What did Jesus mean when He prayed that we would be one in John 17:21?

[Clare73]

The reason for division was "sola scriptura"
the loss of tradition and authority to interpret it.
Along side scripture was the meaning of scripture (tradition) and the means to resolve disputes (authority).
A table with three legs. Lose one and it falls over!

God has raised up godly men who are true Biblical scholars over the centuries, who truly interpret his Word written.
There is no authority over the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures.
We all sit under them, no one sits over them.

Assigning authority over them causes as much grievous error and damage as does anything else.

At the reformation, sola scriptura empowered all to decide their own meaning for scripture.

Tradition is not a set of customs, it is paradosis "the faith handed down For much of the history of the church the faith was passed by "word of mouth or letter". The meanining with the scritpure.
A bible took three years to copy by a monk. Few had seen one. Almost nobody owned one till after the printing press, and even them most could not read one. They were too expensive for the ordinary man till 200 years ago even! So the faith, ie the meaning as well as scripture was handed down by word of mouth.

Authority is the "power to bind and loose" which is the phrase that meant "give authoratitive judgement" given to apostolic succession, and is the power Jesus handed to councils, to settle disputes on doctrine. Many heresies were outlawed , for example the arian heresy by the council of Nicea. Authority is not new. Jesus told all to listen to the pharisees when speaking from moses seat.

That is why the church is called "the foundation of truth" in scripture. The household of God, a physical church.

So Division was caused by sola scriptura
At the reformation, sola scriptura empowered all to decide their own meaning for scripture.

That was not Luther's intention, but it was the consequence of sola scriptura, so even Luther lamented "every peasant now has their own doctrine". That process has continued ever since.

So different denominations take different, sometimes opposite meanings for the same scripture. They have no authority to decide meaning. So congregations divide on a point of doctrine. All claim the holy spirit supports their interpretation. But there can only be one truth, the holy spirit cannot support opposites!

Curiously , most of the denominations have a written tradition. That is, they pass meaning using their own "articles" or confessions. They were written post reformation most countering the faith handed down from earliest times (eg on eucharist). So truly man made tradition! All the denominations view scripture through a tradition even if they dont write it. Eg on eucharist , many refer a passage in John " the words I speak are spirit and truth" to declare the eucharist symbolic. But that rides roughshod over the tradition handed down from the first times. And ignores the fact that the word used for "eat"my flesh means Gnaw, or that the audience at capernaum were horrified and left (proving He meant real blood!)

However go back to the early church, take some of the earliest documents, like Ignatius (disciple of John apostle) lettter to Smyrneans about bishop authority and the real presence in the eucharist. You see the meaning handed down with scripture.

From the earliest times you see Justin Martyr, Ignatius etc speak of real flesh in the eucharist.
Anasthasius (at council of nicea) says clearly that before the blessing is just wine and bread, after the blessing is the real body and blood of Christ.

That is tradition in action. The passing of meaning by tradition and authority.

Sola scriptura ditched it all. And sowed the seeds of division ever since.

 

[Mountainmike]

The problem is Clare biblical scholars in all post reformation denominations claim true interpretation of the word. But they all claim it means DIFFERENT things! Since the meanings they choose on almost all aspects of doctrine are mutually exclusive , most of them are wrong: the only question is which one is right!



Since the reformation , We can find mutually exclusive interpretations on every aspect eg salvation, baptism, eucharist, clergy , contraception/life issues, gay issues, purgation/value of prayer after death, necessity or otherwise of works, role of women etc etc etc. You name it they disagree on it, yet they are all reading the same book. They come to totally different conclusions.

Further evidence is the existence of "confessions" and "articles". If the bible self stood why are they necessary? Most seem to be written to oppose the catholic interpretation.

The splintering into denominations is ALL as a result of different interpretations of scripture as a result of sola scriptura. Until the reformation, doctrine evolved a little but almost all doctrine was unchanged for the first millenium and a half. The divisions of east vs west church were as much about geography as they were about arcane theology like filioque, or what actually happens in the mystery of the eucharist.

The advent of Sola scriptura is the point at which all the divisions began, and continue to this day.

I think all should go back and look at how the canon came to be, the books rejected as well as accepted. It is not just the books were inspired, it is also the canon. Therefore the councils that approved it were inspired.
Now study the meaning of "bind and loose" . What the power means and who it was given to!

God has raised up godly men who are true Biblical scholars over the centuries, who truly interpret his Word written.
There is no authority over the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures.
We all sit under them, no one sits over them.

Assigning authority over them causes as much grievous error and damage as does anything else.

 

[JoeT]

Wouldn't the prayer be for the eleven, since Judas was a traitor?

Christ made the exception for the son of perdition. [Cf John 17:12], who, by the way, hadn't reveled himself at this point in time. In John's gospel we don't learn of Judas' infamy until the next chapter.

Perhaps you should review Jn 17:20-21.

Who Christ is speaking to is as important as what He said. The entire chapter is a prayer for the Twelve who represent the Church as it existed prior to Calvary. The words, saved, re-born, once saved always saved aren't mentioned. Christ manifested God's name to "the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word." [John 17:6], save one. The Twelve belong to Christ, there no mention of others. It is in the Apostles Christ says is "in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me." [John 17:23]. It is similar to another place in Scripture where others can abide in Him as He abides in us. But to do that, one consumes Jesus Christ; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. [Cf. John 6:57]. He's speaking to the Twelve Apostles who will form the seed that blooms into the new tree of Israel, the Church.

An Executor is not an executer.

My error, I misread the post.

JoeT

 

[Neostarwcc]

Gods desire of our oneness is for his very sheep to be one with each other.

He desires our doctrines and theologies to be one, for us to completely agree with each other as one, for us to serve and worship God as one. He doesn't want the color of our skin to cause division among us. Our theologies, denominations, ..etc. God desires us to be one yet we keep bickering with each other over who is the greatest or who has the most favor with God when in reality? We are one. Yet, there's this huge veil between us where we cannot see or recognize that. Its called the sin of pride.

Because to God we are one and the same and one day, we will be not just brothers and sisters of God, but one.

True, some of us get more rewards than others. King David the most of all but, God loves all of his sheep just as much as he loved King David. We are all one as God is one with himself.

That's what God desires.

 

[Clare73]

The problem is Clare biblical scholars in all post reformation denominations claim true interpretation of the word.

Do you think the authoritative interpretation of meritorious works in salvation was a Biblically true interpretation?

But they all claim it means DIFFERENT things! Since the meanings they choose on almost all aspects of doctrine are mutually exclusive , most of them are wrong: the only question is which one is right!

Not all "Biblical scholars" are Biblical scholars, just as not all authoritative interpretation was always true.

And the problem remains: authority over the Word of God written likewise has presented, and can present, grievous harm.

Since the reformation , We can find mutually exclusive interpretations on every aspect eg salvation, baptism, eucharist, clergy , contraception/life issues, gay issues, purgation/value of prayer after death, necessity or otherwise of works, role of women etc etc etc. You name it they disagree on it, yet they are all reading the same book. They come to totally different conclusions.

Further evidence is the existence of "confessions" and "articles". If the bible self stood why are they necessary? Most seem to be written to oppose the catholic interpretation.

The splintering into denominations is ALL as a result of different interpretations of scripture as a result of sola scriptura. Until the reformation, doctrine evolved a little but almost all doctrine was unchanged for the first millenium and a half. The divisions of east vs west church were as much about geography as they were about arcane theology like filioque, or what actually happens in the mystery of the eucharist.

The advent of Sola scriptura is the point at which all the divisions began, and continue to this day.

I think all should go back and look at how the canon came to be, the books rejected as well as accepted. It is not just the books were inspired, it is also the canon. Therefore the councils that approved it were inspired.
Now study the meaning of "bind and loose" . What the power means and who it was given to!

 

[HenSoma-OneBody]

Gods desire of our oneness is for his very sheep to be one with each other.

He desires our doctrines and theologies to be one, for us to completely agree with each other as one, for us to serve and worship God as one. He doesn't want the color of our skin to cause division among us. Our theologies, denominations, ..etc. God desires us to be one yet we keep bickering with each other over who is the greatest or who has the most favor with God when in reality? We are one. Yet, there's this huge veil between us where we cannot see or recognize that. Its called the sin of pride.

Because to God we are one and the same and one day, we will be not just brothers and sisters of God, but one.

True, some of us get more rewards than others. King David the most of all but, God loves all of his sheep just as much as he loved King David. We are all one as God is one with himself.

That's what God desires.

So what does it take for someone to be one of His sheep? It sounds like we all are.

 

[JoeT]

God has raised up godly men who are true Biblical scholars over the centuries, who truly interpret his Word written.
There is no authority over the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures.
We all sit under them, no one sits over them.

The verse 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is "inspired", not authoritative. According to Scripture only the Church is authoritative in her powers given by Christ to teach and to Baptize. [Cf. Matthew 28:16-20].

Assigning authority over them causes as much grievous error and damage as does anything else.

Quite the contrary, the Church has explicit authority. [Cf. Matthew 18:18].

With that said, I don't think "sola scriptura" is the cause of disunity. Rather, I would suggest that rationalism, relativism and nominalism are the causes which were first brought into the Body of Christ as modernism in a significant way by Martin Luther.

JoeT.

 

[Neostarwcc]

So what does it take for someone to be one of His sheep? It sounds like we all are.

Exactly. Every child of Abraham is a part of God's sheep. From the Promise to Abraham, to the last days to eternity.

If you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you, guiding you through your life. You are a child of Abraham. I don't care if you're a Orthodox believer, Catholic, Protestant, ...etc. if you have the Holy Spirit God desires us to be one. To love each other, to get along and agree with each other, and one day be heirs to the same promise. Eternal life with God.

Easier said than done but one day we will be perfect.

 

[HenSoma-OneBody]

The verse 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is "inspired", not authoritative. According to Scripture only the Church is authoritative in her powers given by Christ to teach and to Baptize. [Cf. Matthew 28:16-20].



Quite the contrary, the Church has explicit authority. [Cf. Matthew 18:18].

With that said, I don't think "sola scriptura" is the cause of disunity. Rather, I would suggest that rationalism, relativism and nominalism are the causes which were first brought into the Body of Christ as modernism in a significant way by Martin Luther.

JoeT.

Who then will be saved in the end?

 

[HenSoma-OneBody]

Exactly. Every child of Abraham is a part of God's sheep. From the Promise to Abraham, to the last days to eternity.

If you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you, guiding you through your life. You are a child of Abraham. I don't care if you're a Orthodox believer, Catholic, Protestant, ...etc. if you have the Holy Spirit God desires us to be one. To love each other, to get along and agree with each other, and one day be heirs to the same promise. Eternal life with God.

Easier said than done but one day we will be perfect.

Then how does one truly get the Holy Spirit to live inside of them?

 

[Clare73]

Christ made the exception for the son of perdition. [Cf John 17:12],

So Jesus was praying for the eleven, right?

who, by the way, hadn't reveled himself at this point in time. In John's gospel we don't learn of Judas' infamy until the next chapter.
Who Christ is speaking to is as important as what He said.
The entire chapter is a prayer for the Twelve who represent the Church as it existed prior to Calvary.

You think Jesus was interceding for the Son of Perdition in Jn 17:6-19, when he explicitly excluded him in v. 12?

Jesus' High Priestly prayer (Jn 17) before offering the once-for-all Atoning Sacrifice followed the same order as the High Priestly prayer on the Day of Atonement: he made intercession
1) first, for himself and his household (Jn 17:1-19; Lev 16:3, 6, 11; Heb 7:27, 9:7, 12), and
2) then for the people (Jn 17:20-26; Lev 16:15, 17).

The words, saved, re-born, once saved always saved aren't mentioned.

Those words (saved, reborn) are the definition of "those who believe;" i.e., the Church, for whom he is specifically praying (Jn 17:20-21).
Why do you want God's people in the NT Church excluded from Jesus' prayer?

Christ manifested God's name to "the men whom thou hast given me out of the world. Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word." [John 17:6], save one. The Twelve belong to Christ, there no mention of others. It is in the Apostles Christ says is "in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me." [John 17:23]. It is similar to another place in Scripture where others can abide in Him as He abides in us. But to do that, one consumes Jesus Christ; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. [Cf. John 6:57]. He's speaking to the Twelve Apostles who will form the seed that blooms into the new tree of Israel, the Church.


My error, I misread the post.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

Who then will be saved in the end?

I don't have a clue. But, for sure crying "Lord, Lord" isn't necessarily the rule.

JoeT

 

[lsume]

The Lord visited me in my home years ago and I surrendered everything to Him. This had nothing to do with today's false Christianity we see all around us. It was a supernatural encounter that produced a true spiritual rebirth within me and then He sent His advocate to live within me as my guide, teacher, and comforter. I praise Him for His truth and light, it has made the difference for my soul.

Amen!

 

[Clare73]

The verse 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is "inspired", not authoritative.
According to Scripture only the Church is authoritative in her powers given by Christ to teach and to Baptize. [Cf. Matthew 28:16-20].

Are you sure? The following shows Scripture to be authoritative to teach, etc.:

2Tim 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed (theo pneustos) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

"--and the Scripture cannot be broken--" (Jn 10:35)

Assigning authority over Scripture causes as much grievous error and damage as does anything else.

Quite the contrary, the Church has explicit authority. [Cf. Matthew 18:18].

Are you familiar with its history of salvation by meritorious works, which is contrary to Paul in every way?

With that said, I don't think "sola scriptura" is the cause of disunity. Rather, I would suggest that rationalism, relativism and nominalism are the causes which were first brought into the Body of Christ as modernism in a significant way by Martin Luther.

JoeT.

 

[Clare73]

Exactly. Every child of Abraham is a part of God's sheep. From the Promise to Abraham, to the last days to eternity.

Actually, the promises were spoken to Abraham and Christ only (Gal 3:16). Those in Christ are the seed promised to Abraham that would be as numerous as the stars (Ge 15:5). Only the children of Abraham who believed in the Promise (Christ) were part of God's sheep.

If you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you, guiding you through your life. You are a child of Abraham. I don't care if you're a Orthodox believer, Catholic, Protestant, ...etc. if you have the Holy Spirit God desires us to be one. To love each other, to get along and agree with each other, and one day be heirs to the same promise. Eternal life with God.

Easier said than done but one day we will be perfect.

 

[Strong in Him]

An absolute blessing to read your detailed response.

Thank you; that's kind.

If we all would surrender our own minds and become like a child in how we trust the Lord for all things, we would all be able to take on the mind of Christ and be as one. However, most of mankind (the many) is like a disobedient child, and therefore will have no place in the kingdom just as Jesus explained in Matthew 18:2-5. Life in Christ is not, and never will be, about us. It is about our Lord and Creator and we are either true humble servants (the few) of the Lord, or we are lost souls in need of a savior.

Amen. Well said.

 

[Strong in Him]

The verse 2 Timothy 3:16 says Scripture is "inspired", not authoritative. According to Scripture only the Church is authoritative in her powers given by Christ to teach and to Baptize. [Cf. Matthew 28:16-20].

Are you saying that the church is above, and has more authority than, Scripture??
Not a chance.

 

[Clare73]

There is one God, one Gospel, one Saviour, one Spirit. Anyone who accepts Christ as Saviour and Lord and trusts him for eternal life is born again, and anyone who is born again and has received the Spirit is a child of God.
Christians are told to abide in the Vine, to live IN Christ; Paul says that we died with him, are raised to new life and our life is hidden with Christ in God, Colossians 3:3. We are new creations if are in Christ, 2 Corinthians 5:17, and have every spiritual blessing in him, Ephesians 3:3.
So all Christians can, and should, be in Christ. And as Christ and his Father are one, whoever believes in, accepts and receives Christ, receives the Father, and is one with the Father, also. In fact, Jesus came and died so that we might be reconciled to God, and he is the only Way to the Father.



I don't think it was.
I think he is ok with us worshipping in different ways - we are all different after all. But to let different interpretations of Scripture, and different ideas separate us from each other, to the point of argument and animosity must be heart breaking for him. The devil will not destroy the church from the outside - persecution has always made us stronger and caused the church to grow. But he doesn't need to; he is doing a pretty good job of destroying it from within. If believers came together, worshipped and fellowshipped together and all, together, lived for Christ and IN him, the devil would feel so threatened that he'd have to try something drastic, and we'd really know what spiritual warfare was.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not ok with it; not at all.

It's the necessary consequences of so many tares.

 

[fhansen]

So what is the right place to go to where they teach the truth? Jesus said there is only one truth, way, and life?

Well, you may not like the answer but the following outlines the only logical solution I've been able to come to. In the past l'd go round and round arguing Scripture with JW friends as well as Protestants -when I was Protestant myself. And very often we'd all have very plausible arguments based on the bible, while contradicting each other's plausible arguments-and these as often as not were concerned with quite relevant matters of the faith. And the less-than-comfortable truth slowly dawned on me: the bible simply could not answer many questions with any degree of real certainty; it was never intended to serve as a catechism and cannot answer for itself where legitimate controversies arise. It can be quite vague and ambiguous in places. I see many people deferring to, "Well if you just interpret it like myself-objectively-and/or with the guidance of the Holly Spirit, and/or study it diligently in all the original languages and in consideration of historical context, keeping abreast of the latest findings (as good and helpful as all that is), or whatever, then you'll agree with me/us. And even though we reject the doctrine of infallibility we just know that we're right (fallibly right?) and that they're wrong." And either way I've witnessed sincere, highly educated bible scholars go at it intensely, each holding opposing sides of a question.

Our faith has never been a matter of "may-the-better-exegete-win"; may he win the right to determine truths of the faith IOW-at least until a better exegete comes along- as if exegesis/bible study is what's it’s all about. That’d be a pretty sad and absurd notion, leaving no real solid ground to base one’s faith on. And arguably most believers down through the centuries have been illiterate to begin with.

Taking a defensive position some people simply begin drawing their doctrinal lines farther back in the sand: "Well, we can't and don't need to know everything; maybe this or that belief isn't really so important after all, so long as we at least agree on such and such. Then we can be more inclusive-and confirm our unity/agreement." But there’ll always be another reasonable argument against “such and such” and then the line must be drawn further back yet. Christianity is inherently exclusive in any case, setting forth a body of truths in a world that often embraces falsehood and may seem to prefer ignorance instead, in fact, while desperately in need of truth.

There must be one, locatable, unified faith that extends back to the beginnings, to Christ. His disciples received and preached the gospel before a word of the New Testament was written. They helped others, such as the Bereans and the Ethiopian Eunuch, to understand OT Scripture where they could not understand it on their own-until the light of the gospel opened things up. There must be a group, a church, that was divinely established that maintains the true gospel intact despite human limitations, weaknesses, bumblings, and sinfulness-and against false gospels. And that church can only be one that has a continuous historical legacy dating back to the beginning. And such a church can be found in the east and in the west and I'd begin to look seriously, on my own, there. There really cannot be any other way for one to adequately know the faith without including the lens of lived experience. In fact, I'd be inclined to give up the faith altogether if Scripture was all I had to go on now, due to the uncertainty I'd have to live with. Our faith is about crucial supernatural truths here- not about opinions on some scientific theory, or the best way to prepare risotto. Accuracy, to the extent possible, and to the extent God allows, is critical, otherwise we may as well all go home. Jesus came to reveal God, to give us knowledge so that we may believe because now we have something to believe in. So the fuller the knowledge we have of His revelation, of the truth, the better, of course.

And without the historical church Christianity probably wouldn’t even exist today since the church carried the torch of faith down through the centuries, and assembled the canon of scripture, and battled heresy at councils, hammered out the creeds, etc. We already all benefit from and are influenced by that history, more than we’ll know. I’m not claiming that my particular church is the right one; I’m just saying it’s important to look back into the Christian past. Compare early church father’s beliefs to those of present-day Christianity. Study the early councils, early church histories, catechisms, creeds, etc. Pray, seek truth, wherever it might lead. I just don’t see any other avenue to attaining anything close to real unity, as things were originally. There has to be a visible place where the doctrinal buck can stop in any case. We're all Christians as believers, and more or less perfectly united to God's church, but that church necessarily has only one faith, one body of beliefs.

If I haven’t lost you, I’d recommend reading the canons of the 2nd Council of Orange, through the “Conclusions” at the end. There you’ll hear firsthand the opinion of the church some 500+ years after our Lord regarding a matter that had become controversial: the workings of grace, of God, in a person’s life. The anathemas were the language of the era and were aimed at shunning opposers of the truth, the truth that had come to be held as so vital to the common good of and potential peace for all humankind. Anyway, I was quite surprised to find myself ever darkening the nave of any of the ancient churches, but study and truth and prayer are what got me there as far as I was concerned. Just the differences on teachings regarding justification, to my own surprise, were and have been quite important as I had previously affirmed the Reformed position. And it's not that we can't and don't receive much benefit from Scripture reading or bible study, and our recognition of the truth-of God's voice-in the bible is absolutely valid. It's just that we easily miss or mistake much. All Christians believe that the bible is God's word. But interpretations vary greatly regardless.

 

[Clare73]

So what is the right place to go to where they teach the truth? Jesus said there is only one truth, way, and life?

The right place to go is a church which believes the Bible is the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.
Then begin learning them for yourself, not haphazardly but as in studying, asking the Holy Spirit to lead you to a right understanding and a church which teaches that.

God will direct your steps to the place for you, maybe not in a month, but stay with your study and prayer for the right place for you, and it will happen.