The Protestant invisible church

[Per_Crucem]

Thats a great quote!
…reminds me, also, of the rich man who asked Jesus what he must do to inherit everlasting life! …sell all that you have, and give to the poor…

Humility and brotherhood.

There is a bishop over the whole Church. Not for personal gain…not for the glory of men…but for confirmation among the faithfull. This possition does not grant him favor with God, for “God shows no partiality”…yet the humble who seek Apostolic Teaching will find His hidden manna through the Church.

Leaders can and do sin. We rejoice in the good ones, who by example show us Godliness…wheather it is by repenting and turning away from sin, no matter how many times they fall…or by steadfast faith keeping away from sin. Both are keeping God’s commands in the end. But the ones who are given authoritative teaching, and do not keep it, well… None of us would want to be them when they meet the Master.

Michael

Milwauke Archdiocese, eh? Archbishop Listecki is a good man.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, if the Catholic Church doesn’t want to recognize Protestants as Christians, it doesn’t have to. The fact it is that it does, which shows that even Catholics see an underlying unity in existence.

Yes it is the protestant who wishes to save the Catholic, and the Catholic who calls the BAPTIZED Protestants separated brothers. It is because we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and even if the Protestant doesn’t know the sacra mentality of baptism, it is still valid.

So what is the underlying consensus in Christianity on the Eucharist when more than 75 percent of Christians accept this practice?

 

[ltwin]

Ok so how should I find a church.

You don’t “find” a church. God calls us out of the world and places us into the church, the family of God.

Why should I not go to a Mormon church, or Seventh Day Adventist, or the Westbrook baptist church?

I would tell you to compare what they teach with the Scriptures.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You don’t “find” a church. God calls us out of the world and places us into the church, the family of God.

I would tell you to compare what they teach with the Scriptures.

You don’t see the relativism in this???

So I believe in divorce and remarriage for any reason so I feel called to evangelicalism

I believe in gay marriage so I feel called to Episcopal Church

I believe in the Eucharist so I feel called to Catholicism

And on and on and on and on

 

[rcwitness]

Milwauke Archdiocese, eh? Archbishop Listecki is a good man.

He seemed sincere when I spoke with him. He told me, “We are sola scriptura too!..with Tradition”

I personally am more like the guy Peter asked, “How many time should I forgive a brother who sins against me…seven?”

 

[ltwin]

Yes it is the protestant who wishes to save the Catholic, and the Catholic who calls the BAPTIZED Protestants separated brothers.

You’re painting with such a broad brush that it’s not even worth responding to this.

So what is the underlying consensus in Christianity on the Eucharist when more than 75 percent of Christians accept this practice?

Protestants believe in the Eucharist too.

 

[Jon_S_1]

You’re painting with such a broad brush that it’s not even worth responding to this.

Protestants believe in the Eucharist too.

They do not believe in the real presence as 75% of the worlds Christians do! They came up with a notion that it is purely symbolic. Rejecting the teaching of the church for more than 1500 years prior (I will include Anglicans and Lutherans in the Catholic/Orthodox camp)

Galatians 1:6

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

 

[ltwin]

You don’t see the relativism in this???

So I believe in divorce and remarriage for any reason so I feel called to evangelicalism

What makes you think that evangelicalism teaches you can divorce and remarriage for any reason?

I believe in gay marriage so I feel called to Episcopal Church

I believe in the Eucharist so I feel called to Catholicism

And on and on and on and on

I believe in the Eucharist too, and guess what, I’m a member of a Pentecostal church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

What makes you think that evangelicalism teaches you can divorce and remarriage for any reason?

I was evangelical Christian for 30 years and was advised by four different pastors in four different evangelical churches that it was no problem. I also took a divorce class with an evangelical video series that said the same thing.

I believe in the Eucharist too, and guess what, I’m a member of a Pentecostal church.

I am glad you do, but you are in the minority if you believe the bread becomes the true body of Christ when the priest consecrates it.

 

[ltwin]

I was evangelical Christian for 30 years and was advised by four different pastors in four different evangelical churches that it was no problem. I also took a divorce class with an evangelical video series that said the same thing.

There was no acknowledgment at all that it was sin? . . . Hmm interesting.

I am glad you do, but you are in the minority if you believe the bread becomes the true body of Christ when the priest consecrates it.

The Eucharist is not synonymous with Real Presence. The word itself literally means “thanksgiving,” so its confusing when you keep using it as a synonym for Real Presence.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There was no acknowledgment at all that it was sin? . . . Hmm interesting.

The Eucharist is not synonymous with Real Presence. The word itself literally means “thanksgiving,” so its confusing when you keep using it as a synonym for Real Presence.

I am pretty sure I said Real Presence in the Eucharist

Which you do not acknowledge correct? And yet more than 1600 years of Christianity did, and more than 75% of Christians do today. The Bible and the Church Fathers affirm it, as do people quoted by Protestants a lot such as Augustine.

So what changed?

I will tell you

Protestants no longer had priests to do a consecration and so they had to redefine the doctrine.

And they lead millions astray.

 

[ltwin]

I am pretty sure I said Real Presence in the Eucharist

Nope. You just keep throwing around the Eucharist as if I don’t believe in Holy Communion.

Which you do not acknowledge correct? And yet more than 1600 years of Christianity did, and more than 75% of Christians do today. The Bible

That’s debatable.

and the Church Fathers affirm it, as do people quoted by Protestants a lot such as Augustine.

So what changed?

I will tell you

Protestants no longer had priests to do a consecration and so they had to redefine the doctrine.

And they lead millions astray.

No, they simply read the Bible and came to different conclusions than the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Nope. You just keep throwing around the Eucharist as if I don’t believe in Holy Communion.

That’s debatable.

No, they simply read the Bible and came to different conclusions than the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

If it’s debatable…which it’s not, but if it was, what evidence before the year 1000 do you have for symbolic communion (besides twisted scripture).

What authority did the reformers have to come to different conclusions? The same authority as Joseph Smith to come to different conclusions.?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Nope. You just keep throwing around the Eucharist

From post 47

They do not believe in the real presence as 75% of the worlds Christians do!

 

[Jon_S_1]

1. Otto W. Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol.1, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965, 221-222:

The Post-Apostolic Fathers and . . . almost all the Fathers of the ancient Church . . . impress one with their natural and unconcerned realism. To them the Eucharist was in some sense the body and blood of Christ.

1. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., rev. by Robert T. Handy, NY: Scribners, 1970, 90-91:

By the middle of the 2nd century, the conception of a real presence of Christ in the Supper was wide-spread . . . The essentials of the ‘Catholic’ view were already at hand by 253.

1. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, v.3, A.D. 311-600, rev. 5th ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rep. 1974, orig. 1910, 492, 500, 507:

The doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist was not a subject of theological controversy . . . . till the time of Paschasius Radbert, in the ninth century . . .
In general, this period, . . . was already very strongly inclined toward the doctrine of transubstantiation, and toward the Greek and Roman sacrifice of the mass, which are inseparable in so far as a real sacrifice requires the real presence of the victim…

[Augustine] at the same time holds fast the real presence of Christ in the Supper . . . He was also inclined, with the Oriental fathers, to ascribe a saving virtue to the consecrated elements.

1. J.D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, rev. ed., 1978, 245 [a VERY hostile source!]:

The Fathers . . . [believed] that the union with Christ given and confirmed in the Supper was as real as that which took place in the incarnation of the Word in human flesh.

1. F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd ed., 1983, 475-476, 1221:

That the Eucharist conveyed to the believer the Body and Blood of Christ was universally accepted from the first . . . Even where the elements were spoken of as ‘symbols’ or ‘antitypes’ there was no intention of denying the reality of the Presence in the gifts . . . In the Patristic period there was remarkably little in the way of controversy on the subject . . . The first controversies on the nature of the Eucharistic Presence date from the earlier Middle Ages. In the 9th century Paschasius Radbertus raised doubts as to the identity of Christ’s Eucharistic Body with His Body in heaven, but won practically no support. Considerably greater stir was provoked in the 11th century by the teaching of Berengar, who opposed the doctrine of the Real Presence. He retracted his opinion, however, before his death in 1088 . . .

And so I ask again who is it departing from the teachings that were taught.

---

 

[ltwin]

If it’s debatable…which it’s not, but if it was, what evidence before the year 1000 do you have for symbolic communion (besides twisted scripture).

My views on symbolism in Holy Communion are nuanced. Anyway,even if I did believe that communion was purely a symbolic act I wouldn’t care what the evidence was as too how generations of Christians did or believed something. Generations of Christians believed in the divine sanctioning of various forms of slavery, today they don’t. Their opinions don’t concern them. My concern is what does the Lord require, and I find that in Holy Scripture.

What authority did the reformers have to come to different conclusions? The same authority as Joseph Smith to come to different conclusions.?

The reformers looked to Scripture for their authority. Joseph Smith created a new scripture.

From post 47

They do not believe in the real presence as 75% of the worlds Christians do!

Yeah, and 2 posts before you went on about Protestants not believing in the Eucharist. So, while, I appreciate the clarification, it came a little late in the conversation.

And so I ask again who is it departing from the teachings that were taught.

---

The question is not was it taught. The question is how authoritative are those teachings. Are the thoughts and opinions of the Church Fathers binding on all Christians at all times and in all places? I don’t believe they are. The writings of the Church Fathers are no more authoritative than the writings of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The question is not was it taught. The question is how authoritative are those teachings. Are the thoughts and opinions of the Church Fathers binding on all Christians at all times and in all places? I don’t believe they are. The writings of the Church Fathers are no more authoritative than the writings of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli.

And yet you grant them full authority in providing your God Breathed New Testament?

Joseph Smith for example at least got this authority issue. Hence the teaching of a great apostasy, and then supposed divine revelation for his additional scriptures.

He knew full well, as should all Protestants, that the New Testsment has no authority unless you grant the church authority who provided it…

Or you are divinely inspired to come to a different conclusion.

 

[ltwin]

And yet you grant them full authority in providing your God Breathed New Testament?

No. I thank God that they preserved what was given to them.

 

[Cathoholic]

Adamski asked back in post number 10

Matthew 18:15-
Dealing With Sin in the church

15 “If your brother or sister[a] sins,** go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

How does Christians from different denominations solve problems of there isn’t a visible church to go to?

Especially when according to the bible the bible isn’t the pillar of truth but the church is.**

I’m still waiting to see the answer to Adamski’s question.

The parable of the wheat and the tares does not answer what to do with a sinning person within the Church and doesn’t even come close to a Heavenly approbation or approval of this authoritative correction given out by “the Church”. The wheat and weeds verses concern God’s angels, demons causing confusion, and the “harvest” of people–not giving personal admonitions on faith issues.

Someone stated:

The Lutheran would go to his pastor . . .

But then you are right back to MORE than an invisible Church and more than sola Scriptura too as someone now has authority.

If this is the case (someone has God-given authority that is ratified in Heaven), then the question arises WHERE did this authority come from? Where is the evidence of Apostolic Succession?

Or if this “authority” is just some nebulous or poorly-defined “experience” allegedly of “the Holy Spirit”, then everybody can claim this “authority” and you are right back to an invisible church.

As soon as someone tries to assert God-given authority, you are either back to the Protestant dilemma of having 1000 people in the room all with their Bibles yet all coming to differing conclusions on various doctrines and practices serious enough to cause “church splits” (but all claiming to have the Holy Spirit). . . . OR . . . . you must conclude there is a real actual spiritual AND physical VISIBLE CHURCH that you can take someone to for fraternal correction that is so authoritative, that the decision will be ratified in Heaven!

**If the decision of these authoritative people talked of in Matthew 18 will be ratified in Heaven then . . . **

A. Heaven asserts a wrong decision now and then, that’s OK. . . . . OR . . . .
B. These authoritative people giving correction will be given Divine protection because God would not EVER ratify error in Heaven (or on earth for that matter).

If you said “A” I would suggest this is the defining difference between Catholicism and the many many flavors of Protestantism. This would be building upon a “foundation” of shifting sands or relativism and not upon “rock”.

There cannot be more than ONE fullness of truth, and Jesus does NOT divorce Himself from His bride the Church (see Ephesians chap. 5). Jesus protects His bride. Someone might try to obfuscate, and divorce Jesus who IS truth, from truth. That would also be a grotesque distortion of Jesus.

Someone else stated:

Each would go to their own pastor and seek pastoral care from the shepherd’s they have been entrusted too.

But is *this *truth? Or is this a pastor’s mere opinion? What if a Pentecostal minister and a “Oneness Pentecostal” minister disagreed on the exact same issue?

Is being satisfied with opposite answers from the two questioners who had the exact same question, more consistent with “truth” or “emotions and feelings” and “conviviality”?

Is the best we can get mere “unity of belief” or can we get “truth”?

Is THIS jumble of opinions really what God had in mind when He gave us Matthew 18:15-17?

Or did Jesus leave us a way to authoritatively KNOW the truth with certainty in such cases to such an extent that it is affirmed in Heaven?

**MATTHEW 18:15-18 ** 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and **if he refuses to listen even **to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And notice what’s NOT said:

**NOT MATTHEW 18:15-18 (Phantom Verses) ** 17 If he refuses to listen to them, open your Bible and really drive home your interpretive opinion. And if he refuses to listen even to YOU and your private interpretation, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, WHATEVER you bind on earth EVEN if it is error shall be bound in heaven. But if this guy shows you the verses that he thinks are in favor of his opinion too, that’s the best you guys can do and you really can’t get to truth until you are in Heaven. But be of joyful emotions and perceived “unity” even in interpretive error.

Did God give ANYBODY His own Divine authority (and protect them so when they spoke in His name, they would not err in matters of faith and morals)?

Its NOT just a ME and Jesus motif is it?

You might object and say: “Well it’s NOT the Catholic Church!”

To that I’d say, that’s a topic for another thread, but if you can see the principle on the fact that there can be only one fullness of truth, you are not far from the kingdom.

 

[Heart_Foam]

“The question is not whether the word Church is not properly used, and in accordance with the Scriptures, for visible, organized bodies of professing Christians, or for all such Christians collectively considered. Nor is it the question, whether we are to regard as Christians those who, being free from scandal, profess their faith in Christ, or societies of such professors organized for the worship of Christ and the administration of his discipline, as being true churches. But the question is, whether the Church to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises pertaining to the body of Christ belong, is in its nature a visible, organized community; and specially, whether it is a community organized in some one exclusive form, and most specially on the papal form; or, whether it is a spiritual body consisting of true believers. Whether when the Bible addresses a body of men as “the called of Jesus Christ,” “beloved of God,” “partakers of the heavenly calling:” as “the children of God, joint heirs with Christ of a heavenly inheritance;” as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification and sprinkling of the blood of Christ;” as “partakers of the like precious faith with the Apostles;” as “those who are washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God;” as those who being dead in sin, had been “quickened and raised up and made to sit together in heavenly places with Christ Jesus;” it means the members of an external society as such, and because such, or, the true people of God? The question is, whether when to the men thus designated and described, Christ promised to be with them to the end of the world, to give them his Spirit, to guide them unto the knowledge of the truth, to keep them through the power of the Spirit, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against them — he means his sincere or his nominal disciples, — believers or unbelievers? These questions admit of but one answer. The attributes ascribed to the Church in Scripture belong to true believers alone. The promises made to the Church are fulfilled only to believers. The relation in which the Church stands to God and Christ is sustained alone by true believers. They only are the children and heirs of God; they only are the body of Christ in which He dwells by his Spirit; they only are the temple of God, the bride of Christ, the partakers of his glory. The doctrine that a man becomes a child of God and an heir of eternal life by membership in any external society, overturns the very foundations of the gospel, and introduces a new method of salvation. Yet this is the doctrine on which the whole system of Catholicism rests.”

But the Catholic church says that Christ constituted the Church on the papal system, and therefore, it is to be believed. The thing to be proved is taken for granted. Catholicism teaches, or rather used to teach: “that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)”. So to directly answer the OP, Protestants talk about the “invisible” Church - capital C - as referring to the spiritual body of all believers. There is only one Church, and the condition of membership in that one true Church is faith in Christ.