Division is not a problem of Protestantism--it's a problem of Christianity

[mdSchultz]

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic lay-apologists often like to claim that the division of Christianity seen today is not only a result of the Reformation but is also a good reason to reject all of Protestantism as false. A couple of comments are in order.

First, there is a simple logical problem here. If divisions within a particular group (e.g. Protestantism) nullifies it, why don't these lay-apologists concede that all of Christianity would be proven false by that standard, including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? That is, of course, what the secularists and atheists argue, which is, if you didn't know, exactly where these kinds of arguments came from anyway.

Second, the historical assumptions of such a question are false. The early church was rife was division. A simple perusal of some of the conflicts between even orthodox Christians reveals such and ample documentation to support this position could be provided if requested. It's also patently obvious from reading the concerns of Paul regarding the New Testament church. It's not as if Christianity has been a monolithic, completely unified body up until the Reformation. Anyone who believes that needs to read their Bible and church history more.

Third, why should we believe that division invalidates a particular religious tradition at all? Certainly division is a problem, and Scripture states as much, but what passages of the Scriptures tell us that division is a good reason to reject, as false, the claims of particular religious groups? None that I'm aware of.

Division is a problem of Christianity, not just Protestantism, as some would like to suggest. And if those so interested in the ecumenical spirit would be more reasonable about accusations of division, we might actually make some more progress in that area.

 

[Oblio]

One does not divide the Church, one leaves it, generally through heresy and apostacy.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

So in the Great Schism, which one left?
Did Roman Catholicism reject "The Church"?
or
Was it Eastern Orthodoxy that rejected "The Church"?

Until Rome and Constantinople descide to heal the Great Schism and call anothr modern Council to correct past issues I don't know which one is the "True Church", and quite possibly neither is.
Maybe God's Children were brought out of both because of rampant Idolitry and God's True Church is somewhere in the Protestants.
I don't know, but until then all I can do is Trust in God alone for the answers.
I go wherever My Shepherd leads me...

 

[FijianBeliever]

One does not divide the Church, one leaves it, generally through heresy and apostacy.

Sometimes the one who leaves is right and the one who stays is wrong.

 

[mdSchultz]

One does not divide the Church, one leaves it, generally through heresy and apostacy.

I'm not sure how this is related to the issue of whether the lay-Catholic and/or Orthodox apologist's arguments on this subject are valid.

 

[DaveS]

Maybe what Christianity actually needs is a second council to bring back a new mainstream to present a united non-conflicting front? I feel it could be a little too late in the day though - from the arguments that sometimes go on in this forum alone I would actually say almost certainly!
I think that people have to realise that other people do have different ideas over various topics and sometimes it is best just to put them aside and realise that we are all in fact Christian despite relatively minor doctrinal differences. Maybe we should just focus on unity with a common Christ and not unity with a common doctrine? This maybe the great challenge of our time as it is now - for the first time in history - that we can truly unite the Christian faith through the technology that is available to us...

 

[epistemaniac]

I am not so familiar with the East...... but there are many many divisions and sects within Rome, even though Roman apologists try to turn a blind eye to them, and constantly harp about the divisions within Protestantism (rightly and unfortunately it is true) while all the time ignoring the many divisions within their own ranks. To me, this tact is nothing short of dishonesty on their part. Of course, this cannot be said of all Romanists, some are honest and vocal about the severe divisions within Rome, the Traditionalists and the Ultratraditionalists, as well as the differences theologically among the Jesuits, Benedictines, Augustinians, etc etc even as far as the nature of the gospel is itself concerned, and lack of adherence, especially from American RC's, to papal decrees, to decisions concerning birth control, etc
The RC who points a finger at Protestants for their lack of unity would be far better served by attending to the serious divisions within their own ranks, for it is hypocritical to point out the faults of others when one is, by proxy, having the same sorts of divisiveness within their own ranks.

Blessings,
Ken

 

[Yeznik]

Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic lay-apologists often like to claim that the division of Christianity seen today is not only a result of the Reformation but is also a good reason to reject all of Protestantism as false. A couple of comments are in order.

First, there is a simple logical problem here. If divisions within a particular group (e.g. Protestantism) nullifies it, why don't these lay-apologists concede that all of Christianity would be proven false by that standard, including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy? That is, of course, what the secularists and atheists argue, which is, if you didn't know, exactly where these kinds of arguments came from anyway.

Second, the historical assumptions of such a question are false. The early church was rife was division. A simple perusal of some of the conflicts between even orthodox Christians reveals such and ample documentation to support this position could be provided if requested. It's also patently obvious from reading the concerns of Paul regarding the New Testament church. It's not as if Christianity has been a monolithic, completely unified body up until the Reformation. Anyone who believes that needs to read their Bible and church history more.

Third, why should we believe that division invalidates a particular religious tradition at all? Certainly division is a problem, and Scripture states as much, but what passages of the Scriptures tell us that division is a good reason to reject, as false, the claims of particular religious groups? None that I'm aware of.

Division is a problem of Christianity, not just Protestantism, as some would like to suggest. And if those so interested in the ecumenical spirit would be more reasonable about accusations of division, we might actually make some more progress in that area.

The basic problem between Protestants and the ancient Churches is all ancient Churches are basing their doctrine on councils, creeds and canons upon Scripture and Tradition. If there is a discourse to be had between the ancient churches there is a common ground which they can start from in order to reconcile issues. With Protestantism it not that easy, the basis of Protestantism is based on Sola Scriptura, in which, this doctrine does not exist in any council, creed or canon of the ancient churches, therefore, there is no common ground to start a discussion. All ancient Churches refute Sola Scriptura, this is the basic premise of Protestantism. Secondly, Protestantism denies Tradition, though not in its entirety, according to Sola Scriptura. Herein lies the issue, the methodology cannot be agreed upon in regards to common doctrines. Additionally, it is quite common for Protests not to have some sort of defined doctrines, creeds, and councils, to clearly create consensus on what they all agree on. Again, if there is a discussion amongst any of the ancient churches there is also the historical matter of the church fathers, doctrines, creeds and council, in addition to Scripture, in which there is given a solid starting point. I am being very general intentionally in order to prove my point.

 

[Rick Otto]

I didn't even bother to read it all because the premise is presented in a way that can too easily be recieved as contentiousness.

I can't stomache any more of that.

 

[Rick Otto]

I was over-sensitive.
I did read it, and I DO agree with it, but still, it is nothing that Papists can agree with.

I think the best we can realisticaly expect here is not an ecumenism of theology, but one of civility and mutual respect.

I would suggest a re-write of the OP, just as an excersize to see if such thoughts can be put down on paper in a way most papists can accept for style, if not content.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the basis of Protestantism is based on Sola Scriptura, in which, this doctrine does not exist in any council, creed or canon of the ancient churches, therefore, there is no common ground to start a discussion. All ancient Churches refute Sola Scriptura, this is the basic premise of Protestantism.

The basic premise of Protestantism is Jesus Christ.

From there, I suppose it would be Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Fide. That's typically what defines Protestantism (although all 3 are widely and deeply misunderstood in Catholicism).

Sola Scriptura isn't even a doctrine, much less a basis. It's an epistemological approach to the norming of doctrines. But, yes, it is a "stumbling" block of sorts in our interdenominational discussions with Catholics (and Mormons and maybe Orthodox - I don't know enough about Orthodox). For Protestants, a dogma unconfirmed by Scripture might be embraced as a valid 'pious opinion' but not as doctrine or dogma. Protestants are not apt to accept as verification "because I'm correct and I say this is correct and so it's correct." Protestants accept Tradition as ESSENTIAL in hermeneutics but not self-authenticating.

Secondly, Protestantism denies Tradition, though not in its entirety, according to Sola Scriptura. Herein lies the issue, the methodology cannot be agreed upon in regards to common doctrines.

Actually, I hold Tradition in highest esteem and consider it essential. I just don't place Tradition above God's Holy Word. It may be a small notch below, but it's below. God is Lord of me, I'm not lord of Him. My words are subject to His, not the other way around.


I agree with you that this is fundamental to why consensus often is lacking. We tend to use two different systems of norming, two different ways to determine which teacher is correct. It's why I tend to address this issue so much - it IS the "problem."


IMHO, as long as self arbitrates self according to the canon of self and self predeclares self as infallible in both, then no progress can be made. Catholics and Mormons insists on such because of their concept of the church, but everyone else sees that as circular, self-authenticating and a complete circumvention of all accountability.

Additionally, it is quite common for Protests not to have some sort of defined doctrines, creeds, and councils, to clearly create consensus on what they all agree on.

This is true to a certain degree. Any Protestant who has ever actually seen the official Catechism of the RCC is likely to be completely blown away!!!!! It's HUGE!!!!! The Catechism in Lutheranism is like 10 pages long.

SOME Protestant congregations and denominations are pretty "loose." That may be the result of humility (let's hope) but more likely of a wrong concept of ecumenism and some sloppy theology. I've been to some Protestant churches, asked for their statement of faith, and been told, "Oh, we just teach what the Bible teaches." Ahha, LOL! BUT, I think most Protestants are simply less willing to pin everything down in strick dogmatic terms. When I took my class for membership in the RCC, there was LITTLE I actually felt was WRONG, but some things where it was clear this is simply the spin of the RCC and little more.

Again, if there is a discussion amongst any of the ancient churches there is also the historical matter of the church fathers, doctrines, creeds and council, in addition to Scripture, in which there is given a solid starting point. I am being very general intentionally in order to prove my point.

To a degree, I agree with your point. Yes, Protestants are apt to say "Show me!" Protestants are very sensitive to all those warnings about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, those that would lead many astray. We note the command to "test the spirits to see if they are correct." We note our Saviors commendation of those to tested the claims of the 'apostles' and noted they were false, of the Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. Protestants have had those nice Mormon guys knock on our door - and we didn't "buy" it just cuz they said so.



Thank you for some insightful points.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I tend to agree with Rick's post

Essentially, I think the position that ancient apostolic churches are without division is problematic, for even if one does 'blame Rome' for the schism, we still must answer for the schism with the non-Chalcedonian (OO) churches. The matter is complex, yet simple in this respect: unity does not come from catechetical definitions.


One reason why, I believe that there are so many divisions within the Protestant movement is because there is no central creedal nor confessional authority. There sort of was in each of the original three Protestant movements (Reformed, Anglican, and Lutheran), and perhaps in some respects among the Anabaptists- for each of these had a very clear set of theological distinctives and confessional perspectives.

Over time, however, there has been a significant splintering of those original 3/4 viewpoints (and Anglicans and Lutherans were very similar, so perhaps they really comprised one tradition, for a time) to where we are today, with perhaps several hundred distinct and opposed viewpoints.

I know that there are some efforts afoot to unite a sort of common Evangelical identity, time will tell whether the level of agreement is sufficient to maintain some sort of genuine unity in action, worship, and/or purpose.

 

[willard3]

As stated above, some of the basis for the "Protestants are divided and the RC/Orthodox churches are not" comes from that Protestants have much less common ground to stand on.

Often, the only common ground between Protestant denominations are Jesus and the Bible. The RC has those, plus Tradition, the Pope, councils, the Catechism... (I'm not informed on Orthodoxy, so I will not risk butchering their structure)

 

[stray bullet]

Maybe what Christianity actually needs is a second council to bring back a new mainstream to present a united non-conflicting front? I feel it could be a little too late in the day though - from the arguments that sometimes go on in this forum alone I would actually say almost certainly!
I think that people have to realise that other people do have different ideas over various topics and sometimes it is best just to put them aside and realise that we are all in fact Christian despite relatively minor doctrinal differences. Maybe we should just focus on unity with a common Christ and not unity with a common doctrine? This maybe the great challenge of our time as it is now - for the first time in history - that we can truly unite the Christian faith through the technology that is available to us...

Only bishops can attend councils and only the Catholics/Orthodox/Coptics have true bishops. It would be nice if the three reunited and held another council. However, protestantism will be around until the second coming. There will always be Catholics and protestants until then.

 

[mdSchultz]

The basic problem between Protestants and the ancient Churches is all ancient Churches are basing their doctrine on councils, creeds and canons upon Scripture and Tradition. If there is a discourse to be had between the ancient churches there is a common ground which they can start from in order to reconcile issues. With Protestantism it not that easy, the basis of Protestantism is based on Sola Scriptura, in which, this doctrine does not exist in any council, creed or canon of the ancient churches, therefore, there is no common ground to start a discussion.

Yes, most people following this kind of discussion agree that Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are closer to each other than they are to Protestantism. You've haven't said much beyond this, so I will refrain from further comment.

 

[mdSchultz]

I would suggest a re-write of the OP, just as an excersize to see if such thoughts can be put down on paper in a way most papists can accept for style, if not content.

I'm not aware of how this can be improved style wise. Did I use particularly offensive language or vocabulary? My tone and presentation was serious and dry. Some might be offended by the kinds of arguments I made, but substance is not something I am willing change.

 

[Tonks]

I'm not aware of how this can be improved style wise. Did I use particularly offensive language or vocabulary? My tone and presentation was serious and dry. Some might be offended by the kinds of arguments I made, but substance is not something I am willing change.

I don't have a problem with the OP.

1) There are divisions within Catholicism. However, those that exist within the confines of those that submit to Primacy are on a small scale and do little to nothing to the unity of the Church (I'm shorthanding for Rome). The schismatics (SSPX, PNCC etc) are an entirely different story.

2) The Churches birthed out of the Reformation are separate from much of "mainstream" Protestantism. The Lutherans (Luther specifically) had legitimate gripes with Rome. I merely think that he handled them incorrectly and let his own pride get in the way. The Anglicans were not "Protestant" to begin with. Beginning with Wycliffe and (obviously) Henry VIII the Church of England removed itself from Rome. In the early years it did maintain much of its Catholicity - at least in its theology. We're all aware of Henry's title of fidei defensor due to his railing against the Lutherans. Edward VI was the real break between the CoE and the theology of the ancient Church. Elizabeth I completed the break with the Act of Supremacy. As for the Doctrines of Grace - I agree (conceptually) with many of them but think that it is a theology that is incorrectly applied to the position of man vs. God.

If there existed merely 4 or 5 particular Churches (CC, EO, the ones mentioned above) there may be a basis for common discussion. However, the continued fractured nature of many of the modern Protestant denominations (ca 1700s forward) makes this pretty much an impossiblity.

This is not just a problem that Rome or the Orthodox face. Indeed, the problem also exists within mainline Protestantism. As much as some individuals would like to boil down the whole discussion as to where the ancient Churches have a different focus than the Protestant ones...it doesn't really hold. Get a Pentacostal, a non-denominational, a Lutheran, and an Anglican in a room and the differences are far greater than the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy - and the gulf between us is as wide as the sea.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Christians are seperating other Christians by doctrines which causes division. We should all take a long hard look at what things we consider to be important. The main reason why we have denominations is that Christians are divided on doctrine issues (teaching issues). This have been going on since the New Testament days (Read First Corinthians 9:11-17).

 

[TheGMan]

The Reformists are the ones who got away with it. The Gnostics, the Arians, the Donatists, the Goliards, the Lollards, the Waldensians, the Albigensians et cetera didn't.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Much how God told his people to leave the Jewish religion to form the church? Yea, the new testament church is heretic and in apostasy because they left the original.

Jesus assigned 12 people to spread His Word instead of the Nation of Israel because they erred, so then why are you surprised if God had assigned Luther to protest against the (edited) in error orthodox church/catholic church

I suppose it's futile to point out that Luther didn't protest against the Greek fathers- he and many of his group admired the Eastern Church.

Or perhaps it will prompt you to study a little bit so as not to appear foolish the next time around.

But if God did inspire Luther, then your group is deeply opposed to the 'prophet of God' for SDAs are a country mile apart from Luther's views.

Or would you propose that God onces again sent a reform in the SDA movement, and that everyone else was "(edited) in error?"
If so, we have a pretty good idea why division runs so deep in the Protestant movement: Jesus, the original protester (ahem) set the standard for each successive 'true prophet.'
Lord love a duck

Luke 12:51 (Whole Chapter)
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Revelation 18:2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

What will be more scary is when unity is made between the churches much like whats going on with the ecumenical movement.

Ah, a novel interpretation, eh? EVERYONE ELSE is part of the Beast.