To those who believe the Church is invisible

[ChrisB103]

I did a brief search to see if this is one of those topics that comes up frequently, but I didn’t find anything too recent. I’ve always wondered how Christians who believe that the Church is only an invisible entity view a couple things:

1. The teaching authority of the Church.
   (i.e. Matthew 18:15-18 where Christ tells believers that the Church can settle a dispute.) It seems to me that to have a Church that can teach correctly means there must be at least some visible portion to it, and that this visible portion will have set beliefs (which seems to me to rule out the idea that all Christian churches participate fully in the invisible Church because they teach contradicting things).
2. The clear structure and unity that the early Church shows.
   Sure, they didn’t always agree on everything by any means, but the whole early Church (as far as I’ve seen) recognized bishops, priests, and deacons, and saw the bishops to have an intimate tie (in lineage and teaching) to the apostles.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts!

 

[Little_Mary]

Yep. Re: Matthew 18, if we are to “tell it to the Church” then we would have to get all the millions of members of the invisible church in our front yard to listen to us every time we had a problem. :hypno:

 

[ChrisB103]

Yep. Re: Matthew 18, if we are to “tell it to the Church” then we would have to get all the millions of members of the invisible church in our front yard to listen to us every time we had a problem. :hypno:

You mean you don’t do that?

 

[Little_Mary]

You mean you don’t do that?

You do?? Will you send me the database of everybody’s names and addresses all over the world?

Or maybe just their cells, texting would be much faster…

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I did a brief search to see if this is one of those topics that comes up frequently, but I didn’t find anything too recent. I’ve always wondered how Christians who believe that the Church is only an invisible entity view a couple things:

1. The teaching authority of the Church.
   (i.e. Matthew 18:15-18 where Christ tells believers that the Church can settle a dispute.) It seems to me that to have a Church that can teach correctly means there must be at least some visible portion to it, and that this visible portion will have set beliefs (which seems to me to rule out the idea that all Christian churches participate fully in the invisible Church because they teach contradicting things).
2. The clear structure and unity that the early Church shows.
   Sure, they didn’t always agree on everything by any means, but the whole early Church (as far as I’ve seen) recognized bishops, priests, and deacons, and saw the bishops to have an intimate tie (in lineage and teaching) to the apostles.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts!

Always an interesting topic and one that is, unfortunately, often misunderstood.

To say that the church is both visible and invisible is not to deny any of what you have posted above. It’s an acknowledgement that the church possesses both an external form and a reality which is unseen to the human eye.

The visible church refers to a local congregation which gathers to hear God’s word and receive His sacraments. Every baptized person who professes to believe in Christ may be a member of the visible congregation. However, any number of persons who are in the visible church (including the pastor/priest) may not be a member of the invisible, true church. Only God knows this distinction. Basically, in the visible body, you have wheat and tares; only the wheat comprises the invisible body.

 

[JonNC]

Always an interesting topic and one that is, unfortunately, often misunderstood.

To say that the church is both visible and invisible is not to deny any of what you have posted above. It’s an acknowledgement that the church possesses both an external form and a reality which is unseen to the human eye.

The visible church refers to a local congregation which gathers to hear God’s word and receive His sacraments. Every baptized person who professes to believe in Christ may be a member of the visible congregation. However, any number of persons who are in the visible church (including the pastor/priest) may not be a member of the invisible, true church. Only God knows this distinction. Basically, in the visible body, you have wheat and tares; only the wheat comprises the invisible body.

In support, Iggy, the Augsburg Confession says:

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. **

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.

Jon

 

[Tony888]

Please identify these Christians that believe the “church is only an invisible entity”? I’m concerned they only exist in your ‘strawman’ argument.

1. The teaching authority of the Church.
   (i.e. Matthew 18:15-18 where Christ tells believers that the Church can settle a dispute.) It seems to me that to have a Church that can teach correctly means there must be at least some visible portion to it, and that this visible portion will have set beliefs (which seems to me to rule out the idea that all Christian churches participate fully in the invisible Church because they teach contradicting things).

I think you are confusing topics,

• We all believe in a visible local church.
• Matthew 18:15-18 is about discipline, and how the church must apply ‘tough love’ to our wayward brethren. This is advice to the local church, Popes or Bishops aren’t mentioned here.

1. The clear structure and unity that the early Church shows.
   Sure, they didn’t always agree on everything by any means, but the whole early Church (as far as I’ve seen) recognized bishops, priests, and deacons, and saw the bishops to have an intimate tie (in lineage and teaching) to the apostles.

• Are you claiming that modern Protestant churches lack their own ‘clear structure and unity’?
• Why isn’t teaching from the bible a clear lineage to the teachings of the apostles?

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I’ve come across people who have the view the church is invisible, it stems from a belief that there is no visible unity of the church and no ecclesiastical authority above the local congregation. They view the unity of the church as invisible, as not having been yet revealed.

When I read the OP questions, I understood them as aimed at the belief that there is no visible church…

 

[ChrisB103]

Always an interesting topic and one that is, unfortunately, often misunderstood.

To say that the church is both visible and invisible is not to deny any of what you have posted above. It’s an acknowledgement that the church possesses both an external form and a reality which is unseen to the human eye.

The visible church refers to a local congregation which gathers to hear God’s word and receive His sacraments. Every baptized person who professes to believe in Christ may be a member of the visible congregation. However, any number of persons who are in the visible church (including the pastor/priest) may not be a member of the invisible, true church. Only God knows this distinction. Basically, in the visible body, you have wheat and tares; only the wheat comprises the invisible body.

I agree fully with your post. Certainly, the Church is both visible and invisible. As CCC 779 says, “The Church is both visible and spiritual, a hierarchical society and the Mystical Body of Christ. She is one, yet formed of two components, human and divine.”

I was referring to those who believe the Church is only invisible; people who may meet at a physical location, but don’t think that it is “the pillar and bulwark of truth” that St. Paul refers to in 1 Timothy 3:15.

 

[ChrisB103]

Please identify these Christians that believe the “church is only an invisible entity”? I’m concerned they only exist in your ‘strawman’ argument.

I think you are confusing topics,

• We all believe in a visible local church.
• Matthew 18:15-18 is about discipline, and how the church must apply ‘tough love’ to our wayward brethren. This is advice to the local church, Popes or Bishops aren’t mentioned here.
• Are you claiming that modern Protestant churches lack their own ‘clear structure and unity’?
• Why isn’t teaching from the bible a clear lineage to the teachings of the apostles?

To be entirely honest, I’m not sure which brand of Christian would claim that the Church is only invisible. In reading the comments of others, it has seemed to me multiple times that there are at least individuals who believe that the Church has no physical form or hierarchy. So if I am indeed proposing a strawman, I’m not doing so out of malice. The “further” a group is away from Catholicism the less I tend to understand their beliefs, especially since it’s difficult to pin any set list of beliefs on them. I have a lot of respect for groups that are confessional, and have set documents that can help you better understand them. This makes it a lot easier to discuss the topics for what they are, and not how each individual believer words them, for better or for worse.

I disagree that Mt 18:15-18 isn’t referring to anyone in the hierarchy of the Church. It’s my understanding that “the disciples” referenced at the beginning of the chapter are the apostles, or at least a small group of the disciples closest to Jesus. These men would have certainly been leaders in the early Church. Also, Jesus grants them the power to “bind and loose”, which every believer clearly doesn’t have.

I’m not claiming that Protestants don’t have clear structure and unity. Certainly, many of them do. I’m claiming that some modern Protestants don’t recognize or embody the same structure and unity that the early Church Fathers display.

Teaching from the Bible is a clear lineage to the teaching of the apostles, so long as it is in accordance with what the apostles and their successors taught. However, the early Church Fathers undoubtedly valued succession much more than many less traditional Protestants do today. This lineage was incredibly important to the early Church, but many have lost sight of this.

As a disclaimer, I understand that it’s important to not make blanket statements of Protestants, so I tried my best not to. Please forgive me if I fell short of this goal.

 

[ChrisB103]

When I’ve come across people who have the view the church is invisible, it stems from a belief that there is no visible unity of the church and no ecclesiastical authority above the local congregation. They view the unity of the church as invisible, as not having been yet revealed.

When I read the OP questions, I understood them as aimed at the belief that there is no visible church…

Yep, that’s what I was aiming at. Apparently I was a bit off target!

In your experience, what denominations subscribe to the idea the the Church is only invisible? Thanks!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’ve only come across this belief coming from non-denominational congregationalists.

 

[Publisher]

Please identify these Christians that believe the “church is only an invisible entity”? I’m concerned they only exist in your ‘strawman’ argument. I think you are confusing topics,

• We all believe in a visible local church.
• Matthew 18:15-18 is about discipline, and how the church must apply ‘tough love’ to our wayward brethren. This is advice to the local church, Popes or Bishops aren’t mentioned here.
• Are you claiming that modern Protestant churches lack their own ‘clear structure and unity’?
• Why isn’t teaching from the bible a clear lineage to the teachings of the apostles?

Yes indeed…I worship with very flesh and blood people in a very visible building…it is our Meetinghouse…the Church meets each First Day to worship and praise God in our midst.

 

[ChrisB103]

Yes indeed…I worship with very flesh and blood people in a very visible building…it is our Meetinghouse…the Church meets each First Day to worship and praise God in our midst.

Perhaps my OP was not clear, as multiple people are mistaking it to mean that I don’t think they have a physical place of worship. And perhaps I have misunderstood people’s statements that have led me to the conclusion that some believers understand the Church (read: the body of Christ) to be only a spiritual, invisible reality. My question might be better phrased this way:
In what way do different kinds of Christians believe their denomination relates to the Church referenced in the following verses:

1. Matthew 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

From these verses, it seems that the Church can make binding statements on believers, which can be used as a guide to settle disputes of different natures. How do Quakers (and the particular denomination of anyone else reading this) understand their denomination’s role in the Church as referenced here?

1. 1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

We are told here that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth”. In what way would you, as a Quaker, understand the relationship of your denomination to the Church as referenced and defined in 1 Timothy 3:15?

Hopefully this clarifies my purpose. It always seems clear in my head when I’m thinking about how to word my thoughts, but then again I sound just like the artist of a song when I sing it to myself

 

[Tony888]

Chris,
At some level I think you could say all Christians who believe ‘the Rock’ was God and not Peter see themselves as part of the ‘invisible church’ of Christ. This invisible church connects us above our local denomination, etc.

Regarding Mt 18:15-18, There is plenty of bible commentary from experts that concurr this is about how to discipline your neighbor, who may be an unrepentant sinner. It applies to the heirarchy as they may be the sinner, friend, witness, or part of the local church council that might excommunicate a member.

I can’t comprehend how you can say “it’s difficult to pin any set list of beliefs on them” about Protestants. Catholics agree the bible represnts the teachings of Christ, and the bible is explicit in what it asks us to do, at least for what is salvific. To be simple, we all agree on the 10 commandments and the need for baptism + repentance, even if we don’t agree on the exact method.

It’s also easy to argue that protestants have the same lineage as Catholics. I like the analogy of a orchard or vineyard, where cuttings are taken from one tree, that might be sick, to propogate new trees that deliver good fruit in abundance.

To be entirely honest, I’m not sure which brand of Christian would claim that the Church is only invisible. In reading the comments of others, it has seemed to me multiple times that there are at least individuals who believe that the Church has no physical form or hierarchy. So if I am indeed proposing a strawman, I’m not doing so out of malice. The “further” a group is away from Catholicism the less I tend to understand their beliefs, especially since it’s difficult to pin any set list of beliefs on them. I have a lot of respect for groups that are confessional, and have set documents that can help you better understand them. This makes it a lot easier to discuss the topics for what they are, and not how each individual believer words them, for better or for worse.

I disagree that Mt 18:15-18 isn’t referring to anyone in the hierarchy of the Church. It’s my understanding that “the disciples” referenced at the beginning of the chapter are the apostles, or at least a small group of the disciples closest to Jesus. These men would have certainly been leaders in the early Church. Also, Jesus grants them the power to “bind and loose”, which every believer clearly doesn’t have.

I’m not claiming that Protestants don’t have clear structure and unity. Certainly, many of them do. I’m claiming that some modern Protestants don’t recognize or embody the same structure and unity that the early Church Fathers display.

Teaching from the Bible is a clear lineage to the teaching of the apostles, so long as it is in accordance with what the apostles and their successors taught. However, the early Church Fathers undoubtedly valued succession much more than many less traditional Protestants do today. This lineage was incredibly important to the early Church, but many have lost sight of this.

As a disclaimer, I understand that it’s important to not make blanket statements of Protestants, so I tried my best not to. Please forgive me if I fell short of this goal.

 

[ChrisB103]

Chris,
At some level I think you could say all Christians who believe ‘the Rock’ was God and not Peter see themselves as part of the ‘invisible church’ of Christ. This invisible church connects us above our local denomination, etc.

Regarding Mt 18:15-18, There is plenty of bible commentary from experts that concurr this is about how to discipline your neighbor, who may be an unrepentant sinner. It applies to the heirarchy as they may be the sinner, friend, witness, or part of the local church council that might excommunicate a member.

I can’t comprehend how you can say “it’s difficult to pin any set list of beliefs on them” about Protestants. Catholics agree the bible represnts the teachings of Christ, and the bible is explicit in what it asks us to do, at least for what is salvific. To be simple, we all agree on the 10 commandments and the need for baptism + repentance, even if we don’t agree on the exact method.

It’s also easy to argue that protestants have the same lineage as Catholics. I like the analogy of a orchard or vineyard, where cuttings are taken from one tree, that might be sick, to propogate new trees that deliver good fruit in abundance.

Tony,

Do LDS believe Peter was “the Rock”?

I’m surprised that you think that Christians agree on what’s salvific and the necessity of baptism. There are plenty of people who don’t think baptism is necessary.

I don’t really think your analogy holds all that well in respect to lineage. Sure, Protestantism began with people who were Catholics, but in an attempt to remove the rotten parts of the tree they (by choice) removed the solid trunk and roots as well. Certainly, they maintained much truth, but they also lost a good deal of truth as well. A quick look at how the early Church understood lineage would show that the majority of modern Protestants have an essentially different understanding.

 

[Tony888]

I don’t really think your analogy holds all that well in respect to lineage. Sure, Protestantism began with people who were Catholics, but in an attempt to remove the rotten parts of the tree they (by choice) removed the solid trunk and roots as well. Certainly, they maintained much truth, but they also lost a good deal of truth as well. A quick look at how the early Church understood lineage would show that the majority of modern Protestants have an essentially different understanding.

You simply have a very Catholic point of view
By your logic you are the first born son and only pure heir to the throne. The second, third and fourth born children are all illegitament, even if a DNA test proves they are the full child of the father.

To better know truth, I urge you to focus of the fruits of the tree. for every good tree bears good fruit.

 

[ChrisB103]

You simply have a very Catholic point of view
By your logic you are the first born son and only pure heir to the throne. The second, third and fourth born children are all illegitament, even if a DNA test proves they are the full child of the father.

To better know truth, I urge you to focus of the fruits of the tree. for every good tree bears good fruit.

Based on my studies, the only point of view I want to have is a very Catholic one. With that being said, I certainly enjoy trying to understand what others believe and why.

There is no such thing as an illegitimate child in God’s eyes. God’s concern is that we seek him fully each day. Everyone - Catholics and non-Catholics alike - could do a better job of this. Surely, all Christians are sons and daughters of God. Unfortunately, many Protestants have inherited a degree of likeness to the prodigal son. Hopefully in time we’ll see the prodigal son make it back home, just as he does in the Bible.

I think Mormons milk the “fruits of the tree” idea for way more than it’s worth. Don’t get me wrong, the Mormons I know are excellent examples of their faith. I was camping with a few Mormon friends recently and I found myself wishing that my close Catholic friends could be as morally upright as my Mormon friends. However, I still think that the “look at the fruits” idea and the related campaign to showcase how happy, clean cut, and morally upright Mormons are actually functions to distract people from objectivity and look more at subjective feelings and appearances (not necessarily physical appearances, but the appearances of how things “are”).

I’m still curious if LDS think Peter is the Rock. I know you guys talk about the keys of the kingdom leaving the earth for a while and Smith bringing them back, but I’m not quite sure on the details of that.

 

[Nicea325]

You simply have a very Catholic point of view
By your logic you are the first born son and only pure heir to the throne. The second, third and fourth born children are all illegitament, even if a DNA test proves they are the full child of the father.

To better know truth, I urge you to focus of the fruits of the tree. for every good tree bears good fruit.

And the early church was also a very Catholic point of view…what is the issue? The belief Christ founded a hodge-podge church with an array of beliefs is hogwash!

 

[Tony888]

I’m still curious if LDS think Peter is the Rock. I know you guys talk about the keys of the kingdom leaving the earth for a while and Smith bringing them back, but I’m not quite sure on the details of that.

Chris, I’m looking into this, I don’t know the exact answer.
You may enjoy this WEB debate on the subject though