(SPLIT & MERGED) Do Protestants hold to a different definition of "church"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alwayswill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Today, there are many recognized Christian denominations throughout the world. However, only one of the following scenarios can be true:


  1. *]Jesus established more than one church (cf. Mt. 16:18).

    *]Jesus established only one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
    (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
    (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

    *]Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Today, there are many recognized Christian denominations throughout the world. However, only one of the following scenarios can be true:


  1. *]Jesus established more than one church (cf. Mt. 16:18).

    *]Jesus established only one church, but it is an invisible, abstract, “spiritual” church in which all true believers, regardless of denomination, are members. In this church, either:
    (a) Doctrine does not matter, or
    (b) Conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

    *]Jesus established one, visible church in which doctrine matters and does not conflict. This church contains the fullness of truth as revealed by God; all others have partial truth, at best.
Click to expand...

  1. Caveat to #4. The visible Church is as you say, where the means of grace - word and sacrament - are found, and any doctrinal dispute is because we within that one True Church are still sinners.

    Jon
 
JonNC said:
Caveat to #4. The visible Church is as you say, where the means of grace - word and sacrament - are found, and any doctrinal dispute is because we within that one True Church are still sinners.

Jon
Click to expand...
IOW #2 :rolleyes:
 
AmbroseSJ said:
IOW #2 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No. The ability to find the sacraments, and therefore receive the sacraments requires a visible Church.
As I linked once before, from the Lutheran perspective, the visible Church is:
Article VII: Of the Church.
Click to expand...
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
Click to expand...
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
Click to expand...
We can see the visible Church, where word and sacrament are found. This is the job of the Church.

And further, the invisible Church:
Article VIII: What the Church Is.
Click to expand...
1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.
Click to expand...
3] They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.
Click to expand...
Within that Church there are the “wheat and tares”, “sheep and goats”. It is not up to us
to know which is which. This is why an evil priest can still preside over the sacrament.

Jon
 
jmcrae said:
So then, why did they separate (or allow themselves to be separated) from the Church?

I am an authentic Papist Mick, by the way, so if you feel a poke, try not to jump. 😃
Click to expand...
That was my point. They don’t see themselves as doing any such thing. On the contrary, they see the Roman hierarchy at the time of the Reformation to have separated themselves from the Church. Especially the Pope.
 
JonNC said:
No. The ability to find the sacraments, and therefore receive the sacraments requires a visible Church.
As I linked once before, from the Lutheran perspective, the visible Church is:

We can see the visible Church, where word and sacrament are found. This is the job of the Church.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is grain of truth to your statement. However, the reason I say, and still maintain, that you really subscribe to Randy’s #2 is because YOUR visible church suddenly POPPED UP after 1500 years of being INVISIBLE.

The True Visible Church was continuously visible from its founding by Jesus Christ until today. Churches that emulate the Catholic Church, may APPEAR to have everything, but the fact that they are NOT continuous (at least NOT continuously VISIBLE) from the foundation of the Church by Jesus Christ makes their Church an invisible Church which they have suddenly called visible since they now have followers. But for 1500 years they did not exist. Is there ANY “Protestant” Church under the sun that could not justify its being “visible” in the same way as your church? Don’t all Protestant churches have the Word of God? Sacraments (or Ordinances?) Couldn’t they just as easily call out Lutherans for not “properly” administering them? The True Catholic Church, was visible from the beginning, and remains visible today. It is the City on the Hill.

BTW, it’s too bad that Martin Luther didn’t subscribe to your tenet:
1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.
Click to expand...
If he HAD, he would not have LEFT the Church and started his own because of the tares that existed in the True visible Church during his lifetime.
 
=AmbroseSJ;13856404]Yes, there is grain of truth to your statement. However, the reason I say, and still maintain, that you really subscribe to Randy’s #2 is because YOUR visible church suddenly POPPED UP after 1500 years of being INVISIBLE.
Click to expand...
Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church. It is a tradition within the OHCAC. And it is more than a grain of truth.
The True Visible Church was continuously visible from its founding by Jesus Christ until today.
Click to expand...
Correct, and this Church can be found where there is word and sacrament
Churches that emulate the Catholic Church, may APPEAR to have everything, but the fact that they are NOT continuous (at least NOT continuously VISIBLE) from the foundation of the Church by Jesus Christ makes their Church an invisible Church which they have suddenly called visible since they now have followers.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome to that view, and indeed Christ has been present within that part of the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, blessed by word and sacrament.
But for 1500 years they did not exist. Is there ANY “Protestant” Church under the sun that could not justify its being “visible” in the same way as your church? Don’t all Protestant churches have the Word of God? Sacraments (or Ordinances?) Couldn’t they just as easily call out Lutherans for not “properly” administering them? The True Catholic Church, was visible from the beginning, and remains visible today. It is the City on the Hill.
Click to expand...
Could not Holy Orthodoxy “call out” the Bishop of Rome in the same way? The fact is the visible Church is in both of these communions, and in the Lutheran and Anglican communions.
BTW, it’s too bad that Martin Luther didn’t subscribe to your tenet:
Click to expand...
He did:
Part III, Article VII. Of the Keys.
Click to expand...
1] The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified.
Click to expand...
Part III, Article VIII. Of Confession.
Click to expand...
1] Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.
Click to expand...
2] But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: “I am a poor man *, full of sin.” Rom. 7:23: I see another law in my members, etc. For since private absolution originates in the Office of the Keys, it should not be despised [neglected], but greatly and highly esteemed [of the greatest worth], as [also] all other offices of the Christian Church. *
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JonNC:
Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church. It is a tradition within the OHCAC. And it is more than a grain of truth.
Click to expand...
That is nothing more than a rewording of the Anglican “branch theory.” According to that logic, any schismatic or heretic may lop off anything they consider unnecessary and/or wrong, make up their own doctrine, set up their own “system” of concords, articles, conventicles, etc. etc. and claim they are a tradition within the OHCAC, making a mockery of the “ONE”!

One of the PRIMARY reasons for Christ instituting HIS Church, was to illuminate who was of the true flock and who wasn’t. The Ancient Church, in Acts, in Jude’s letter, and in St. John warns us against these imposters. It is the JOB of the Church to recognize and warn us of who they are. Do you suppose that because any separate sect has a tenet that says “we are a part of the OHCAC,” that means they are? The True OHCAC has identified Lutherans as not a part of the OHCAC. That is reality.

Of course by Baptism Lutherans are Christians, and incorporated into the Body of Christ. That is undisputed. But that is where it ends, according to the OHCAC. They have some truth, but not the fullness of Truth. They (as individuals) may be given grace through their Faith and good works. But it is despite their church, not because of it. Just as the Gentiles received grace antecedent to their Baptism, any Protestant may be likewise favored. But it is not because of their church’s doing, at least not directly. It is a personal favor from God to the individual. Some of Catholicism’s greatest saints and teachers have converted from Protestantism. My own personal favorite is John Henry Newman.

Newman considered the Anglican Church to be a bulwark against the infidelity of his day. And so it was. But he revealed that the reason he converted was not because he wanted to be in communion with the Pope, but rather because he recognized the Roman Catholic Church was THAT church described in Sacred Scripture, and no other was. Some (of my acquaintance) have even argued that in today’s world, Newman would have converted to Orthodoxy. But even that is unlikely, as he often says the Orthodox church was a national church based on Erastian grounds, and was schismatic. He had no illusions about Orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top