Universal Invisible Church

[JM]

Who, before Luther, taught about a "universal invisible church"?

Thank you.

 

[MrPolo]

I'd like to see the answers. I would imagine one should be able to find sources since the Church is both corporate as well as the entire body of believers. I'd like to see sources that say the Church is "only" body of believers minus any hierarchy or organization.

 

[JM]

How's this, from a Baptist source...

The Universal Invisible Church Fallacy

That there exists a Universal, Invisible Church, composed of the redeemed of all ages, is a fallacy, without any Scriptural, or verifiable basis. No inspired Bible writer gives a) testimony that such exists, b) no specific example of a universal holy Catholic church is pointed out in the Scripture, nor c) is there any circumstantial evidence or statement of necessary inference that all the saved make up a universal, invisible holy Catholic church. Any honorable judge, hearing a case without such evidence, would throw it out of court. So must true Bible believers.​

 

[MrPolo]

How's this, from a Baptist source...

The Universal Invisible Church Fallacy

That there exists a Universal, Invisible Church, composed of the redeemed of all ages, is a fallacy, without any Scriptural, or verifiable basis. No inspired Bible writer gives a) testimony that such exists, b) no specific example of a universal holy Catholic church is pointed out in the Scripture, nor c) is there any circumstantial evidence or statement of necessary inference that all the saved make up a universal, invisible holy Catholic church. Any honorable judge, hearing a case without such evidence, would throw it out of court. So must true Bible believers.​

I disagree with many of the premises here.....however, if this were true, wouldn't this make no one part of the Church?

 

[JM]

Sure.

 

[valeriedickinson]

Nobody taught this pre-reformation. At least no Christian; maybe heretics who denied truths about Christ or something. But even then, I have not seen it. It was a reformation ideal acting out against the Roman Catholic abuses of the Church, not any Christian belief there is evidence for before the reformation.

 

[valeriedickinson]

How's this, from a Baptist source...

Remember that Baptists came after Luther.

 

[JM]

Yes, and the EO came after Rome?

 

[valeriedickinson]

Yes, and the EO came after Rome?

What makes you say that?

 

[MrPolo]

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are rooted in the Apostles themselves.

Do we have any sources for "invisible-only" church pre-Reformation?

 

[JM]

Do we have any sources for "invisible-only" church pre-Reformation?

Nope. That's why I started the thread.

 

[Albion]

St. Paul and St. Augustine taught about the invisible church. Numerous places in scripture refer to it, as a matter of fact. For example, see 1 Cor 1:2 ff, II Tim. 2:19, and Heb.12:23.

Do we have any sources for "invisible-only" church pre-Reformation?

I know of no one who has argued for "invisible-only." But then again, the OP didn't inquire into that and the Reformation didn't advocate such an idea.

 

[mark46]

The "church invisible" goes back to at least Augustine.
ggogle the wiki article

As far as the Protestants, see below for Calvin's take on this issue
google and ye shall find (I can't cite the article yet)

I think this issue was more of an issue for Calvin than Luther; perhaps not. However, Luther certainly accepted the invisible church, those who are elect in God's eyes, whether living or dead.

I am not up on the great debate between Reformers and Baptists on this issue, but when I was part of the Baptist Church, the notions of election and predestination were rarely spoken of, though my pastor and I did spend a detailed couple of hours discussing the subject.

Who, before Luther, taught about a "universal invisible church"?

Thank you.

 

[JM]

Most Baptists and Reformed Christians are in agreement on this issue.

When I use to attend Liturgy the ideas of election and predestination were rarely spoken of there as well.

 

[mark46]

Well, I don't think I'd go that far. See below from the current issue of the Journal of Southern Baptist Convention in the US. Use google to get the full article.

[SIZE=+1]The Dort Debate and Baptists[/SIZE]
The Synod of Dort condemned the Arminians. Early followers of Calvin also condemned many Baptist beliefs and perversely argued for the covenantal baptism of infants.[SIZE=-1]11[/SIZE] Although Jacob Arminius tried to revise Calvinism's extreme predestinarian doctrines, he also rejected Baptist beliefs. It could be successfully argued that that the Calvinist-Arminian debate is, at root, a Presbyterian argument, not a Baptist one. Yet early English Baptists were also divided over the debate, with General Baptists identifying more with Arminians and Particular Baptists with Calvinists. These two streams eventually merged and flowed into Southern Baptist life. Consequently, there is a fair amount of diversity on the "doctrines of grace" among Southern Baptists.
[SIZE=+1]Final Admonition[/SIZE]
Today, few Southern Baptists would accept all five points of Calvinism's original TULIP. In fact, the original points of TULIP have been largely redefined, redesigned, and repackaged by some Baptists. It is not unusual to hear the label "modified Calvinist" embraced by some within our Southern Baptist family. These would largely ignore the historical foundations and outright reject some of the original meanings associated with the five points. What is disturbing, however, is the recent tendency to grade one another on how a person lines up with a particular presentation of TULIP and make agreement a test of fellowship. As Dr. Paige Patterson rightly observed, "There's plenty of room under the [Southern Baptist] umbrella for anyone who is anything from a one- to five-point Calvinist."[SIZE=-1]12[/SIZE]
Finally, the greatest tragedy is when adherence to TULIP leads to division in churches and prevents them from cooperation in, and urgency for, a passion toward fulfilling the Great Commission. The greatest safeguard is for Southern Baptists to remain close to the heart of Jesus whose mission was "to seek and save those who are lost" (Luke 19:10) and to draw our doctrines from inerrant Scripture — not from a man-made system. Southern Baptists are first, last, and always followers of Jesus Christ, not John Calvin.

Most Baptists and Reformed Christians are in agreement on this issue.

When I use to attend Liturgy the ideas of election and predestination were rarely spoken of there as well.

 

[Albion]

Well, I don't think I'd go that far. See below from the current issue of the Journal of Southern Baptist Convention in the US. Use google to get the full article.

With all due regard for the Southern Baptist Convention (which has a diversity of opinion, according to the SBC article you reproduced), the statement in question -- "Most Baptists and Reformed Christians are in agreement on this issue" -- is probably quite correct.

 

[JM]

Thank you Albion for staying with the topic in the op.

This thread can die now.