Why Are There So Many Divisions in the Church?

Just a note, Pre-Mill does not mean Pre-trib, I am Post-trib all the way! As I think Michael also?

And just a note to my EO brothers, we cannot argue the sola Scriptura issue here!

Fr Robert,

That’s worth a post of it’s own! While i can see all sides of the debate, I do not think that is particularly relevant in this particular discussion, so don’t think we should make that in issue here in discussing the original OP.

Dogma was determined by men not God. The appeal was to human reasoning and philosophy more than Scripture and none of the beliefs you list (true or false) were ever shared by the whole “Church” in the first three centuries nor even after that.

What do the Scriptures teach without human philosophy is the crux of the matter, not what men decided, even at times as directed or decide by Rulers, is what is critical. Everyone claims to hold to dogma, but Jesus words about the weeds makes anything that came out of the”Church’ after the end of the 1st century highly suspect.

What did Jesus say would identify his followers/disciples? Dogma or???

Great topic, one that deserves much discussion, given that there are something like 6,000 distinct denominations now recognized in the world. Very sad indeed, given that Christ and the Apostles said that we should be one, as the Father and Son are one.

I have moved from Arminian and pre-mil to Calvinist and Post-mil in the course of 30 years from much study and reading of books. I also hold to exclusive psalmody and non-use of instruments in worship, a position very few hold today even though it was the solid majority position of Christian thought for some 1500 years.

I think a primary reason for division is ignorance of other positions and, unfortunately in many cases, good old sinful pride. If you are in one environment all of your life, it is hard to know of, let alone comprehend, other belief positions or systems.

I think the Credo House should be an ideal environment for the sharing of different beliefs, and arguments presented defending the belief’s position. Frankly, I think both eschatology and congregational worship are two doctrines that need to be desperately debated and discussed today. I do not believe the advancement of the Kingdom against a hostile culture and society can be achieved without a proper understanding of these doctrines.

Can this possibly be advanced in the future with Credo House?

For Christ’s Crown and Covenant,

Randy Harris
Heritage Presbyterian Church, PCA
Oklahoma City, OK

I disagree with you on Calvinism. I also disagree with Arminianism. Why is it one or the other?

On your “possible reasons” list, you said: “Others don’t agree with me because we don’t have an infallible authoritative interpreter of Scripture that would bring doctrinal unity (lack of a Pope).”

Don’t forget about The Helper bro. The Holy Spirit trumps the pope any day. This is one of the reasons why the book of John is my favorite of the Gospels. I’m lost without the Holy Spirit. John 16:13. I’m desperate for Him.

On “pre-election,” what is your take on scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:1-6? or John 3:17…

ps. Thanks again for having Dr. Mike Licona. That was an awesome night.

I would point out that I can be tolerant of other viewpoints because I have held so many myself at one time or another. However, I would also point out that we receive contradictory orders in the NT. We are told to resist the evil one, and stand firm against him. Likewise we are told to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. And to make it even more confusing, he who is not against Christ is for Him.

Now are we to show tolerance or are we to stand firm against those who disagree with us?

Michael – This is a very good article. Let me suggest a third possibility that I have come to consider in the course of my theological and spiritual walk.

It is quite possible that we disagree because we are asking the wrong questions. Our studies of theology often forced us into paradigms and theological grids through which we interpret all else, often leading to conflict with people having other theological paradigms. But there is a possibility that we are simply asking the wrong questions in our theological pursuits – questions that have stemmed from conflicts that no longer exists and may not have existed for the original writers of the texts we hold dear.

Whenever, I get into a conflict, particularly the ones that may affect the unity of the church, I always ask – “Am I asked the right thing of this text? Would this even have been an issue for those early Jewish writers?”

Of course, I might be wrong here. 😉

@Bob Anderson, your point about asking the wrong questions is key to this whole debate. The dogmas that @Fr. Robert and @Ryan referred to in several of their posts, are absolutely human extractions from Scripture as @Paul Leonard correctly pointed out. Many of them–including the dogma of the Trinity itself–were constructed to clarify or establish the answers to questions that had not been posed, let alone conclusively answered, by the authors of our canonical books.

It startles me how the church does not seem to recognize the hubris implied in helping God out by clarifying ambiguities in the truth he revealed…

There is old cliche which says we should endeavor to “disagree without being disagreeable”. I hold to this since it makes sense.

The fact is, you and I may disagree, even on issues we consider fundamental, and remain firm friends for life. Our conversations and discussions may be, at times, heated and passionate, but this still does not have to affect our relationship. This may even happen if I am totally convinced of my rightness.

While the writer exalts diversity I tend to emphasize relationship. Maintaining relationship and building friendship ought never to be sacrificed on the altar of rightness.

And do not worry about infallibility. Christian charity and humility will almost certainly take care of that.

There were already 58 comments when I read this, so I apologize if someone has already said this.

1) Many of the things that Christians disagree about simply don’t matter. It’s not that the disagreement has value, rather it may simply be irrelevant. Pre-trib or not? We’ll find out when it happens but nobody’s going to hell over it.

2) It is possible that there are *multiple* right answers. Who can know the mind of God? Couldn’t a God who never changes operate Calvinistically in once situation and Armenianistically in another, and still be a God who never changes because he ALWAYS had both options at his disposal?

It is my experience that most of the things Christians debate about, we debate because we present the problem as an either-or scenario. “Either I’m right or you are.” What about “both right?” Or both wrong? Or either-or.

If God was always an either-or God, we would be more likely to figure these things out. But we can’t seem to. Perhaps that is evidence that we’re not supposed to agree because, from God’s perspective, there is no conflict. Of course, debate is healthy and good. I’m just saying there is another reason people don’t agree with you. Sometimes the problem isn’t supposed to resolve to agreement, rather to compatability. Or humility. The questions keep us leaning into Him rather than our own ability to figure it out. The search for “THE right answer” is valuable (and fun!). But most of the time, agreement…

I agree! But people do not want to bow down to what Jesus said!! They dont want to confront that there (what they think) holy spirit is revealimg to them. The fact is this. The Holy Spirit opened there eyes to the scriptures, not our eyes. Isarel has been redemmed, we have no salvation apart from there’s! All Isarel has been saved (then) as in the 12 tribes being one again under Jesus reigning. He sits on davids throne, (when they were one tribe) and rules!! We must be willing to say I am, was wrong!! If we really love God! The bible was not written to us, its left for us! But we muat put our mindset in the old testamemt, they taught out of it. Todays Christianity teaches a different gosple than what Paul preaches.

Aahh! My clincher got cut off! My last line (up a couple comments) was “Agreement is overrated.”

Here is one good point of view:

“being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points tat concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain,) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with St. Augustine….”

Now I like to come to a confident assurance of various points so well as I can, however, this point of view, or like it is what I come to. I am not Reformed, or I would say that I am, but I have difficulty with the five points. But then when I am around a confident (old fashioned) Methodist or Arminian, then I find willingness in me to contest that certainty. That above stated point of view that I quoted being from the translators to the reader, of the King James Bible.

Enjoying the discussion 🙂

Wow–THAT is way cool! How freeing to remember that God is big enough and to keep in perspective that point on humility. Thank u!

When Christ tells us to enter by the narrow door, there have always been some who think that means “Don’t drink, smoke, or chew.” I rather see it like a ridge from which one can fall off to the right or to the left. One cannot but agree with your general statement that humility and the possibility of being wrong in our opinions is wise. However, where hubris represents the cliff on the right, relativism represents the cliff on the left. Both lead to destruction.
Where honest agreements exist in the Church, there is usually a reason for them. I call myself a Calvinist, but I also believe that God has given humankind a kind of choice based on reason and conscience that the lower species do not have. This means that there is a very subtle distinction between predestination, which makes room for this choice, and predeterminism, which does not. Still, I do not believe there are any maverick molecules in the cosmos.

Where more essential doctrines come into play (like the inerrancy of Scripture), I will admit there are believers in Christ who do not understand that this is both necessary and true. Certainly, as baby Christians, we may not expect them to believe this. And others may err because they are being led by unbelieving shepherds. Nonetheless, once the error is believed, given our human propensity to idolatry, each person will pick construct the Gospel & Christ of their choice.

In these matters, I think we should expect more of our leaders than…

Jn 17:21
Jn 16:13
I think that the gift of infallibility is in order. Otherwise, God failed in this divine Promise.

Jesus ordered the Faithful to follow the precepts given by the Scribes and Pharisees just **because they have taken the seat (Office) of Moses**. So must we to those who have taken the Seat (Office) of the Apostles.

I love to read John Wesley! And also Charles Hymns! Both of the Wesley brother’s were always Anglicans. And the case has been made theologically that John was always close to Luther’s doctrine of Justfication. As too perhaps he was close to Calvin here also (see his Journal, Tues. May 14, 1765). Justification was always by faith, plus nothing for John and Charles Wesley!

Wesley could write in 1790, just a year before his death: “About fifty years ago I had a clearer view than before of justification by faith; and in this, from that very hour, I never varied, no, not a hair’s breath.” And from his ‘Notes on the NT’.. Thus the foundation of justification rests on man’s sinfulness aand Christ’s righteousness.”

Whatever has become of the Methodist Church? The Wesley’s were Reformational here! Btw, note as Michael has, the grand book by Oden: The Justification Reader, simply sweet and historical! Also Oden has a fine book on the life and theology of John Wesley.

Thats not gonna happen. Why? Jesus opened there eys the meaning of the scriptues. Our eyes aren’t open!! We read the bible with western 21st. century eyes, and coinside the meaning of prophecy with todays headlines. Jesus was talking to the disciples, and told them things they would see, and hear. We weren’t there. He’s not talking to us, nor were those words written to us. Were not apostles, were not Holy Spirit inapired!! The Holy Spirit will not translate the bible from greek to english.

@sam, I would love to take on this subject with you! But this wee blog post here is not it! The whole doctrine of chiliasm, or millennialism is simply ancient! With many early “fathers”, from Irenaeus to Tertullian, with of course Papias and Justin. Note too, the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus of Pettau (third century). And note here too btw, that Jerome stifled the orginal chapters of Rev. 20 and 21, with his own non-chiliastic interpetation. The undoctored version came out in 1916 (Haussleiter’s edition). But we must leave it here! The historical point is hopefully made!

*I would myself, state the late date & idea of full Preteristism! Also note too, I have been both A-Mill and Post-Mill, in my past. But Historic Pre-Mill for about 20 years now.

@sam: I can appreciate your “zeal” here, I have my real zeal also, especially for certain truth or trues! But, pressing an eschatological position in dogmatic fashion, I hope would not be one of them, overtly. However, for me at least, a full Preterist position is over the historical line, and looses the reality of the literal and personal Second Coming of Christ. Note Rev. 1:7..”Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so Amen.” This is both historical and eschatological! As is Rev. 22! And after chapter 19 of Revelation, chapters 20 thru 22 certainly run together, no recapitulation here! Sorry, I will curtail to my own advice. 😉 But did want to make a few points on the open blog.

@Dam Martin: We Anglican Churchmen call it the ‘development of theological doctrine’, which presses itself from out of Apostolic Dogma! Certainly we see this in the doctrine of the Trinity of God! (It was always there, in scripture, but only pressed out and understood by the Church, as the Church and “mainstay” of the truth, 1 Tim. 3:15, in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit! Who is Himself, the ‘Vicar of Christ’.)

PS…@Dan: I say “Anglican” Churchmen, and here let me recommend a classic book by a one time great Anglican, J.N.D. Kelly – Early Christian Doctrines!

Well i see your not fimuliar with old testament language. Coming on clouds is all thru the old testament. Do a phrase study. Its a metaphore for coming judgment, norhing to do with any clouds. All the tribes of the land will mourn, even those who pierced Him. The tribes of the land is Isarel, land, earth in scripture is Isarel. The tribes is the 12 tribes, thats the eys will see (understand) and who are the ones whopierced Him? The jewish leaders. Jesus said that to the jewish leaders who took Him. He said to them quoting daniel 9 and psalms.He said to them YOU (Then not anyone else) will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God coming on the clouds with heaven. That was directed twards them, not us here or anybody in the future. Rev. 1 The revalation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His servants what must SOON take place. When written the readers k ew that it was all gonna happen SOON. Not 2000 or more inthere future. John is told notto seal up( the oppisate of dan.) Why? Cause the time was NEAR. not in the far future. Matt 16 the last verses Jesus tells the disciples that some of them willbe alive to see Him coming into His kingdom. John 21 Jesus tells peter that John will he alive when He returns. Thats Jesus words! You are saying that Jesus didn’t come in Johnslife time. Thats scarry!! I won’t get into matt 5:17,18 yet. But read it. It goes against afuture coming.

Fr. Robert,

Augustine is considered a Saint by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (Greek Orthodox):

But yes, you are correct, most EOs call him “Blessed Augustine” rather than “St. Augustine”.

From an eastern point of view, his tinkering with our understanding of the Holy Trinity led directly to the filoque and the Great Schism; and as you know, tinker with the creed and the east gets cranky. 🙂

St. Augustine’s understand of Greek wasn’t that great, and he used some Latin translations of the Scriptures that were of questionable quality when formulating his opinions. Augustine did not have a lot of communications with his eastern contemporaries.

Doesn’t it bother you just a little that SO MUCH of western doctrine is based upon just one man’s work?

Glory to God for all things

I hate to break it to you. The unity(balance) between agreement and disagreement can be found in … Holy Catholic Church… the exact one you have so little knowledge about and have no problem attacking …

Sorry.

@Fr. Robert, if what you mean is a magisterial authority that we lowly laymen should just trust without question, I’m afraid as an Anabaptist I’m forever lost to that particular line of “reasoning.” I am, of course, amused by your specification that it is, of course, the Anglican magisterium, as opposed to all the others, that should be so trusted… ;{)

And to the point…maybe it was “always there” in Scripture, and maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t. An alternative explanation, and to me a far more coherent one, is that it’s an extrabiblical, even postbiblical establishment of a purported truth that God must’ve forgotten to reveal in Jesus…obviously I’m caricaturing for a reason. That reason is that I believe magisteria in general have been all too eager to go beyond what is written, to the very great detriment (and often schism) of the Body of Christ. The subtle back-and-forth between you and the EO folks on this thread only illustrates my point.

@sam Yes, I think I am quite “famillar” with the OT, and its language! I actually READ my Bible daily and can do (read) both the original Hebrew and Greek. Though I confess outside of the Books (note Books) of the Psalms, I read my Greek NT for my A.M. devotion, daily. Something us Anglican priests/presbyters are enjoined to do, at our ordination! Now you have spoken your piece, as I have, hopefully we can move on. We will not solve this here!

(But I do love the OT. especially Genesis, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Isaiah, Jeremiah, (includes Lamentations), Ezekiel, and here of course Daniel couples on.)

Btw, note Hosea 3: 5, for both Jews & Gentiles, as “Israel” (the remnant) especially looks for the Restoration!

Just a note, but you should check for spelling! Looks better! 😉 I am an old teacher! 🙂

I’ll put $20 down on Fr. Robert. He’s got Fr in his name and sam isn’t even capitalized. So tI’m giving him the edge based purely on moniker. Any odds-makers in the mix? Actually, since we’ll never know for sure who’s right, sam or Fr Robert, until it’s over, I’ll be there with my $20 ready to pay the winner, whoever it turns out to be! 🙂 Of course, that raises the age-old debate of whether your can “take it with you.” Never mind.

@rob
You have not addressed matt 16, and john 21 the last verses? Jesus tell peter that John will be alive when returns. Matt 16 Jesus tells the disciple that some of them won’t tast death till they see His return. Not to mention all the day of the Lord is at hand, soon, near. Why have you not addresed to verses. They go against your future A2nd coming. I want you you to adress them. If Jesus told Peter that John will be alive to see His return, then how do you put it out of his life time. Can you answer?

It is dully noted that Rob. Has brought no scripture to the table, to support any future end of the world 2nd coming. Jesus told the disciples in matt 16 ” the Son will come with the glory of the Father with His Holy angles and His reward will be with Him. There are some standing here who will not tast death till they see the son of man coming into His kingdom. How can there be a future coming in our future if Jesus told them some of them.will be alive to see His return? John 21 Jesus tells peter that John will be alive to see His return. Jesus own worxs put the 2nd coming in the 1st century. Now Rob…. can you dispute Jesus own words to His dosciples?

@Dan: Us classic Anglicans – at least – don’t have a wiff of “magisterial” authority, save Scripture & Creed! 😉

And my EO Brethren, are awesome on the Ecumenical Councils, that for us Anglicans means especially: Nicene, Athanasius, and the Apostles Creed. Btw, Luther was fully Catholic/Orthodox on the Nicene Creed! But, certainly we Reformational and Reformed Christians stand foresquare on sola Scriptura! 🙂

I hope Dan, your not anti-trinitarian? That would be very bad! It is one thing not to understand the Trinity of God (I mean who does fully, none of us!), but to speak against our Triune God, would be real error, if not more!

And btw, Creed is simply something of an extension of the statement of the Holy Scripture; perhaps it is the church’s mainstay and function, though it is not infallible, fully. Again we historic Anglican are very close to the EO on the Ecumenical Councils. I think it is save to say, that Orthodoxy has lead the way on Christology and the Trinity of God. But even their history is human and sometimes flawed. Of course the last statement is my belief, and not theirs.

@Pete: Thanks, yes I knew that about some of the Greek Orthodox. Yes, we all “tinker” don’t we, but in the end.. God is still God! I read Augustine’s De Trinitate, when I was a young teen, that with his Confessions grabbed my heart, and a bit later, I had a classic “Augustinian” conversion. However, I would add that both Luther and Calvin later helped move me to a Reformational and Reformed Anglicanism. I have had some ups and downs, but I am still a basic Reformed Anglican.

For me at least, Augustine’s later position on Romans 7, is the most pure Pauline direction, on those Texts. And as I have stated, the whole doctrine of Imputation and Adoption, is certainly Pauline to my mind! Yes, I believe the Federal Headship is so central, biblically & theologically! Here is centred the Salvation History & Covenant/covenants of God!

And yes, Augustine certainly is fallible, but his neo-Platonism appears the closest thing to the mind and Greco-Roman Paul! Note the Platonic of the Book of Hebrews also. I like Tertullian too, his work on the Antiteses in God is just brilliant!

Michael I just wanted to share that I’ve had some rough experiences with High Calvinists and extreme Predestination people in the past and I am SO glad to have found your site and Podcasts because now I see that there are some open minded, honest and loving Calvinists out there.

@sam: I don’t not want to get bogged down on this subject on Michael’s blog, and I gave some scripture, you just did not address mine either! And this is pressed as it appears from your EO positions. Which is fine, but again, I did not want this to get into an East/West divide! There are many other Christians on this blog, that are simply not so EO, or Anglican keen!

Finally, I will say this, Jesus DID NOT tell Peter he would be alive at His “Second Coming”, but that He would certainly “come” for Peter, at his death and martyrdom! “AS for you, follow me!” (verse 22 ; see John 21: 18-19, also). So actually John sought to lay to rest the idea or rumor that Christ had promised to come or return during John’s lifetime.

I.e. John alive at his Coming.

@Ken Moorer: I have too, 😉 and I am a “Calvinist”, though I like some of the FV, or Federal Vision ideas.

@Fr. Robert, not so much “anti-Trinitarian” as non-Trinitarian. I do not wish to hijack Michael’s blog, so I will be brief:

I am troubled that classic definitions of the Trinity do not properly engage with the many ways Jesus represented himself as both other than, and subordinate to the Father. The dogma of the Trinity seems to me to oversimplify the tension between that reality and the (also true) reality that Jesus claimed divinity. I likewise see a heavy weight of scriptural evidence toward a non-personal Holy Spirit.

But most importantly, I see the scriptural witness not caring nearly as much about the ontology of God, Christ, and the Spirit, as about their work and reality. So my biggest objection is taking the peripheral question of ontology and making it an orthodox hill to die on.

If you want to engage me on this issue, which I would welcome, it’s probably kinder to our host to take it over to my blog (my name is the link) where there is a whole subject category on Trinity.

The problem with dogma, such as the Trinity, is that it is NOT taught in Scripture.

It is acknowledged that the Trinity Doctrine/Dogma is NOT explicit in Scripture, rather a developed doctrine, over several centuries, by men.

Setting aside the question of it being true or not, it can’t be “dogma” or a required belief, let alone the so-called “Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith”, unless it is explicit in Scripture. If it isn’t it is simply a doctrine of man.

To test this myself I figured that reading the writings of those who were taught by the Apostles would help clarify it. OK, NONE of the 1st century Fathers in any way speak of a Trinity and in fact Matthete’s words are somewhat anti- trinitarian. IF it wasn’t explicit in Scripture, or the writings of any 1st century “Father” taught by an Apostle, it can’t really be classed as Dogma.

@Dan: The simple reality is that we will never solve this great mystery of God’s Tri-unity! It is a doctrine of faith, simply and yet profoundly.

One of the places I have found great light, theologically, is from the Axiomatic Unity of the “Economic” and “Immanent” Trinity. This is a theological piece taken from the Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, from his little but very packed book: The Trinity. Indeed God’s economy in time, must be seen from God’s Immutability outside time, with His Incarnation in time. And it is here btw, that we should see God’s ontology.

Also, perhaps you should check out Origen on the Trinity, he always has the aspect of subordination centrally understood.

@Paul Leonard: YOU, seem to have a complete block here, i.e. a presuppositional answer already set in stone! No dialogue with the Text that I can see? And if we look at Irenaeus, we can surely see the “economic” aspects to the Trinity of God in place.

Mr. Leonard, I find it odd that everything for 1900 years is chaff. I also find it odd that a book, which many of us read in translation (the Bible), and has no original manuscripts but only textual witnesses that date after the first century (in the case of the NT), is the only thing of value. My point is how can we trust 3700 years of history for Scripture but absolutely diminish everything else human, except the afore mentioned preservation and transmission of sacred writ?

The Church, though flawed and sinful in her earthly state, is still the body of Jesus Christ the Lord, and is therefore also holy. I lament that the Roman Church’s mistakes disabused its posterity (Protestant Churches) of any love for history and Tradition.

To clarify another thing: Every bit of Trinitarian and Dogmatic belief is based entirely on Scripture. It would not be dogma at all if the Fathers had not been convinced that it was in Scripture and proper to believe for the salvation of our person. Believe it or not, thought the early fathers were philosophers, etc. they became Fathers because they were preeminent Biblical Scholars. Just read Athanasios, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Hilary, Irenaeus, Cyril of Alexandria and Cyril of Jerusalem and you’ll find that they knew Scripture, and more importantly, they knew and loved Christ.

That is my Orthodox opinion. Note: I grew up a circle that believes very similarly to you Mr. Leonard and I appreciate your desire for integrity and…

@Fr. Robert, and the whole question of “Economic” vs. “Immanent” Trinity is completely unnecessary unless one has first (1) assumed a dogma or doctrine of the Trinity and (2) encountered biblical issues with it that need to be resolved. Resolving it is so much simpler if we were simply to admit “well, obviously we didn’t quite get that one right.” I’m afraid the Fathers painted themselves into a corner and didn’t have the humility to acknowledge that they weren’t quite as infallible as they thought.

And surely you are aware that God’s immutability is a Platonic, not a Biblical doctrine. Heck, even God outside of time owes more to pagan Greek thought than Scripture which shows a God acting dynamically within time.

But I’m afraid we disagree on too many points that you clearly see as dogmatic, and I claim are extrabiblical. We both hold the Scriptures to be authoritative, but we diverge on the authority of the second, third, fourth-century (and on) church fathers. That’s a pretty big chasm to cross, I’m afraid.

Robert,

I am perfectly willing to dialogue with the text. Maybe you can provide a verse that clearly and explicitly teaches a Trinity?

@Ryan, your objection can only be seen to diminish the authority of Scripture, not to elevate anything else. While the Scriptural record may or may not be complete, reliable, or infallible, at least some of us who hold to Sola Scriptura merely state that nothing else rises even to whatever diminished level you may hold that Scripture. In practice this means that whatever you may say about the imperfection of the Scriptural record, nothing that isn’t substantiated by what we have of Scripture can rise to the level of dogma.

In your defense of the Church’s authority, you fail to recognize that the Body of Christ on earth is the assembly of *all* who acknowledge Jesus’ lordship, not merely those who have been ordained, or have arrogated to themselves, titles of leadership in it. You said “It would not be dogma at all if the Fathers had not been convinced that it was in Scripture and proper to believe for the salvation of our person.” Well and good. But the Fathers were not infallible, and just as today people can be convinced something is in Scripture even if it isn’t (cf. “sam’s” treatment of Jesus’ return), so to they.

Mr. Martin. No Father that I’m aware of believed infallibility as an option, that is a very late doctrine of Roman descent. Have you ever Gregory Nazianzus’ work “On God and Christ”? The Cappadocians were very amazing theologians and are worth reading. It is a small and inexpensive book from SVS Press.

Hi Ryan,

I did not say everything was chaff. Jesus simply told us the weeds would be there from shortly after his death until today. He clearly said that we were not to try to remove the weeds as that would endanger wheat. Fine that makes it pretty clear that the Church became filled with weeds.

John makes this perfectly clear in Rev 2 and 3 (as does Paul) and the 1st century “Fathers”. It should be noted that the congregation in Rev 2 and 3 were Eastern Churches . Further John said he was in the “Lord’s Day” placing the vision both in his time and the Last Days.

I believe there is much of value aside from the Scripture BUT it must be in complete agreement with CLEAR and EXPLICIT Scripture or it is just opinion. The Body of Christ is the true members, NOT the “Church” as after all what is the “Church”, the organization, the Clergy, all members, or some members who are NOT weeds?

As to the Trinity being based on Scripture, that is clearly not the case or Greek Philosophy would not have been needed to explain it and no disagreement would have existed. Some came to believe in a Trinity as defined over centuries. Others never did. Saying the “Church” accepted it is not entirely correct. SOME of the “Church” did, but were they wheat or weeds? Was their behavior in harmony with clear and explicit Scripture or at odds with it? That would be critical.

As to becoming preeminent “Fathers”, some were later rejected for their views. They were men. Imperfect men.

I’m not saying the Fathers claimed infallibility. In fact a number of them explicitly stated otherwise, Augustine most definitely among them. But when Christians today suggest that what the Fathers concluded is not open to further challenge against Scripture, they (those modern Christians) are in essence ascribing to the Fathers an infallibility they themselves likely would not have countenanced.

And no, I’ve not read the work to which you allude. Since I can’t lay my fingers on it at the moment, I would only ask one question…the same one I ask of all patristic doctrines: Did they build their case on (quoting and referring to) Scripture, or did they make (to them) logical inferences based on applying extrabiblical standards or assumptions to Scripture? These are not the same thing…as I pointed out to Fr. Robert in re: God’s immutability and timelessness.

@Paul Leonard, we’ve gotta connect. We’re obviously looking at a similar perspective on both hermaneutics and church history. If you want to email without posting your email online for all the spammers to grab, drop a comment on my blog and I’ll see the email behind it without publishing it.