Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

Infant Baptism, the Covenant, and the Reformed View

"Upon You have I leaned from before my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of You"(Psalm 71:6). 

When discussing the baptism of infants with Baptists, they often tell me that a little baby can't know anything about God. We should, they claim, wait until a person grows to an age of accountability or moral awareness. It is phrased in different ways. 

Yet, look at the words above from Scripture. Is that not to be our authority? We are not to look to pop psychology or secular educational assumptions. 

Unlike other psalms, Psalm 71 includes no superscription with its authorship. I think it sounds like David. Whether or not it is, is obviously the words of a covenant child, i. e., one born to a believing home. He professes even a preborn experience of the promise of God: "All your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Note that He doesn't say all children; rather, He says your children. Why the distinction? Because God claims the children of believers as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). Not that He promises that they are or will ever be regenerate, but that He distinguishes them covenantally from the children of pagans. We see it in His discrimination between the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. While Ishmael is the heir of the promise, He also blesses Ishmael because of his covenantal status (Genesis 17:18-21). Both sons are members of the visible church, while only Isaac is a member of the invisible church, a proviso that Baptists consistently fail to consider. 

That is why the Reformed baptize the children of our members. God has claimed them as His own, a great privilege! Therefore, they have a right to His covenant sign, baptism. I am not attempting here to explain the Catholic or Lutheran views of baptism; that is for them to do. But the Reformed do not assume the regeneration of our infants, contrary to the oft-repeated strawman argument of Baptists. We just give them the status that God has declared of them. 

Perseverance, Apostates, and the Church

In arguing against the biblical doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, Arminians point to people who used to profess the Christian faith, but who have now fallen into gross sin, or who have even repudiated the faith they once professed. And there certainly are such people.

However, the Bible addresses that issue: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (I John 2:19). In the previous verse, John had warned his audience of antichrists, apostates who now denied the basic doctrines of Christ. He addresses the obvious hypothetical question, How could Christians become such enemies of the faith? And his answer is that such people were never true Christians in the first place.

This verse teaches the doctrine of the visible church. That is, the church as an organization of people who profess the Christian faith, without addressing the true condition of their hearts. This is contrasted with the invisible church, which is all of those throughout history who have truly been born again, without regard to their membership in any particular organization. The two overlap, but they are not identical, as John explains. 

Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell explained the distinction this way: "[I] restrict the 'church,' in its proper sense, to the congregation of the faithful. None can be truly members of it but those who are members of Christ. [I] accordingly maintain with Calvin, with Luther, [and] with Melancthon, that hypocrites and unbelievers, though in it, are not of it. They are insolent intruders, whom it is the office of discipline to expel" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church"). The Westminster divines also addressed the subject in the Larger Catechism, questions 62 through 65.

Yes, Virginia, God Keeps His Church Without Consulting Our Free Will

Almost any professing Christian knows the story of the Prophet Elijah, especially of his altar battle with the priests of Baal (I Kings 18:20-40). However, I have noticed something about the use of his story: while plenty of attention is given to that element, others are overlooked. Conveniently? I suspect so.

One in particular is I Kings 19:18 (see also Romans 11:4), just after the exciting part. Elijah complains to god that there is no one faithful in all of Israel, except himself (verse 10): "I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away." This is a place many Christians have been, when it seems that the whole world has only abuse to heap upon us. However, God says otherwise: "I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."

Elijah cannot see all of his fellow countrymen. In particular, he cannot see their hearts. He bewails what appears to him to be the complete failure of God among His covenant people. "Couldn't you hold on to anyone other than me?" he cries.God quickly rebukes him. "Not only have I kept you, Elijah," He says, "but I have kept seven thousand others, too, to be faithful to Me."

Notice what He doesn't say. God doesn't express hope that there are others. He knows so. Nor does He leave it as some vague assertion, as if there were some, somewhere. No, He knows that there are seven thousand, and that is in Israel, the rebellious northern kingdom. And, most startlingly of all, He doesn't refer to anyone who has remained faithful because of some inherent superiority, but because He has retained them!

These words of God Himself say nothing of free will, but rather of His own actions to produce a definite event, the retention of a faithful church in a rebellious and paganistic culture. This is unconditional election and perseverance of the saints, not any antinomian concept of "once saved, always saved." We don't hear this verse preached because it so thoroughly casts down human pride and sufficiency and lifts up God's sovereign grace. And it is such a shame that the people of God are denied the assurance of faith that this kind of God engenders.

The Preservation of the Church

Almost every Christian is familiar with Matthew 16:18: "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." We know that it has been perverted by the Catholic Church, which claims it as justification for their assumption of the infallibility of their church organization. Well, first, it doesn't say anything of the sort, and, second, I deny that they are a true branch of the Church of Christ, so they can make no legitimate claim on it, regardless of what it actually teaches.

Rather, it teaches that the Church of Christ - that mystical, invisible body of all true believers down through history, without regard to their respective organizational affiliations - can never be overcome by the evil forces that would seek to destroy her. This is the doctrine of the invisible church, as opposed to the visible organizations of Christians in denominations and individual congregations.

I am writing on this topic, because it was an underlying theme in my own church yesterday, the Lord's Day. Apparently, the Holy Spirit had a point to make.

In Sunday School, my class, one of three adult classes, is studying Zechariah. Yesterday, we were in chapter 12. Three verses stand out in my mind:

Verse 3: "On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it."

Verse 8: "On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them."

Verse 9:  "And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem."

Since I don't believe that God has a special concern about a plot of dirt, I don't believe that this passage is about physical Jerusalem, but rather about the heavenly Jerusalem of such passages as Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 12:22, and the new Jerusalem of Revelation 3:12 and 21:2. So, in each of these three verses from Zechariah, their significance can be seen by making them literal, that is, by inserting "church" in each place where the prophetic imagery says "Jerusalem."

Then during worship, one of the passages read was Psalm 118, which reads, in part (verses 6, 10-13): "The Lord is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?... All nations surrounded me; in the name of the Lord I cut them off! They surrounded me, surrounded me on every side; in the name of the Lord I cut them off! They surrounded me like bees; they went out like a fire among thorns; in the name of the Lord I cut them off! I was pushed hard, so that I was falling, but the Lord helped me."

The church is surrounded by her enemies, all of whom are serving her greatest enemy, Satan. Here in the United States, we are attacked by secularists, who hate her prophetic voice. In other countries, her persecutors may be Muslims, or Hindus, or Communists, or even enemies claiming to speak for her God, such as the Inquisition in the past. Yet, Jesus promises His presence (Matt. 28:20), that we are in His hands (John 10:28), and that His power surrounds us (Zech. 2:5). While there have certainly been times when she was at a low ebb, there has never been, and never can be, a time when she cannot be found, for her survival isn't a matter of her own strength, but rather that of the God who gave His blood to purchase her (Acts 20:28, Col. 1:20, Rev. 5:9), of which we are reminded each time we receive communion (Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, and Luke 22:20).

Baptism and the Visible/Invisible Church Dichotomy

This morning at church (The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church of Huntersville) we had both an infant baptism and communion. I heard it called "Sacrament Sunday" several times. While communion was occurring as regularly scheduled, it is unusual to have both sacraments together. The subject of "why baptize infants" came up in Sunday School, and was also the subject of the sermon. I have addressed the biblical basis for the baptism of the infant children of believers before (see here, here, and here; and regarding the mode of baptism, here, here, here, and here), so I won't repeat that here. Rather, I want to address why paedobaptists, i.e., those who baptize the infant children of believers, see this, while credobaptists, i.e., those who advocate believers' baptism only, don't. Note that my reasoning here is a Reformed position, and is not intended to explain the views of Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox.

I think that the problem is that credobaptists seek to apply the characteristics of the invisible church to the visible church.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 62, defines the "visible church" as "a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children." That is, an organization on earth, such that one can point to it, and say, "there it is." Scripture uses this sense in such places as Romans 16:3-5, in reference to the church that met in the house of Priscilla and Aquila.

In contrast, Question 64 defines the invisible church as "the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head." Scripture uses this sense in such places as Ephesians 1:22-23, "the church, which is his body..."

The visible church is as man sees it, while the invisible church is as God sees it. The latter is necessarily pure, because God knows our hearts. The first cannot be pure, because men have no infallible means of perceiving the hearts of other men (and imperfectly even their own). The credobaptist expects the visible church to be equivalent to the invisible church, even though this is beyond the ken of mortal men. That is what blinds him to the status of the children of believers (see I Corinthians 7, especially verse 14). By maintaining this dichotomy, the paedobaptist experiences no dissidence in the baptism of someone who is not, and, in fact, may never be, a believer.

The New Birth Before Nicodemus Was Even Born: Psalm 87

"On the holy mount stands the city He founded; the Lord loves the gates of Zion more than the dwelling places of Jacob. Glorious things of you are spoken, O city of God. Among those who know Me I mention Rahab and Babylon; behold, Philistia and Tyre, with Cush - 'This one was born there,' they say. And of Zion it shall be said, 'This one was born in her'; for the Most High Himself will establish her. The Lord records as He registers the peoples, 'This one was born there.' Singers and dancers alike say, 'All my springs are in you.'"

Here we have that spiritual Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, described more clearly in Hebrews 12:22-23, "You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect." How do I know that it is the spiritual Zion, instead of the physical one? The text itself says that God prefers it over the dwelling places of Israel, which would include the geographical area of Jerusalem. See also Revelation 21:2, 19-27. This is the distinction in the creeds between the "visible church" and the "invisible church."

This Psalm is the inspiration for the hymn, "Glorious things of thee are spoken," by John Newton (who also wrote "Amazing Grace"). Unfortunately, the hymn has been set to the same tune as "Deutschland, Deutschland, uber alles," the national anthem of Nazi Germany, quite contrary to the Psalmist's universalism.

That's what I love about this particular Psalm: its universal view of the prosperity of the Gospel. Men are born the first time citizens of their respective countries, but they are born again the citizens of the Zion of God. The same theme appears in a number of places in the Scriptures, such as Daniel 7:14, "To Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him," and again in Revelation 7:9, "...behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands."

We must seek the power of the Holy Spirit to make our vision as broad as His is! Too often, evangelism and missions in today's Church mean nothing more than seeking to add a few individuals, here and there. The Prophets saw missions as bringing entire peoples into God's Church, for the glory of Christ alone! Scottish Presbyterian Iain Murray's book "Puritan Hope" examines the impact when that vision takes hold of the Church. Our narrowness has deprived Jesus Christ of the honor and glory to which He is due.

Nicodemus

Psalms, the Covenant, Baptism, and the Visible Church

"The children of your servants shall dwell secure; their offspring shall be established before you."
- Psalm 102:28

One of the most-misrepresented practices of Presbyterians is the baptism of the infant children of believers. Westminster Confession XXVII:6, "Not only those that do actually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, are to be baptized." Why? WCF XXV:2, "The visible church... 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..." Also Larger Catechism 62, "What is the visible church? The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children."

The misrepresentation is that Presbyterians believe that our children are automatically saved, or that baptism makes them saved, as is taught in the Catholic Church. As can be seen in the constitutional remarks above, that is a misrepresentation. We believe that the children of believers (only, as we are told nothing about the children of unbelievers) are members of the visible church, i. e., the professing church, but not necessarily of the invisible church. That is, that they aren't believers or regenerate, necessarily, but are set apart from the world. This is a confessional expression of what the Apostle Paul teaches in I Corinthians 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Just as neither the unbelieving husband nor the unbelieving wife is regenerate-by-proxy, neither are their children. However, they are set apart from the world, not counted as Pagans, and therefore have a right to the mark of the covenant, i.e., baptism.

To return to Psalms, this time to Ps. 103:17-18, "The steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep His covenant and remember to do His commandments." The children of believers are the subjects of special promises from God, which is a great comfort to Christian parents. But if those baptized children break that covenant, if they are unfaithful - since God can never be unfaithful - then they repudiate those benefits signified by their baptisms.

So the question goes back to our Baptist critics: do you seriously expect us to believe that you really think of your children as mere miniature Pagans?