Protestant Unity

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Most Protestants do not see the current state of Protestantism as divided - they actually view their mutual comfort with doctrinal plurality as a unifying feature of Protestantism! Here is what I have experienced as the explanations:

• Protestants are not divided doctrinally
• Protestants are divided only on the non-essentials
• Protestants are members of the one body of Christ by faith, and the doctrinal disagreements are irrelevent.
• Protestants are in no worse shape than Catholics
  I would not hold your breath waiting for many Protestant responses. Let me know if someone comes up with something new.

Phil

Another possibility is, that Christians are united “in Christ”, Who is the Head of the Church & the Giver of the Life of His Body through the Holy Spirit. So that where there are two Christians met together in His Name, they are united where it matters, even though they may disagree on various things; That “where”, being in Christ Himself.​

This means that the emphasis ceases to be on them & their earthly dividedness, & is restored to Him - which is where it should be The essential bond between Christians, is Christ Himself - to be in union with Him, is to have access to all the “riches of the Wisdom of God” which are in Him in Whom “all creation holds together”. ##

 

[Wisdom]

Well, from what i can see the unity of the Catholic church stems more from apathy and ignorance rather than agreement on doctrine. The vast majority of laity do not really care to know enough about Catholic doctrine to have an opinion. The unity is imposed at an official level with the vast majority clueless past a very shallow level of knowledge. Those that might be inclined to disagree are told that agreement or at least acceptance of dogma is necessary for salvation.

Heck, Peter Kreeft at Boston College states that 95% of his students could not articulate the Catholic version of salvation.

Does that mean that 95% of students at a Catholic university (Boston College) are unified in the Faith?

WEll you could say the same thing about the early church read the epistles of Paul they were not exactly agreeing with the official party line in how they lived the christian faith heck the churchs he wrote too seemed to be always contradicitng what he told them to do and deny the official church teaching heck around the time of Nicea 85 perccent of the church in the East where Arians despite the pleas of the Pope and St Athanasius. THe Majority rules is not what christiantiy was every about it was about official church teaching if you obeyed it or not did not credit or discredit the church only the teaching mattered. The level of piety in Christiantiy ebbed and flowed through the years. THe early church had an official party line adn still does that is what matters. Also the official party line in protestantism does not matter much those in the pews of protestatnism as no one can claim infalliability. Also the Barna Research has some eqaully distrubing about evangelicals like 85 percetn don’t know evangelical doctrine we all have our problems and dissidents the difference is that the historic church has a monolith on the church teaching and thus one truth always , past prestent in future. Protestantism has each individual’s opinion has equal claim to truth as each person has the same criteria of truth his individual interpretation of scripiture. Thus the claim that is only your interpretation of scripture by those outside of protestantism is a valid and crushing critique.

 

[I_Leatherman]

So, who are the tares in the wheat. Who are the ‘untaught and unstable [who] distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction’. Presumably some call out Lord, Lord to no avail.

 

[Revelation13_16]

I am simply curious, how do the protestants on this board explain the disunity found within the various protestant denomonations and still hold to the statement that it is what God wants? I have often heard the statement that each agree on the core doctrine, and this may be true within an over-all Meta-denomonations (ie Baptists as a whole, Methodists as a whole etc) when you look at protestantism as a whole, there is no unity or agreement what so ever. Even down to the issue of what is Faith Alone, Scriture alone. Even these core documents are not agreed upon. There is little to no agreement on the validity of Baptism, almost no agreement on interpreting scripture, Works are valid! works are not valid! some even go so far as to say there really isnt ANYTHING we can do, even with respect to faith to change or ultimate status whether it is heaven or hell.

There really isn’t a great deal of difference between Protestant denomonations believe it or not - at least those who adhrere to Systematic Theology.

The problem with Protestantism is that you get many churches who “pop up” using only the Bible and think they can teach it without developing a Systematic Theology.

Bad.

This is exactly why the Catholic church for many years kept their Bibles in Latin and out of layman’s hands, because they knew the Bible would be misinterpreted.

But if you compare the different Systematic Theologies of Methodism, Reformed, & Dispensationalist (usually Baptist) you’ll find a few differences but not vast differences.

Again, I am not looking at individual denomations, but protestantism as whole, from Fundamentalist, to Lutherans. From SDA,

Ach! Stop!

SDA, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadeplhians, & Christian Science (and any I’ve forgotten) are cults - it is a no-no to call them Protestants.

to Methodist. This amazing disunity is my largest and seemingly insermoutnable stumbling block to ever believe that the Protestant churches “have it right”

Here’s the thing.

In Paul’s day, there were differences between churches and within churches, this is not a new thing.

Now the Catholic Church has unity, but unity doesn’t equal truth.

Think about it, Cardinals are locked up until they reach a decision, how can you be sure they’ll not vote a wrong pope out of frustration?

Besides, “a house divided against itself cannot stand” but does that mean that house is 100% the truth? No way.

In every ecumencial council compromises are made, if nobody compromised, nobody would agree.

Unity without infallibilty always included compromise.

Now if the Catholic Church is infallible, then it is united and 100% true.

However if it is not infallible, then it is united but cannot claim 100% truth.

Anyway, I am not trying to start a raging argument on who is right, I merely want to know how Protestants address this extremely Glaring issue of complete disunity and confusion among protestants as a whole, and still feel Protestantism is the way to go. Rememeber, Our God is not the God of confusion, but this is all i can see in Protestantism.

I see it as the wolves in amongst the sheep personally.

I believe eventually all the sheep will be gone and only wolves will remain, in all denomonations, even Catholicism - and then it will be the second coming of Christ.

Good question, no easy answers, this topic has rather disillusioned me myself, however though I am a Protestant, I’m not sure any church today has 100% - even Catholicism.

Very, very disheartening.

Love,
Rev

 

[Philthy]

phil, you seem to be upset the God has the power to determine who his people are.

Not at all my friend. God has chosen every single one of us when he died on the cross for every single one of us. Yet we both recognize that not everyone is going to heaven.
To me, it seems that you are the one uncomfortable with the gift of freedom to have eternal consequences in one’s life by claiming everything that comes to pass is the will of God.

baraq:

Why do Catholics think their prayers(even prayers to mere creatures) can help someone come to salvation, but so easily reject our most wise creator making that choice?

Nice attempt at a dodge from the substance of my comments with a straw man attack on Catholicism, but Im not that gullible. Why pray at all if God’s will is sovereign is the most logical question to be asked. You are the one who claimed that doctrinal plurality is part of God’s sovereign will - why is it you believe Catholic prayers for the salvation of others are NOT part of God’s sovereign will??? No doubt you pick and choose those things which comfortably fit into your theology to be in accord with God’s sovereign will, but those things which are not, you will illogically attempt to remedy through various means (ie, discussion) and thereby unwittingly refute your claim of a belief in God’s sovereign will as ordaining all events.

baraq:

from the Canons of Dordt

Article 14. As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God, was declared by the prophets, by Christ himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for enlivening and comforting his people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High. Acts 20:27;Romans 11:33,34;12:3;Hebrews 6:17,18.

Lots of fancy talk with very little practical use. It does nothing to defend your position against the very concrete problems addressed in real terms. If you wish to engage in dialogue, please address the issues I brought up - dont throw out a vague reference to the doctrine of “divine election” without at least applying to those issues.

 

[kaycee]

WEll you could say the same thing about the early church read the epistles of Paul they were not exactly agreeing with the official party line in how they lived the christian faith heck the churchs he wrote too seemed to be always contradicitng what he told them to do and deny the official church teaching heck around the time of Nicea 85 perccent of the church in the East where Arians despite the pleas of the Pope and St Athanasius. THe Majority rules is not what christiantiy was every about it was about official church teaching if you obeyed it or not did not credit or discredit the church only the teaching mattered. The level of piety in Christiantiy ebbed and flowed through the years. THe early church had an official party line adn still does that is what matters.

You have totally missed the point about unity.

Also the official party line in protestantism does not matter much those in the pews of protestatnism as no one can claim infalliability.

Oh God more Straw men

Protestantism has each individual’s opinion has equal claim to truth as each person has the same criteria of truth his individual interpretation of scripiture. Thus the claim that is only your interpretation of scripture by those outside of protestantism is a valid and crushing critique.

thought we were talking about unity? But hey I did build this lovely straw basket in the mean time :ehh:

 

[Baraq]

Phil,

In discussing this issue, we lack common ground. You(and many Protestants) believe God sent Christ as a path for salvation. You believe Christ died for noone, but rather just a path for someone to claim a liberty(in your case thru works and faith)

We in the Reformed Church know that Christ died only for the elect(John 17:9-22), and he did foreknow them for glory(Romans 8:28-29).

We are comforted by the soverignty of God, knowing that a hair can not fall from our head w/out the Father. This comfort in our Father perfect divine will for us lets us concentrate on honoring God in a way that is pleasing to him and not be consumed with what those in error might think.

 

[kaycee]

Certainly the Mystical Union is the most important.

John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 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. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 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.

If you are in Christ; there is perfect unity.

 

[Baraq]

Amen Kaycee

 

[Philthy]

heis

Glad to hear you arent insecure, if I were an RCC or Orthodox member I would spend sleepless nights wondering if my Eucharist should be leavened or not. Or I might wonder if my baptism was done right…

No you wouldn’t - you’d be fully assured that all the thoughts that pass through your mind pass under the sovereignty of Gods will, right? Unless, of course, you dont believe that Gods Will is sovereign over your mind…

 

[Baraq]

Phil,

What part of 'if I were an Orthodox or RCC member" did you not understand??

Perhaps you didnt understand the context of my statement, as it wasnt directed to you(nor was the intial question asked by heis but why should that stop you from taking cheap shots at Protestants?) Maybe you feel you had to answer it for us?

Perhaps you dont even understand the thread.

Maybe you should reread it again

 

[Philthy]

Phil,

In discussing this issue, we lack common ground. You(and many Protestants) believe God sent Christ as a path for salvation. You believe Christ died for no one, but rather just a path for someone to claim a liberty(in your case thru works and faith)

Thanks for telling me what I believe (or should I simply thank God for willing you to say it?), Im sure it will come in handy.

baraq:

We in the Reformed Church know that Christ died only for the elect(John 17:9-22), and he did foreknow them for glory(Romans 8:28-29).

Care to share with us how you know that everyone alive right now is not part of the elect by virtue of Christs sacrifice? Care to reveal who were the “foreknown” that Paul spoke of? I’ll give you a hint - it aint you or me. You will need to read all the way to Chapter 11 to find that “those whom he foreknew” are the …Israelites. "Gods people… whom he foreknew "
So although Im confident WHY you are dragging up “the elect” and those whom he “foreknew” I am not sure that it is particularly relevent to the discussion at hand.

Baraq:

We are comforted by the soverignty of God, knowing that a hair can not fall from our head w/out the Father. This comfort in our Father perfect divine will for us lets us concentrate on honoring God in a way that is pleasing to him and not be consumed with what those in error might think.

You seem to confuse God’s sovereignty with our freedom to act according to God’s will - or against it. This freedom is part of being made in God’s image and God has given it to us by his sovereign authority.
It has been sovereignly willed by God that we have the capability of acting in accordance with God’s will or against it. Do you disagree with that statement or not?

Either way, you have yet to articulate a relationship between Protestant theological plurality and God’s sovereignty in a meaningful way. Instead of trying to discredit the beliefs of another, why dont you simply state your own and address the concrete issues that have been brought up in response to those beliefs?

 

[Alexius]

Phil,

In discussing this issue, we lack common ground. You(and many Protestants) believe God sent Christ as a path for salvation. You believe Christ died for noone, but rather just a path for someone to claim a liberty(in your case thru works and faith)

We in the Reformed Church know that Christ died only for the elect(John 17:9-22), and he did foreknow them for glory(Romans 8:28-29).

No, Christ died for ALL, not for a few or for no one. Following the Reformed teaching on this, I could blame God for being sent to Hell. I see a great similarity between this and the gnostics…Both see some sort of elitist salvation, where God chooses and man hopes. Personally, I don’t see how you have anymore hope of salvation than the rest of us. How do you know you are “saved?” Because you feel good? Because good things happen to you? What happens if you are not blessed later in life? Does that mean you didn’t have “true” faith to begin with? I am curious how anyone could fall into the monergist trap…

Anyway, I see this as another point of disagreement in Protestantism - how is one saved? Most just say “by grace” and leave it at that. Can you honestly say that this is not fundamental, so all are united in Christ? If the differences didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be “ecumenism” or St. Paul’s exhortation to agree…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[MariaG]

KayCee…

I will agree completely that there are a large number of people in the CC that have no understanding of what it means to be catholic. Terribly sad fact, but one that is true. However, the same can almost always be said for any denomonation. I am willing to wager that its the same percentage for any self professed “Insert Denomonation affiliation” would be the same. The main differance is that you dont see those lacking in faith in church as much in the protestant world NEARLY as much as you do in the catholic world. For a protestant, its not necisarily a sin to miss service, however, catholic teaching that it is a sin to miss is one of the few teachings every catholic knows, therefore, you get… i dont know what I believe, bu i know i have to go to church and therefore do.

In otherwords, you get a higher percentage of [Catholic] people with dead faith GOING to service, but overall, the percentage of people claiming a denomonation yet being ignorant of itis probably the same for all denoms…

Couple of points.

I agree with heisenburg that more Catholics with a dead faith attend church but disagree that those who “claim” to be a denomination but ignorant is the same. I think there are way more Catholics who claim to be Catholic and are ignorant than Protestants who claim a denomination. They not only stop going, they stop claiming to be part of that denomination for the most part.

Protestant attendance is better than Catholic attendance.

I agree with Brian that those who CLAIM to be a protestant denomination have better attendance than Catholics who claim to be catholics.

But again, there is a strong “cultural” catholic who will claim to be Catholic even though they have no desire to go to church while most “former” non-practicing Protestants will claim no church. (Although I have noticed that former Baptists have almost as strong as a cultural aspect to them as Catholics do.)

I would have to disagree at this point. On the whole Evangelical congregations have a very good grasp of doctine.

I would agree with Kaycee that the Evangelicals who GO to church have a fairly good grasp of their own doctrine.

However, I would not say that they necessarily know their faith better than the average Catholic who actually goes to church regularly but they can SHARE that faith better. Catholics may have a strong faith, but frequently cannot express that faith wheareas Evangelicals believe PART of a strong faith means one must be able to share it.

I do believe a faithful Catholic knows the “Basics” as well as any Protestant, but again, cannot always share that faith as well as an average Evangelical.

I think the number of Catholic OR Protestants who truly understand or get into the finer points of their respective theologies are limited in both. Possibly more in Protestants, especially the newer fundamentlist ones because they only HAVE the basics whereas 2000 years has brought ALOT of “finer points” in the Catholic Church.

:twocents:

 

[Baraq]

Phil,

Is that really what they teach you? Romans 8:29-30 apply to the Jews and not the elct bride of Christ? Or do you also misunderstand RCC dogma too?(I’ll guess the latter)

Romans 8 CLEARLY discusses the workings of the Spirit of God in reconciling Christians to Christ, clearly a post Pentacost Christian happening

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Romans 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Romans 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No you wouldn’t - you’d be fully assured that all the thoughts that pass through your mind pass under the sovereignty of Gods will, right? Unless, of course, you dont believe that Gods Will is sovereign over your mind…

God is sovereign in all matters, from the greatest to the least: that is absolutely beyond doubt - it does not follow that:​

1. Divine Providence prevents any particular evil, or all particular evils - even those which have to do with His Church; so persecutions & false doctrines & scandals are not abolished - however, God overrules them for His Glory, & for the good of His own; He works in & through such things, even though the malice of man (which is absolutely subject to Him) sets them going.
2. ISTM that the sin of Melkor in the Ainulindale in the Silmarillion illustrates this point well - Melkor’s self-will serves only the purposes of Iluvatar, Who has no need of it, & is not pleased by it (because it is a sin), Who makes it part of His own purposes, despite the malice of the intention of Melkor. Parts of the theology of the Sil are quite Calvinist
3. So even our sins are “tributary” to God’s purposes - the malice & guilt remain ours, the Righteousness which avenges sin & gains glory from doing so is God’s. He is glorified by being righteous against sin, righteous in taking vengeance upon it, righteous in turning it to His own purposes, righteous in forgiving sinners. In no way whatever is He the author of it or responsible for it. The supreme example of this is the Crucifixion, which is at one & the same time both supremely sinful, & supremely Righteous, according as one considers man’s part or God’s. It is the greatest paradox, because it is the supreme revelation of of the Wisdom of God & the Power of God: it challenges & undermines all expectations about how God ought to act.

Because God is totally sovereign over all creatures in every respect, those whom He has chosen to be His - not because they are anything good, but because He is alone Good - need not be afraid of any creature, not even of ceasing to be His; for if they are His, they will live in a way which reflects His Love for them: to do so, will be connatural to them. As St. Augustine says, “Have charity, and do what you will”: in so far as they belong to Him, & the more they are sanctified & renewed by the Spirit of Christ, the freer they are to do their own will; because their will, like that of Jesus, is to do His Will. The more they become His by the grace of His Holy Spirit Who is continually sanctifying them, the more fully His Law is written on their hearts, as prophesied in Jeremiah 31.31-34, so that they are freed more & more from all purely external law.

 

[runandsew]

Well, from what i can see the unity of the Catholic church stems more from apathy and ignorance rather than agreement on doctrine. The vast majority of laity do not really care to know enough about Catholic doctrine to have an opinion. The unity is imposed at an official level with the vast majority clueless past a very shallow level of knowledge. Those that might be inclined to disagree are told that agreement or at least acceptance of dogma is necessary for salvation.

Heck, Peter Kreeft at Boston College states that 95% of his students could not articulate the Catholic version of salvation.

Does that mean that 95% of students at a Catholic university (Boston College) are unified in the Faith?

So are you saying, that if Catholics weren’t so stupid and actually gave a hoot, that they probably would not believe what the Church teaches, and therefore would either descent, or just plain leave the Church?

 

[Philthy]

Phil,
Is that really what they teach you?

Hi Baraq -

They?? I dont know whom you are referring to. What I expressed was my personal understanding based upon reading the book of Romans. In Chapter 11 the term - those he foreknew - is explored again in added detail… "I ask, “Has God rejected his people? Of course not! For I too am an ISRAELITE…God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew…” From this I concluded that “those he foreknew” were the Israelites - like Paul.

baraq:
Romans 8:29-30 apply to the Jews and not the elect bride of Christ?

I never said that.

baraq:

Or do you also misunderstand RCC dogma too?(I’ll guess the latter)

Im not sure what you are asking, but I am certain it is a pointless question born of your apparent inability to demonstrate why I am mistaken and , instead, ridicule me.

baraq:

Romans 8 CLEARLY discusses the workings of the Spirit of God in reconciling Christians to Christ, clearly a post Pentacost Christian happening.

I agree, but it is irrelevent to the discussion. You need to do a better job of explaining your thoughts, tying them in to the discussion at hand and then defending them concretely. Fortunately this is not the thread for you to regurgitate whatever “they” have taught you about predestination. The topic at hand is disunity. Let’s return to your justification of the theological divisions which have plagued Christianity in unprecedented fashion since the birth - and as a function of - Protestantism:

baraq:
“Since God is completely soveriegn, there is no need for us to question the righteousness of the division. Granted, we might lament the division, but we know it is what is best.”

The “righteousness of the division” What are you talking about? Honestly - how is this justification any different than blaming sinful acts of men on God’s sovereignty? For example, suppose a man is seduced by a woman into having extramarital sex. Is he to simply assume that it "God is completely sovereign and that he need not “question the righteousness” of the act because, though he might regret it, he knows “it is what is best”?
It seems like a “cop out” of the first order to me, and a denial of free will. Again, develop your thoughts, make them relevant to the topic and substantiate them.

 

[Nicene]

Well, from what i can see the unity of the Catholic church stems more from apathy and ignorance rather than agreement on doctrine. The vast majority of laity do not really care to know enough about Catholic doctrine to have an opinion.

It is my experience that this is true of the majority of protestantism as well. I think it is a universal truth, as you will find it in every religion. Probably why we are all sheep in need of a shepherd.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Baraq]

Oh, your ‘personal’ understanding. lol, Arent you the one criticizing Protestants for not being unified?. Do you know what your Church teaches about Romans 8? never mind

(like an earlier poster noted)Apathy, ignorance and keeping the same name isnt what we are called for. We are new creatures, called according to a purpose, the workmanship of his hands. Does not the Potter have power over the clay? to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?(here I quote the apostle)-btw a soverign God is not the author of sin, does not the same apostle answer this?Romans 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Romans 7:19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.Romans 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So far phil we have hit on 3 main distictions between the Reformed and the RCC

1. Original Sin- We believe man is totally depraved without faith(as noted in Romans 7)
2. Election- God Soverignty to predestine his people(what we talked about last time-Romans 8)
3. Perserverance of the saints- what you touched upon in your post(John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

Indeed, it is God that gives faith, brings salvation and keeps his people faithful.