So here’s the difficult thing about confronting the modern false church: it’s a slippery little snake.
I listened to a sermon today about God’s abiding love, about a just God of the old testament who may judge and scourge His people but who never gives up on them.
Who could possibly object to such a message at this particular interval of history?
When all the EBT cards are fully charged, when all the pensions are being paid, when every grant for false “scientific” research is being funded, what would that kind of sermon do but a) make scorners consider believers to be a bunch of Hallmark sentimentalists and b) keep the flock safely in a coma?
The church is supposed to make warriors out of fat, dumb 18 year olds. A real sermon, these days, would flatly scold the maggots for being maggots. A real preacher would call the flock lazy, communist-indulging, baby-killing monsters. That would wake them up.
..but if they really were “awakened” as opposed to being “woke,” half of the contributors would leave in a huff.
It seems to me that in order to call some institution a “false church”, you must have some criteria for the “true church” (which is presumably more than your personal opinion). Can you share that with us?
When Simon Peter said these words to Jesus: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” Jesus replied with both a definition of His church and an acid test for the true “ecclesia” (“called out”) through time: “”Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
“This rock” is not Peter, as Roman Catholics interpret the verse, but the rock of faith. Peter was specifically called blessed because “flesh and blood” had not been the basis for Peter’s recognition of the True and Eternal King, but the spirit of God and Peter’s faith in that revelation. This faith is what ties all true believers together, this “coming to believe” in things not seen — and if they are members of the true church they are “knocking down the gates of hell” in how they evangelize, fight wars, teach, and change culture. The true invisible church has existed in all corners of the earth, throughout time.
I didn’t necessarily intend my question to be about any particular church dispute, but your response frames the issue nicely. I hope will each concede that we are two reasonably intelligent people who accept scripture as authoritative and who want to understand and accept the actual metaphysical implications of the verse you cited. As a Catholic, I interpret it in a different way than you do – and our differing interpretation is of profound significance to the validity of our beliefs about Christianity. We can easily find dozens of other scripture passages that raise similarly consequential differences – not merely between Catholics and Protestants, but among Protestants themselves. What I am getting at is that you must have some argument why you are convinced that you possess the correct interpretation of these verses, and I am curious to know what it is.
I think I offered that from scripture: the definition of “the church” is those who are “called out” by faith, and believe in Jesus Christ. The thief on the cross, for example, had no baptism, no church membership certificate, no sacraments — just instant membership in God’s kingdom by virtue of belief.
The “acid test” for knowing if any particular band of believers are really “the church” is to see whether they are changing the culture for the better, along scriptural lines. I include Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, and weirdo home churchers like me in that group.
That’s one possibility, but it is the same test that we would apply to any organization. It is also hopelessly subjective. In Claremont, we have a Methodist church which famously presents a provocative nativity scene each year. (This year it shows the baby Jesus in a cage separated from his parents). I have no doubt that if you hooked the pastor up to a lie detector, she would truthfully say that she believes that her church is changing the culture for the better. Would that satisfy your test – and if not, by what standard are they excluded?
No, nor would most of the commentary of the current pope, since in open, honest, moderated debate these contentions wouldn’t stand review. I think that’s why the critical theory folks are on a war against logic and reason, because they know they can’t contend with it.