The problem with protestantism...division

[mark avery]

As Paul in his letters has already proclaimed, I shall not build on another man`s foundation.

When there is a divide it could be multiplied by the fractions.

Psalm 39 could explain......

 

[dayhiker]

To me the problem with the Pharisees' is that they said one has to love and obey all the laws to be right with God. I was reading the debate by scholars about Paul saying that the jews said they were right before God by obeying the Law .. ie they were ignoring the love God people part of the commandments. Scholars say no, the Pharisees believed in loving God. So they I was left me and scholars with Paul being wrong about what he said about the Jews and the law. But I'm thinking, now can Paul be wrong? He lived it, studied it all his life.

Just last week I saw a diagram saying the Pharisees and Jews in general believed in loving God and people. Jesus was saying no, its all about love. Love fulfills the law. Paul would then be saying the same thing. We aren't under the Law. We are to love God. So then it all made sense to me.

That's what I understand Jesus to be saying when he gets on the Pharisees' case.

 

[dayhiker]

The vast diversity in Christian doctrine cannot really be likened to the diversity of life. On Earth, organisms all have purposes in the environment. The ecosystem works because of the organisms present in it. Doctrinal division does not accomplish that in Christianity. All it does is create division and arguments. In the past, it also created violence.

Dark_Lite, I agree that division of doctrine has caused violence. very sad. that's why we have freedom of religion in the American constitution. The founding fathers didn't want the religious wars that had devestated Europe for 100's of years.

But I don't think we will ever have a unity of doctrine. We wouldn't even come close. So while I disagree with a lot of doctrines, I don't fight over them. I enjoy the diversity because I feel the Holy Spirit present with each group I've fellowshipped with.

 

[Aaron_Walker]

So while I disagree with a lot of doctrines, I don't fight over them. I enjoy the diversity because I feel the Holy Spirit present with each group I've fellowshipped with.

This has been my attitude, as well. There will always be differences of opinion and various ways of interpreting the Scriptures or church doctrine, but those shouldn't prevent us from worshiping God together. I think most of the divisions in church history haven't been so much about legitimate differences, but about self-centeredness and vanity.

 

[lismore]

Unity and conformity are not the same thing.

When you meet another believer with the Holy SPirit and the love of God in them, you do not need to argue about obscure doctrines. When unites you is stronger than what divides you.

 

[Dark_Lite]

But I don't think we will ever have a unity of doctrine. We wouldn't even come close. So while I disagree with a lot of doctrines, I don't fight over them. I enjoy the diversity because I feel the Holy Spirit present with each group I've fellowshipped with.

The disparity of doctrine today is a direct result of the Reformation. Prior to that, there were three main Christian groups:
1. Catholic
2. Orthodox
3. Oriental Orthodox

And it remained that way for hundreds of years. Two major schisms in 1500 years vs countless schisms in less than 500 years is what we are talking about.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

The disparity of doctrine today is a direct result of the Reformation. Prior to that, there were three main Christian groups:
1. Catholic
2. Orthodox
3. Oriental Orthodox

And it remained that way for hundreds of years. Two major schisms in 1500 years vs countless schisms in less than 500 years is what we are talking about.

Uh huh. And I see much of value in the Protestant group, the Catholic group, and the two Orthodox groups (which I usually think of as one, the differences being too subtle for me). It seems to me that none of them has all of it right, but each of them has some of it right, and each has some parts that the others don't. You don't have the fullness of truth (contrary to Catholic claims) until you bring all the streams together.

And even with the proliferation of Protestant denominations, most of them are mostly the same, with only minor differences. Most of them would worship together and take Communion together.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Uh huh. And I see much of value in the Protestant group, the Catholic group, and the two Orthodox groups (which I usually think of as one, the differences being too subtle for me). It seems to me that none of them has all of it right, but each of them has some of it right, and each has some parts that the others don't.

Seeming is subjective.

You don't have the fullness of truth (contrary to Catholic claims) until you bring all the streams together.

So you're saying no one can have the fullness of the truth until all "streams" (I assume that means denominations or traditions) come together. Phrased negatively, you're saying "There is more than one group of Christians, therefore none of them can have the fullness of the truth." That does not logically compute. Fullness of truth doesn't disappear just because there are people who disagree, nor is knowledge of the full truth predicated on there only being one group of Christians.

As an analogy, consider math. Math is absolute. There is no bending. The fullness of the truth of math can be known by anyone if they receive enough education. But let's say someone proclaims 2 + 2 = 3. We have a mathematical schism. Them saying 2 + 2 = 3 does not change the fact that the fullness of mathematical truth (that is, everything our mathematical schismatic claims, but including 2 + 2 = 4) still exists, and that people know it or can know it.

The only way to make your conclusion true is by saying that humans cannot know the fullness of truth in Christianity. For a religion that claims the existence of absolute truth and a fulfilled divine revelation, that's kind of meh.

Then there's the issue of figuring what exactly all the "streams" are. Where does the validity line begin and end? How do you even quantify the number? Or is that unknowable too?

And even with the proliferation of Protestant denominations, most of them are mostly the same, with only minor differences. Most of them would worship together and take Communion together.

What are the minor differences? The answer varies from person to person. Real presence vs symbolic communion. Believer's baptism vs infant baptism. Belief in holy orders vs no holy orders. Belief that only men can receive holy orders vs women can also receive holy orders. Apostolic succession or no apostolic succession.

All of the above are completely contradictory beliefs that have been shoved under the amorphous, seemingly ever-growing "non-essentials" tent by various people and groups. Based on who you ask, some will say some or all of those beliefs are non-essential. Others will tell you some or all of them are essential.

 

[salamacum]

The idea essentials v non-essentials is actually a human construct not a biblical one. At least the way we use it. Christ may have been the ultimate reductionist with only 2 commandments to work on, 2 sacraments and one work - to believe in Him.
Anyway I showed this quote to a senior local Christians statesman (someone respected all round and who's been commenting on the Christian scene for ages) - and I think it got him really thinking. For the first time he's wondering whether its the PROJECT (sola scriptura) which is the problem not the failures of men to agree on what the bible says.
Me - i'm still open minded. But the spirit of phariseeism has a modern form - it's just that no-one has qwritten a book about it (Pagan Christianity may be the sort of thing.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Seeming is subjective.

Yes, it is. As are all perceptions and opinions, as opposed to facts.

So you're saying no one can have the fullness of the truth until all "streams" (I assume that means denominations or traditions) come together. Phrased negatively, you're saying "There is more than one group of Christians, therefore none of them can have the fullness of the truth." That does not logically compute. Fullness of truth doesn't disappear just because there are people who disagree, nor is knowledge of the full truth predicated on there only being one group of Christians.

As an analogy, consider math. Math is absolute. There is no bending. The fullness of the truth of math can be known by anyone if they receive enough education. But let's say someone proclaims 2 + 2 = 3. We have a mathematical schism. Them saying 2 + 2 = 3 does not change the fact that the fullness of mathematical truth (that is, everything our mathematical schismatic claims, but including 2 + 2 = 4) still exists, and that people know it or can know it.

The only way to make your conclusion true is by saying that humans cannot know the fullness of truth in Christianity. For a religion that claims the existence of absolute truth and a fulfilled divine revelation, that's kind of meh.

Then there's the issue of figuring what exactly all the "streams" are. Where does the validity line begin and end? How do you even quantify the number? Or is that unknowable too?

Um, no. You're taking what I experienced as an empirical, but personal and subjective observation in one situation and turning into a general principle, and that's not at all what I intended. I do not mean that as a matter of principle, all the streams have to come together for maximum truth.

What do I mean? I guess I didn't explain at all, so I can see why you misunderstood. What I meant was that, IMHO, none of the three streams (I'm going to combine the two branches of Orthodoxy here because the differences between them aren't relevant to my point) have all doctrine correct, but all of them do have the bare essentials right, and are fully Christian, despite their differences.

Protestants (as a whole, though I know that's an oversimplification) are missing out on some things that Catholics have right. But Catholics don't (IMHO) have all of it right either. Orthodox have some things right that Catholics and Protestants don't. And Protestants (IMHO) have some things right that neither Catholics nor Protestants do. So, it seems to me that to arrive at fullness of truth in a Christian church, one would need to combine the best of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. It is not a general principle, just one particular situation.

That is my subjective and highly personal opinion, and I don't claim anything more for it.

What are the minor differences? The answer varies from person to person. Real presence vs symbolic communion. Believer's baptism vs infant baptism. Belief in holy orders vs no holy orders. Belief that only men can receive holy orders vs women can also receive holy orders. Apostolic succession or no apostolic succession.

All of the above are completely contradictory beliefs that have been shoved under the amorphous, seemingly ever-growing "non-essentials" tent by various people and groups. Based on who you ask, some will say some or all of those beliefs are non-essential. Others will tell you some or all of them are essential.

To me, the only real essential is the Gospel of Christ. Like Paul, I am resolved to know but one thing: Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected.

Of course, I do have opinions on those denominational distinctives, and my opinions on those matters will affect my choice of church. But none of would stop me from worshiping as a guest at a church that didn't agree with them, or taking communion with them (if they'd let me - some do practice closed communion, which I disagree with but understand the reasons why). There are, of course, differences that go beyond denominational distinctives - if they have cult-like practices or non-Nicene doctrine, I probably wouldn't even visit.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Um, no. You're taking what I experienced as an empirical, but personal and subjective observation in one situation and turning into a general principle, and that's not at all what I intended. I do not mean that as a matter of principle, all the streams have to come together for maximum truth.

What do I mean? I guess I didn't explain at all, so I can see why you misunderstood. What I meant was that, IMHO, none of the three streams (I'm going to combine the two branches of Orthodoxy here because the differences between them aren't relevant to my point) have all doctrine correct, but all of them do have the bare essentials right, and are fully Christian, despite their differences.

Protestants (as a whole, though I know that's an oversimplification) are missing out on some things that Catholics have right. But Catholics don't (IMHO) have all of it right either. Orthodox have some things right that Catholics and Protestants don't. And Protestants (IMHO) have some things right that neither Catholics nor Protestants do. So, it seems to me that to arrive at fullness of truth in a Christian church, one would need to combine the best of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. It is not a general principle, just one particular situation.

That is my subjective and highly personal opinion, and I don't claim anything more for it.

So, then it is your opinion that no Christian Church has it fully right. Is this, in your opinion, purely circumstance, or because of an ontological inability on part of humans to obtain the fullness of truth in Christianity? Or is it something else?

To me, the only real essential is the Gospel of Christ. Like Paul, I am resolved to know but one thing: Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected.

To you. So, that's another answer among the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) on what is essential and what is non-essential.

Of course, I do have opinions on those denominational distinctives, and my opinions on those matters will affect my choice of church. But none of would stop me from worshiping as a guest at a church that didn't agree with them, or taking communion with them (if they'd let me - some do practice closed communion, which I disagree with but understand the reasons why). There are, of course, differences that go beyond denominational distinctives - if they have cult-like practices or non-Nicene doctrine, I probably wouldn't even visit.

And even in the phrase "non-Nicene doctrine" there is variance. The acceptable definition of what constitutes adherence to the Nicene Creed has widened considerably over the centuries. This website is a really good example.

When you have to asterisk "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" with "May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance," it's quite clear that the meaning of the Creed has taken a few twists and turns.

The point of my observations here is that without an authority to verify what is and what is not essential, anything goes. In Catholicism, that authority is the Magisterium. In Orthodoxy, it is the Ecumenical Councils and the collective will of the Church. In the various Protestant movements, it's generally the governing body of the denomination.

Of course, since Protestant groups just schism when disagreements become too much for one denomination to handle, the authority of the denomination in this area is basically pointless. On the other hand, the same thing tends to happen in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. If [a group, people, a person] cannot get their way within the confines of the Church, they just separate themselves from it and go their own way.

The cause, in this case, would be an individualistic culture and the reduced power of the Church to deal with such issues.

 

[OHCAC2000]

So, then it is your opinion that no Christian Church has it fully right. Is this, in your opinion, purely circumstance, or because of an ontological inability on part of humans to obtain the fullness of truth in Christianity? Or is it something else?

To you. So, that's another answer among the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) on what is essential and what is non-essential.

And even in the phrase "non-Nicene doctrine" there is variance. The acceptable definition of what constitutes adherence to the Nicene Creed has widened considerably over the centuries. This website is a really good example.

When you have to asterisk "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" with "May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance," it's quite clear that the meaning of the Creed has taken a few twists and turns.

The point of my observations here is that without an authority to verify what is and what is not essential, anything goes. In Catholicism, that authority is the Magisterium. In Orthodoxy, it is the Ecumenical Councils and the collective will of the Church. In the various Protestant movements, it's generally the governing body of the denomination.

Of course, since Protestant groups just schism when disagreements become too much for one denomination to handle, the authority of the denomination in this area is basically pointless. On the other hand, the same thing tends to happen in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. If [a group, people, a person] cannot get their way within the confines of the Church, they just separate themselves from it and go their own way.

The cause, in this case, would be an individualistic culture and the reduced power of the Church to deal with such issues.

The problem here is this. People fail to see that the Church remains despite of people rejecting the Faith. We can see this happening at the time of the Apostles. The Apostles would not tolerate anyone teaching errors anything different from what they tought. This is one Characteristic of the Church of the Living God........People fail to see that the Church will go on despite of so many leaving. Jesus said: And thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of hell will not prevail against it......with this, no man in this earth is going to tell me different. No marting luther, no calvin, no zwingler, no protestant pastor of whatever denomination is going to tell me that Jesus did not say this.

 

[Yitzchak]

Not all division is over doctrine. In fact I think most is due to things like jealousy and a competitive spirit between groups.

Take for example the Toronto Blessing example listed in this thread. Did anyone really care about what they were doing all that much before it became popular ?

From personal experience , I have seen people migrate to different churches in the same town. The funny thing is the people do not seem to care that much if it is Baptist or Pentecostal or whatever. They are looking for a church with a good children's program , people that love you and one that is growing an full of life. People do draw the line on certain extremes , but most of the time they need to be told why they should disagree with the other church. I never heard of Calvinism until our church decided they needed to warn us against it because the Calvinist church down the street was becoming more popular than our church.

I think that a lot of the disunity is a smokescreen erected by leaders of churches to give a reason why people should be loyal to their group. I think a lot of it boils down to jealousy and money. More people in your church means more influence and more money. This is what I believe was behind the Pharisees elaborate system. It is a way to control the people. Most of the people who are against The Toronto Blessing were pawns in that game. All the criticisms are petty and not any major doctrinal concern. ironically , there is now a network of churches connected with Toronto which are making pawns out of people who seek renewal.

It really comes down to whether we are building God's kingdom or our denomination's kingdom. I have been watching this stuff for thirty years and I am convinced that it does not matter which church God visits , there will be scores opposing the move of God because it is not their denomination being blessed. Take a brand new Christian and you have to explain to them why these petty differences are an " offense " to God.

I wonder if God's people will ever rise up and demand that the church leaders get along and stop this petty competitive stuff.

Doctrine is not the main source of division. Doctrine is the tool that jealous men use.

 

[salamacum]

Yitschak - I agree with what you say, but then that's probably because I want to.

 

[plmarquette]

We cannot go to heaven on yesterday's values....
We cannot enter heaven by a tradition or form
We cannot justify, being in neutral or reverse, because of doctrine and dogma
We will be held accountable for not evangelizing the lost...
We must focus on common ground (the church) and quit petty squabbling...
those who are with us, cannot be against us, leave them alone...you take care of the
plank or beam in your denomination, and pray for the others...

 

[plmarquette]

Have you been to a "charismatic" Catholic prayer meeting / service?

Have you smelled the "aroma of Christ"

Have you been touched by the Holy Spirit...

What do you do, for and in the kingdom...along the lines of Matthew 25.32-42?

James 2 says your faith, should birth a work...being in church does not mean that you are a Christian, any more than being in a garage, makes you a car... Billy Sunday

 

[happy12]

Hello everyone, my name is Luxi, very happy to be here, thank you for the care.

 

[Yitzchak]

So, then it is your opinion that no Christian Church has it fully right. Is this, in your opinion, purely circumstance, or because of an ontological inability on part of humans to obtain the fullness of truth in Christianity? Or is it something else?

The hand of God is behind the limitation. The inability is already there in man. To put it simply , the limitation exists because man is not God. The Christian religion does not teach and never has taught that we become all knowing. Only God is all knowing.

In other words , we only know what God has chosen to reveal to us. No person in history had the ability to figure it out.

 

[salamacum]

Also, it depends on what is meant by 'fully right'.

If you only emphasise a small core of essential doctrines than you may dare to present yourself as fully right.

But it would be a brave (and foolish) denomination to set yourself the tasks of extracting from the bible timeless Truths and in addition sufficient principles to cover ALL of life's challenges. (A bit like a Torah or Sharia-based application)

The other issue of course is whether the bible ever offers itself to be used in this way.

But the quote about protestantism is remarkable unyielding. It really doesn't allow you to say that it is just human weakness or bias that causes the division. It is the project itself.

 

[Dark_Lite]

The hand of God is behind the limitation. The inability is already there in man. To put it simply , the limitation exists because man is not God. The Christian religion does not teach and never has taught that we become all knowing. Only God is all knowing.

In other words , we only know what God has chosen to reveal to us. No person in history had the ability to figure it out.

Your first sentence makes me wonder this: so it is God's will that there be doctrinal division in Christianity?