Biblical Case For Schism

[Andreas E.]

OK, I'll be the Protestant lamb led to the slaughter here...

Most prevalent (in Baptist circles) is that Rome did not stick to the truth, and so the true Christians split away from it to preserve the faith. German Baptists (even though disdained by the Lutheran Church in Germany) love to quote Martin Luther and even read his translation in church. We were given one by our Pastor for our wedding. (It actually has the apocrypha in it...)

Martin Luther did not want to leave the Catholic Church, but the answers he was given by the corrupt Church authorities of his time did not satisfy him (mostly on salvation by grace through faith, and not works or indulgences, esp. those offered by Teztel.) He did not recant of his supposedly heretical statements and so the Church kicked him out. Here are some quotes from scripute to underline his understanding of salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" (John 3: 16-18)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9)

" If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved " (Romans 10:9, 10)

According to the Baptists, Martin Luther still got it wrong, mostly with infant baptism as there was no such thing in the Bible. The Catholics definitely got it wrong. All the people that were ever baptized in the Bible were adults. Children were blessed, not baptized. Baptism is the answer to God's call.

That's probably in a nutshell why there are schisms.


Now, as a Protestant who is eyeing Rome, I have to say that even during the time in my German Baptist church, the older generation said that you are not saved without being baptized, when the younger generation said that faith alone will do (as do most denominations these days.) In the old days (my church turned 100 a few years back), people, after answering the altar call, were baptized within a matter of days. During my time, people were taking years or never were baptized at all.

This is the main thing that pushes me to Catholicism. Yes, there is a central "authority" over the German Baptist church, but it has no authority, as pretty much everyone can decide what they want to do, as long as the fundamentals are right, and it's ok with scripture (people love to twist the meaning of it, don't they?)

[Paddington]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1394567' date='Sep 28 2007, 01:48 AM']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.[/quote]

IronMonk,

I've never heard that interpretation.
I wonder how it squares with something else I hear once in a while from Catholics who want Protestants to overcome their private reasonings. The something else is when Catholics say, "Jesus told people that the Pharisees sit on the Seat of Moses and should be obeyed (but not admired.)"
Do I have my details wrong?

Peace,
Paddington

[mortify]

Peace in Christ Andres,

That was very interesting, and your example of how the practice of baptizing has changed within several generations exemplifies why we feel there is a need for a divinely instituted magesterium. A divinely instituted authority is not founded on the acumen of the authority but on the grace of God, St Peter after all was not the most perfect or brightest of men, he failed a countless number of times, yet the Father chose him to know the truth about our Lord. The lesson being God can take even the weak and turn them into firm foundations, which is why we believe even a corrupt pope is divinely protected from misleading the faithful (the charism of infallibility).

God bless

Edited October 7, 2007 by mortify

[Pleural]

Keep in mind that my response here is not one of doctrine, but merely an answer to this thread and the question posed -- based on situations which can and perhaps have arisen throughout history.

It is almost certain that not every schism in history has had firm grounding, and there have probably been some divisions which were over less critical issues and perhaps could have been resolved without a schism, but that is of no matter, we should consider only schisms arising from clear and important doctrinal differences for the purpose of this discussion.

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1392902' date='Sep 25 2007, 01:33 PM']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?[/quote]

On what basis do you say that the Church, if it becomes corrupt, is still the Church?

That aside, what scriptural support is there for continuing to be a member of a church, whether catholic, protestant, or otherwise, which one believes does not truly follow God?

John wrote (I John 4:1) that we should not believe every spirit, but try each one to determine whether it is of God, as there are "many false prophets" in the world. Thus each one of us must determine for ourselves which prophets are true and which are false, based on God's leading us (such as by scripture, prayer, etc.). Consider the possibility that Luther (to name just one well-known example) tried the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church of his day and decided that they were false teachers. Would it have been right to remain with false teachers? What alternative is there but schism? Indeed, the alternative is to attempt to correct the situation without leaving the church, which is what he did. But when that fails, what then? Remain with a false church, or form one's one community teaching the true doctrine of God?

Peter (2 Peter 2:1) himself also warned us of false prophets "among you", who shall bring in "damnable heresies". Surely we must recognize the need for keeping watch against such false prophets, and surely we cannot remain in communion with those we believe to be false prophets, at least after attempting and failing to correct their views.

We are also warned in Galatians 2:4 to beware of false brethren.

One might also argue for a different interpretation of I Corinthians 12:25, where Paul writes that there should be no schism in the body, that this scripture is in reference to the body of a church, i.e. a "particular church" which meets and holds fellowship in a particular location, rather than the communion of churches with each other. Indeed the next verse suggests that interpretation.
[quote name='I Corinthians 12:26']And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.[/quote]
Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that the early apostles visited and wrote to many churches,
but in many cases there was a need to rebuke certain churches of their errors. Assume some of these churches did not leave their erroneous ways. Should the other churches which were still following the original, correct teaching, still recognize the fallen church as their true brethren? Even after failed attempts to bring them to the truth? I know of no scripture which teaches that they should.

What about the schism of the early church from the Jewish religion, including the Pharisees and Sadducees?

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1398729' date='Oct 7 2007, 02:38 AM']Keep in mind that my response here is not one of doctrine, but merely an answer to this thread and the question posed -- based on situations which can and perhaps have arisen throughout history.

It is almost certain that not every schism in history has had firm grounding, and there have probably been some divisions which were over less critical issues and perhaps could have been resolved without a schism, but that is of no matter, we should consider only schisms arising from clear and important doctrinal differences for the purpose of this discussion.
On what basis do you say that the Church, if it becomes corrupt, is still the Church?

That aside, what scriptural support is there for continuing to be a member of a church, whether catholic, protestant, or otherwise, which one believes does not truly follow God?

John wrote (I John 4:1) that we should not believe every spirit, but try each one to determine whether it is of God, as there are "many false prophets" in the world. Thus each one of us must determine for ourselves which prophets are true and which are false, based on God's leading us (such as by scripture, prayer, etc.). Consider the possibility that Luther (to name just one well-known example) tried the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church of his day and decided that they were false teachers. Would it have been right to remain with false teachers? What alternative is there but schism? Indeed, the alternative is to attempt to correct the situation without leaving the church, which is what he did. But when that fails, what then? Remain with a false church, or form one's one community teaching the true doctrine of God?

Peter (2 Peter 2:1) himself also warned us of false prophets "among you", who shall bring in "damnable heresies". Surely we must recognize the need for keeping watch against such false prophets, and surely we cannot remain in communion with those we believe to be false prophets, at least after attempting and failing to correct their views.

We are also warned in Galatians 2:4 to beware of false brethren.

One might also argue for a different interpretation of I Corinthians 12:25, where Paul writes that there should be no schism in the body, that this scripture is in reference to the body of a church, i.e. a "particular church" which meets and holds fellowship in a particular location, rather than the communion of churches with each other. Indeed the next verse suggests that interpretation.

Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that the early apostles visited and wrote to many churches,
but in many cases there was a need to rebuke certain churches of their errors. Assume some of these churches did not leave their erroneous ways. Should the other churches which were still following the original, correct teaching, still recognize the fallen church as their true brethren? Even after failed attempts to bring them to the truth? I know of no scripture which teaches that they should.

What about the schism of the early church from the Jewish religion, including the Pharisees and Sadducees?[/quote]
A lot of your verses here could easily be used in turn by Catholics. It's sort of arrogant to say that Luther, and even modern protestants, tested the Catholic Church and found her to be corrupt. Could we not say that of Luther? Seriously, we could easily cop-out and say that we tested him, and he didnt measure up. Anywho, I'll respond more later. It's late, and I'm bugging people with the clicking of my keyboard. (11:30 here)

God bless...

[zdog042]

A protestant answer to your question:

Well, there is....wait, that doesn't work. How about that passage in the NT that says...something about...being one...and stuff.

Well, I guess that...maybe...something....

How about the sunday school answer - Jesus? Will that work here? Wait, no, that doesn't work either.

Hm...I guess I'd have to say that having a schism is bad and has no biblical basis. The only reason that excuses exist is bad blood and an inability for people from different areas of Christianity to do theology together.

Seriously, we just talk right past each other half the time when we try to talk.

[N/A Gone]

If you acknowledge the need for sacraments, (we spoke about the eucharist before) and you do not believe there is a valid case for schism then why are you still protestant?

We can not write off our differences on communication, we allow our ego and our desire to get in the way rather than work thru the language issues.

[Lord Philip]

Hello Everyone,

Some good discussion has begun here and a couple of Protestants have written excellent and well thought out posts which I have every intention of responding to.

Things are so busy at work right now (quarter end), I cannot in good conscience take the time to write a post worthy of those that have been written right now.

I will return soon, however, so beware!

Sincerely,

Philip

[zdog042]

Reason: I know that I need to work to heal the schisms within Christianity. Healing doesn't work well from the outside.

I have a call from God on my life to help repair the breaks between Christians. I shall paraphrase from Dr. Weedman on this. Healing the rift between Orthodox and Catholic is not the place for Protestants to help. We don't have any part in the discussion. The only thing we could be is mediators. However, for the church to be unified, that needs to take place. Similarly, Catholics don't have any part in healing the rift between protestant denominations. The schisms there have taken place after separation, and have little or nothing to do with the Catholic church. For unification to happen, we must have those schisms healed up as well. Only once we heal up the heavily fractured "protestant" side, can we actually make any significant headway on the catholic-protestant unification.

If we want the church to become unified, we need to heal up the cracks that would break the whole thing apart again. Go for the underlying factors (does anybody really know why the protestants keep breaking off from one another? I don't, I figure it is something in their spiritual DNA, since they came from protestants) and heal them, and then we can actually make a cohesive, whole Christian church. If we don't, then the whole thing will break apart within a generation or two.

It isn't enough for me to look for reunification for my lifetime, but for 90-100 generations down the road. I've learned from being a tech guy, that if you just work around a problem, it grows. You have to fix it at the root level to actually solve anything. Just setting it up so that "it works" exacerbates problems down the road.

[zdog042]

And, as long as I'm here....

my 50th. post. In almost two years.

[N/A Gone]

'zdog042'

Protestantism is inherintly schismatic. The break off from catholic to protestant is what matters. The protestant breaks among themselves should be expected in that system. Being a prostitute is wrong. You do not remain a prostitute to help fix prostitutism. You get out of it so you can show others how to as well. protestantism, even a unified protestantism, is still protestantism. It is still a schismatic rebellion with grave lackings. There is a soteriological aspect in the protestant/catholic relations that presents a sense of urgency. For unity to happen you do not need a unified protestantism because that is not the point of protestantism or the sense of unity. All you would have is a false UN. The schism is not 2 sides that broke from each other as it is with the Orthodox and Catholic. 2 apostolic traditions that should act as lungs with each other. that is not protestantism. There is no apostolic tradition in protestantism to bring back to catholicism. Anything of "good" found in protestantism finds its roots in catholicism. There is just the people. That is why ecumenism is very different in catholic/orthodox and catholic/protestant. The essence of protestantism needs to be abandoned for unity. Simple as that. The "spirit" and "essence" of protestantism is the cracks that would break it apart. There is no submission, there is no unity. It is autonomy. That is why protestantism breaks apart every moon cycle. We have had a whole unified Christian church since Christ started it. Some would argue we still have the whole unified church and we have those who have fallen away from it and need to come back. As harsh as it is, I might have to lean that way. That is the "fixing" at the root level. God would not call you to be away from his church, from his sacraments, from his truth. He calls you to heal than he would do that from within his Church.

[zdog042]

Rev,

I almost put in something about the return model, since I know that you most closely adhear to that. But, I didn't. So, now I'll put in something that you won't like.

Those of you who ascribe to the return model won't get what I'm talking about, or why I hold to it. And that's ok with me. I would like to talk to you about it, but you know my reasons. There really isn't much more to it. And I know you won't understand why I talk the way I do. And, I've learned to let it slide, because there are other things to spend my time on. It isn't that I haven't studied, prayed, and thought about it (on the contrary, I have spent quite a lot of time over the last 2-3 years on this subject) and I know that this is where I must stand right now. But, trust me, if I ever become Catholic, I will let everybody on here know right away.

So, I probably shouldn't have posted this at all, seeing as how it isn't a biblical case for schism. I don't want to be a hijacker, so, sorry in advance if that is what happens.

(Side note: To fix prostitutes, you don't remain a prostitute. To fix politics, do you remain a republican, or get out and go to something else? hehe)

[Andreas E.]

Revprodeji -

you are absolutely right. There is never going to be unity among Protestants. Just imagine a Conservative Baptist and a Unitarian. One would say of the other that they are not even Christians. I am willing to say that pretty much every Protestant is a "denomination" in him/herself. This is because while we (or they) may agree with 99.9% of everything their pastor preaches (which in and of itself can be as far apart as the proverbial East is from the West), there is always something that we/they do not agree with and have our own opinion about, due to "experience", "the Holy Spirit speaking to me," etc. This is why in order to heal the schism between Catholics and Protestants, it has to happen one person at a time.

[N/A Gone]

zdog042

The reason I used to be "anti-return" model is because of what Weedman taught me, which was not the return model. His idea of ecumenism (if you can get it out of him, because he says he doesnt know) allows the protestant ecclesiologies the same rights as the eastern patriarchs so when they do return they can still hold to their apostolic traditions and theologies. (ala eastern catholics) but protestantism does not have an apostolic lineage. It took the catholic faith, broke off and added filler. Anything good in protestantism can be found in catholicism. So there is no reason to bring the denomination back to unity because there is nothing you need to keep. Just convert. That is why it is an individual thing with protestants and a church thing with the eastern. There are councils out there that do talk to some of the more structured protestant churches, but all they do is explain what divides and what unites us. The protestant churches are never in the position to make any movement. Weedman does not acknowledge catholic authority any different than the authority of the pastor at a local CoC church, so in ecumenical theology there is going to be a problem with his model. And his distaste for the return model, which he sees as a borg-type merging.



[quote]I almost put in something about the return model, since I know that you most closely adhear to that. But, I didn't. So, now I'll put in something that you won't like.[/quote]

There is nothing here I dont like. I would be interested in your return model idea. The reason I brought up the points I brought up is because your theology is interesting to me. If you understand the catholic church to be what she is and you understand the need for unity and for the sacraments then it just makes no sense to not be catholic. Thats what I do not understand.

[quote](Side note: To fix prostitutes, you don't remain a prostitute. To fix politics, do you remain a republican, or get out and go to something else? hehe)[/quote]

the point of my prostitute analogy was to show that if you remain a prostitute you can never change the other prostitute. protsitution is not something that should be fixed. it is something that the people should be pulled out of and only by leaving yourself can you help others leaving.


[quote name='Andreas E.' post='1400842' date='Oct 11 2007, 03:49 PM']Revprodeji -

you are absolutely right. There is never going to be unity among Protestants. Just imagine a Conservative Baptist and a Unitarian. One would say of the other that they are not even Christians. I am willing to say that pretty much every Protestant is a "denomination" in him/herself. This is because while we (or they) may agree with 99.9% of everything their pastor preaches (which in and of itself can be as far apart as the proverbial East is from the West), there is always something that we/they do not agree with and have our own opinion about, due to "experience", "the Holy Spirit speaking to me," etc. This is why in order to heal the schism between Catholics and Protestants, it has to happen one person at a time.[/quote]

exactly. Good post

[Pleural]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1400820' date='Oct 11 2007, 02:21 PM']'zdog042'

Being a prostitute is wrong. You do not remain a prostitute to help fix prostitutism. You get out of it so you can show others how to as well. protestantism, even a unified protestantism, is still protestantism.[/quote]

Wow. That was one of the most riduculous attempts at analogy I've ever read. Congratulations.
Thanks for playing, try again later.