Is The Church Divided?

[~Zao~]

The distinction between the visible church and those who are actually in Christ seems obvious. As far as I know, no theological tradition doubts it. The usual criticism is that Protestants deny that there's a visible church. That's different, and it would be a problem. I don't know whether there are Protestants who deny that there is a visible Church or not. I certainly don't. Unfortunately, however, it's divided. That doesn't stop it from being Christ's visible presence, but it does create problems for its witness at times.

I don't think that projecting the visible church's problems of being reliable witnesses onto something other than the obvious causes of criticism helps either.

 

[concretecamper]

Well that's one half of what you said. The other half sounded like this:



The only logical conclusion to be arrived at from your various statements is that you think we can be brethren (in Christ) while at the same time being not part of the Body of Christ.

The only logical conclusion is that when a properly baptized protestant reaches the age of reason and does not chooses His Church = cut off.

 

[concretecamper]

Which is 100% FALSE!!!
Outside of Christ there is no salvation.
Has absolutely nothing to do with any denomination.

exactly, it has to do with only His Church.

 

[Chris V++]

The only logical conclusion is that when a properly baptized protestant reaches the age of reason and does not chooses His Church = cut off.

There's always the Orthodox. More Patriarchs.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi, @Tree of Life . I'm very happy to read your reply, as it seems we substantially agree. (To me, anyway; maybe you see it differently.) I just want to say before I reply to individual portions of your post that when I posted earlier in this thread I did not have in mind the original reformers precisely because I think the modern Protestant view on this question (insofar as I have interacted with people who claim Protestant Christianity as their faith and hold to 'invisible church' dualism) strays from them considerably.

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.

Agreed! (See? )

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.

Absolutely. That's been my only point in any of this: it's not one or the other, but both together. One could even invoke the warning of Ecclesiastes in this context to remind us how important it is that we physically manifest our unity, as it says "Woe to him who is alone when he falls, for he has no one to pick him up." Why are we together? It's not to rub in anyone's faces "Nyeh, nyeh, nyeh! We are the Church, and you are not!" (as I wrote to another poster, we do not know where the Church isn't), but to be with one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, affirming the faith that He has given us through His holy and glorious apostles and saints down to this very day, such that we are never alone, but are buoyed by the "cloud of witnesses" (what some Protestants would call the 'invisible church', I guess?), as St. Paul put it to the Hebrews, so great that we may endure to the end, God-willing.

While I guess it's understandable why people react negatively to the assertion that Church membership is so important to our lives as Christians, it is meant to be a positive, faith-affirming thing. In fact, it is even more than that: St. Anthony the Great (of Egypt; not the Roman Catholic St. Anthony that Roman Catholics might pray to when they misplace their car keys ), the father of Christian monasticism, tells us that our life and our death are with our brother. It is a fundamental principle that we are saved together, but damned alone, as the popular Eastern Orthodox saying goes. This says nothing of any individual's salvation or damnation, as that is 100% God's call to make. We just know and affirm that communion in and with the local church is the visible sign of unity under the bishop, which is not only historically consistent with the fathers and their witness to how the early Church actually operated (see again St. Ignatius, though I'm sure you already know him), but also consistent with the example of Jesus Christ our Lord and God and His disciples in the Upper Room where they first broke bread and drank in anticipation of His sacrifice, thereby establishing communion as normative throughout the Christian world. (I'm trying hard to sidestep any question concerning what some call 'memorialism', as I don't want this thread to turn into a debate on that! If we agree on so much, I am loathe to open what might be an area of disagreement when I don't even want to argue over such a sacred event, ever, with anyone.)

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.

Amen. I didn't mean to put anyone on the spot in terms of having to confirm or deny anything, as I don't think that is appropriate. I really meant it as more of an open question, like if you don't have X (the idea of being grounded in the local church, receiving the mysteries there, etc.), then what do you have instead? If union is not manifest physically, then how is it manifest?

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.

Do you know the African proverb (maybe just a cliche, as I can't source it to anyone in particular) "Don't tear down a fence before learning why it was put up"? I feel like that applies to the initial reformers, but not necessarily to those who came after them. You can tell in the way that the initial reformers kept some idea of 'visible' ecclesiology, some of the conciliar decisions inherited from the early Church (e.g., Luther's use of Theotokos as a Christological title of veneration for St. Mary, which of course was a reflection of our common inheritance from the fathers as confirmed at the first council of Ephesus in 431), and other such things that are largely scorned by many in Protestantism today. That's not a comment on the salvation or sincerity of anyone who might disagree with their approach, but I mean that in terms of rootedness, if that's a word (spell-check says no, but I'm going to go with it). There is a sense of continuity with the Western Christian tradition, such that the mainline churches keep to the Creed of Nicaea and the traditional observance of the Eucharist (and some even keep the hours, don't they? I know the Lutherans and Presbyterians have monks, so at least those particular Protestants must! ) and other things like that which make it very easy for me, as an Orthodox person, to feel very sympathetic to them on some level.

Granted, I myself was raised Presbyterian from age zero to about fourteen, so maybe I've still got some of that in me somewhere. Hehe.

I don't know. I don't think Protestantism or Protestants were initially out to destroy the Church or whatever the characterization might have been at the time (nor are they now, of course). Then again, Protestantism did not come from my Church in the first place, so perhaps it is a luxury to be able to sit here and say "They had a point with some of this stuff (e.g., indulgences, the role of the Roman Pope, etc.), and shouldn't be characterized as anti-Christian/anti-Church", which it seems like even Rome herself eventually recognized with the so-called counter-reformation and her more recent openness to other churches (though it seems they still are shy about calling Protestant churches churches, if I recall correctly; as an individual layperson of another tradition entirely, I can't help but find that a little silly, but eh...it's not my Church to begin with!)

 

[GingerBeer]

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.

For people who - for whatever reason - hate Catholicism the church is divided.

 

[ToServe]

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 not 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.

I can say with confidence and beyond a shadow of a doubt that the RCC on its own is NOT the Church. The Church has three players with three different titles.

RCC is God's people who are given the title Egypt.

The 1st Century Jewish Church is Israel who are God's inheritance from the remnant he had chosen within the Great Commission to establish his Church Highway.

The 1st Century Church of the East (The Assyrians) are God's handy work and are declared God's handy work from Old Testament times and throughout New Testament times.

Protestants are also classified as Egypt regardless if they have communion with RCC or not.

The hand of God is NOT with RCC but with the Assyrian Church of the East.

The inheritance of God is through his Jewish Olive Tree who exist to this very day and are not in communion with RCC (Egypt) and the Assyrians.

So yes the Church unlike the 1st Century Church is divided and the question remains as to who God will use to re-open this highway of unity as one undivided body.

The answer is a given, for God has always used the Assyrians and will do so in the final Commission to push the Gospel onto the world before the Church finishes her testimony at the symbolic 1260 day marker before they introduce the Abomination of Desolation at the symbolic 1290 day marker.

 

[Tree of Life]

People who are cut off are no longer part of His Body. His Body is not divided.

I don't understand how someone can be cut off from the body and yet in imperfect communion with the body. I don't see how someone can cast out of the family and yet still be a brother who is approached with respect and affection.

 

[Tree of Life]

According to the RCC you are cut off from Her and not part of His Body. Just accept that what she teaches. It's not that hard to undersrand

The problem is that the RCC seems to teach inconsistent things on the matter. Which part of the RCC story am I to accept?

 

[Tree of Life]

Dont take it from me......

The Roman Catechism

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church’s pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

The CCC doesn't appear to classify Protestantism in any of those categories based on what they go on to say.

 

[Tree of Life]

The distinction between the visible church and those who are actually in Christ seems obvious. As far as I know, no theological tradition doubts it.

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Federal Vision Reformed types deny a distinction between the visible and invisible church.

 

[Tree of Life]

The only logical conclusion is that when a properly baptized protestant reaches the age of reason and does not chooses His Church = cut off.

This goes beyond what your own catechism teaches. Then again, it is consistent with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Trouble is, Catholicism has changed its story since Vatican II.

 

[concretecamper]

I don't understand how someone can be cut off from the body and yet in imperfect communion with the body. I don't see how someone can cast out of the family and yet still be a brother who is approached with respect and affection.

You are too concerned about congeniality. If the new eccumenical language tickles your fancy then great. Even Catholics get caught up in the eccumenical language and they look past what the CCC is really saying...or better yet they assume it says something salvific just becasue the word affection and respect are used.

 

[concretecamper]

This goes beyond what your own catechism teaches. Then again, it is consistent with pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Trouble is, Catholicism has changed its story since Vatican II.

Nope, you assume that just becasue the word anathema isn't used and the words respect and affection are used.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nope, you assume that just becasue the word anathema isn't used and the words respect and affection are used.

No. Vatican II marked a significant change in the Catholic Church's view of Protestantism. They still believe that they are the one true church, but they no longer anathematize Protestants. They call them "brothers" and consider them to be in some sort of communion. Sounds like you may not be an assenting Catholic on these points.

 

[PaulCyp1]

To say that the church of Jesus Christ expresses itself in many denominations is to say that truth doesn't matter. The teaching of each denomination conflicts with the teaching of the others, which is why they are separate denominations. Truth cannot conflict with truth, therefore there is a great deal of untruth being taught by such unauthorized conflicting manmade churches. Denominations exist in direct disobedience to the plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers - "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE". Truth can exist only in unity, which is why Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Anyone who reads the Bible should know this. Which is why His ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, while those who have defected from His ONE Church have fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of conflicting (false) beliefs, in just a few hundred years. You just can't beat God's plan.

 

[redleghunter]

Protestants traditionally distinguish between the visible and invisible church - a Biblical distinction that the Roman Church has failed to grasp. But Protestants don't say that the church "has no concrete, earthly existence".

Jesus did teach the wheat and tares would grow side by side until the harvest. I think most Protestants recognize this.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

To say that the church of Jesus Christ expresses itself in many denominations is to say that truth doesn't matter. The teaching of each denomination conflicts with the teaching of the others, which is why they are separate denominations. Truth cannot conflict with truth, therefore there is a great deal of untruth being taught by such unauthorized conflicting manmade churches. Denominations exist in direct disobedience to the plainly stated will of Jesus Christ concerning His followers - "That they all may be ONE, even as I and My heavenly Father are ONE". Truth can exist only in unity, which is why Jesus founded ONE Church, said it was to remain ONE, and promised that ONE Church, and no other, "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Anyone who reads the Bible should know this. Which is why His ONE Church remains ONE in belief, ONE in teaching, ONE in worship, ONE in biblical understanding throughout the world after 2,000 years, while those who have defected from His ONE Church have fragmented into thousands of conflicting denominations teaching thousands of conflicting (false) beliefs, in just a few hundred years. You just can't beat God's plan.

Exactly.
One Church.
All believers since the day of Pentacost till present are members of the body of Christ.
Christ is the head of the Church.

And you are also correct , you just cannot beat God's plan.

 

[Albion]

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 (what I take you all to mean when you say "the invisible church"), but also be physically present in the world, as Christ our Lord was likewise physically present in the world. He was not a ghost, He was not invisible, and He did not flicker in and out of existence according to whatever was happening in any particular location (Rome, or anywhere else).

None of that applies to the Invisible Church. It is closer to what you think of as the Communion of Saints which is not localized in any one spot, transcends the years, and is not a single, physical entity that can be seen, visited, etc.

In a weird way I think the Protestant insistence on the 'invisible' Church and its distinction from the visible Church kind of gives Rome a bit too much power, or at least more power in its ecclesiological claims than you'd likely actually feel that it has.

I don't see how that can be, considering that Rome equates the Church with itself and itself only, whereas the Invisible Church is composed of true believers in Christ irrespective of their denominational affiliation (the Visible Church).

 

[redleghunter]

You say it's invisible, and contrast what this invisible, true Church is doing with what the "outward, visible" Church is doing.

I dunno. I don't get it.

Tares among Wheat

Matthew 13: NASB
24Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25“But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26“But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27“The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28“And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29“But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”