Saved: have been, are being, and will be…
Was just reading Doug Wilson’s blog on the Lord’s Supper and it reminded me of this past weekend’s reading in Table Talk about how to answer those who pose the question, “Are you saved?” with a response such as, “Do you mean was I saved?, am I saved? , or am I being saved? Wilson comments:
“It is quite true that you have been saved already; you are freely justified through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. But according to the Word, we are also being saved, and at the last day, we will be saved.”
I wonder how much of the confusion about the Federal Vision theology has to do with confusing the fact that we have been, are being, and will be saved?
Of course the big todo is about the church - is it visible, invisible, or what? I think the distinction is what causes most of the confusion. Just because there are tares in the wheat field does not make it any less a wheat field! And it definitely does not make the wheat part of some invisible field!
God is the God of space & time. God is the God of history. The community he is creating is a community in space & time, a community in history - not some ethereal, invisible church but a church that is called to be salt and light to the world, a church that by it’s visible unity is supposed show the world the truth of the gospel. No, this is not an invisible church, but a church triumphant, victorious, and VISIBLE.
Are all that are in the church going to heaven? Did all who were part of Israel, and saved from Egypt make it to the promised land? See how silly it would sound to say that only the invisible Israel were saved?
Ah, but bed time calls…. What was to be just a short note has become a rant.
How silly? Is this a matter of what sounds silly or what is true to scripture? I agree there are grave limitations to the delineation many make between a visible and invisible church. I try not to use that language. But the fact remains that not all in the “church” are elect or predestined or saved–not now, not then. Why should we react so much if someone uses such means to make a biblical point?
One of the key things to remember is that the covenant is simply the structure through which the elect are saved. We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ’s blood. The covenant is the structure by which God has chosen to bring us to Christ–to, as the Heidelberg puts it, “focus our faith” on Christ. Unfortunately this point is being lost in some circles.
I hope this isn’t just a shot in the dark. I’m piecing together a lot of information at the moment. Btw, I’m from the OCRC in Lynden.
I think I’ll be following along here whenever I can.
Cheers Mark
Comment by Mark Reimers — July 24, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
I think we agree - except for the fact of this extra-biblical use of the terms “visible” & “invisible”. There is one church. A distinction can be made about the elect, the hypocrites, the unsaved, the wheat and the tares, whatever. I am not sure how the distinction between “visible” and “invisible” help the discussion. I do not see Paul addressing the two groups seperately. But am open to hear your thoughts.
Comment by Gary Paulson — July 25, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
Hi, I’m very new at this. Not sure how to do it. Mark, I too am from an ocrc in Mt. Vernon. As far as a covenant not being a relationship, nearly every minister in our federation has, either in our publication the trumpet, or in their published sermons, called the covenant a relationship. Also,if you read Ralph Allan Smiths’ “Defining the covenant: What Consensus”, you will find that your dogmatic statement about it NOT being a relationship is simply not true. Further, I agree with Ralph’s assesment that this is being made a mountain out of a molehill. Our former minister pretty much regarded the view of the covenant being a relationship as heretical. Fortunately, that heresy-hunting liar is no longer with us, but unfortunatly, him and his ilk are still doing damage to the reformed community. Chris.
Comment by Chris Sybrandy — December 19, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
I really would like to post more on this topic but just don’t feel like I would be contributing anything more than fueling the fire. It is easy to take people’s comments and use them against them. I can say that Mark above does not believe in “We are saved by Faith alone” because he writes: “We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ’s blood.” So which is it? Faith or Blood? Silly question. But that is the way that the FV people are being attacked.
Comment by YeOleImposter — December 21, 2007 @ 11:50 am