The JFVP on the Church
Of course, they claim to hold to this distinction, but they deny it by putting a different content into it. Instead of using it to define the difference between those who are truly members of the church and those who merely enjoy its outward communion, they define it as the Church at different times (the historical and the eschatological church).

In contrast to the Federal Vision, the Reformed Church has never taught that “the visible Church is the true Church of Christ” (JFVP, emphasis mine). *The* true church of Jesus Christ consists of only true believers.

Again, classic Protestants would not have said, “The one true Christian Church is visible and objective, and is the possession of everyone who has been baptized” (Ibid.). In contrast, Reformed theology teaches that the one true church is the bride of Christ and the body of Christ, and this can only be true of the elect who are united to Christ in grace and glory (WCF 25.1, WLC 65). This certainly does not consist in everyone who has been baptized, and it is dangerous to say that it does, as we shall see below.

To emphasize this further, the JFVP says: “We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an ‘approximate’ Church.” Now, if all they meant was that that all who are baptized can be called members of the visible church, that would be fine. Instead, they say that they are members of *the* church of Jesus Christ, thereby collapsing the important Biblical distinction of the church into the true members of Christ and those who merely participate in its external communion.

The Reformed, Protestant View
Many Protestants today do not understand the importance of the visible/invisible church distinction. However, for classical Protestantism, this distinction was a vital one with profound implications for the salvation of sinners and the life of the church.

Classic Protestant theology defined the church as true believers in Christ. Thus, Martin Luther said, “He who does not truly believe . . . does not belong to the Christian Church” (note how Luther uses the phrase “the” Christian Church differently than the FV). Consequently, he adds, “If the Pope were not pious and holy, he could not be a member, much less the head of the holy Church.” Calvin speaks similarly, “To God alone must be left the knowledge of His Church, of which His secret election forms the foundation.” Similarly, Charles Hodge stated, “If a man is not justified, sanctified, and consecrated to God, he is not a saint, and therefore does not belong to the Church, which is the communion of saints” (Church Polity, p. 6) (Again, note the use of the church over against the FV).

However, these theologians also recognized that God had commanded that believers come together for joint profession, worship, and discipline. The problem is that in this external communion many gather who are not actual believers and do not possess forgiveness of sins, union with Christ, new life, and adoption. As a result, they followed the Bible in distinguishing the church as it appears from the church as it really is (see Mt. 13). This is often called the visible/invisible church distinction.

How the FV Tries to Get Around This
In contrast to this, the Federal Visionists want us to think of the church as that which is visible and objective consisting of all the baptized. All who are in this one true church of Christ possess what they call “regeneration” and the renewal of life in the new age. They reject the Protestant notion that the visible communion is an approximation of the church. All who are baptized, according to the FV, are the true church of Jesus Christ.

However, they still want to say that they hold to the visible/invisible church distinction. One way they do this is by saying that there is some difference between those who will remain in the church and those who will fall away from it. They cannot tell you what this difference is, but they believe it does exist. Consequently, they say that they are holding to the visible/invisible church distinction.

But this falls far short of the classic Protestant distinction. The classic Protestant distinction says there is a very clear distinction between the true members of the church and the false members. The difference is that those who are truly part of the church possess union and communion with Christ in grace and glory, which includes renewed life and regeneration. Those who fall away were never truly a part of the church (1 Jn. 2:19) and participated merely in its external communion (Rom. 2:28–29). Consequently, their view collapses and rejects the visible/invisible church distinction.

The second way they try to get around this distinction is by saying:

The historical Church generally corresponds to the visible Church — all those who profess the true religion, together with their children — and the eschatological Church should be understood as the full number of God’s chosen as they will be seen on the day of resurrection. (JFVP)

In other words, they see this as a distinction between the church militant and the church triumphant. The church as it now is and the church as it will be.

Besides the fact that the visible/invisible church distinction was always a very different distinction that the church militant/triumphant, this view is also unbiblical. The precise point of Jesus’ parables in Mt. 13 is not to show that there are those in the church who fall away but to show that there are those in the visible church and gathered by the Word who never truly belonged to the church. They were always tares. They were never wheat. They were children of the devil not children of Abraham (Jn. 8:37–44). They were not all Israel who were of Israel (Rom. 9:6). They did not truly belong to the Lord (2 Tim. 2:19–20). They were never known by the Lord (Mt. 7:21–23). They were wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mt. 7:15–20). They were false brothers (Gal. 2:4). They said they were Jews but were not (Rev. 3:9). They were those who seemed to have what they did not actually possess (Lk. 8:18). They were not of Christ’s sheep (Jn. 10:26–27). The Protestant distinction is the Biblical distinction. The FV distinction is not.

Significance of This Issue
This is not a mere abstract theological debate. It is very important that we think of the church as consisting of true believers. It is also important that we distinguish this community of believers from the external community of those who profess their faith and their children. Charles Hodge discusses this very issue in his book Church Polity on pages 32–35. I think that a few quotes from this book will illustrate the importance of this issue.

1. “Membership in the Church being thus inseparably connected with salvation, to represent the Church as a visible society, is — 1. To make the salvation of men to depend upon their external relation, entirely irrespective of their moral character. 2. It is to promise salvation to multitudes against whom God denounces wrath. 3. It is to denounce wrath on many to whom God promises salvation. 4. It therefore utterly destroys the nature of true religion” (32).
2. “If by an external rite or outward profession, we are made ‘members of Christ,’ ‘the children of God,’ and ‘inheritors of the kingdom of heaven;’ or we are thus united to that body to which all the promises are made; and if our connection with the Church or body of Christ, can be dissolved only by heresy, schism, or excommunication, then of necessity religion is mere formalism, Church membership is the only condition of salvation, and Church ceremonies the only exercise of piety” (33).
3. “This doctrine is no less destructive of morality than of religion. How can it be otherwise, if all the promises of God are made to men, not as penitent and holy, but as members of an external society; and, if membership in that society requires, as Bellarmin and Mr. Palmer, Oxford and Rome, teach, no internal virtue whatever? This injurious tendency of Ritualism is not a matter of logical inference merely. It is abundantly demonstrated by history . . . Ecclesiastical services have taken the place of spiritual worship. Corruption of morals has gone hand in hand with the decline of religion. The wicked are allowed to retain their standing in the Church, and are led to consider themselves as perfectly safe so long as embraced within its communion; and no matter what their crimes, they are committed to the dust ‘in the sure hope of a blessed resurrection’” (pp. 33–34).

Now, Rome has always denied that this will be the result, as the FV men will also do. However, this is the logical result of ritualism, and, as Hodge said, it has always been the practical result wherever such views have held sway.

Conclusion
The Reformed Church has confessed on the basis of the Word of God that there are those who gather with the true people of God in the visible communion of the Church who are not truly members of the Church of Jesus Christ. They confess this because the Bible teaches that the Church is the community of those who are saved. The Federal Vision teaches that there are people who are truly saved (as we have shown here) who fall away. Thus, they have no problem saying that there are those who are truly part of the saved community who later fall away from it.

The Joint Federal Vision Profession

We deny that law and gospel should be considered as hermeneutics, or treated as such. We believe that any passage, whether indicative or imperative, can be heard by the faithful as good news, and that any passage, whether containing gospel promises or not, will be heard by the rebellious as intolerable demand. The fundamental division is not in the text, but rather in the human heart.

This is a blatant denial of the law/Gospel distinction. They do not believe it is in the text itself.

This denial of the Biblical distinction between law and Gospel is a major plank of the Federal Vision system and their confusion of justification by works and faith. As Steve Schlissel said, “The law as God gave it is the Gospel” (“The Monroe Four Speak Out,” pp. 1–2). This has also been confirmed by Doug Wilson:

When we say that all of God’s word is perfect, converting the soul. When we don’t divide it up into law and gospel, when we don’t say law over here, gospel over there, when we say it’s all gospel, it’s all law, it’s all good (“Visible and Invisible Church Revisited”, p. 21).

Thus, there is no law/Gospel distinction except in the way that people may take the passages. It is not in Scripture itself, though they admit there’s a difference between the Old and New Testaments.

The Reformed View
Now, some may say, what does the Reformed Church believe about the law/Gospel distinction? They might wonder, isn’t that a Lutheran distinction? Well, yes, it is. But it’s also a Reformed distinction.

The Reformed Church teaches that one of the most basic heremeneutical principles of the Scripture is the distinction between law and Gospel. These are two different types of communication from God.

The law was given from the beginning and is good and useful, but it cannot save. In order for salvation to occur, there must be another word or communication from God, and that is what we call the Gospel. These two must be distinguished, since one gives the knowledge of salvation and the other does not.

I shall demonstrate the truth of this from three Reformed confessional documents.

1. The Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the law teaches us our sin and misery and can only condemn sinners to eternal hell.

3 Q. How do you come to know your misery? A. The law of God tells me.

10 Q. Will God permit such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished? A. Certainly not. He is terribly angry about the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit. As a just judge he punishes them now and in eternity. He has declared: “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.”

In contrast, if we are to find salvation, we must have another word, different from the law. It is called the Gospel:

19 Q. How do you come to know this? A. The holy gospel tells me. God himself began to reveal the gospel already in Paradise; later, he proclaimed it by the holy patriarchs and prophets and portrayed it by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; finally, he fulfilled it through his own dear Son.

Thus, the Gospel alone reveals saving knowledge. It is a distinct type of communication within the Word of God, not in the human heart.

2. The Canons of Dort

The Canons of Dort plainly teach that the law cannot at all save and why. It then presents the way of salvation, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You can see this in Head of Doctrine 3/4, 5–6:

Article 5 — In the same light are we to consider the law of the decalogue, delivered by God to His peculiar people, the Jews, by the hands of Moses. For though it reveals the greatness of sin, and more and more convinces man thereof, yet as it neither points out a remedy nor imparts strength to extricate him from misery, but, being weak through the flesh, leaves the transgressor under the curse, man cannot by this law obtain saving grace.

Article 6 — What, therefore, neither the light of nature, nor the law could do, that God performs by the operation of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of reconciliation; which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means whereof it has pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old as under the New Testament.

Thus, there are two types of communication in the Bible itself, law and Gospel. I do not know how the Canons could make this any more plain.

3. The Westminster Larger Catechism

The Westminster Larger Catechism says that the law was given before the Gospel, at the beginning of time. Since the fall, it cannot bring about righteousness and life.

Q. 92. What did God first reveal unto man as the rule of his obedience?

A. The rule of obedience revealed to Adam in the estate of innocence, and to all mankind in him, besides a special command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the moral law.

Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law since the fall?

A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law; yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.

In contrast, there is communication from God that can bring about by the Spirit righteousness and life. It is the Gospel:

Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?

A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.

Q. 60. Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved by their living according to the light of nature?

A. They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of that religion which they profess; neither is there salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Savior only of his body the church.

The communication of the Gospel is so necessary for salvation that no one can be saved without it. If you just had the law, you could not be saved. Everyone has the law, but not everyone has the Gospel. Only those who have the Gospel can be saved.

Conclusion
The Reformed Confessions are plain. There are two words or types of communication in the Bible. There is the law, and there is the Gospel. One is saving. The other is not.

It is also plain as day that the Federal Vision denies this distinction. Since this distinction concerns the all-important saving knowledge of the Word of God, to confuse this distinction is extremely dangerous.

One Federal Visionist has actually admitted that the denial of this distinction (via the denial of the bi-covenantal structure of the Standards) is contrary to the system of doctrine in the Westminster Standards. He believes that this view would demand that the entire system be re-worked. He wrote:

I do think the latest scholarly work in biblical theology demands that we go back and redo a great deal of the Westminster standards. They were written when people still thought of the covenant as a contract and believed that “merit” had some role to play in our covenantal relations with God. The whole bi-polar covenant of works/grace schema has got to go. And if that goes, the whole “system” must be reworked.

The choice is plain. Do we believe in the works/grace or law/gospel system of the Reformed Confession, or do we think that all this has to go?