Credo Ut Intelligam

Nupta Electa

I hope you all understand how jocular I was being in my last post. Life is too short for arguing, seriously, about whether or not so-and-so's essay, the substance of which I affirm, had an insufficient emphasis on this or that point. If I seemed to be doing that, it was only for the fun of calling Doug Wilson (of all people) baptistic! But behind my jocularity there was a serious point. The truth that, in the Lord's supper, we feed upon the very body and blood of Christ is a truth I care very much about. And I am sad that this truth is not taught in our churches (I only discovered it by reading Calvin). Of course, it isn't Doug Wilson who is leading the way in this forgetfulness of our theological tradition. Quite the contrary. When it comes to sacramental theology, Wilson and the other FVers are leading the way in exposing and correcting such forgetfulness. So, in my last post, I was really (if you can belive it) expressing my appreciation for FV theology. In this post, I want to continue expressing my appreciation for FV theology, this time in the area of ecclesiology and election.

Like FV proponents, I want to emphasize the importance of the church-which-is-visible, and like them I have concerns about the term "invisible church". The WCF defines the invisible church as the totality of the elect. Now, the distinction between the elect and the reprobate is very important, and I would stand against any attempt to downplay or deemphasize it. But I don't think it is helpful to speak of elect pagans as belonging, in any sense, to the church. They will belong to the church in future, but they do not belong to the church now. They must first be regenerated (and they will be, for God has chosen them before the creation of the world to be regenerated), and they must be joined to the visible church, normally through baptism (and they will be, for God has chosen them before the creation of the world to be members of his bride). But even regenerate persons who have not yet been baptized are not yet members of the church -- at least, not full members. They are spiritually alive, and thus eminently fit for church membership. But they do not actually become members until they are baptized. Moreover, every regenerate person will be (sooner or later) joined to the body, and glorified with her. And no unregenerate person will be a member of the church when she is glorified.

The WCF states that the invisible church is the bride of Christ. This is not exactly false -- after all, on the day of the wedding, the invisible and the visible church will be coterminous. But it is, I think, problematic. It suggests that that body of persons who compose the invisible church is currently the bride of Christ, and that no other body of persons is. And the problem with this is twofold. First, the members of the invisible church do not currently compose any body of persons, nor will they till judgement day. Talking about the invisible church is an abstract way of talking about all of the elect, but the elect do not currently compose a corporate unity. Secondly there is a body of persons that is not the invisible church and that is the bride of Christ. The visible church is a corporate unity (distinct in membership from the invisible church) that is, right now, the bride of Christ. She herself, and no other. On the day of the wedding, any nonelect member of the visible church will be removed from her, and any elect non-member of the visible church will be joined to her, at which point it will still be she and no other who will be wed to Christ: she, the visible church, who will then be coterminous with the so-called "invisible church". This makes it clear that even unregenerate persons who have been baptized (and who have not apostatized) are really part of the bride of Christ -- that's how important baptism is, and that's why it is so important for Christians to be baptized. But just because you are in the church now doesn't mean you will be tomorrow, or at judgement day. Not so with election. Election is irrevocable.

I allow for both corporate and individual senses of "election". The elect body is the visible church. Her election is irrevocable. The bride of Christ cannot lose her corporate salvation. She will certainly be saved. But that doesn't mean that every individual in her will be saved. They will be saved only if they remain in her (and just because you haven't been formally excommunicated when you die doesn't mean God won't remove you from his church at judgement).

Individuals are also elect. Their election is irrevocable. No one whom God has chosen before the creation of the world can fail to be saved. But what does that "salvation" consist in? It consists (among other things) in their being joined to the totus Christus, head and body. The WCF says that outside of the visible church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. I agree. I would even be willing to say it without the "ordinary": Outside of the visible church there is no possibility of salvation. But I would add that God may join someone to the visible church at the last day, even if that person had not joined the church in his lifetime.

I would not follow some FV proponents in speaking of individual church members who are not predestined for glory as "elect" in a revocable sense. It's latin etymology makes "election" unavoidably a technical theological term. If Scripture speaks of such individuals as being in some sense "chosen", then use the anglo word "chosen". God certainly "chose" that they would belong, temporarily, to the visible church. But they are not among the "elect." This is a matter of terminology, though, not substance. As for substance, I'm agreeing with FV here.