He affirms the invisible Church as an entity that “does not yet exist though it is surely foreordained by God.” He adds that “It seems better to speak of the ‘invisible’ church simply as the ‘eschatological church.’” It should be observed that this is not the Westminster definition of the invisible church, which “ consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head therefore” (WCF XXV.1). What TE Wilkins sees as an eschatological fulfillment growing out of the visible church, the Confession sees as a past, present, and future reality in overlap with the visible church.
So an entity that is defined as including people who don’t yet exist nevertheless now exists? Sure, as a concept in God’s mind and a plan. But Wilkins affirms as much. He, not Rick, is the one using Westminster’s definition.
But wait — my family, which includes my grandchildren, which do not yet exist but Lord willing someday will, does in fact exist, right? Same for my congregation, right?
So while I don’t have a problem with Wilkins, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the invisible church exists *only* in God’s mind. If my family existed only as a foreknown thing in God’s mind, my house would be a lot neater. While I think that a bit more effort should be made by some to understand Wilkins’ point rather than going straight for imputing every possible bad motive to him, I don’t think that it’s completely unreasonable for people to be a bit “thrown” by the statement that the visible church “doesn’t exist.” It might be a genuinely confusing use of language to claim that something does not yet exist merely because there are those who will belong to it who do not yet exist.
But we never speak of visible and invisble families.
Does your “invisible family” include the grandkind one of your kids will adopt in 2017?
Maybe the distinction is ‘family as conceptual entity” and “family as concrete entity”. The family as concept only exists in a mind. When you include future children in your definition of family, you’re talking about a mind-concept, not about the concrete entity.
Jane,
It’s just a matter of definition. If your family is defined as your husband and your self, your children, and, say, ten grand children, and that definition is not met, then your family, as stipulated, doesn’t exist.
Think of a quorum for a meeting. Let’s say you need 30 people to make a quorum. A quorum is defined as 30 people. The meeting starts at 10, and at 9:45 there are 25 people present… Do you have a quorum? Clearly you don’t. There’s good reason to believe you will have one, and you’re working towards having one. But, according to the definition, we don’t have one yet.
WCF defines ‘invisible church’ as all the elect. If some of those elect don’t exist, then the ‘invisible church’ as defined can’t exist. Right? Will it exist? Surely. Is it on it’s way to existence? Absolutely. But, if we’re going to apply that definition, then we can’t say that the invisible church presently exists, except in the mind and plan of God.
Richard, right. And the whole point of defining the invisible church was to affirm that God did indeed have a plan that he would infallibly bring about.
Pentamom, I think the difference is to define your family in a generic way in which any number of present individuals could suffice v. defining it as everyone who will ever be in your family. If you used that definition then I would say that God has a plan to bring about all of your family, and we can call that goal on God’s part, “the invisible Pentamom family.” But by such a definition, that family is not yet a present existing reality other than a plan in God’ mind.
But is my family in 2017 after the adoption a different family from my family now?
I have a family now. It’s the same family that will (assuming Paul’s adoption prediction to be correct) include that adopted child in 2017. The family that will in future include that child exists now. Doesn’t it? It doesn’t make sense to me to say that it doesn’t.
I think the only reason we don’t speak of “visible and invisible families” is twofold — 1) we have no theological reason to and 2) everyone who appears to be in or out of a particular family always is what he appears to be in that respect. But I don’t think that has much to do with my point that my family exists NOW and yet my family will also inevitably include people who aren’t born yet (assuming God doesn’t cut off my house) — and that will be the SAME family that DOES exist now.
Sure. I’m just taking issue with the idea that it’s proper to say that the IC doesn’t exist yet on the grounds that ALL of its destined members don’t yet exist, and the suggestion that no one should think that contention a bit odd. The family is just a counter-example to the premise that something doesn’t exist in time and space, if its entire membership does not yet exist.
OK, but wouldn’t this all be true by analogy to the “visible church”? (especially since families have historically been able to cut off certain members through disinheritance…)
Or am I still missing something?
Wouldn’t it be like calling oneself a “homeowner” while the bank holds nearly 80% of the mortgage? I wouldn’t say that an expansive definition precludes the utility of the term in a less-than-full sense. Or did I miss the point? (Very likely.)
Interesting discussion.
One possibility is that your “family” now includes you, your spouse, any presently existing children, and so on. In the present that simply is your family. In the future, however, more persons will be added to your family and will become part of that family, even though they are not presently part of what it means to be your family.
That’s to say, your family isn’t defined by in the present by those future generations. To be “your family” means something like “to be descended by natural generation or adoption from so-and-so.” Thus “your family” exists in the present apart from future generation and regardless whether or not there are any future generations. Thus, those not-yet-existing generations don’t define your family in the present.
But one might suggest that the WCF definition of the “invisible church” does include future generations of elect believers and thus is disanalogous with “your family.” In that case, the invisible church can’t be said to exist yet, at least in our experience, which is part of why it is, by definition, “invisible” — i.e., not yet visible.
Alternatively, one could see the temporal dimension as part and parcel of something’s definition. In that case, we might say that “I” exist even though part of what it will mean to be (or to have been) “me” includes all sorts of things that haven’t happened yet.
Likewise, a publicly-traded corporation presently exists even though future board members, stockholders, etc., have yet to be born.
Also consider that even in the temporal present we say we perceive particular things all the time, even though we generally only see something from a single angle or even just peeking out from behind something else. Perceiving the part or from a perspective is sufficient for perceiving the thing itself.
In a similar way we perceive and experience corporations, individuals, families, and the like, even though their future temporal dimensions don’t yet exist. Perceiving their present dimension is sufficient for perceiving the thing itself.
Perhaps we might say, then, that the “invisible church” (or “eschatological church”) can be said to exist in the present even though its future generations don’t yet exist. Indeed, perhaps we can even say that we presently perceive it by faith, though faith is not yet sight. But the future temporal dimension is still one of the conditions of its present invisibility and only in the eschaton will faith be sight and the now-invisible church will be visible.
In any case, those are at least two ways of filling out the ontology and epistemology of these sorts of things.
Well, maybe this is illegitimate reasoning and too simplistic, but it seems to me that we talk about “family” ALL THE TIME as something that transcends time.
“My family came over from Alsace in 1740.”
“I want to establish a family that will honor God through future generations.”
Whether that fits the correct technical definition of family I don’t know, but the fact is that we all understand a concept known as “family” that includes those not yet born. And yet we also understand that term to have a present reality. We don’t view it as something that hasn’t yet come into being because its full membership has not yet been created and enrolled.
So why can’t the invisible church be regarded this way — as existing now, but not in its full membership?
Or, to put it another way, does the Lions Club not now exist because next year people will be added to their number who are not yet Lions? I don’t see why “people who will be Lions” is any less a matter of predestination than “people who will be part of the invisible church,” so why wouldn’t the parallel be exact?
I don’t think there’s necessarily a “right” answer. Language has meaning in its usage and sometime we ask questions of that usage that our practices don’t have answers for. Theological terms of art tend to try to clarify some aspect of use, though with more or less success, as this discussion seems to show.
Pentamom, I still think your statements would qualify as appropriate for the visible church, not the invisible.
“The church in Geneva was under the dominion of the Papacy until it sided with the reform under William Farel’s leadership.”
“My denomination adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith but with an amendment regarding the civil magistrate.”
Visible or invisible?