Why Doesn’t Everyone Agree with Me?
I am a Calvinist; others are Arminian. I believe in a premillenial eschatology; others are amillenial. I am a traducianist with regards to the creation of the soul; others are creationists. I believe in reasoned inerrancy; others believe this is an archaic naive doctrine. There are many points of doctrinal division I am going to have with people, some of which are much more important than others.
Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these divisions demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?
There are a few different ways that I could answer this.
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied deeply enough (lack of scholarship).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied broadly enough (lack of perspective).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have not studied long enough (lack of wisdom).
- Others don’t agree with me because their traditional prejudices have created a learning “disability” that keeps them from the truth (lack of freedom of thought).
- Others don’t agree with me because they have sin in their life that is blinding them to the truth (lack of holiness).
- 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).
- Others don’t agree with me because they are not Christian. If they were, well . . . they would agree with me! (lack of salvation)
Generally speaking, I do not default to these possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, these really are all possibilities. It could be that people deny the truth (assuming that my position is such) due to ignorance, lack of perspective or wisdom, traditional bindings, sin, lack of authority, or a presupposition of godlessness or naturalism. But I think we need to be careful about any negative prejudgments about people’s motives and the ultimate reasons for disagreements.
We normally don’t know.
Here are the considerations I would aspire to make before I fall back upon the previously mentioned possibilities.
Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong.
Granted, I am convicted I am right. If this were not the case, I would simply change my position. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, tradition-bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility, as hard as it is to do.
There are some things of which I am more sure than others. For example, I am far less likely to be wrong about the existence of God than I am about my belief in a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. As well, I am humbled by the fact that there are many things I used to believe that I no longer do. I held to these former beliefs with (what seems to be) just as much conviction as many of the beliefs that I hold to now. What do I do with that? In most of those cases, the evidence, or lack thereof, militated against my previous doctrinal commitments and forced me to make hard adjustments. Very hard adjustments. For example, I used to believe that if someone did not accept the doctrine of inerrancy, they were not Christian. This was due to my fundamentalist presuppositions no doubt, but when faced with the evidence – that there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet love and trust the same Christ as me – my position either had to change, or slumber in the bedroom of naiveté. I still have those decisions to make. It is called learning.
What I must realize is this: there is not one belief that I hold to which is protected by infallibility. Infallibility is the other side of the coin of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty can only be held by those who have all the information and are interpreting it correctly. To be infallible means that you cannot fail. Since I am not infallible, by definition, I can fail. All of my beliefs are subject to my attribute of fallibility. There is no one who possesses infallibility. Even Roman Catholics who try to alleviate themselves of this reality by trusting in the dictates of an infallible magisterial authority, such as the Pope, inevitably face the same problem, since their own trust in the infallible authority of the Pope is fallible. The same holds true for Evangelicals and our infallible Bible. Our belief in the Bible is fallible, even if the Bible itself is not. No one can escape their own fallibility. Therefore we all could be wrong. We are left to rely on a process of examining and weighting the evidence and following it wherever it leads. This will often cause us to change our beliefs.
Therefore, serious consideration must always be given to the proposition that people don’t agree with me because I am the one who is wrong.
Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, regardless of who is right.
This may sound odd, but we must consider it. I said earlier that I was a Calvinist. While this does not give me exclusive right to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, it does require me to consider what part it might play in the question: Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? What I am really asking is this: Why isn’t everyone unified around the truth?
I believe that it is a real possibility—even likelihood—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity right now. In fact, practically speaking, it could do more harm than good. I believe doctrinal disagreements are often healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing viewpoints, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron in the same way.
I am not in any sense trying to relativize the truth, but to help us understand that wrong beliefs, even our own, could be serving the purpose of God and bringing Him more honor than we recognize. It is often said that heresy is God’s gift to the church. Why? Because when a false option is presented the truth becomes much clearer. In contrast there is clarity. In clarity there is conviction.
It is for this reason that we must be continually engaged with alternative options. As hard as it is to engage in beliefs that go against our present convictions, we need to recognize the value of the struggle. Herein lies what I believe to be one of the greatest strengths of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura—it presents the opportunity to wrestle with the issues at a level that is not allowed for in magisterium-based traditions.
What I am saying is this: it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Wrong belief is often (though not always) the result of sin. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignified reason for conflict resulting from diversity. In the end, we will find that through the conflict our beliefs become stronger, not weaker. I believe we must open ourselves up to the possibility of being wrong in order to find truer faith and conviction.
In Celebration of Division
We have learned to celebrate diversity in every area of life. We celebrate the diversity of the sexes. Men: can you imagine a world where women did not contribute to a balanced perspective? That is horrifying. Women, can you imagine the opposite (don’t answer that!)? Think of the diversity among personalities, nations, political parties, age groups, and cultures. While we may believe that our opinion is correct (and it may be), from a certain perspective we can appreciate dissent in values, beliefs, and practices. Understanding diversity can often cause us to see that the answer to many issues is going to be more of a both/and rather than an either/or. We could both be right and we could both be wrong.
In the end, if God is in control, then the answer to my question is relatively simple. Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Because it is not God’s will for them to do so. This is to His glory. Why? His will is better accomplished through diversity. In this I think we can learn to celebrate diversity without yielding to the postmodern matrix of relativism, uncertainty, or apathy.
276 replies to "Why Are There So Many Divisions in the Church?"
Yes, I can see how you would think that we Orthodox are lacking in these realms. We, as far as I know, don’t use any of that language and those ideas are pretty far away from how we approach the subject. I do think though that it wouldn’t take much time for us to realize that we just approach a similar belief from a different direction using different language.
With reference to the Word of God, I diverge from you. John 1:1 tells us that the Word of God became flesh. The Bible is a divine account of salvific history, calling all unto faith in the Word. In this light I think that we as humans, through our freedom, are accepting or rejecting God’s living and resurrected Word.
You are right about today’s world…we like to brow beat sinners with God’s word, forgetting that God’s Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us, and came not to judge but to redeem.
Thanks Fr. you’re a good sport.
@pete again, no I am not setting myself up as an infallible interpreter, I am merely denying anyone else’s infallibility. This is the sense in which I really resonated with Michael’s original post. I heard in his words a welcome humility I rarely encounter in the church. I’m really not trying to say everyone else is wrong, except insofar as they set themselves or their dogmas as beyond discussion or challenge. Put differently, I am not trying to convert any of you, only to get you to acknowledge the possibility that a faithful follower of Jesus, honestly engaging with the Scriptures and other brethren, might conceivably come to some of the conclusions I have. Even that’s probably a fool’s errand. Like I said, I thought I heard it in the OP which I still appreciate and endorse.
Peace, y’all!
@Ryan: We all come from some “place”, mine was Irish Roman Catholicism, raised in Dublin. However I was later theologically educated in England. Though my first degree was a BA in philosophy, from a R. Catholic college. And herein I was early affected by Augustine and even Catholic Augustinianism. Also since my father, uncles, etc., all fought in WWII, I was raised with a military mind, and history therein. Thus my own time early, and even later, as a Royal Marine Commando (I was a “mustang”, enlisted to officer). My point, is that I have seen much in my life experience, especially a sense of the evil of man! (I was in the Nam -1968- attached to the American Marine 3rd Force Recon), and then much later, in my early 40’s, I fought in Gulf War 1. So, I have come to see a certain real experience of that life, etc. And my theology and way of thinking is touched strongly therein. And of course my own experience of conversion comes thru all of this. Just a bit of where I come from, and again, my providence. 🙂
Mr. Martin- I think that asking people to examine their dogmas and reasons for believing those dogmas is a useful call to action. However, when most of us (including myself) are called to question something we have accepted as being true, pride rears its head and we get defensive.
I also think many of us have come to similar conclusions as you have. I mean, we all proclaim Christ and him crucified…we’ve been focusing on differences instead of where we agree.
For us Orthodox, our differences with the west are in some cases very radical because we have a much less juridical approach and understanding, and tend to be more Jewish in our ways. But open and honest dialogue is very important, even if we disagree at the end of the day.
[…] Michael’s recent post on diversity of interpretation, I don’t want to give the impression that I am saying people should agree with me. I know […]
Thanks,@pete, I appreciate that.
@Dan Martin: You might find this link of interest?
http://www.jsrhee.com/QA/thesis3.htm
Michael,
Paul sums up your article with one verse:
1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
THERE MUST BE HERESIES … for the purpose of making known those who are approved (dokimos).
I find my understanding of God, doctrine, theology and things that are spiritual (biblical knowledge)is enhanced, sharpened and even enlightened when I read those with whom I disagree —to MAKE KNOW that which is approved by God (CF 2 Tim 2:15).
By the way, heresies are a work of the flesh… WHY do people disagree with me??? THEIR FLESH
Galatians 5:19-20 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness…. heresies!!!!!
Thanks for the link, Robert. The article is long enough and I’m busy enough it may be a few days before I get to it. An early quick scan gave me the impression it may be somewhat less evenhanded in its approach than an article on Arianism I recently came across in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I found the latter interesting because even though they unapologetically call Arius a heretic, they seemed to make a real effort to present his position at least somewhat sympathetically. Since we only really have a record of Arius’ teachings as represented by his detractors–principally Athanasius–I wonder what the man himself might have said vis-a-vis how he’s interpreted today.
That said, I look forward to reading the article.
But I’m thinking we probably need to acknowledge having somewhat overstayed our welcome on this thread of Michael’s. I’m not trying to cut off dialog…in fact I welcome further engagement if you’re interested, but we do need to be fair to our host. You’re always welcome to engage me further over at my blog, where I can grab a confidential email address without it being posted if you want.
Peace!
@Michael: I guess you see this tread as spent? Which is fine. We did get a bit far afield, but really the very nature of the blog question sort of took us there, also. And as you can see I am not a real fan of evidential apologetics, which in my opinion really runs away from the Biblical Text quite often. We can even see this early in Arius and Arianism, note even the early Church historian Eusebius was quite affected by Arianism. As Andrew Louth writes in the Introduction to the Penguin Classic on Eusebius: ” ‘The History of the Church’ is, then, the work of a scholar, but a scholar less interested in ideas than in facts, evidence, information.” This fine, as far as it goes, but then real Biblical history is always bound to the Revelation of God itself, and here is always the presupposition of the Word of God itself! 🙂
[…] excellent article, Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? from the Parchment & Pen Blog by C. Michael […]
Romans 14:3, yes, but Romans 14:5 also: Some people consider one day to be more holy than another. Others think all days are the same. Each person should be absolutely sure in his own mind.
One version says: Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
Wow!
//…there are many people out there who do not hold to inerrancy, yet love and trust the same Christ as me…//
Would this be the same Christ who is “The Word”, and which Word is perfect in and of Himself? How does one trust this, self admitted, untrustworthy Word Himself – Christ Himself?
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20
@Mark Ducharme, you’re posing a false linkage. Trusting Christ, the Living Word as being infallible, divine, and all the rest, is not at all the same thing as holding a doctrine of inerrancy about the printed book we call the Bible. At least have the courtesy to compare apples and apples!
//Trusting Christ, the Living Word as being infallible, divine, and all the rest, is not at all the same thing as holding a doctrine of inerrancy about the printed book we call the Bible.//
A question Mr. Martin: Do we know Jesus independent of His word, written or otherwise? I ask because I always thought any revelation, epiphany, realization, etc. I may receive regarding my Jesus must NECESSARILY correspond to the written form He takes. Those who do otherwise, I thought anyway, are known as false profits.
To say The Word is NOT inerrant is to open the door to mans subjective, and by definition flawed, view of a Heaven sent gift that is most definitely founded on objective truth. I understand two can read the same verse and come to differing conclusions, I just don’t see how one can say, “It’s not perfect, God’s Word, but it is still what I will follow to heaven.” If it’s not perfect, how do you decide what’s true and what’s false? And if it’s not perfect, a well meaning person could go to destruction by no fault of their own OR, an intentionally sinful one could wind up w/ Him for eternity simply by “getting it right”.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1
Hi Mark,
The problem is what did the original Greek actually say and eman.
This is the problem with identifying something not mexplicitly taught.
Yes we all know what is explicitly taught:
Jesus is the Son of God
Jesus is our Lord and Savior
Baptism is a Christian “rite”
Repentance is necessary.
These are examples off clear teaching.
However doctrines like the Trinity, true or false, are NOT explicitly taught. That is the problem.
Require Clear dogma but do NOT raise man’s opinion to that level.
Doctrine is of men, Dogma is seen in clear and explicit terms, requiring NO interpretation and has no grammar/language issues.
Baptism is an example.
Baptism being a Christian “rite” is clear, thus Dogma. Full immersion, sprinkling, baptism of infant children, etc are examples of doctrine.
People many times disagree because on person, group or church, raises doctrine to the level of Dogma.
The canon of Scripture is not taught explicitly either, yet I am assuming that there is a certain set of bit by which you evaluate doctrines.
Btw, as I have said before, people that won’t be in some place of historical church submission, and for me at least that begins with the Ecumenical Councils and especially with the Nicene and too the Athanasian, as too the Aposles Creed, simply cannot be orthodox! (i.e. the creedal substance) As I have noted Calvin’s position of the True Church (which for him was the Reformational and Reformed Church), being the “Mother of All The Godly”, and the “Means of Grace”. (See Calvin Vol. 2 Book Four, of the Institutes). Though of course there is no perfection here, as the True Church is always a Pilgrim Body on earth. And btw, it appears even Calvin did not like the Nicene or the Athanasian Creed. Though he was surely Trinitarian. I would disagree with Calvin here! 😉
@Mark, I think you’re conflating a few dissimilar questions into one lump and it doesn’t quite follow. So to dissect:
Do we know Jesus independent of His word, written or otherwise? Well, yes, we also know Jesus through the written word of those who testify to having seen and walked with Jesus. They have testified to Jesus’ work and word, and we trust their testimony is true. But this is not the same thing as stating that the testimony of those apostles is, itself, the “Word of God.”
You pointed out that one can’t say It’s not perfect, God’s Word, but it is still what I will follow to heaven. I agree. I don’t say that. I do say the Biblical canon is “not perfect,” but neither is it *all* “God’s word,” though some of what it contains certainly is God’s word. God’s word is infallible. Our record of it is most certainly not.
“So,” you might ask, “on what basis do you hold to Sola Scriptura if it’s not God’s infallible word?” To this I answer: though not infallible, it’s the best record of God’s words, Jesus’ actions and teachings, that we have. As such, though not every phrase is foundation for dogma, it provides us sufficient grounds for all that we need for salvation and faithfulness. Anything else (including the church modern and historical) is of inferior authority and must be judged according to the recorded, written standard. To say it is not infallible, which I do, is not to say any other source of…
Sorry, last post got truncated. To say the Bible is not infallible (or verbally/plenary inspired), which I do, is not to say that any other source of authority is equal or superior to it.
If //the Biblical canon is “not perfect,” but neither is it *all* “God’s word,”// is true then, exactly, WHO is (and HOW are they) to determine which *parts* are in fact //God’s Word//?
Or, to put it your other way: exactly WHO is to (and by what means can “they”) determine //God’s word (as) infallible.// even though //Our record of it is most certainly not.//
Once you say part of the Bible is wrong, you, necessarily, open the door to ALL of it being wrong. FWIW, this is my take: the Creator of the universe is perfectly capable of seeing to it that His Word is available to all those He will save – even against the will of those who would corrupt His Word. YES, I believe He is that sovereign.
Otherwise, what does the word sovereignty mean?
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8
Perhaps this is a good time to see the difference, at least somewhat, between the Ipsissima vox – “the very voice”; and the “verba” – “the very word”. This link might be helpful…
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2001i/wilkin.html
Myself, I think is possible to respect both, to proper degree.
@Fr. Robert, I enjoyed that article…thanks for the link. I thought this paragraph toward the beginning was particularly insightful:
I am, however, uncomfortable with a broad view of ipsissima vox. What the broad view terms inerrant, an unbiased observer would call errant. Accurately paraphrasing or translating what someone said is one thing. Inaccurately reporting what someone said is an error. Changing what someone said and reporting it as though that is what the person said is another matter altogether.
I do think that the author (like so many) plays a little fast and loose with 2 Tim 3:16 (really should be vv. 14-17) and 2 Pet 1:21. To extend these to all of the texts, but only the texts in our present canon is only supportable if you presuppose that’s what God intended to do.
To @Mark, I would suggest a very simple test…let the various texts of the Bible speak for themselves. When THEY say God is speaking, believe it’s his word being reported. When they don’t, don’t claim it’s God speaking.
Note that nowhere in the entire text of the Biblical canon, does anyone actually refer to those written texts as the “Word of God.” We ought to parse “it is written,” the “Law,” “thus saith the LORD,” and the records of Jesus’ words as the different things they really are.
@Dan, Your idea really begs the question or really the reality of Holy Scripture, just as ‘the Church’ is the church is the “household of God”, “the church of the living God, the pillar (mainstay) and support of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) – Note that word “spport” (Hedraioma, Gk) that stay and seat..stedfast and firm support & ground, or the bulwark..”of the truth”. The great question of course today, is where is that Church? I maintain that Church is the Reformational and Reformed Church, not by name, but by that nature: Ecclesia semper reformada – always reforming, by “spirit and truth”!
I am not really attacking YOU! We just don’t agree on the nature of either the Church of God, or the Word of God! And that is a very big historic difference! 🙂
//When THEY say God is speaking, believe it’s his word being reported. When they don’t, don’t claim it’s God speaking.//
What a relief, I just searched the phrase, “Thus saith the Lord” and it only appears 413 times in THE ENTIRE BIBLE and ALL in the OT! This is great cause I don’t even read that tired old thing so, all I have to say is,
FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMM!!!! 😉
@Robert, if by begging the idea of Holy Scripture, you mean questioning the consideration of Scripture as a unitary or monolithic entity, you are correct, I do. I don’t see Biblical precedent for seeing the Law, Prophets, Wisdom, and Psalms as all of a kind. This is not to say they are not authoritative. It is rather to keep that authority in proper focus. When Isaiah or Jeremiah said God told him to tell the Israelites he wasn’t having their “worship”in a context of raping the poor, that word from God is something I accept as being faithfully reported or recorded. But when David in a fit of rage blesses the guy who wouldsmash his enemies’babies on the rocks, neither David nor later Biblical writers is under any illusion that those words, or their sentiments, are remotely Godly or God-inspired.
You are quite correct, however, that we’re really just taking another orthogonal look at the same difference we have already explored regarding the foundational authority of the historical church. That base sustains a lot of other subjects! No insult nor attack taken…
@Mark, you overlooked what I said about Jesus’ words, teachings, and acts in the Gospels. That’s freedom, all right, but not the way you implied! ;{)
@Dan: Yes I would see King David always under the providence of God, when obeying God’s commands, when he destroyed the enemies of both God and Israel! For here is the written Word and revelation of God! Who am I to seek to get “into God’s head”, GOD does what God wants, and with His people and His creation! Thankfully we have moved into God’s further covenantal reality with the NT or “covenant” position, but GOD is still God, and always sovereign, (Rom. 9). Obedience is still a thing God requires, even in this Covenant, and not I will only obey if I can understand, and can figure God out? This will never be, or happen (not in this life), or the next I am sure! The fear or awe of God is still the real “knowledge” of God, both real wisdom and instruction! (Proverbs)
Hi Michael,
<>
I believe that the NT canon was set by God just as the OT was. The “Church” even when not in obedience to God, was used by God to identify His word. The OT was complied and agreed upon by a Leadership in Judah that was corrupt at the time it was completed. God can accomp0lish His will regardless of the level of obedience or even belie on the part of His chosen instrument.
Doctrine would be that which men, other than the writers of the NT, derive from “their” understanding of Scripture, not that which is clearly taught. Consider my previous example of Baptism.
So do you accept the belief that there is a 66 bbok canon and that the canon is closed even though it is not explicitly taught in Scripture?
And of so, how important it it to get the right books? Absolutely, very, somewhat, or not too important.
Here is an interesting link:
http://prayerfoundation.org/books_of_the_bible_canon_list.htm
bottom line: if there is no absolute, objective, perfect and perfectly KNOWABLE truth there is ONLY mans subjective (i.e. made up) fantasy which he declares to be reality.
I have a friend, a self-proclaimed Christian, who believes – with all his heart – that, since he is incapable of turning the other cheek, God is faithful to NEVER present him w/ a challenge in that area of his walk. He is a decent man. In many ways a God fearing man. But the cancer of pride (i.e. more confidence in self than in the power of the spirit of the very Creator of his *self*) has crept into his walk via the evil of relativism. It started subtly. Kind of like, “Hey, look here. Doesn’t this look good to eat?”
Btw, “I believe”…hopefully “We believe”, that’s credal! 🙂
I do believe the Bible is a 66 book canon and that it is closed, just as the OT canon was closed by Jesus day even though not explicitly taught. It is our touchstone and no other work is.
I can and will say Amen to this!
//So do you accept the belief that there is a 66 bbok canon and that the canon is closed even though it is not explicitly taught in Scripture?//
Not 100% clear on what you mean but, regarding “the canon is closed”, my question is: Who do YOU say closed it?
Truthfully, I don’t remember why I asked it or even what we were discussing. Sorry.
Yeah, don’t you hate when that happens? 😉
Anyway, the point of the question, “Who do you say closed it?”, is: If man’s the one, “UH OH! welcome to errant-ville!”
If it was God however, “Bless the Lord’s Credo, full speed ahead!” 🙂
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. 1 Corinthians 1:25-29
Here’s a link on the Canon, and the classic Athanasius piece to the Canon.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/canon.htm
Hi Michael,
Yep God closed it or we have a book of man.
How?? Through His Spirit acting on those who were in a positio0n to develop and approve the canon.
If we cannot believe that, then we are miserable men indeed because we are only following the words of men, imperfect men.
We should be in agreement with Dogma (Clear and explicit teaching) and can disagree on Doctrine ( not clear in Scripture as a “Teaching” but based on scripture not directly addressing the issue or not clear on it)
The disagreements on doctrine are where most are at. They/we, in effect favor the choices of one group of men over another.
Then we need to look at the men and the result of their actions in the life of the believers who follow their position.
Kinda like Jesus said of the Pharisees, do as they say not as they do. He saw their hypocrisy. Many may be following such white washed graves.
I would myself, not make such a division between doctrine and dogma, but I would generally agree with this definition, based on the Word of God and the Ecumenical Councils.
Therefore, a dogma is a doctrine “to be believed by divine and Catholic Faith” that has been proposed by the Church to be “divinely and formally revealed.”
Hi Robert,
The problem with your definition is that it is what the Jews did with their extra Biblical writings and traditions. After all, the EOC and the RCC split, and the Anglican split (due to a King’s wishes), and the Protestants split, etc. Look at all the Traditions of both the EOC and RCC that we find NO reference to in Scripture.
Once we give such authority to men we have a problem. Does this mean I reject such “authority” as is needed in the “Church” no. BUT it must be based on Clear and Explicit Scripture.
That is why I make such a split between Dogma (or if you prefer Doctrine) and doctrine (or if you prefer Teachings).
I used the example of Baptism. Dogma/Doctrine is that it is a part of Christianity. Then we have doctrine/Teaching on Immersion, sprinkling, Infant baptism, etc.
This does not mean we can have thousands of different doctrine/teachings, rather that when not clear we look at the Teachers and Institution to see if it is living up to (and has) the Clear and Explicit standards as set forth in Scripture or has let the doctrine/teachings of men lead them down the wrong path.
I think we might agree that Jim Jones taught some truth, BUT he went beyond and his actions and that of his followers show that he was NOT a teacher to follow. Kinda like Tertullian who went into Heresy himself. If we pinned our beliefs on his words, we have a serious problem as we don’t know when he started down that wrong path.
@Paul: Yes we would have a much different approaches to the historical Church. I would always place the Church itself as central, but certainly secondary before the Word of God itself, but noting as does Paul, that the Church is “the pillar (mainstay) and support of the truth”, (1 Tim. 3:15). So the Church itself always is part of the theological understanding of and toward the Word of God. Even in the Reformational and Reformed Church the Church is central in the understanding of the Word of God, though the Church is always a Pilgrim Body.
Btw, I do not see Tertullian as in heresy myself, as today many scholars do not either. Certainly dissenting on behalf of the so-called New Prophecy, he continued to affirm the church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic. But he saw that sin was real even in the ecclesiology of the church. But this is a long and thological subject, we cannot go into here.
Hi,
I think the problem is in two areas.
1. The meaning of “Church”. In Scripture the word ekklesia does not mean the organization or a “Church” with a hierarchy, rather the people congregated together. The actual leadership in the 1st century was of the Apostles and men they recognized such as James, Jude, etc. . In fact we see in Rev 2 and 3 what was happening among the churches who had bad leadership. The ekklesia was of faithful ones not necessarily the leadership.
2. Which “church”? Who today make up the “church”?
Claiming to be “it” is vastly different than being “it”.
That is why I said behavior, practices and reputation (current and historically) is critical to identifying the real teachers of the ekklesia/church and see how their behavior and teachings impacted the ekklesia.
I would look to Acts 15 very closely, as we seek to see and identify the Church. There is really no Church of God without the very formation of the Church itself…”For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials.” (Acts 15:28)
And the church will always be something of the biblical hierarchy…Acts 15: 22! There may not be literal Apostles any longer, but there is surely the Apostles Doctrine (Acts 2:42), and surely here is the essence of the teaching church itself! (Eph. 4:11-13) Ephesians 4 is a another gand chapter in the life, authority and reality of the Church! (Eph. 4: 16)
Hi,
Yes there will be a leadership. However as we see from scripture not all who claim that position are led by God.
As I said one way to know who is used by God because of faithfulness to His word; and who is not, though claiming such, is not historical claims but the evidence. Jesus gave several indications of who truly were his followers and who weren’t. Matching such is the issue, not simply claims to be so.
We have the System in place in Jesus’ day. It had a leadership and followers and virtually all were believers. Yet Jesus excoriated the leadership as a group, though individuals were faithful. They had been the “ekklesia” for over 1500 years, yet were not really leading God’s people in the way of truth. Doctrine, traditions, opinions of many “leaders’ did not make the “Church” then God’s. They had to be called out of that mess. Today with thousands of denominations and many founded on the whim of a man, we see a similar situation. Believing man rather than God’s word. How do we identify the true followers/ekklesia from the false?
In reality only two things make the Church of God, the Lordship of Christ, His Person & Work, and the “the Gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20: 24)
@paul, at the risk of beating a dead horse, Fr. Damick’s article clearly articulates the eastern church’s position re: your inquiry:
http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/03/19/una-sancta-fundamentalism-ecumenism-and-the-one-true-church/
@ Fr. Robert, I’ve looked back on documentation and am sure that “ecclesia semper reformanda” is thouroughly a western viewpoint of the church. It was originally created by Protestants to label the chuch, in order to get around the “body of Christ failed” issue that was discussed a couple of weeks ago. It has since been adopted by the RCC in the late 20th century.
Now just to clarify, we are NOT saying that NO ONE ELSE is part of the Body of Christ except for us. If you’d like more info, Fr. Damick’s book “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” gives a nuanced look at this complex subject.
Glory to God for all things