Visible and Invisible Church

As promised, I finally posted something on ecclesiology. There has been some confusion within some Baptist circles about the subject of the Visible/Invisible aspects of the church, which are understandable for those not acquainted with the thoughts and writings of church history. In discussing key topics in ecclesiology, however, there are more than just one issue at hand when dialoging about the Visible/Invisible distinction. Most of my dialogs have been about the sacraments in the visible church and election in the invisible church. I don't think those issues are the only ones that Christians will encounter if they do not pay attention to the subject of ecclesiology. Another problem without seeing this distinction is a negligent attitude of yoking oneself to a local body. A Christian will join a church if he or she feels like it, but it is not an ethical matter if he or she chooses not to. This is clearly a problem. (I remember doing research a while back, and I had come across Calvin's Geneva and his role on ecclesiastical matters. One of the chief accomplishments Calvin made was germane to compulsory church attendance. I found this fact not only attractive but conclusive about a Reformed ecclesiology—and a biblical one! It's no wonder the Westminster Divines, speaking of the visible Church, say that "out of which [the Church] there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.") So I hope you guys will enjoy this installment of Reformed ecclesiology.

A Blog about Ecclesiology in History

I have been reading the book by McCrie and The Doctrine of the Church in Scottish Theology, and I've been having some trouble with some of the constructs of ecclesiology in history, vis-a-vis the Independents and Romish churches. My question has more to do with the difference in the doctrine of the visibility and invisibility of the Church.

Here are some of Augustine's ideas in the book,

In the same chapter Bellarmine, borrowing from Augustine, describes the Church as a living organism, made up of soul and body, the soul being the inward graces of the Spirit, the body an outward profession of faith and partaking of the sacraments. And he distinguishes three classes of members of the Church: (1) Those who are of the soul and of the body, members in the fullest sense; (2) those who are of the soul but not of the body, excommunicates and catechumens; (3) those are of the body but not of the soul, who have only a profession without any real faith.

In the first place, I know this (1) is the classical view of the protestants throughout Europe during the reformation (see the chapter in the Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of the Church"). But for those who don't understand what I am saying here—in effect what the church has said throughout the centuries—I will explain and outline.

1. Presbyterian/Reformed view,
   
2. Separatist/Independence view (Baptist),
   
3. Papist externalism or formalism.
   

My problem is trying to make sense of (2) and (1). Some have stated that the church is not locally visible but merely invisible, much like the Separatist and Libertines of Calvin's day. My problem has a lot to do with the compulsory responsibility of "churchless" Christians to become members of a church (visible). It is my belief that one cannot be a true member of the church (invisible) without belonging to the visible church (WCF 25.2). (I would like the add that I am not making the similar mistakes that the Popish church makes when they say that joining the visible church is joining the invisible church, for the eternal Word is what gives birth. The reason I think that is largely because I, as a Presbyterian protestant, hold to the two-fold distinction of the church, as did St. Augustine. In fact, throughout the history of the church I do not believe that Roman Catholics ever held to this two-fold distinction, as noted by McCrie.)