Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

[Mr G Lee]

I would think division is for the protection of the different sects as families two or three that gather under the hearing of faith giving us His understanding to mutual comfort all the denominations as nations of this world .Our father is the father of all nations giving meaning to the word Abraham to represent the bosom or unseen presence of God Seeing the one kingdom of God does not come by observing the temporal things seen there must be differences of opinion called sects or heresies among us as our private interpretations or personal commentaries of what we think he is teaches us as we defend that faith .

1 Corinthians 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Oral traditions of men differ and as long as they do not do despite to the fulness of grace the full price of salvation they can be tolerated in respect to the peace of God as his unseen understanding works in us . In that way we can see that not all herises are damanble or judgeable

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

The final authority in matters of faith the unseen will is as it is written .With the word it represent the source or power of faith.the same power of our unseen God who is not a man as us.

Those who did serve damnable heresies after the law of men (oral traditions) a hierarchy of men lording it over the none venerable understandings of faith that do do despite to the fulness of grace the cost of salvation .

They gathered themselves (not called by God) and tried to prove all things written in the law and prophets or law and testimony (sola scriptura) was a heresy so they could keep their false gospel of men .

Acts 24:13 Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

That applies in any denomination that serves a hierarchy of venerable men

Paul worshiped as it is written the God of the fathers as believers .Not the legion of fathers as many gods unbelievers

 

[Arial]

Paul is speaking of those under the law....not himself after he is saved. It's the forbidden fruit idea. Without the law, there would be no sin.

Paul is speaking to believers, Jew and Gentile alike. I see nothing that suggests that he is not speaking from his own Christian experience. Especially since it is something every Christian struggles with.

Nevertheless, man is not held accountable for any sin until he reaches the age when God considers him accountable for sin. Thus it isn't in our nature, but this sinful world itself.

I would need to see scripture verification for that first statement. But even if it is true about the accountability, it would not arrive at the conclusion that sin is not a part of our nature. It would be mercy. We have an abundance of scripture that says we are born in sin. Since a baby cannot sin intentionally, then it must mean that it is in our nature. Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:3; (we are by nature children of wrath); Psalm 58:3. We have three enemies as humans to deal with. They are seen listed together in Eph.2:1-6. The world, our flesh, and the devil.

 

[Mark Schmidt]

First I love this discussion as it has been civil and seems there is an exchange of ideas on a point that has been discussed in theology circles for decades. The problem with any assertions is that it is based on personal bias. So no two people will ever see the issue, especially this issue from the same point. I think the simplest answer to why all the divisions within Christianity and it is overly simplified here is - Humans. As you can see by the answers and discussion here, once a human has become involved everyone stakes out their corner, and then they defend it and believes it is right. Wars have been fought over who has the right way to believe. There are still wars going on but only now it is in media, in forums, and many other nonviolent ways to push an agenda of belief.

I am one that when someone or a church or organization takes a position I feel at conflict with, whether it is a Baptist, a Wesleyan, Catholic, reformed Catholic, or many others, I refer back to the Bible. I try to find the version they typically use to see the words they are basing it on. I want to understand how they came to the viewpoint they have. I ask questions. I do not start with condemning, I start with trying to understand. One of the main tenants of the Christ when he was just plain ole Jesus of Nazareth and teaching others.

I have never understood those that hate on Calvin or Luther or Wesley or Mennon or any of the reformers, nor the protestant hatred of Catholics. We all have the same roots and foundation in our religion, the teachings of Jesus, through his disciples. We as the inheritors of this legacy and this religion have allowed those foundation teaching to be corrupted and misused by those put in charge and allow hatred to be bred into us when Christ preach love and understanding above all else.

I chose love and understanding.

 

[Mungo]

If the foundation (doctrine) of Christ's church is established by the apostles that Jesus sent to do just that, are contained within scripture, where else would one go to see what they are? And what other source would be as or more reliable?

I didn't suggest that we do not go to scripture for doctrine. But scripture is not the only source of doctrine.
Jesus taught the apostles.
The apostles taught others.
None of them handed out Bibles and said "It's all in there".

Nowhere does Scripture teach scripture alone in any form. There is not a single verse that teaches this.
Scripture teaches that there are other sources of revelation apart from scripture (2Thess 2:15, 1Cor 11:34, 2Tim 2:2).
Neither Jesus nor the apostles taught from Scripture alone.

Scripture does have authority. It is the very word of God and there is no higher authority.

No, authority lies with persons not a book.

authority
n noun (plural authorities)
1 the power or right to give orders and enforce obedience.
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

Authority is the power and legitimacy to require others to do something.
Power is the ability make others do something.
Legitimacy is the right to require others to do something.

A person can have legitimacy without power (e.g. a king in exile)
A person might have power but no legitimacy (e.g. the usurper who exiled the king)

If someone has authority, then when they give someone a task, a mission, an office under their authority, then they give them the authority that goes with it. This consists of the power to act and to speak in their name (within the scope of the authority they give them).

We can see this in Jesus. His authority comes from the Father. In Mt 28:18 he says:
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

But earlier than that he said
Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. (Jn 5:19)
and
When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. (Jn 8:28)

Jesus acts and speaks in his Father’s name.

 

[Mark Schmidt]

Paul is speaking to believers, Jew and Gentile alike. I see nothing that suggests that he is not speaking from his own Christian experience. Especially since it is something every Christian struggles with.

I would need to see scripture verification for that first statement. But even if it is true about the accountability, it would not arrive at the conclusion that sin is not a part of our nature. It would be mercy. We have an abundance of scripture that says we are born in sin. Since a baby cannot sin intentionally, then it must mean that it is in our nature. Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:3; (we are by nature children of wrath); Psalm 58:3. We have three enemies as humans to deal with. They are seen listed together in Eph.2:1-6. The world, our flesh, and the devil.

You do realize that the word devil or satan was added when the translation to English was made. There was no word proper English word for what was used in the ancient Greek and Latin texts, not even Guttenberg in his German text found a proper word. They chose to use a pagan word that describes the worse of people. Sadly we have boughten into this minor change for centuries. While it is a good descriptor it is not to be taken that literal in my opinion as in a living breathing thing, but more of the malignant nature of us all. Just my opinion and viewpoint.

 

[Mark Schmidt]

Excellent point on the Bible Mungo. The Bible as a single source did not come into existence for over 300 years after Christ's death. It was not widely used as a single source for a long time after that. Most still adhered to using a single or two books at the most. There are Churches to this day around the world that teach strictly from the Gospel book of Mark. In Africa, there are churches that use only Enoch and the old testament. We have become too fixated on a single source when all sources should be looked at to get an understanding of the Books that are in the Bible.

 

[Mr G Lee]

Two points.
1. Sola Scriptura, meaning scripture alone is the source for doctrine. is unbiblical.

2. Scripture has no authority. It is authoritative - meaning true and reliable. Authority lies with persons not books. It is transmitted from one person (who has it) to another.

I'm happy to discuss this but perhaps you would prefer to leave this for another time.

It relies with the finger of God not seen the one who inspired dying mankind moving men from within to write in his book that he began, giving it to Moses .Hewn by his eternal hand as a will again written with his finger to establish the law of (sola scriptura)

When the first set was smashed to powder because of the unbelieving Jew and their oral tradition (I heard it through the fathers grape vine . The second time God moves Moses to hew out the stone tablets then again to cement the tradition of God (sola scriptura) again God not Moses wrote his words with his own finger (or invisible will)

First things first first prophecy does not come by the mind or will as the apostle they can plant sola scritura and water it with the doctrines of God that fall like rain inspired from above bound on earth . They are considered as nothing. Unless Christ in us does the work of teaching as two walking as one.

Being moved of God shows they had no power to please God not seen

Note. . .(purple) my addition to help develop a point

2 Peter 1::20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.(personal commentary )
For the prophecy (God's will) came not in old time by the will of man: (apostles) but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Exodus 31:17-18 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Written of both sides leaving no room for adding the oral traditions of men as their private or own interpretation called a law of the fathers or some call apostolic succession (no such thing)

Exodus 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony (sola scriptura) were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

Breaking the law, Moses was moved to shatter them .then again to re-establish the law not subject to change

Exodus 32: 34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

To the law written with the finger of God and the testimony broken and reintroduced if mankind believes not as one word to reveal and empower then they have no lamp onto their path or light unto their feet .

 

[Legroom]

"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.

While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial." UB 1955

 

[Mungo]

It relies with the finger of God not seen the one who inspired dying mankind moving men from within to write in his book that he began, giving it to Moses .Hewn by his eternal hand as a will again written with his finger to establish the law of (sola scriptura)

When the first set was smashed to powder because of the unbelieving Jew and their oral tradition (I heard it through the fathers grape vine . The second time God moves Moses to hew out the stone tablets then again to cement the tradition of God (sola scriptura) again God not Moses wrote his words with his own finger (or invisible will)

First things first first prophecy does not come by the mind or will as the apostle they can plant sola scritura and water it with the doctrines of God that fall like rain inspired from above bound on earth . They are considered as nothing. Unless Christ in us does the work of teaching as two walking as one.

Being moved of God shows they had no power to please God not seen

Note. . .(purple) my addition to help develop a point

2 Peter 1::20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.(personal commentary )
For the prophecy (God's will) came not in old time by the will of man: (apostles) but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Exodus 31:17-18 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Written of both sides leaving no room for adding the oral traditions of men as their private or own interpretation called a law of the fathers or some call apostolic succession (no such thing)

Exodus 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony (sola scriptura) were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

Breaking the law, Moses was moved to shatter them .then again to re-establish the law not subject to change

Exodus 32: 34 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

To the law written with the finger of God and the testimony broken and reintroduced if mankind believes not as one word to reveal and empower then they have no lamp onto their path or light unto their feet .

Big on personal assertions. (Vanishly ) tiny on evidence.
Read post #40

 

[ThatCatholic]

There is no question that there are many theological divisions among Christians, and that is not even taking into consideration what is often called Christianity but is not, as some or all of the foundational doctrines of Christianity are denied. Christianity, made up of those belonging to Christ and as is defined by Christ Himself and the apostles He appointed to set the foundational (teachings), is a definite. It does not have movable boundaries when it comes to who He is, what He did, how it is applied. This includes the Trinity, virgin birth, sinless life of Jesus, His substitutionary death, His resurrection. His ascension. It includes the justification of the believer through the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, the impartation of the Holy Spirit for sealing the believer and for sanctifying and training the believer in righteousness, and this for Christ's glory not in order to save ourselves through our own righteousness. It includes the atonement.

The Bible speaks of those who are in Christ as being one body, His body. So why all the divisions we see? And why, at least in the format of forum but I suspect within many churches as well, are these differences in doctrine or theology never actually dealt with but simply argued over?

I have arrived at the suspicion, and it is not based on nothing but rather careful and concerted thought done mostly within the scriptures, that the most damaging thing that has happened in the modern church, is the very thing that stirs up the most anger and hatred from within the body of Christ towards one another, is the abandonment of Reformed theology. What has pretty much been reduced to the term, and that used in a negative way, Calvinism. Specifically the TULIP, even though that is only a small part of reformed theology, but is the premise from which all of scripture is understood and interpreted. Oddly enough, most of the church agrees on the conclusions that this premise leads to, though without this premise, those conclusions are only llp service. And by that I do not mean that a person is believing those truths of salvation in vain or without sincerity of faith. I only mean that if they followed their premise of free will consistnatly, rather than the premise of God's absolute sovereignty and man's fallen sinful nature as taught by the total depravity doctrine,and original sin, they would not arrive at the same place. The idea of man having a will that is willing to serve and love God and God alone, and that our salvation is dependant, not on what Jesus did for us but on what we do, our choice, of whether to accept this or not, completely tears down the premise of the total sovereignty of God. Anyone who has ever read with reverence and understanding Job chapters 38 through 41, ought to give pause when suggesting what God can and cannot do, what He will and will not do. Or ever having it cross their mind that they should reject a doctrine or doctrines that have been a part of Christ's church from its birth. That is, the doctrine of original sin, and mankind's unwillingness to come to Him with any kind of a pure heart, and God being the One who saves and chooses those He saves because He is sovereign in all things. These doctrines were not pulled out of thin air. They came out of the word of God, and they are in almost every confession of faith that came out of the Reformation. There were differences and divisions then too---but they were over minor things that did not pertain to salvation. It is thanks mainly to a man named Charles Finney in the 19th century, that these doctrines began to be overturned, and the gates of the church were torn down and left wide open for every wind of doctrine to march right into the church, so that now even the walls are burned to the ground.

If we begin with the premise that God is truly sovereign at all times and in all things----as the Bible makes clear that He is---we will have an entirely different view of Him and ourselves in relation to and relationship with Him. If we do not start there, and maintain that premise on every page and sentence we read, we will have contradictions in the Bible. If we stay with this premise, over time and with diligence, we can unravel those apparent contradictions, sometimes like the day dawning, and sometimes with the knowledge that it is a paradox or a mystery not yet revealed,or the secret things of God that our finiteness cannot fathom but that faith takes to heart, but that we have no more business probing than we have of going through a strangers personal things. The most common way we have of dealing with apparent contradictions is to pick the one that suits our image of God the best, or requires the least amount of thought, while ignoring whatever contradicts the belief we choose. While also shouting loudly that we are doing no such thing.

So I ask this. Is there anywhere in the Bible where God leaves a single element of His purpose and His plans determinate in the hands of mankind? Does not everything and everywhere always work towards His purposes? Does He not say this Himself? So why, at the most crucial point in His redemptive plan, that final step of a person being saved, or not, does He suddenly step back, out of the picture, and say I love you so much I will leave it up to each person whether or not they are redeemed. Mind you, this would be after He sent His beloved Son, and the Son came in the likeness of us, and sent Him to the cross to His suffering and death, to redeem a people, rescue them from their sin and from death. He then turns the efficacy of Christ's life and death and resurrection and ascension, over to a tiny, fallen, corrupted, creature? Gives the result of this into the hearts of the enemies of the cross? Gives to the rescued the glory due the Rescuer? I think not. May it never be!

And lest the argument come up that God did this because He wanted people who loved Him voluntarily, let's look at that a bit deeper. What we have are people who come to God for self preservation. Whereas, if we have a people who come to God because He has snatched them out of the kingdom of darkness and brought them into the kingdom of the Son of HIs love, what do we have? We have a people who love the Father and come to Him because He first loved them to such a great degree the He sent HIs Son to die in their place, for their sins, gave them personally to the Son, imputing Christ's righteousness to them in place of their filthy rags. And giving them what they need to trust in Christ and Christ alone---the very faith to believe the gospel when they hear it.

There are many other ways in which the abandonment of both original sin and predestination have weakened and change the church and our understanding of scripture that we can explore.

Greetings, Arial!

Given my username, it is surely no surprise that I agree with the points and counterpoints presented by Mungo.
To answer the question posed by the thread title, I would say division comes from man's sinful nature. Man, by original sin, wants to make himself the arbiter of Truth.

I think this is adequately conveyed by Mungo's highlighting of the Reformers disagreement amongst even themselves on what doctrines were accepted and rejected. Worthy of note, the Reformers were altering doctrine that had been agreed upon throughout the Christian world for 1500 years (exceptions being the various heresies).

The error I see within your OP, outside of doctrinal disagreements, is that you enter with a presupposition of various ideas, such as the Reformed Theology being Truth that was abandoned. You also enter with the presupposition that Scripture Alone is authoritative. Herein, you have two very basic "reformed" approaches to a topic on division. Historically, as stated before, it is these ideas that was contrary to doctrines and ideas taught since the Early Church. Perhaps it would be prudent to examine how the Reformation was divisive before using that as the starting point and beacon of absolute truth.

 

[Arial]

Greetings, Arial!

Given my username, it is surely no surprise that I agree with the points and counterpoints presented by Mungo.
To answer the question posed by the thread title, I would say division comes from man's sinful nature. Man, by original sin, wants to make himself the arbiter of Truth.

I think this is adequately conveyed by Mungo's highlighting of the Reformers disagreement amongst even themselves on what doctrines were accepted and rejected. Worthy of note, the Reformers were altering doctrine that had been agreed upon throughout the Christian world for 1500 years (exceptions being the various heresies).

The error I see within your OP, outside of doctrinal disagreements, is that you enter with a presupposition of various ideas, such as the Reformed Theology being Truth that was abandoned. You also enter with the presupposition that Scripture Alone is authoritative. Herein, you have two very basic "reformed" approaches to a topic on division. Historically, as stated before, it is these ideas that was contrary to doctrines and ideas taught since the Early Church. Perhaps it would be prudent to examine how the Reformation was divisive before using that as the starting point and beacon of absolute truth.

There seems to be two major misconceptions on what the OP is about. But before I get to that, let me point out your statement that I enter with a presupposition of various ideas. It is me and my beliefs that created the thread so naturally my beliefs and ideas are going to be contained within it. It is not a dissertation on the Reformation, or a discussion on the divisions within the Reformation. First misconception. The second misconception is that it about Reformed theology, often denigratorized as Calvinism.

And of course divisions are caused by man's sinful nature. What else? It is man's sinful nature that doesn't like to have boundaries set for him also, and why he tears them down. But Jesus did set boundaries for the doctrines (teachings) of His church. They are contained in the apostolic epistles. Whether we like it or not---and we don't. So we moved and slowly removed the ancient boundaries and have turned Christ's church into "my" church.

The authority of scripture over church tradition is not a presupposition. It is a fact of God.

I made a supposition about what might be a large contributing factor of the doctrinal divisions that today have developed into something that seems to have no bounds. Anything goes. I presented it as a supposition. I am speaking of two particular doctrines---that indeed came into the church as common and solid in the time of the Reformation, that were abandoned as not needed for foundational Christianity. (Protestant doctrine if that makes you feel better.) I am a protestant and my concerns are with the protestant doctrines. I am and was in no way casting aspersions on Catholics, or those who do not believe in predestination. I presented a question. Period. And what has happened so far in this thread pretty much bears out my suspicions, and that is not meant as an insult or accusation of anyone either. At times it becomes difficult to dare to say anything on here as there are always those who rise up in arms.

Those two positions that were laid aside as either not important or untrue beginning really in the mid to late 19th century, are the Sovereignty of God and original sin. I have had to repeat this a few times now to pull the thread back on track! In today's protestant church those two things are so removed from teaching and preaching that Christianity as we find in the apostolic age has flown the coop. Anything goes. There are no boundaries and there is no foundation. The result is chaos and division. Nearly, and maybe, all the very tenants of Christianity, the apostolic teaching, and even the teaching of and about God are discounted as important. The Bible is no longer our guide or sets our limits, this yielding to God. Instead in large part our "doctrines" are born out of feelings and experiences, and an image of God we create that is molded according to how we want God to be and what we feel He should be. Our beliefs are pulled out of thin air with perhaps a reference here or there to scripture or Jesus, irregardless of who one thinks He is or what they think He did or didn't do.

And I have found that anyone who dares to stand unmoving on that solid ground of ancient days and Ancient of Days, here anyway, is quickly ridiculed and assaulted and their beliefs attacked---by Christian and non Christian alike, though not by everyone. Which brings up another supposition? Is that because at all costs, we don't want our idols torn down and be faced with the God who is, rather than the God we are presently comfortable with. Are we afraid we can't love and worship that God. If we had those two foundation stones to stand upon, the sovereignty of God and original sin, this would not be a problem. A God who is sovereign and also good and holy and perfect, is a God who can be trusted, and trusted to keep His people, even if there are things about Him we find difficult to understand or to like because we can't understand them. A sovereign God hears our every word and thought, always has His eye upon us as provider and protector and leader. In original sin and only there, combined with the holiness and power of a sovereign God, can we truly see the desperation of our need and helplessness and hopelessness of ever escaping this condition in which we are bound. And in seeing those two things, is where we see the true magnitude and glory and love of God who saves us, by the Son coming as one of us, to pay for our sins with His perfection and death, that He might rescue us forever.

In truth, my heart weeps over the condition of Christ's church in much the same way as Nehemiah wept over the ruins of Jerusalem.

 

[Arial]

You do realize that the word devil or satan was added when the translation to English was made. There was no word proper English word for what was used in the ancient Greek and Latin texts, not even Guttenberg in his German text found a proper word. They chose to use a pagan word that describes the worse of people. Sadly we have boughten into this minor change for centuries. While it is a good descriptor it is not to be taken that literal in my opinion as in a living breathing thing, but more of the malignant nature of us all. Just my opinion and viewpoint.

That works well for Satan I guess.