Fruits of the Reformation and private interpretation

Hey folks,

This is only my third post here so I'm a new guy. Over at another forum we have been discussing private interpretation and how it is implemented and some of the difficulties that brings. What if you are in a church and it starts getting off in its doctrine and then you decide you can no longer stay and you leave and find another church? How long should you stay before leaving and if so and so is your authority in that church do you continue to submit to him even though you may feel he is wrong? Is it really true submission if you only submit when things seem to be going correctly? That kind of thing. It's the leaving and finding another church I asked my queston about. I share a forum with Catholics and they make a bold claim that in spite of all the turmoil in the Catholic Church that they have remained one church throughout history. I think they are right about that. You don't see Catholics splitting all the time and going and starting their own version of the Catholic Church claiming what they see in the word has caused them to do so. But Protestants are notorious for doing this. Rather than work things out or perhaps because one person thinks he sees things that others don't has caused many many schism and splits upon schisms and splits within the Protestant word. There are now about 2,000 different Protestant communions, more or less, and each one seems to say "I'm here because of what the word says." Is this what Luther and the Reformers had in mind when they advocated the right to private interpretation? Did they ever dream the results of this advocacy would be that the church would split upon itself so many times that it was no longer recognizable as one church? Catholics want to know if there are 2,000 different private interpretations of the word of God in the Protestant Bible? Don't they have a point in spite of their doctrinal aberrations (the aberrations are my opinion)? One of the largest stumbling blocks to unbelievers is the fact that there are so many different denominations claiming to be the right one. Is it wrong to ask if inadvertently and unwittingly did the Reformers unloose a disaster upon the church in their advocacy of private interpretation? Remember, I said inadvertently and unwittingly. Not realizing or even dreaming of what the results would eventually turn out to be. How should Protestants feel about this in your opinion? Shouldn't it be a cause for a great deal more contriteness and humility before unbelievers than we seem to exhibit? Some say well many of these different communions and churches only disagree on secondary matters but are in agreement on the basics. Then to me that is all the more reason to have not had so many splits. The lesser matters couldn't be worked out without going into schism over them? Why so many? Why shouldn't the world ask this? Meanwhile, Catholics don't go down the block and start a new work when things get difficult. You can't say it isn't so.

"Doc"

I can see what you're getting at.
First of all, if you have people gathered together in perfect unity without division or dissent yet such unity is still based around falsehood according to the testimony of scripture, then that is falsehood no matter how many people are involved. Tragically, the doctrines unique to the Church of Rome (Mariology, devotion to the saints, papal infallibility) can't be supported by scripture. We can't just attribute truth according to what we see visually through a pragmatic lense; scripture has to be the sole authority in this and if it gives favor to one set of ideas over another, then that's something we have to accept at face value.

Thanks for your reply. I agree that in my opinion there are many things in the Catholic Church that not supported by Scripture. I don't agree either that all is well within the Catholic communion. I would need to see a better model of unity being manifested in the "one church" to be further convinced by their claims to unity. But having said that, was it Luther and the Reformer's idea or intention to create so many different Protestant communions? If we have a more accurate take on scripture and its proper place versus scripture and Tradition together as seen in the the Catholic church then why have we as Protestants splintered into almost every conceivable direction? It seems like being able to read and study scripture and engage in interpretation outside of the perimeters of the Roman teaching magisterium would have had the opposite effect. The call of the Reformation was to get back to the original one church but now we have 2,000 or so. Is that what it was all about? It seems the Protestant church belongs on its face before the Lord as much as anyone it has historically pointed its finger at. So what do we do? If we study hard and find a proper church then a guy right up the street might say he can't join our church because of what he thinks the word says. And the church we join may in many cases be a church that split from another church. The Lord sure has been patient in my opinion.

36,000 is the number I've heard referenced...and counting

:(

Well,

At least you didn't say "What's up Doc?" in your opening sentence to me. I only heard "What's up Doc?" for the first time last month though so it is sort of a new phrase to me. You believe me don't you? :-)

I am a moderator at another forum which is predominantly Catholic with some Orthodox believers and others but all communions are welcome to discuss things there. They asked me to assist because I am a Protestant and they want that side to be represented also and I have strived to do so. I believe in Grace alone - Faith Alone - Christ Alone - Scripture Alone - and all done to the Glory of God alone. I've learned a few things about Catholics (I grew up Catholic until I was about 17)) that I didn't know before and I've learned that in many cases I had a false impression concerning the motives of Catholics. Their motives are just as sincere as about anybody in following Christ although I believe their teaching magisterium has propogated more than one thing that is wrong. But I have come to realize that in spite of all their in house big tent infighting that they do have a legitimate point in my opinion concerning the multitudes of different Protestant divisions and denominations. Protestants believe in the right to private interpretation of the Scriptures but sincere born again Catholics want to know are there 6,000 or so different interpretatons coming from the same set of Scriptures. The Lord desires to pour out His Spirit on "one new man" but when He looks in the earth today He doesn't find that in His church. I'll just pick a random name out of the air - I'll just use Church of God in a general sense and not try to point out anyone in particular. But one Church of God may have split from another Church of God up the street and both of them may be critical of each other. That scenario is a dime a dozen in the non-Catholic world. In instances like that I do think the Lord sees the divisions and is grieved by them. He pours out His Spirit where there is unity and I think the Protestant church, in spite of the good intentions surrounding the doctrine of private interpretation, has taken it way too far and created many an obstacle for people in the world to truly look and and see the one church of Christ in the earth. I agree that being gathered together in one church or big tent doesn't necessarily mean there is untiy as the Catholics claim. But when the Protestants critcize the Roman church I think it also ought to have done so after taking a hard look at itself. We need to be on our faces as much as anyone and asking for forgiveness. There is a lot going on and the Lord continues to do much but that doesn't necessarily mean we are doing it according to the Lord's original intent. The nation of Israel split into two different camps and each camp, Israel and Judah, still had successes and the Lord still blessed them but that doesn't mean that was His original intent for them. The Lord's blessings are not automatically a sign of His approval many times. Things could have been done better and I think also that in spite of its successes and zeal and the Lord's blessings the church is still limping because of the divisions.

Well, I've said enough for now. If you want to I'll post again and tell you about a meeting I attended where 10 different churches came together. Talk about the tide flowing in and covering all the rocks!

Blessings to you,

"Doc"

doc,

The question as I understand it is why so many different denominations? and does this not impair our ability to witness to other 'Christian' groups? and you feel quite pressured by Catholics to defend non-Catholics' propensity to splinter.

There are other church groups who use the same arguement as these Catholics. One thing they all have in common is [b]they believe they are the "True Church." [/b] Some will go so far to say that unless you are a member of OUR organization you are not a Christian. This alone should raise a red flag. So to discredit you they will use this arguement. Now if you believe in the importance of organizational unity among Christian groups this will trouble you.

Now, I believe God is more honored by allowing the church to be splintered organizationally. Here is why.

If the entire body of so-called believers would be united in one visible body, we would form a formidable political force that even secular powers would have to contend with. This church would get so drunk with power, it would quickly lose its need for God in any part of life. And in a large part this is what happened to the RC church. They controlled civil governments, deprived their citizens the right to choose in the issues of faith. Actually, as I understand it, they were more concerned about the loss of moneys then they were of spiritual condition of their people. And when the Reformers came on the scene, they worked to promote this philosophy as well, severely persecuting those who differed with them. I am told these Reformers - Luther, Zwingli, et al - persecuted/killed more then their Catholic brethren. These people were called Anabaptist.

It can be argued that too many splinters happened because of internal politics. And this is a shame. Power struggle. Yup! and it could not happen unless people would support those who struggle for power, so the blame is shared by the laity.

True unity is found among Believers from different denominations. I have friends who are members in other churches then my own, including a RC. These people are very concerned about their souls and walking with God. We experiece a onesness in spirit. To be formally organized into a group will not help us at all. Actually, methinks those people who have a mindset different from this cannot comprehend what I am saying at all. To them salvation is too closely tied in with being a part of a certain organization.

Doc, as I see this issue, it is more one that involves salvation. Salvation binds us to people independant of church membership. And they will then argue: If such is the case, why do you not join 'hands' and be one if you are so close? All I can say is what would we all benefit? And to join organizationally will not resolve the differences within the group. So you end up compromising and this is what scares people. You will trample on others' conscience and this is destructive. God still says "separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." Acts 13:2.

Yes, this mentality cuts across many different church groups: we have three in our community including the Catholics.

My understanding on this issue....what do you think?

ginnyrose

It's not so much that I am pressured to defend Protestant schisms at the forum I participate in. The subject has just come up from time to time at the forum in the discussions or sometimes a Catholic will casually mention it while speaking on some subject. And the more I listened to their take the more I gradually began to see how they understand it from their side. The typical response when Catholics bring this subject up is, "Well, look at what their church has done over the centuries!" And when that is the immediate response it keeps one from seeing what they are saying. One can smugly have a retort for their church and go away feeling justified and ignore the gravity of what they are pointing out. Finally I began to understand that they do have a legitimate point on this issue. It's not the only issue of course that involves the church these days but it one of the foremost I think. It's sort of ironic that I grew up as a Catholic. I really got saved one day after wondering free from any church for about 3 years. I disagree with the RCC now on many issues but I'm not bitter toward them. But a Catholic can't even think in terms of going up the street and starting a new Catholic work because he can't get along with the people he is presently working with.

Let me think about some of the other things you mentioned. You made some good points. Indeed. I'm trying to get out of the habit of responding immediately to someone. Let me think and mull a little so as to give your comments the consideraton they deserve and I'll try and get back here sometime soon. Thanks also to the other people who have replied.

"Doc"

Hi,

I'm sorry I don't get here as much as probably some of you. I'm involved with another forum and other daily thngs so I don't make it as often as perhaps the others.

You said:

Now I believe God is more honored by allowing the church to be splintered organizationally. Here is why.

That sort of brings home my point right up front about the many Protestant schisms and factions that came about as a result of the Reformation. That type of statement and belief was unheard of for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That is completely a Protestant position and that has been one of the hardest things for me to get a hold on. I think like that too but I have come to realize that Protestant Christians have only been thinking in those terms for about 500 years of the approximate 2,000 years of church history. It's hard for Protestants to think in terms of anything that goes back further than the Reformation. I know you are speaking in terms of organizational unity but if a church is one in the spirit and one in the earth why should its organizational unity be splintered? History has forced upon us the choice of which communion are you in instead of are you in the church or out of it.

If the entire body of so-called believers would be united in one visible body, we would from a formidable political force that even secular powers would have to contend with. This church would get so drunk with power it would quickly lose its need for God in any area of life.

All so-called believers being united in one visible body. That doesn't have an appeal to you up against what the situation is today among Christ's body on earth? It seems like we should be drooling at the mouth for more of this. That's worded strongly I know and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck. But what better thing could happen and what was supposed to happen? What did Christ have in mind when He gave birth to His church on earth?

As far as secular powers having to contend with one visible church if that church were a reality. I don't think there is a holy or godly realm and a secular realm. God intends I think that all of life is holy or supposed to be. So if secular powers had to contend with the church that has always been I think the Lord's intention. Politics is no more to be divorced from the Lord and His rule than anything else. John the Baptist addressed the secular political power when he gave the rebuke for the civil authority having his brother's wife. That may not be the best example but the church should be right smack in the middle of all of life and has historically addressed civil powers as to which moral direction they should be taking.

If this church did become drunk on power I think we should still realize that if the Lord is ruling the church as He is that He can bring the needed correction when He deemed necessary. To just say the church would become drunk on power and lose its need for God is also assuming that He would not be shepherding this church and seeing to it that it walked after His ways. If He can raise up one visible church then I think He would also actively oversee that church and bring correction when needed.

True untiy is found among believers of different denominations.

Two words stand out to me in that statement. Unity and different. See what I mean. What about unity among the one? Again, that type of thinking came straight from the Reformation and is the practical outworking of every person now has a right to choose. I think as Protestants we live, breathe, and act that way but don't quite realize why we are doing what we do and thinking the way we do.

I think the Reformation was a tragic necessity that occured because the issues that caused it had been swept under the rug and basically denied for too long. It wasn't so much if the Reformation was going to happen but when. Too many forces and currents converged at one time. But I still stand back and scratch my head sometimes and wonder if the way it has turned out was what the way things were envisioned. The goal was to fix the church not create several hundred or several thousand divisions. We held a church meeting at our church once where people from ten different churches attended and it was a glory. There wasn't a contentious bone in the house. The ten different pastors from the ten different churches each took turns and shared for about five minutes and it was great. That type of get together honors the Lord I think. Yes, it works. People from different communions, bound together by salvation, can get together and not be contentious. But that only whets my appetite for what could be. The fact that we perhaps can't imagine all those Christian being in the same church under the same spiritual authority and walking the same way is part of my point. So close in the Spirit when they get together but yet so far in the logical outworking of that closeness is a spiritual anomaly. We are products of the Reformation and instead of majoring on what the Lord's original intent was I think many times we find reasons for praising the divisions when for the first 1500 years of church history that type of thinking didn't exist.

Forgive me if I went on too long here. I would love to hear back from you, or anyone else, if you or they desire. I don't have all the answers and I have been known to talk too much at times and I'm stumbling along trying to do and think correctly like many of us probably.

Blessings,

"Doc"