The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum True Church

I have been reading Scot Hahn's Catholic conversion story http://www.chnetwork.org/scotthconv.htm, in which he goes into the reasons for his conversion to Catholicism.

Mentioned in his speech is the name of Doctor John Gerstner, with whom he had discussion during this cross-roads in his life.

I looked up Doctor John Gerstner and found an article of his on the topic of the True Church http://www.the-highway.com/theology9_Gerstner.html. He admits that Christ Himself mentioned a True Church, in his words below:

"On the other hand, the true church is mentioned, too. Christ said: “I will build my church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16: 18). The powers of Hell not only stand against but they often make conquests of the visible church. It is only the invisible church of which Christ’s description is true. Another instance is Eph. 1:22-23: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Surely nothing false or evil could be part of the body of Christ, in whom God is well pleased. In spite of this double usage of the word “church,” in and out of the Bible, we must remember that the true church, the saved church, the church in vital union with Christ, is the invisible church."

But, I note with some concern his apparent confusion over Christ's statement "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". He argues "The powers of Hell not only stand against but they often make conquests of the visible church. It is only the invisible church of which Christ’s description is true."

He seems to be trying to make a distinction between a "visible" and an "invisible" church, in order to further his argument. I have not heard these terms used before. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Regardless, the first part of his argument doesn't hold water because "stand against" does not equate to "prevail against".

Then, he adds that there have been occasions where the "visible" church has indeed been prevailed against by satan. If that were the case, the Catholic church would surely have been relegated to the history books and be a distant memory. Rather, despite the dark days of corrupt popes and the unauthorised reformation, it seems that the Catholic Church is still alive and well, true to the obvious wishes of Christ when he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Does Christ lie? Surely we can rely on His promises.

In all honesty, do protestants truly believe that Martin Luther was justified in abandoning the Church that Christ founded. Did he think he could make a liar of Christ? Wouldn't it have been better for Luther to remain in Christ's Church and pray to God for its reformation, without abandoning it? Christ himself promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. Could Luther not have trusted Christ and seen that no matter what darkness stood against the True Church, that darkness would never prevail?

Luther stated his position very clearly and it was not accepted. He did not abandon the church. The pope excommunicated him.

Johan

The church as we see it is called the "visible" church. It is made up of those who claim the Christian religion, and their children.

But God alone knows who among those who claim faith in Christ and those who genuinely possess it and practice it. The church as God sees it is called the "invisible" church. Only the true believers are the true church. But the knowledge of men's hearts is God's alone. To us the true church is invisible because only God knows who they are. We are to take men at their word (for the most part) when they confess faith in Christ (thus joining the "visible" church).

Wheat and tares grow together until the harvest (Matthew 13:24-43), when God separates them.

The visiblechurch has been driven underground and out of sight in many parts of the world at different times in history, but the invisible church has always prevailed. In fact persecution is known to strengthen and expand the invisible church, purifying it. The "tares" will fall away when things get tough. The wheat will endure - and prevail.

The distinction between "visible and invisible" churches is a common one among us Reformed folk. It simply denotes two points of view - ours (limited, finite, "through a glass darkly") and God's (perfect, infallible, eternal, clear).

None of the Reformers, by the way, had any intention of leaving the Roman Catholic church. They hoped to reform it, restoring it from its corruption and superstition. They only "left" because they were expelled by a corrupted "visible" church that had all too obviously abandoned the gospel. It was the Roman Catholic church that had abandoned the truth and tried to make a liar of Jesus Christ.

Robin, let me ask a piggy-backing question.

When you say that none of the Reformers had any intention of leaving the RCC. Does that imply that those who left previously, such as the Anabaptists were wrong in leaving the church. Are there others who we have more regard for that did as well.

I guess I'm asking if the RCC offer to make amends from excommunicating the original Reformers, then would we be obligated to return to the RCC and attempt to make changes from within.

Not unless they accept the truth of the Gospel should we ever contemplate union with the Roman Church. And if they really were to accept the truth of the Gospel, the Roman Church would have to undergo not only massive doctrinal changes but also massive institutional changes.

In what way is it still valid to say that the RCC has strayed from "truth of the gospel"? If Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are not as soundly refuted as they appear to be, is there any website that still argues successfully for these doctrines?

I've done some further reading. Wow, that's a good one. Kudos to Luther for wriggling his way out of needing to acknowledge the Catholic Church as the true Church, even though if he had remained in the Church and helped deal with the corruption, that question would probably not have been raised.

I can see no harm in thinking conceptually about there being a group who are saved and group who are not saved, but I don't think this can be rightly brought into the realm of the physical, leading one to seriously consider that there are two separate entities. I mean we also speak of a "modern church" and an "ancient church", but we never mean to actually say that there are two separate churches.

Christ talks about a tree, with both good and bad branches. It wouldn't be right to say that favours or graces (or even the authority to bind and loose) were witheld from the tree because of some bad branches.

Regardless, one continues to feel (and fear) that Luther has been presumptous and we appear to have no evidence of his authority in the eyes of God to form his own Church and leading half the Christian world along with him. Surely, more than anything, Satan would like to see this split and would be smiling at the confusion. So, in a sense, satan did prevail, but not against the Catholic Church, more in the sense of seeing an institution appear from which he could continue to conduct his attacks. I'm not sure. I'm biased, so this comes out naturally. Apologies for any rash comments. I actually don't blame Luther and even have sympathy for him, but I continue to hold that he had no authority and probably should have isolated himself and prayed more about it before acting. The only objections I currently hold against followers of Luther are the strong anti-catholic segment, who rather than spending their time in worship and adoration of God and bringing their followers to the same, much of their time is spent with hateful words against Christ's Church. I'm not sure what good that can do for Christianity or for their own souls.

Do you have some particular purpose on this site other than to argue presumptuously in favor of the Roman Church? You do realize this is a REFORMED, PROTESTANT site, don't you?

If it isn't "Federal Vision" advocates calling Protestants back to Rome, it's an outright and outspoken Roman Catholic joining and posting on Reformed web forums, "come back to Rome!"

Rome anathemetized the Protestant (original, true, Biblical) gospel in it's wicked pronouncements at Trent and has never revoked it. Their heretical declarations remain Roman Catholic dogma to this day. And as long as they do, the Roman church is an apostate, false church.

I second that! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

For starters, compulsory clerical celibacy.All of the Disciples were married. While Gregorian reform may not be without partisan merit (esp.the investiture controversy),the aforesaid enjoys little justification in Biblical canon,to say the absolute least. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Grab a Geneva and prove that celibacy for those called to administrate the Word and Sacrament is called for.The Geneva Bible was used by the Puritans and since you've opted to wage this on a Calvinistic website....go all the way with it... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

Hi Catholic Guy,
I'm a former Catholic Guy (Latin Mass, etc) If you read most church historians (my favorite being Williston Walker) it is pretty obvious that Luther did not willingly leave the Catholic church. He tried to reform it (hence the terms Reformation, Reformed). However, when he was sentenced to death as a heretic he pretty much guessed, I think correctly, that the romance was over and he wasn't welcome "home" anymore. But just because the love of your life (which the Catholic church had been for Luther) decides to take the huge ecclesiastical rolling pin ( or chefs knife) to your head doesn't mean you necessarily quit caring for "her". He did the nest best thing, after being kidnapped (read "saved") by Frederick. He chose to point out the shortcomings and prayerfully work for that awakening from the outside. Hope this helps a bit. By the way I'm not Lutheran. I'm just a humble reformed Baptist with a HUGE appreciation for what Marty did.

Hi Catholic Guy,
It's me again. I was about to log off when I came across your note on this. Read Loraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism" it's really informative about the Catholic church's history of doctrine. He documents things well. His footnotes are oftentimes more interesting than other writers books.
I love your fervency in seeking truth. Keep it up,
Eric

Was Pope Leo X justified by his papal bull of Jan.3, 1521 Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicated Luther?
Was Holy Roman Emperor Charles V justified when, by way of the diet of Worms(25 May 1521),he declared Luther an outlaw that anyone could kill without punishment?
Yes, Luther trusted in Christ.justification by HIS grace alone was not the most important thing...but the only thing!
Read the 95 Theses and tell me if you really think Luther's gripe was with the validity or truth of the risen Christ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/takethat.gif" alt="" />

By the way, the "P" in Protestant is capitalized.

The entire Romish system is corrupt precisely because it constructs its worship upon a faulty foundation: human traditions and the inventions of men.

John Knox <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />