Bypassing History

[Randy_Carson]

Hello Justin.

Here is a response from someone who was led to leave the Catholic Church…

Yes. Very much so.

One cannot read the NT, which predates the writings of those in the early church, without seeing that error had already begun taking root and multiplying in the Apostolic era churches.

These are churches planted by the Apostles themselves with leaders appointed by the same.

From Acts forward, we see the errors creeping in and attempted correction after attempted correction being given. Almost all the Epistles set out to combat serious errors that have already found a home in Apostolic era assemblies.

This is very significant.

If Apostolic era churches can so easily err…even though planted by the Apostles themselves, with leaders appointed by the Apostles themselves, and with the oversight of the Apostles themselves…then how much more so for those churches without all that?

“How much more so for those churches without all that?”

Truer words were never spoken in this forum. I wish I’d said that.

That’s why I’ve moved in the direction away from those who have no connection to the Apostles at all and back into the one founded by Jesus Himself with the Pope and the successors of the Apostles, the Bishops, at the helm.

From the Gospel accounts on, the Holy Spirit is abundantly clear that error will find its root and source within the church, among Christians themselves, and among Christian elders. Looking for the standard of pure doctrine in those same churches is a recipe for disaster, IMO.

The surest source of correct doctrine is God’s infallible and inerrant Scriptures. The early fathers recognized this early on as well.

Truth is not consistently found in men, but in God alone.

Of the five or six great heresies to plague the Church, the most pervasive and destructive has been Protestantism. Like so many heresies before it, Protestantism appeals to scripture to justify itself.

Within the confines of the Church, an infallible Magisterium serves to correct the errors of those who misunderstand scripture and are willing to submit to authority.

Unfortunately, many have taken the inerrant Word of God and wrongly divided it. One teaches infant baptism, another rejects it. One holds the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ; another sees only a symbol. All claim to be following the “Bible Alone” while rejecting one another’s interpretations.

But of course, no one actually says to himself, “Gee, I think I’ll twist the scriptures to my own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) To the contrary, those who have false interpretations refuse to listen to correction precisely because they are confident that their own ideas are correct.

As these men have wandered further and further away from the Church founded by Christ and its infallible teachings, their errors have multiplied as rapidly as the number of the denominations that preach them.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Wow, that is powerfull!
thank you all for your well thought out answers! I think the question at this point is, how will my family take the news if I start RCIA classes?

God bless you all for taking time to answer my questions.

-Justin

God bless you for your earnest seeking of His truth.

With regard to your family: I know that some friends of mine had difficulty with their families when they joined the Church; it’s hard for anyone to “lose” someone to a faith they believe to be wrong. Don’t let their reaction, however painful it might be, color your judgement – your relationship with God supercedes your relationship with your family. In time, and with prayer and patience, a fractured relationship with your family can be mended. Don’t allow your fear of hurting their feelings cause you to turn back at this stage in your journey.

We’ll be praying for you!

Peace,
Dante

PS: What are you going to do about your screen name once you’ve been confirmed?

 

[AlmostCatholic]

Of the five or six great heresies to plague the Church, the most pervasive and destructive has been Protestantism. Like so many heresies before it, Protestantism appeals to scripture to justify itself.

Within the confines of the Church, an infallible Magisterium serves to correct the errors of those who misunderstand scripture and are willing to submit to authority.

Unfortunately, many have taken the inerrant Word of God and wrongly divided it. One teaches infant baptism, another rejects it. One holds the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ; another sees only a symbol. All claim to be following the “Bible Alone” while rejecting one another’s interpretations.

But of course, no one actually says to himself, “Gee, I think I’ll twist the scriptures to my own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) To the contrary, those who have false interpretations refuse to listen to correction precisely because they are confident that their own ideas are correct.

As these men have wandered further and further away from the Church founded by Christ and its infallible teachings, their errors have multiplied as rapidly as the number of the denominations that preach them.

I have a hard time in seeing Protestantism as a heresy. I grant that it may not participate in the fullness of the church, but it is still a part of the body of Christ.

I do see the need for the magesterium (did I spell that right?) because honest Protestant thinkers do not agree about some issues. I was listening to R.C. Sproul not long ago who said himself that his honest search of the scriptures led him to believe in infant baptism, but the honest search of John Macarthur led him to disbelieve in it. I found this very revealing. If two brilliant Christian thinkers honestly believe two different things based on scripture alone, then which interpretation is right? It seems obvious that it there needs to be a higher authority to decide doctrine. Ok,

But how am I to think of the protestant church (or even churches if you prefer) as heretics? In broad terms, the protestant church is presenting Christ to the world. That’s where I found Christ, and I know many Protestants who are deeply in love with Christ. The protestant church may have errors from denomination to denomination, but they are not that big. So it seems I have aproblem with the term heretics. I think we are much closer to being brothers.

I also object to the idea that protestentism is destructive. I cannot beleive that Billy Graham’s ministry is destructive, or that the Protestant Christian musicians who are changing the culture (like Jars of Clay, Switchfoot, or Third Day) are promoting a destructive heresy?

-Justin

 

[Atemi]

Atemi cannot point in the NT to a single incorrect doctrine that took hold in the entire Church, which is the question at hand.

First of all, Christ only has one church…one body…the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no other.

So no, the entire church cannot believe any particular heresy because only individuals in the Body can believe doctrine.

If you refer to ALL the churches during the Apostolic era, then there was no “entire church”…one, singular, monolithic eccesiastical institution receiving instructions from a singular head.

No.

There was no singular authority in Rome running the show and determining what doctrines everyone was to believe and practices everyone was to follow.

No. There were individual churches run by overseers and elders.

There was a church here, and there, and there was another in a city further up. They had no cars, trains, planes, phones, emails, internet, postal service, and FAXes to distribute all the correct doctrines and practices from one source. They did not all regularly write Rome for directions and did not all receive messages regularly from Rome with new disciplines and regular correction of doctrine.

That is obvious from the history of the early church itself.

And even if the “entire church” adopted a particular heresy over time, Mike, then it would no longer be considered a heresy…it would be orthodox doctrine. It would then become “tradition.”

The ancient Jewish church adopted heresies galore. God didn’t stop it. He never stopped any of His church leaders from wandering away from Him if they so chose.

Of course heresies sprang up, and of course they were combatted. But the question is whether a heresy could enter into the entire Church, and without the slightest historical evidence that this had even happened.

Because heresies with great public appeal and support are no longer heresies, by definition.

A virus accepted by a body is no longer deemed a threat by that body.

Heresy is not found by looking back to a time, but forward to it from a time before.

The NT certainly does not support that possibility, in fact it clearly argues against it by showing how the Church as a whole did discover and combat error, and particularly, doctrinal error.

The NT nowhere discusses “the church as a whole” discovering and combatting error.

Nowhere.

What he offers as evidence that heresy could overtake the entire Church is actually evidence that the Church detects and overcomes all such heresies.

Maybe the Apostles should have told all those churches that as it told them to flee false Christian doctrine and flee false Christian teachers.

Nowhere will you find Paul or Peter saying that “the church” (whatever that is) overcomes all heresies.

There is no need for warning of false teaching coming through the church if the church overcomes all heresies anyway…

…

 

[jemfinch]

One cannot read the NT, which predates the writings of those in the early church, without seeing that error had already begun taking root and multiplying in the Apostolic era churches.

One also cannot read without seeing the remedy for such error: strict adherence to the Apostolic Tradition.

From Acts forward, we see the errors creeping in and attempted correction after attempted correction being given.

The Apostles must have been pretty poor leaders if none of those corrections “stuck”! In fact, some did stick: look at 1 Corinthians, which calls for the excommunication of a man who had relations with his father’s wife, and 2 Corinthians, where he is reinstated by Paul.

Almost all the Epistles set out to combat serious errors that have already found a home in Apostolic era assemblies.

And those same epistles praised the Churches for their faith, hope, and love at the very same time.

If Apostolic era churches can so easily err…even though planted by the Apostles themselves, with leaders appointed by the Apostles themselves, and with the oversight of the Apostles themselves…then how much more so for those churches without all that?

Indeed, which is (again) one reason I’m no longer Protestant. At least with the Catholic Church I still have the true children of the Apostles walking in the footsteps of Timothy and Titus to guide my faith and practice.

From the Gospel accounts on, the Holy Spirit is abundantly clear that error will find its root and source within the church, among Christians themselves, and among Christian elders.

The Bible makes clear that there will arise false teachers in the Church, of course. But it never makes the claim that error would be rooted in the Church and remain. In fact, in the books of the New Testament most concerned with false teaching (2 Peter and Jude) we see strict condemnations of such false teachers and prophecies of their destruction.

Looking for the standard of pure doctrine in those same churches is a recipe for disaster, IMO.

Tell it to the author of Hebrews “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith…Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

Or, perhaps, you should tell the author of Ephesians that he got it wrong when he told us that God gave us people to guard us against false doctrine: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

The surest source of correct doctrine is God’s infallible and inerrant Scriptures.

The surest source may indeed be the Scriptures, properly interpreted. But the only way to properly interpret them is through the same gifts that Christ gave the Church: the apostles, the prophets, the teachers, the pastors, and the evangelists who were given to us to prevent us from being blown about by every wind of doctrine.

The early fathers recognized this early on as well.

Please, feel free to provide quotes. The early Church fathers, just as our leaders do today, appealed to Scripture to defend their stance, but when false teachers contended with them from Scriptures, they stood firm in their defenses based on the constant Tradition of the Church.

Truth is not consistently found in men, but in God alone.

Again, take your argument up with the Bible itself: men, not just the Bible, were given to us to guard us against false doctrine.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

First of all, Christ only has one church…one body…the Mystical Body of Christ. There is no other.

What about the light of the world? The city on a hill that cannot be hidden? The household of God, a place that we must “behave” in (how does one “behave” in an invisible church?) The final court of appeal in disputes between members? (Matthew 18)?

If you refer to ALL the churches during the Apostolic era, then there was no “entire church”…one, singular, monolithic eccesiastical institution receiving instructions from a singular head.

How do you explain the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, then?

No. There were individual churches run by overseers and elders.

Under the oversight of the Apostles and evangelists appointed by them, like Timothy and Titus. Titus was not an overseer of a particular individual Church, but an itinerant overseer, appointing local overseers and correcting errors where he found them.

There was a church here, and there, and there was another in a city further up. They had no cars, trains, planes, phones, emails, internet, postal service, and FAXes to distribute all the correct doctrines and practices from one source.

They had Apostles and messengers and evangelists like Timothy who did the work that today we do by phone, email, internet, postal service, etc. How did the proclamations of the Council of Jerusalem get carried out? By Paul and Barnabas Judas and Silas, a letter was sent. Local Churches in the Bible were most definitely not autonomous.

They did not…all receive messages regularly from Rome with new disciplines and regular correction of doctrine.

The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 gave new disciplines to the Church. The epistles were written, in large part, to correct doctrinal issues that existed in local Churches: that’s why they’re titled “Corinthians” or “Colossians” or “Thessalonians.” You can’t have it both ways: you can’t claim in one post that the Bible corrects errors and then claim in another post that individual local Churches did not receive regular correction of doctrine.

That is obvious from the history of the early church itself.

Actually, quite the contrary. What’s obvious from the history of the early Church itself is that local Churches were not autonomous. That’s clear even through the Bible.

And even if the “entire church” adopted a particular heresy over time, Mike, then it would no longer be considered a heresy…it would be orthodox doctrine. It would then become “tradition.”

Yes, in this strange ahistorical world where all members of the Church suddenly had a heresy implanted in their brains with full history, that might be the case

The ancient Jewish church adopted heresies galore. God didn’t stop it. He never stopped any of His church leaders from wandering away from Him if they so chose.

And yet, somehow, He gave them some charism that prevented them from misleading entirely their flock. Or else why did Jesus tell the Jews, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” If Christ expected the Jews to obey even the leaders who condemned him to a painful death, how much more so should we obey the leaders of the New Covenant whom we are commanded to obey?

Heresy is not found by looking back to a time, but forward to it from a time before.

And the only way we can do that is by looking at a doctrine’s consistency with the time before. Catholic doctrine has consistency with the Church throughout the ages. Protestant doctrine does not. Therefore, we accept the former as authentic and reject the latter as heresy.

The NT nowhere discusses “the church as a whole” discovering and combatting error.

What did Paul mean, then, when he called the Church, the household of the living God, “the pillar and foundation of the truth”? Was he talking about a particular Church? Or does the role of the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth somehow not entail discovering and combatting error?

There is no need for warning of false teaching coming through the church if the church overcomes all heresies anyway…

The Bible teaches that false teachers will arise within the Church, but that the remedy, the antidote for those teachers it to adhere to the teachings of true teachers, the Apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors, and evangelists: in short, the apostles and their successors. The solution is never to take our Bible outside of the Church, interpret it for ourselves, and judge the Church by our interpretation of the Scriptures.

Jeremy

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I have very little left that I can disagree with the church about. At this point, for me to argue seems like the pharisees and saducees trying to trip up Jesus in his own words. My conscience is satisfied with the answers I have recieved in these forums. I have one small question though, to put out a different point of view and see what you think.

Regarding the early church history; if I accept that the early church in the first centuries after Christ really ‘looked’ Catholic, then couldn’t it be possible that those early doctrines are still incorrect? What I mean is something like this: America is hardly 200 years old and it is founded on the consitition. To try to find the spirit of the founding fathers, we try to interpret the consitition as accurately as possible. In America there are already many people who are quite far from the original teachings of that document. So isn’t it feasable, that even if history declares that by 300 the Church looked very catholic, that it still was mistaken about doctrinal issues, and that we ought to return to trying to understand the bible just by itself? I believe this would be how Luther wasw thinking. Not knowing where to turn, the safest place is Sola Scriptura.

Please accept this as an honest question, by an honest searcher.
-Justin

I’ll second this. This is exactly my problem too, only you’ve worded it much better than I’ve been able to. The only difference is that I’ve been indoctrinated with Catholic teaching.

I look at it this way (the possibility, that is): Imagine that over time the U.S. has made several ammendments to the Constitution; ammendments that allow for all sorts of atrocities (this is an extreme example - I don’t necessarily believe it’s true it either sense ) but I was raised after the fact and was taught to believe these things. Over time I study the original Constitution and realise that things have changed and not necessarily for the better. Many of the new ammendments seem to contradict the original. The current politicians are very persuasive in their reasoning for why the new Constitution is better… Does it mean the whole country went to pot? I know of other Americans who feel like I do; that the country has fallen into many errors, but they strive to live according to the original intent. Perhaps, even in looking back into the lives of the men who made that Constitution, we see seeds of the current, corrupt ammendments, but they were not yet widely accepted until many years later…

Can you see this as a possibility?

Btw, you worded it nicely. I just wanted to add my more specific thoughts . Also, I didn’t read all the responses yet, but I wanted to add my p.o.v. before I forgot how to word it

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

…I’ll give my first objection to our theory:

Would it be possible for us to interpret the Constitution without error? Would we too err in our interpretation?

The question really is: HOW has Christ preserved His truth:
Is it via the people, guided by the H.S. who most closely keep His Word (the Bible), OR… is it a specific, historical entity, guided by the H.S.???

I’ll add also, that our fouding fathers didn’t just hand us the Constitution and say ‘here - you’re on your own now’…

 

[jemfinch]

I’ll add also, that our fouding fathers didn’t just hand us the Constitution and say ‘here - you’re on your own now’…

I’ll finish your sentence by saying, “they, like God, gave us a final court of appeal for resolving disputes about the meaning of the document.” Just like the United States has an authoritative interpreter of the Constitution: the Supreme Court; the kingdom of heaven has an authoritative interpreter of the Bible: the Church.

Jeremy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Also, I didn’t read all the responses yet, but I wanted to add my p.o.v. before I forgot how to word it

Of course.

If you had read the responses, you would have addressed the very puzzling question of what folks are to do if they can’t read the Bible? How do you reconcile that inconvenient reality with the promise of Jesus that He would never abandon us, never leave us orphans?

The so-called ‘sufficiency’ of the Bible – remember that the Bible itself does not claim that it is ‘sufficient’; it claims that it is profitable – the so-called ‘sufficiency’ of the Bible is sufficient for whom?

Is it ‘sufficient’ for the illiterate? No, because they can’t read.

Is it ‘sufficient’ for the poor? No, because they can’t afford Bibles.

Was it sufficient for the laity before the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church? No. Because there was no Bible at that time.

Bottom line, Sola Scriptura is an elitist position which excludes the illiterate, excludes the poor, and excludes the pre-Bible laity. Moreover it is self-contradictory inasmuchas it finds no support within Scripture itself.

Did Jesus intend to exclude the illiterate, the poor, and the pre-Bible laity? In other words, is literacy, wealth, and membership in the clergy a necessary condition for salvation?

Um… look at the lives of the saints? :doh2:

 

[VociMike]

…I’ll give my first objection to our theory:

Would it be possible for us to interpret the Constitution without error? Would we too err in our interpretation?

Yes, that is the immediate reaction to that analogy, and it is a dangerous analogy for that very reason. The supreme court is not, I think all would agree, guided infallibly by God.

The question really is: HOW has Christ preserved His truth:
Is it via the people, guided by the H.S. who most closely keep His Word (the Bible), OR… is it a specific, historical entity, guided by the H.S.???

Well it clearly isn’t the former. There are people who point to the bible in support of all manner of error and downright heresy. Nothing is more clear than that “bible-only” Christians don’t all believe the same thing. In fact, as regards doctrine, “bible-only” Christians are without doubt the most dis-unified religious grouping on the planet. That should tell us something.

So that just leaves the specific, historical entity of the Church. How does one find the Church? By finding the Bishop of Rome, the Chair of Peter, and all those who are in union with him.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AlmostCatholic:

I do see the need for the magesterium

OK. That established, let’s proceed from there.

AlmostCatholic:

But how am I to think of the protestant church (or even churches if you prefer) as heretics?

How do you define heresy? And how does the Magisterium define heresy?

AlmostCatholic:

In broad terms, the protestant church is presenting Christ to the world.

But in what way? Also, there is an assumption – a false one – that the Catholic Church does no significant evangelism. What do you say about this? What does the Church say about this?

AlmostCatholic:

That’s where I found Christ, and I know many Protestants who are deeply in love with Christ.

And what did Jesus say about loving Him? Did he not say, “If you love Me, then keep my Law?” And what did Jesus say about the Church’s relationship to the Law of Jesus?

AlmostCatholic:

The protestant church may have errors from denomination to denomination, but they are not that big.

In order to determine the size of the error you would have to have an inerrant definition of heresy. That definition is found where?

AlmostCatholic:

I also object to the idea that protestentism is destructive.

Do they lead folks away from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and into the error of individual interpretations?

You say that you see the need for the Magisterium. If there is a need for the Magisterium, then what does that say about folks who lead the flock away from the Magisterium? Is misleading the flock not destructive?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Atemi, you offer no evidence, no line of reasoning, no reference point other than your own opinion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have a hard time in seeing Protestantism as a heresy. I grant that it may not participate in the fullness of the church, but it is still a part of the body of Christ.

I understand the hesitation, but we do not serve the cause of Christ by denying the truth.

This concept was put forth at length by the Catholic historian Hillaire Belloc in his book, The Great Heresies, which was published in 1938, and given the long history of the Protestant Rebellion, I seriously doubt anyone would argue that the idea was novel with him.

Heresy (as opposed to schism) is the willful denial of a revealed truth of the faith.

Have Protestants denied the real presence of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity brought about by transubstantiation? Yes.

Have Protestants denied the existence of Purgatory? Yes.

Have Protestants denied the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary? Yes.

I could go on at length, of course.

Thus, they are heretics by definition.

I do see the need for the magesterium (did I spell that right?) because honest Protestant thinkers do not agree about some issues. I was listening to R.C. Sproul not long ago who said himself that his honest search of the scriptures led him to believe in infant baptism, but the honest search of John Macarthur led him to disbelieve in it. I found this very revealing. If two brilliant Christian thinkers honestly believe two different things based on scripture alone, then which interpretation is right? It seems obvious that it there needs to be a higher authority to decide doctrine. Ok,

Beautifully stated.

But how am I to think of the protestant church (or even churches if you prefer) as heretics? In broad terms, the protestant church is presenting Christ to the world. That’s where I found Christ, and I know many Protestants who are deeply in love with Christ. The protestant church may have errors from denomination to denomination, but they are not that big. So it seems I have aproblem with the term heretics. I think we are much closer to being brothers.

No question. However, remember the two brothers in scripture referred to as the Prodigal son and the “older brother”? Just because one went off and did his own thing, the relationship between them did not change. I am not accusing Protestants of being prodigals…I am using this example to illustrate that familial relationships are NOT broken by physical separation. The Church recognizes that there is much good within the faith communities of the Protestant ranks; God is merciful to all His children and pours out grace upon them all. She acknowledges their relationship as follows in the Catechism:

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

Elsewhere, John Paul II acknowledged that Catholics would do well to follow some of the example set by our separated brethren in terms of their zeal, love of scripture, evangelizing, etc.

I also object to the idea that protestentism is destructive. I cannot beleive that Billy Graham’s ministry is destructive, or that the Protestant Christian musicians who are changing the culture (like Jars of Clay, Switchfoot, or Third Day) are promoting a destructive heresy?

-Justin

I understand. My own kids listen to Reliant K, John Reuben and others. However, there is a deeper issue at stake.

Since this post is long, and I have much I’d like for you to consider on this point, I’m going to post a Part Two below.

 

[williamric]

Hi Justin,

You have raised some very good points.

I have a hard time in seeing Protestantism as a heresy. I grant that it may not participate in the fullness of the church, but it is still a part of the body of Christ.

I agree, it is difficult to see Protestantism as a heresy. However, it is a heresy in that it has split the body of Christ. That was never supposed to happen. Vatican II is adamant that other denominations are Christian brothers, they are just seperated brothers.

I do see the need for the magesterium (did I spell that right?) because honest Protestant thinkers do not agree about some issues. I was listening to R.C. Sproul not long ago who said himself that his honest search of the scriptures led him to believe in infant baptism, but the honest search of John Macarthur led him to disbelieve in it. I found this very revealing. If two brilliant Christian thinkers honestly believe two different things based on scripture alone, then which interpretation is right? It seems obvious that it there needs to be a higher authority to decide doctrine. Ok,

Ok we all agree i think

But how am I to think of the protestant church (or even churches if you prefer) as heretics? In broad terms, the protestant church is presenting Christ to the world. That’s where I found Christ, and I know many Protestants who are deeply in love with Christ. The protestant church may have errors from denomination to denomination, but they are not that big. So it seems I have aproblem with the term heretics. I think we are much closer to being brothers.

I dont think anyone should look on them as heretics. They presenting Christ to the World and where they succed in that, they should be applauded. I cant remember who said this, “What joins us is infinitely greater than what divides us.” They are brothers.

I also object to the idea that protestentism is destructive. I cannot beleive that Billy Graham’s ministry is destructive, or that the Protestant Christian musicians who are changing the culture (like Jars of Clay, Switchfoot, or Third Day) are promoting a destructive heresy?

I absolutely agree. I know a lot of the books I read are from Protestant authors. At the church I come from, all the music we play is from Protestant sources but it is incredibly liturgical and appropriate and the congregation loves it. Protestantism is only destructive in the sense that it has split Christs body. Just think what we could achieve if we united the wisdom of the RCC and the charisma of the Protestants.

Regards
William

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part Two - Lengthy but Worth It

Jesus desires and prayed for unity within the Church, and not a false purely “spiritual” unity but one that was very real. First, He prayed for unity among his own disciples:

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.” (John 17:11)

Jesus prayed that the Apostles might have the depth of unity that He shares with the Father. Was He praying for unity among his Apostles only? No! He prayed for all who would hear and believe these Apostles:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

How could the world know with certainty that Jesus was sent, if they cannot see an “invisible” church? The church must be visible. Can the world look at the state of Christianity today and see one unified church? Do they say, “Yep, those Christians are certainly unified, that is plain to see. By looking at them, we can believe that Jesus was sent by God”? Not at all! The world cannot see an “invisible” unity of all true believers because what it sees instead is 25,000+ denominations bickering and fighting amongst themselves over doctrinal differences.

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

Just as Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, so God desires for the Apostles and those who come to believe in Jesus through them to be united. The reason for this unity is clear: to let the world know that you sent me”. Without this unity, the witness of the Christian Church to the world is weakened and as a result, the souls who fail to recognize the truth may be lost. Thus, the world must be able to see the unity of a visible, authoritative Church and hear the truth it proclaims. What are signs of this unity that the world should see?

One of the signs must be doctrinal unity on matters of faith and morals. In the pages of Scripture, we read:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

The Father desires that the Church should be of one mind regarding the faith and doctrinal matters such as the “one baptism” just as He and the Son are one. The Father and the Son do not disagree on any issue. Does the Father prefer infant baptism while the Son does not? In the same way, we should have no divisions, no denominations, that separate us from one another. Paul’s appeal is not about some idealistic, invisible unity but a real, visible, tangible unity.

Further, what happens when there is a disagreement that requires a decision from the church as shown in the passage above. Let’s say that a wife becomes pregnant but does not want any more children; she wants to have an abortion. The husband goes to the Catholic Church which teaches that abortion is absolutely wrong. But the wife chooses a church that teaches that abortion is a matter of personal choice.

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Part Three

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity? How can it be decided what is and is not true concerning the Christian faith? How decides what is and is not good doctrine? What is and is not moral? Who decides what is right and wrong? Who speaks for the church in these matters? Or what happens when everyone claims to speak for the church? This latter issue is actually what is occurring within Christianity today. Each pastor of every congregation is acting essentially as if he is the shepherd of his own flock. There are thousands upon thousands of pastors deciding upon the basis of their own individual understanding of scripture as to what is and is not good for their flocks.

This is why it was proposed earlier that if Jesus established one, invisible, “spiritual” church, then either doctrine does not matter or conflicting doctrine is okay. This is exactly why there are 25,000+ Protestant denominations – because with each new interpretation of scripture, a new denomination is born.

Moreover, an “invisible, spiritual” church cannot lead others into all truth because in order to have any unity at all, the members of this “church” must strip their faith down to the bare minimum that everyone can agree on. One member cannot impose his or her views on another. This is why one frequently hears statements such as, “Well, that’s what you believe; we think differently.” While this may give everyone involved a warm, fuzzy feeling of unity while holding hands around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”, it is clearly not the fullness of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. People who do not know Christ need to hear the truth from an authoritative source and are hindered in coming to salvation if they cannot see and find an invisible Church.

However, most Protestants believe that conflicting doctrine can and does exist within the one true church. They won’t phrase it that way, but this is exactly what they believe: that conflicting doctrine is acceptable within the body of Christ, the church. How do they justify this belief? By dividing their beliefs into essential and non-essential doctrines. The Baptist will say to the Presbyterian, “Well, at least we agree on the essentials or the “main things”. This means it is okay to disagree on the non-essentials. Is this correct? What does the Bible say about this? Ask to see the list of “essential” doctrines found in the Bible…there is none! So, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which aren’t? Doesn’t this sound like some people are trying to justify all of the division within the Body of Christ and to justify not making a true attempt at reconciliation or reunification?

Summary

In closing, I would first like to thank you for making it this far!

Second, I would like to summarize my reasons for stating that Protestantism is destructive this way:

1. Divisions within Christianity weaken the witness of the Church in the eyes of the world. Souls may be lost as a result.
2. Some misguided Protestants will fall into the trap of Once Saved Always Saved and believe there is nothing they can do to lose their salvation. This is wrong, and souls may be lost as a result.
3. If the energy that has been put into the dispute between Catholics and Protestants over the past 500 years had been channeled into evangelization instead, what would the world look like today?
4. How much sin has resulted from this division? How many souls lost as a result of the enmity that has existed for two long?

Justin-

I have not chosen to charge Protestantism with being a destructive heresey lightly. Jesus himself stated that UNITY would provide a witness that He was from God. The unity has been lost and the witness diminished.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The surest source of correct doctrine is God’s infallible and inerrant Scriptures.
…

Scripture is infallible, inerrant? Who exactly is your authority for this statement?

Moreover, if the surest source of correct doctrine is… Scriptures – then the illiterate, the poor, the non-gnostic, the pre-Bible laity were and still are plum out of luck.

If the surest source of correct doctrine is… Scriptures – then where is the Book of Jesus? Where is the Book that Jesus wrote? Hidden in the World Library of Gnosticism perhaps?

Again, Sola Scriptura does not address the problem of evangelizing the illiterate, the poor, the non-gnostic, the pre-Bible laity. And exposes Protestant evangelism for what it is: a self-contradictory position.

For if Sola Scriptura were a valid position, we would not see in Protestant crusades the singing of hymns (except from the pages of Scripture), the lifting up of arms (except maybe to turn the pages of Scripture), prayers (except those specified in the pages of Scripture), and so on.

And we would not see Protestant crusades in countries afflicted by grinding poverty and illiteracy.

But we do see those things. So waddupwidat? :doh2:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Summary

In closing, I would first like to thank you for making it this far!

Second, I would like to summarize my reasons for stating that Protestantism is destructive this way:

1. Divisions within Christianity weaken the witness of the Church in the eyes of the world. Souls may be lost as a result.
2. Some misguided Protestants will fall into the trap of Once Saved Always Saved and believe there is nothing they can do to lose their salvation. This is wrong, and souls may be lost as a result.
3. If the energy that has been put into the dispute between Catholics and Protestants over the past 500 years had been channeled into evangelization instead, what would the world look like today?
4. How much sin has resulted from this division? How many souls lost as a result of the enmity that has existed for two long?

Justin-

I have not chosen to charge Protestantism with being a destructive heresey lightly. Jesus himself stated that UNITY would provide a witness that He was from God. The unity has been lost and the witness diminished.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One also cannot read without seeing the remedy for such error: strict adherence to the Apostolic Tradition.

The Apostles must have been pretty poor leaders if none of those corrections “stuck”! In fact, some did stick: look at 1 Corinthians, which calls for the excommunication of a man who had relations with his father’s wife, and 2 Corinthians, where he is reinstated by Paul.

And those same epistles praised the Churches for their faith, hope, and love at the very same time.

Indeed, which is (again) one reason I’m no longer Protestant. At least with the Catholic Church I still have the true children of the Apostles walking in the footsteps of Timothy and Titus to guide my faith and practice.

The Bible makes clear that there will arise false teachers in the Church, of course. But it never makes the claim that error would be rooted in the Church and remain. In fact, in the books of the New Testament most concerned with false teaching (2 Peter and Jude) we see strict condemnations of such false teachers and prophecies of their destruction.

Tell it to the author of Hebrews “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith…Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

Or, perhaps, you should tell the author of Ephesians that he got it wrong when he told us that God gave us people to guard us against false doctrine: “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

The surest source may indeed be the Scriptures, properly interpreted. But the only way to properly interpret them is through the same gifts that Christ gave the Church: the apostles, the prophets, the teachers, the pastors, and the evangelists who were given to us to prevent us from being blown about by every wind of doctrine.

Please, feel free to provide quotes. The early Church fathers, just as our leaders do today, appealed to Scripture to defend their stance, but when false teachers contended with them from Scriptures, they stood firm in their defenses based on the constant Tradition of the Church.

Again, take your argument up with the Bible itself: men, not just the Bible, were given to us to guard us against false doctrine.

Jeremy

Well said. :clapping: