Catholic/Protestant results
I will copy and past below a lengthy quote, and then afterwards ask a few questions in regard to the subject brought up. Hope to hear your thoughts on it.
“There are two main ideas among men around us. The first idea, the Catholic idea, is mainly characterized by this: all blessing, all privilege, is in the church. The grand object of God is the church; there is the Savior, life, pardon,every blessing; the only means of having these is to be in and of it; and this,too, as a present thing. For the Catholic idea does not venture far into the future; nor is heaven so much the object of its contemplation as is the earth. The notion is that, all privilege being concentrated in the church, the individual has scarcely any appreciable place. He is merged. He is only a cypher, and all his importance is because he belongs to the church. As to himself, why he is not even allowed to call himself a saint; and, as to being a saint at all, it is entirely a question for the church to settle.
Then came up another and counter thought in which the individual only is prominent. The onepoint here was that a man should read the Bible for himself, that he must believe and be justified for himself, and that as by faith he becomes a child of God for himself so be should have his conscience left free to serve God for himself. Here all thought of the church was completely lost, and consequently, giving up consideration of the church of God, individuals of this way of reasoning combined and formed churches for themselves.
Those who justly insisted on the importance of individual faith as the saving principle for the soul, and as that which alone glorified God, began to collect together at last, sometimes in a country, to themselves, and then again, when in that country there began to be divergences of opinion among them, they made their own distinct churches. If they did not like the great public church of the country, they chose to split off into different religious societies, all essaying to become churches. One was, as they considered, as good in principle as another, but the best church was that which suited a man*s own mind. This was the individual idea carried out to its natural results, and such is exactly what we find around us now.
We have the two systems confronting each other in fact. We have the old Catholic notion in those bodies who make everything to be a question of church privilege, who say that it is in the church alone can be found eternal life, or at any rate the hope of it — I might almost say, the chance of it, for it comes to that. The whole system is a question of the church dispensing, the church acting, the church pronouncing, the church teaching what is truth, and really saving: everything is a question of the church. But in the other case the church is lost in the individual. It is the individual who by faith has received the gospel and become a Christian, who consequently uses his own judgment in forming his own church, or joining the church he likes best. Such is the state of things around us.
There must be a fragment of truth in order to win and keep Christians together. So it is when we look at the Catholic idea, and in what may be called the Protestant one. There is a measure of truth in each; but when we get to God*s word, there we have the truth about both, and in this order: — it is not the church first and then the individual, but the individual first and then the church. Here then is exactly how we find the combination of the two principles entirely dislocated by man. He has divorced what should be always bound together. If you look only at man, there can be no doubt that the individual (or, as we may say, the Protestant) principle of faith is an incomparably safer one than the Catholic one, which makes the church all.
But, beloved friends, we are not looking at things simply with regard to man, but also as to God; and we are bound to do so, and the Holy Ghost is here for the purpose of taking care of the glory of God, which is done by making Christ the object. He only is the object of all the purposes of God, and the consequence is, that until we enter into God* s purposes there never can be the sure or large enjoyment of the truth. For when we have the Spirit of God, as He now is given to the believer, it is not only individually; but he is baptized into, or made to belong to, the one body. He is “one spirit with the Lord.” He is, consequently, one with all that are the Lord* s. This, then, brings us face to face with the further truth that the Holy Ghost does not merely imprint unity upon the saints, and then leave them, but is here to make good all the objects of the glory of God. It is of very great moment that the children of God should look at the thing personally. I am even afraid — and particularly so where people trust creeds instead of scripture – that the simplicity and the force of the simple truth that the Holy Ghost is a divine person is but little understood and little believed. Such is the case now, I believe, among those who are commonly called “Evangelicals,” whether they are Dissenters or Churchmen. Faith in the Holy Ghost as a divine person being feebly entertained, you will find that they generally talk about the Holy Ghost as an “influence.” It is not that they deny the existence of the Spirit of God, but they do not see the all-importance of His being a divine person; and, further than that, a divine person who is here working in God* s saints and in God* s assembly, sovereignly or as He will, to glorify the Lord Jesus.
Each member is a member of Christ, not of a, but of the church, His body. In fact, there is no such thing in scripture as a member of a church. Scripture repudiates such language, which proceeds from the “individual” idea that we have been looking at. There everything is individualized, even the church itself, as well as every person that belongs to it. It is all on a false foundation, not for our relations as Christians, but for those of the church. Say I this to encourage assumption? God forbid! For I should not myself meet with any who would arrogantly claim to be the church of God, any more than such as meet on any other ground than that.
Men have got the notion that there is no truth, but only “views” as to divine things; Is the church merely a number of godly persons who come together and who seek grace to bear with one another? Nay, it is God*s dwelling-place; and is not God there? He is verily,and displaying Himself, not by a cloud, as in the days of old, but by the Holy Ghost — as it is said, “The habitation of God through the Spirit.” Who is it that is in the church, and what makes it to be the church of God? Not, I say, godly men merely, but in fact the Holy Ghost*s presence. “
After chewing on this quote, my questions for you all:
1) Why do you go where you go to church as opposed to the other 10,000 optional places within the protestant paradigm?
2) In what can be criticized above in the protestant framework, what do you see the solution to be?
did you quote?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
- Who wrote the article?
- Where can I find it?
- Are you a Catholic? I’m not sure where you’re coming from!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Ditto to the 2 above PLUS ….. provide the link to the quote
So I was going to guess an early-20th-century (post-Newman) British Evangelical of some stripe.
Note quite.
See here: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/7subjcts/actionhs.html
and here: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/biography.html
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
I don’t know where it is online, i just have a paper pamphlet. But everything you need to respond is within the quote itself in the post.
I am not catholic.
Let me know if there are any more prefeces needed.
As to #1: Galatians 1:8-9 place a responsibility on me to sift incoming truth claims…from anyone. Even if I were to believe in the Roman Catholics’ doctrine of apostolic succession and join the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see how that would eliminate the existential obligation under Galatians 1:8-9. On judgment day, “I was just following orders” won’t cut it with God. Even apostles can go wrong. And of course, Rome had to deal with this during the Great Schism: the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, by itself, doesn’t help the believer in the pew much when there are two or three guys claiming to be the true successor. Beyond Galatians, the context for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is looking ahead to future years when false teaching enters the church. Paul does not direct Timothy to some mountaintop guru or expert authority who would be living at the time; instead, Paul directs Timothy to the Scriptures.
So as a believer, I need to test truth claims from any given organization against the Scriptures. This would apply to paramount issues, like the gospel, but it would apply to lesser issues like church polity, mode of baptism…really anything. There are other biblical principles of seeking wisdom, teachability, meekness, and appreciation for God’s gift of teachers (see Proverbs, James 3, Ephesians 4) that should make me receptive to consider bona fide truth claims. No doubt I am not the be-all/end-all of wisdom, and wisdom will not die with me (Job 12). If I find myself consistently interpreting the Bible in novel ways, that’s probably not a good sign. In a sinful world, any organizational church is going to have a mixture of error, however slight, but it would be arrogant for me to brush them aside and say, “They all got it all wrong; I and my golden retriever alone got it right.” For a sample of that attitude, talk to a Jehovah’s Witness.
So based on Scripture, I find Baptist churches with a Reformed stance to be most true to Scripture. Therefore, I have sought out a healthy, Reformed Baptist church.
Re: #2. It’s hard to pinpoint the criticisms. Certainly Evangelicals have slipped into overly individualized views of the church over the years. We come to church as a kind of preaching station to get recharged so that we can go out and live our individual lives. But I think teaching and meditating on Ephesians 3-4; 1 Corinthians 12, John 17 should give us a renewed vision of what God intends to do with the church corporately. We are members of a body, meaning, integral to it. Unfortunately the very idea of “membership” has nowadays been reduced to something closer to “gym membership.” If the above quotation is aimed at local, visible churches, I don’t see how a local, visible church, with a covenant, leadership, organization, impairs the universal church. We believe in the universal church. Great. How do we express that belief? A local church.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Let’s not forget that Catholicism has not exactly been unanimous throughout its history. There were several doctrinal controversies and many of the various councils have contradicted themselves. Luther exploited that fact to get people thinking. The common people even were able to see that many of the Roman church’s edicts were really all about expediency.
Also the article takes a leap I think with regard to epistemology. If the reference is to the reformation, which it seems to be, than it is inaccurate in suggesting that people became the sole arbiter of truth. The debate during the reformation was not the papacy vs. the individual but the papacy (and the whole hierarchy) vs. the word of God. Those at the forefront of the movement believed for the most part that the local churches would be organized around scripture as expressed in the various confessions.
Let’s also not forget that it wasn’t Catholicism that was established first only to be confronted later by a counter idea later in evangelicalism.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[josh p]Also the article takes a leap I think with regard to epistemology. If the reference is to the reformation, which it seems to be, than it is inaccurate in suggesting that people became the sole arbiter of truth. The debate during the reformation was not the papacy vs. the individual but the papacy (and the whole hierarchy) vs. the word of God.
Right. Roman Catholics like to insinuate that sola scriptura somehow descends into abject subjectivity. But I can never eliminate the “subject” from epistemology: I cannot escape my own brain. God never regarded that as a problem as such. The question is, where is the objective source of truth? For the Christian, that means, where is God speaking?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Obviously there will be differences in interpretation but for Protestants the obvious conclusion is that the Bible as revealed by the Holy Spirit is objective. There is much greater subjectivity in a system that is not subject to the source of real truth and instead relies on the whims of man. A peasant with a Bible and indwelt by the Sprit has a much better grasp of the truth than a Pope or Cardinal who is still “of their father the devil”.
[M. Osborne]Re: #2. It’s hard to pinpoint the criticisms. Certainly Evangelicals have slipped into overly individualized views of the church over the years.
You mention an “overly” individualized view of the church, i take that to mean that in your opinion an individualized idea of church is ok, so long as it’s not “overly” individualized? Please correct me if i misunderstood you. If not, what is the line that divides an individualized concept of church that is good from an “overly” individualized concept that is not biblical?
If I may try and “pinpoint” the criticisms (on the protestant side), it would be as quoted:
“…the church is lost in the individual. It is the individual who by faith has received the gospel and become a Christian, who consequently uses his own judgment in forming his own church, or joining the church he likes best. Such is the state of things around us. ”
I don’t see how a local, visible church, with a covenant, leadership, organization, impairs the universal church. We believe in the universal church. Great. How do we express that belief? A local church.
If one believes in a universal church, then shouldn’t that belief be expressed by local churches that are all within unity? But if you take a random city, you have a presbyterian church in unity with other presbyterian churches, a lutheran church in unity with other lutheran churches, but it’s all unity based upon denominational lines. There is no practical unity as a whole. For example, the man put out in Corinth, could he then go to church in Ephesus? I would guess no because the church in Cornith had unity with the church of Ephesus. It wasn’t each church to decide for themselves independent of all others. But isn’t this the result of protestantism, that each man forms “his own church” without regard to any kind of “universal” church” ?
I would not characterize “a local, visible church” impairing the universal church, what I believe the author was getting at was that denominations/ independent gatherings impair the universal church by preventing unity. Would that be fair? On the flip side,if not, would you say that denominations/ independent churches promote the unity of the universal church?
To Jessefoster:
A hasty answer since I’m finishing a paper.
You’re right that my phrase “overly individualized” is vague. I’ll back up and try again: there are aspects of the Christian life that are individual, that involve me: I’ll be judged as an individual, I am responsible for my own actions and responses to problems, responsible to disciple my own family, responsible to judge the truth claims of others against Scripture. And there are legitimate activities for Christian growth that may be pursued individually: Bible reading, commentary study, prayer, sermon listening (I’m speaking as a 21st-century Christian with MP3s), conference attendance. But on the other hand, as a member of a body, I must give of myself for others’ spiritual wellbeing, submit myself to leadership (and to “peer review” with believers I trust), commit to unity while working through problems, hold others accountable for their sins (I believe God has tasked the church with its own discipline, cf. Matthew 18, etc.), praying together, listening to preaching from the particular men who are actually spiritually responsible to me (which has a different quality than the MP3 preaching from someone who doesn’t know me). If I think the church is one place among many where I can get what I need for spiritual growth (instead of where the Spirit has placed me); if I leave easily when the going gets tough; if I hold myself aloof from “owning” the ministry of the church to itself (what every joint supplies), than I’m in error. “Overly individualized” may not be the best name for it, but it comes close.
Regarding denominations, I don’t see that denominations impair unity. Instead, it’s our inability to read Scriptures correctly (we are marred by sin) that has impaired unity, and so denominations are the best we can do in light of that problem. Some errors are so egregious as to call a person’s status as a Christian into question. (May I assume that you wouldn’t invite the Jehovah’s Witnesses into better practical unity with your own assembly?) Some do not. If I take myself as an example, I am Reformed Baptist by conviction, attending a Presbyterian seminary, where the professors are members of Presbyterian churches. We can call each other brothers in Christ, enjoy unity in the classroom, attend some of the same conferences in town, have prayer groups together…but at the end of the day, both of us are deeply committed to sola scriptura, and this commitment, coupled with our understanding of baptism, means that we have to part ways when it comes to church membership. But observe that we do still have a lot of unity:
- We have practical unity in the classroom, in prayer, at conferences, etc.
- We have unity within our own churches, because in their church and mine, we take commitment to other believers seriously. (I can’t speak to all churches…)
- The very reason we are dividing is that we have a more fundamental unity regarding sola scriptura.
At this point…just how big is the loss of unity?
So I guess the return question for you, now, is, how do you faithfully carry out sola scriptura, obeying God in all things, when others around you are equally committed and yet still won’t see things your way?
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
In regard to your question, the issue with sola scriptura is a basic starting point, without which i agree there probably cant be much unity, but it doesnt matter to much how “committed” someone is if they are in error they are in error and you have to hope they come to a knowledge of the truth but you cant force unity, even if someone is committed and has the idea of sola scriptura, i think its out of one’s hand to have unity unless the other comes to see the light on whatever issue it is.
[Jessefoster]Are denominations really just 100% neutral, neither causing division nor promoting unity?
They can do both. They can provoke party spirit; or they can promote cooperation and unity (shared missions, pastoral fellowship, sister churches, church planting). There are ways to mitigate against the party spirit: cross-denominational fellowship; praying for other local gospel-teaching churches (regardless of denomination) during your morning worship.
[Jessefoster]I think the mere existence of denominations is just the outward sign that there is a loss of unity.
I think that’s a fair statement.
[Jessefoster]If an unbeliever looks at the 1,001 different denominations out there, does he really say to himself, “wow, the church is so unified” or does the existence of denominations just give evidence that there isn’t much unity at all in the visible church?
I have seen that said. It’s up to us to give the lie to that by the way we speak and act with other Christians.
[Jessefoster]I think i know how i would answer. But another question is, what does the Lord think about denominations, is the Lord in favor of denominations existing and continuing? Yes or no?
We’re back to sola scriptura. If you want to know what God thinks, you have to go to the Bible. I think he says baptize only believers. I have Christian brothers who don’t. Now what? If you can come up with another solution that doesn’t look something like denominations, I’m all ears. But then…you’d also have a solution that also offers the advantages of denominations like shared missions, etc.
[Jessefoster]In regard to your question, the issue with sola scriptura is a basic starting point, without which i agree there probably cant be much unity, but it doesnt matter to much how “committed” someone is if they are in error they are in error and you have to hope they come to a knowledge of the truth but you cant force unity, even if someone is committed and has the idea of sola scriptura, i think its out of one’s hand to have unity unless the other comes to see the light on whatever issue it is.
If the error’s not so egregious, you can keep fellowshipping in the local church. Some in the congregation in Rome had clearly unbiblical (but not gospel-denying) hangups about food and drink, but Paul said the church should allow them to stay, even at the same time he weighed in and called them wrong.
If the error thwarts fellowship in a church context, you can still keep the conversation going as long as it keeps coming back to Scripture. I think at that point, we need to recognize that the Bible is concerned not just with “who’s right” but also how we approach the question.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
hey Michael, can’t say i disagree with anything you said. I think it’s fair to say that denominations can try and “work together”, though I’d also add that denominational efforts at unity, while good intentioned, just illustrate that people see the underlying problem (non-unity). And i don’t think efforts for “unification” while at the same time keeping the structures up that show there is division is much different than say republicans and democrats “working together” for a common purpose before going back to their individual camps where they can be with their own “like-minded”.
We’re back to sola scriptura. If you want to know what God thinks, you have to go to the Bible. I think he says baptize only believers. I have Christian brothers who don’t. Now what? If you can come up with another solution that doesn’t look something like denominations, I’m all ears. But then…you’d also have a solution that also offers the advantages of denominations like shared missions, etc.
Well, you ask if there can be a solution to the “problem” apart from denominations, and while denominations are the natural result of the problem (disagreements between believers), I want to ask you this:
You believe the bible says that believers only should be baptized (I would agree you are correct). Then another Christian brother says no, that’s false. If we go by sola scriptura, does the bible say that we need to try and force a false unity, or that we should separate but then “work together” on “shared missions” in a context like this? My questions for you:
1) If the error is not so egregious, then why separate at all?
2) If it is egregious, then why try to unify at all?
Denominations are a result of answering wrongly to both these. Agreed?
Hello Josh yes I think you hit a key point, “the Bible as revealed by the Holy Spirit is objective.” A person, even christians, can read the bible and rely on their own “whims”. What’s interesting is when you want to take this thought into protestantism:
Denominations are results of whims, because if everyone got truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit, we’d all be in unity, right?
Thus, when thinking about whether God is for or against denominations within protestantism, isn’t that like asking if forming churches based on personal whims is ok or not? If people formed churches based on the Bible as revealed by the Holy Spirit, we’d be one, not just in a abstract universal sense, but in a practical one. Thus, the criticisms of protestantism in Kelly’s quote I think you misunderstood. You earlier stated:
Also the article takes a leap I think with regard to epistemology. If the reference is to the reformation, which it seems to be, than it is inaccurate in suggesting that people became the sole arbiter of truth. The debate during the reformation was not the papacy vs. the individual but the papacy (and the whole hierarchy) vs. the word of God.
Kelly wasn’t implying people become the sole arbitrator of truth as a fact. I think Kelly would agree that the reformation was about the papacy vs. the word of God. But when you set up the word of God as authoritative (which is good and true), then what follows is that people can “interpret” the Bible differently. Now one person can interpret a passage correctly and another can interpret the same passage falsely, but each can claim to be right. Thus, again, people (the individual as Kelly noted) become the sole arbitrators of truth (not in fact but in practice). Because if someone on his own whim decides that this church is wrong and he’s going to start his own church elsewhere and does so based upon his false whims, not by interpreting truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit, then he is acting as if he is the sole arbitrator of truth, right?
Like in the book of Judges, where “each man did what was right in his own eyes”, so it is today with what we see around us as one of the results of the reformation.
[M. Osborne]As to #1: Galatians 1:8-9 place a responsibility on me to sift incoming truth claims…from anyone. Even if I were to believe in the Roman Catholics’ doctrine of apostolic succession and join the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see how that would eliminate the existential obligation under Galatians 1:8-9. On judgment day, “I was just following orders” won’t cut it with God. Even apostles can go wrong. And of course, Rome had to deal with this during the Great Schism: the doctrine of Apostolic Succession, by itself, doesn’t help the believer in the pew much when there are two or three guys claiming to be the true successor. Beyond Galatians, the context for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is looking ahead to future years when false teaching enters the church. Paul does not direct Timothy to some mountaintop guru or expert authority who would be living at the time; instead, Paul directs Timothy to the Scriptures.
So as a believer, I need to test truth claims from any given organization against the Scriptures. This would apply to paramount issues, like the gospel, but it would apply to lesser issues like church polity, mode of baptism…really anything. There are other biblical principles of seeking wisdom, teachability, meekness, and appreciation for God’s gift of teachers (see Proverbs, James 3, Ephesians 4) that should make me receptive to consider bona fide truth claims. No doubt I am not the be-all/end-all of wisdom, and wisdom will not die with me (Job 12). If I find myself consistently interpreting the Bible in novel ways, that’s probably not a good sign. In a sinful world, any organizational church is going to have a mixture of error, however slight, but it would be arrogant for me to brush them aside and say, “They all got it all wrong; I and my golden retriever alone got it right.” For a sample of that attitude, talk to a Jehovah’s Witness.
So based on Scripture, I find Baptist churches with a Reformed stance to be most true to Scripture. Therefore, I have sought out a healthy, Reformed Baptist church.
Thanks for answering the first question, and I would still be interested in others (Jim, Rob, Chip, etc. etc.) in stating your reasons ( are they the similar reasons to what Michael stated?) as I have some thoughts but want to wait and see more replies first, as I have a feeling it will illustrate something i want to share.
I guess I see what you are saying. If he is talking about “practice” as opposed to the reality than it is probably more true to varying degrees. He warns against those who “trust creeds instead of the Bible.” Not sure who he has in mind there but this could be the area that confuses me about his article. The creeds that came from the Reformation were (in the eyes of their writers) statements of scripture. Although I do not belong to a reformed or Lutheran church I think they would say that they recognize their creeds as the summarization of the Bible’s teaching. They are therefore subject to its teaching. Thus, the idea of the individual as the sole arbiter of truth, even in practice, may be less the reality in some denominations than in others.
Discussion