Church Invisible

[primuspilus]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Yes, they are members of the Church. The saints arent dead.

PP

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Then why did you call my question a "ridiculous question" as though everyone knows that the Orthodox consider them equal members of the Church as evidenced by our "common practise to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with [us], to God."? The simple fact is that we deem those who have died in Christ to still be members of the Church, even though they are invisible, which kinda burns up your straw man idea that we believe only in the visible Church.

 

[FountainPen]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Then why did you call my question a "ridiculous question" as though everyone knows that the Orthodox consider them equal members of the Church as evidenced by our "common practise to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with [us], to God."? The simple fact is that we deem those who have died in Christ to still be members of the Church, even though they are invisible, which kinda burns up your straw man idea that we believe only in the visible Church.

Can you tell me where i said that Orthodoxy "only" believes in the visible church? I think i said it gives more of an emphasis to the visible church.

 

[primuspilus]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Then why did you call my question a "ridiculous question" as though everyone knows that the Orthodox consider them equal members of the Church as evidenced by our "common practise to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with [us], to God."? The simple fact is that we deem those who have died in Christ to still be members of the Church, even though they are invisible, which kinda burns up your straw man idea that we believe only in the visible Church.

Can you tell me where i said that Orthodoxy "only" believes in the visible church? I think i said it gives more of an emphasis to the visible church.

I think that the whole hub-aloo is becuase so many folks totally discount the Visible Church, so we immidately come to the defense of it, sometimes to the detriment of the Invisible part. Such as it was  with my defense anyways....

PP

 

[Volnutt]

Most Evangelicals, for example, deny the ability of God's Grace to act in the world through physical vehicles such as bread and wine, marriages, ordination, holy unction, relics, icons, etc.

While at the same time insisting that God works primarily through a physical book.

God works through a physical book?! Oh really? I thought, in fact, i've heard, read and seen evidence on many occasions that God actually works through His Holy Spirit. If there was a book, an actual physical book that God works through it would surely have to be under lock and key for the stampede of miracle seekers would be catastrophic if it were say, somewhere in an ordinary house?

God works through both. If he only worked through the Spirit, we wouldn't even need the book. You're making false dichotomies again.

Vol, you can't say that. The book itself isn't anything more than printing, pages and binding -- it's just a book. God works through His word, it's His word that's inspired. I know i'm being picky but it's only the word that matters and that's an important point to make.

We don't actually need the book either. We have the word of God and that's an amazing blessing but we don't need it. All we need is the Spirit of God -- the power unto salvation.

I didn't say the book is more than a book, the Gospel itself isn't more than words if you don't believe it. I also didn't say God cannot save apart from the Bible, of course He can. But under normal circumstances, it's one of the mediums He works through. Some one in a prison camp or something where there are no Bibles may not need one, but those of us who have access to them and don't use them will have quite the time trying growing toward Christ. I see the valid distinction you want to make, but to me in this context it leads to missing the forest for the trees (now I'm one cliche over, darn...)

We can apply this same reasoning to the Visible Church. The Thief on the Cross was not baptized and had nothing to do with the Visible Church and yet he was saved.

 

[Volnutt]

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

FountainPen, I am interested in hearing your definitions, as per my post above:

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Okay, so we're familiar with the Orthodox Church's definition of "Church," but what about yours?

You've mentioned the terms spiritual church and physical church. For Orthodox Christians, the Church is both spiritual and physical. It is physical, in that we have the church buildings, the clergy, the Liturgy, etc. It is spiritual, in that whenever we pray, we are joining in communion and worship with all of the saints, and our prayers are being lifted up along with all of the other Orthodox Christians praying with us.

When we are participating in the Liturgy, we are going beyond space and time. We are not just remembering Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as an event of the past, but as the here and now.

So my question to you is what are your definitions of these terms?

Sorry HandmaidenofGod, i thought that answer would do you and Peter, both.

The invisible church is one that can't be known by us by empirical means but thankfully is known to God.

The visible church is one where people gather who profess Christ but who none of us can tell who is and who isn't really His, and neither should we try. Therefore, there will be a mix of people who gather such as the examples given to us in the word.

The church is compared to a floor where there is wheat and chaff (Matt. iii. 12)
The church is compared to a field where there are tares as well as good seed (Matt 13:24, 25)
The church is compared to a net, which gathers bad and good fish (Matthew 13:47)
The church is compared to a house where there are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor (2 Tim 2:20)

This is why the spiritual, invisible church is the bride He is coming back for.

You assume that those Christians who will ultimately not be saved are not still part of the Bride, an assumption which Orthodoxy rejects and I'm not sure is in evidence from those passages.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Then why did you call my question a "ridiculous question" as though everyone knows that the Orthodox consider them equal members of the Church as evidenced by our "common practise to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with [us], to God."? The simple fact is that we deem those who have died in Christ to still be members of the Church, even though they are invisible, which kinda burns up your straw man idea that we believe only in the visible Church.

Can you tell me where i said that Orthodoxy "only" believes in the visible church? I think i said it gives more of an emphasis to the visible church.

Well, the way you've been ranting on this thread implies to me that you see us as guilty of more than just emphasizing the visible Church at the expense of the invisible (as if such a dichotomy exists).

What you need to see is the much larger context. To those, like you, who disparage the idea that the Church could be visible and emphasize the concept of an invisible Church, we defend the very visible nature of the Church in a way that looks as if we place our emphasis on the visible Church at the expense of the invisible. With others, however, who focus their attention too much on the visible institutions of the Church, such as we often see in the Roman Catholic Church (and sometimes even among the Orthodox), we emphasize in our defense that the Church is first a manifestation of an invisible mystery: the mystery of Christ in us through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. Quite naturally, we speak differently to different people so that all may come to a deeper appreciation of all that the Holy Orthodox Church is. Just don't take our words to others and make them out as if they're addressing you.

 

[jnorm888]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that there is no need for a physical church or that the physical church is not important. I'm just suggesting that the physical church is not The Bride, but the spiritual church is.

It seems to me that it'd be both spiritual and physical. When St. Paul addressed a letter to "the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:2), he seemed to be both addressing specific people in a specific geographical location, and yet also addressing all Christians in all places who are united mystically/mysteriously/spiritually/etc.

But Orthodoxy has the emphasis firmly placed on the physical visible church.

What makes you think this?

It just does and you know it does.

Best argument EVAR

Yeah, right. :

I didn't want to answer because i'm not really interested in debating or winning an argument or continually be accused of firing out bible verses, which is such a predictable and slack defense of any position especially since patristic quotes can also be used in this way -- and often are here.

So why do you lump me in with everyone else? I asked a question because I sincerely wanted to know why you think the Orthodox Church places her emphasis firmly on the physical visible Church, not because I want to debate you or throw patristic verses at you. You accuse us of holding a particular point of view and of using debate tactics we call you out for. The least you could do is back up your accusations when asked, not just reply to my questions with more accusations.

Because it seemed to me as though you were asking a question you knew the answer to because the answer was obvious. I couldn't think of a good reason for you doing that. I apologise.

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

You think you could give a more rational, less emotional response than this? Angry isn't very convincing.

Yes. Here is the less emotional response.


The Orthodox church firmly states where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, who she is not in communion with while making statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her.

The church does occasionally mention the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

Does "within you" mean separate and independent from Christ? Does it mean not being in communion with Jesus and the Apostles and their church plants?


When the Angel visited the Roman centurion in the book of Acts, did he tell him to go and start an independent christian group not in communion with what Jesus already started with the Apostles? Or did he tell him to go see Peter?


When Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, did he tell him to go and start an independent group not in communion with what He already started? Or did he tell him to go see Ananias? I'm not looking at the text and so I probably got some of the details wrong, but the gist is the same.


Yes, Jesus is the chief corner stone, but don't forget that this Chief cornerstone is God Incarnate! Which means that He is not just Invisible only!

You see, the Docetists believed that Jesus's physical body was an illusion. You are making a similar mistake. For when the building grows is the physical aspect of the building only an illusion? This is what you seem to be saying. And if you aren't saying this then it would seem as if you are seeing two separate buildings altogether. One building as being spiritual while the other building being physical. If this is what you're saying then you are making a mistake similar to Nestorianism. In their case they did it with Christology, in your case it's being done with Ecclesiology.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Jesus is only spiritual as the chief corner stone and the building that grows from His foundation is also only spiritual?

In how you understand things, where does the physical fit in all of this? Especially since you said only the spiritual church is the Bride!

Also, what does "one body" and "one faith" mean to you in this passage? Does it mean only the spiritual church to you? If so then what is the physical? Is it a totally separate and independent body from the spiritual body? If so then you are making it seem as if two bodies exist instead of only One?

What importance is the physical if only the spiritual is the bride? How would your interpretation fit Ephesians chapter four verses  four and five?


Ephesians 4:4-5
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"


What does this passage mean to you?

 

[FountainPen]

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

Why is it a ridiculous question? Because you just don't want to answer questions? I have a purpose for asking the question that you think you're discerning though you're very clearly not. So why don't you just answer the question without prejudging it as though you know my agenda?

Are the saints who have died members of the Church, or are they not?

None of us can know that except God. None of can know what's in the heart of a person while they are on earth; the visible church is full of both true Christians and those in church for other reasons. Howcan we presume to know such a thing?

That's not what I asked, FountainPen.

The saints who have died in Christ--I'm talking about those whom God knows as saints and who are no longer with us in the flesh--are they members of the Church as Orthodox know it--visible, invisible, I don't care--or not?

I don't know if they are members of the church, as Orthodox know it -- i'm not Orthodox.

Then why did you call my question a "ridiculous question" as though everyone knows that the Orthodox consider them equal members of the Church as evidenced by our "common practise to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with [us], to God."? The simple fact is that we deem those who have died in Christ to still be members of the Church, even though they are invisible, which kinda burns up your straw man idea that we believe only in the visible Church.

Can you tell me where i said that Orthodoxy "only" believes in the visible church? I think i said it gives more of an emphasis to the visible church.

Well, the way you've been ranting on this thread implies to me that you see us as guilty of more than just emphasizing the visible Church at the expense of the invisible (as if such a dichotomy exists).

"Ranting", "guilty" ? lol+ Could you give me the less emotional version of - "No, i couldn't find where you said that FountainPen, my mistake" - please?

What you need to see is the much larger context.

Don't make assumptions that i don't see the larger context.

To those, like you, who disparage the idea that the Church could be visible...

I think i said the visible church was important. It's more than "could be", it is visible, that's an aspect of how people gather and organise themselves.

...and emphasize the concept of an invisible Church,

As does scripture.

...we defend the very visible nature of the Church in a way that looks as if we place our emphasis on the visible Church at the expense of the invisible.

I'll accept that it looks that way and may not be that way.

With others, however, who focus their attention too much on the visible institutions of the Church, such as we often see in the Roman Catholic Church (and sometimes even among the Orthodox), we emphasize in our defense that the Church is first a manifestation of an invisible mystery: the mystery of Christ in us through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. Quite naturally, we speak differently to different people so that all may come to a deeper appreciation of all that the Holy Orthodox Church is. Just don't take our words to others and make them out as if they're addressing you.

That's a fair point in some respects.

 

[FountainPen]

I'm not for one moment suggesting that there is no need for a physical church or that the physical church is not important. I'm just suggesting that the physical church is not The Bride, but the spiritual church is.

It seems to me that it'd be both spiritual and physical. When St. Paul addressed a letter to "the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:2), he seemed to be both addressing specific people in a specific geographical location, and yet also addressing all Christians in all places who are united mystically/mysteriously/spiritually/etc.

But Orthodoxy has the emphasis firmly placed on the physical visible church.

What makes you think this?

It just does and you know it does.

Best argument EVAR

Yeah, right. :

I didn't want to answer because i'm not really interested in debating or winning an argument or continually be accused of firing out bible verses, which is such a predictable and slack defense of any position especially since patristic quotes can also be used in this way -- and often are here.

So why do you lump me in with everyone else? I asked a question because I sincerely wanted to know why you think the Orthodox Church places her emphasis firmly on the physical visible Church, not because I want to debate you or throw patristic verses at you. You accuse us of holding a particular point of view and of using debate tactics we call you out for. The least you could do is back up your accusations when asked, not just reply to my questions with more accusations.

Because it seemed to me as though you were asking a question you knew the answer to because the answer was obvious. I couldn't think of a good reason for you doing that. I apologise.

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

You think you could give a more rational, less emotional response than this? Angry isn't very convincing.

Yes. Here is the less emotional response.


The Orthodox church firmly states where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, who she is not in communion with while making statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her.

The church does occasionally mention the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Those who have died in Christ and await the resurrection of their bodies at the last day... Based on what you know about us, do you think we would count them as members of the Church right now, even though they're invisible to us?

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

Does "within you" mean separate and independent from Christ? Does it mean not being in communion with Jesus and the Apostles and their church plants?


When the Angel visited the Roman centurion in the book of Acts, did he tell him to go and start an independent christian group not in communion with what Jesus already started with the Apostles? Or did he tell him to go see Peter?


When Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, did he tell him to go and start an independent group not in communion with what He already started? Or did he tell him to go see Ananias? I'm not looking at the text and so I probably got some of the details wrong, but the gist is the same.


Yes, Jesus is the chief corner stone, but don't forget that this Chief cornerstone is God Incarnate! Which means that He is not just Invisible only!

You see, the Docetists believed that Jesus's physical body was an illusion. You are making a similar mistake. For when the building grows is the physical aspect of the building only an illusion? This is what you seem to be saying. And if you aren't saying this then it would seem as if you are seeing two separate buildings altogether. One building as being spiritual while the other building being physical. If this is what you're saying then you are making a mistake similar to Nestorianism. In their case they did it with Christology, in your case it's being done with Ecclesiology.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Jesus is only spiritual as the chief corner stone and the building that grows from His foundation is also only spiritual?

In how you understand things, where does the physical fit in all of this? Especially since you said only the spiritual church is the Bride!

Also, what does "one body" and "one faith" mean to you in this passage? Does it mean only the spiritual church to you? If so then what is the physical? Is it a totally separate and independent body from the spiritual body? If so then you are making it seem as if two bodies exist instead of only One?

What importance is the physical if only the spiritual is the bride? How would your interpretation fit Ephesians chapter four verses  four and five?


Ephesians 4:4-5
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"


What does this passage mean to you?

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

 

[FountainPen]

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

FountainPen, I am interested in hearing your definitions, as per my post above:

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Okay, so we're familiar with the Orthodox Church's definition of "Church," but what about yours?

You've mentioned the terms spiritual church and physical church. For Orthodox Christians, the Church is both spiritual and physical. It is physical, in that we have the church buildings, the clergy, the Liturgy, etc. It is spiritual, in that whenever we pray, we are joining in communion and worship with all of the saints, and our prayers are being lifted up along with all of the other Orthodox Christians praying with us.

When we are participating in the Liturgy, we are going beyond space and time. We are not just remembering Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as an event of the past, but as the here and now.

So my question to you is what are your definitions of these terms?

Sorry HandmaidenofGod, i thought that answer would do you and Peter, both.

The invisible church is one that can't be known by us by empirical means but thankfully is known to God.

The visible church is one where people gather who profess Christ but who none of us can tell who is and who isn't really His, and neither should we try. Therefore, there will be a mix of people who gather such as the examples given to us in the word.

The church is compared to a floor where there is wheat and chaff (Matt. iii. 12)
The church is compared to a field where there are tares as well as good seed (Matt 13:24, 25)
The church is compared to a net, which gathers bad and good fish (Matthew 13:47)
The church is compared to a house where there are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor (2 Tim 2:20)

This is why the spiritual, invisible church is the bride He is coming back for.

You assume that those Christians who will ultimately not be saved are not still part of the Bride, an assumption which Orthodoxy rejects and I'm not sure is in evidence from those passages.

I'm not sure i understand Vol; all who are His will be saved.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

Well, the way you've been ranting on this thread implies to me that you see us as guilty of more than just emphasizing the visible Church at the expense of the invisible (as if such a dichotomy exists).

"Ranting", "guilty" ? lol+ Could you give me the less emotional version of - "No, i couldn't find where you said that FountainPen, my mistake" - please?

No. I gave you the less emotional version of what I could have said. What you've been doing matches the standard definition of "rant".

What you need to see is the much larger context.

Don't make assumptions that i don't see the larger context.

I don't need to make assumptions when your posts make abundantly clear that you're missing the forest for the trees.

To those, like you, who disparage the idea that the Church could be visible...

I think i said the visible church was important. It's more than "could be", it is visible, that's an aspect of how people gather and organise themselves.

...and emphasize the concept of an invisible Church,

As does scripture.

You haven't established that Scripture makes a dichotomy between visible and invisible as you do. Others have shown you how the same Scriptures emphasize the concept of a Church that is much more visible than you like to admit. Is it convenient for you to overlook these?

...we defend the very visible nature of the Church in a way that looks as if we place our emphasis on the visible Church at the expense of the invisible.

I'll accept that it looks that way and may not be that way.

Thank you.

With others, however, who focus their attention too much on the visible institutions of the Church, such as we often see in the Roman Catholic Church (and sometimes even among the Orthodox), we emphasize in our defense that the Church is first a manifestation of an invisible mystery: the mystery of Christ in us through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. Quite naturally, we speak differently to different people so that all may come to a deeper appreciation of all that the Holy Orthodox Church is. Just don't take our words to others and make them out as if they're addressing you.

That's a fair point in some respects.

In what respects?

 

[Volnutt]

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

FountainPen, I am interested in hearing your definitions, as per my post above:

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Okay, so we're familiar with the Orthodox Church's definition of "Church," but what about yours?

You've mentioned the terms spiritual church and physical church. For Orthodox Christians, the Church is both spiritual and physical. It is physical, in that we have the church buildings, the clergy, the Liturgy, etc. It is spiritual, in that whenever we pray, we are joining in communion and worship with all of the saints, and our prayers are being lifted up along with all of the other Orthodox Christians praying with us.

When we are participating in the Liturgy, we are going beyond space and time. We are not just remembering Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as an event of the past, but as the here and now.

So my question to you is what are your definitions of these terms?

Sorry HandmaidenofGod, i thought that answer would do you and Peter, both.

The invisible church is one that can't be known by us by empirical means but thankfully is known to God.

The visible church is one where people gather who profess Christ but who none of us can tell who is and who isn't really His, and neither should we try. Therefore, there will be a mix of people who gather such as the examples given to us in the word.

The church is compared to a floor where there is wheat and chaff (Matt. iii. 12)
The church is compared to a field where there are tares as well as good seed (Matt 13:24, 25)
The church is compared to a net, which gathers bad and good fish (Matthew 13:47)
The church is compared to a house where there are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor (2 Tim 2:20)

This is why the spiritual, invisible church is the bride He is coming back for.

You assume that those Christians who will ultimately not be saved are not still part of the Bride, an assumption which Orthodoxy rejects and I'm not sure is in evidence from those passages.

I'm not sure i understand Vol; all who are His will be saved.

I mean those who are His and then fall away a'la Hebrews 6

 

[FountainPen]

Well, the way you've been ranting on this thread implies to me that you see us as guilty of more than just emphasizing the visible Church at the expense of the invisible (as if such a dichotomy exists).

"Ranting", "guilty" ? lol+ Could you give me the less emotional version of - "No, i couldn't find where you said that FountainPen, my mistake" - please?

No. I gave you the less emotional version of what I could have said. What you've been doing matches the standard definition of "rant".

I'd gladly agree if by "standard definition" you mean male standard definition for when a woman is trying to communicate something important.

What you need to see is the much larger context.

Don't make assumptions that i don't see the larger context.

I don't need to make assumptions when your posts make abundantly clear that you're missing the forest for the trees.

That would be the lack of engine in the airbus, no doubt.

To those, like you, who disparage the idea that the Church could be visible...

I think i said the visible church was important. It's more than "could be", it is visible, that's an aspect of how people gather and organise themselves.

...and emphasize the concept of an invisible Church,

As does scripture.

You haven't established that Scripture makes a dichotomy between visible and invisible as you do. Others have shown you how the same Scriptures emphasize the concept of a Church that is much more visible than you like to admit. Is it convenient for you to overlook these?

I haven't overlooked them any more than the examples i have provided have been overlooked. Peter, there isn't a dichotomy. The visible aspects of the church have a mix of believers and unbelievers in them that the invisible aspects (living saints, if you will) of the church do not. All the same church.

...we defend the very visible nature of the Church in a way that looks as if we place our emphasis on the visible Church at the expense of the invisible.

I'll accept that it looks that way and may not be that way.

Thank you.

You're welcome

With others, however, who focus their attention too much on the visible institutions of the Church, such as we often see in the Roman Catholic Church (and sometimes even among the Orthodox), we emphasize in our defense that the Church is first a manifestation of an invisible mystery: the mystery of Christ in us through the indwelling of His Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father. Quite naturally, we speak differently to different people so that all may come to a deeper appreciation of all that the Holy Orthodox Church is. Just don't take our words to others and make them out as if they're addressing you.

That's a fair point in some respects.

In what respects?

In that it doesn't make the statements any less true even if the answers were meant for someone else's question.

 

[FountainPen]

Peter, that's a ridiculous question given that they are quite literally, invisible -- and given also that it's common practise (for you) to petition those reposed in Christ, to pray with you, to God.

The 'invisible' church i'm talking about is  "....within you" (Luke 17:21) and one where Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner stone, where the building grows. (Ephesians 2: 19-21)

FountainPen, I am interested in hearing your definitions, as per my post above:

For what it's worth then...

The Orthodox church makes such a song and dance of where it is and the fact that She Is The One True Only Apostolic and Holy Catholic Church and separates herself from others of the same faith, no less, who she is not in communion with while making grand statements that ekklesia and the companionship of others is of paramount importance to her and indeed the very definition of church to some -- or so i'm led to believe.

And yes, i've noted the nod that's occasionally given to the existence of Christians outside The Church.

Okay, so we're familiar with the Orthodox Church's definition of "Church," but what about yours?

You've mentioned the terms spiritual church and physical church. For Orthodox Christians, the Church is both spiritual and physical. It is physical, in that we have the church buildings, the clergy, the Liturgy, etc. It is spiritual, in that whenever we pray, we are joining in communion and worship with all of the saints, and our prayers are being lifted up along with all of the other Orthodox Christians praying with us.

When we are participating in the Liturgy, we are going beyond space and time. We are not just remembering Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as an event of the past, but as the here and now.

So my question to you is what are your definitions of these terms?

Sorry HandmaidenofGod, i thought that answer would do you and Peter, both.

The invisible church is one that can't be known by us by empirical means but thankfully is known to God.

The visible church is one where people gather who profess Christ but who none of us can tell who is and who isn't really His, and neither should we try. Therefore, there will be a mix of people who gather such as the examples given to us in the word.

The church is compared to a floor where there is wheat and chaff (Matt. iii. 12)
The church is compared to a field where there are tares as well as good seed (Matt 13:24, 25)
The church is compared to a net, which gathers bad and good fish (Matthew 13:47)
The church is compared to a house where there are vessels of every kind some to honour and some to dishonor (2 Tim 2:20)

This is why the spiritual, invisible church is the bride He is coming back for.

You assume that those Christians who will ultimately not be saved are not still part of the Bride, an assumption which Orthodoxy rejects and I'm not sure is in evidence from those passages.

I'm not sure i understand Vol; all who are His will be saved.

I mean those who are His and then fall away a'la Hebrews 6

Ah, okay.
:-\

 

[FountainPen]

BTW a question. If Christ is coming to get the invisible Church, does that mean the visible Church in the way Orthodoxy sees it is incorrect? If so, how are the rules and commands to the Church explained? What about the authority that is clearly exercised in the scriptures?

PP

Sorry Primus, I read back and realised i missed this.

I can't say if it's incorrect as i don't know enough about the way Orthodoxy sees the visible church to fully comment. I can only really comment when i come across aspects of doctrine or belief that i might view as a distortion of how the church was intended to be.

I have no problem with the authority and accountability of overseers within the visible church. I do however see us all as being accountable to each other and before God but then i think we'd be in agreement there also most probably.

 

[jnorm888]

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

The word relevant is subjective and ambiguous, if I thought you answered my critiques then I would of never of asked you. I presented my examples in a way that connected Christology with Ecclesiology for a reason. I think you are being evasive, and I think you really don't want to use Christology as a grid to follow when talking about this issue.

 

[jnorm888]

Does "within you" mean separate and independent from Christ? Does it mean not being in communion with Jesus and the Apostles and their church plants?


When the Angel visited the Roman centurion in the book of Acts, did he tell him to go and start an independent christian group not in communion with what Jesus already started with the Apostles? Or did he tell him to go see Peter?


When Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, did he tell him to go and start an independent group not in communion with what He already started? Or did he tell him to go see Ananias? I'm not looking at the text and so I probably got some of the details wrong, but the gist is the same.


Yes, Jesus is the chief corner stone, but don't forget that this Chief cornerstone is God Incarnate! Which means that He is not just Invisible only!

You see, the Docetists believed that Jesus's physical body was an illusion. You are making a similar mistake. For when the building grows is the physical aspect of the building only an illusion? This is what you seem to be saying. And if you aren't saying this then it would seem as if you are seeing two separate buildings altogether. One building as being spiritual while the other building being physical. If this is what you're saying then you are making a mistake similar to Nestorianism. In their case they did it with Christology, in your case it's being done with Ecclesiology.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Jesus is only spiritual as the chief corner stone and the building that grows from His foundation is also only spiritual?

In how you understand things, where does the physical fit in all of this? Especially since you said only the spiritual church is the Bride!

Also, what does "one body" and "one faith" mean to you in this passage? Does it mean only the spiritual church to you? If so then what is the physical? Is it a totally separate and independent body from the spiritual body? If so then you are making it seem as if two bodies exist instead of only One?

What importance is the physical if only the spiritual is the bride? How would your interpretation fit Ephesians chapter four verses  four and five?


Ephesians 4:4-5
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"


What does this passage mean to you? Did the Roman Centurion and Saul/Paul start separate independent bodies not in communion with the church plants that the Apostles started? If not then you can't say what you are saying.

 

[Achronos]

If this doesn't catch your attention and change your ways, nothing ever will!

Is it any wonder why the Jesus Seminar has created their own Jesus because the original Church is invisible!

Come on guys, the Church is invisible you know it is.

 

[FountainPen]

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

The word relevant is subjective and ambiguous, if I thought you answered my critiques then I would of never of asked you. I presented my examples in a way that connected Christology with Ecclesiology for a reason. I think you are being evasive, and I think you really don't want to use Christology as a grid to follow when talking about this issue.

...would have never have asked you

Thanks. Opinions always welcome as well.

 

[FountainPen]

Does "within you" mean separate and independent from Christ? Does it mean not being in communion with Jesus and the Apostles and their church plants?

Luke 17:20-21 “Now when He was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, He answered them saying, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation;  neither shall they say, 'Lo here!' or 'Lo there!' For behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”

Jesus made it clear in response to their unbelief “But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” (Matt 12:28)

In other words it accompanied His person to answer your question.

When the Angel visited the Roman centurion in the book of Acts, did he tell him to go and start an independent christian group not in communion with what Jesus already started with the Apostles? Or did he tell him to go see Peter?

I agree. I think we differ in the church model at the time of the Apostles.

When Jesus spoke to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus, did he tell him to go and start an independent group not in communion with what He already started? Or did he tell him to go see Ananias? I'm not looking at the text and so I probably got some of the details wrong, but the gist is the same.

Yes, Jesus is the chief corner stone, but don't forget that this Chief cornerstone is God Incarnate! Which means that He is not just Invisible only!

The size of your text won't suddenly make what you're saying true. I don't think i stated anywhere that He was invisible "only". Like i said, i have answered this already.

You see, the Docetists...

Could you repeat that please?

...believed that Jesus's physical body was an illusion.

Jesus' physical body was not an illusion.

You are making a similar mistake.

I am?

For when the building grows is the physical aspect of the building only an illusion?

No.

This is what you seem to be saying.

I'm not, no.

And if you aren't saying this...

I'm not, no.

...then it would seem as if you are seeing two separate buildings altogether.

No. I covered this already earlier on when i said i didn't see them as separate but aspects of one whole.

One building as being spiritual while the other building being physical. If this is what you're saying

I'm not, no.

...then you are making a mistake similar to Nestorianism. In their case they did it with Christology, in your case it's being done with Ecclesiology.

So what are you saying? Are you saying Jesus is only spiritual as the chief corner stone and the building that grows from His foundation is also only spiritual?

No.

In how you understand things, where does the physical fit in all of this? Especially since you said only the spiritual church is the Bride!

Well done! You actually read something i did say.
The physical, visible church is a very important part of a whole which includes The Bride. There are many people within the visible church who are not His and never will be His. For that reason only those sealed with the Spirit, given by the Father (which can only be known and identified by the Father), are the ones being made ready.

Also, what does "one body" and "one faith" mean to you in this passage? Does it mean only the spiritual church to you? If so then what is the physical? Is it a totally separate and independent body from the spiritual body?

The wheat and tares cannot be separated by man. They grow as one unit until the one who can separate them, does.

If so then you are making it seem as if two bodies exist instead of only One?

I don't think i am making it seem like anything.

What importance is the physical if only the spiritual is the bride? How would your interpretation

It's not my interpretation, it's part Holy Scripture and part teachings from your very own church fathers that also agree the wheat and the tares abide and grow together until they are separated by the only one who can possibly tell the difference between them.

fit Ephesians chapter four verses  four and five?

Ephesians 4:4-5
"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism;"

There is only one body.

What does this passage mean to you? Did the Roman Centurion and Saul/Paul start separate independent bodies not in communion with the church plants that the Apostles started? If not then you can't say what you are saying.

I've answered this already.

 

[FormerReformer]

So what are you saying? Are you saying Jesus is only spiritual as the chief corner stone and the building that grows from His foundation is also only spiritual?

No.
[/quote]

Forgive me, but you did seem to say this in reply 10

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well). The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

 

[Ortho_cat]

I have never heard a satisfactory explanation to this verse from those who believe in an invisible church:

"If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

How could Paul be referring to an invisible church here? He is obviously referring to a physical real, visible insititution. "you will know how to conduct yourself in...the church of the living God..."

Is he talking about just the one, local church in Ephesus? Does he think that one church is the pillar and foundation of the truth? Of course not. He's talking about all the churches, the visible churches, all individually being the pillar and foundation of truth.

Further, is he talking about just the physical church building itself? Of course not. He is referring to the church as a gathering of an appointed bishop/overseer who has preserved the true doctrine handed down to him from the apostles and his faithful gathered around him in thanksgiving and worship. There is nothing invisible about this.

 

[FountainPen]

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well).

The quote above was just a way of opting out. Sometimes it's easier to play to the stereotype especially if you feel you're not getting anywhere.

God is the only one who can know a person's heart and if they are sealed with His Spirit, i don't see how any of us can know whether someone is saved or not. I should have provided a separate reference for that particular statement. I apologise for being misleading.

The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

The field does represent the world and in the world is the church which has all manner of people mixed in and growing together. (Matthew 3 12, Matthew 13:47, 2 Tim 2:20)

 

[FormerReformer]

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well).

The quote above was just a way of opting out. Sometimes it's easier to play to the stereotype especially if you feel you're not getting anywhere.

God is the only one who can know a person's heart and if they are sealed with His Spirit, i don't see how any of us can know whether someone is saved or not. I should have provided a separate reference for that particular statement. I apologise for being misleading.

The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

The field does represent the world and in the world is the church which has all manner of people mixed in and growing together. (Matthew 3 12, Matthew 13:47, 2 Tim 2:20)

The two passages from Matthew don't say any more than the parable of wheat and tares, and stands more as a warning of coming judgement for the entire world. The Church is not mentioned here at all.

2 Timothy 2 is an interesting example (though verse 19 might have been more appropriate to your stance), but not in the way you seem to think. The entirety of the chapter is not about an "invisible" church but about those who depart from the apostolic teaching delivered by St Paul, starting with a reminder followed by simple creed then going into specific examples of what to watch for. The instruction to St Timothy is to expel heretics (2:16-17) from the Church; not to let them go on teaching whatever they wish, St Timothy being secure in the knowledge of an "invisible" church that continues on in the hearts of the "true" believer. The Church is visible, and as her local bishop in Ephesus St Timothy has the task of making the rounds and standing watch, separating out the goats from the lambs.

 

[Seafra]

WAYYY too many posts to read but the fact is invisible church theory is a invention of the protestant reformation who broke from the catholic church for valid reasons but wanted to be acknowledged as being part of the church mentioned in scriptures. being protestant you need a verse right?
1 Timothy 3:15 b The CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. this verse can ONLY be fulfilled in a physical united church. the closest legitimate claim similar to an invisible church idea to me would be Christendom being the people of God, in this we may be united but this is still outside of the church.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

The word relevant is subjective and ambiguous, if I thought you answered my critiques then I would of never of asked you. I presented my examples in a way that connected Christology with Ecclesiology for a reason. I think you are being evasive, and I think you really don't want to use Christology as a grid to follow when talking about this issue.

...would have never have asked you

Usually the decision to correct someone else's grammar is taken as a sign that you've run out of substantive things to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Volnutt]

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

The word relevant is subjective and ambiguous, if I thought you answered my critiques then I would of never of asked you. I presented my examples in a way that connected Christology with Ecclesiology for a reason. I think you are being evasive, and I think you really don't want to use Christology as a grid to follow when talking about this issue.

...would have never have asked you

Usually the decision to correct someone else's grammar is taken as a sign that you've run out of substantive things to contribute to the discussion.

If that was the only response of hers to him, then yes.

 

[jnorm888]

I've answered all of the relevant parts of this in my responses to other posts in this thread.

The word relevant is subjective and ambiguous, if I thought you answered my critiques then I would of never of asked you. I presented my examples in a way that connected Christology with Ecclesiology for a reason. I think you are being evasive, and I think you really don't want to use Christology as a grid to follow when talking about this issue.

...would have never have asked you

Usually the decision to correct someone else's grammar is taken as a sign that you've run out of substantive things to contribute to the discussion.

I don't mind, for I am always looking for improvement. I'll take it anywhere I can get it!

 

[FountainPen]

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well).

The quote above was just a way of opting out. Sometimes it's easier to play to the stereotype especially if you feel you're not getting anywhere.

God is the only one who can know a person's heart and if they are sealed with His Spirit, i don't see how any of us can know whether someone is saved or not. I should have provided a separate reference for that particular statement. I apologise for being misleading.

The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

The field does represent the world and in the world is the church which has all manner of people mixed in and growing together. (Matthew 3 12, Matthew 13:47, 2 Tim 2:20)

The two passages from Matthew don't say any more than the parable of wheat and tares, and stands more as a warning of coming judgement for the entire world. The Church is not mentioned here at all.

2 Timothy 2 is an interesting example (though verse 19 might have been more appropriate to your stance), but not in the way you seem to think. The entirety of the chapter is not about an "invisible" church but about those who depart from the apostolic teaching delivered by St Paul, starting with a reminder followed by simple creed then going into specific examples of what to watch for. The instruction to St Timothy is to expel heretics (2:16-17) from the Church; not to let them go on teaching whatever they wish, St Timothy being secure in the knowledge of an "invisible" church that continues on in the hearts of the "true" believer. The Church is visible, and as her local bishop in Ephesus St Timothy has the task of making the rounds and standing watch, separating out the goats from the lambs.

Ok let's try this another way.

If i ask you where the church is, will you give me a convoluted answer or can you point me to this visible church?

 

[Seafra]

Matthew 16:18...
quite simply the church is this church that Christ said will not be beaten, i see Christendom in three churches... Protestant church most DEFINITELY does not fall into this category, the Catholic church has not prevailed... they have changed shifted and swayed in their traditions and doctrines. In my research this only leaves Orthodoxy to remain as a church who is steadfast against changing traditions and upholding that which was past down!

 

[FountainPen]

quite simply...

If it were that simple then this thread wouldn't be "WAYYY" too long for you to bother reading it.

 

[FormerReformer]

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well).

The quote above was just a way of opting out. Sometimes it's easier to play to the stereotype especially if you feel you're not getting anywhere.

God is the only one who can know a person's heart and if they are sealed with His Spirit, i don't see how any of us can know whether someone is saved or not. I should have provided a separate reference for that particular statement. I apologise for being misleading.

The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

The field does represent the world and in the world is the church which has all manner of people mixed in and growing together. (Matthew 3 12, Matthew 13:47, 2 Tim 2:20)

The two passages from Matthew don't say any more than the parable of wheat and tares, and stands more as a warning of coming judgement for the entire world. The Church is not mentioned here at all.

2 Timothy 2 is an interesting example (though verse 19 might have been more appropriate to your stance), but not in the way you seem to think. The entirety of the chapter is not about an "invisible" church but about those who depart from the apostolic teaching delivered by St Paul, starting with a reminder followed by simple creed then going into specific examples of what to watch for. The instruction to St Timothy is to expel heretics (2:16-17) from the Church; not to let them go on teaching whatever they wish, St Timothy being secure in the knowledge of an "invisible" church that continues on in the hearts of the "true" believer. The Church is visible, and as her local bishop in Ephesus St Timothy has the task of making the rounds and standing watch, separating out the goats from the lambs.

Ok let's try this another way.

If i ask you where the church is, will you give me a convoluted answer or can you point me to this visible church?

I can do both!  

And will tomorrow, its entirely too late on the East Coast.

 

[Seafra]

if becomes difficult when ideas to incorporate everyone get thrown in the mix... this is the simple underlying idea behind Protestantism... It was when i realized this was the truth that i lost faith in the protestant church. that unspoken thought that the church was dead before the reformation. Sure not all denominations believe that, but most do. Protestant church has constantly scratched to find a hold on the early church and the concept that there is a universal church conflicts with all things protestant (maybe not the reformers but protestants are reformers always reforming)

 

[jnorm888]

In other words it accompanied His person to answer your question.

As Person what is He? Isn't He a Divine Person(the second Person of the Trinity) with two Natures? A 100% Divine Nature(that He shares with both the Father and Holy Spirit) and a 100% Human Nature(that He shares with humanity)? If so then the Kingdom is not Invisible only for He is not Invisible only! We become citizens of this Kingdom when we are united with Him (being INCHRIST), when we are in union with Him, and this happens when we believe, repent, are Baptized, and Chrismated/Confirmed.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2908.htm (The Great Catechism)
Saint Gregory of Nyssa
Quote:
"Chapters XXXIII., XXXIV., XXXV., XXXVI.— The saving nature of Baptism depends on three things; Prayer, Water, and Faith. 1. It is shown how Prayer secures the Divine Presence. God is a God of truth; and He has promised to come (as Miracles prove that He has come already) if invoked in a particular way. 2. It is shown how the Deity gives life from water. In human generation, even without prayer, He gives life from a small beginning. In a higher generation He transforms matter, not into soul, but into spirit. 3. Human freedom, as evinced in faith and repentance, is also necessary to Regeneration. Being thrice dipped in the water is our earliest mortification; coming out of it is a forecast of the ease with which the pure shall rise in a blessed resurrection: the whole process is an imitation of Christ."



There is also a unity between Baptism and Chrismation

quote:
"As with St. Irenaeus, there is an ecclesiological and sacramental dimension to the doctrine of Recapitulation. Baptism is an essential component of the mystery and for the spiritual life, since the believer must recapitulate that which Christ Himself fulfilled and repeated in His own Recapitulation. As was the case with Sts. Irenaeus and Athanasius, one cannot separate the divine and invisible nature from the works which He does in His human and visible nature, and therefore one cannot separate water and the Spirit into two separate baptisms or events, as this would be a kind of sacramental Nestorianism. [1]


And so we can know who is of God when it comes to initial Salvation, the problem is Salvation is a process. One must persevere till the end. And this happens within the Church which can't be separated from it's visibleness.

I agree. I think we differ in the church model at the time of the Apostles.

If you agree then what was the Church in the first century? Was it not visible? If the invisible theory was true then there would of been no need to send the Roman military commander to Peter and Saul to Ananias.

The size of your text won't suddenly make what you're saying true. I don't think i stated anywhere that He was invisible "only". Like i said, i have answered this already.

If He is God Incarnate and if We are His Body then there is no way you can say that only the invisible church is the Bride.

Could you repeat that please?

Docetists

Jesus' physical body was not an illusion

Then it must also be the bride that Jesus is coming back for. The Bride is the Church and the Church is simultaneously both invisible and visible. Thus the Bride is simultaneously both invisible and visible.

Jesus' physical body was not an illusion.

Nor is the visibleness of the Bride/Church which is also Christ's Body! Is Christ's Body only spiritual? The answer is no.

I am?

Aren't you stressing the invisible church theory?

No.

Ok, so what is it? I know you say it's important, but if it's not the Bride then is it really important?

I'm not, no.

What meaning does the word "important" really have if it's not the bride?

No. I covered this already earlier on when i said i didn't see them as separate but aspects of one whole.

If they are aspects of one whole then the visible is also the bride.

I'm not, no.

Then the visible is also the bride

No.

Then the visible is also the bride

Well done! You actually read something i did say.

Thank you, I'm just trying to understand you.

The physical, visible church is a very important part of a whole which includes The Bride.

This is confusing, for how can it include the Bride when you said only the spiritual is the bride? If you made a mistake earlier on then that's ok for we all make mistakes. I know I do.

There are many people within the visible church who are not His and never will be His.

Hmm, I know you are speaking of the present and future tenses, but you are Reformed and so I am going to speculate that you may also have in mind some other Calvinistic or Reformed beliefs in this area. I quoted Saint Gregory of Nyssa earlier in where Baptismal Regeneration was advocated and so a person can start out as being His when Baptized and Chrismated into the New Testament Covenant Community...A.K.A. the Church. Later in time a person can fall away and so in this sense there are many people within the Visible Church who are not His (present tense), but if they repent before death then they will be His again, but only God knows who will repent before death and so in that sense we can talk about the future tense.

For that reason only those sealed with the Spirit, given by the Father (which can only be known and identified by the Father), are the ones being made ready.

The second quote I posted above is also relevant here. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit at Chrismation and so we can know and do know. What happens later in time is a different story, for a person can fall away.

The wheat and tares cannot be separated by man. They grow as one unit until the one who can separate them, does.

They grow as one unit in the Visible Church! Christ founded a Visible Church for not only do we have the example of being united with Him by way of Baptism, but we also have the example of Holy Communion, for we are united with Him also by way of partaking of His Body and Blood!

1st Corinthians 10:16-17
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."

I don't think i am making it seem like anything.

I could be wrong, but I think I am starting to understand you better.

It's not my interpretation, it's part Holy Scripture and part teachings from your very own church fathers that also agree the wheat and the tares abide and grow together until they are separated by the only one who can possibly tell the difference between them.

If there is only one body then this would mean that both the wheat and tares would grow together side by side within the Visible Church. The Church is filled with both good and bad fish. With both wheat and tares! But guess what? Each individual in the Church can change back and forth from one to the other.


Saint Irenaeus (180 A.D.)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.v.html(Saint Irenaeus)
quote:
"For He who makes the chaff and He who makes the wheat are not different persons, but one and the same, who judges them, that is, separates them. But the wheat and the chaff, being inanimate and irrational, have been made such by nature. But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect like to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself the cause to himself, that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff."


I wanted to make some words very big, but I thought you wouldn't like that this time around and so I didn't do it.

I am starting to see why we might differ.

There is only one body.

There is only one body in where everyone who starts out in it, starts out the same. The difference is in the perseverance of each individual within the Visible Church.

I've answered this already.

I am starting to understand why we differ. Thanks for the interaction.




[1] pages xii - xvi from the preface of the book The disputation with Pyrrhus of Our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor

 

[Volnutt]

Matthew 16:18...
quite simply the church is this church that Christ said will not be beaten, i see Christendom in three churches... Protestant church most DEFINITELY does not fall into this category, the Catholic church has not prevailed... they have changed shifted and swayed in their traditions and doctrines. In my research this only leaves Orthodoxy to remain as a church who is steadfast against changing traditions and upholding that which was past down!

That argument isn't going to wash unless you define "beaten." Protestants, other than Anglicans and Scandinavian Lutherans, define the Church prevailing as there being gatherings of true believers left on earth (for example, Calvin simply defined the Church as anywhere the Word of God is preached and communion and baptism served).

 

[Volnutt]

They grow as one unit in the Visible Church! Christ founded a Visible Church for not only do we have the example of being united with Him by way of Baptism, but we also have the example of Holy Communion, for we are united with Him also by way of partaking of His Body and Blood!

1st Corinthians 10:16-17
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."

So you disagree with FormerReformer that the "field" in the parable is the world?

 

[PeterTheAleut]

quite simply...

If it were that simple then this thread wouldn't be "WAYYY" too long for you to bother reading it.

You're the one driving this thread by complaining about how "complicated" the subject is.

 

[FormerReformer]

They grow as one unit in the Visible Church! Christ founded a Visible Church for not only do we have the example of being united with Him by way of Baptism, but we also have the example of Holy Communion, for we are united with Him also by way of partaking of His Body and Blood!

1st Corinthians 10:16-17
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf."

So you disagree with FormerReformer that the "field" in the parable is the world?

He can disagree with me all he wants, who am I? The tares passage is another one of those biblical passages with a built-in translation- Matthew 13:38, "The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one."

However, I think this is more a case of jnorm conceding ground in order to make a point: even if the wheat and tares grow together, they grow together in a very visible field.

 

[FormerReformer]

A spiritual head of a physical body? Odd

Also, your exegesis of the wheat and tares is faulty: the wheat and tares grow together, not because no one can tell the difference, but because the process of uprooting the tares would uproot some of the wheat as well (as plants grow near each other their roots often become entangled- and you can't get rid of the tares by any other process than uprooting, otherwise they grow back- pulling one plant up pulls up the plant next to it as well).

The quote above was just a way of opting out. Sometimes it's easier to play to the stereotype especially if you feel you're not getting anywhere.

God is the only one who can know a person's heart and if they are sealed with His Spirit, i don't see how any of us can know whether someone is saved or not. I should have provided a separate reference for that particular statement. I apologise for being misleading.

The field doesn't represent the Church, but the entire world. The passage doesn't refer to an invisible church at all, if anything the Church is quite visible, standing out as good food amongst the weeds.

The field does represent the world and in the world is the church which has all manner of people mixed in and growing together. (Matthew 3 12, Matthew 13:47, 2 Tim 2:20)

The two passages from Matthew don't say any more than the parable of wheat and tares, and stands more as a warning of coming judgement for the entire world. The Church is not mentioned here at all.

2 Timothy 2 is an interesting example (though verse 19 might have been more appropriate to your stance), but not in the way you seem to think. The entirety of the chapter is not about an "invisible" church but about those who depart from the apostolic teaching delivered by St Paul, starting with a reminder followed by simple creed then going into specific examples of what to watch for. The instruction to St Timothy is to expel heretics (2:16-17) from the Church; not to let them go on teaching whatever they wish, St Timothy being secure in the knowledge of an "invisible" church that continues on in the hearts of the "true" believer. The Church is visible, and as her local bishop in Ephesus St Timothy has the task of making the rounds and standing watch, separating out the goats from the lambs.

Ok let's try this another way.

If i ask you where the church is, will you give me a convoluted answer or can you point me to this visible church?

I can do both!  

And will tomorrow, its entirely too late on the East Coast.

And as promised- the convoluted answer- Christianity these days is like a plot of land. We know where the boundaries of the land are and we've set a fence up as near those boundaries as possible. In the middle of the land is a house, the house is spacious and well stocked, has heat and light, and all other necessities in abundance and more. 8 year old Petey Jr decided he didn't like the house because he was kept from bossing his little sister Constance around, so he decided to run away- to a tent in the back yard. He took a lot of good food with him and set up next to the garden hose, but he also took a lot of candy and still thinks that mud pies might be edible. A few of his younger brothers went with him, and after a while got tired of his overbearing attitude and mud pies, so they ran away- to different areas of the yard. Some also set up in tents, others decided that dwelling places were the problem to begin with and that the oak tree with the tire swing provided all the shelter they needed. One or two decided to really run away and left the shelter of the fence entirely.

Now, Dad still calls all the kids home for supper, they can come if they wish, but if they insist on being rebellious they can go to bed without eating- except Dad is kinder than that- He sneaks around at night and leaves all his children with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, apples, juice boxes, etc; the nourishment the growing kids will need for the next day. They can come into the house whenever they wish and get tastier food (we're having lasagna tonight) or they can continue playing house in the yard.

The house is the Church, those in the yard are those who left the Church but still adhere to the main tenets of Christianity (schismatics and the heterodox, note, however, that they still receive their nourishment from the house pantry), those who leave the yard entirely are heretics (Arians, Apollinarians, JWs, Mormons) who reject Trinitarian Christianity.

The non convoluted answer- The Orthodox Church. 2000 years of visibility, 2000 years of sound doctrine, 2000 years heresy free.