No, as I pointed out in my previous post, the neither Jesus nor the Apostles claimed the Church was already perfect. In fact, they were overwhelmingly aware of her lack of perfection. But, if you would permit me to use two theological terms, I think they would see the Church as indefectible and infallible.
While I can hear the screams already, let me go ahead and define the terms for you. Indefectible means, “Having the ability to resist decay or failure; lasting.” Actually, this is a claim about the Church that is shared by Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant, though you may not realize it, and it is based on something Jesus said.
It comes from Matthew 16:18 – “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
There is a promise from Jesus present, “. . . and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Indefectible simply means that the Church shall not fall. She will last. It makes no claim about the perfection of the Church. St. Peter was rebuked by our Lord in the verse that immediately follows this one. In other words, right after saying that Hell shall not prevail, our Lord rebukes St. Peter for speaking like a son of Hell. Ironic, is it not?
Indefectible also does not claim that the Church will have smooth sailing. Nor does it claim that the Church will not misbehave. No, none of those claims are present in the world indefectible. Rather, it is the bald faced claim that our Lord Jesus meant what he said and that when the warfare is over and the trumpet sounds, the Church, bloodied in battle, shall still be there and standing, attempting to serve her Lord and Savior, even in her imperfections.
You catch an echo of that same thought from St. Paul in Romans 14:4, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.” You see, the indefectibility of the Church can even extend down to the individual member, who, in his/her weakness may fall, but in Christ is able to keep slogging on (to continue using the soldier metaphor).
However, that verse from Romans also warns us to be cautious in how we judge. History is replete with those who have judged the Church as having fallen, as being of a more primitive time, as doomed to fail, etc. She is still here. They are gone. This despite the fact that many of their criticism were quite accurate, their awareness of her imperfections even better than those of us who are in her. Nevertheless, indefectible gives the Church no ground for pride, for indefectible is not her work, but God’s work.
And, now we come to the more difficult term, infallible. But, that is for tomorrow.
Well no argument against anything you have said so far, but why do I see clouds on the horizon?
I think the real question is going to come into play when we start trying to define Church, but I’ll leave that for tomorrow.
If the Church is made up of sinful people, what else would anyone expect?
Bror, that is probably why I put off the word “infallible” until tomorrow. GRIN. Besides today is too busy a day.
As you correctly read, the way I wrote it today could apply to either a Church invisible or a Church visible. That was because I wanted to point out that while Christians may not agree on the definition of the Church, we certainly agree that God will enable her to stand and persevere.
I think sometimes we spend so much time figuring out where we disagree that we forget to also say where we agree.