Where does the Bible say that the church is invisible?

[TriuneUnity]

Ok. How will this scripture be fulfilled if the church is invisible.

“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. 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. 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.” (Matthew 18:15-17)

Consider this. Suppose a woman and her husband disagree on the issue of contraception. Now, suppose the husband secretly contracepted while having intercourse with her and she came to know about it later. So, she thinks, “He has sinned against me.” But the husband thinks he has committed no sin. She asks some people to show him his fault, but he brings his own people who say he’s not wrong. So she tells it to the church. Now, in the church itself, there is division. Some people say that contraception is ok, others say it is a sin.

So how will Matthew 18:15-17 be fulfilled? You said, “we don’t know whom among the “church” belong to the true body of Christ”. If that were the case, the husband would say that those who said contraception is sinful do not belong to the true body of Christ and the wife would say otherwise.

Jesus is speaking of the visible Church here. We have no reason to question the faith of those who are ministers in the visible Church. Unless something demonstrates that they are not members of the true Church through faith.

 

[With_Questions]

Protestants claim that the church is invisible. But does the Bible say so?

On the other hand…

Where in the Bible does it say that the church of Jesus Christ is a denomination?

 

[Syele]

The problem that many here seem to have is thinking that an invisible church stops there from also being a visible one.

The existence of object A does not prove the lack of existence of object B.

Not all of the people in the visible Church are part of the invisible Church. Further, there are people in the invisible Church that may not be members of a visible Church. I’m sure we could all have rousing debate on what exactly the visible Church Consists of. But the invisible Church is pretty well defined.

It is Christ`s Elect, those who will go to Heaven Someday.

To deny the existence of an invisible church is to say that all people in the Visible Church are going to Heaven thereby making the visible the same Church as the invisible. I know that is not a Catholic teaching! Firstly you are all quite clear that everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” is not going to heaven. And secondly the Catechism says that there are people who are not currently a part of the Catholic Church that will go to heaven.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

So here you have a members of the visible Church (probably on the Church roles as he calls out to the Lord) and some who are not on those Church rolls, but are God’s true Children. The two are not part of the same Church.

Scriptures refer to “the Church” in different ways.

(bold mine)] We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:

• (1.) It is translated “assembly” in the ordinary classical sense (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).(Visible… they are assembling together all can see)
• (2.) It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible catholic church (Eph. 5:23, 25, 27, 29; Heb. 12: 23). (invisible, I cannot see their hearts to know for sure who is redeemed and who is not!)
• (3.) A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an eccesia (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15).(Visible… they are assembling together all can see)
• (4.) All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church (Acts 13:1); so also we read of the “church of God at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the church at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church of Ephesus” (Rev. 2:1), etc.(Visible)
• (5.) The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Matt. 16:18) are the church of Christ.**(Visible BUT some who profess are NOT redeemed!..Lord, Lord…] this shows the Visible is not the same as the invisible! there are two kinds!)
  **

 

[iaskquestions]

Jesus is speaking of the visible Church here. We have no reason to question the faith of those who are ministers in the visible Church. Unless something demonstrates that they are not members of the true Church through faith.

Suppose the woman in the example is a Catholic and her husband is a Baptist. Her church says contraception is sinful while the husband’s church says it is not. So how will the scripture be fulfilled?

 

[ralphinal]

The other issue is what exactly is meant by invisible?

Does it mean that there is a connection that cannot be seen by human eyes?

Does it mean that there is a connection that cannot be understood by human thought?

Does it mean that there is no connection at all, only individuals on a similar journey?

Some use it to mean the latter. This is not what Jesus meant at all.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Suppose the woman in the example is a Catholic and her husband is a Baptist. Her church says contraception is sinful while the husband’s church says it is not. So how will the scripture be fulfilled?

In that case the visible church to which both belong must be judged as to whether the church is orthodox in teaching; does it faithfully preach the Word and rightly administer the sacraments? These are the marks of the visible church.

 

[With_Questions]

Suppose the woman in the example is a Catholic and her husband is a Baptist. Her church says contraception is sinful while the husband’s church says it is not. So how will the scripture be fulfilled?

I actually understand the question.

Excellent.

Logically, competing denominations with competing theologies can not handle all cases of applying this Scripture.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The other issue is what exactly is meant by invisible?

Does it mean that there is a connection that cannot be seen by human eyes?

Does it mean that there is a connection that cannot be understood by human thought?

Does it mean that there is no connection at all, only individuals on a similar journey?

Some use it to mean the latter. This is not what Jesus meant at all.

I would definately say the first instance, ralph.

Many people use the term “invisible church” to say that there is NO outward church at all just individual believers who are Christian. This is definately not what Augustine or Luther meant by the theology. It simply means we cannot tell by outward appearance who is in the Body of Christ. Since only God knows the inward thoughts of man.

 

[ralphinal]

I would definately say the first instance, ralph.

Many people use the term “invisible church” to say that there is NO outward church at all just individual believers who are Christian. This is definately not what Augustine or Luther meant by the theology. It simply means we cannot tell by outward appearance who is in the Body of Christ. Since only God knows the inward thoughts of man.

I see it as the first two. I agree 100% about not being able to tell.

I further add that we are joined into Christ through Baptism in a way that we cannot comprehend.

Invisble does not mean non-existant.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I see it as the first two. I agree 100% about not being able to tell.

I further add that we are joined into Christ through Baptism in a way that we cannot comprehend.

Invisble does not mean non-existant.

Correct. I agree 100%.

Given the modern neo-evangelical twisting of most of the reformers theology it is not surprising to me that many Catholics react viscerally against the invisible/visible church. When it’s badly misrepresented Catholics are right to criticize false teachings of it. They’ve done the same with sola scriptura and sola fide as well.

 

[iaskquestions]

In that case the visible church to which both belong must be judged as to whether the church is orthodox in teaching; does it faithfully preach the Word and rightly administer the sacraments? These are the marks of the visible church.

So either the Baptist church or the Catholic church is the true church. Would it not imply that?

 

[iaskquestions]

Logically, competing denominations with competing theologies can not handle all cases of applying this Scripture.

That’s true. For a church to be true it should teach no erroneous doctrine at all. Not even one.

The problem is, all denominations (churches?) believed contraception was sinful until the 1930s. Then, after a few years many changed their doctrine to say it’s not sinful. Any church which changes and contradicts doctrines (not disciplines, mind you) cannot be the true church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

So either the Baptist church or the Catholic church is the true church. Would it not imply that?

Yes it would. More so than a true/false dichotomy, I would say orthodox/heterodox dichotomy. Since all Trinitarian churches that have the gospel and sacraments in some form are Christian, someone who is a member there should obey their leadership. That person should, however, do whatever they can to join an orthodox church.

 

[With_Questions]

That’s true. For a church to be true it should teach no erroneous doctrine at all. Not even one.

Well, many questions flow from this statement. I will limit this to a couple.

If this statement is true, then at best only one denomination can be the “true church”.

So what if no denomination is absolutely error free in its teaching?
Isn’t this a logical possibility?

But why is “no erroneous doctrine” the necessary benchmark for a “true church”?

What if I were to turn around and say that
“For a church to be true it should be absolutely free of historical misconduct”? Why would my benchmark be false while your benchmark is true?

But I am still waiting for a Protestant answer to how Matthew 18 can be perfectly applied in a case of competing denominations with different teachings? That is a very good question that deserves an answer.

 

[With_Questions]

The problem is, all denominations (churches?) believed contraception was sinful until the 1930s. Then, after a few years many changed their doctrine to say it’s not sinful. Any church which changes and contradicts doctrines (not disciplines, mind you) cannot be the true church.

You mean a church can not correct itself if it believes it is wrong?

But hasn’t the Catholic Church done the same thing? Prior to Vatican 2, wasn’t there one understanding concerning the salvation of non-Catholics? And wasn’t this understanding corrected after Vatican 2?

 

[cazayoux]

Whether someone is part of the body depends on what they believe. Only God knows what someone believes. Therefore it is impossible for any person to be able to point to someone and say that they know they are part of the true body.

Saul sure knew who to persecute.
And when blindingly confronted by a risen Jesus, he was asked “Why do you persecute me?”.

This seems divergent from your understanding of an invisible church.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

You mean a church can not correct itself if it believes it is wrong?

But hasn’t the Catholic Church done the same thing? Prior to Vatican 2, wasn’t there one understanding concerning the salvation of non-Catholics? And wasn’t this understanding corrected after Vatican 2?

not doctrine.
The Catholic Church might even one day allow married men to become priests, but this is not a doctrinal change.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

What if I were to turn around and say that
“For a church to be true it should be absolutely free of historical misconduct”? Why would my benchmark be false while your benchmark is true?

Jesus sent them out to preach the Gospel.
He sent them to teach, so they should be sent to teach without error.
He didn’t send them out to ‘conduct yourselves perfectly’.
Peter would have failed the church before it even started by his threefold denial.

The Catholic Church does not claim any member, not even the pope, to be impeccable.

michel

 

[With_Questions]

not doctrine.
The Catholic Church might even one day allow married men to become priests, but this is not a doctrinal change.

michel

OK.

The first question would be why isn’t this “doctrine”? What is doctrine in Catholicism and what distinguishes it from “not doctrine”?

The second question would be why is change in things that are not doctrine allowed but change in doctrine apparantly disqualifies one from being a “true church” (whatever that is).

The third question would be in regards to the statement that the change in position in regards to contraception disqualifies the Protestants from being a “true church”. What if the Protestant comes back and claims this is “not doctrine” but something else?

 

[cazayoux]

So here you have a members of the visible Church (probably on the Church roles as he calls out to the Lord) and some who are not on those Church rolls, but are God’s true Children. The two are not part of the same Church.

But there is only ONE body.

michel