Biblical Case For Schism

[Lord Philip]

Step 1. Protestants believe in the tradition "sola scriptura", so every ecclesiastical action must be based in Scripture.

Step 2. Protestants hold firmly to the right to schism (as the very name "Protestant" suggests) and feel it is a necessary thing in order to preserve right doctrine from corruption. Not only is Martin Luther's schism praised and celebrated, but Protestants continue to make schisms all the time.

Step 3. Schism is an ecclesiastical action.

Step 4. Therefore the act of making a schism must be a "bible-based" practice with the full support of Scripture.

It is simple mathematics, folks. Where does the Bible not only condone but encourage schism?

As a Catholic, I read St. Paul exhorting Christians not to make schism and I read in John 17 concerning the will of God that all Christians should be one. That is my biblical case: clear and straightforward.

As the above syllogism suggests, Protestants [i]must[/i] have a biblical basis for making their schisms. I am listening!

God bless,

Philip

[N/A Gone]

option a. ) The Budge response

but the other denominations are not TRUE BIBLE christians!!!!!! It is just MAN MADE limits designed for CONTROL and throwing away the gospel. if they were TRUE bible christians then they would not need these denominations.


Option b.) Rodney Clapp response

the universal church is not a particular denomination or is it the catholic faith as we see today. Rather it is the invisable connection that all believers share. Our differences are not major, just minor unimportant things that we feel can not be challenged in order that it violates a persons personal walk.



Just playin, I wanted to get those in. I am ready to wait and watch. But I doubt you get an honest reply.

[dUSt]

Easy Protestant answer. My denomination did not schism.

[Dismas]

I have always held that the Bible did speak on the matter of schism.

Sure there's some NT urgings towards unity, but the really juicy stuff is in the OT.

Is not Israel a type for Christianity? Surely then, the schism of the Northern Tribes of Israel is a type for the schismatic.

And we all remember what happened to Israel, and what happened to Judea. Both fell to invasion, exile, and slavery, but Judea was later restored.

[abercius24]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1389246' date='Sep 20 2007, 04:16 PM']Easy Protestant answer. My denomination did not schism.[/quote]

Heck, most "Protestants" won't even claim to be such!

[Anna]

Hmmm...Great question, Lord Philip, and not a single Protestant willing to give an answer. Imagine that.

[jeffpugh]

Let's give em a few more days, eh? Must not have seen this thread...

[goldenchild17]

Can't imagine many protestants making such a case for schism. Most protestants I know deny that their church ever left the truth. Otherwise why would they be where they are?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1392188' date='Sep 24 2007, 04:01 AM']Can't imagine many protestants making such a case for schism. Most protestants I know deny that their church ever left the truth. Otherwise why would they be where they are?[/quote]Exactly. Protestants would make the argument that they're staying faithful to the Truth and shaking the dust of error from their sandals. Why would any protestants want to post here, given the perception of the initial question?

[Lord Philip]

Protestants are wonderful at demanding a "scriptural" basis for certain Catholic Teachings. I find it funny and just teeming with delicious irony that when this same demand is made of them for what makes them distinctively Protestant (schism, sola scriptura, etc.) they've got NOTHING.

Though after all the logical fallacies and argument in circles it can become quite tiresome. Hearing "But the Catholic Church is WRONG!" in response to carefully constructed arguments can drive one crazy.

Love you all. God bless.

Philip

[goldenchild17]

I have no respect for non-Catholic religions. But I do think ya'll are being a little unfair here. This whole thread is basically a non-issue because what protestant will admit that they are in schism? Not a one that I've met. Now, while that might not be the case, they at least won't admit it to be so. So, why would they make a case defending schism? As for sola scriptura, any honest protestant I have met does make arguments for it from scripture. These arguments just fall short. But just because they fall short doesn't mean that they are being contradictory and not attempting to make an argument at all.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1392445' date='Sep 24 2007, 01:31 PM']I have no respect for non-Catholic religions. But I do think ya'll are being a little unfair here. This whole thread is basically a non-issue because what protestant will admit that they are in schism? Not a one that I've met. Now, while that might not be the case, they at least won't admit it to be so. So, why would they make a case defending schism? As for sola scriptura, any honest protestant I have met does make arguments for it from scripture. These arguments just fall short. But just because they fall short doesn't mean that they are being contradictory and not attempting to make an argument at all.[/quote]

Golden Child,

I think you and I are on the opposite side here. I DO respect non-Catholic religions; that of course does not mean they are right or even logical.

Second, I personally know many Protestants who openly profess to have broken from Rome. They also defend continuing schisms for reasons like: "churches become corrupt so faithful people break off and form their own communities" or "people's relationship with Jesus becomes stagnant in one community so they form another community that is more vibrant" and on and on they go.

I have even heard people say that St. Paul made a schism from Peter when he scolded Peter for being proud. If that was a schism then I am a hen.

There are many Protestants, though, who do say that they did not break from the Church but rather that the Catholics broke off from the "true faith". I understand there are many out there who beleive this. This is even more absurd, though, than the first position because from reading the Early Church Fathers it is obvious that Catholic doctrine was already old and alive in the early Church. There was never a point when Catholics "came in" and changed anything.

Since this second Protestant position is so easily defeated, I thought I would give Protestants who hold to the former position the chance to defend themselves.

Thank you and God bless you.

Sincerely,

Philip

[N/A Gone]

philip. The majority of educated protos I know will say one of 2 things

1.) Roman authority grew in the the middle ages and the early church was a collection of churches without the central authority

2.) or they had the authority and lost it in the middle ages.

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1392588' date='Sep 24 2007, 06:02 PM']philip. The majority of educated protos I know will say one of 2 things

1.) Roman authority grew in the the middle ages and the early church was a collection of churches without the central authority

2.) or they had the authority and lost it in the middle ages.[/quote]

Then perhaps this forum is just the place where they can state these things and we can discuss them =D

But really, anyone with common sense who looks at the history of the situation will see that there was a schism and that it was the Protestants who broke themselves off. I know you all agree with me on this point but these are grounds are being laid to show that these positions of "educated" prots are so baseless that we might as well move beyond them and get to the obvious issue: Protestants made a schism and continue to make schisms. On what basis do they do this?

My case for knowing many Protestants who openly and proudly declare their schism from Rome is reason enough for this thread, though.

Now to any Protestants out there: I know you do not need help from your Catholic bretheren to make your arguments for you. What do you think? Didn't Luther divide himself from the Church that was there from the beginning (whether it became corrupt is not an issue: it was still the Church)? What do you make of that? What Scriptural support is there for such an action and a continuation of that action?

God bless,

Philip

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Dismas' post='1390355' date='Sep 21 2007, 11:18 PM']I have always held that the Bible did speak on the matter of schism.

Sure there's some NT urgings towards unity, but the really juicy stuff is in the OT.

Is not Israel a type for Christianity? Surely then, the schism of the Northern Tribes of Israel is a type for the schismatic.

And we all remember what happened to Israel, and what happened to Judea. Both fell to invasion, exile, and slavery, but Judea was later restored.[/quote]


Christ said "call no man father".... This was in reference to the many flavors of Judaism. There were many sects... Christ and the Apostles preached One Faith.