JJMt said:
Quote:
The entire concept of the invisible church is (surprise!) the same age as the reformation. Protestants had to justify their schism. No problem, make the church invisible and then anyone whoever wants to say they're in it can be in it.
That idea has always been around, although your statement on the advent of the term may be correct - I don't know. If your statement of history is even semi-accurate, I suspect that the Reformers adopted the terminology simply as a push back against the teachings of the RCC that you had to be a member of the RCC in order to be a Christian.
You surely don't agree with the RCC on that, do you? If not, why is the RCC wrong and you are right?
And you seem to have a strong distaste for the Protestant reformers. Surely you don't endorse the conditions within or the teachings of the RCC at that time? Believing what you believe now, what would you have done if you were in Germany or France at that time? Surely you wouldn't have simply acquiesced to the RCC? If not, wouldn't you then be guilty of the same arrogance of which you accuse the Reformers?
The idea has "always been around"? Please demonstrate this.
The truth is, you must be baptized into Christ to be a part of the church, because the Church is the Body of Christ. This will rapidly become a discussion of baptism. This is a source of distinction (I think) between east and west. The east, I believe, has recognized baptism in the name of the Trinity by economy (more on this later), but has still chrismated members upon joining the church. The RCC no longer practices chrismation, I believe, and also does not re-baptize or re-chrismate people who join (not positive). Regardless, baptism is a mystery, just like the Eucharist, and can only properly be performed by the Church.
I do have a strong distaste for the doctrine of the reformers, particularly that of Calvin and Zwingli. Their actions have nothing to do with judgment on or against the Church. The reformation is a misnomer, it was not about reforming the church. The reformers had a problem with the Church's teaching. Otherwise, the schism would have gone away, as the Roman church met many of their demands in the counter-reformation, as it is called. They didn't want to reform the church, they wanted to make it over the way they thought it should be from the beginning. They didn't just dislike the pope, they also wanted to
be popes, each one. The Lutherans wrote the eastern Church, thinking their doctrine was the same. It wasn't. Finding themselves on the outs with literally all Christians in the world, did they stop? No; their hubris was too strong. They separated themselves from everyone, making a church of themselves. That's not how it works.
There is a massive difference between reforming the church from within (this is what martyrs and confessors do, and have done, and continually do) and schism.
There is no salvation outside of the Church. However, there is no limit to God's grace and mercy. I believe (personal opinion) that by economy people who are outside of the fullness of truth through no fault of their own are not doomed. God is a saving God and loves mankind. But this doesn't remove all of our obligation to seek Him in the fullness of truth. I liken it to alchemy versus chemistry. Alchemists can and did get results, but their methodology was flawed. True science, true faith, is found in the church. In other words, the fullness of truth doesn't preclude others from having
some truth.