Without the Visible “Church”, the Gospel is Not True?

The “federal vision” deconstructs any difference between water and union with Christ. They are also willing to reject any difference between a ritual Lord’s Supper and God’s “real or legal” means of union and communion. They will defend anything (slavery, the confederacy) “ancient” just so long as it is anti-liberal.

Unwilling as individuals to return to the Roman Catholic Church, despite a common faith in a justification by works, those in the “federal vision” write essays against individualism and also against counter-cultures. The most consistent advocates (theonomic postmillenialists) plan an end of exile by means of ordained violence.

The next time they are Constantine they promise to do it better. In the meanwhile they remind us that even what Constantine did in the past was a result of God’s sovereign providence, and hope for a liberal-free future in which cross-bearing will no longer be necessary.

To get at the error of ritual Christendom, we need to do more than talk about Protestant associations with Romanism. That’s like criticizing Billy Graham for his associations instead of his false gospel. Graham works well with “others” because they all have the same false gospel.

Those who tell us that the gospel is not true without their “church” are trying to sell us a narrative in which the reality and visibility of Jesus Christ has to do with traditional rituals inherited from Augustine and others who used violence in the name of God.

With John Milbank, those in the “federal vision” tell us that the “pacifist” rejects power and effectiveness. They assume there can be no power without violence. Thus they tell us that the “pacifist” is a liberal who rejects even the power of the resurrection. They tell us there is no “church” without “kings” and no gospel without this “church” given by kings.

But God’s gospel does not depend on our power, not even on those of us who are Republicans. And Christianity is not necessary for the survival of the American empire.

Explore posts in the same categories: covenants

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

40 Comments on “Without the Visible “Church”, the Gospel is Not True?”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    My practical suggestion would be to stop reading the Ten Commandments before the Confession and read the Sermon on the Mount instead. Of course that would disrupt “that which has come about with the passing of the time” in the Reformed tradition. But it would do much to put to rest this idea that the only problem with “the law” is “Jewish misunderstanding of the law”.

    Instead of looking at the six antitheses, and saying that Jesus is only the best teacher of “the law” clearing away “misinterpretation”, we need to see indeed that Jesus is our lawgiver. All divine law is “moral law”, but this does not mean that God cannot and does not change law when God changes covenants. Hebrews says that, but the Reformed tradition is not very good when it comes to seeing one covenant as different from another.

    21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.

    Lust

    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into gehenna 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into gehenna.

    Divorce

    31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    Oaths

    33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

    Retaliation

    38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

    Love Your Enemies

    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? https://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2016/06/06/how-should-we-use-the-ten-commandments-in-worship/

  2. MARK MCCULLEY Says:

    http://www.modernreformation.org secularization

    Horton: we need to let go of our idolatrous obsession with America. The early Christians didn’t have an empire to “win back”. They knew they were strangers.

    mark: and perhaps also our obsessive reaction to this distraction, which reaction is another distraction.

  3. markmcculley Says:

    One problem with identifying church and kingdom is locating churches that look anything like what our old life theory about churches teaches us we should find. While the world would be lost if Christ had not died on the cross to save elect sinners, would the world necessarily be lost if there were only friends who were Christians but no churches as we thought churches would be?….

    Do we change our theory about apostolic continuity of churches past and churches present? I have no desire to take sides with Harold Camping and say that the Holy Spirit has left the building. What Christ already got done is primary, and Christ Himself is first, but the organization of ecclesia still happens. Body still matters..

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Previous to the advent, the covenant and the kingdom of Christ, are spoken of as being in the future. In Ezekiel 16:60, Jehovah said, “I will establish unto an everlasting covenant.” In Daniel 2:44, “In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…

    It may be instructive to mark the point where the churches of Christ become visible organizations. To do this, we must ascertain what it is that places a church in this visible state. It is not spirituality nor orthodoxy, nor both these together, but external form. Without spirituality and orthodoxy, there can certainly be no true church. They are essential. Yet these alone do not constitute their visibility, since in that case it would have been visible long before the days of Abraham.

    And there are many in the present day, who despite their devotion to the true God, are not literally connected with a visible church; which could not be, if spiritual qualities only were necessary to that union. What more is required then, to make these Christian people members of a church? They must, I answer, be baptized with water and receive the Lord’s Supper. These ordinances mark the line of separation between churches and the world. R B C Howell

  5. markmcculley Says:

    Calvin —As to riches and honors, when we have divested ourselves of attachment to them, we will be prepared, also, to renounce the things themselves, whenever the Lord will require this from us, and so it ought to be. It is not expressly necessary that you be a poor man, in order that you may be Christian; but if it please the Lord that it should be so, you ought to be prepared to endure poverty. In fine, it is not lawful for Christians to have anything apart from Christ. I consider as apart from Christ everything that hindes the way of Christ alone being our ground of glorying.

    For those who cast their merchandise and other things into the sea, that they may escape in safety, do not, therefore, despise riches, but act as persons prepared rather to live in want, than to be drowned along with their riches. They part with them, indeed, but it is with regret and with a sigh; and when they have escaped, they bewail the loss of them. Paul, however, declares, on the other hand, that he had not merely abandoned everything that he formerly reckoned precious, but that they were like dung, offensive to him, or were disesteemed like things that are thrown away in contempt.

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Calvin—Paul renounced everything that he had, in order to recover them in Christ; and this corresponds better with the word gain, for it means that it was no trivial or ordinary gain, inasmuch as Christ contains everything in himself. And, unquestionably, we lose nothing when we come to Christ naked and stripped of everything, of those things which we previously imagined, on false grounds, that we possessed. Paul accordingly shews more fully, how great the riches of Christ, because we obtain and find all things in him. . . .

    Paul places man’s merit in opposition to Christ’s grace; for while the law brings works, faith presents man before God as naked, that he may be clothed with the righteousness of Christ. When, therefore, he declares that the righteousness of faith is from God, it is not simply because faith is the gift of God, but because God justifies us by His righteousness which he has conferred upon us.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    http://www.the-highway.com/articleApr06.html

    SOLA ECCLESIA: The Lost Reformation Doctrine
    by Michael J. Glodo
    With which of the following statements are you in greater agreement?

    1. “Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God.”

    2. “Away from [the church] one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation.”

    For the average evangelical Christian the first statement may lack some balance, but the second sounds downright Romish. If this describes your reaction, then your ecclesiology is closer to the author of the first, Lenny Bruce, than to the author of the second, John Calvin (Institutes 4.1.1). Bruce, satirist of organized religion and nemesis to hypocrisy, a comedian notorious for his vulgarity and impiety, nevertheless expressed a common contemporary assessment of organized religion, while Calvin’s statement seemed to betray his role as one of the primary catalysts of the Protestant Reformation

    There is no invisible baptism,. The person who says, “I’m a member of the Kingdom of God, not organized religion” is inherently contradictory. How do we know that such a person is truly converted? For that matter, how does he or she know? They have refused Christ’s appointed administration of his Kingdom and, thus, stand apart from his kingship. For this reason, one cannot possess assurance of salvation indefinitely if he remains outside of the Church . He may have saving faith, but have none of Christ’s means of assuring him of it. Paul wrote, “But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Galatians 4:26, NASV). Hence, Cyprian wrote, “No one has God as his father without the Church as his mother.”
    Ridderbos described that view, “liberal theology asserted that, as a visible gathering of believers with a certain amount of organization, the Church lay entirely outside Jesus’ vision.”

    mark: like the fundy slippery slope from no head covering to evolution and same-sex marriage, the sacramentalists accuse all who disagree with them of being “liberals”


  8. ndividualism’s Not the Problem–Community’s Not the Solution Jonathan Leeman

    In theology, too, the significance of relationships (the dialectic of I and Thou) reorients every category of systematic. (8) It’s observed that God’s very being is defined by three persons in community; that human persons bear a “relational analogy” to God’s trinitarian community; that sin is the breaking of community; that Christ brings reconciliation through his work and the embrace of the church community; and that the eschaton will sum up all things in our participation in the divine community.

    Some of the titles in this theological genre tell all: The Trinity and the Kingdom (1981 in English); Being As Communion(1985); After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (1998); The Social God and the Relational Self (2001); Like Father, Like Son: The Trinity Imaged in Our Humanity (2005); Trinity in Human Community: Exploring Congregational Life in the Image of the Social Trinity (2006); and so on.

    Impact on Churches

    Several lessons for churches follow from the communitarian story, say its proponents. For starters, we must recover an understanding of the church as a community of people, not an impersonal institution. If relationships are what constitute the church’s essence, any structures that do exist should be organic, liquid, or natural (again, consider the titles: Organic Church, Organic Community, Liquid Church, or Natural Church Development).

    Also, preaching should not be a monologue but a dialogue. Congregations should be encouraged to speak and learn from a multiplicity of viewpoints. (10)

    Conversion should not so much be treated as a one-time event, because life within this community will lead to continual change and reformation. Better to speak of a conversation or at least a “continuing conversion,” which like a conversation implies a continual openness to new perspectives. (11)

    http://www.modernreformation.org/documents/leeman.pdf

    • markmcculley Says:

      Richard Muller—“Use of the language of personal relationship with Jesus often indicates a qualitative loss of the traditional Reformation language of being justified by grace alone through faith in Christ and being, therefore, adopted as children of God in and through our graciously given union with Christ. Personal relationships come about through mutual interaction and thrive because of common interests. They are never or virtually never grounded on a forensic act such as that indicated in the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works – in fact personal relationships rest on a reciprocity of works or acts. The problem here is not the language itself: The problem is the way in which it can lead those who emphasize it to ignore the Reformation insight into the nature of justification and the character of believer’s relationship with God in Christ.

      Such language of personal relationship all too easily lends itself to an Arminian view of salvation as something accomplished largely by the believer in cooperation with God. A personal relationship is, of its very nature, a mutual relation, dependent on the activity – the works – of both parties.

      • markmcculley Says:

        Rosaria Butterfield — The Romantic period is typified by an uncontested embrace of personal experience, not merely as self-expression but also as epistemology …Romanticism claimed that no objective opposition can challenge the primal wisdom of someones subjective frame of intelligibility. Solipsism is the belief that only one’s own mind and its properties are sure to exist. Romanticism took this one step further to declare personal feelings the most reliable means of discerning truth.

  9. markmcculley Says:

    http://heidelblog.net/2016/04/samuel-rutherford-on-acts-239-in-defense-of-infant-baptism/

    Rutherford—he commands all, whom he exhorts to repent, to be baptized

    mark—do you have to be baptized to be commanded? Are some sinners baptized into a conditional covenant?

    Rutherford—The word of the Covenant is preached to you, an offer of Christ is made in the preached Gospel to you. The promises are to all the Reprobate in the Visible Church whether they believe or not, for the promises of the Covenant are Preached to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word.

    mark: And how are the promises to those externally in the covenant in any way different from the promises to those not externally in the covenant?

    Rutherford—But in the New Testament, it must have this meaning, I will be your God, 2. Cor. 6. 16. that is, you are all predestinate to life, and the sons, by promise, and the spiritual seed, to whom I say, I will be your God: But so it may well be said, there were no internal Covenanters in the Old Testament, and there be none but only internal Covenanters in the New Testament

    mark—The promise is not that anybody is already justified, because the promise of the gospel is that all those who believe the gospel will be justified. The promise is not that anybody will believe the gospel, because the promise of the gospel is that all those who believe will be justified, not because they believe, but when they believe.

    Rutherford—-If these words, The promise is to you, and to your Children, be limited, to as many as the Lord shall effectually call, either fathers or children, then there is no more a Covenant-favour to their children, then to the children of Pagans; because the children of Pagans, if God effectually call them, have the promises made to them.

    Mark—Amen

    Rutherford—To these men external Covenant-holiness,ceremonial holiness is now out of date; to them external calling the only means of effectual calling.

    Mark–Amen

    Rutherford—To them children not believing, though chosen to life, are excommunicated from visible Adoption, for there is no covenanting now under the New Testament, but only internal covenanting of the Elect.

    Mark–Amen, all visible Israel is now excommunicated, and visible NT churches are only for those who profess faith in the gospel.

    Rutherford—Children of believing Parents have no more right than pagans to hear the preached Gospel, before they believe

    Mark: Amen. No sinner has any right to grace. No sinner has any right to hear the gospel.

    Rutherford—They can have no command of God to hear the Gospel, nor any covenant warrant, until they be believers, for if there were no conditional promise made to hearing and considering the word, if they shall believe, while as yet they believe not, and until they be effectually called, there can be no command, and no Law, to hear the Gospel and the covenant offer made in Christ. It shall then be no more sin for unconverted persons to turn away their ears from the Gospel.

    Mark—–The command to believe the gospel does not depend on any promise that a sinner will believe the gospel. The promise of the gospel is not that any will will believe the gospel, because the promise of the gospel is that those who believe will be justified, not because they believed, but not before and without believing the gospel. It is no more (and no less) sin for a sinner outside a visible church to not believe the gospel than it is for a sinner inside a visible church.

    Rutherford—-It were nonsense to say to men under the externally proposed covenant, repent, hear the Gospel, and yet you have no right to hear, nor have we any warrant to baptize you, until ye believe; for there is no promise made to you until first you believe.

    Mark–We don’t have rights, but there is no need to water a sinner before promising that sinner justification when they believe the gospel. Amen, there is no promise of grace made to those who do not believe the gospel.

    Rutherford. If there can be no baptism before faith, then there could be no threatening to Adam before he sinned, and no promise to Adam nor to any now, to do and live, until Adam first obeyed the covenant.

    Mark: Why not? Adam was under law before sin. The promise to keep living if Adam keeps from sinning is not a promise to immortality. The promise to keep living if Adam keeps from sinning is not a promise of time off probation for obedience.

    Rutherford—A conditional covenant agreed unto and accepted, is a covenant, and we ought to distinguish between a covenant broken or fulfilled, as Adam accepted the threatening, Gen. 2. 17. by silence, and Professors within the visible Church, by their receiving of the Seals are under the covenant of Grace, and engage themselves to obey commands, promises, threatenings, and therefore promises are as properly made to them, But the Anabaptists ignorantly confound the promise, and the thing promised; they confuse the covenant and the benefits covenanted.

  10. markmcculley Says:

    Many legalists have no problem with God predestinating them to do enough works to be saved, and no problem with God not predestinating other sinners to do enough works. It’s just that business about “blessed only in Christ’s death and election decided for whom Christ would die” which pisses people off. The Jews who tried to push Jesus off the cliff in Luke 4 were not that angry about “opening up the covenant more people like gentiles and females”. What hacked them off was any idea that God was not going to accept their own religion and their own works and their own covenant children.

  11. markmcculley Says:

    Larry Ball–The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of the administration of baptism, but it is tied to the administration of baptism itself. There is a huge difference. No Christian parent should expect that grace be “conferred” (Confessional language) on their children apart from their children being recipients of the sacrament of covenant (infant) baptism. The same can be said of adult baptisms. The grace promised in the ordinance of baptism is actually conferred in God’s appointed time “by the right use of this ordinance” (Confessional language). Grace is conferred because the ordinance is used. God uses means to accomplish his ends. This in no way conflicts with the sovereignty of God or the independent work of the Holy Spirit.

    Certainly, the grace is conferred to those to whom it belongs as the Confession clearly states. I am certainly not denying the doctrine of election. However, the doctrine of election was never given to negate the hope of the promises that are given to Christian parents. It is interesting to note that the doctrine of election taught in Romans 9 does not stand alone in the Bible. It exists because there was a need to explain the departure of Israel from the faith (Romans 9: 1-5). It was necessary to explain why there was unbelief among the covenant people of God. It was intended to be an explanation — not a qualification to the promises of God. Sadly, in some reformed circles it has become just that — a constant qualification.

    Some preachers are haunted by what I call the “if clause.” For example, it is often said to Christians that the promises of God are for you “if you are saved” or “if you are a true believer.” The very promises that give hope to Christians often die a slow death by a thousand qualifications. Covenant Baptism is not merely a symbol (Zwingli) or a “wet dedication service” where water is used. If anyone is dedicating himself in covenant baptism, it is God who is dedicating himself to keep the promises he has made to Christian parents.[

    http://theaquilareport.com/a-high-view-of-the-efficacy-of-baptism/

  12. markmcculley Says:

    http://heidelblog.net/2010/03/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-est/

    Thus, those who willfully absent themselves from the true visible, institutional church (see Belgic Confession Art 29) have placed themselves in jeopardy. Think of it thus: if a man is willfully and impenitently committing murder and tells me “I am a Christian” I think I have a right to doubt his claim. Why? Because he’s an impenitent murderer! If a man tells me, “I don’t go to church, I belong to no church, I don’t need church. I have Jesus in my heart” and, if after instruction, he continues to persist in his abandonment of Christ’s church, then I doubt his claim to be a Christian.

    There is the strongest possible moral necessity for those who profess the Christian faith to join themselves to the true visible, institutional church. It’s not a second blessing for the illuminati. It’s not just a “good thing” to do. It’s not optional. It’s necessary.

    http://americanvision.org/8428/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus/

    http://www.reformation21.org/confession/2013/07/chapter-252.php

  13. markmcculley Says:

    http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2015/09/calvins-surprise-there-is-no-salvation.html

    extra ecclesiam nulla salus

    WCF–The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation

    The Belgic Confession — We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and that out of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw himself, to live in a separate state from it; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them. And that this may be the more effectually observed, it is the duty of all believers, according to the word of God, to separate themselves from all those who do not belong to the Church, and to join themselves to this congregation, wheresoever God hath established it, even though the magistrates and edicts of princes were against it, yea, though they should suffer death or any other corporal punishment. Therefore all those, who separate themselves from the same, or do not join themselves to it, act contrary to the ordinance of God. (Belgic Confession, Article 28)

    Calvin book IV of the Institutes—The Visible Church as Mother of Believers
    But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels . Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation

  14. markmcculley Says:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Vknr2VQSif8C&lpg=PA96&dq=The%20Church%20as%20the%20Elect%20in%20the%20Theology%20of%20Calvin&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false

    David N. Wiley, “The Church as the Elect in the Theology of Calvin, ” [Timothy George, ed. John Calvin and the Church (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990, 96-117

    of the church in the different editions of the Institutes and other writings. He identifies election as basic to Calvin’s understanding of the church with “an increasing tendency” to “stress the visible church” (p. 96). He notes Calvin’s preface to the King of France that the church need not be visible to exist:
    Our controversy turns on these hinges: first, they contend that the form of the church is always apparent and observable. Secondly, they set this form in the see of the Roman Church and its hierarchy. We, on the contrary, affirm that the church can exist without any visible appearance, and that its appearance is not contained within that outward magnificence which they foolishly admire. [Battles translations 74].
    Wiley notes that this sense of invisibility was later downplayed in later editions of the Institutes (p. 103). The author then demonstrates that Calvin came more and more to speak of the importance of the visible church, still with election as the foundation of the church. Wiley (p. 106) cites Calvin’s Catechism of the Church of Geneva (1542)
    Q100 M. Can this Church be known in any other way than when she is believed by faith?
    S. There is indeed also a visible Church of God, which he has described to us by certain signs and marks, but here we are properly speaking of the assemblage of those whom he has adopted to salvation, by his secret election. This is neither at all times visible to the eye nor discernible by signs.
    In regard to the visible church, the 1543 version of the Institutes is cited as stating we are “commanded to hold this visible church in honor and to keep ourselves in communion with it” (p. 108). Of the 1559 Institutes, Wiley views Calvin as saying in essence that the church is the ordinary means of bringing “the elect to their salvation” (p. 110). When Calvin appealed to extra ecclesiam nulla salus Wiley states, “properly speaking he means not outside the visible church but outside the church of the elect” (p. 110). Wiley makes such a statement (that appears to contradict what Calvin explicitly stated) because he argues the ultimate foundation of the church is election. .

  15. markmcculley Says:

    Dennis W. Jowers, “In What Sense Does Calvin Affirm ‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’?” [Eddy Van der Borght, Garard Mannion, ed. John Calvin Ecclesiology (New York: T and T Clark, 2011) 50-68].

    Dennis Jowers tackles Calvin and extra ecclesiam nulla salus head on. His basic argument is that “Calvin does teach that faith in Christ and membership of the visible church are prerequisites of salvation” but “he does so with considerable nuance and disowns some of the most harshly exclusivistic conceptions of the impossibility of salvation outside the church” (p. 50). Jowers presents an argument alluded to by Wiley, that the visible church is the normal means of bringing the elect to salvation. On the other hand, there are exceptional cases: “unbaptized infants, children who die in their infancy and adults on the margins of the visible church” (p. 54). These may not use the normal means. There are those though who are not included as obtaining salvation outside the church: “Calvin, then, is no advocate of the ‘wider hope’ as to the salvation of the unevangelized, which became fashionable in the nineteenth century” (p. 64).
    Calvin articulates a version of the classic Christian conviction, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then, that neither closes the kingdom of God to those who lack access to the church’s sacraments nor expands the sense of ecclesia so radically as to render persons who have never heard the gospel, intra ecclasiam for the purpose of salvation. Calvin charts something of a via media: allowing for the salvation of persons relatively isolated from the visible church without blunting the radicality of Reformation Christianity’s exclusive claims. (p. 65)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=YlnXtTQBoikC&lpg=PA50&dq=%22John%20Calvin%22%20%22visible%20church%22%20salvation%20outside&pg=PA50#v=onepage&q&f=false

  16. markmcculley Says:

    Norman Shepherd commands us to view election by means of “covenant”, so that there is only kind of membership.

    http://www.misterrichardson.com/fergusonbr.html

    Shepherd writes that “The prophets and apostles viewed election from the perspective of the covenant of grace, whereas Reformed theologians of a later day have tended to view the covenant of grace from the perspective of election”(p 60). The result of this, it is argued, is that the reformed preacher no longer says “Christ died for you” – but, when these words are construed, not from the point of view of election, but of the covenant, then “The Reformed evangelist can and must say on the basis of John 3:16, Christ died for you.”

    mark: Does this mean that Shepherd was saying “for you” to the church, but not to those outside the church? If so, was Shepherd making the church the object of evangelism?

    Sinclair Ferguson: First, Shepherd appears to adopt the view of the prevailing academic critique of the covenant theology of the seventeenth century (forcefully presented decades ago by Perry Miller), which suggests that the doctrine of covenant somehow makes God’s secret counsels less harsh. We ought therefore to look at covenant, and not at election. This analysis, both historically and biblically we reject… To use Shepherd’s own citation – the fact is that some passages, e.g. Ephesians 1:1-14, do employ the mode of looking at covenant from the viewpoint of election. Indeed, in that passage it is necessary for the reader to look for covenant in the context of election..”

    Guy Prentiss Waters, “The Theology of Norman Shepherd: A Study in Development, 1963–2006,” in Robert L. Penny, ed., The Hope Fulfilled: Essays in Honor of O. Palmer Robertson ( P&R Publishing, 2008), 207–231.

    In the 1974 article Shepherd argues that the first resurrection does not refer to conversion but rather to “the experience of baptism,” which, he writes, “is even more properly resurrection than is the resurrection of the body.”

    “Shepherd is undoubtedly driven by a biblicistic concern to limit modern theological vocabulary strictly to the biblical incidences of those words. It is clear, however, that Shepherd’s understand of what happens at an individual’s baptism is what Reformed theology has historically called “regeneration.”

    For Shepherd, we ought to speak to people “not in terms of decretal election or reprobation” but rather “in terms of their covenant faithfulness.”

    “The decree has no meaning full connection with or relationship to Shepherd’s covenantal perspective.”

    Norman Shepherd, “The Resurrections of Revelation 20,” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974–75)

    https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/norman-shepherd-begins-by-telling-us-not-to-talk-about-election/

  17. markmcculley Says:

    Brandon Adams — historic Presbyterianism was very different than modern Presbyterianism. Modern Presbyterianism will consider a non-communicant member who has reached the “age of discretion” and does not profess saving faith in Christ to be a covenant breaker and thus excommunicated. That was not the historic position. Instead, non-communicant members could remain members of the church without making any credible profession of saving faith. That was only required for communicant membership (access to the Lord’s table). Thus everyone in a nation was required by law to profess the true religion (known as “historic faith”) but they were not required by law to profess saving faith. Therefore the covenanters did not see themselves as judging “the world” with these laws. They were judging the church.
    http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/the-half-way-covenant/

  18. markmcculley Says:

    1. The question concerning the parts of the church. Do reprobates also belong to it?

    II. First it is inquired whether besides those called elect, reprobates and infidels also (whether secret or open) are to be considered as true members of the church. Bellarmine with others pretends this is so (“De Ecclesia Militante,” 3.2, 7, 9 Opera [1857], 2:74–75, 81–83, 85–89 and the following) when he teaches that in the definition of the church, pagans, heretics, the excommunicated and schismatics are excepted: “All others are included, even if they are reprobates, wicked and impious” because, as he immediately adds, “that a person may be said to be absolutely a part of the true church, of which the Scriptures speak, we do not think there is required any internal virtue, but only an external, especially a communion of faith and of the sacraments, which is perceived by the sense itself.” The design is that no other church may be acknowledged except that of which the Roman bishop is head. And because they clearly saw (if they restrict it to the elect and believers) the pope might possibly not belong to it, therefore they wished to extend it even to the reprobate, provided they were embraced under the one visible head. Hence in the Council of Constance, this proposition of John Hus was condemned as heretical: “The holy universal church is the universality of the predestinated” (Mansi 27:754). The importance of the controversy is such that on its decision depend all the others which are agitated concerning the church between us and the Romanists. Hence we must treat it the more accurately.

    —Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 3 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 18.3.2.

  19. markmcculley Says:

    Mike Horton—” God promises his saving grace in Christ to each person in baptism, whether they embrace this promise or not. … The word proclaimed and sealed in the sacraments is valid, regardless of our response, but we don’t enjoy the blessings apart from receiving Christ with all of his benefits. …..To be claimed as part of God’s holy field comes with threats as well as blessings. Covenant members who do not believe are under the covenant curse. How can they fall under the curses of a covenant to which they didn’t belong? ”

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/kingdom-through-covenant-a-review-by-michael-horton

  20. markmcculley Says:

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=279

    https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/john-murray-the-baptist-vs-james-bannerman-the-presbyterian-on-the-church/

    http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/brandonadams/visible-saints-the-history-of-a-puritan-idea/

    Bannerman — Mere formal profession devoid of saving faith (what is known as “historical faith”) is all that is required for membership in the visible church.

    The formal professor may not possess that faith UNFEIGNED and that vital union to the Saviour which will obtain for him the INTERNAL and saving blessing which the REAL believer will find in the ordinances; but there are external privileges which he does obtain in consequence of his mere outward profession… This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an external covenant and outward federal union. There is such a relationship, involving both real RESPONSIBILITIES and real privileges…

  21. markmcculley Says:

    Samuel Rutherford—“Nothing more is required for the church to confer the seal of the covenant, but that the children be descended of parents professing the truth and faith, though the parents, as concerning any REAL union of faith, be plain strangers to the covenant, and are members of the church only as an arm of wood is a member of the body. Otherwise, God would not have commanded Joshua to circumcise all Israel because their fathers were externally within the covenant. For their fathers were a generation of unbelievers who knew not God, who tempted Him, grieved his holy Spirit in the wilderness. To profess the doctrine of the covenant is but to be born Jews, avow the Lord in external profession and swear a covenant with Him even when the heart is blinded and hardened (Deuteronomy 29:4). “

    https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/john-murray-the-baptist-vs-james-bannerman-the-presbyterian-on-the-church/

  22. markmcculley Says:

    Jesus is not merely the way to life, but the life and we don’t need no doctrine—Salvation is Christ, not one of his benefits.
    —we don’t want teaching and explanation, we want Him, we want preaching
    —we don’t receive merely His righteousness or His death, we receive Him–
    –Jesus is not merely the giver of life, because Jesus is the life

    Mark Mcculley–there are some preachers who confuse their preaching with God’s sovereignty, but preaching is not election, and election is not calling–God’s effectual calling may or may not come using preaching and a visible church, but be sure of this—God is not still electing sinners, the election of grace already happene

  23. markmcculley Says:

    The confined eschatology of the Roman Church postulates that the Kingdom of God is wholly, if not completely, realised within the confines of the visible Church. In the visible Church alone, defined around a clergy, could be found the divine action and presence. If the Church is the sole locus of God’s agency then by implication God could not act anywhere else except via his ecclesiastical agents. This highly exaggerated role of the Church however gives it a burden to which it is simply not equal.
    https://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/the-non-avenging-god-of-shusaku-endos-silence/

  24. markmcculley Says:

    Marilynne Robinson–Two terrible scandals mar Luther’s life. One was his response to the Peasants’ War, in which he urged extreme violence against the rebels. The other was his writing against the Jews, whom he assailed in very similar, very violent terms. There is no excuse to be made for this, but a reason for it might have been that the existence of communities considered heretical was tenuous. Whole villages of Waldensians had been slaughtered. Wittenberg, where Luther lived most of his life, was protected by important German princes, but to tip it in the slightest degree toward association with any disfavored population would be to put it at risk.

    The Peace of Augsburg, signed in 1555, which for a while established a truce between Catholics and Lutherans within the Holy Roman Empire, did not acknowledge other Protestant groups, who had little or nothing in the way of princely protection and who remained liable to prosecution as heretics by both Catholics and Lutherans. Luther was no longer alive, but his readiness to dissociate himself from vulnerable groups seems to have survived him. https://newrepublic.com/article/145925/luther-legend?

  25. markmcculley Says:

    tolerant quotation—“not every example of a gospel declaration in scripture is accompanied by communication of the doctrine of election and limited atonement. . Maybe you can show me where in Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians he makes the doctrine of the limited atonement clear. The gospel in chapter 15 seems much more basic than what you seem to think *must* be communicated every time. Is your claim that one cannot be converted if you have misunderstood the gospel? Is so, then this is a cognitive works based righteousness. You have to intellectually get things exactly right or you aren’t converted. If you don’t have to get the gospel exactly right to be converted, then obviously there are those who have misconceptions about some aspect of the gospel who have been converted.Following the WCF, I would go further and say that all any of us have is a misunderstood gospel. To say otherwise is to replace moral perfectionism with cognitive perfectionism.”

    tolerant quotation—“can one be converted who has any misconceptions about the gospel. The answer here is yes as well of course. To claim otherwise is to establish a cognitive works based righteousness. With God all things are possible and we never perfectly win the battle on this side of glory – including the battle to properly understand the gospel in all its fullness.”

    When Calvinists claim that they were converted by the means of the false gospel, many of them appeal to an unbiblical ecclesiology—if we think that the God who is holy and true does not use the false gospel of “Jesus died for everybody”, then we are accused of being Donatists (and perfectionists”) who don’t agree that the water baptism of the Roman Catholics creates “the visible church” in which there is salvation without the gospel. And then we are told that ordinarily there is no salvation outside “the visible church”. And when I read this, I begin to understand why so many care so much more about being “Reformed” than about the truth of the gospel. For them the sovereignty of God means that God effectually calls sinners to Himself by using the lie of salvation conditioned on the sinner.

    Rejection of the Errors
    by Which the Dutch Churches Have for Some Time Been Disturbed

    Having set forth the orthodox teaching concerning election and reprobation, the Synod rejects the errors of those

    I. Who teach that the will of God to save those who would believe and persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decision of election to salvation, and that nothing else concerning this decision has been revealed in God’s Word.

    For they deceive the simple and plainly contradict Holy Scripture in its testimony that God does not only wish to save those who would believe, but that he has also from eternity chosen certain particular people to whom, rather than to others, he would within time grant faith in Christ and perseverance. As Scripture says, I have revealed your name to those whom you gave me (John 17:6). Likewise, All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48), and He chose us before the foundation of the world so that we should be holy… (Eph. 1:4).

    II. Who teach that God’s election to eternal life is of many kinds: one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and the latter in turn either incomplete, revocable, nonperemptory (or conditional), or else complete, irrevocable, and peremptory (or absolute). Likewise, who teach that there is one election to faith and another to salvation, so that there can be an election to justifying faith apart from a peremptory election to salvation.

    For this is an invention of the human brain, devised apart from the Scriptures, which distorts the teaching concerning election and breaks up this golden chain of salvation: Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

    III. Who teach that God’s good pleasure and purpose, which Scripture mentions in its teaching of election, does not involve God’s choosing certain particular people rather than others, but involves God’s choosing, out of all possible conditions (including the works of the law) or out of the whole order of things, the intrinsically unworthy act of faith, as well as the imperfect obedience of faith, to be a condition of salvation; and it involves his graciously wishing to count this as perfect obedience and to look upon it as worthy of the reward of eternal life.

    For by this pernicious error the good pleasure of God and the merit of Christ are robbed of their effectiveness and people are drawn away, by unprofitable inquiries, from the truth of undeserved justification and from the simplicity of the Scriptures. It also gives the lie to these words of the apostle: God called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of works, but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim. 1:9).

    IV. Who teach that in election to faith a prerequisite condition is that man should rightly use the light of nature, be upright, unassuming, humble, and disposed to eternal life, as though election depended to some extent on these factors.

    For this smacks of Pelagius, and it clearly calls into question the words of the apostle: We lived at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts, and we were by nature children of wrath, like everyone else. But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in transgressions, made us alive with Christ, by whose grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with him and seated us with him in heaven in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages we might show the surpassing riches of his grace, according to his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith (and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God) not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:3-9).

    V. Who teach that the incomplete and nonperemptory election of particular persons to salvation occurred on the basis of a foreseen faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness, which has just begun or continued for some time; but that complete and peremptory election occurred on the basis of a foreseen perseverance to the end in faith, repentance, holiness, and godliness. And that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, on account of which the one who is chosen is more worthy than the one who is not chosen. And therefore that faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits or effects of an unchangeable election to glory, but indispensable conditions and causes, which are prerequisite in those who are to be chosen in the complete election, and which are foreseen as achieved in them.

    This runs counter to the entire Scripture, which throughout impresses upon our ears and hearts these sayings among others: Election is not by works, but by him who calls (Rom. 9:11-12); All who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48); He chose us in himself so that we should be holy (Eph. 1:4); You did not choose me, but I chose you (John 15:16); If by grace, not by works (Rom. 11:6); In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10).

    VI. Who teach that not every election to salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the chosen can perish and do in fact perish eternally, with no decision of God to prevent it.

    By this gross error they make God changeable, destroy the comfort of the godly concerning the steadfastness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scriptures, which teach that the elect cannot be led astray (Matt. 24:24), that Christ does not lose those given to him by the Father (John 6:39), and that those whom God predestined, called, and justified, he also glorifies (Rom. 8:30).

    VII. Who teach that in this life there is no fruit, no awareness, and no assurance of one’s unchangeable election to glory, except as conditional upon something changeable and contingent.

    For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain assurance, but these things also militate against the experience of the saints, who with the apostle rejoice from an awareness of their election and sing the praises of this gift of God; who, as Christ urged, rejoice with his disciples that their names have been written in heaven (Luke 10:20); and finally who hold up against the flaming arrows of the devil’s temptations the awareness of their election, with the question Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? (Rom. 8:33).

    http://www.creeds.net/dordt/mp1.htm

  26. markmcculley Says:

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/g220radio/2018/03/28/ep-286-hyper-grace-lordship-salvation-antinomianism

    https://reformedreasons.com/2018/01/26/extreme-calvinist-or-hyper-calvinist-is-arminianism-heresy/

    Jonathan Rainbow—-Augustine the anti-Donatist spoke of salvation as a work of God mediated through the institution of the church and its sacraments. Hincmar squeezed Gottschalk between the objectivity of salvation and the objectivity of sacramental baptism, and Gottschalk squirmed. The predestinarianism of Wycliff and Hus was rightly perceived by the church as a dire threat to its institutionality. The Roman Catholic claim to have Augustine on their side stung the Reformers, but Rome was correct—. The Will of God and The Cross: A Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption, p 184

    ”There are some who, when they find out that the evangelical bus is going the wrong direction, walk toward the other end of the evangelical bus.

    Leithart assures us of a catholic space with room with all kinds of diversity, even though views other than his own are “Donatist”
    http://twoedgedsword.blogspot.com/2009/12/i-just-read-piece-from-peter-leithart.html

    Leithart—- Hypothetical universalism does not reduce to Arminianism. The fact that the two positions overlap in language and content doesn’t mean they are equivalent, and they aren’t: “Whereas the hypothetical universalists claimed that God effectually applies the work of Christ only to those whom God has eternally elected according to God’s good pleasure and will, the Arminian’s claim that God elects those ‘individuals who through the established means of his prevenient grace come to faith and believe’ and persevere in the faith…. the hypothetical universalist scheme claims that God elects independent of any knowledge God has concerning foreseen faith” (188).

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/11/error-versus-heresy.php

    Mark Jones on “when calling someone a heretic”—–” I would argue that Pelagianism is a heresy, but Arminianism is not. Pelagianism overthrows several fundamental articles. I would argue that Arminianism is a serious error, but it is not a heresy…..you should be very careful, indeed – when you hurl around the word “moralist”… on matters that do not rise to the level of soul-damning doctrine. …. Amyraldianismis not heresy A wall exists between my brothers who hold to any one of these views, but the wall is not so high that we cannot “shake hands” as brothers.”

    mcmark– in the meanwhile, it can never hurt to use the word “antinomian” when talking to your congregation, because in this day and age those in the covenant need to be reminded that sinners who actually practice sin are “antinomian” and it’s very well possible that many in your congregation will not do the works necessary to stay in covenant and attain final justification.

    I am reminded of the Ian Murray defense of Wesley—it’s not his fault that he was Arminian because it was the fault of the “truly reformed” Antinomians….

  27. markmcculley Says:

    Jonathan Rainbow—-Augustine the anti-Donatist spoke of salvation as a work of God mediated through the institution of the church and its sacraments. Hincmar squeezed Gottschalk between the objectivity of salvation and the objectivity of sacramental baptism, and Gottschalk squirmed. The predestinarianism of Wycliff and Hus was rightly perceived by the church as a dire threat to its institutionality. The Roman Catholic claim to have Augustine on their side stung the Reformers, but Rome was correct—. The Will of God and The Cross: A Study of John Calvin’s Doctrine of Limited Redemption, p 184

  28. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Many teach that ther can be no assurance apart from the visible “means of grace”

    Horton, Justification, volume 2, (New Studies in Dogmatics ) 2018

    p455–“There is no union with Christ which is not union with the visible church”

    Horton essay in The Exxtent of the Atonement,, edited by Adam Johnson, Zondervan, 2019

    p 129–To be in Christ is an ecclesiastical matter: it is to be be in
    the church. Although the reprobate are scattered among the elect in
    the church, there is no way of separating the sheep from the goats
    until the last judgment. Assurance of salvation THEREFORE is linked to the PROPER use of the MEANS OF GRACE AND incorporation into the VISIBLE CHURCH. Certainty of salvation is not by oneself BUT WITH HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE

  29. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Philip Cary–. Luther points here to the words “for you,” and insists that they include me. When faith takes hold of the Gospel of Christ, it especially takes hold of these words, “for you,” and rejoices that Christ did indeed died for me.” For what the sacramental word tells me is not: “You must believe” (a command we must choose to obey) but “Christ died for you” (good news that causes us to believe). It is sufficient to know that Christ’s body is given for me. IF I CLING TO THAT in faith, all will go well with me. And whenever the devil suggests otherwise, I keep returning to that sacramental Word, and to the “for us” in the creed, where the “us” includes me.

  30. Mark Mcculley Says:

    David Engelsma—-No Reformed parent, such as I am, can disparage the Baptist denial that the children of godly parents are included by God in His covenant, founded on the blood of the cross. Baptists exclude them from the covenant and church and really
    from salvation. The creed confesses that Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for adult
    persons. Baptists are enemies of the cross of Christ–they exclude
    from the grace and work of the cross a goodly group of those whom
    Christ loved and for whom He gave His precious blood. They must
    answer to Christ Jesus, who died for my and others’ children on
    Calvary.

    https://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/boundtojoinreview.htm

  31. Mark Mcculley Says:

    why should i be a member of a church with credentialed (approved by the powers) clergy, when in fact I do not even identify as
    “Christian”?

    https://theneongaslamp.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/why-the-label-calvinism-is-no-longer-tenable-or-why-i-can-no-longer-accept-the-label-calvinist/

  32. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Dgh– if the Sacraments present no more than the Word
    preached, the inverse can also be affirmed, namely that Baptism and
    the Supper confer no less. As Brian A. Gerrish has argued, “the
    sacraments, like preaching, are the vehicle of Christ’s
    self-communication, of the real presence.” “Only the most perverse
    misreading,” Gerrish adds, “could conclude that the sacraments for
    Calvin have a purely symbolic or pedagogical function.”

    Dgh–the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and the
    Great Commission have been perverted to mean that ministers render services that are no different from what other believers do, but if preaching really is the Word of God and if the Sacraments
    really communicate the benefits of redemption, then the people who
    perform such acts are clearly different from other believers.
    Christ’s words in Matthew 28:18–20 to go into all the world and
    make disciples are not a legitimate basis for every Christian thinking
    that he is called to minister the Word.

    http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-10-020-f

    Hart accuses others of “making imminent the eschaton” if you think the Bible or God’s law has anything to do with how you operate in the second (this earth, secular) kingdom, but Hart gets uncomfortable with “low ecclesiology”. When it comes to killing for democracy, it’s still “not yet”, but there’s not so much “early and late” in Hart’s equation of the church with one of the kingdoms.

    Steve Wedgeworth quotes Doug Wilson–A problem is created
    when we affirm a belief in two Churches at the same moment in time,
    one visible and the other invisible… Because time and history are not taken into account, we wind up with two Churches on different
    ontological levels.

    It would be better to consider the one Church under a different set of
    terms, discussed earlier, and which preserves the necessary
    distinction made by visible and invisible—historical and
    eschatological Because time is taken into account, we preserve the
    understanding of just one Church, and at the same time preserve the
    necessary distinction between those Church members who are ultimately saved and those who are ultimately lost. The historical Church is the counterpart to the visible Church, and consists of those who throughout history who profess the true faith, together with their
    children. The eschatological Church is the elect, but it is not
    invisible. At the last day, every true child of God will be there, not
    one missing, and every false professor will have been removed. At the resurrection of the dead, this Church will be most visible.
    (‘Reformed’ Is Not Enough, 74)

    https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/01/08/the-federal-vision-two-understandings-of-salvation-held-together-by-one-name/

  33. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Augustine to the Donatists –“I hear that you are in the habit of
    quoting that which is recorded in the Gospel, that when the seventy
    followers went back from the Lord they were left to themselves in this
    wicked and impious desertion and that the Lord even asked the twelve who remained whether they didn’t want to go too … You forget is that at that time the Church was ONLY JUST BEGINNING to burst forth from the newly-planted seed and that the saying HAD NOT THEN BEEN FULFILLED as yet. ‘All kings shall fall down before Him, all nations shall serve Him: It is in proportion to the enlarged fulfillment of this prophecy that the Church now wields greater power, so that she may now not only invite but also compel men to embrace that which is good.”

    Verduin’s comment–Augustine here posits a spurious early and late,

    https://www.gospeltruth.net/verduin/hybrid.htm

    Scott Clark– I cannot see how those congregations that deny baptism to the children of believers can be regarded as true churches, since they lack one of the marks. I am happy, however, to come out out of church into the common or out of the rooms and into the hallway to talk with folk from other traditions, e.g., Baptists, Pentecostals, and Dispensationaists There is one standard for the Western church prior to the Reformation and another standard after. Once the Word had been recovered, the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, there is no excuse to corrupt the administration of baptism by denying it to the children of believers.

    https://heidelblog.net/2013/04/when-is-a-church-not-a-church/

  34. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Sacramentalists want to hand out grace without judging saved and lost. They want to include you in their “church” and tell you it’s God’s will and not your decision. Sacramentalists don’t trust anabaptists because they see that suspicion of the state might also mean suspicion of their big broad “the church”. The majority culture of the state and the powerful (and the would be powerful!) always opposes any attempt for “sects” to judge by the gospel who is justified. This is why the Reformers kept on killing the Anabaptists the Romanists also killed.

    The guy who says we can’t be certain of the gospel is quite certain
    that Peter was saved without any gospel—“Your analysis fails to deal
    with Peter. We know for a fact that Peter was saved prior to Acts 2.
    We know for a fact that twice thereafter, he was rebuked for Judaizing tendencies. He was saved yet still erred on an essential.

    You need to reckon with the silence of Scripture in regard to
    anathematizing unlimited atonement. Not only is there no condemnation for that view, but Peter and Paul both use language that is easily misconstrued as hypothetically universalist (at least out of context).

    And yet again, you need to reckon with the history of the church.
    Sound doctrine and the understanding of the gospel did not *poof* come into existence with Peter and Paul, then continue in pristine form from Polycarp to McCulley. Rather, it took a long time for the Spirit to guide the church into a clear understanding of faith alone or
    limited atonement

    1. whose history? the history which says that Anabaptists are violent
    seditionists and that Roman Catholicism still has the marks of “the
    church”?

    2. which church and which covenant? Are there non-elect persons in the new covenant like there were non-elect persons in the Abrahamic covenant?

  35. Mark Mcculley Says:

    https://stanleyhauerwas.org/why-bonhoeffer-matters-the-challenge-for-christian-ministry-at-the-end-of-christendom/

    In her book The Church for the World: A Theology of Public Witness, Jennifer McBride quite rightly argues that Bonhoeffer’s
    account of the necessity of the church’s visibility is an expression
    of his Christology.

    Yet McBride worries that this emphasis on the recovery of the
    visibility of the church as a correlative of Christ’s public witness
    may fail to do justice to Bonhoeffer’s Lutheran understanding of the
    hiddenness of Christ. For central to Luther’s (and Bonhoeffer’s)
    Christology is the reality of the cross which is a manifestation of
    God’s hiddenness. The cross is at once the most visible manifestation of God but it is a manifestation that is constituted by Christ’s humiliation, which means there is a necessary hiddenness at the point God is most determinatively present.

    McBride worries that the call for the recovery of the visibility of
    the church, a recovery she associates with my call for a recovery of
    the public character of the church, can underwrite a triumphal account of the church’s role in the world. McBride, therefore, suggests that an emphasis on the visibility of the church can give aid and comfort to the religious right, whom McBride argues are idolatrous in their support of America. The result, moreover, turns Christianity into a moralistic faith unable to be a witness commensurate with the hiddenness of the Incarnation.

    In order to avoid that result, McBride suggests that the church must
    embody the humility that the cross demands. Such a witness, she
    argues, will best be made by the church that is primarily identified
    by confession and repentance for sin. Such a confession means the
    church can reflect the humility of the cross in a world dying for an
    alternative to our prideful self-assurance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: