I do have a question regarding the typological nature of the relationship to Israel and the Church and the visible/invisible distinction.

Regarding some Baptistic arguments, they will assert that this relationship must be interpreted first, through Christ and then applied to the Church. So that, just as this episode has said, Israel functions as a type to Christ, in which Christ is the truly fully obedient son of God and child of Abraham. And then, we the church, function as the remnant of Israel, as those who are (in Christ) obedient to the covenant. If this is true and seems to be the interpretation you guys have discussed here: how are we supposed to understand the visible/invisible distinction in its role through the church? Obviously, this distinction is helpful and necessary and will always exist until the consummation of the new heavens and earth. But, if the Church functions as the continuation of the remnant of Israel in which believing gentiles are brought in, would not this change the mixed nature of the community to a repentant-believing community? If so, then it is helpful to note the visible/invisible distinction though it’s function seems to be different with the Church than with the nation of Israel?

I think this kind of argument functions for baptists as a defeater for infant baptism, although I don’t think it’s that strong. But I do want to be consistent in my own hermeneutics. Could you guys elaborate more on this and how you understand the way this distinction functions to both Israel and the church in light of your conversation today? And if I’m wrong in my understanding of the entailment of your interpretations please help me better understand.

In Christ,

Kelle