Doug Wilson and the Westminster Standards

Douglas Wilson addresses on his blog comments made on another blog, many by myself, that took issue with his understanding of the invisible church. He concedes what we were saying is not as novel as he thought. For instance he quotes Berkhof saying what we said, and other standard Reformed sources. Where he continues to be off-the-mark is his insistance that the Westminster Confession of Faith is on his side on the issue. He is reading into the WCF what he wants to see. So let's consider the Westminster Standards as a whole and look at the Larger Catechism (this, by the way, was done already in the thread mentioned, but in classic Federal Visionist style Wilson went deer in the headlights regarding it):

Question 64: What is the invisible church?

Answer: The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Question 65: What special benefits do the members of the invisible church enjoy by Christ?

Answer: The members of the invisible church by Christ enjoy union and communion with him in grace and glory.

Question 66: What is that union which the elect have with Christ?

Answer: The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.

Well, what's that last term in that related sequence of Q&A's? Effectual calling. The invisible church indeed is connected with the elect on earth who have been effectually called. The invisible church is not defined by all who are decreed to election whether or not the Holy Spirit (that would be God, Douglas) has applied that election to their hearts yet or not.

Wilson knows this, by the way. He's a dishonest fellow. He can't accept many points of Reformed - i.e. biblical - doctrine because it nukes his Romanist program. Just as he can't accept the Covenant of Works he can't accept the doctrine of the visible and invisible church. What he is doing in the post linked above, though, is claiming a Reformed standard such as the Westminster Standards back him up. This is what these Federal Visionists do. They claim Calvin the same way when Calvin probably would have lit the fire under them without the time and debate (or appeal for a less painful death) he gave Servetus. Wilson though states it over and over. He knows it's a lie. A conscious lie on his part. He only has to fool his followers though. They deserve him, most likely...