Subject: When did the catholic church go wrong? |
Bible Note: Ed: You bring up some very interesting points for discussion here. I have refrained from contributing to this thread thus far because I don't believe a simple answer can be given to "when and where Roman Catholicism went wrong." Furthermore, the Lord had preserved His invisible church largely within Roman Catholicism until the Protestant Reformation. By this, I do not mean that the Church of Rome was equivalent to the invisible church, but rather that God had brought people to repentance and faith alone in Christ's sacrifice in spite of the official doctrine that developed over time. And, of course, there exist in Catholic churches today those who fall into the biblically-defined category of what makes a person a Christian. Again, they must ignore lots of official church teaching to do so, but it is a reality that some of the regenerate inhabit the visible Church of Rome. Most of these people of days gone by died in obscurity, it is very clear that both the bad and the good have existed in the visible church since Pentecost. We have the sound teaching of the apostles, but we also have the heresies that cropped up almost immediately, prompting the writing of most of the New Testament epistles as defenses against these heresies. We have Origen, and early church father who taught a brand of universalism (i.e. that everyone will eventually be saved). We have Augustine, who was referred to as an authority countless times by both Rome and Luther (by Rome for his doctrine of the church and by Luther for his clearly rock-solid, biblical understanding of justification). During the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, we have all sorts of "proto-Reformers" such as the Waldenses, the Lollards, John Wickliffe, Jan Hus, and a whole host of others. A search on any of these groups and individuals will give you a very clear picture of how God preserved his truth in the midst of error. Luther saw the main errors of Rome to lie in the areas of authority and justification. The problems that he saw (and that we see) in the Church of Rome basically resulted from a gradual elevation of Chruch tradition and authority to the level of Scriptural authority. Of course, when the two contradicted, it was the Church tradition that won out. That is why we see that Luther's main points were "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone as our authority rather than Scripture plus the Church's official pronouncements, especially when the two were not in harmony); "sola gratia" (grace alone, rather than grace plus our intrinsic merit); and "sola fide" (faith alone is the means by which we are justified, rather than by faith supplemented by our good works). The purest expression of the Lutheranism of Luther can be found in the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (www.lcms.org). They hold to the old Lutheran confessions, and you can get a clear view of the theological distinctives of that branch of the Reformation. To the three "solas" above the Calvinists added "solus Christus" (Christ alone) and "soli Deo gloria" (to the glory of God alone). These five characteristics of classical Protestantism are known as the Doctrines of Grace. Note that Luther did not oppose either of these two points of doctrine, but rather the Calvinists expanded upon what Luther had brought to light. Coming back to the three answers given by non-church attenders, the last one touches on a misconception that exists regarding denominationalism. Yes, there are countless denominations within Protestantism, and a lot of them have formed over the most ridiculous differences in doctrine. However, I would consider any church where the Doctrines of Grace are a standard to be a Christian congregation. Yes, I differ with folks on issues of baptism, communion, when the milennium is, dispensationalism vs. covenantal theology, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, tribulations and raptures and you-name-it. I know that most of you have been subjected to large diatribes by me on some of these very issues. And while I hold those who disagree with me to be wrong (and you are, by the way!), nothing prevents me from considering those who nevertheless hold to the Doctrines of Grace to be my co-heirs in Christ. Therefore, I would argue that while there are physical divisions based on race, socioeconomic status, age, geography, cultural background, preference of worship style, and even points of doctrine, there really does exist a great deal of unity among those who can be truly called "evangelical." As far as the other two objections, the first is just plain wrong, and the second does carry some merit, since my wife and I have faced that exact same type of situation ourselves. Let that be an admonishment to us to welcome visitors to our church PERSONALLY, taking the time to build the unity that spiritually exists among all believers and make that a tangible reality. NEVER compromise on the central truths of the faith to build a false unity! --Joe! |