Calvin writes:

The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God—the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed. Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.

By “elect” Calvin means those has actually “appointed”–those who have been the objects of his intervention.  Thus, the Invisible Church can actually be “entered.”  Once can be a stranger and alien to the Invisible Church and then be made a part of the family.  “Elect” means “chosen,” and when one extends a platter of cookies to a friend ans says “choose one,” the offer calls for an actual apprehension with the hand, not only a mental operation in the brain.  So Calvin can speak of the “elect” as those who have been regenerated, even though he knows that, in the sense of being elect from eternity past, God had chosen others who were not yet regenerated.
(By the way, it is important to remember that Calvin was exegetically and pastorally responsible with his use of this distinction.)

But consider the Westminster Confession:

The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

Here the Invisible Church is simply a label for the group of people who have ever been predestined for salvation and resurrection glory.  One no more “becomes” a member of the Invisible Church in the WCF sense, than one becomes predestined to salvation.

Finally, if you read Calvin’s preface to the King of France, you will find that he uses the language of the Visible Church over agains the Invisible as a way to speak of rather non-glorious underground institutions, over against politically powerful and wealthy institutions.

Of course, all this is merely a difference in chosen terminology to serve certain uses.  It doesn’t represent any real difference in opinion.

This conversation is going better than I had hoped.  I’m impressed!

However, the Reformed Reader seems to think the Heidelberg Catechism boldly affirms the imputation of the active obedience of Christ when the primary author affirmed no such thing. Secondly, he also seems to think that a dual justification is a novel idea as opposed to the classic view, but I was taught dual justification by the Classic Reformed Scholastics.

Of course, the classic view may be wrong.  I wouldn’t mind a moratorium on the term in theological discussion either way.

Back when I was a Van Til fanboy (as distinct from a mere Van Tilian, which I still am: but most theology is really just a substitute for listening to heavy metal or reading comic books, with all the attendent identity politics among the high-school and college-aged–and all the attendant weirdness among theologians who like having fanboys), I really loved the “full-bucket paradox” which Van Til insisted upon. God is all glorious and yet is glorified by creation, and indeed does all things to be glorified even though already all-glorious. The full-bucket paradox means that the bucket is full and yet is always being added to.

Later, I heard Gerstner refute this “paradox” but I simply discounted him, partly because I saw some flaws in him in other areas (which I latched onto as reasons to discredit him) but mostly because I was a Van Til fanboy. Also, it was a throwaway comment that might have been dealt with more thoroughly.

In any case, it now seems clear that Van Til is equivocating on what it means to “glory” in something or to “be glorified.” Compare this to the word “justified,” in Luke 7.29: “When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John.” Now compare the used of justified here with its use in soteriology where God justifies sinners and so constitutes them as righteous when they were not righteous before. Obviously, that is no what happened here in the case of what the people did for God. Know, they aknowledged that God had revealed his own righteousness. (I’m not denying that there are parallels in Romans, by the way, which does call attention to God’s reputation being in doubt and being vindicated.)

Likewise, God “glorifies” himself and does things “to His glory” by revealing his glory in creation and sharing it with His people. This is basic creational Trinitarian monotheism 101, which says that God made the world and us, not to get, but to freely and generously give:

God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.

This is the whole point of Christianity over against paganism as Paul preached it on Mars Hill:

The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served[root: therapeuo: heal, help] by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

What does the “full-bucket paradox” really give us but an eternally thirsty God who, no matter how full he is supposed to be, is never quenched and always wanting more? Paul does tell the Corinthians to “do all to the glory of God.” But that obviously means in context 1) to acknowledge with thankfulness that the glory of eating and drinking and all other blessings is from Jesus and no one else and 2) to enjoy these blessings in a way that reflects God’s own generous and even self-denying character. Look at how the command is used in chapter 10:

Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. For “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof.” If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

So there is what it means to reflect God’s glory in imitation of him. It means to not seek personal advantage but to seek the advantage of other people just like God does.

Is that what any of us have been raised to understand about doing things to God’s glory.

Hopefully I’ll have time to get into more details about well-meant teachings that I don’t think are leading us in the right direction, but for now I’ll just mention that I am troubled by attempts to define (reduce?) the righteousness of God as his commitment to his own glory. We meet in the world all kinds of monsters who do horrible things for their glory. Is God like them? No, of course not. Well then, trying to explain all righteousness as an commitment to one’s glory doesn’t explain anything at all. It is exactly backwards, God’s glory must be explained by his righteous character which is revealed and specified for us. Trying to define righteousness as a commitment to God’s glory leads nowhere.

I fear that by insisting on a God who is in search of glory, we are, instead of preaching Christian theism as an alternative to paganism, making God into simply a “Supreme” kind of pagan deity. This is not an unprecedented confusion in the Church. When Jesus was dealing with the way he was to come into his Kingdom, his disciples could not understand how the cross could be an appropriate part of the plan. When Jesus hung on the cross, the proof for which he was mockingly asked was that he come down from there by an exercise of power and so reveal the glory that these mockers assumed was truly godlike.

The Gospel tells us that the cross reveals the true God, the sort of God we are supposed to imitate by trying to please everyone in everything we do, not seeking our own advantage, but that of many.

So let’s not forget the awesome substance–that the 2002 Auburn Avenue Conference rocked.  To take a small sample from Steve Schlissel:

In Samuel it says, “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”

“To do what is right and just,” says Solomon. “is more acceptable to the lord and sacrifice.”

The conclusion of Ecclesiastes in his ruminations about life is this, “All has been heard, here is the conclusion: Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man.”

And yet, if someone says that today, they are accused of legalism! This borders on apostasy, in and of itself, to make the charge. It’s a wholesale departure from the word of God in order to serve an abstract conception of what the word ought to teach, based upon what I want it to teach–which is how I can personally be saved. Which, again, puts God in the position of being the debtor to man because somehow we are going to bring to him something good enough. If it is not our works, then it the quality of our faith.

But what if we begin with the idea that we really need grace from God? And what if we begin with the radical idea that he has given it to us? And the even more radical idea that he has given it to our children? Then where do we begin? Teaching our children to doubt God afresh in every generation? Or to take what he has given us and to move it into action and into application in the world? “Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight. Stop doing wrong; learn to do right; seek justice.” (Steve Schlissel, “Covenant Reading”).

It was a great conference.