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.

[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...