Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2024 15:20:25 GMT -5
The Distinction Between the Visible and Invisible Church and Paedobaptist Polemics
Austin Cox
Jul 06, 2024
Introduction
The question at the heart of the dispute over infant baptism is whether or not God considers the infant seed of believers to be in His Church. In popular paedobaptist polemics, great stress is put on the external or “visible” dimension of the Church as defined as the mixed company of professors and their children, bound to God by the covenant of grace. There are men who are truly in the covenant of grace who fail to receive the substance of what that covenant promises. In the paedobaptist schema, the covenant which constitutes Christ’s Church has been variously revealed through redemptive history as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New covenants. Because God included the infant seed of believers in His Church in the days of Abraham, paedobaptists argue that we have every reason to believe the infant seed of believers are still included in the Church today. B.B. Warfield summarizes the argument succinctly: “The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances.”[1]
Thanks for reading Austin’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Type your email...
Subscribe
The purpose of this paper is to contrast the visible/invisible Church distinction as it is commonly articulated in paedobaptist polemics with a Reformed Baptist perspective. This is first pursued by noting divergent views on this distinction within the Reformed tradition. The Reformed Baptist position is then seen to be in basic continuity with one of these Reformed views.
A Brief Survey of Reformed Views
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711)
The Christian’s Reasonable Service was a popular systematic theology text among the Dutch Reformed churches and was translated into English by Bartel Elshout in 1993. In the second volume, à Brakel begins by defining the church:
The Church is a holy, catholic, Christian congregation, consisting of true believers only, who by the Holy Spirit have been called through the Word of God, are separate from the world, and are united to their Head and each other with a spiritual bond, and thus are united in one spiritual body. All of this is manifested by a true confession of Christ and of His truth, and in striving against their and Christ’s enemies, doing battle with spiritual weapons under the command of their Head Jesus Christ to the glory of God and their salvation.[2]
Of the unconverted, à Brakel contends that they “are not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church. They alone are members of the church, regardless of how one views them.”[3] And, in case one had any doubts, he states emphatically, “the unconverted, I repeat, are not true members of the church.”[4]
À Brakel notes that some hold to a conception of the visible/invisible church distinction that places unbelievers in the “external” or “visible” church, but he denounces the view as “erroneous” and “generating many confusing thoughts and expressions.”[5] His main critique of this view is to say that “such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other.”[6] He says that “as one person cannot be divided into an invisible and visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church.”[7] À Brakel goes so far as to say that “an external covenant between God and man, of which the unconverted would be partakers, has not been established either in the Old or New Testament. Consequently, there is also no external church of which unconverted persons are members . . . As the covenant is, so is the church” for, “the church is founded upon the covenant.”[8]
À Brakel’s conception of the Church as “visible” has more to do with the Church’s actions, conduct, and public profession in the world. He states that the difference between “visible” and “invisible” “does not pertain to her nature, as if there existed two essentially different churches, the one having different members from the other, for there is but one church. This distinction, however, relates to her external condition which sometimes is more and at other times less visible due to errors, ungodly practices, and persecutions.”[9] The church’s gathering, partaking of the sacraments, and proclaiming the truth of the gospel make the church visible in the world.
In light of à Brakel’s strong insistence that the Church is composed of elect persons alone, it is difficult to understand how he justifies the practice of infant baptism. As he begins his defense, he emphasizes that the child’s baptism is not in reference to “an external covenant,” “eternal election,” nor “some inherent quality.”[10] He says that even elect children before their conversion are “identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation.”[11] This puts à Brakel in an interesting spot, because he simultaneously denies that there is an external dimension to the covenant of grace yet affirms that unconverted, unregenerate children are in the covenant of grace.[12] In his words, “Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has [God] established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing.”[13] He goes on to contend, however, that children of believers are “children of the covenant” and that the Church ought to “consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they grow older.”[14] While this might sound like a form of presumptive regeneration, à Brakel explicitly denies such a doctrine.
À Brakel wants to affirm that children of believers are in the covenant of grace and as such ought to be baptized. However, he is forced to admit that infants at the time of their baptism are likely unregenerate and that if they grow up to be apostates that “they have never truly been in the covenant.”[15] And, if the child grows up to convert, à Brakel says that “between their baptism and conversion there was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant.”[16] In other words, in one place à Brakel contends that the children are members of the covenant of grace and in another place denies that the children are members of the covenant of grace. Such statements ultimately cannot be reconciled. À Brakel needs to be reminded of what he wrote when defining the Church: “the unconverted, I repeat, are not true members of the church.”[17]
Theodorus VanderGroe (1705-1784)
VanderGroe ministered in South Holland as part of what has been labeled the “Dutch Further Reformation.”[18] VanderGroe is most known for his sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism. In his sermon on questions fifty-four through fifty-six of the catechism, VanderGroe describes the nature of church:
The subject of our consideration is the church, that is, the congregation of Christ here on earth. Simply stated, this is the holy and true spiritual body of the Lord Jesus, consisting of the community of truly converted, believing, and regenerate men who were chosen by God unto salvation before the foundation of the world. Delivering them from the kingdom of Satan and of sin, He gave them to Christ to be His redeemed property, and to that end Christ also died for them. At God’s appointed time, they are effectually called by Him, and by His Word and Spirit He brings them into blessed fellowship with Himself.[19]
He further clarifies that “these and no other constitute the true church of Christ here on earth. Only they, truly converted and elect believers, belong to this church.”[20]
Speaking of many orthodox ministers in the Reformed church, VanderGroe says that “they divide the church of Christ into a visible and invisible church.”[21] While Vandergroe says he understands the distinction these divines are trying to make, he cannot support that teaching with the Word of God. Commending the reading of Wilhelmus à Brakel, he states “that to posit such a visible and invisible church means in essence that there are two distinct Christian churches. Both in their nature and essence, these churches are entirely distinct, the one consisting of only converted believers and the other of a mixture of true believers and hypocrites.”[22] If there are different (though overlapping) members of the “visible” and “invisible” church, and if the qualifications for entrance and maintenance in these two bodies are distinct, how are they anything but two distinct (though related) churches?
VanderGroe says that a profession of the true religion does not gain one entrance into the Church: “Neither an external profession nor external religion, but rather, an upright profession accompanied by a pure and upright faith, qualifies us as true members of the true church of Christ.”[23] Again, he says:
If, however, their external professions are not genuine and their faith is neither sound nor of divine origin, they are then not true members of the Christian church, but rather, they are merely counterfeit members, lip confessors, nominal Christians, and hypocrites. Thus, however much they may confess verbally, they do not belong to the true church of Christ. They rather deceive themselves and others with a false profession, and if they are not converted, they will perish forever in that state.[24]
Thus, VanderGroe denies that unbelievers—even those who profess faith and are baptized—are part of a “visible” or “invisible” church. Rather, they are false members who snuck in unawares. VanderGroe prefers to describe the visible/invisible church distinction in the following way:
The true church is designated as visible insomuch as all true believers publicly confess the name and truth of Christ in their walk. They gather for public worship, for prayer, and for the use of the sacraments. Thus, they also adorn their confession outwardly by way of a holy and godly life. In that sense, the church of Christ is visible here on earth and is viewed and observed by us as such. However, in a different sense, the church is designated as being invisible; that is, in light of the inner and hidden man of the heart that is to be found in all true believers by virtue of the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. By way of this grace, they are most intimately united to a triune God . . . In this sense, the true church of Christ is deemed to be invisible, for all the internal grace, holiness, and glory of God’s people are not to be observed with the physical eye.[25]
With such strong language of a regenerate-only church, one must ask how VanderGroe squares this teaching with the practice of infant baptism.
It appears that on this point he was inconsistent. On the one hand, he maintained that the church is composed of regenerate persons only. On the other hand, VanderGroe argues that infants of believing parents “are included in the church of God.”[26] One might hope to resolve the tension in the instructor’s words through a presumptive regeneration, but VanderGroe says that infants are only “very rarely” regenerate at the moment of baptism.[27] For those who teach “that all children of believing parents . . . are truly believing children,” VanderGroe responds that “this is by no means the case, for the Holy Scriptures and experience teach that this is true for only a small number of children.”[28]
Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Tracing Hodge’s thoughts on the visible/invisible church distinction is a bit difficult. The challenge arises in trying to reconcile what he says in one place with what he says in another. In his Discussions in Church Polity, Hodge seems to echo the theology of à Brakel and VanderGroe. In chapter three of that work, “Visibility of the Church,” he argues against the institutionalist conception of the visible church put forward by the Papists. Whereas Rome sees the visible church institute, and all who are in her ranks, as the true Church, Hodge says that the true Church is the “company of believers” which “consists of those, and of those only, in whom he dwells by his Spirit.”[29] The true Church “is visible only, in the sense in which believers are visible”[30] and “is thus visible throughout the world, not as an organization, not as an external society, but as the living body of Christ; as a set of men distinguished from others as true Christians.”[31]
Hodge says that the Scripture describes the true church as the company of believers, and that these believers are called to congregate to hear the word preached and govern themselves through church officers. However, as these believers gather to form an external society—one which is physical and tangible—false professors will inevitably slip in. This does not mean that false believers are really in the true Church, but only that they have entered the external society. His conclusion is as follows:
This external society, therefore, is not a company of believers; it is not the Church which is Christ's body; the attributes and promises of the Church do not belong to it. It is not that living temple built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as an habitation of God, through the Spirit. It is not the bride of Christ, for which he died, and which he cleanses with the washing of regeneration. It is not the flock of the good Shepherd, composed of the sheep who hear his voice, and to whom it is his Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom. In short, the external society is not the Church. The two are not identical, commensurate, and conterminous, so that he who is a member of the one is a member of the other, and he who is excommunicated from the one is cut off from the other.[32]
The Church exists among the external society while remaining conceptually distinct from that external society: “Yet the Church is in that society, or the aggregate body of professing Christians, as the soul is in the body, or as sincere believers are comprehended in the mass of the professors of the religion of Christ.”[33]
Hodge is careful not to equate the external society with the visible church, for “visibility is that which belongs to believers. They are visible as men; as holy men; as men separated from the world, as a peculiar people, by the indwelling of the Spirit of God; as the soul and sustaining element of all those external organizations, consisting of professors of the true religion, united for the worship of Christ, the maintenance of the truth, and mutual watch and care.”[34] He admits that the “external society . . . may properly be called a Church,” however this designation is only proper if we are making a judgment of charity toward men and their profession.[35] He likens the situation to calling a professor of the true religion a “Christian” even though he might be a reprobate at heart. However, because we can only judge men on the basis of their profession, we freely call men “Christian” who we have no reason to think are otherwise. In the same manner, a congregation of men professing belief in Christ may be called a Church. He summarizes the matter succinctly: “The question, how far the outward Church is the true Church, is easily answered. Just so far as it is what it professes to be, and no further. So far as it is a company of faithful men, animated and controlled by the Holy Spirit, it is a true Church, a constituent member of the body of Christ . . . Thus, when Protestants are asked, what is the true Church? they answer, the company of believers. When asked what associations are to be regarded and treated as churches? they answer, those in which the gospel is preached.”[36]
Hodge’s argument takes an interesting turn when he argues that the nation of Israel was not the true Church. Against the Papists, he writes:
The fallacy of the whole argument lies in its false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ. The rejection or destruction of the external Israel was not the destruction of the Church. The apostasy of the former was not the apostasy of the latter. The attributes, promises, and prerogatives of the one, were not those of the other. In short, they were not the same, and, therefore, that the visibility of the one was that of an external organization, is no proof that the visibility of the Church is that of an external society . . . Besides, if we admit that the external Israel was the true Church, then we must admit that the true Church apostatized; for it is undeniable that the whole external Israel, as an organized body, did repeatedly, and for long periods, lapse into idolatry. Nay more, we must admit that the true Church rejected and crucified Christ; for he was rejected by the external Israel, by the Sanhedrim, by the priesthood, by the elders, and by the people. All this is in direct opposition to the Scriptures, and would involve a breach of promise on the part of God.[37]
Hodge’s reasoning is sound, but the way he frames the distinction between the Church and Israel is not fitting with much of modern paedobaptist polemics. He goes on to argue his point further by appealing to God’s covenants with Abraham, insisting that the covenant which constituted the nation and promised earthly blessings is distinct from the covenant which offered eternal life through the blood of Christ:
It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i. e. of the covenant of grace,) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.
When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”-Acts viii. 37. The Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship of Christ, and for mutual watch and care.[38]
Hodge seems to draw a stark contrast between the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the spiritual covenant of grace. This stark contrast is more reminiscent of Nehemiah Coxe than it is of John Calvin. If Hodge is correct in drawing his distinctions, he has removed circumcision from being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. This admission would severely undercut the argument for infant baptism from the continuity of covenant signs.
The contradictions in Hodge’s corpus can be seen by comparing what is said in the above quotations with what is said in his Systematic Theology. There, he admits that infant baptism poses a conceptual problem due to the nature of the Church. As a solution, he seems to argue for a conception of the Church which runs counter to the one he outlined in his Discussions in Church Polity. He sets up the objection to infant baptism in the following way: “the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized.”[39] In the previous work, Hodge seems to repeatedly assert that the Church is composed of believers alone. However, in order to justify infant baptism, he seeks in this work to “attain and authenticate such an idea of the Church as that it shall include the children of believing parents.”[40] Hodge proceeds to provide five ways the church is spoken of in the New Testament. None of the five definitions given, however, include in them people who do not profess the true religion.[41]
Hodge then lists eight propositions arguing for paedobaptism, some of which touch on the nature of the Church. In his second proposition, Hodge seems to subtly contradict what we have seen him contend for above as he argues that the visible Church is an “external kingdom” composed of a mixed body of regenerate and unregenerate men.[42] More explicitly, he flatly contradicts himself with reference to the relationship of Israel and the Church, which can be seen in comparing several quotes side by side:
Discussions in Church Polity
“It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people.”[43]
“There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.”[44]
“When Christ came ‘the commonwealth’ was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained.”[45]
“The fallacy of the whole argument lies in its false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ.”[46]
Systematic Theology
“The Commonwealth of Israel was the Church.”[47]
“Under the old economy, the Church and State were identical. No man could be a member of the one without being a member of the other. Exclusion from the one was exclusion from the other.”[48]
“They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation.”[49]
“That God made a nation his Church and his Church a nation . . . Consequently that membership in the one involved membership in the other, and exclusion from the one, exclusion from the other.”[50]
Suffice it to say, Hodge was either inconsistent given the differing polemical contexts of these works, or he changed his mind quite radically. However, the definition and exposition of the nature of the true Church as it is found in his Discussions is far more consistent with the biblical witness.
James Bannerman (1807-1868)
Bannerman begins his magisterial work The Church of Christ by providing the different usages of the word “church” in the New Testament. After this survey, he concludes that “the primary and normal idea of the Church, as set forth in Scripture, is unquestionably that of a body of men spiritually united to Christ, and, in consequence of that union, one with each other, as they are one with Him.”[51] Once you add ordinances, government, and office bearers, however, “you have the visible Church, as laid down in the New Testament,—an outward society formed upon the inward and spiritual one, and established and maintained in the world for its benefit.”[52] Upon first glance, Bannerman’s conception seems to lend itself to that of à Brakel. On the divine institution of the Church, Bannerman describes the organization of the Church in the world as arising from a Spirit-empowered drawing of believers to each other such that the church is a “body of men brought together by the constraint of the same faith and same affections.”[53] It is, in this way, a “spiritual society.”[54] However, when Bannerman moves to consider the visible/invisible church distinction, it becomes clear that he is advocating a view that is distinct from à Brakel and VanderGroe.
He begins well, insisting that the distinction does not imply that there are “two separate and distinct Churches, but rather to the same Church under two different characters. We do not assert that Christ has founded two Churches on earth, but only one; and we affirm that that one Church is to be regarded under two distinct aspects. As the Church invisible, it consists of the whole number of the elect, who are vitally united to Christ the Head, and of none other. As the Church visible, it consists of all those who profess the faith of Christ, together with their children.”[55] However, Bannerman proceeds to describe these two “aspects” of the Church as if they are two churches—each having different members and a different way of relating to Christ: “The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in an outward relationship only.”[56] The passage in which Bannerman seems to most pointedly separate these churches is below:
The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileges belong, is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for which Christ died. It is this Church that is espoused to Him as the Bride. It is the members of this Church that are each and all savingly united to Him as their Head. The bond of communion between them and the Saviour is an invisible and spiritual one, securing to all of them the enjoyment of saving blessings here, and the promise of everlasting redemption hereafter. None but Romanists deny or ignore this.
The case is altogether different with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges.[57]
While “the covenant of grace” is made with the invisible church—and it alone, the visible church is related to God by “an external covenant or federal relationship.”[58] It is precisely this non-salvific, outward covenant relationship—as opposed to an internal, saving relationship—which “makes the difference between the members of the visible and the members of the invisible Church of Christ.”[59]
It is at this point that we see Bannerman depart from à Brakel and VanderGroe. It is maintained by the former two theologians that “an external covenant between God and man, of which the unconverted would be partakers, has not been established either in the Old or New Testament. Consequently, there is also no external church of which unconverted persons are members.”[60] Bannerman maintains the exact opposite—that there is a visible church which stands in an “external covenant relationship to Christ.”[61] It is this doctrine of an “external covenant relationship to Christ” which “lays the foundation for those views of Church membership which justify [Bannerman] in regarding the infants of professing Christians as entitled to share the communion and privileges of the Church.”[62] Bannerman’s stark separation of visible and invisible churches was critiqued by another 19th century Scottish theologian, James Currie. He put it succinctly: “I would observe, then, that whereas God has seen fit to institute but one Church Universal, Dr. Bannerman and the Westminster Confession define two such. This accusation, urged so persistently by Romanists, is strenuously denied, but cannot, I think, be disproved by those who accept the teaching on this head, here called in question.”[63] A summary of Bannerman’s view of the visible/invisible Church distinction is important because his conception is usually the one put forward in the defense of infant baptism.
Summary of Views
From this brief survey of views, we can discern two different positions on the distinction between the visible/invisible Church among Reformed theologians:
There is only one Church, which is made up of the elect—to the exclusion of unbelievers. No external covenant of grace exists, and those unbelievers who find themselves in the midst of the gathered society are distinguished from the Church proper. While we might suppose them to be in the Church on the basis of their profession, God knows those who are His—the elect. The Church is visible only insofar as believers are visible. (À Brakel, VanderGroe)
The Church considered as invisible is composed of the elect alone. However, the Church considered as visible is truly composed of all who profess the true religion along with their children. The invisible Church is related to God properly and internally by the covenant of grace, and the visible Church is related to God by an external covenant relationship which presupposes no inward graces. The visible and invisible Church have different parties, promises, and standards of entry. (Bannerman)
To these two views, we could add a third. If we surveyed the writings of John Calvin and Samuel Rutherford, a slightly more inclusive definition would be given of the visible church. Their view could be summarized as follows: The Church considered as invisible is composed of the elect alone. The Church considered as visible is composed of believers and their progeny who remain under the preaching of the Word and government of the Church. God’s covenant of grace—given to Abraham—defines the boundaries of the visible Church, and the Abrahamic covenant was never limited to believers and their children. Those who are descended from pious ancestors and who are under the government of the Church are part of the visible Church and are entitled to baptism—even if the baptisant’s immediate parents are “as wicked as the Jews who slew the Lord of Glory.”[64] To this, we can add the testimony of Calvin: “For we must look to its origin, and the very reason and nature of baptism is to be esteemed as arising from the promise of God. To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the church, though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates . . . wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust, when God, three hundred years ago or more, has thought them worthy of his adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace.”[65]
It is to be observed that each of these views have formidable Reformed theologians defending them. That is to say, there is no singular view among the Reformed on the visible/invisible Church distinction. Rather, a minimum of three distinct and nuanced views have been held through the history of the tradition. The bible believing Christian must discern between these three views on the basis of God’s Word—remaining sensitive to the concerns of each of the aforementioned theologians.
The Reformed Baptist Position
The Baptist tradition has held to a slightly adapted form of à Brakel’s view. However, Baptists have sought to fix the inconsistency between what à Brakel says about the Church with his arguments for infant baptism. It is from this view of the Church that Baptists are led to reject paedobaptism. À Brakel’s view of a regenerate-only Church continued as one view among several in the Puritan era. The continuity between various Puritan views of the Church and the Baptist position is noted by B.B. Warfield: “It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism.”[66]
The Baptist agrees with à Brakel, VanderGroe, and James Currie that the ecclesiology held to by most Reformed paedobaptists inevitably leads to a substantial disconnect between the “visible” and “invisible” Church. Such a disconnect logically necessitates the existence of two distinct Churches. However, the Biblical testimony will not admit of there being any Church but one. Christ came to build His Church (Matthew 16:18), not His churches. Christ only gave His life up for one Bride (Eph. 5:25), and only one Bride will be presented to Christ on the last day (Eph. 5:27). Christ can no more have two churches than He can have two bodies, for the Church is the body of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18, 24). For this reason, Paul can say to the Corinthians, “you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27).
Insofar as the New Testament speaks of the Church in the plural, it refers to the one, true Church as it exists in different locations (Acts 15:41; 16:5). Because the Church is composed of true believers scattered throughout the earth, its oneness cannot be thought of geographically. The Lord saw fit to give teachers and evangelists to those believers spread out across the earth (Eph. 4:11-14) and to form them into particular local congregations (Titus 1:5). In this way, each congregation can be called “a Church” (1 Cor. 16:19) and each region can be said to have a “church” (Rev. 2:1), but only after a manner of speaking. The “church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1) is not a foreign church to the “churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19). They are all collectively the singular “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12) for which He died. Indeed, there is only one “church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The “church in Jerusalem” is the one Church of Christ as it exists and is visibly seen in Jerusalem.
This poses a problem for the Baptist. When Paul addresses the “church of God which is at Corinth,” is he affirming that all who were gathered at that locale were regenerate? There is no reason to think that this is the case. While the Church is composed only of the elect, we cannot infallibly and certainly distinguish between the elect and non-elect in this life. For that reason, we treat people on the basis of their profession. We cannot perceive the state of their heart, but we can give them a judgment of charity based on their profession. Until we have good reason to think that his or her profession is false—by egregious, unrepentant sin or a denial of the fundamental articles of religion—we treat the person as a brother in Christ. Paul speaks to “the Church” at Corinth as it pertains to the outward profession of that body. He is not affirming that every man who enters the meetinghouse is truly part of the Church of God.
A parallel can be drawn to what else Paul ascribes to churches in the New Testament. In the first chapter of Ephesians, Paul greets the “saints who are in Ephesus” (v. 1). A Baptist would say that Paul is intending to greet the Church proper—those who truly believe on Christ for salvation. Many presbyterians, however, say that Paul is intentionally and knowingly greeting the Church as a mixed body, and that he is calling all members in the visible Church (elect or not) “saints” in Christ by way of covenant.[67] However, Paul is clearly not addressing unbelievers. We know this because he goes on to rejoice in the saints’ common election (v. 4), redemption, forgiveness of sins (v. 7), and sealing of the Holy Spirit (v. 13).
Thus, when we speak of the visible Church, we are speaking of the one true Church of Christ (composed of believers alone) as we perceive it fallibly and imperfectly in light of the profession and obedience of men as they gather for the preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, etc. In other words, the Church as we see it visibly is the one true Church of Christ by a judgment of charity. Those men who profess Christ falsely are illegal aliens to the Church of Christ and share only in its outward ordinances and fellowship. “The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government.”[68]
This definition of the Church lends itself nicely to a credobaptist sacramentology because baptism is considered by the Reformed as a sacrament of initiation into the fellowship of the visible Church. As Warfield admits, if the “visible Church consists of regenerate adults only . . . of course infants may not be baptized.”[69] If the members of the visible Church are to be judged by a credible profession of faith, infants—not being able to verbalize a profession—are naturally excluded. Hodge summarizes the argument well when he says, “the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized.”[70]
There are two possible means of escape for the paedobaptist at this point. First, He could deny the Biblical definition of the Church given above. If he took this option, he would have to prove, contra à Brakel, that assigning different members, means of entry, and benefits to the visible and invisible church does not make them two separate churches. Moreover, he would have to prove that such a conception of the visible church is substantiated by the New Testament and includes infants who make no profession of the Christian faith. Second, He could follow Herman Witsius in considering all infants born of believing parents as regenerate by a judgment of charity.[71] This would maintain the Biblical definition of the Church as a regenerate-only communion. However, proving that God normatively and ordinarily regenerates the children of believers in their infancy is a difficult task, as the Bible and our experience show us that the majority of elect children “are utterly void of all grace at the moment of their [infant] baptism.”[72]
Ironically, adopting presumptive regeneration as the ground of infant baptism naturally leads one to a form of credobaptism. As the paedobaptist author Rich Lusk notes: “It seems to me that paedofaith is even bound up in the biblical warrant for paedobaptism … to baptize unbelieving subjects would profane and abuse baptism just as much as inviting unbelievers to the Lord’s Table would abuse the sacramental meal. We would never knowingly baptize unbelieving adults, so why baptize a child unless we have some reason to regard him as a believer? At the very least, infant faith should be regarded as a presumption or judgment of charity, though I think it preferable to view it as a matter of trusting the covenant promises.”[73]
Conclusion
The difference between the Reformed Baptist position on the visible/invisible Church distinction and that of popular paedobaptist polemics lies in the following two questions. First, Does God consider unregenerate men to be members of His Church? Both sides agree that fallible men sometimes wrongly consider unregenerate individuals to be members of the Church, but the difference lies in whether God considers them members—bound by the covenant of grace and under its outward administration. Second, should we ever suppose men who do not profess the Christian religion to be members of the Church? If we have no indication that they are united to Christ by faith, how can we admit them into the body of Christ’s Church?—that body “which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
[1] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 408. We must ask Warfield, Where was the Church in the days of Abel? And why appeal to Abraham rather than faithful Abel to frame your argument? Could it be because there was no sign of the covenant of grace applied to the infant seed of believers from Adam to Abraham?
[2] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1993), pg 8.
[3] Ibid, 9. Emphasis added.
[4] Ibid, 9.
[5] Ibid, 6.
[6] Ibid, 6. Some modern apologists for paedobaptism recognize the tension brought out by à Brakel’s objection. Douglas Wilson, for example, has proposed a solution to the tension that involves modifying the distinction by casting it categories of already/not yet. Wilson reduces the idea of a “visible” and “invisible” Church to the Church as it exists now (historical) and as it will exist on the last day (eschatological). Thus, for Wilson, the “visible” and “invisible” Church cannot be described as existing simultaneously. See Douglas Wilson, “The Church: Visible or Invisible,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004), 267-273.
[7] Ibid. 6.
[8] Ibid, 11.
[9] Ibid, 41.
[10] Ibid, 505-506.
[11] Ibid, 505.
[12] Ibid, 505.
[13] Ibid, 505.
[14] Ibid, 506.
[15] Ibid, 506.
[16] Ibid, 507. Emphasis added.
[17] Ibid, 9.
[18] For more biographical information, see Joel Beeke’s “Biographical Introduction” in The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), xiii.
[19] Ibid, 460-461.
[20] Ibid, 461.
[21] Ibid, 461.
[22] Ibid, 462.
[23] Ibid, 463.
[24] Ibid, 463.
[25] Ibid, 469.
[26] Theodorus VanderGroe, The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 12.
[27] Ibid, 15.
[28] Ibid, 10.
[29] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 55. Emphasis added.
[30] Ibid, 55.
[31] Ibid, 57.
[32] Ibid, 58. Emphasis added.
[33] Ibid, 59.
[34] Ibid, 62. Emphasis added.
[35] Ibid, 63.
[36] Ibid, 64. Emphasis added
[37] Ibid, 65-66. Emphasis added.
[38] Ibid, 66-67.
[39] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 546-547.
[40] Ibid, 547.
[41] He gives as designations: The elect, believers collectively considered, the body of professed believers in any one place, professed believers bound together by doctrine and discipline, and the professors of the true religion throughout the world. None of these definitions prima facie include infants.
[42]Ibid, 548. If all Hodge meant by this was that those who gather in the external society to hear the Word preached and partake of the sacraments are not all believers, all is well. However, he seems to go farther than this and contradict his insistence in Discussions in Church Polity that the Church is “visible throughout the world, not as an organization, not as an external society, but as the living body of Christ.” Further, he stated that the true Church “is visible only, in the sense in which believers are visible.”
[43]Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 66.
[44] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 66-67.
[45] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 67.
[46] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 65-66.
[47] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 548.
[48] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 552-553.
[49] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 553.
[50] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 558.
[51] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2023), 15.
[52] Ibid, 15.
[53] Ibid, 20.
[54] Ibid, 27.
[55] Ibid, 31.
[56] Ibid, 32.
[57] Ibid, 32. Emphasis added.
[58] Ibid, 33. Bannerman notes that this terminology is disputed by theologians, but he proceeds to speak of the visible church as in an external covenant with God. See page 38.
[59] Ibid, 34.
[60] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, p. 11.
[61] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2023), 38.
[62] Ibid, 38.
[63] Found in an essay entitled “Some Remarks on Dr. Bannerman’s View of that Which Constitutes the Church of Christ,” p. 17.
[64] Samuel Rutherford, Chapter 12 of his A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland, p. 10 of the Reformed Books Online reproduction (https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/rutherford-samuel-on-baptism-of-the-children-of-adherents.pdf).
[65] John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, trans. Marcus Robert Gilchrist, p.74 (https://archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal04calv/page/72/mode/2up?view=theater). For more on the views of Calvin and Rutherford, see Gavin Ortlund’s “Why Not Grandchildren? An Argument Against Reformed Paedobaptism” in Themelios, Vol. 45 issue 2 (https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/15111014/Themelios-45-2-v2.pdf?_gl=1*8l5kng*_ga*MTEyNjQxNzM5LjE2NzgyNDI2NDQ.*_ga_3FT6QZ0XX1*MTcxNDUyNzE2MC40LjAuMTcxNDUyNzE2MC42MC4wLjA.*_ga_R61P3F5MSN*MTcxNDUyNzE2MC42LjAuMTcxNDUyNzE2MC42MC4wLjA.).
[66] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 389.
[67] Some presbyterians will take this greeting and turn to chapter six where Paul addresses children. They then infer that the title “saint” should be applied to all children of believers. If this is an appropriate exegetical move, we should also take the election of verse 3 and the sealing of the Holy Spirit in verse 13 as applying to all children of believers.
[68] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust), p 589.
[69] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 401.
[70] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 546-547.
[71] Sometimes called “presumptive regeneration.” See Herman Witsius, “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents are Under the Covenant” in Mid America Journal of Theology, 17 (2006), 121-190. On page 131 of that work, Witsius actually maintains that baptism given to non-elect infants of believing parents is improper, but that God will overlook the minister’s fault because he had no way of knowing the child was not elect.
[72] Theodorus VanderGroe, The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 16.
[73] Rich Lusk, Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents, (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2005), 5.
Thanks for reading Austin’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Type your email...
Subscribe
Austin Cox
Jul 06, 2024
Introduction
The question at the heart of the dispute over infant baptism is whether or not God considers the infant seed of believers to be in His Church. In popular paedobaptist polemics, great stress is put on the external or “visible” dimension of the Church as defined as the mixed company of professors and their children, bound to God by the covenant of grace. There are men who are truly in the covenant of grace who fail to receive the substance of what that covenant promises. In the paedobaptist schema, the covenant which constitutes Christ’s Church has been variously revealed through redemptive history as the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New covenants. Because God included the infant seed of believers in His Church in the days of Abraham, paedobaptists argue that we have every reason to believe the infant seed of believers are still included in the Church today. B.B. Warfield summarizes the argument succinctly: “The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances.”[1]
Thanks for reading Austin’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Type your email...
Subscribe
The purpose of this paper is to contrast the visible/invisible Church distinction as it is commonly articulated in paedobaptist polemics with a Reformed Baptist perspective. This is first pursued by noting divergent views on this distinction within the Reformed tradition. The Reformed Baptist position is then seen to be in basic continuity with one of these Reformed views.
A Brief Survey of Reformed Views
Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711)
The Christian’s Reasonable Service was a popular systematic theology text among the Dutch Reformed churches and was translated into English by Bartel Elshout in 1993. In the second volume, à Brakel begins by defining the church:
The Church is a holy, catholic, Christian congregation, consisting of true believers only, who by the Holy Spirit have been called through the Word of God, are separate from the world, and are united to their Head and each other with a spiritual bond, and thus are united in one spiritual body. All of this is manifested by a true confession of Christ and of His truth, and in striving against their and Christ’s enemies, doing battle with spiritual weapons under the command of their Head Jesus Christ to the glory of God and their salvation.[2]
Of the unconverted, à Brakel contends that they “are not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church. They alone are members of the church, regardless of how one views them.”[3] And, in case one had any doubts, he states emphatically, “the unconverted, I repeat, are not true members of the church.”[4]
À Brakel notes that some hold to a conception of the visible/invisible church distinction that places unbelievers in the “external” or “visible” church, but he denounces the view as “erroneous” and “generating many confusing thoughts and expressions.”[5] His main critique of this view is to say that “such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other.”[6] He says that “as one person cannot be divided into an invisible and visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church.”[7] À Brakel goes so far as to say that “an external covenant between God and man, of which the unconverted would be partakers, has not been established either in the Old or New Testament. Consequently, there is also no external church of which unconverted persons are members . . . As the covenant is, so is the church” for, “the church is founded upon the covenant.”[8]
À Brakel’s conception of the Church as “visible” has more to do with the Church’s actions, conduct, and public profession in the world. He states that the difference between “visible” and “invisible” “does not pertain to her nature, as if there existed two essentially different churches, the one having different members from the other, for there is but one church. This distinction, however, relates to her external condition which sometimes is more and at other times less visible due to errors, ungodly practices, and persecutions.”[9] The church’s gathering, partaking of the sacraments, and proclaiming the truth of the gospel make the church visible in the world.
In light of à Brakel’s strong insistence that the Church is composed of elect persons alone, it is difficult to understand how he justifies the practice of infant baptism. As he begins his defense, he emphasizes that the child’s baptism is not in reference to “an external covenant,” “eternal election,” nor “some inherent quality.”[10] He says that even elect children before their conversion are “identical to all other children, missing the image of God, having the image of the devil, without the seed of faith, without regeneration and the least gracious inclination, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and thus, hateful and worthy of condemnation.”[11] This puts à Brakel in an interesting spot, because he simultaneously denies that there is an external dimension to the covenant of grace yet affirms that unconverted, unregenerate children are in the covenant of grace.[12] In his words, “Never, that is, neither in the Old nor in the New Testament has [God] established an external covenant wherein both converted and unconverted alike would be members on equal footing.”[13] He goes on to contend, however, that children of believers are “children of the covenant” and that the Church ought to “consider them to be true partakers and children of the covenant as they grow older.”[14] While this might sound like a form of presumptive regeneration, à Brakel explicitly denies such a doctrine.
À Brakel wants to affirm that children of believers are in the covenant of grace and as such ought to be baptized. However, he is forced to admit that infants at the time of their baptism are likely unregenerate and that if they grow up to be apostates that “they have never truly been in the covenant.”[15] And, if the child grows up to convert, à Brakel says that “between their baptism and conversion there was but an external resemblance to members of the covenant.”[16] In other words, in one place à Brakel contends that the children are members of the covenant of grace and in another place denies that the children are members of the covenant of grace. Such statements ultimately cannot be reconciled. À Brakel needs to be reminded of what he wrote when defining the Church: “the unconverted, I repeat, are not true members of the church.”[17]
Theodorus VanderGroe (1705-1784)
VanderGroe ministered in South Holland as part of what has been labeled the “Dutch Further Reformation.”[18] VanderGroe is most known for his sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism. In his sermon on questions fifty-four through fifty-six of the catechism, VanderGroe describes the nature of church:
The subject of our consideration is the church, that is, the congregation of Christ here on earth. Simply stated, this is the holy and true spiritual body of the Lord Jesus, consisting of the community of truly converted, believing, and regenerate men who were chosen by God unto salvation before the foundation of the world. Delivering them from the kingdom of Satan and of sin, He gave them to Christ to be His redeemed property, and to that end Christ also died for them. At God’s appointed time, they are effectually called by Him, and by His Word and Spirit He brings them into blessed fellowship with Himself.[19]
He further clarifies that “these and no other constitute the true church of Christ here on earth. Only they, truly converted and elect believers, belong to this church.”[20]
Speaking of many orthodox ministers in the Reformed church, VanderGroe says that “they divide the church of Christ into a visible and invisible church.”[21] While Vandergroe says he understands the distinction these divines are trying to make, he cannot support that teaching with the Word of God. Commending the reading of Wilhelmus à Brakel, he states “that to posit such a visible and invisible church means in essence that there are two distinct Christian churches. Both in their nature and essence, these churches are entirely distinct, the one consisting of only converted believers and the other of a mixture of true believers and hypocrites.”[22] If there are different (though overlapping) members of the “visible” and “invisible” church, and if the qualifications for entrance and maintenance in these two bodies are distinct, how are they anything but two distinct (though related) churches?
VanderGroe says that a profession of the true religion does not gain one entrance into the Church: “Neither an external profession nor external religion, but rather, an upright profession accompanied by a pure and upright faith, qualifies us as true members of the true church of Christ.”[23] Again, he says:
If, however, their external professions are not genuine and their faith is neither sound nor of divine origin, they are then not true members of the Christian church, but rather, they are merely counterfeit members, lip confessors, nominal Christians, and hypocrites. Thus, however much they may confess verbally, they do not belong to the true church of Christ. They rather deceive themselves and others with a false profession, and if they are not converted, they will perish forever in that state.[24]
Thus, VanderGroe denies that unbelievers—even those who profess faith and are baptized—are part of a “visible” or “invisible” church. Rather, they are false members who snuck in unawares. VanderGroe prefers to describe the visible/invisible church distinction in the following way:
The true church is designated as visible insomuch as all true believers publicly confess the name and truth of Christ in their walk. They gather for public worship, for prayer, and for the use of the sacraments. Thus, they also adorn their confession outwardly by way of a holy and godly life. In that sense, the church of Christ is visible here on earth and is viewed and observed by us as such. However, in a different sense, the church is designated as being invisible; that is, in light of the inner and hidden man of the heart that is to be found in all true believers by virtue of the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit. By way of this grace, they are most intimately united to a triune God . . . In this sense, the true church of Christ is deemed to be invisible, for all the internal grace, holiness, and glory of God’s people are not to be observed with the physical eye.[25]
With such strong language of a regenerate-only church, one must ask how VanderGroe squares this teaching with the practice of infant baptism.
It appears that on this point he was inconsistent. On the one hand, he maintained that the church is composed of regenerate persons only. On the other hand, VanderGroe argues that infants of believing parents “are included in the church of God.”[26] One might hope to resolve the tension in the instructor’s words through a presumptive regeneration, but VanderGroe says that infants are only “very rarely” regenerate at the moment of baptism.[27] For those who teach “that all children of believing parents . . . are truly believing children,” VanderGroe responds that “this is by no means the case, for the Holy Scriptures and experience teach that this is true for only a small number of children.”[28]
Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Tracing Hodge’s thoughts on the visible/invisible church distinction is a bit difficult. The challenge arises in trying to reconcile what he says in one place with what he says in another. In his Discussions in Church Polity, Hodge seems to echo the theology of à Brakel and VanderGroe. In chapter three of that work, “Visibility of the Church,” he argues against the institutionalist conception of the visible church put forward by the Papists. Whereas Rome sees the visible church institute, and all who are in her ranks, as the true Church, Hodge says that the true Church is the “company of believers” which “consists of those, and of those only, in whom he dwells by his Spirit.”[29] The true Church “is visible only, in the sense in which believers are visible”[30] and “is thus visible throughout the world, not as an organization, not as an external society, but as the living body of Christ; as a set of men distinguished from others as true Christians.”[31]
Hodge says that the Scripture describes the true church as the company of believers, and that these believers are called to congregate to hear the word preached and govern themselves through church officers. However, as these believers gather to form an external society—one which is physical and tangible—false professors will inevitably slip in. This does not mean that false believers are really in the true Church, but only that they have entered the external society. His conclusion is as follows:
This external society, therefore, is not a company of believers; it is not the Church which is Christ's body; the attributes and promises of the Church do not belong to it. It is not that living temple built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets as an habitation of God, through the Spirit. It is not the bride of Christ, for which he died, and which he cleanses with the washing of regeneration. It is not the flock of the good Shepherd, composed of the sheep who hear his voice, and to whom it is his Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom. In short, the external society is not the Church. The two are not identical, commensurate, and conterminous, so that he who is a member of the one is a member of the other, and he who is excommunicated from the one is cut off from the other.[32]
The Church exists among the external society while remaining conceptually distinct from that external society: “Yet the Church is in that society, or the aggregate body of professing Christians, as the soul is in the body, or as sincere believers are comprehended in the mass of the professors of the religion of Christ.”[33]
Hodge is careful not to equate the external society with the visible church, for “visibility is that which belongs to believers. They are visible as men; as holy men; as men separated from the world, as a peculiar people, by the indwelling of the Spirit of God; as the soul and sustaining element of all those external organizations, consisting of professors of the true religion, united for the worship of Christ, the maintenance of the truth, and mutual watch and care.”[34] He admits that the “external society . . . may properly be called a Church,” however this designation is only proper if we are making a judgment of charity toward men and their profession.[35] He likens the situation to calling a professor of the true religion a “Christian” even though he might be a reprobate at heart. However, because we can only judge men on the basis of their profession, we freely call men “Christian” who we have no reason to think are otherwise. In the same manner, a congregation of men professing belief in Christ may be called a Church. He summarizes the matter succinctly: “The question, how far the outward Church is the true Church, is easily answered. Just so far as it is what it professes to be, and no further. So far as it is a company of faithful men, animated and controlled by the Holy Spirit, it is a true Church, a constituent member of the body of Christ . . . Thus, when Protestants are asked, what is the true Church? they answer, the company of believers. When asked what associations are to be regarded and treated as churches? they answer, those in which the gospel is preached.”[36]
Hodge’s argument takes an interesting turn when he argues that the nation of Israel was not the true Church. Against the Papists, he writes:
The fallacy of the whole argument lies in its false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ. The rejection or destruction of the external Israel was not the destruction of the Church. The apostasy of the former was not the apostasy of the latter. The attributes, promises, and prerogatives of the one, were not those of the other. In short, they were not the same, and, therefore, that the visibility of the one was that of an external organization, is no proof that the visibility of the Church is that of an external society . . . Besides, if we admit that the external Israel was the true Church, then we must admit that the true Church apostatized; for it is undeniable that the whole external Israel, as an organized body, did repeatedly, and for long periods, lapse into idolatry. Nay more, we must admit that the true Church rejected and crucified Christ; for he was rejected by the external Israel, by the Sanhedrim, by the priesthood, by the elders, and by the people. All this is in direct opposition to the Scriptures, and would involve a breach of promise on the part of God.[37]
Hodge’s reasoning is sound, but the way he frames the distinction between the Church and Israel is not fitting with much of modern paedobaptist polemics. He goes on to argue his point further by appealing to God’s covenants with Abraham, insisting that the covenant which constituted the nation and promised earthly blessings is distinct from the covenant which offered eternal life through the blood of Christ:
It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i. e. of the covenant of grace,) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.
When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”-Acts viii. 37. The Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship of Christ, and for mutual watch and care.[38]
Hodge seems to draw a stark contrast between the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the spiritual covenant of grace. This stark contrast is more reminiscent of Nehemiah Coxe than it is of John Calvin. If Hodge is correct in drawing his distinctions, he has removed circumcision from being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. This admission would severely undercut the argument for infant baptism from the continuity of covenant signs.
The contradictions in Hodge’s corpus can be seen by comparing what is said in the above quotations with what is said in his Systematic Theology. There, he admits that infant baptism poses a conceptual problem due to the nature of the Church. As a solution, he seems to argue for a conception of the Church which runs counter to the one he outlined in his Discussions in Church Polity. He sets up the objection to infant baptism in the following way: “the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized.”[39] In the previous work, Hodge seems to repeatedly assert that the Church is composed of believers alone. However, in order to justify infant baptism, he seeks in this work to “attain and authenticate such an idea of the Church as that it shall include the children of believing parents.”[40] Hodge proceeds to provide five ways the church is spoken of in the New Testament. None of the five definitions given, however, include in them people who do not profess the true religion.[41]
Hodge then lists eight propositions arguing for paedobaptism, some of which touch on the nature of the Church. In his second proposition, Hodge seems to subtly contradict what we have seen him contend for above as he argues that the visible Church is an “external kingdom” composed of a mixed body of regenerate and unregenerate men.[42] More explicitly, he flatly contradicts himself with reference to the relationship of Israel and the Church, which can be seen in comparing several quotes side by side:
Discussions in Church Polity
“It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people.”[43]
“There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.”[44]
“When Christ came ‘the commonwealth’ was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained.”[45]
“The fallacy of the whole argument lies in its false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ.”[46]
Systematic Theology
“The Commonwealth of Israel was the Church.”[47]
“Under the old economy, the Church and State were identical. No man could be a member of the one without being a member of the other. Exclusion from the one was exclusion from the other.”[48]
“They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation.”[49]
“That God made a nation his Church and his Church a nation . . . Consequently that membership in the one involved membership in the other, and exclusion from the one, exclusion from the other.”[50]
Suffice it to say, Hodge was either inconsistent given the differing polemical contexts of these works, or he changed his mind quite radically. However, the definition and exposition of the nature of the true Church as it is found in his Discussions is far more consistent with the biblical witness.
James Bannerman (1807-1868)
Bannerman begins his magisterial work The Church of Christ by providing the different usages of the word “church” in the New Testament. After this survey, he concludes that “the primary and normal idea of the Church, as set forth in Scripture, is unquestionably that of a body of men spiritually united to Christ, and, in consequence of that union, one with each other, as they are one with Him.”[51] Once you add ordinances, government, and office bearers, however, “you have the visible Church, as laid down in the New Testament,—an outward society formed upon the inward and spiritual one, and established and maintained in the world for its benefit.”[52] Upon first glance, Bannerman’s conception seems to lend itself to that of à Brakel. On the divine institution of the Church, Bannerman describes the organization of the Church in the world as arising from a Spirit-empowered drawing of believers to each other such that the church is a “body of men brought together by the constraint of the same faith and same affections.”[53] It is, in this way, a “spiritual society.”[54] However, when Bannerman moves to consider the visible/invisible church distinction, it becomes clear that he is advocating a view that is distinct from à Brakel and VanderGroe.
He begins well, insisting that the distinction does not imply that there are “two separate and distinct Churches, but rather to the same Church under two different characters. We do not assert that Christ has founded two Churches on earth, but only one; and we affirm that that one Church is to be regarded under two distinct aspects. As the Church invisible, it consists of the whole number of the elect, who are vitally united to Christ the Head, and of none other. As the Church visible, it consists of all those who profess the faith of Christ, together with their children.”[55] However, Bannerman proceeds to describe these two “aspects” of the Church as if they are two churches—each having different members and a different way of relating to Christ: “The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in an outward relationship only.”[56] The passage in which Bannerman seems to most pointedly separate these churches is below:
The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileges belong, is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for which Christ died. It is this Church that is espoused to Him as the Bride. It is the members of this Church that are each and all savingly united to Him as their Head. The bond of communion between them and the Saviour is an invisible and spiritual one, securing to all of them the enjoyment of saving blessings here, and the promise of everlasting redemption hereafter. None but Romanists deny or ignore this.
The case is altogether different with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges.[57]
While “the covenant of grace” is made with the invisible church—and it alone, the visible church is related to God by “an external covenant or federal relationship.”[58] It is precisely this non-salvific, outward covenant relationship—as opposed to an internal, saving relationship—which “makes the difference between the members of the visible and the members of the invisible Church of Christ.”[59]
It is at this point that we see Bannerman depart from à Brakel and VanderGroe. It is maintained by the former two theologians that “an external covenant between God and man, of which the unconverted would be partakers, has not been established either in the Old or New Testament. Consequently, there is also no external church of which unconverted persons are members.”[60] Bannerman maintains the exact opposite—that there is a visible church which stands in an “external covenant relationship to Christ.”[61] It is this doctrine of an “external covenant relationship to Christ” which “lays the foundation for those views of Church membership which justify [Bannerman] in regarding the infants of professing Christians as entitled to share the communion and privileges of the Church.”[62] Bannerman’s stark separation of visible and invisible churches was critiqued by another 19th century Scottish theologian, James Currie. He put it succinctly: “I would observe, then, that whereas God has seen fit to institute but one Church Universal, Dr. Bannerman and the Westminster Confession define two such. This accusation, urged so persistently by Romanists, is strenuously denied, but cannot, I think, be disproved by those who accept the teaching on this head, here called in question.”[63] A summary of Bannerman’s view of the visible/invisible Church distinction is important because his conception is usually the one put forward in the defense of infant baptism.
Summary of Views
From this brief survey of views, we can discern two different positions on the distinction between the visible/invisible Church among Reformed theologians:
There is only one Church, which is made up of the elect—to the exclusion of unbelievers. No external covenant of grace exists, and those unbelievers who find themselves in the midst of the gathered society are distinguished from the Church proper. While we might suppose them to be in the Church on the basis of their profession, God knows those who are His—the elect. The Church is visible only insofar as believers are visible. (À Brakel, VanderGroe)
The Church considered as invisible is composed of the elect alone. However, the Church considered as visible is truly composed of all who profess the true religion along with their children. The invisible Church is related to God properly and internally by the covenant of grace, and the visible Church is related to God by an external covenant relationship which presupposes no inward graces. The visible and invisible Church have different parties, promises, and standards of entry. (Bannerman)
To these two views, we could add a third. If we surveyed the writings of John Calvin and Samuel Rutherford, a slightly more inclusive definition would be given of the visible church. Their view could be summarized as follows: The Church considered as invisible is composed of the elect alone. The Church considered as visible is composed of believers and their progeny who remain under the preaching of the Word and government of the Church. God’s covenant of grace—given to Abraham—defines the boundaries of the visible Church, and the Abrahamic covenant was never limited to believers and their children. Those who are descended from pious ancestors and who are under the government of the Church are part of the visible Church and are entitled to baptism—even if the baptisant’s immediate parents are “as wicked as the Jews who slew the Lord of Glory.”[64] To this, we can add the testimony of Calvin: “For we must look to its origin, and the very reason and nature of baptism is to be esteemed as arising from the promise of God. To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the church, though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates . . . wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust, when God, three hundred years ago or more, has thought them worthy of his adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace.”[65]
It is to be observed that each of these views have formidable Reformed theologians defending them. That is to say, there is no singular view among the Reformed on the visible/invisible Church distinction. Rather, a minimum of three distinct and nuanced views have been held through the history of the tradition. The bible believing Christian must discern between these three views on the basis of God’s Word—remaining sensitive to the concerns of each of the aforementioned theologians.
The Reformed Baptist Position
The Baptist tradition has held to a slightly adapted form of à Brakel’s view. However, Baptists have sought to fix the inconsistency between what à Brakel says about the Church with his arguments for infant baptism. It is from this view of the Church that Baptists are led to reject paedobaptism. À Brakel’s view of a regenerate-only Church continued as one view among several in the Puritan era. The continuity between various Puritan views of the Church and the Baptist position is noted by B.B. Warfield: “It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism.”[66]
The Baptist agrees with à Brakel, VanderGroe, and James Currie that the ecclesiology held to by most Reformed paedobaptists inevitably leads to a substantial disconnect between the “visible” and “invisible” Church. Such a disconnect logically necessitates the existence of two distinct Churches. However, the Biblical testimony will not admit of there being any Church but one. Christ came to build His Church (Matthew 16:18), not His churches. Christ only gave His life up for one Bride (Eph. 5:25), and only one Bride will be presented to Christ on the last day (Eph. 5:27). Christ can no more have two churches than He can have two bodies, for the Church is the body of Jesus Christ (Col. 1:18, 24). For this reason, Paul can say to the Corinthians, “you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it” (1 Cor. 12:27).
Insofar as the New Testament speaks of the Church in the plural, it refers to the one, true Church as it exists in different locations (Acts 15:41; 16:5). Because the Church is composed of true believers scattered throughout the earth, its oneness cannot be thought of geographically. The Lord saw fit to give teachers and evangelists to those believers spread out across the earth (Eph. 4:11-14) and to form them into particular local congregations (Titus 1:5). In this way, each congregation can be called “a Church” (1 Cor. 16:19) and each region can be said to have a “church” (Rev. 2:1), but only after a manner of speaking. The “church in Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1) is not a foreign church to the “churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19). They are all collectively the singular “body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12) for which He died. Indeed, there is only one “church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). The “church in Jerusalem” is the one Church of Christ as it exists and is visibly seen in Jerusalem.
This poses a problem for the Baptist. When Paul addresses the “church of God which is at Corinth,” is he affirming that all who were gathered at that locale were regenerate? There is no reason to think that this is the case. While the Church is composed only of the elect, we cannot infallibly and certainly distinguish between the elect and non-elect in this life. For that reason, we treat people on the basis of their profession. We cannot perceive the state of their heart, but we can give them a judgment of charity based on their profession. Until we have good reason to think that his or her profession is false—by egregious, unrepentant sin or a denial of the fundamental articles of religion—we treat the person as a brother in Christ. Paul speaks to “the Church” at Corinth as it pertains to the outward profession of that body. He is not affirming that every man who enters the meetinghouse is truly part of the Church of God.
A parallel can be drawn to what else Paul ascribes to churches in the New Testament. In the first chapter of Ephesians, Paul greets the “saints who are in Ephesus” (v. 1). A Baptist would say that Paul is intending to greet the Church proper—those who truly believe on Christ for salvation. Many presbyterians, however, say that Paul is intentionally and knowingly greeting the Church as a mixed body, and that he is calling all members in the visible Church (elect or not) “saints” in Christ by way of covenant.[67] However, Paul is clearly not addressing unbelievers. We know this because he goes on to rejoice in the saints’ common election (v. 4), redemption, forgiveness of sins (v. 7), and sealing of the Holy Spirit (v. 13).
Thus, when we speak of the visible Church, we are speaking of the one true Church of Christ (composed of believers alone) as we perceive it fallibly and imperfectly in light of the profession and obedience of men as they gather for the preaching of the word, administration of the sacraments, etc. In other words, the Church as we see it visibly is the one true Church of Christ by a judgment of charity. Those men who profess Christ falsely are illegal aliens to the Church of Christ and share only in its outward ordinances and fellowship. “The Church becomes visible in Christian profession and conduct, in the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, and in external organization and government.”[68]
This definition of the Church lends itself nicely to a credobaptist sacramentology because baptism is considered by the Reformed as a sacrament of initiation into the fellowship of the visible Church. As Warfield admits, if the “visible Church consists of regenerate adults only . . . of course infants may not be baptized.”[69] If the members of the visible Church are to be judged by a credible profession of faith, infants—not being able to verbalize a profession—are naturally excluded. Hodge summarizes the argument well when he says, “the sacraments belong to the members of the Church; but the Church is the company of believers; infants cannot exercise faith, therefore they are not members of the Church, and consequently ought not to be baptized.”[70]
There are two possible means of escape for the paedobaptist at this point. First, He could deny the Biblical definition of the Church given above. If he took this option, he would have to prove, contra à Brakel, that assigning different members, means of entry, and benefits to the visible and invisible church does not make them two separate churches. Moreover, he would have to prove that such a conception of the visible church is substantiated by the New Testament and includes infants who make no profession of the Christian faith. Second, He could follow Herman Witsius in considering all infants born of believing parents as regenerate by a judgment of charity.[71] This would maintain the Biblical definition of the Church as a regenerate-only communion. However, proving that God normatively and ordinarily regenerates the children of believers in their infancy is a difficult task, as the Bible and our experience show us that the majority of elect children “are utterly void of all grace at the moment of their [infant] baptism.”[72]
Ironically, adopting presumptive regeneration as the ground of infant baptism naturally leads one to a form of credobaptism. As the paedobaptist author Rich Lusk notes: “It seems to me that paedofaith is even bound up in the biblical warrant for paedobaptism … to baptize unbelieving subjects would profane and abuse baptism just as much as inviting unbelievers to the Lord’s Table would abuse the sacramental meal. We would never knowingly baptize unbelieving adults, so why baptize a child unless we have some reason to regard him as a believer? At the very least, infant faith should be regarded as a presumption or judgment of charity, though I think it preferable to view it as a matter of trusting the covenant promises.”[73]
Conclusion
The difference between the Reformed Baptist position on the visible/invisible Church distinction and that of popular paedobaptist polemics lies in the following two questions. First, Does God consider unregenerate men to be members of His Church? Both sides agree that fallible men sometimes wrongly consider unregenerate individuals to be members of the Church, but the difference lies in whether God considers them members—bound by the covenant of grace and under its outward administration. Second, should we ever suppose men who do not profess the Christian religion to be members of the Church? If we have no indication that they are united to Christ by faith, how can we admit them into the body of Christ’s Church?—that body “which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).
[1] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 408. We must ask Warfield, Where was the Church in the days of Abel? And why appeal to Abraham rather than faithful Abel to frame your argument? Could it be because there was no sign of the covenant of grace applied to the infant seed of believers from Adam to Abraham?
[2] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1993), pg 8.
[3] Ibid, 9. Emphasis added.
[4] Ibid, 9.
[5] Ibid, 6.
[6] Ibid, 6. Some modern apologists for paedobaptism recognize the tension brought out by à Brakel’s objection. Douglas Wilson, for example, has proposed a solution to the tension that involves modifying the distinction by casting it categories of already/not yet. Wilson reduces the idea of a “visible” and “invisible” Church to the Church as it exists now (historical) and as it will exist on the last day (eschatological). Thus, for Wilson, the “visible” and “invisible” Church cannot be described as existing simultaneously. See Douglas Wilson, “The Church: Visible or Invisible,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2004), 267-273.
[7] Ibid. 6.
[8] Ibid, 11.
[9] Ibid, 41.
[10] Ibid, 505-506.
[11] Ibid, 505.
[12] Ibid, 505.
[13] Ibid, 505.
[14] Ibid, 506.
[15] Ibid, 506.
[16] Ibid, 507. Emphasis added.
[17] Ibid, 9.
[18] For more biographical information, see Joel Beeke’s “Biographical Introduction” in The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), xiii.
[19] Ibid, 460-461.
[20] Ibid, 461.
[21] Ibid, 461.
[22] Ibid, 462.
[23] Ibid, 463.
[24] Ibid, 463.
[25] Ibid, 469.
[26] Theodorus VanderGroe, The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 12.
[27] Ibid, 15.
[28] Ibid, 10.
[29] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 55. Emphasis added.
[30] Ibid, 55.
[31] Ibid, 57.
[32] Ibid, 58. Emphasis added.
[33] Ibid, 59.
[34] Ibid, 62. Emphasis added.
[35] Ibid, 63.
[36] Ibid, 64. Emphasis added
[37] Ibid, 65-66. Emphasis added.
[38] Ibid, 66-67.
[39] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 546-547.
[40] Ibid, 547.
[41] He gives as designations: The elect, believers collectively considered, the body of professed believers in any one place, professed believers bound together by doctrine and discipline, and the professors of the true religion throughout the world. None of these definitions prima facie include infants.
[42]Ibid, 548. If all Hodge meant by this was that those who gather in the external society to hear the Word preached and partake of the sacraments are not all believers, all is well. However, he seems to go farther than this and contradict his insistence in Discussions in Church Polity that the Church is “visible throughout the world, not as an organization, not as an external society, but as the living body of Christ.” Further, he stated that the true Church “is visible only, in the sense in which believers are visible.”
[43]Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 66.
[44] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 66-67.
[45] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 67.
[46] Charles Hodge, Discussions in Church Polity, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1878), 65-66.
[47] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 548.
[48] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 552-553.
[49] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 553.
[50] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 558.
[51] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2023), 15.
[52] Ibid, 15.
[53] Ibid, 20.
[54] Ibid, 27.
[55] Ibid, 31.
[56] Ibid, 32.
[57] Ibid, 32. Emphasis added.
[58] Ibid, 33. Bannerman notes that this terminology is disputed by theologians, but he proceeds to speak of the visible church as in an external covenant with God. See page 38.
[59] Ibid, 34.
[60] Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vol. 2, p. 11.
[61] James Bannerman, The Church of Christ, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2023), 38.
[62] Ibid, 38.
[63] Found in an essay entitled “Some Remarks on Dr. Bannerman’s View of that Which Constitutes the Church of Christ,” p. 17.
[64] Samuel Rutherford, Chapter 12 of his A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland, p. 10 of the Reformed Books Online reproduction (https://reformedbooksonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/rutherford-samuel-on-baptism-of-the-children-of-adherents.pdf).
[65] John Calvin, Letters of John Calvin, trans. Marcus Robert Gilchrist, p.74 (https://archive.org/details/lettersofjohncal04calv/page/72/mode/2up?view=theater). For more on the views of Calvin and Rutherford, see Gavin Ortlund’s “Why Not Grandchildren? An Argument Against Reformed Paedobaptism” in Themelios, Vol. 45 issue 2 (https://media.thegospelcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/15111014/Themelios-45-2-v2.pdf?_gl=1*8l5kng*_ga*MTEyNjQxNzM5LjE2NzgyNDI2NDQ.*_ga_3FT6QZ0XX1*MTcxNDUyNzE2MC40LjAuMTcxNDUyNzE2MC42MC4wLjA.*_ga_R61P3F5MSN*MTcxNDUyNzE2MC42LjAuMTcxNDUyNzE2MC42MC4wLjA.).
[66] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 389.
[67] Some presbyterians will take this greeting and turn to chapter six where Paul addresses children. They then infer that the title “saint” should be applied to all children of believers. If this is an appropriate exegetical move, we should also take the election of verse 3 and the sealing of the Holy Spirit in verse 13 as applying to all children of believers.
[68] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Edinburgh, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust), p 589.
[69] B.B. Warfield, Studies in Theology, (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2003), 401.
[70] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2020), 546-547.
[71] Sometimes called “presumptive regeneration.” See Herman Witsius, “On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents are Under the Covenant” in Mid America Journal of Theology, 17 (2006), 121-190. On page 131 of that work, Witsius actually maintains that baptism given to non-elect infants of believing parents is improper, but that God will overlook the minister’s fault because he had no way of knowing the child was not elect.
[72] Theodorus VanderGroe, The Christian’s Only Comfort in Life and Death: An Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), 16.
[73] Rich Lusk, Paedofaith: A Primer on the Mystery of Infant Salvation and a Handbook for Covenant Parents, (Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2005), 5.
Thanks for reading Austin’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Type your email...
Subscribe