore, the warning passages of Scripture in particular serve necessary nuances to the passages of Scripture that appear to address all the baptized as among the elect.
Non-Elect Covenant Members?
Clark takes issue with both Baptists and Federal Visionists when he writes,
It could also be argued that, by rejecting [the distinction of participation and substance], the Federal Vision has made a Baptist mistake. […] Because neither of them can administer the sacrament as a purely external sign and seal, the full benefit of which is to be realized by faith alone, both the Baptist and the Federal Vision must, in different ways, make the recipients of baptism elect.[6]
R. Scott Clark
Professor at Westminster Seminary California
According to Clark’s reasoning, Baptists must objectively baptize only elect persons in order to be consistent with their conviction. The Federal Visionists do claim that there is a substantive present reality but they must bifurcate eternal election from provisional election in order not to become Baptists. Because, if the provisional covenant member has election, justification, and glorification in the same way as the actual covenant member, then the Federal Visionists would either be making a distinction without a difference or returning to Rome.
Excepting the unique position of the Federal Visionists, some reformed theologians seem to fall with Bavinck when he writes, “Unbelievers […] no more constitute the essence of the visible church than of the invisible church.”[7] Contrary to the Federal Visionists, this maintains a consistent soteriological perspective while also maintaining Covenant Theology’s paedobaptistic and mixed ecclesiology. Thereby, the self-deceived church member is not a party to election but is actually a covenant-breaker with regard to the New Covenant.
Excepting the unique position of the Federal Visionists, some reformed theologians seem to fall with Bavinck when he writes, “Unbelievers […] no more constitute the essence of the visible church than of the invisible church.”[7] Contrary to the Federal Visionists, this maintains a consistent soteriological perspective while also maintaining Covenant Theology’s paedobaptistic and mixed ecclesiology. Thereby, the self-deceived church member is not a party to election but is actually a covenant-breaker with regard to the New Covenant.
Conclusion
Hopefully, this exercise has primed myself and the reader to engage in an informed critique of these concepts. I’ve included the debate that Covenant Theology has had with the Federal Visionists in order to highlight the obvious tension inherent to this theological system. Covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers establish a twofold reality among the covenant community. How exactly to articulate this has sparked some debate within even historic Covenant Theology. Some theologians insist on language like “of” the Church (covenant-keepers) and “in” the Church (covenant-breakers). Others prefer the language of participation in the administration (covenant-breaker) vs. partaking of the substance (covenant-keeper). My next article will begin with a biblical theology of the people of God, where our answer to these concepts must begin.
Bibliography
[1] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, edited by John Bolt, translated by John Vriend. 4 vol.Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. Page 301.
[2] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), edited by John T. McNeill, translated by F.L. Battles. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. IV.i.1-9.
[3] Wilson, Douglas. Mother Kirk. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001. Page 24.
[4] Clark, R. Scott. “Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace.” The Confessional Presbyterian 2: 3–19, 2006. Page 5.
[5] Ibid, 15.
[6] Ibid, 15. Emphasis mine.
[7] Bavinck, IV, Page 306. Emphasis mine.
[2] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559), edited by John T. McNeill, translated by F.L. Battles. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. IV.i.1-9.
[3] Wilson, Douglas. Mother Kirk. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001. Page 24.
[4] Clark, R. Scott. “Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace.” The Confessional Presbyterian 2: 3–19, 2006. Page 5.
[5] Ibid, 15.
[6] Ibid, 15. Emphasis mine.
[7] Bavinck, IV, Page 306. Emphasis mine.
