Why All the Divisions Within Christ's Church?

[Grace Accepted]

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.

Christianity suffers from a lack of Christians.

 

[Arial]

Why all the divisions. Because the majority is not "Christ's Church".

Even those looking to divide and not bring together should know their place.

I am talking about within the true church Pops. And by that I mean those who actually are joined to Christ according to biblical teaching. Who Jesus is and what He accomplished, how He accomplished this, how it is applied to a person. There is not much point in addressing every imagination that calls itself Christian while at the same time denying a good many of these teachings that are found in scripture and therefore are the tenants and doctrines of Christianity. Though it is shameful that true Christians----whole denominations and non denominations---have become so weakened and cowed that even this is accepted. What is shameful is that when this is done, combined with no actual doctrinal teaching from the pulpit but just feel good stuff, the true gospel is not heard and the entire congregations, those shepherd's flocks, are in danger of never actually hearing the gospel.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I am talking about within the true church Pops. And by that I mean those who actually are joined to Christ according to biblical teaching. Who Jesus is and what He accomplished, how He accomplished this, how it is applied to a person. There is not much point in addressing every imagination that calls itself Christian while at the same time denying a good many of these teachings that are found in scripture and therefore are the tenants and doctrines of Christianity. Though it is shameful that true Christians----whole denominations and non denominations---have become so weakened and cowed that even this is accepted. What is shameful is that when this is done, combined with no actual doctrinal teaching from the pulpit but just feel good stuff, the true gospel is not heard and the entire congregations, those shepherd's flocks, are in danger of never actually hearing the gospel.

I know what you're talking about. You made your criteria quite clear. There are different understandings of both "original sin" and the sovereignty of GOD. We as believers should be able to understand this without judging the other as not a Christian. We should be able to attempt to reason together in sincerity and gentleness and conclude the matter.

 

[Mungo]

I disagree with that, as I am not Catholic for a reason. You would naturally say what you say because you are a Catholic. Why this has turned into a Catholic/Protestant thread is beyond me.

I have only responded to what you and others have said about the Catholic Church.

If you insist on keeping it as one rather than making your own for that purpose,

I have only responded to what you and others have said about the Catholic Church.

then at least tell us, where these Catholic doctrines that you obviously realize are considered contradictions of scripture by protestants, are not properly understood. What are they? What is the "proper understanding" of what scripture is saying and your interpretation of the Catholic understanding?

What a weird request.
I stated no Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture and you ask me to list the Catholic doctrines that Protestants do think contradict Scripture.

 

[Arial]

Many opinions but not a single piece of evidence to support them.
To take but one:
"But Jesus did set boundaries for the doctrines (teachings) of His church. They are contained in the apostolic epistles."
Where is the evidence for that claim?

The Bible itself is its own evidence and support. All we need for salvation and to be joined to Christ through faith is within the front and back covers of that Book. The meaning or content is not to be changed, as it is God's truth. That is a boundary. There is Rev 22:18 though I know the argument against that will be that it only applies to the book of Revelation. Another slipping and sliding of man giving into his fallen nature rather than battling against it. There is the entire chapter of 2 Tim 3 which culminates in 2 Tim 3:16-17. Eph 2:19-21.
Jesus has ascended to heaven, the apostles have completed their work to which Jesus appointed them, The Holy Spirit has come to dwell within and with the believer as teacher and help. What He teaches is the word of God. He does not add to what Jesus has established and He does not take away from it. The doctrines (foundation) of Christ's true church were established by Jesus and the apostles. It is finished. A closed book. No man, woman, institution has the authority to change what God has already done.

 

[Mungo]

The Bible itself is its own evidence and support. All we need for salvation and to be joined to Christ through faith is within the front and back covers of that Book.

An opinion - with no evidence

The meaning or content is not to be changed, as it is God's truth. That is a boundary. There is Rev 22:18 though I know the argument against that will be that it only applies to the book of Revelation. Another slipping and sliding of man giving into his fallen nature rather than battling against it.

No it's not man's fallen nature slipping and sliding. That may be your opinion but it's not true. John wrote "this book" [literally scroll] - singular. A clear reading what he wrote is that he was just referring to that one scroll. The Bible wasn't put together as a book for centuries. Revelation wasn't generally accepted as canonical until the 4th century.

There is the entire chapter of 2 Tim 3 which culminates in 2 Tim 3:16-17. Eph 2:19-21.

And how do either of those support your opinion?

Jesus has ascended to heaven, the apostles have completed their work to which Jesus appointed them, The Holy Spirit has come to dwell within and with the believer as teacher and help. What He teaches is the word of God. He does not add to what Jesus has established and He does not take away from it. The doctrines (foundation) of Christ's true church were established by Jesus and the apostles. It is finished. A closed book. No man, woman, institution has the authority to change what God has already done.

Opinions without any evidence.

 

[Arial]

The thing trinitarians say is that the three are distinct/different

An opinion - with no evidence

It is your opinion that you don't accept the evidence, but give no evidence to the contrary.

No it's not man's fallen nature slipping and sliding. That may be your opinion but it's not true. John wrote "this book" [literally scroll] - singular. A clear reading what he wrote is that he was just referring to that one scroll. The Bible wasn't put together as a book for centuries. Revelation wasn't generally accepted as canonical until the 4th century.

It most certainly is. Not everything is an opinion you know, simply because it does not agree with your opinion. And some statements can be argued as being no more than opinion, when in actuality almost everything that comes out of a person's mouth can be called an opinion. Duh. But not all opinions are wrong.

And how do either of those support your opinion?

How do you support your opinion that what I posit is wrong and what do you say is right in your opinion? Can we have a discussion of something that actually pertains to what you are calling mere opinions, besides calling it an opinion. Present an argument!!!!

Opinions without any evidence.

See above.

 

[Arial]

I have only responded to what you and others have said about the Catholic Church.

I didn't say anything about the Catholic church. You are the one who brought it up and out of the blue. As far as I know no one else has said anything about the Catholic church other than another Catholic who agrees with you.

I have only responded to what you and others have said about the Catholic Church.

See above.

What a weird request.
I stated no Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture and you ask me to list the Catholic doctrines that Protestants do think contradict Scripture.

Why is that weird? Making an actual argument against or for something specific is how debate works. You obviously had specific things in mind when you made your statement---and again, you bringing up the Catholics----but gave no clue to what specifically you were talking about. Just a sentence, hanging there all by itself. Hey, I don't know what Catholic doctrines are, except in a very peripheral way, things picked up in passing, as I have and never have had, any interest in investigating the doctrines of Catholicism. That is why it was not even on my mind when I wrote the OP and why I never discuss it, but you seem to think it was for some reason. You pulled it right into a topic that had nothing to do with Catholics. Like you have a perpetual chip on your shoulder about it. How am I supposed to know what you were talking about in your pithy statement? If you insist on keeping your topic alive in my thread instead of starting your own thread on the topic of your choice---then at least present something specific to debate about and support what you say.

 

[Arial]

I know what you're talking about. You made your criteria quite clear. There are different understandings of both "original sin" and the sovereignty of GOD. We as believers should be able to understand this without judging the other as not a Christian. We should be able to attempt to reason together in sincerity and gentleness and conclude the matter.

It is quite natural that there are different understandings of God's sovereignty and original sin. Only one is true however and that would be the one presented by God Himself in His word. What God says means what it means, not whatever people decide it means. And it is possible to arrive at the meaning of what God says. Not easy sometimes, but possible. The reason it isn't always easy is because of the nature of man to move everything into a place where it suits what we want it to believe.

 

[Arial]

Christianity suffers from a lack of Christians.

They have been let right into our pulpits and authors and theologians in fact. Our itchy ears hear what we want to hear and take up whatever beliefs that appeal to us. And that is because the foundation has been torn asunder. God's sovereignty. Original sin. The starting point from which to get much of what Jesus and the apostles teach. Those two things are the starting point of knowing both our need and our God and Savior. In this I am not saying that a person who believes they are saved because they made the choice are not saved. I must be clear about that. That is something that can be seen in scripture and interpreted that way, and it is the content of our belief about the person and work of Christ, (in our heart and to the degree of an individual's capacity to comprehend the things of salvation,) and that alone saves. Unfortunately when people try to explain this paradox of God's sovereignty and man's choice, they try and explain the paradox with free will. In the explaining of this, what is usually arrived at tears down the sovereignty of God. Leaving either confusion or outright denial of His sovereignty. A "fixing God" approach comes about.

What I am saying in this thread is that whereas it does not change one's salvation, it changes our understanding of many other things we find in scripture and limits to some degree how we view God and how we view ourselves in relation and relationship to Him. And that by changing or not teaching on God's sovereignty and original sin in a scriptural way----the way these two things have been established as church doctrine---- we have gates wide open and walls in shambles that allow every wind of doctrine to become a part of what is meant to be Christ's church. The flocks have shepherds as untaught and ungrounded as they are. Neither the flock nor the shepherd have discernment as to what is true and what is false teaching, because they accept whatever sounds good, or increases the numbers. Not all. And not everywhere. But this exists.

 

[Mr G Lee]

1Cor 11:34 “About the other things I will give instructions when I come.”
Paul gave them addition teaching - orally, not in writing


Yes, Sacred Tradition - given orally not in writing.



Yes, Timothy is to teach what he has heard from Paul (orally) and to each others. (orally). Nothing about handing out scripture for them to work out their own doctrines.

John also writes writes “Although I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink; instead I hope to come to you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12).
Oral teaching not written.

Hi thanks for the reply

Sorry for the rambling length

If Paul gave them addition teaching - orally, not in writing . Are those "missing words" written in the succession of venerable fathers book of the law (CCC) ?

If not what were the missing words?

If you rid one written authority it must be replaced with another. we don't serve a gospel of wondering, wondering never coming to the end of faith the salvation of ones soul . we receive the last from the first as born again

Oral traditions are not laws of God .but are false laws as philopshical theories of men as private interpretations. or personal commentaries what they believe God is teaching them .

Every believer has a opinion (heresy) in that way. Christ infallible informs us their must be heresies amongst us as long as they do not do despite to the fulness of Grace the "full price of redemption ". The old testament laws of the sinful venerated fathers as oral traditions of men wanted nothing to do with all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura ) At that time period all the Jewish un believing women that were communing with with a legion of gods as workers with familiar spirits. there husbands in full awareness They demanded a quern in heaven to complete their government of venerable lording it over the faith of the non-venerable . They taught that only the Queen of heaven was filled with the fulness of grace and every other human a remnant unknowable and it was required they suffer after they take their last breath to wonder, suffer, wonder for an unknown period of time .
That oral tradition I would think does do despite to the fulness of grace giving glory to corrupted dying aging flesh

I think we can call that oral tradition of the fathers, Kings Queens the unbelieving Jewish woman's lib

Jerimiah 44: 15-17 Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.


No man can serve two teaching masters as one unseen Lord as God . The faith (Christ's working in us by which we can walk or understand by comes from hearing His interpretation or understanding called the Bible . Not to be confused with the Catholic Bible book of their law . The CCC, laws as commandments of men.

You say Sacred Tradition "I heard it through the fathers grapevine"- given orally not in writing. Can you discard the law of the fathers written in the (CCC) Or what you call the apostolic succession' interpretation which is clearly not a biblically interpretation .God interpretation is that which he writes with his unseen finger . When he wrote them after hewing out the tablets .He wrote them on both sides no room for I heard it through the grape vine (oral tradition) . After destroying the first set to show his anger of those who were violating it with their. . "I heard it through the grape vine law of men" . he put an end to there murmuring against (sola scriptura ) This time he moved the apostle Moses to hew out two new ones. And again He wrote the same words . teaches us how he works in us to both will and perform his good pleasure To the law (broken) and the testimony the new law of faith .

His interpretation is revealed in the living abiding word of God. The word apostle simply mean "sent one ". God sent a Ass to do the work of a apostle (beautiful feed shod with the gospel of peace) . An Ass used in ceremonial laws as shadows of the unseen eternal . according to the ceremony a lamb a clean animal to represent the redeemed. Not redeemed the neck is to be broken to signify the spirit of Judgement The Ass signified as a unclean animal to represent the unredeemed. God put his words on its tongue .It moved the false prophet Balaam. Apostle sent one.

Just the opposite of the garden on Eden. There the spirit of error Lucifer before his legs' were cut off and could no longer walk together in agreement with God. Satan or legion (many names) The most beautiful of all creatures in false pride put his word on the tongue of the serpent. In effect saying you surely will not in dying, die and your corrupted earthen body will not return to the dust and the temporal spirt given under the letter of the law (death ) is made to no effect . In effect again sayin who believe in a Holy Father ,Holy See Vicar Christ as not seen not seen . destroying the one true source of faith. . The Balaam parable restoring it destroying the counterfeiters.

God is not served by corrupter dying hands of mankind . In Job 23 we are infallibly informed by the living word of God, that God who is not a man as us is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires .In that way one of his names is Jealous he owns all things and holds all thing together by the power of His will . He will not share the glory of a new creation with earthen vessels of death . As we are infallibly informed below. We have the born again treasure of his mighty power working in us but would never say it was or these earthen bodies of death Then we make God out to be the liar.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[Mungo]

It is your opinion that you don't accept the evidence, but give no evidence to the contrary.

It most certainly is. Not everything is an opinion you know, simply because it does not agree with your opinion. And some statements can be argued as being no more than opinion, when in actuality almost everything that comes out of a person's mouth can be called an opinion. Duh. But not all opinions are wrong.

How do you support your opinion that what I posit is wrong and what do you say is right in your opinion? Can we have a discussion of something that actually pertains to what you are calling mere opinions, besides calling it an opinion. Present an argument!!!!

See above.

You keep giving opinions with no evidence for me to agree with or disagree with.
There is a maxim "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
It is not up to me to disprove your opinions. It is up to you to provide evidence tom back them up. That is how a discussion progresses.

Presenting an argument means providing evidence to back up your claims, not just stating them.