I've been asked to talk about the church as a covenant community. One of the interesting things about this topic is it's so vast. How do I focus on this topic? I looked at the other titles and I envy them because it looked like, you know, they were defined, you know, the headship of Christ. They can focus on that. But the covenant community, you know, where do you go with that? Well, I do want to focus on a few things as I deal with this. Because we live in a very curious age in this generation. You know, as I do, that the church has fallen on some hard times. We're actually having to defend the importance of the local church to professing believers, not just to the unbelieving world. And that's what makes it very difficult, as you know, and some of our speakers have already mentioned. Does the Church traditionally affirm the statement in the Apostles Creed, I believe the Holy Catholic Church, some debate among the early Puritans and Reformers over the preposition in and Dr. Morton mentioned that yesterday. But yet even that confession, believing in the Church or believing the Holy Catholic Church seems totally out of place in our generation. Modern evangelicals denigrate the role and purpose of the institutional or visible church. We hear, and I'm sure you have heard this refrain, I'm a Christian, but I don't go to any church at all. Now, I'm sure you have heard that her name is Lisa. That's not her real name, but I'll say her name is Lisa. Some lady I've known several years. She tells me she's a Christian. And she told me one of the best decisions she's ever made was to stop going to church. And she asked me when I see her every three or four months, if she thought she would ask different questions, like, do you think President Bush is a Christian? And she would go into the whole Christian issue with me. And I think in many ways, She represents what many people believe regarding the church. I'm a Christian. I have my own religious values. I have my own relationship to Christ, but I don't need to go to church. And I think there's a reason for that, and I don't think it has anything to do with the visible, invisible distinction. I think a lot of it has to do with a lack of clear instruction that has come from the pulpit over the years. This belief is played out. This lack of belief in the church is played out in the way people loosely attach themselves to various churches. George Varna's research has shown that the church has grown virtually very little or any at all. It's been quite stagnant. He notes that there was no real discernible growth. but only quote a substantial degree of membership movement. In other words, it's a sort of a Chinese fire drill that has come into play among churches. Many will move from one church to another without the slightest qualm. Others simply do not associate with any particular church, but still claim to be Christians. And after all, if the church doesn't meet their immediate needs or wants, then they can either stop going to church altogether or simply go to a different church. And that represents modern evangelicalism. To make matters worse, the Roman Catholic Church has also unwittingly encouraged this tendency. Though quite strong in exalting the function and power of the visible church, she has philosophically diminished her relevance through writers like Karl Rahner. Karl Rahner believed in anonymous Christians. Namely, men and women are related to the church in their own way, though they are not members of any particular church. It's an issue of proximity, how close you are to church, not geographically, but your faith intentions. Being a member of the church is preferable, they say, but not necessary. Even the Vatican II documents allow for pagans and various false religions to be somehow remotely related to the church without professing any faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. There's no wonder that the church has fallen on hard times from evangelicals who deny the importance of the church to Roman Catholics who deny an essential need for it. Some, that is. We are forced to reckon with what she is and why professing believers need to be attached to her. Now, as I mentioned, the church has always believed. that the church itself is a matter of faith. The Church of Jesus Christ differs from all other institutions on the face of the earth. No other institution has been brought into being by the blood of Jesus Christ. No other institution has been granted enduring permanence through all the ages, except the church. No other organization is as loved and cherished as the Church of Jesus Christ. Though derided by many people, she is still the people of God, the precious bride of the Holy Lamb. The church herself is a matter of faith. Edmund Clowney explains how it is. Now, listen carefully to a statement how she can be and needs to be as it were an object of faith in some sense. How? Because the church is God's creation, not simply a human institution. It is different, even strange. The favorite fantasy of science fiction is true of the church. Its members are aliens, even though they lack pointed ears. Their astral home is not another planet, but God's own heaven. It is not surprising that sociologists find the church rather puzzling. Even Christians have extraordinary difficulty in describing the church. Luther claimed that a girl of seven knows what the church is. But that he had to pen 10,000 of words in order to explain what she understood. The church is different because it is the born again family of God, the assembly and body of Christ, the dwelling of the spirit. And all reformers, as you know, concurred. To believe all that the Bible says about the church takes a great measure of faith. How can she be holy? when we hear of one scandal after another within her midst. I heard that the BTK killer was a leader in the Lutheran Church. How can she be the bride of Christ when we see so many problems and hypocrisy abounding? I subscribe to this list. They send out something each week about dot com atheism. It's an atheist group. And they send this out to me once or twice a week. And invariably, every time I get that, as I scroll through that, they're always pointing out the inconsistencies, the hypocrisies of the church. You see, it does take a great deal of faith. Great deal of faith to believe what God says about her. It is one thing to believe in God, whom we cannot see. And quite another thing to believe so many lofty things about the midst church we do see with our own eyes. You know, sometimes you look around and you wonder, this is the bride of Christ. But God has great intentions for her and has done great things for her. And yet, having said that, have been recognized that the church is a matter of faith. She is the body of Christ and his spouse. Yet, if the church, rather than Christ, becomes the center of our devotion, spiritual decay has begun. The doctrine of the church that does not center on Christ is self-defeating and false. But Jesus said to the disciples who confessed him, I will build my church. To ignore his purpose is to deny his lordship. This we must always remember whenever we study this important topic. There's always the danger of overreacting to the problems in ecclesiology by overemphasizing the church's importance. I love the bride of Christ. I'm ashamed at times at the lack of my love for her. But brothers and sisters, we want if people leave our church, we don't want them to say they're always just talking about the church. No. We want them to leave. When they leave, for them to say, you know, they are devoted to Jesus Christ. It is because of him the church exists. Now, what I wish to deal with in this paper are two major points. One is the necessity of membership in the Visible Church. The second is the priority of election in the Visible Church. The two are quite related. The first develops a need for membership in the Visible Church, and the second addresses the status of members in the Visible Church. The first point argues against the modern disdain for the visible church, and the second answers the question of presumptive regeneration and the purest notion of the visible church. One group seems to say that you don't need the church at all to be a faithful Christian, while another group seems to argue that you know you are a Christian because You've been baptized and are in a visible church. And both of these positions, we believe, are wrong. The necessity of membership. Now, look, you know that the instinct of most people in the church, if you were to ask them, is it necessary that you be a member? Everyone would say, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Those who are in your church would say that. But go and ask them, where in the Bible would you go to prove that? I've done that many times. And they're like, oh, wait. And they're like looking around. There's got to be a verse. And I submit to you, there's not a chapter and verse like that. And you see, some people pick that up and have developed, unfortunately, the wrong conclusion. Can one make a case for church membership? I believe you can. Can we appeal to a chapter and verse in the Bible that commands us to be members of a visible local church? Not in so many words, not in that way. Just like the word Trinity, it's not found in the Bible. Membership in that sense is not found in the Bible. But I believe the concept and the mandate is there. The Bible may not teach exactly everything regarding the process of membership, but it does teach the terms of membership. membership in a local visible church. I remember when I was ministering at Korean United Church, we ministered to UPenn students, University of Pennsylvania, and many of them came for the English service. I can't speak Korean, OK, but I can speak English somewhat. So they came. And they came on Sundays and we would minister to them. We would have Bible studies after. And then through the week, we would go on campus and lead a few Bible studies. And they were faithful students, and many of them also were involved in inner varsity. And they got into this quandary and asked me to address it and as our staff to address that matter. Because the inner varsity or some of the people in that group were saying, you know what? I don't need to go to church. I've been going to Friday night large group meeting and I go to this Bible study in midweek. You know, I don't have time. So I'm going to stay in on Sunday and sleep in so I can do my homework that night. And these students that were coming, they were just beginning to ask these questions. Is it sufficient? If I just go to Inner Varsity on Friday nights, have I done my church thing? And that helped me to focus on the issue, because prior to that, I ran into Inner Varsity before that when I was in college. When the Inner Varsity regional director said to me and to my pastor when they hired me and called me to minister on the college campus, telling the church, You work under us and we'll tell you what to do on the campus. Needless to say, my pastor went ballistic in a gracious way. So what I wish to do in this section is to argue that there is a biblical mandate for church membership in the visible church. Once a believer understands his or her relationship and obligations to the bride of Christ, then the saint will be better equipped to fulfill his or her responsibilities. Once we biblically bind the conscience on this matter, the people of God will see the importance of the visible church because of their devotion and submission to the Lord Jesus. Now some, as you, as I mentioned earlier, some have argued that we need to discard the visible, invisible distinction of the church because they believe this has led to the prevailing denigration of the church. Now that seems to be what Doug Wilson says. He says, quote, modern evangelical Protestants have tended to say that the invisible church is a real one. Which is why, he says, we tend to have such a low view of the churches we can actually see. Actually, I think the distinction is a convenient excuse, and not the cause for their claim. Now, I'm going to give today just five out of ten I have listed here. And if you want the other five, you must buy the book, and it helps the school, all right? But let me just give you five arguments. Remember, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it probably is a duck, right? And what I want to submit to you is that if we look at these things, The only way to make sense of them is that the Bible teaches some form of membership, a commitment to a local body. That's the only way to look at scripture. When I bring this evidence before you, the first thing is Christ's relationship to the church and the believers relationship to each other. And one of the simplest things to consider is the term or the word church. assembly, which assumes a visible corporate gathering of believers. She has come into being through Christ's death. Christ died for the church, Ephesians 5, 25, and is ahead of the church. And we are his body. We realize that there is a corporate nature to Christ's dealings with his people. He does not simply address individuals. If he loved the church and died for her, then we do tremendous dishonor to him. If we do not love her and care for her, because of Christ, the church has come into existence. Individuals are born anew into the body of Christ and are no longer left to themselves. As Bannerman would say, it is the very nature, therefore, of the gospel to be not a solitary religion, but a social one. When Christ, through the mighty operation of the Holy Spirit, brings a sinner into reconciliation and communion with Himself, He ushers him also into the fellowship of reconciliation and communion with all other Christians. See, there is an organic union in the body of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that all believers are united to one another. We are all by faith in Christ, united to Christ. Paul says of believers, quote, Now you are the body of Christ and each one of you is a part of it. In First Corinthians 12, 27. By virtue of being a believer, each believer is united to each other. The concept of being one in Christ Jesus, Galatians 3.28, teaches that individual believers, by their union with Christ, are united to each other, since He is the head of the church. Now, in other words, our new life in Christ automatically makes us intimately united to the other members of Christ's body. We know that every child born into a family is automatically and irresistibly united to the one, to the mother that gave him birth, right? He doesn't get to say, now am I going to be part of this family or not? He is born into that relationship and he also has siblings whether he likes it or not. And that's what you tell your children. He's your brother, whether you like it or not, you have to deal with it. And that's exactly what goes on here. In the same way, a believer born in Christ is automatically united to other members. The indicative precedes the imperative. The believer is united to other believers because he is united to Christ, which we call the indicative. It is what one is in Jesus Christ. And therefore, he must manifest or act out that which is true of his new nature, which is the imperative. Now, what does this mean? It means that there is no such thing as a lone Christian, excuse me, unattached and unrelated to a local body of Christ. The Bible envisions every child of God to be intimately and spiritually united to one another. The union is a spiritual union. It is invisible, but nonetheless real. It does not matter how I feel about the union. It is integral to my relationship to Christ. To deny our union to one another is to deny our new birth in the Lord Jesus Christ. That spiritual union must materialize in concrete ways. And the most important manifestation is his willingness to be identified with a visible local church. You know, when you have a son, then you have a daughter. The daughter is automatically part of the family. But if the daughter wants to distance herself from the brother, it doesn't change the fact they're united. But what is she doing? She is sinning. And that's exactly what goes on in those professing believers. Now, some of them, I know, I have talked to some that have had some difficult times with some churches, some pastors, some sessions, some groups. And some of them are hurting. And we don't need to, as it were, pounce on them with 10 proofs why they need to be in the church. But we do need to understand what the Bible teaches regarding that. But ultimately, they're being disobedient. The second thing that supports, and once again, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, what the Lord's Supper assumes, at all times, a corporate context. On the face of it, both the institution and the meaning of the Lord's Supper indicate that believers must come together. Our Lord said, take this and divide it among yourselves. In Luke 22, 17, the institution of the supper assumes a corporate dimension. Subsequently, in post-resurrection accounts, where the supper is either implicitly, Acts 2.42, Jude 12, or explicitly celebrated in 1 Corinthians 10-11, it once again is in a corporate context. Believers gather together to celebrate the Lord's Supper, 1 Corinthians 11, 18, 20, and 33. The institution and practice teaches that the Lord's Supper is always a corporate matter. And that is why our divines have rightly and vigorously argued against private celebrations of the supper. They were against private communion. Because that's one important aspect of the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, the Lord's Supper signifies not only our union with Christ, but also our union with each other. The emphasis, of course, is on our participation in the body and blood of our Lord. But 1 Corinthians 10.17 also suggests that the loaves signifies our union with each other. Because there is one bread or one loaf, we who are many are one body. For we all partake of the one bread. The we in the verse is offset by the one bread and body. The one loaf symbolizes how the many believers are one body. Now, regarding this verse, Matthew Henry has this to say. Those who truly partake by faith have this communion with Christ and one another. And those who eat the outward elements make profession of having this communion, of belonging to God and the blessed fraternity of his people and worshippers. This is the true meaning of this holy rite. I think Matthew Henry has it right. It's not just my union with Christ, though that is the focal point is not. But the Lord's Supper also represents my union with my brothers and sisters, which Christ has wrought. And how do you celebrate that? Not at home watching a televangelist, but only in a corporate context. Now, we may all affirm our oneness in Christ, but some, I think, have rightly suggested that it is particularly in the Lord's Supper we recognize this truth with the greatest clarity. It's most vivid there. One writer says, precisely in the Lord's Supper, Paul locates the ground of all believers being one. Because there is one loaf, and because all believers share that one loaf, they, though many, are one body. So the very existence of the Lord's Supper and its celebration assume that believers are gathering together and recognizing first their union with Christ and their vital fraternal relationship to one another. The one who stays home on Sunday morning is not vitally connected to a local visible church. He cannot rightly obey our Lord because he does not recognize his relationship to his fellow brothers. See, the only way to understand the Lord's Supper is that they gather together, not at home by themselves or by themselves. But with other believers, the third one, and it's one that you can easily overlook. But when you see the preponderance of evidence, you begin to understand. It's the one another in passages. The one another in passages, the biblical commands and injunctions teach us that every believer must relate to one another visibly. In other words, let me list them. All the injunctions in scripture are about loving one another. Loving one another, there are several references to that. Being kind and compassionate and forgiving each other. speaking to one another, submitting to one another, in Ephesians 5.21, bearing one another's burdens, Galatians 6.2, agreeing with one another, in 1 Corinthians 1.10, serving one another in love, Galatians 5.13, encouraging one another, several references there, admonishing one another, Colossians 3.16, accepting one another, Romans 15.7, spurring one another on toward loving good deeds, Hebrews 10, 24, offering hospitality to one another, 1 Peter 4, 9, etc. These cannot be fulfilled in any real measure if the professing believer is not visibly united to a local body of Christ. How do you bear the burden of someone you don't see? How do you love someone you're not with, nor meet together on a regular basis? You see, those injunctions automatically assume that believers are gathering and are corporately united. We say local body of Christ because some have argued that they are members of the invisible church. And so they hop around from one church to another. Yet a person cannot reasonably argue that the injunctions above will have any definite manifestation, can he? How will he admonish, spur, bear their burdens and be hospitable while flitting about from one church to another? Our Lord has said in John 13 35, By this, all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. Now, men cannot recognize the love within the community of believers if there's no community to which they are vitally connected. But here we must also notice something else. It isn't only that there's the command for us to do that, but if believers are united and on a regular basis communing together in the Lord. He, too, derives the benefit of that relationship. He, too, can have his burdens lifted. This Lord's Day at Sunday school, we read the little essay by Morris Roberts in The Newest Banner of Truth, the March edition. It's called A Well-Tempered Tongue. And we were we read that and we discussed it for our Sabbath reflection during our Sunday school. And one of the things we pointed out and we recognize is this, how the tongue of the wise can bring healing and how he can make the heart glad by the mere tongue. And when believers come together, how many of you have actually heard a good word in season to the benefit of your soul? You laughed, you rejoiced, you laughed. with joy in your heart. Just because a thoughtful brother said a kind word. It's amazing. One word. It just can change you. You know, you can have your head down and a brother comes along. Hey brother, I love you. Hey, I like that tie. Hey, you know. Yeah, I don't know. I'm just using that as a very shallow example. But you understand what I mean. But a brother can understand. And as he works with you, he has seen what you've gone through. But that only happens in fellowship with each other. They're meeting on a regular basis. The fourth thing is found in the recipients of Paul's letters or the recipients of all the epistles in the New Testament. Rudolf Schnakenberg, great name, Schnakenberg has made a very astute observation. Not a single New Testament author wrote as a mere private individual, but all took up their pens only as members and for the benefit of the society to which they professedly belonged and impelled by motives which concern all who believe in Christ. Not a single New Testament author wrote as a mere private individual. They were writing to churches. Though we can't agree with everything Schnakenberg would say about the church, we can nonetheless see how both the writers of the New Testament and the recipients of the writings were all members of various churches, congregations which were interconnected with each other through their union with Christ. We do not have the modern notion of unaffiliated Christians in the Bible. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, the churches in Galatia, Galatians 1.2, Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians 1.1. He speaks to the church even if he does not address her immediately as a church. The saints who are mentioned in Romans 1.7 are not specifically addressed as a church, at least not in the beginning of the epistle. Yet it becomes clear near the end of the letter that it refers to them as a church in Romans 16.5. And in that verse, Paul writes of the local house church which existed in Rome. Read also the church that meets at their house. And Romans 16.1, 4, 16, 23 speak freely of various members from other churches. The same is true of the Colossian church, where they are viewed as first faithful brothers in 1.2 and yet eventually addressed as a church in 1.24. The greetings to the Ephesians do not state that it is a church, but certainly no one would deny that it is a church. Scores of references in there to the church. And in fact, that's one of the best epistles to develop the doctrine of the church. It's a church in Ephesus that is mentioned in Acts 20, 17. And what we see from Paul's letters to various cities is that churches existed in those cities. He was writing to believers in those churches. See, Paul didn't conceive, you know, there's a church in Corinth and there's a lone believer living way up there in the north of Corinth. I'll write him. He addresses churches because they were all united. We see that Paul assumed that believers were attached to a local body of believers in those respective cities. They could count on their presence and attachment. Given some of the practices among many in our generation, one wonders if Paul could address anyone in our local regions. Greetings were sent from one church to another. You find that in his epistles. Individual believers did not even stand on their own in the New Testament. Philemon addressed individually, but in verse two, it refers to the church he was involved in. So the New Testament letters assume that churches existed all around the Roman Empire. And the very epistles read by so many in our generation testify against them. They neglect the church context in and to which Paul wrote. Think about it. Could Paul actually write to them, the unaffiliated professing Christians? If he wrote a letter to the believers in their city, would they ever hear it? No, because they're not in the necessary ecclesiastical context to receive it. They wouldn't be in church. They would be watching television. professing to be believers and Paul's writing to the church in that town, they wouldn't get it. You understand? So Paul's assuming as he writes, the believers naturally, because of their union with Christ, are united and gathered together under the elders, the faithful, true preaching of the word and right administration of sacraments. And the fifth thing, and I'll end with this and go to the other part I want to address. is the appointment of church officers. The appointment of church officers also argues for the existence of a visible body that is not fluid. If the elders are to oversee the flock, then there must be a definite flock for them to oversee. They cannot oversee a nameless or faceless herd of people. A shepherd does not shepherd one group of sheep one week and then a different one next week. So we read this of elders in Acts 20, 28. Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. God the Spirit has made the elders overseers of the Church of God. Elders direct the affairs of the Church, it says in 1 Timothy 5.17. The epistle to the Philippians is addressed to the saints together with the overseers and deacons in Philippians 1.1. In Hebrews 13.17, it further demonstrates the intimate relationship between the leader and the church whom they oversee. Obey your leaders and submit to them. For they are keeping watch over your souls as those who would have to give an account." One is not given the office of an elder to just be an elder. Okay, I'm an elder. I live at 743 Penn Avenue in Ardley, Pennsylvania. If you need to be eldered, give me a call. You wouldn't do that. Well, I am an elder over a specific body of believers. That's what an elder is. Now, Christ did not institute that office so they can just have a title and walk about. Not at all. The presence of these offices, elders and deacons, argues that a definite body of believers was overseen. An elder does not oversee the invisible church, but the local visible congregation. Prior to the existence of elders and deacons were the apostles themselves. The ministry of apostles existed for the sake of the community. We must remember the apostles existed to build up the church, as it says in 2 Corinthians 10 8. And that quote, God has appointed in the church first apostles. Any appeal to apostles without embracing their relationship to the church would be wrong. The apostles were appointed by Christ to build up the church. The elders and deacons were set apart to serve the churches. And this is where the modern sentiment opposes the biblical model. Nobody wants oversight or accountability. It is this gracious pastoral oversight most modern men and women cannot stand. Each one wants to do what he or she would like to do without being approached. Many do not want an elder to step in and approach them or hold them accountable. But the office does not exist for show, nor does it exist without a purpose. The office of elders has been divinely prescribed because our Lord created local bodies of believers over whom they rule and shepherd. They must give an account. And look, if that's the case, they want a prescribed circle. I don't want to be responsible for brothers in Baltimore because I don't know where they're at. But if God has made me an overseer, then I'm overseeing a body of believers, which God will hold me accountable. And that's why just the very nature of the office, it assumes a gathering body, meeting together, assembling for the preaching of the word. Now, you may call that membership and all those things, those things may differ among different denominations. But certainly no one could deny how important believers need to be attached to a corporate body. As one of our brothers has mentioned, outside the church, there may be no salvation. Cyprian's old maxim has always been maintained by the church. Protestants believe that the reference to the church is a reference to the communion of the saints. Our Scottish forefather, David Dickson, rightly argued that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside of the visible church. One question was asked yesterday. Can you be a member of the invisible church and not be a member of the visible? And Dr. Smith rightly pointed out about the man on the cross. And we can find different exceptions to the rule, right? What if someone was in the desert, he runs across the New Testament, he reads it, he becomes a Christian, and he dies? Well, that can happen, you know. I guess it could. But that's not usual, is it? No, not at all. It's usually in the context of the visible church that true believers are found. As our confession says, the visible church out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Now, we may think that this position is just, you know, white men dead and long gone. But no, this is something held by the church through and through, through history. And one of the greatest blessings of being a member of Christ's church is that we recognize it is there the true people of God are found. We're in the very community in which he ordinarily saves. It is his covenant community and it is his redeemed people. We are with that group of people he has set apart for himself and the very vineyard he cultivates for his namesake. The spirit draws men first to Christ and then to the church of their new life in Christ. And they are irresistibly drawn to the visible body of Christ. We find the true members of the invisible church in this visible body of Christ, or as John McPherson would say, The invisible church exists here and now, yet not only by itself, but only in the visible. The external indication of one's true faith in Jesus Christ is ordinarily found in the visible church. Now, let me illustrate this. Let us say I am a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles. I'm from that area. I'm not a fan. I'm not a football fan, but just for the illustration. Now, how would you know it's true? Well, you would assume if I am a rabid fan, I would be going to almost every game, right? Yes, you would assume that. That's natural. You would expect me to attend the games and you would also expect me to talk about it. And maybe ad nauseum and quite frequently. And you wouldn't be surprised if you saw me wearing their jerseys or found bumper stickers on the back of my car with the Philadelphia Eagles on it. Now, my professed devotion must find concrete expressions. In other words, I say I am an Eagles fan and there's going to be something that shows it. Similarly, a professing believer will manifest his faith in Jesus Christ by being a member of a local church. Though being a member in a church does not automatically make one a true believer, yet we expect true believers to be in the visible church. The professing believer is in God's visible vineyard in which true members of the invisible church are found. Therefore, the great benefit of being in the local church is that the believer has just manifested one of the simplest signs of being a true child of God. And if I can freeze it at this moment, it looks like I'm going to only get half of it done. Let us say Tim LaHaye was right. And the church was raptured and taken out of the earth. And we have to now wait seven years before we come back for the seven years of great tribulation. I don't believe that. I don't think many of us do in this room, but let it just for the sake of illustration, assume that's correct, that the church was raptured and in the seven years you're waiting. So you're allowed to read and do research. Let us just assume we are telling a story, okay? And you do a statistical analysis. Where were these believers raptured from? And you ask this simple question. You've got seven years to do this. And you ask, were you involved in a church? Were you a member of a church? And you do this. And I suspect that a large, large majority would say yes. When he comes back for the rapture, he would find them being a member of a visible church. Because ordinarily, that's where his people are found. And that's what we should expect. I don't believe in the rapture, but I just wanted to use that as an illustration. Now, I have to go through this just super fast, and I'm not sure how I'm going to do it justice. But let me just summarize it real quickly. The other thing I wanted to bring out here is the importance of the visible church that we just dealt with, but also piggybacking on Dr. Morton Smith's lecture, developing the whole idea of the visible and invisible church. And what I wanted to argue, and you can read this, is that there's still a priority given in the Bible to election in the visible church. And that seems to be, as it were, shouted down by many. That still is a theme. in the visible church. We find that in the Bible. Most divines recognize that the church in its more visible and institutional form began with Abraham. And the Abrahamic covenant dominates the Old and New Testament. And it's used as a paradigm in the New Covenant. And one of the things, what is the major feature we find here? What covenantal feature do we learn from Abraham and subsequent patriarchs? Gerhardus Voss emphatically states, The first outstanding principle of divine procedure with the patriarchs is the principle of election. Though that is not the only element that was significant in the Abrahamic covenant, it is nonetheless a significant feature. From this election, the visible church grew and expanded through Abraham's seed. Yet the entire subsequent generations of Abraham's seed were not coextensive with God's election. In this particular visible church, God reveals that he continues to elax. In other words, God chooses some within his visible church. God told Isaac that the older would serve the younger. Paul, commenting on the story, cites Malachi 1, 2 and 3. Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. That principle never abated because as the visible church apostatized under Ahab's rule, God still preserved a people for himself. A remnant chosen by grace. Romans 11 5. From Abraham's call to the election within that line of the covenant, we continue to see the priority of election in God's dealing with a visible church. And Paul summarizes this remnant theme by unequivocally stating, for they're not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham. We Calvinists understand and appreciate the theme of election in the Bible, but we tend to recognize it only in terms of our soteriology, our doctrine of salvation. But we must also see it ecclesiologically in terms of how God deals with this visible church. We must not rip the truth away from its context. And then let me summarize it this way. I have several points I'm going to have to just overlook. We find that the church is a mixed church. That in the church of Jesus Christ and through all the ages, there were always to reprobate and elect and the reformers are consistent in this. Then we come to this issue. What is the status? Of the members, if indeed it is true that there is a distinction to be made between the visible and invisible church. And if it is true that the election is the singular cause of this distinction, then what is the status of each member in this visible church? Are we to doubt their genuine faith? Or should we simply conclude that there are genuine believers because they are in the visible church, they've been baptized. Does believing in the priority of election and the covenant destroy assurance? Some have said yes. Or do we assume that the professing believer and their seed are true believers? All these questions come up. Now we can correctly affirm that the covenant is not, is not coextensive with election. It's not the same thing. The proponents of the federal vision eschew election as having any real valid role in church membership. We must maintain the absolute priority of election in the body of Christ. As some of you know, many are arguing that we must assume that our covenant children are believers and assume that all visible members are genuinely united to Christ. They argue that there is an objectivity to the covenant. And for all intents and purposes, this meant that being in the visible church meant you were God's elect. Steve Wilkins says election was not something hidden or unknown to the apostles or the prophets, but something that could be rightly attributed to all who were in the covenant. So if you're in the covenant, you're elect. Furthermore, he argued that those who are in the covenant received all the blessings of being united to Christ. Undifferentiated grace is conferred on every member in the church. Therefore, those who fall away ceases to be God's elect. So if you depart from the visible church, your elect status changes. For example, Steve Wilkinson says this, the elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect. They are cut off from the elect one and thus lose their elect standing. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ. In other words, you leave the covenant, the visible church, and you cease to be an elect. You lose the elect status. These men who may argue this have unified and collapsed what the Bible has kept separate. The testimony of scripture we have seen never equates election with a visible church. More often, the doctrine of election is seen in the context of the visible church. Covenant membership is more prominent among these guys. Covenant membership, by which he means being a member of the visible church, is virtually coextensive with election. One can cease to be an elect when one becomes a covenant breaker. But this is a grave error. We must remember that God knows those who are his. In the church, it says it in 2 Timothy 2.19, but God's firm foundation stands having this seal. The Lord knows those who are his and let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity. Why? Because not everyone in the church is his. Being in the visible church is important and our God requires it. However, we have argued that being in the visible church is not sufficient. One can be in the church and not have Christ, because that is the case. Christ must be pressed upon the hearts of all who hear in the church. Others habitually habitually call people to be faithful to the covenant, to persevere in the covenant, but that is not scriptural language. Romans nine, the great text on the doctrine of God's election is very helpful here. Paul doesn't argue after developing God's sovereign election in Israel's history that the Israelites failed because they didn't persevere in their covenant faithfulness or were not faithful in their covenant. Instead, they did not attain what they were pursuing, quote, because they did not pursue it by faith. Here the covenant people of God did not believe. The covenant people did not have faith in Jesus Christ. Let me illustrate why this is important and I'll end with this. I came from Indiana. So that's, I'm very bad in geography. So I know where Indiana is. Let's say you want to go to Indiana and you're in New York city. You have to go West. And eventually you have to hit I-70 to get to Indianapolis. Let's say you're going and you're making your way to I-70, but you hit upon I-95 and you're going south. And you keep on going. You are being covenantally faithful in your driving to go to Indianapolis, going and going. South, on the eastern side. Will you ever reach Indianapolis? No. Here's what I'm saying in this illustration. This view cannot raise the question, are you in Christ? Because all they can say is, be faithful in your covenant. Because they say, the minute you ask that question, are you truly a child of God? You are disturbing their assurance. They're on I-95, brothers, no matter how covenantally faithful they are, they're not going to get to Indianapolis. It's on the West side, not South. And we need to end with this verse. This has to be something that we can quote repeatedly and frequently. We must say to our brothers and sisters, not to harangue them, not to make them unassured, because you see, ultimately, it's not an election, it's faith in Christ. We always press Christ. But we should be able to ask this question that Paul asked of the Corinthians. Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves? That Jesus Christ is in you. We believe it's important that people, that professing believers be members of the visible church. But they must not assume just because they're there, everything is hunky-dory. Faith in Jesus Christ, to our children, to every member. The good gospel is for sinners and for saints. That must ever be before the people, what the Lord has done. Amen.