A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
michaelp,
First of all, thanks for clearing up the misconception about the sheer numbers of denominations. That’s officially removed from my repertoire.
Despite the fact that the number of denominations is less outrageous, however, I still think there are a few problems with your reasoning. First of all, you pointed to the Reformers as the original “Evangelicals.” If we look at them, however, we see exacty the same disunity (actually, perhaps even more pronounced) that people complain about in Protestantism today. For example, we know that Luther stood alone on the Word of God. But he did not believe in the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines. He was right, he had uncovered the clear sense of Scriptures. Those who disagreed with him did not still have a shot of “agreeing on the essentials” - they were wrong. We can see that pretty clearly in the failure of the Lutherans and Zwinglians to united in (anachronistically) Protestantism. Of course there were problems because Zwingli was also standing alone on the Word of God, and Hubmaier as well was totally open to correction if he could be shown from the clear sense of Scripture. Everyone was standing alone. No one was standing together. While I don’t know when the whole notion of “non-essentials” got invented, it was definitely not during the era when Reformed and Lutherans were executing Anabaptist heretics.
A second point of contention is on the nature of unity. The Catholic (and biblical) notion of truth is that truth is not a concept but a Person. Christ is Truth, so to reject any part of that one Truth is, in essence, to reject Christ. Therefore, anything the Church declares as definitively true must be believed. It is entirely unacceptable to reject a part of the Truth as taught by the Church, regardless of the fact that many individuals do so. The Church does not declare them to believe enough of the Truth - those who purposefully reject the Truth are heretics and must fear for their salvation. Of course, the Church has not come to a thorough enough understanding to pronounce on everything, therefore there are areas with room for diversity of opinion. Prior to Trent the relationship between faith and works was one of them; afterwards it was remarkably less so. Because the Church does not make any claims about these issues, differing opinions do not represent different denominations.
From my understanding of Protestantism and experience with Evangelical friends I see a different notion of unity in Protestantism. Churches and denominations all set forth doctrines they hold to be true, but in most cases an individual’s disagreement with the denomination has no effect on the fulness of his Christianity - he should just transfer to another denomination. One or the other belief on the Lord’s Supper, predestination, infant baptism, charismatic gifts, etc., etc. do not prevent someone from being a “true” Christian. But if these denominations really hold their doctrines to be truth, how can they regard it as perfectly acceptable diversity for other Christians (normally a very large amount of them) to disagree with them? The creation of Protestant unity seems to come about to me not by establishing “essential” doctrines and then coming to agreement on them but instead by agreeing that all areas of disagreement (outside of a tiny core of Trinity, crucifixion, sola scriptura, and a few others) will henceforth be referred to as non-essentials. If the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, with one faith, one Lord, and one baptism, how is it that the only Truth the Spirit is capable of leading us to is the sacrifice of Christ. Is not a single other doctrine actually contained in Scripture? It seems if they were the Spirit would guide us in it and it would be illegitimate to reject the Spirit’s guidance on that biblical doctrine.
First of all, thanks for clearing up the misconception about the sheer numbers of denominations. That’s officially removed from my repertoire.
Despite the fact that the number of denominations is less outrageous, however, I still think there are a few problems with your reasoning. First of all, you pointed to the Reformers as the original “Evangelicals.” If we look at them, however, we see exacty the same disunity (actually, perhaps even more pronounced) that people complain about in Protestantism today. For example, we know that Luther stood alone on the Word of God. But he did not believe in the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” doctrines. He was right, he had uncovered the clear sense of Scriptures. Those who disagreed with him did not still have a shot of “agreeing on the essentials” - they were wrong. We can see that pretty clearly in the failure of the Lutherans and Zwinglians to united in (anachronistically) Protestantism. Of course there were problems because Zwingli was also standing alone on the Word of God, and Hubmaier as well was totally open to correction if he could be shown from the clear sense of Scripture. Everyone was standing alone. No one was standing together. While I don’t know when the whole notion of “non-essentials” got invented, it was definitely not during the era when Reformed and Lutherans were executing Anabaptist heretics.
A second point of contention is on the nature of unity. The Catholic (and biblical) notion of truth is that truth is not a concept but a Person. Christ is Truth, so to reject any part of that one Truth is, in essence, to reject Christ. Therefore, anything the Church declares as definitively true must be believed. It is entirely unacceptable to reject a part of the Truth as taught by the Church, regardless of the fact that many individuals do so. The Church does not declare them to believe enough of the Truth - those who purposefully reject the Truth are heretics and must fear for their salvation. Of course, the Church has not come to a thorough enough understanding to pronounce on everything, therefore there are areas with room for diversity of opinion. Prior to Trent the relationship between faith and works was one of them; afterwards it was remarkably less so. Because the Church does not make any claims about these issues, differing opinions do not represent different denominations.
From my understanding of Protestantism and experience with Evangelical friends I see a different notion of unity in Protestantism. Churches and denominations all set forth doctrines they hold to be true, but in most cases an individual’s disagreement with the denomination has no effect on the fulness of his Christianity - he should just transfer to another denomination. One or the other belief on the Lord’s Supper, predestination, infant baptism, charismatic gifts, etc., etc. do not prevent someone from being a “true” Christian. But if these denominations really hold their doctrines to be truth, how can they regard it as perfectly acceptable diversity for other Christians (normally a very large amount of them) to disagree with them? The creation of Protestant unity seems to come about to me not by establishing “essential” doctrines and then coming to agreement on them but instead by agreeing that all areas of disagreement (outside of a tiny core of Trinity, crucifixion, sola scriptura, and a few others) will henceforth be referred to as non-essentials. If the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth, with one faith, one Lord, and one baptism, how is it that the only Truth the Spirit is capable of leading us to is the sacrifice of Christ. Is not a single other doctrine actually contained in Scripture? It seems if they were the Spirit would guide us in it and it would be illegitimate to reject the Spirit’s guidance on that biblical doctrine.
