The Protestant invisible church

[Heart_Foam]

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?

We know we use private judgement. Salvation is after all personal, not by proxy. And Catholicism provides doctrinal certainty? Humour me, when you have a theological question, what infallible guide do you ask? If you can so abruptly attack Protestants, it’s a fair question. After all, the alleged epistemological advantage of Catholicism is that it has an infallible guide. What is your pot-of-all-answers? Catholic Answers? A religious book stamped with the imprimatur?

The one, invisible, Church by which I am a member by faith will do me and other Protestants just fine.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Itwin, how do you reconcile a symbolic view with what the Early Church Fathers wrote? Obviously you know that St Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the apostle…taught for three years by Christ himself. Do you believe St. Ignatius is speaking symbolically?? Likewise, Justin Martyr says “we have been taught” … do you believe he is speaking symbolically??

“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.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God." Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359).

The reformers looked to Scripture for their authority.

Interesting here. The early Christians looked to the Church as the authority as it is the pillar and foundation of Truth. A book can not be an authority. Christ gave the apostles, the first Bishops all authority. The Church has “clinged” to the teaching of the apostles in both Word and Tradition since the beginning. The lens of Tradition is how the Church has known which books are inspired and inerrant and which are not. Where in scripture does it say scripture is “the authority”?

Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they were composed by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they have come down to us, we must point out the ways (of interpreting them) which appear (correct) to us, who cling to the standard of the heavenly Church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the apostles." Origen, First Principles, 4,1:9 (A.D. 230).

PnP

 

[Contarini]

How do Protestants back up the idea of an invisible church it was a major point in me being catholic since I could only find a visible church in the bible

Any passages Protestants use would be helpful I am meeting with a friend that believes in a invisible church

For me, the fact that the Catholic position seems to imply an invisible Church has been a stumbling block. Of course, it depends on what you mean by “invisible Church.”

The concept of the “invisible Church” has its roots in Augustine’s distinction between the elect and those who now appear to be part of the Church. Or, more broadly, in the theological response by Christians to the reality of a “Constantinian” church, in which many who were “visibly” members of the Church did not appear serious about living a Christian life.

However, Augustine did not of course speak of an “invisible Church.” The radical Augustinian reformers of the late Middle Ages (such as Wycliffe and Hus) took Augustine’s ideas about election and applied them ecclesiologically, suggesting that if, for instance, a Pope wasn’t godly, he was a false Pope (yes, this flirts with Donatism at best, which is one reason why Wycliffe was condemned posthumously and Hus was burned at the stake).

For the classic Protestant view of the invisible Church, see Calvin, Institutes 4.1, esp. sects. 2-4. Note that Calvin also insists that the visible Church is our Mother and that membership in her is necessary for salvation.

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

“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.

First and foremost… Only God knows who does not reject His saving life. The Catholic faith teaches that we are saved through the means which Jesus gave: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God…”

The Church has closed the interpretation of this passage to mean baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit. There is one aspect of salvation that is through the Church. For we are saved into a mystical body of Christ. Now, I have been studying Paul’s teachings because he offers keys to understanding a genuine gospel which gives no partiality to men, even who are in authority. Nevertheless, he himself on occassion would bring his gospel (the one he preached) before Peter, and the others. He makes a distinction that he did not do so in order to please men, but because of a revelation from Jesus. Paul himself was blinded, sent to the Church to be healed, baptized, and given the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. If we read the story from Acts and Galations, we get a bit of a different emphasis. In Galations, Paul was stressing the gospel he received was not taught to him by men, but he was given an Apostleship directly from Jesus. But, he still felt compelled to be confirmed through Peter and James. In this way, if even Paul felt that a portion of authority was to be confirmed through the leaders of the Church, who are any other individuals in His Church to not seek the common confirmation through a prime bishop of the whole Church?

If we look at Paul’s refute to Peter, when he acted insincere:

“If you, though a Jew, live like a gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the gentiles to live like Jews?”

He stresses the actions of Peter. Not the teaching. And for a better and pure approach to evangelizing. We dont follow the leaders in our Church because they are impeccable. Nor do we follow what they do because they are leaders. Yet because Jesus has removed the place of authority from the seat of Moses to that of Himself…and He first excercized the appointing of this vicar on Peter, we receive an authoratative Teaching (Apostolic) through our leaders.

 

[Adamski]

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

What if I don’t know how to read, don’t have the money for a bible or live in a land where I don’t know the language

 

[Adamski]

Ok so how do Christians solve a dispute in a church they actually can’t go to when we all jar the same authority

 

[Per_Crucem]

What if I don’t know how to read, don’t have the money for a bible or live in a land where I don’t know the language

Wouldn’t that kind of a situation demand that the church take the responsibility of reading the Scriptures to you?

 

[benjohnson]

Ok so how do Christians solve a dispute in a church they actually can’t go to when we all jar the same authority

Holy spirit working with your pastors as they read the Bible, creeds with the benfit of tradition.

…

Good grief, I’m conflicted - I want to smack Itwin in the head until he acknowledges the Real Presence in the Eucharist. For his own good! That he may eat so that he may live!

But at the same time, I’m comfortable saying that Itwin is probably a better Christian than I am, even though I’m correct.

So sometimes I think that it’s probably a better use of our time to “build the Church” than squabble with fellow Christians.

That said, Unless you’re a Confessional Lutheran, you’re all wrong.

 

[Jon_S_1]

We know we use private judgement. Salvation is after all personal, not by proxy. And Catholicism provides doctrinal certainty? Humour me, when you have a theological question, what infallible guide do you ask? If you can so abruptly attack Protestants, it’s a fair question. After all, the alleged epistemological advantage of Catholicism is that it has an infallible guide. What is your pot-of-all-answers? Catholic Answers? A religious book stamped with the imprimatur?

The one, invisible, Church by which I am a member by faith will do me and other Protestants just fine.

If you believe the Bible you believe the following

1 Christ founded a church (Matt 16:18)
2 This church has authority (Matt 18)
3 this church has leaders (the book of Acts, John 20, etc)
4 the Apostles taught with speaking more than writing.
5 Jesus said the gated of hell will not prevail against his church
6 Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to guide and protect the church.

Now if Jesus showed up tomorrow at your Reformed Evangelical Church and walked up to the pastor and elders and said, (really picture this, imagine your reaction)

Jesus “Who do you say I am”?
Pastor " you are the Christ the Son of the living God"
Jesus "“Blessed are you, Pastor, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus then tells the elders and pastor

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 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.’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.

"Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

He then lined them all up and did what God had only done once before at creation…breathed on them saying

"Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

He goes on saying,

“If you love me, you will obey my commandments. I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper who will be with you forever. That helper is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it doesn’t see or know him. You know him, because he lives with you and will be in you.

He them ascends into heaven before your eyes

Imagine what your thoughts would be.

What happened to these men?

What authority did Christ give them?

What assurance did he offer them to help maintain his teachings?

Would you be ok disagreeing with your pastors interpretation of scripture after this event and forming your own church ?

Would you be ok with your kids doing it?

If this pastor and elders laid hands on successors would you doubt that they possessed this same authority?

This is why Catholics have confidence in our church teachings. Because 2000 years ago this happened to our pastor and elders.

 

[Cathoholic]

We often see statements that for all practical purposes mean, “As long as you agree with ME, you are correct. If you disagree with me, you are incorrect.”

But truth doesn’t work that way.

We know we use private judgement.

Agreed, but that’s not the whole issue. Who in this world has the authority to authentically correct it when that “private judgment” is wrong?

What if MY “private judgement” disagrees with your “private judgement”. WHO is correct?

 

[Cathoholic]

Heart Foam. You stated:

And Catholicism provides doctrinal certainty?

Like I said, do you affirm ANYONE has doctrinal authority that is ratified in Heaven?

Only when you get past this block can we start answering your more specific doctrinal questions that have all been answered on these forums numerous times.

Heart Foam, WHO has God-given, God-protected authority to authentically interpret doctrine in a definitive manner?

• Nobody?
• You?
• Everybody?
• The Church.

I actually wrote this before I saw Jon S post number 69 (which is much better than this one). So you can either answer Jon S post, my post here, or both.

As I said, as soon as you can see SOMEONE, ANYONE has this type of authority, you will be half way there. The next question would be WHO.

If you cannot see this, then doctrinal discussions won’t help you (and that would suggest you really aren’t interested in doctrinal absolute truths anyway).

 

[ltwin]

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

There is a visible church: those who are gathered in Christ’s name are the visible church. The universal body of believers is the invisible church.

The fact that there are divisions within the body of Christ does make it harder to put into practice Matthew 18 when the two parties are of different denominations. However, until we all come into the unity of the faith, we have to be content to carry this out as far as possible.

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

You’re assuming that Sola Scriptura implies that there cannot be spiritual authority. You don’t understand Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the supreme authority, norm, and the measuring rod of all things concerning faith and life. Scripture states in Ephesians 4:11-12,

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”

In Titus 1:9,

“For an overseer . . . He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

So, you’re assertion that recognizing the existence of spiritual authority somehow contradicts Sola Scriptura is pure rubbish.

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?

The authority to lead God’s people comes from God.

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.

Well, no. There are ministry gifts (apostles, prophets, pastor, teacher). Not everyone is a pastor or teacher. These are gifts from God to the church.

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?

If one of them was my pastor then obviously I’d listen to my pastor. Why should I care what someone who is not my pastor believes? But if they are just two dudes that I don’t even know, then I’d go to the Bible and see which one was right.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There is a visible church: those who are gathered in Christ’s name are the visible church. The universal body of believers is the invisible church.

The fact that there are divisions within the body of Christ does make it harder to put into practice Matthew 18 when the two parties are of different denominations. However, until we all come into the unity of the faith, we have to be content to carry this out as far as possible.

You’re assuming that Sola Scriptura implies that there cannot be spiritual authority. You don’t understand Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the supreme authority, norm, and the measuring rod of all things concerning faith and life. Scripture states in Ephesians 4:11-12,

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”

In Titus 1:9,

“For an overseer . . . He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

So, you’re assertion that recognizing the existence of spiritual authority somehow contradicts Sola Scriptura is pure rubbish.

The authority to lead God’s people comes from God.

Well, no. There are ministry gifts (apostles, prophets, pastor, teacher). Not everyone is a pastor or teacher. These are gifts from God to the church.

If one of them was my pastor then obviously I’d listen to my pastor. Why should I care what someone who is not my pastor believes? But if they are just two dudes that I don’t even know, then I’d go to the Bible and see which one was right.

So to clarify…

You are the final authority right?

And I am my final authority

And Joseph Smith was his final authority

And Ellen White was her final authority

And Calvin was his final authority

And Luther was his final authority

And even someone like David Karesh was his final authority.

So you chose a church based on which one met your interpretation of the Bible.

And it doesn’t trouble you that you could be following a false teacher?

You don’t ever wonder what the first century church practiced?

 

[ltwin]

Itwin, how do you reconcile a symbolic view with what the Early Church Fathers wrote?

I don’t “reconcile” anything. I don’t feel the need to reconcile what the Church Fathers said. They had their theological viewpoints. I have my theological viewpoints.

Obviously you know that St Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the apostle…taught for three years by Christ himself.

I’ve heard that. I don’t “know” that it was a historical fact.

Do you believe St. Ignatius is speaking symbolically?? Likewise, Justin Martyr says “we have been taught” … do you believe he is speaking symbolically??

I don’t think they are speaking symbolically. I never claimed that they did. I love reading the Church Fathers when I get the chance too, but I don’t read them as authoritative. I read them like I would read any theologian’s work. As I said, my theology would be formed primarily by reading Scripture and being taught Scripture. Obviously I would look for teachers and resources to help me understand Scripture. In that, the Church Fathers can be drawn on as a resource. But I reserve the right to disagree with them.

But then again, I don’t subscribe to a purely symbolic view of Communion, so I agree with a lot of what they said.

Where in scripture does it say scripture is “the authority”?

It’s an authority by the simple fact that it exists. If I have to choose between some man who may or may not be espousing right doctrine and the written Word of God, I’m gonna choose to obey the Word of God.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t “reconcile” anything. I don’t feel the need to reconcile what the Church Fathers said. They had their theological viewpoints. I have my theological viewpoints.

I’ve heard that. I don’t “know” that it was a historical fact.

I don’t think they are speaking symbolically. I never claimed that they did. I love reading the Church Fathers when I get the chance too, but I don’t read them as authoritative. I read them like I would read any theologian’s work. As I said, my theology would be formed primarily by reading Scripture and being taught Scripture. Obviously I would look for teachers and resources to help me understand Scripture. In that, the Church Fathers can be drawn on as a resource. But I reserve the right to disagree with them.

But then again, I don’t subscribe to a purely symbolic view of Communion, so I agree with a lot of what they said.

It’s an authority by the simple fact that it exists. If I have to choose between some man who may or may not be espousing right doctrine and the written Word of God, I’m gonna choose to obey the Word of God.

So similarly you could say.

" Well the Apostle Paul had his opinions and I have mine"

Really?

 

[ltwin]

So to clarify…

You are the final authority right?

No. I attend a church right now that I hate (well that’s a strong word. I have a love/hate relationship with it). I can’t stand it. I feel the like God wrote Ichabod on the door post 10 years ago. There is a lot of personal baggage and history. Too much family drama, resentment, and overall just a lot of bad behavior that truthfully I haven’t gotten over.

I disagree with many of the decisions of the pastoral staff. I even disagree with the spiritual qualifications of some of the people on the pastoral staff. I’m not satisfied with the level of accountability the leadership has to the laity. I feel like the church is losing its spiritual zeal and fervor.

The altars don’t fill up like they use to. We go too long without having Holy Communion. We don’t pray like we should. The gifts are not in evidence like they used to be. There seems to be too much of a focus on entertainment culture. etc. etc. etc.

But you know what, I’m still here. There have been people who have left. Some family members of mine have left. But I’m still here. Why? Because God put me here. For better or worse, He has brought me to this place. And even though it feels sometimes like I’ve been left in the desert to die, I still manage to find strength and nourishment for my soul.

So am I my final authority? No.

Do I choose a church that meets all of my desires, wishes and expectations? No.

I do have options. I could church shop. But that’s not biblical. It’s not about me. It’s about being where God wants me to be.

You don’t ever wonder what the first century church practiced?

Not really. I started reading the Bible at an early age, so I read about what the early church was like before I could get curious enough to wonder.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. I attend a church right now that I hate. I can’t stand it. I feel the like God wrote Ichabod on the door post 10 years ago. There is a lot of personal baggage and history. Too much family drama, resentment, and overall just a lot of bad behavior that truthfully I haven’t gotten over.

I disagree with many of the decisions of the pastoral staff. I even disagree with the spiritual qualifications of some of the people on the pastoral staff. I’m not satisfied with the level of accountability the leadership has to the laity. I feel like the church is losing its spiritual zeal and fervor.

The altars don’t fill up like they use to. We go too long without having Holy Communion. We don’t pray like we should. The gifts are not in evidence like they used to be. There seems to be too much of a focus on entertainment culture. etc. etc. etc.

But you know what, I’m still here. There have been people who have left. Some family members of mine have left. But I’m still here. Why? Because God put me here. For better or worse, He has brought me to this place. And even though it feels sometimes like I’ve been left in the desert to die, I still manage to find strength and nourishment for my soul.

So am I my final authority? No.

Do I choose a church that meets all of my desires, wishes and expectations? No.

I do have options. I could church shop. But that’s not biblical. It’s not about me. It’s about being where God wants me to be.

Not really. I started reading the Bible at an early age, so I read about what the early church was like before I could get curious enough to wonder.

You sound just like me before I started going to Catholic Church!!!

You are right church shopping is unbiblical.

I wonder though why you feel God put you in your church?

And even if he did, could he not call you out?

 

[ltwin]

So similarly you could say.

" Well the Apostle Paul had his opinions and I have mine"

Really?

No. There is no similarity at all. The Church Fathers did not write Scripture.

 

[ltwin]

You sound just like me before I started going to Catholic Church!!!

You are right church shopping is unbiblical.

I wonder though why you feel God put you in your church?

I was dedicated in that church. There was a short period where my family didn’t go to that church, but we never left, we just didn’t condone things that were happening there at the time.

And even if he did, could he not call you out?

He could release me. However, that has not happened.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I was dedicated in that church. There was a short period where my family didn’t go to that church, but we never left, we just didn’t condone things that were happening there at the time.

He could release me. However, that has not happened.

If you had been dedicated as an infant in the Mormon church don’t you think you might feel the same way.

I admire your commitment, but can’t help but wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?