The Protestant invisible church

[Cathoholic]

Itwin, I posted:

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?

Itwin, you stated.

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

I agree. The “God-given” portion of my quote already affirms this. The point is, WHO is the final earthly arbiter of what’s correct and what is not correct. WHO has this God-given authority to assert something as true or false.

You said:

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 just made my point.

This is relativism (we’ll just “have to be content to carry this out” without a definitive authoritative, interpretive answer to a given doctrinal issue).

You also said:

Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the supreme authority, norm, and the measuring rod of all things concerning faith and life.

And I asked what about when two different people who follow sola Scriptura, come to opposite conclusions on matters of faith and morals.

My point is, with your belief system, you have to assert relativism. There is no absolute answer for you in this world.

You will say “Scripture”, but I will ask, “Who’s interpretation of Scripture” and who has the authority to correct someone in error.?

You will be forced to say: “My interpretation” or “My pastor’s” or “everybody” or “nobody” or some such thing.

And I am saying this system of belief does not fit in to Matthew 18.

This is exactly WHY you MUST state things like:

. . . we have to be content to carry this out as far as possible.

You also stated:

If one of them was my pastor then obviously I’d listen to my pastor.

But I’m not so much as asking you, who you’d “listen to”, as much as I am asking: WHERE is the final interpretation of doctrinal ABSOLUTE TRUTH to be found?

Is there ANYBODY on earth who is protected by God to such an extent, that he has the authority to assert a truth, and have so much protection from God, that this decision of his is ratified in Heaven?

Again, you are going to be forced to say:

No. Nobody has such authority. . . . OR . . .
Yes. Somebody really actually does have this magnitude of authority and here is who it is . . . .

Itwin, you have demonstrated a great love for God on these posts. There is much that you have asserted and my Protestant friends and family have asserted that I too affirm. Keep up the good work and I’ll keep following the thread along.

 

[ltwin]

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?

If a Catholic came to you and told you that they were tired of the Catholic Church and felt that they were not getting spiritually fed, what would you tell them? Would you tell them, “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

If I came up up to you and told you I was thinking of becoming Catholic but I have some reservations and then I proceeded to list all the horrible stuff Catholics have done throughout history, would you tell me “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

Somehow, I think not.

You know when God is releasing you to do something because you will be “released” to do it. I don’t have to read tea leaves or chart the stars to figure out whether I’m at liberty to leave or not.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If a Catholic came to you and told you that they were tired of the Catholic Church and felt that they were not getting spiritually fed, what would you tell them? Would you tell them, “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

If I came up up to you and told you I was thinking of becoming Catholic but I have some reservations and then I proceeded to list all the horrible stuff Catholics have done throughout history, would you tell me “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

Somehow, I think not.

You know when God is releasing you to do something because you will be “released” to do it. I don’t have to read tea leaves or chart the stars to figure out whether I’m at liberty to leave or not.

I do think that in a scenario like what you described, or frankly like I was in in my evangelical church, you are called to evaluate your situation with the tools and faculties God gives us.

For me it was doctrinal issues and in trying to resolve it, I got a host of answers from different pastors.

I saw the relativism first hand and know that God is not into relativism.

I started studying, praying, and seeking.

I wanted to find the Church Christ established in Matt 18.

That search leads one place.

If a Catholic told me they felt God was leading them out of the Catholic Faith I would explain what I just explained to them and pray for their discernment.

I will do the same for you.

 

[rcwitness]

If a Catholic came to you and told you that they were tired of the Catholic Church and felt that they were not getting spiritually fed, what would you tell them? Would you tell them, “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

If I came up up to you and told you I was thinking of becoming Catholic but I have some reservations and then I proceeded to list all the horrible stuff Catholics have done throughout history, would you tell me “wonder if all of the negative things you’ve described IS God telling you something?”

Somehow, I think not.

You know when God is releasing you to do something because you will be “released” to do it. I don’t have to read tea leaves or chart the stars to figure out whether I’m at liberty to leave or not.

Have you ever wondered if the Catholic Parish near you needs you?
You dont have to answer that. Just a thought. I respect your commitment

 

[JonNC]

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

It was also a significant reason for iconography, if what I’ve been told and read are true.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Cathoholic;11265666]
And I asked what about when two different people who follow-] sola Scriptura/-] Tradition and Scripture, come to opposite conclusions on matters of faith and morals.

My point is, with your belief system, you have to assert relativism. There is no absolute answer for you in this world.

You will say “-]Scripture/-] Tradition”, but I will ask, “Who’s interpretation of -]Scripture/-]Tradition” and who has the authority to correct someone in error.?

You will be forced to say: “My interpretation” or “My pastor’s” or “everybody” or “nobody” or some such thing.

And I am saying this system of belief does not fit in to Matthew 18.

All the red insertions are mine, and not Cathoholic’s.

Curious. when one inserts the word Tradition, or Tradition and scripture, the same problem exists, and has existed for a thousand years. Is it not relativism to say that those in orthodoxy may commune in a Catholic parish when they reject with intensity the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

 

[batman1973]

As determined by who?

Last I checked there were 1.2 billion Catholics, and 300 million orthodox who claim that baptism is required for salvation and Christ is really present in the Eucharist. Both of these churches trace to biblical times.

There are 600 million Protestants in the world.

And so the consensus lies where?

You can add Evangelical Catholics and and Anglicans to that list as well

 

[concretecamper]

You can add Evangelical Catholics and and Anglicans to that list as well

Isn’t it taken for granted that they are included in protestantism?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Isn’t it taken for granted that they are included in protestantism?

He is talking about including them in the group that acknowledges the Real Presence in the Eucharist

I agree too

 

[concretecamper]

He is talking about including them in the group that acknowledges the Real Presence in the Eucharist

I agree too

I know that…

 

[Adamski]

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.

This is off topic but regarding divorce all you will need to do is go to a focus on the family event and you will see how evangelicals say divorce and remarriage is ok in their lectures

 

[ltwin]

This is off topic but regarding divorce all you will need to do is go to a focus on the family event and you will see how evangelicals say divorce and remarriage is ok in their lectures

Uhh no. You are misrepresenting their position. No seriously committed evangelical (unless they try to justify their own sin, in which case they are neither serious about nor committed to their faith) will say that divorce is “OK.”

The standard evangelical position, and one shared by Focus on the Family and James Dobson, is that, with the exception of certain biblical grounds, divorce is a sin. Please read this link for the actual beliefs that Focus on the Family has about divorce and remarriage: focusonthefamily.com/marriage/divorce_and_infidelity/should_i_get_a_divorce/how_should_a_christian_view_marriage_and_divorce.aspx.

Dr. Dobson believes there are three biblical grounds where divorce and/or remarriage is permitted but not required:

1. “When one’s mate is guilty of sexual immorality and is unwilling to repent and live faithfully with the marriage partner.” (Matthew 18:8-9)
2. “When one spouse is not a Christian, and that spouse willfully and permanently deserts the Christian spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15).”
3. When an individual’s divorce occurred prior to salvation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is completely untrue.

The teaching on divorce and remarriage varies from church to church and pastor to pastor. This is the issue that brought me out of evangelicalism in search of the truth.

I had pastors that said virtually any grounds were valid for divorce and remarriage to others that expanded the sexual immorality to include anything that broke the marriage agreement

To a select few.

And I mean few

Who said the only cause was as you describe on focus on the family.

Further,

There is no investigation into remarriage a (hence why Catholics get remarried in Protestant churches)

As long as your civilly divorced virtually any evangelical church will remarry you.

 

[ltwin]

This is completely untrue.

The teaching on divorce and remarriage varies from church to church and pastor to pastor. This is the issue that brought me out of evangelicalism in search of the truth.

It varies. But their is a standard view, and it’s represented pretty well by Focus on the Family.

Further,

There is no investigation into remarriage a (hence why Catholics get remarried in Protestant churches)

As long as your civilly divorced virtually any evangelical church will remarry you.

Now that is not true. It is true that there are evangelical pastors that do not offer any pastoral counseling or investigate prior marriage history. However, there are evangelical pastors who will refuse to marry people.

Many evangelical churches refuse to hold divorce over someone’s head and will marry them again. That is far from saying that the divorce was “ok” and not problematic at all. It’s a response to human weakness and brokenness.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It varies. But their is a standard view, and it’s represented pretty well by Focus on the Family.

Now that is not true. It is true that there are evangelical pastors that do not offer any pastoral counseling or investigate prior marriage history. However, there are evangelical pastors who will refuse to marry people.

Many evangelical churches refuse to hold divorce over someone’s head and will marry them again. That is far from saying that the divorce was “ok” and not problematic at all. It’s a response to human weakness and brokenness.

And there is no need for a magesterium…

Or is focus on the family the magesterium of “true” evangelicals.

Of course the great thing about Evangelical churches, and particularly Evangelical Free churches is their only authority is within their four walls. So they can and do say what they want and preach what they want.

And if the church your attending seems “too traditional” the skies the limit, and you can find a dozen other churches in your area that will more conform to your style of theology.

(Tongue in cheek joke)
Church Shopping Checklist for the Evangelical

Does it have

1. coffee bar rivaling Starbucks so I can hold my prayer group at the church.
2. stadium Seats and super trick light shows with epic sounds
3. you confuse the worship pastor for Bono
4. you here the 10 piece praise band and realize he really was Bono!
5. Pastor wears shorts and flip flops(but not with socks…eww)
6. you ask for a church Calendar and they give you something showing the “fellowship opportunities”
7. there must be at least 25 fellowship opportunities per week.
8. what’s required of me? “Come, enjoy, and if you can help us build our new building with a donation that would be great!”

 

[justtryin]

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.

Hello Itwin! I’ve rarely had time to lurk these boards lately. We argued the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the past. I hope you are well. What made me respond to this quote of yours is it made me chuckle. You sound like one of those “RadTrad Pentecostals” I’ve been hearing about lately. All joking aside I wish you well.

God Bless

 

[ltwin]

Hello Itwin! I’ve rarely had time to lurk these boards lately. We argued the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the past. I hope you are well. What made me respond to this quote of yours is it made me chuckle. You sound like one of those “RadTrad Pentecostals” I’ve been hearing about lately. All joking aside I wish you well.

God Bless

Haha. Oh no. Hope I didn’t give off the “RadTrad” vibe. I am a “Classical Pentecostal” in my theology, but I’m the farthest thing from “traditional.” I love contemporary worship, I own a tv, and I abhor any sort of “poor dress gospel” or “clothesline holiness,” or any of the legalism that Pentecostals have traditionally been associated with.

It’s just that I deeply grieve what I perceive is a pervading loss of urgency, a failure to preach the pure word of God (as opposed to self-help, positive thinking philosophies), and an unrestrained embrace of glitz and glamour among many but not all Pentecostal churches today.

 

[justtryin]

Haha. Oh no. Hope I didn’t give off the “RadTrad” vibe. I am a “Classical Pentecostal” in my theology, but I’m the farthest thing from “traditional.” I love contemporary worship, I own a tv, and I abhor any sort of “poor dress gospel” or “clothesline holiness,” or any of the legalism that Pentecostals have traditionally been associated with.

It’s just that I deeply grieve what I perceive is a pervading loss of urgency, a failure to preach the pure word of God (as opposed to self-help, positive thinking philosophies), and an unrestrained embrace of glitz and glamour among many but not all Pentecostal churches today.

Ha! It was a play on RadTrad perception that made me laugh because I tend to prefer the so called old ways. I tend to agree that pomp and circumstance seem to have taken over not just the Catholic Church but all areas of life itself. It seems as if substance doesn’t exist anymore. Only image matters. Psychology replaces sin, addiction replaces gluttony, psydo-science replaces religion, so on and so on.

I don’t want to derail this thread so I’m not just outta here but I wish you well.

God Bless you and your family

 

[Novocastrian]

Originally, they just pointed at heresies in the past. They claimed that the Catholic Church actively hunted down the “true invisible church”, causing it to go underground. Their concept of an invisible church corresponds to their myths regarding the inquisitions.

No matter how they defined it, the concept is necessary in order to justify Protestantism. Without an invisible church that persisted for about fifteen centuries, Protestantism becomes an invented religion in the fifteenth century. Nothing more than that.

You have completely misunderstood the concept. There may be one or two lunatic ultra-evangelical groups in the USA which appeal to a kind of secret historical tradition (as if Irenaeus were a Southern Baptist, etc.), but this isn’t what mainline Protestantism has ever sought to claim. The idea of an invisible Church is soteriological; how do we explain the tares amongst the wheat? Surely, on the one hand, those tares marked by baptism and visible membership of the Church militant are in some sense part of the Church, but on the other hand, it is perhaps not strictly accurate to refer to them as the elect, who will be raised to glory at the End.

 

[Novocastrian]

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

God provided, the Church recognised. Important difference!