Is The Church Divided?

[dzheremi]

Just speaking for me personally, I never did anything to get saved in the first place.

I didn't say anything about your (or anyone's) being saved. I asked how this "unity in faith" of all believers is actually manifested in reality.

Jesus loved me and my life utterly changed, not by my own merits (although I did believe but not even that was my own work), but through His.

Amen.

So I'm not sure how anyone should expect me to "do" things for recognition from men.

I'm not asking you to do anything. Again, I'm asking how a person's unity of faith is manifest in the actually existing world. You know, anyone can claim that we all believe the same thing, but there has to be some way of actually seeing whether or not that is the case.

Of all the things God has required of me I have done. If you don't accept this then its just not my difficulty, in my estimation of things.

It's not about what I accept or don't accept. I'm not a bishop or a priest. I'm just some guy, and I'm just asking questions to see how this ecclesiology is supposed to be realized.

I don't know who your churches saints even are.. all i know is that God called me Israel, and I have followed Him since. Its not to you to accept it or not, it's to God to see this work in me that He began through to the end.

.

I never said it was up to me. Nothing is up to me. I'm sorry that I've somehow left you with the impression that I believe it to be otherwise, because I do not.

Yes I know.. you believe me a heretic. Seems a theme these days.

I don't know where this is coming from. Where did I call you or anyone a heretic in the post you are replying to?

 

[Chris V++]

Put simply, if the Church is the Body of Christ -- and it is -- then it must exist not only in the sense of being of one mind spiritually

We read a lot of scripture which helps us with that 'sense of being of one mind spiritually.' This isn't the same as submitting to a tradition that may or may not appear to contradict scripture because clergy insists on submission.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I didn't say anything about your (or anyone's) being saved. I asked how this "unity in faith" of all believers is actually manifested in reality.



Amen.



I'm not asking you to do anything. Again, I'm asking how a person's unity of faith is manifest in the actually existing world. You know, anyone can claim that we all believe the same thing, but there has to be some way of actually seeing whether or not that is the case.



It's not about what I accept or don't accept. I'm not a bishop or a priest. I'm just some guy, and I'm just asking questions to see how this ecclesiology is supposed to be realized.

.

I never said it was up to me. Nothing is up to me. I'm sorry that I've somehow left you with the impression that I believe it to be otherwise, because I do not.



I don't know where this is coming from. Where did I call you or anyone a heretic in the post you are replying to?

I think it starts by not denying that we who don't follow your churches ideas are saved and truly followers of Christ.

If you can't recognise who others believers in Christ are then perhaps you should pray and ask God to help you with that..

Unity of Faith is seeing what the important things are to believe, and accepting all who believe and follow that as brothers and sisters in Christ..

It's putting Christ and the lost first, and rising above what is not so important.

His Church should be able to do this.

 

[dzheremi]

Can you expand on why you relate the 'invisible' church to Gnosticism

Sure. Following Pastor Lee's thesis in his book Against the Protestant Gnostics (I'm sure he's not the only one who has made this connection; it's just where I first read about it, and I thought it rather well-reasoned and argued), the "Protestant Gnostics" would be those who, like the Gnostics of old, maintain a division between the physical and the spiritual such that the spiritual is uplifted and the physical degraded or downgraded, or at least to be ignored. In his book, he gives examples of Evangelical Christians of the revivalist type such as were popular during the "Moral Majority" days of the 1980s, for instance (the book was originally published in 1987, when such people were much more visible), who used their belief in Christ's second coming to put forth the idea that we needn't care for the environment, because this earth would probably not be around for too much longer before Christ returns and ushers in the end of existence as we now know it.

Of course not all examples are as obvious and strange as that, but within this ecclesiology is the same as the old Gnostic dualist division wherein the physical is of secondary importance to the spiritual, hence it may not matter all that much that men and women be in communion with each other, so long as they intellectually/spiritually "believe in Christ", and if the result is that this phrase takes on as many individualized meanings as there are people to utter it (which is maybe not an inherently bad thing in the abstract like that, as every person must take on their own faith, rather than relying on church membership as though they can tell the Lord "but Lord, I attended XYZ Church, and that was the right one!" and thereby secure their salvation; no!), then that's okay...we're all a part of the 'invisible church' anyhow, even if there is therefore no agreement even on the basics of the faith (what they are, what they aren't) among people who claim to be "united in faith" within this invisible church.

when it seems your merely saying it's heretical because you don't understand it.

Now why would you assume that without first reading my explanation as to why I had written that -- the explanation that you asked me one clause earlier to give to you?

Gnosticism

says that humans are divine souls trapped in the ordinary physical (or material) world. They say that the world was made by an imperfect spirit. The imperfect spirit is thought to be the same as the God of Abraham. ... Some Gnostic groups saw Jesus as sent by the supreme being, to bring gnosis to the Earth.


What are the beliefs of Gnosticism?

A highly controversial group in the history of the Christian church, the Gnostics believed our world was actually created by an evil being named Demiurge. They still believe in a pure and good God, but they believe he created a spiritual realm, including eight divine beings called Aeons.

I am aware of the various beliefs of the Gnostics. Please see my explanation earlier in this reply. Thank you.

 

[dzheremi]

I think it starts by not denying that we who don't follow your churches ideas are saved and truly followers of Christ.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to. What starts "by not denying that we who do not follow (my) church's ideas are saved and truly followers of Christ"? I don't understand what you're referring to, or what this sentence means. Can you rephrase it?

If you can't recognise who others believers in Christ are then perhaps you should pray and ask God to help you with that.

I'm not sure where I claimed to be able to recognize anything in particular. Again, I am asking how 'invisible church' ecclesiology is manifest such that all the people within this invisible church are united in faith, since they're not necessarily united in reality.

To put it another way: I can tell who is within the Church by knowing who can take/takes communion with us. I don't have any corresponding way to tell who isn't within the Church, and I've never claimed to, as that is deeply against Orthodox ecclesiology. Or, as the Eastern Orthodox put it much more succinctly: We know where the Church is, but not where she is not.

Unity of Faith is seeing what the important things are to believe, and accepting all who believe and follow that as brothers and sisters in Christ..

Alright. Who decides what the important things are, and on what grounds?

It's putting Christ and the lost first, and rising above what is not so important.

Okay. Who decides what is not so important and what is? And why/how?

His Church should be able to do this.

I agree.

 

[~Zao~]

Sure. Following Pastor Lee's thesis in his book Against the Protestant Gnostics (I'm sure he's not the only one who has made this connection; it's just where I first read about it, and I thought it rather well-reasoned and argued), the "Protestant Gnostics" would be those who, like the Gnostics of old, maintain a division between the physical and the spiritual such that the spiritual is uplifted and the physical degraded or downgraded, or at least to be ignored. In his book, he gives examples of Evangelical Christians of the revivalist type such as were popular during the "Moral Majority" days of the 1980s, for instance (the book was originally published in 1987, when such people were much more visible), who used their belief in Christ's second coming to put forth the idea that we needn't care for the environment, because this earth would probably not be around for too much longer before Christ returns and ushers in the end of existence as we now know it.

Of course not all examples are as obvious and strange as that, but within this ecclesiology is the same as the old Gnostic dualist division wherein the physical is of secondary importance to the spiritual, hence it may not matter all that much that men and women be in communion with each other, so long as they intellectually/spiritually "believe in Christ", and if the result is that this phrase takes on as many individualized meanings as there are people to utter it (which is maybe not an inherently bad thing in the abstract like that, as every person must take on their own faith, rather than relying on church membership as though they can tell the Lord "but Lord, I attended XYZ Church, and that was the right one!" and thereby secure their salvation; no!), then that's okay...we're all a part of the 'invisible church' anyhow, even if there is therefore no agreement even on the basics of the faith (what they are, what they aren't) among people who claim to be "united in faith" within this invisible church.



Now why would you assume that without first reading my explanation as to why I had written that -- the explanation that you asked me one clause earlier to give to you?



I am aware of the various beliefs of the Gnostics. Please see my explanation earlier in this reply. Thank you.

So you are relating the spiritual and the physical of Gnosticism to the actual presence in the church building? What church did Paul go to? Or Peter? or the dispersed? Or Apollo? Where were the gatherings except through the letters that they gathered around? I don't accept your definition and is probably the same reason why many don't attend churches that gather around rituals. Those rituals may or may not provide you with the knowledge contained in Christianity, but personally I'm more interested in associating with people who actually see, here and do after hearing once. Not ritualistically performing something that might make sense if the priest understands it and is willing to instruct the mere mortals.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are referring to. What starts "by not denying that we who do not follow (my) church's ideas are saved and truly followers of Christ"? I don't understand what you're referring to, or what this sentence means. Can you rephrase it?



I'm not sure where I claimed to be able to recognize anything in particular. Again, I am asking how 'invisible church' ecclesiology is manifest such that all the people within this invisible church are united in faith, since they're not necessarily united in reality.

To put it another way: I can tell who is within the Church by knowing who can take/takes communion with us. I don't have any corresponding way to tell who isn't within the Church, and I've never claimed to, as that is deeply against Orthodox ecclesiology. Or, as the Eastern Orthodox put it much more succinctly: We know where the Church is, but not where she is not.



Alright. Who decides what the important things are, and on what grounds?



Okay. Who decides what is not so important and what is? And why/how?



I agree.

Its not you..

Let's see, today I reported an absolutely racist post, first time I've ever reported anything on CF, and was summarily ignored.

Then I was exorcised as if I am possessed. Lol..

Not very long ago someone in a small private group I was in left because they seem to believe me to be Satan in the flesh, and a sin to be nice to me in any way.

There's been more certainly, been called a heretic outright more than once..

So I keep trying. I can't go to church right now because I'm too sick (*physical). But I want to be around God's people anyway, even if I can't in person, so i keep trying. I

Then I open threads like this and see how people like you can't accept people like me as part of the "church" whose head is Christ because I don't pray for your saints (whoever they are)..

And honestly... I just feel done. Done trying to be around "God's people" because all it does is make me cry..

At any rate, take care and I'm sorry for even posting.

 

[dzheremi]

So you are relating the spiritual and the physical of Gnosticism to the actual presence in the church building?

No. I am saying that the tendency of some modern Protestants to disregard the physical world in favor of a dematerialized understanding of Christianity extends to the ecclesiology that many profess, which is likewise dematerialized.

What church did Paul go to? Or Peter? or the dispersed? Or Apollo?

I couldn't tell you (since that's once again not the point), but I can tell you where the churches they founded are -- St. Peter and Paul founded the Church at Antioch, St. Peter the Church at Rome, etc. It depends on which specific people you are asking about.

Where were the gatherings except through the letters that they gathered around?

Well, we can know by virtue of their having founded churches along the region that St. Peter and St. Paul must've been together at Antioch and other places in the area of Asia minor. Antioch is also where St. Paul famously withstood St. Peter "to his face" (Galatians 2:11), so there can be little doubt that they were together then. Furthermore, the apostles had gathered in Jerusalem for the Council described in Acts 15, over which the local bishop James presided.

I don't accept your definition and is probably the same reason why many don't attend churches that gather around rituals.

I'm not asking you to accept anything. I'm asking how invisible church ecclesiology works.

Those rituals may or may not provide you with the knowledge contained in Christianity, but personally I'm more interested in associating with people who actually see, here and do after hearing once. Not ritualistically performing something that might make sense if the priest understands it and is willing to instruct the mere mortals.

Alright. This is a very cynical response that does not answer any of my questions, but thank you anyway.

 

[dzheremi]

Its not you..

Let's see, today I reported an absolutely racist post, first time I've ever reported anything on CF, and was summarily ignored.

Then I was exorcised as if I am possessed. Lol..

Not very long ago someone in a small private group I was in left because they seem to believe me to be Satan in the flesh, and a sin to be nice to me in any way.

There's been more certainly, been called a heretic outright more than once..

So I keep trying. I can't go to church right now because I'm too sick (*physical). But I want to be around God's people anyway, even if I can't in person, so i keep trying. I

Then I open threads like this and see how people like you can't accept people like me as part of the "church" whose head is Christ because I don't pray for your saints (whoever they are)..

And honestly... I just feel done. Done trying to be around "God's people" because all it does is make me cry..

At any rate, take care and I'm sorry for even posting.

Wow. I am sorry you are having such a hard time here and elsewhere lately. Lord have mercy.

I did not post anything about accepting or not accepting anyone else as Christian, however. That's far above my pay grade, as an individual layperson. Rather, I'm just trying to understand how this is all supposed to work, because I do not see how people can be one in faith without deciding these very important questions regarding what is or isn't important and why, and who says so based on what, etc. All the kinds of things I asked you, because you had originally posted that this is how it's supposed to work.

But I can understand that you might not want to continue a conversation about it if being here makes you so sad. I'm truly sorry if I've contributed to that in any way, and I hope things start looking up for you soon.

 

[~Zao~]

No. I am saying that the tendency of some modern Protestants to disregard the physical world in favor of a dematerialized understanding of Christianity extends to the ecclesiology that many profess, which is likewise dematerialized.



I couldn't tell you (since that's once again not the point), but I can tell you where the churches they founded are -- St. Peter and Paul founded the Church at Antioch, St. Peter the Church at Rome, etc. It depends on which specific people you are asking about.



Well, we can know by virtue of their having founded churches along the region that St. Peter and St. Paul must've been together at Antioch and other places in the area of Asia minor. Antioch is also where St. Paul famously withstood St. Peter "to his face" (Galatians 2:11), so there can be little doubt that they were together then. Furthermore, the apostles had gathered in Jerusalem for the Council described in Acts 15, over which the local bishop James presided.



I'm not asking you to accept anything. I'm asking how invisible church ecclesiology works.



Alright. This is a very cynical response that does not answer any of my questions, but thank you anyway.

You or anyone else saying it's gnostic doesn't make it right. It just makes you look small. Fare thee well.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Let's see, today I reported an absolutely racist post, first time I've ever reported anything on CF, and was summarily ignored.

It takes time. Personally, I find that it takes as much as two days before they finally delete my post.

Then I was exorcised as if I am possessed. Lol..

I reported that one. That was definitely against the rules.

And honestly... I just feel done. Done trying to be around "God's people" because all it does is make me cry..

Yikes! I'm sorry to hear that. Take it easy; maybe take a break from the forums. This place is a beast at times. I hope you realize that there are those of us out there cheering for you every time you post. You bring a rare breath of sanity to this place.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well maybe not you personally, OP, but plenty of others will, to the point of believing that membership in an actually existing, physical Church somehow gets in the way of being a member of His true Church, which is almost universally taken to be the 'invisible church' as something separate from the visible Church, by those whose ecclesiology depends on this distinction.

I agree that this is a ridiculous position. Happily, though, it is not a position taught by any serious Protestant ministers or theologians. It's just a silly pretense held by some lay people.

And you know that you are united to Christ in faith how? How is that unity of faith visibly and physically manifested in the world? (or is it?)

There are many ways that we can come to know that we are united to Christ by faith. John's first letter mentions many of these. One of them is the fact that we love the brethren and this would certainly imply local church membership.

Will they, though? This is not my ecclesiology to begin with, but from talking with people who seem to hold to it, it seems that they will assert that they are members of the invisible Church, and yet never show up to liturgy, never celebrate the Church's fasts and feasts, never participate in the daily prayer cycle, never commemorate the Church's saints, etc. So what is someone supposed to do -- just take their word for it that they are one in faith with all the other Christians who do all of these things, even if it is not manifest in actually being together with them?

No I would not take them at their word. I would not confidently affirm the salvation of anyone who disobey's God's commands to be part of a local church.

This is what I mean by saying that they seem to privilege the invisible Church over and against the visible, and hence embrace a kind of Gnosticism: the second anything gets physical, they back off. Suddenly the true Church is something other than the physically existing church that you can go to and participate in liturgy with, get baptized into and serve, receive the sacraments in, etc.

This can certainly be an abuse of the idea of the invisible church, but it's miles away from what the Reformers taught concerning the visible and invisible church. It's so much of a perversion that it's really a denial of Reformed ecclesiology which taught the necessity of local church membership.

 

[ToServe]

Is the Church of Jesus Christ truly divided?

Catholics seem to be saying two things that I don't see how can be reconciled. They say:

(1) The Church cannot be divided. It is gifted with unity and will always be one, visible institution. Anyone who does not acknowledge the primary authority of the bishop of Rome of who does not submit to Roman doctrine is a schismatic and is not a legitimate church, as there is only one legitimate church. So there is only one true church. This can be found in RCC 813-816.

(2) But on the other hand, Catholics also say that Christians who profess the Christian faith and who have received baptism are legitimately justified and are legitimately Christians (RCC 818-819) and that Protestant Christians and EO Christians are in a "certain and imperfect communion with the Roman Catholic Church" (RCC 838).

So Catholics say that there is only one church which cannot be divided. Yet they say that there are many Christians (about half) who are not Catholic.

I don't think Catholics can have it both ways. Either there is one church which is truly undivided and all those outside of it are not in communion with it at all and should be rebaptized upon entry into Catholicism (a position that Catholics reject). Or the one church of Jesus Christ expresses itself in many denominations as the majority of Protestants have always maintained.

Let use a simple test to see where RCC fits in within the highway of God spoken of in Isaiah 19:19-25.

Is Rome Israel who is God's inheritance within the 1st century context when Jesus established his Church?

No.

Is Rome Assyria who is God's handy work within the 1st century context when Jesus established his Church?

No.

Is Rome Egypt who is God's people within the 1st century context when Jesus established his Church?

Yes.

Egypt was the symbol of the pagan world who were into idolatry. RCC were once called Egypt were once not God's people, then after accepting Jesus, they then became declared God's people.

Romans 9:25
As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"

RCC does not hold all three titles within God's one Church.

 

[concretecamper]

But on the other hand, Catholics also say that Christians who profess the Christian faith and who have received baptism are legitimately justified and are legitimately Christians (RCC 818-819)

The "Christian" faith when referenced in the CCC refers to the Catholic faith. Keep reading the CCC and it will become clear to you.

Technically, the Church doesnt consider protestants Christian's becasuse they have chosen a heretical path. The CCC says we "honor" protestants with the name Christian. It sort of like an ecumenical title with little else.

 

[Tree of Life]

The "Christian" faith when referenced in the CCC refers to the Catholic faith. Keep reading the CCC and it will become clear to you.

The Catechism explicitly mentions the Roman Church's communion with those who do not embrace the Catholic faith. 838 says this:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

This would describe Christians like me who consider themselves to be Reformed Catholics - embracing much of Catholic doctrine up until the middle ages but rejecting the unbiblical pieces that are scattered throughout. According to the RCC I am in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[concretecamper]

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."

Eccumenical mumbo jumbo. Pick apart this statement and you'll see just how little it means. Imperfect communion.....therefore no communion.

 

[concretecamper]

The Gospel of Matthew is pretty clear that the Church is visible. Yeah, Christ establishes a Church yet makes it impossible for anyone to know whether or not they are a memeber.....if you believe that then I guess you'll fall for anything.

 

[Tree of Life]

Eccumenical mumbo jumbo. Pick apart this statement and you'll see just how little it means. Imperfect communion.....therefore no communion.

Interesting. So when the CCC says "imperfect communion" in this context, it means "no communion". And when the CCC says, concerning Protestants, that "the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers" (818), it means that it rejects them as "not brothers"?

Is this the official interpretation of the Catechism on these points?

 

[concretecamper]

accepts them with respect and affection as brothers

Ok, I respect you and have affection towards you.

 

[Tree of Life]

The Gospel of Matthew is pretty clear that the Church is visible. Yeah, Christ establishes a Church yet makes it impossible for anyone to know whether or not they are a memeber.....if you believe that then I guess you'll fall for anything.

No Reformed thinker denies that the church is visible. We just think that the Bible says more than that.

Also, no one maintains that it's impossible to become a member of the church, or that we should not become members of local churches. No Reformed thinker claims that it's impossible to know whether or not we are members of local churches and even of the invisible church.

So all of this is strawmaning and failing to really deal with the Reformed positions.

On the contrary, it's actually Catholics who deny that it's possible to know whether or not one is a member of the elect. In the Catholic view, being a member of the RCC is simple enough, but this does not guarantee that one will be finally saved. One can never have security that they will be finally saved.

But in the Reformed view, one may know that they are a member of the elect (the invisible church).