A comment left by Peter on Tiber’s Blog concerning the issue of “separated churches” seems to have assumptions like that of many Evangelicals.
He says this:
I am puzzled. Don't they believe that they belong church that happens to be "truer" than the alternatives? If they didn't, wouldn't they go join a "truer" church. Further, can there be two churches that equally the "truest"? It seems that if they were equally the truest, they would be a single church - i.e, the one true church - because (a) they'd have no disagreements and (b) Christ viewed division as a scandal.
First, there are churches that may be more accurate in their Biblical positions and teachings. This however doesn’t make them a “truer” church. It just makes them more consistent and faithful to what God has spoken.
Another assumption is how the church is known to be a true church. For Peter, it seems to be whether or not you might claim to have apostolic succession. The problem with this argument is that the Orthodox churches could easily make that argument. In that case, it becomes a battle of which Apostle a church is a successor to. Are we really going to pit Apostles against one another? Is this unity? William Webster’s book on Matthew 16, The Matthew 16 Controversy, demonstrates most clearly that there was no Apostolic succession that all churches bent their knees to.
Divisions may be a scandal, but even the Apostles fought division their entire ministries. Almost all of the New Testament is dealing with false teaching and correcting errors in the church. Let me however offer an analogy to explain what I am thinking. Let us say there are three churches in Rome in the year 300. One claims to be the true church because she has the pedigree of Popes. Another claims to follow the teachings of the New Testament but uses a poor and inconsistent interpretation method. The Third follows to teachings in the New Testament using a consistent hermeneutic method. Which is the true church?
Of course the church that has the Pedigree assumes it must be following the New Testament because they have the Pedigree and authority that says they are. The Second obviously believes they have the truth but how do we know? The Third claims to be following consistently with what the Apostles preached as infallible and inerrant teaching. IMO, the latter 2 may very well be true churches even though they may disagree at points because both are attempting to follow the ONLY Apostolic commands and teachings. The other still has Apostles, therefore by definition the First one is of a wholly different viewpoint.
To say that the One true church is without error and division is another and most basic assumption of Roman Catholics. This is patently false. Ask any two Roman Catholics for a definition of Tradition and you may always get two different answers. Yet does this disprove Rome? Of course it does not. For the real issue with Rome is one of authority. Protestants and Roman Catholics simply do not even think on the same plane. We may use similar terms, but our concepts are totally different.
The question almost always comes down to Sola Ecclesia or Sola Scriptura.
2 comments:
"First, there are churches that may be more accurate in their Biblical positions and teachings. This however doesn’t make them a “truer” church.
You just defined what a "truer" church would be.
"It just makes them more consistent and faithful to what God has spoken."
duh
Add one "win" to the Evangelecals.
Let me offer a New Testament example. The church at Corinth is no more a truer church in all of their struggles than the church at Ephesus.
Neither of these churches are less churches simply because they may or may not even know of the Primacy of Peter in Rome. They are churches established by Apostles.
Today, any church founded on the Proclamation of the Apostolic doctrine and teaching found in the Inspired/God-Breathed text of the Scriptures (in particular the NT) is a true church.
The fact that churches have people (including pastors) that struggle in being consistent with the teachings of the Apostles makes no difference. Christ and His Gospel builds His church. In other words, the Gospel determines what a church is. The church does not determine the Gospel.
By definition Rome denies the Gospel, therefore....
Post a Comment