40 Bicycles

An interesting treatment of Calvin's doctrine of the atonement in its relationship to the visible and invisible church is available here. Within this article, John Murray's denial of the visible/invisible church distinction is compared with the position of Calvin. Whilst some of the criticisms of Murray are, in my estimation, a trifle harsh, I believe that they provide an interesting avenue into a profitable discussion. I find that I have sympathies on both sides of the debate. On the one side, I must admit that I substantially agree with Murray's case against the visible/invisible church distinction. On the other side, the content of what I believe approximates more closely to the position of Calvin. Murray's position, as I understand it, is as follows. The church 'visible' cannot be seen as an entity distinct from the church 'invisible'. This is clear from a reading of Chapter 31 of the first volume of his Collected Writings. The church has two aspects 'visible' and 'invisible', but there are not two churches — one 'visible' and the other 'invisible'. There are, however, different ways of formulating a doctrine of the church once you have denied the visible/invisible distinction. Most seem to forget this. Murray's understanding becomes more apparent from a reading of his book, Christian Baptism. Murray writes:—

But the instructive feature of this epistle [1 Corinthians] is that when Paul addressed the church and conceived of it he did not construe the church at Corinth in such terms as would allow for the inclusion, in what he defines as the church, of those persons who might have borne the Christian name and been admitted to the communion of the saints but who were not sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints.

Again,

It is true that hypocrites may secure admission to the church. As we have seen, the very administration which Christ has instituted for the admission of members allows for that. There are disciples who are not truly disciples, and there are branches in the vine which are not vitally and abidingly in the vine. But while we fully recognise this fact we must at the same time distinguish between the constitutive principle in terms of which the church is defined, on the one hand, and the de facto situation arising from the way in which Christ has chosen to administer the affairs of his church in the world, on the other.

Murray's denial of the visible/invisible church distinction certainly goes in a different direction to that of Doug Wilson at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference. The position of Doug Wilson is expressed in Credenda Agenda 15/1 in an article entitled The Objectivity of the Covenant (for a fuller treatment of the question, read chapter 8 of “Reformed” is Not Enough:—

This means, as it has been said, that we are to view election through the lens of the covenant rather than the other way around. Stated another way, it means that there is a difference between decretal election and covenantal election. Decretal election is concerned with the end or telos of the Church—the eschatological Church. Covenantal election includes the Church now, the Church in history. We do not have two elections here; rather, we have election in history with a predestined outcome. When we consider the outcome, we must take into account the decree that settled it. When we consider the process in history, we must take into account the way that God interacts with man in history—which is by means of a covenant.

Wilson continues,

The church is therefore a covenanted body, organically connected to Christ. As a covenant body in history, it contains organic members who are faithful and organic members who are not. The faithful members persevere to the end only because God has decreed it and given it to them. The unfaithful members are cut out because of unbelief. While they experienced grace, they were not given persevering grace.

Again,

This must mean that there is an historic covenant connection to Christ which is genuine and real, and yet not salvific at the Last Day. The fruitless branches had sap flowing through them—the same gracious sap that the fruitful branches received. They tasted the heavenly gift—and in their unbelief they spit it out.

He concludes,

Such individuals who fall are covenantally elect because they are true members of the elect Body. But they are not what historic Reformed theology calls (and what I call) “the elect” because God has not foreordained that they will be standing before Him in His grace on the Last Day.

Instead of thinking in terms of the categories of the invisible Church and the visible Church, perhaps we can make better sense of all this if we think of the historical Church and the eschatological Church. The covenant breakers who fall away will never be members of the eschatological Church at the Last Day. The bride that day is without spot or blemish. But what do these covenant breakers fall away from? They fall away from the historical Church, of which they are true members.

What is meant by this phrase true members? Are they true members in every sense? Not at all—if they were, then they would persevere by faith. Think of an unfaithful husband, cheating on his wife. Is he a true husband? Yes and no. He is an untrue husband in that he is breaking his covenant vows. He is false in this sense. But he is a true husband in the sense that he is really married. He is a true husband—he is as truly married as his faithful counterpart. If we were to say that his adultery meant that he was a husband in no sense of the word, then this means he is not really committing adultery.

Now we who are baptized are covenantally members of Christ. What should we do—by faith? We should make our calling and election sure. We should persevere to the end. We should resist sin to the shedding of blood. We should labor to enter that rest. We should keep in memory what was preached, unless we have indeed believed in vain. And all this should be done by faith, in faith, through faith, and unto faith.

This certainly differs in its emphasis from the position maintained by Murray. Murray, in his denial of the visible/invisible distinction shifts the weight of the doctrine in the ‘invisible’ and ‘subjective’ direction, whilst Wilson moves the doctrine in to the more ‘visible’ and ‘objective’ direction. There are many factors that contribute to these respective tendencies. I would argue that, in Murray’s theology, eternal election exerts a more controlling influence, whilst Wilson’s theology emphasizes the temporal covenant as the starting point. A further factor could be underlying philosophical tendencies (Wilson’s thought moves in a more realistic direction, Murray’s in a more conceptualist direction). The doctrines of union with the Messiah and imputation can be seen as the ‘shibboleths’, by which we can establish where someone stands in relation to many of these issues (read Mark Horne’s fantastic article, Real Union or Legal Fiction?). Murray’s view can be seen in his discussion of the efficacy of baptism in Christian Baptism:—

It is apparent that as a sign or seal it should not be identified with that with which is signified and sealed. That which signifies is not the thing signified and that which seals is not the thing sealed. The sign or seal presupposes the existence of that which is signified or sealed. Hence baptism is the sign and seal of a spiritual reality which is conceived of as existing. Where that reality is absent the sign or seal has no efficacy.

Equally pertinent is the observation that the sign or seal does not bring into existence that which is signified or sealed. It does not effect union with Christ. In other words, baptism does not convey or confer the grace which it signifies…

In Murray’s theology, contrary to the theology of some paedobaptists, baptism is the sign and seal of nothing less than the covenant of grace, and not of mere ‘external’ blessings. However, the recipient of baptism may only be in an ‘external’ covenant relationship. Murray is shying away from the idea that an unbelieving person can in any sense be a member of the covenant of grace. Wilson’s position differs sharply from Murray’s. Wilson agrees with Murray in claiming that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. However, Wilson differs in asserting that there is an objective efficacy to baptism (using the analogy of marriage). In some sense baptism does work ex opere operato (though it is probably not helpful to use such terminology). Baptism really does accomplish something. Murray has distanced the sign and the thing signified. Wilson, holding what I believe to be a more Calvinistic position, marries the two, whilst maintaining important distinctions. In the Lord’s Supper all — believer and unbeliever alike — are truly offered the real body of Christ, exhibited in the elements. However, those who lack faith are like men without mouths. The grace is real, and the grace is really given to them, but they do not profit from it as we can only partake by faith. Likewise in baptism: all baptized individuals are, in that act, brought into a real covenant relationship with Jesus the Messiah (here I go further than Calvin). Nevertheless, if they are to benefit from this gracious relationship, they must abide in the relationship by faith. So what do I make of Calvin’s use of the visible/invisible distinction? I think that the terminology is unhelpful, whilst the truth it is used to maintain is essential — an indisciplined guard for a precious treasure, as it were. The bifurcation that this terminology can result in is not apparent in Calvin himself. Calvin’s doctrine of the church has been one of the most formative influences in the development of my own thinking on the subject. Any doctrine of the church is correlative to a doctrine of the sacraments. Calvin’s doctrine of the objectivity of the sacraments provides a way for us to understand the related doctrine of the church (and many other doctrines, including the relationship between the limited atonement and the free offer of the gospel). Calvin’s belief in the objectivity of the church is nowhere more clearly expressed than in his Strasbourg catechism:—

Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name? Child: Yes, my father. Teacher: How is this known to you? Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.