How are Particular Churches Members of the catholic Visible Church?

[Afterthought]

If the catholic visible church is made of all those who profess the true religion and their children (i.e., there is no mention of a constituted government), how, precisely, are particular churches--which includes the ministry, the oracles, and the ordinances, i.e., a government, along with professors and their children--members of the catholic visible church? Is it just shorthand language for saying that the catholic visible church can be found within particular churches (though of course, is not limited to being found within them), or is there another way in which the particular church is a part of the catholic visible church?

 

[Edward]

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

 

[Afterthought]

Yes, that is the confessional context. A particular church is made of more than what the catholic visible church is, and yet is a member of the catholic visible church.

 

[Peairtach]

Those that formally deny the ecumenical creeds are not part of the visible catholic Church, e.g. Unitarians, JWs, etc.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

or is there another way in which the particular church is a part of the catholic visible church?

The ministry, oracles, and ordinances are the particularising element. There can be no organisation without them. The church exists for the truth, but these exist for the church, to enable the church to bear witness to the truth and thereby to gather and build up the elect. Without these particularising elements there would be no way of identifying the church or its sacred function.

 

[Afterthought]

Those that formally deny the ecumenical creeds are not part of the visible catholic Church, e.g. Unitarians, JWs, etc.

Yes, I would think that those not in the visible catholic Church cannot form a particular church.

The ministry, oracles, and ordinances are the particularising element. There can be no organisation without them. The church exists for the truth, but these exist for the church, to enable the church to bear witness to the truth and thereby to gather and build up the elect. Without these particularising elements there would be no way of identifying the church or its sacred function.

So though the particular church consists of these organizing structures, it only consists of them in terms of its form (its outward organization) rather than its members (those who profess the true religion and their children)? (Perhaps there is a better distinction here, since the "outward organization" would include office bearers, I would think) Particular churches are an organized form of a part of the visible catholic church, and so that is how particular churches are members of the visible catholic church, while consisting of more than what the visible catholic church consists of?

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping. (And just so I can write a little more...) As another consequence of the particular church being the only organized form of the church, it seems that schism cannot occur in the visible catholic church? Schism can only occur between particular churches? Also, if there is no identifying of the church except by particular churches, does that mean the catholic visible church is only visible in particular churches (I would think not; my guess is the particular church is needed to solemnly mark out professors by baptism but the catholic visible church is still visible outside of particular churches?)?

 

[Afterthought]

As another consequence of the particular church being the only organized form of the church, it seems that schism cannot occur in the visible catholic church? Schism can only occur between particular churches?

It would seem this is the case? The visible catholic church simply "is;" though it may grow or shrink with time, that doesn't seem to constitute schism. If one ceases to profess the true religion after having professed it, that seems to be apostasy, so it would seem one could apostatize from the visible catholic church? The only way it would seem that schism could occur from a wider body is if there was ever an institutional visible catholic church, but that would then be a particular church.

 

[MW]

As another consequence of the particular church being the only organized form of the church, it seems that schism cannot occur in the visible catholic church? Schism can only occur between particular churches?

It would seem this is the case. The visible catholic church simply "is;" though it may grow or shrink with time, that doesn't seem to constitute schism. If one ceases to profess the true religion after having professed it, that seems to be apostasy, so it would seem one could apostatize from the visible catholic church? The only way it would seem that schism could occur from a wider body is if there was ever an institutional visible catholic church, but that would then be a particular church.

Sorry, Raymond, I have missed another "bump." It is a good thing I don't do this in a car park.

There is schism which is not related to organisation. Two brethren have mutual duties to love, respect, teach, admonish, exhort, and edify one another irrespective of their organisational attachment to a particular church. If ecclesial separation is due to an apostasy in one, then the duty is to avoid them altogether and to refuse to recognise them as a brother. If the separation is due to something less, and is occasioned by an error in doctrine or discipline which is not fundamental, then the duty is to recognise and admonish them as a brother while having nothing to do with their wayward teachings and examples.

 

[Afterthought]

Sorry, Raymond, I have missed another "bump." It is a good thing I don't do this in a car park.

Thanks, Mr. Winzer. That is very helpful! Was my understanding of how organized churches are members of the visible catholic church correct? (Post #6)

That schism can occur in the visible catholic church may also help to answer a charge by Romanists in a couple of articles I happened across that critique our ecclesiology on the points I raised in this thread (for the record, I don't make it a habit to peruse Romanist websites since I don't think I have a strong enough grasp of Reformed theology to make use of such perusals; I happened across these articles doing something else). Would you or others be willing to look at them? I'm not sure if I should be linking to them directly here?

 

[MW]

Was my understanding of how organized churches are members of the visible catholic church correct? (Post #6)

I believe so.

That schism can occur in the visible catholic church may also help to answer a charge by Romanists in a couple of articles I happened across that critique our ecclesiology on the points I raised in this thread (for the record, I don't make it a habit to peruse Romanist websites since I don't think I have a strong enough grasp of Reformed theology to make use of such perusals; I happened across these articles doing something else). Would you or others be willing to look at them? I'm not sure if I should be linking to them directly here?

You should be able to link them in a private message. I don't know when I may be able to read them. Alternatively, the first chapter of Cunningham's Historical Theology contains an useful rebuttal of the Romanist claim of indefectibility in the visible church. That may be a good place to begin to get a handle on the issues involved there.

 

[Afterthought]

Thanks, and done! And I'll go take a look into Cunningham too.

 

[TexanRose]

Perhaps this would be helpful?

The Christian Freethinker: So Where's the Catholic Church?

Or perhaps you've already read it?

My apologies--I haven't read the above article in-depth, so I don't know if it answers your questions--I just know that it discusses the same issues you raise here, so thought it might be relevant.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A vindication of the essence and unity of the church-catholick visible, and ... - Samuel Hudson - Google Books

 

[Afterthought]

Perhaps this would be helpful?

Thanks for the suggestion! I actually have read the post. I was surprised to see someone else had thought of a similar question to what I raised in the OP within so short a time frame. That was actually where I had first seen the Romanist articles that prompted my question on schism. (And having read the recommended chapter of Cunningham's work, I can highly recommend that chapter too!) However, while related to the OP, I'm not sure it answers the question of the OP, in the sense that the article seems to be operating within a different framework (one that might view the visible catholic church of the WCF to refer to an institutional catholic church) that allows it to agree to an extant with the Romanist view of the visible catholic church by a replacement of a Romanist institutional catholic church with a Presbyterian institutional catholic church, within which framework the question of the OP might not arise to begin with (and within which, the answer to the schism question would easily pop out, which answer is analogous to the answer the Romanist would give).

Thanks, Mr. Coldwell! I have actually been meaning to get to that work. From the portions I have read, it looks quite promising, especially for answering the question of this thread.

 

[mhausam]

In a Presbyterian system, the catholic church exists beyond the level of particular congregations. The church and its government is united in presbyteries and broader synodical councils (provincial, national, ecumenical, etc.) as well. For a particular church to be a member of the catholic church de jure, it must be in a part of this broader structure. An independent Presbyterian congregational church is a contradiction in terms. (Of course, it is also true that the visible church de facto exists today in a terribly divided state in many denominations, which denominations, by their separation, do not recognize each other de jure.)

Although the WCF does not address this broader presbyterian institutional unity too much in the section on the church, it does address it later in Chapter 31, On Synods and Councils. Also, the Westminster divines address this in their Form of Presbyterial Church-Government (The Westminster Confession of Faith Subordinate Documents).

 

[mhausam]

Here is a new article that may help address the question of this thread as well:

The Christian Freethinker: The Presbyterian Unity of the Church

 

[Peairtach]

Presbyterians, even staunch conservative Presbyterians, recognise very corrupt churches as being yet in some sense, part of the visible catholic Church of Christ. Therefore, those who have been baptised in RC, EO, or liberal Protestant churches are not rebaptised.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

Presbyterians, even staunch conservative Presbyterians, recognise very corrupt churches as being yet in some sense, part of the visible catholic Church of Christ. Therefore, those who have been baptised in RC, EP, or liberal Protestant churches are not rebaptised.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

In what "sense" would that be?

 

[Peairtach]

In the sense that they are part of the Visible Church and Covenant of Grace, but are sometimes very corrupt expressions of it.

A similar situation often prevailed in the Old Testament period, e.g. Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Christ and His followers, all in the OT Visible Church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[earl40]

There is schism which is not related to organisation. Two brethren have mutual duties to love, respect, teach, admonish, exhort, and edify one another irrespective of their organisational attachment to a particular church. If ecclesial separation is due to an apostasy in one, then the duty is to avoid them altogether and to refuse to recognise them as a brother. If the separation is due to something less, and is occasioned by an error in doctrine or discipline which is not fundamental, then the duty is to recognise and admonish them as a brother while having nothing to do with their wayward teachings and examples.

So in your opinion should former RC's be baptized knowing that the official teachings of that communion of people is apostate?

 

[Peairtach]

I take the traditional and orthodox line that they should not be baptised again.

There are a number of threads that discuss this Q.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

So in your opinion should former RC's be baptized knowing that the official teachings of that communion of people is apostate?

The Roman Catholic church, though a degenerate church, administers Christian baptism -- the washing of water in the Triune name. To rebaptise would only serve to call in question God's fidelity to His own ordinance, Romans 3:3-4, and thereby minister to doubt, not faith. It suffices that a person who has been baptised in a degenerate church be taught the true meaning of baptism and be warned concerning the danger of attending such a church.

 

[MW]

For a particular church to be a member of the catholic church de jure, it must be in a part of this broader structure.

One should beware of putting the church in the place of (anti) Christ. The following may be of assistance in thinking through the issue. It is from Puritan Sermons or Morning Exercises (vol. 6, pp. 47, 48), by Peter Vinke.

HOW OUT OF THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION.
As for what the church of Rome doth so frequently triumph in, and thinks to scare us with, namely, that "out of the church there is no salvation," it is to be considered,

1. This to be true indeed of the catholic church. – Taking it not as they do, for all them, and only them, that are under the pastorship of the pope, but for all the real and living members of Christ; for they only are truly his body, that are enlivened by his Spirit. Thus the apostle joins them together: "There is one body and one Spirit" (Eph. 4:4); and elsewhere he says, that unless the Spirit of Christ be in you, you are none of his (Rom. 8:9). As every member of the body [is], and only the members of that body are, acted by the same soul; so is it in the mystical body of Christ too. And it is the concern of all to obtain the Spirit of Christ, and to live the life of Christ, without which they cannot obtain salvation by Christ, who is "the Saviour only of his body."

2. We acknowledge that it is every one’s duty to join himself unto, and not causelessly to depart from, a visible church that professeth the faith and keepeth the institutions of Christ. – Every one ought to inquire where it is that this great Shepherd "feedeth, and maketh his flock to rest" (Canticles 1:7); and every needless departing from such a church does endanger salvation, in that it makes a man truly guilty of schism, which is a great sin against charity, so highly recommended unto us; as also in that such an one withdraws himself from those societies and meetings unto which Christ hath promised his presence, and God bestows his blessing (Matt. 18:20).

3. But where this cannot be obtained, or is not sinfully neglected or refused, one may be saved without being joined to any visible church whatsoever. – If a Pagan, or a Jew, that is imprisoned in a country where the Christian religion is not professed (being, by reading or conference, through the goodness of God, brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to profess it, living answerably unto it), though he should die before that he could come to enjoy church-communion, we have no reason to doubt of his salvation; our Saviour having told us, that whosoever believeth in him hath eternal life (John 6:40).

WHAT WE THINK CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.

But more particularly as to "the church of Rome" (for so we call them that, professing to hold the Christian faith, are united in subjection and obedience unto that see, and do acknowledge the pope their universal pastor): when we call them "a church," we mean no more than that they are a society or company of men who make profession that they are Christians. Thus the Laodiceans are called "a church" (Rev. 3:14), though they were "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked," and we do not read of a sound part amongst them (verse 17). Thus God himself calls the ten tribes his people, after their defection, by reason of circumcision, which they yet retained, and their being the offspring of Jacob (Hosea 4:6). In this sense, soundness of faith is no more essential to a church, than health is to a man. And as a man that hath the plague or leprosy is still a man, though to be shunned; so they may be thus a church, though by all means to be forsaken. But as they themselves take a church for "a company of true believers joined together in communion," so they are no church, their faith being far from the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[earl40]

So in your opinion should former RC's be baptized knowing that the official teachings of that communion of people is apostate?

The Roman Catholic church, though a degenerate church, administers Christian baptism -- the washing of water in the Triune name. To rebaptise would only serve to call in question God's fidelity to His own ordinance, Romans 3:3-4, and thereby minister to doubt, not faith. It suffices that a person who has been baptised in a degenerate church be taught the true meaning of baptism and be warned concerning the danger of attending such a church.

Currious if you see the "RC" of today as being esentially the same at the time of the reformers? The reason I ask is because no doubt the WCF saw RC baptism being valid. Though I just do not undersatnd how they did so when in chapter 25 they saw them as being not a true church that can adminster baptism, especially with the view that the RC "church" baptism replaces faith as the instramental cause of salvation, which In my most humble opinion is why I got baptized in a protestant church years ago and gave testamony that it is faith in Christ alone that saves. The example of Rev 3:14 appears to me as The Lord considering them a true church even though they were "wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked" and He was about to discipline them. I do noy see this with the RC "church" today or when the reforamtion took place. (Of course hindsight is 20/20 here)

 

[mhausam]

I think it helps in thinking through these things to make a distinction between, as I like to put it, the visible church de facto and the visible church de jure. The visible church de facto refers to the actual existence of the church, or the Body of Christ. That is, wherever we see Christianity manifested and, to all appearances, real Christians joining together to function as a church, we can say that, to all appearances, the church is there.

The visible church de jure, on the other hand, refers to the church formally recognized as properly and legally constituted. Within a de jure congregation, individual members can fall under the discipline of the church, even to the point of being excommunicated, or removed from the formal fellowship of the members of the church, though such excommunication does not assert that it is known that the individual is not regenerate. Similarly, in a presbyterian system, individual churches and smaller groupings of the church can be disciplined by higher church courts. An individual session over a particular congregation, for example, might be disciplined by its presbytery, and its officers might be removed from office, thus removing de jure authority from the session, although the session members might go on anyway, in defiance of this discipline, and continue to function as leaders over the congregation (such as by removing the congregation from the denomination). This congregation may still be a de facto congregation, but it is no longer, in the eyes of the presbytery, a de jure congregation.

Whenever denominations (or at least denominations that accept a worldwide formal unity of the church) are separated from each other, their separation implies a rejection of each others' de jure legitimacy and authority, though not necessary their de facto existence as a church. To apply this to Rome, we should say that Rome is not a de jure part of the visible church, because the Reformed church has separated from her justly, thus rejecting her legitimacy and authority. However, insofar as there may be real Christians within her pale, and various functions of the church may still be going on there (people hearing the gospel, being baptized, etc.), we can say that the visible church de facto is still manifested in her to some degree.

I also would like to make a comment regarding schism, as that has been discussed in this thread. In a presbyterian system, schism (speaking of schism in a de jure sense) would be a situation where a part of the church has broken fellowship and unity with the larger church, such as if a congregation were to unjustly remove itself from being under the jurisdiction of its legitimate presbytery. The church may still maintain, otherwise, orthodox doctrine and practice, but it is schismatic because it has broken off from the rest of the catholic church. Thus, we must distinguish schism from heresy (errors in doctrine and practice) and apostasy (the fundamental renunciation of the Christian faith).

It is not enough to say that schism is a breach of charity. Although, in a sense, all breaches of charity are schismatic in their nature, since they manifest an attitude inconsistent with the unity of love required of the parts of the church to each other, yet schism is more than just a situation where a church is being uncharitable in some way. In a system where the church is not formally unified in a universal structure (under binding church councils), such as independency, schism in its full sense is impossible. It will end up being subsumed under heresy or apostasy, because the idea of "being a part of the catholic church" will have been redefined to exclude any organic or institutional unity. Where there is no such unity to begin with, there can be no schism from it, and so "schism" will be redefined simply to mean "a situation where a church is no longer a de facto church"--in other words, when it falls into fundamental heresy or apostasy in such a way that it no longer seems to be functioning as a Christian church at all. However, in a presbyterian system, schism, in addition to having application to a lack of charity in general, retains its de jure aspect as a breaking of the institutional unity between the churches.

 

[MarieP]

Several questions on the same topic:

1. Does a "local church" exist when it is not meeting together in the context of gathered worship?

2. Ought we to care more for those in our local congregation than for our brethren in other congregations?

3. Were the "Church at Jerusalem" the "Church at Ephesus," the "Church at Laodicea" each one big church that had the same elders?

 

[Afterthought]

To apply this to Rome, we should say that Rome is not a de jure part of the visible church, because the Reformed church has separated from her justly, thus rejecting her legitimacy and authority. However, insofar as there may be real Christians within her pale, and various functions of the church may still be going on there (people hearing the gospel, being baptized, etc.), we can say that the visible church de facto is still manifested in her to some degree.

That's not the reason the Reformers separated from Rome. They separated from Rome because they saw it as a false church.

 

[mhausam]

"They separated from Rome because they saw it as a false church."

Yes, of course. Rome taught and teaches a false gospel. That is why the Reformed church "excommunicated" the Roman church, cutting it off from the de jure body.

However, the Reformed have also typically granted that this does not mean that there are no true Christians in the Roman church and no manifestation at all to any degree of the visible church in her. They did say that any true Christians in the Roman church are true Christians only to the extent that they reject the full implications of Rome's heresies in their own beliefs and lives.

MarieP, very briefly, I will give you my answers to your questions:

1. Yes, just as the USA still has a Congress even when it is not currently in session, or a high school institution still exists on Saturdays.

2. Yes, in a sense. As they are closer to us and we have more opportunities for interaction, our care should obviously be more immediately focused on them. However, objectively speaking, our care should extent to the whole Body of Christ, and that care should be expressed as opportunity arises.

3. A lot of Presbyerians have argued that these city churches were presbyterial rather than congregational churches. In other words, each city had its own presbytery with a number of individual congregations. See The Westminster Confession of Faith Subordinate Documents for some arguments to that effect.

 

[mhausam]

MarieP, I should add, the arguments are in the section, "Of Classical Assemblies."