Positive proof the Invisible, non-Catholic Christian Church is right?

[jmcrae]

I originally was just addressing this silly invisible church notion that I assume some people believe.

That’s what this thread is about. The Protestant belief that Protestants are unified together (despite the apparent fragmentation into how many denominations) by means of the Invisible Church to which all of them belong, either in addition to or instead of belonging to ecclesial organizations that function here on earth.

I assume that what you believe is that your denomination is the true successor of the Church established by Christ, and that those who are saved are members of your church.

That’s a totally different thread than this one. This one is for those who believe in the Invisible Church, to defend why and how they believe in that.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

They absolutely did not select them. In the NT, the writers speak authoratively about the OT and quote them as scripture and they never said a council or a human being selected them. The premise of a person selecting what is to be scripture is not biblical. IF you said that God revealed his canon to man, I would think we could start to have common ground.

Of course they did. It was a matter of prayer and debate.

Martin Luther then went on to make his own changes, while simultaneously claiming that scripture was the ultimate authority!

Brilliant, don’t you think?

God did reveal the Canon to Catholics, who were men.

You can’t deny this reality without denying history.

 

[Rightlydivide]

True. Not because it fitted my beliefs, though. (I was a feminist liberal.) But because the overwhelming weight of historical and biblical evidence points to the Catholic Church being the only Church that Jesus established, with authority. Nothing else even comes close.

To reject the authority of the Catholic Church entails rejecting the very concept of authority itself. It is not possible, without either just ignoring the evidence, or deliberately deceiving yourself, substitute something else in authority, in the place of the Catholic Church, because there is absolutely no basis for doing so.

I can’t even set myself up in authority, without tearing up the essential meaning of the word “authority.”

The only sane and reasonable alternative to the authority of the Catholic Church is total anarchy.

I understand. Because I believe the same about the truth of the Bible. You mad a decision jmcrae to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. While you may think it is the only authority and that I have ignored evidence or engaged in deliberate deception, I respectfully disagree.
Take care. I have ignored nothing. I have no reason to be deliberately deceptive. I do not tend to villify those who do not agree with me. I assume the honest intentions of people.

 

[Rightlydivide]

That’s what this thread is about. The Protestant belief that Protestants are unified together (despite the apparent fragmentation into how many denominations) by means of the Invisible Church to which all of them belong, either in addition to or instead of belonging to ecclesial organizations that function here on earth.

I assume that what you believe is that your denomination is the true successor of the Church established by Christ, and that those who are saved are members of your church.

That’s a totally different thread than this one. This one is for those who believe in the Invisible Church, to defend why and how they believe in that.

I have never said that Protestants are unified together. You must be thinking about someone else. I have never used the phrase invisible church, I learned it on this site.
I do not know if everyone in my church will be saved or not. I cannot see their souls or lives or the future.
I do not understand the phrase “true successor”; it is laden with Catholic presuppositions and as such I could not use it.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand. Because I believe the same about the truth of the Bible. You mad a decision jmcrae to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. While you may think it is the only authority and that I have ignored evidence or engaged in deliberate deception, I respectfully disagree.

Of course you do - otherwise, you’d be Catholic.

 

[Rightlydivide]

They are not scriptures, to totally reject or refuse to even discuss anything they have to say seems to indicate that you, 2000 years later, have a greater insight than they have to share with us.

I have started threads on the Ante-Nicene writings. I will discuss them. I just tried to.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My church follows the Bible. I am not sure why you using 'charitable" now. I am too. Now yes, you are right, it is ultimately up to each persons interpretation to determine which church to belong to.

When one spends as much time putting together Bible sources and Catholic explanations to receive responses like, I don’t buy it, IMO, and responses that do not address all scriptures and explanations provided, I become suspect of what’s going on here.

I believe that my church is correct because we follow the Bible. I originally was just addressing this silly invisible church notion that I assume some people believe.
My church understand that the manual for church government comes from the apostle to the Gentiles-Paul. We do have the church government found in the NT. But once again, yes I do not buy it. Apostolic succession…means nothing. Even those that you guys say have valid apostolic succession do not agree.
What were we talking about???

We were talking about the topic of this thread, which is non-Christians providing proof their Church is right. So far, you’ve only rejected any explanations given by Catholics and offered no proof, Biblical or otherwise that your Church is right.

You have not failed to repeat Apostolic succession or early Church fathers, “means nothing”, or there are those claiming Apostolic succession do not agree. We know where we stand with other Churchs and we know why we believe there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Stating this means nothing to you, does not explain your reasoning. Is this a discussion, or merely an avenue for you to reject what Catholics have to say? What is your purpose on a Catholic forums, if not to discuss our differences, openly and honestly?

The only scriptures provided so far have been from Catholics. Are we to assume there is no Biblical support for your Church? You said, “My Church follows the Bible”, how so?

 

[jmcrae]

I have never said that Protestants are unified together. You must be thinking about someone else.

Okay, then. So this thread is not addressing you.

This thread is addressing those who believe in the Invisible Church, and asking them to defend their beliefs.

I do not understand the phrase “true successor”; it is laden with Catholic presuppositions and as such I could not use it.

Jesus founded a Church.

One of the churches now existing is that Church (I think it’s the Catholic Church, and I assume you think it’s yours) - or else the “Invisible Church” that is the subject of this thread is what Jesus founded - or maybe there is a possibility that we haven’t thought of. But Christ’s Church is around here somewhere, because Jesus promised us that it could not perish from the earth.

This is what I mean by the “true successor” of Christ’s Church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Of course they did. It was a matter of prayer and debate.

Martin Luther then went on to make his own changes, while simultaneously claiming that scripture was the ultimate authority!

Brilliant, don’t you think?

God did reveal the Canon to Catholics, who were men.

You can’t deny this reality without denying history.

I know the history. You know the history.
What we disagree about is the who is in control

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have started threads on the Ante-Nicene writings. I will discuss them. I just tried to.

I’ve got to leave for my exam now. I’m giving you writings from around 100AD from St. Ignatius. I’ll be bringing them up again, unless you start providing something to discuss to prove your Church is the right Church. Please note the parts I have underlined for emphasis.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

**See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. **

God Bless,

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I know the history. You know the history.
What we disagree about is the who is in control

God used the Church to produce the new testament.

Was the Catholic Church led infallibly by the Holy Spirit during this process?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I know the history. You know the history.
What we disagree about is the who is in control

We disagree, but you have a few Catholics ready to provide proof. Would you care to provide your proof to support who you “feel” was in control?

 

[Shai22]

But how do we know who is saved and who is not saved?

The covenant that Jesus sealed with his death is Jeremiah 31:33
I will place my Law within them, I will write in on their hearts, they will be my people and I will be their GOD.

Jeremiah 27:10 Shows how GOD judges, mind and heart and actions, aka “behavior”.

Galatians 5:23 the Fruits of the Spirit Shows the attributes of GOD"S people

Lastly, Patience. GOD teaches if you a person enough time you will know if he is true in his heart about GOD and HIS teachings. People eventually will always return to their true heart.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The covenant that Jesus sealed with his death is Jeremiah 31:33
I will place my Law within them, I will write in on their hearts, they will be my people and I will be their GOD.

Jeremiah 27:10 Shows how GOD judges, mind and heart and actions, aka “behavior”.

Galatians 5:23 the Fruits of the Spirit Shows the attributes of GOD"S people

Lastly, Patience. GOD teaches if you a person enough time you will know if he is true in his heart about GOD and HIS teachings. People eventually will always return to their true heart.

Let’s see what Jesus says:

John 15

6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned…Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

John 6
56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

Matt 25
44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

 

[MarcoPolo]

The phrase faith and morals does not appear in scripture

Acts 10:35 in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.

Bold part can be translated as “faith” and “morals.” In addition, these categories are the summation of God’s two greatest commandments: #1 Love God above all (faith), #2 Love neighbor as yourself (morality). You see, there are two directions in which we must operate: the vertical (with God…faith related) and the horizontal (with each other…morally related). See also Galatians 5:6 (faith working through love).

Also, I am curious do you adhere to what I said in post #3. Do you believe the Church exists only in the hearts of men? There is no institutional, corporate dimension?

 

[Shai22]

Sure, I agree with that passage, thank you for posting it

I don't think there's any question whether non Catholic Christians are just as much sons of God as  Catholic Christians... Nor does simply "belonging" to one group or the other make one a believer.

But I’m looking for support of your belief that there is only the invisible Church. I think we can agree from this passage and others that an invisible church exists, but we cannot disprove that it is meant to be both visibly and invisibly unified.

The support would be in Jeremiah 31:33, The new covenant that I will make with my people of Israel is this: I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts, I will be their GOD and they will be my people.
1 Corinthians 11:25 This cup is GOD’S new covenant, sealed with my blood, whenever you drink of it do so in memory of me.

2 Corinthians 3:5 It is written not in ink, but with the Spirit of the Living GOD, and not on stone tablets, but on human hearts.

The heart is the invisible church, the behavior is the visible church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Acts 10:35 in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.

Bold part can be translated as “faith” and “morals.” In addition, these categories are the summation of God’s two greatest commandments: #1 Love God above all (faith), #2 Love neighbor as yourself (morality). You see, there are two directions in which we must operate: the vertical (with God…faith related) and the horizontal (with each other…morally related). See also Galatians 5:6 (faith working through love).

Also, I am curious do you adhere to what I said in post #3. Do you believe the Church exists only in the hearts of men? There is no institutional, corporate dimension?

I do not recall any passages that suggest the church exists in the hearts of men. Lacking any verses, I would of course not believe it.
I do not know what you mean about the last part. I believe what the Bible teaches about the church. I do not find any of those three terms…not that I recall anyway

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The support would be in Jeremiah 31:33, The new covenant that I will make with my people of Israel is this: I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts, I will be their GOD and they will be my people.
1 Corinthians 11:25 This cup is GOD’S new covenant, sealed with my blood, whenever you drink of it do so in memory of me.

2 Corinthians 3:5 It is written not in ink, but with the Spirit of the Living GOD, and not on stone tablets, but on human hearts.

The heart is the invisible church, the behavior is the visible church.

Can you provide evidence of any early Christians who shared your views?

Did you create this dogma all by yourself?

 

[Rightlydivide]

God used the Church to produce the new testament.

Was the Catholic Church led infallibly by the Holy Spirit during this process?

If you mean a church with your beliefs, no of course I do not believe that.
Of course the Catholic Church was not infallible, at any time. Although it is hard for me to p(name removed by moderator)oint when your current beliefs existed in the early church. Most of the doctrines we disagree on are later additions. Of course you will disagree but that is not the point. I cannot agree with your statement when I reject the underlying premise.
As I stated earlier, some of the early churches had doctrinal errors, this is what the Bible teaches.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If you mean a church with your beliefs, no of course I do not believe that.
Of course the Catholic Church was not infallible, at any time. Although it is hard for me to p(name removed by moderator)oint when your current beliefs existed in the early church. Most of the doctrines we disagree on are later additions. Of course you will disagree but that is not the point. I cannot agree with your statement when I reject the underlying premise.
As I stated earlier, some of the early churches had doctrinal errors, this is what the Bible teaches.

So you believe that the bible was infallibly compiled by the Catholic Church with no (name removed by moderator)ut from the Holy Spirit?

Please point out a doctrinal error taught by the early Church.