That the Church which Christ instituted for man's salvation must be one in the strict sense of the term just explained, is already evident from its very nature and purpose; truth is one, Christ revealed the truth and gave it to His Church, and men are to be saved by knowing and following the truth. But the essential unity of the true Christian Church is also explicitly and repeatedly declared throughout the New Testament:
• A sheepfold to which all His sheep must come and be united under one shepherd (John 10:7-17)
• A vine and its branches [Jn 15:1-17]
• Moreover, the Saviour, just before He suffered, prayed for His disciples, for those who were afterwards to believe in Him -- for His Church -- that they might be and remain one as He and the Father are one (John 17:20-23)
• And in the same Epistle he describes the Church as one body with many members distinct among themselves, but one with Christ their head: "For in one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free" (1 Corinthians 12:13).
All the theories of unity entertained by the sects are woefully out of harmony with the true and proper concept of unity as defined above and as taught by Christ, the Apostles, and all orthodox Tradition. In no other Christian body is there a oneness of faith, of worship, and of discipline. Between no two of the hundreds of non-Catholic sects is there a common bond of union; each one having a different head, a different belief, a different cult. Nay more, even between the members of any one sect there is no such thing as real unity, for their first and foremost principle is that each one is free to believe and do as he wishes. They are constantly breaking up into new sects and subdivisions of sects, showing that they have within themselves the seeds of disunion and disintegration. Divisions and subdivisions have ever been the characteristics of Protestantism.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm
Do Protestant denominations violate the unity of the church, as the NT defines it? Does the church of Rome fulfill the terms of NT unity? Let’s examine these statements and metaphors.
1.To begin with, it’s worth noting that most of these prootexts are not specifically about the church. Only the Pauline prooftext is specifically describing the unity of the church. The Johannine prooftexts are describing the union of Christians with Christ, and a type of unity which derives from that union.
2.But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that we can treat all these prooftexts as denoting church unity.
What are the conditions under which an individual or group of individuals would belong to the one true church?
That you share the same shepherd, the same vine, the same head.
You belong to the one true church if you are branches of the true vine, if you are sheep of the same shepherd, if you are members of a body with the same head.
Those are the NT conditions which must be met to belong to the one true church. What makes you members of the same body is if that body is connected to the same head (Christ). What makes you sheep of the same flock is if you share the same shepherd (Christ). What makes you related branches is if you grow from the same vine (Christ).
Do Protestants belong to the one true church? Some do and some don’t. If a Protestant is a true Christian, then Christ is his shepherd, vine, and head. If not, then he’s not a member of the one true church.
Do Catholics belong to the one true church? Some do and some don’t. If a Catholic is a true Christian, then Christ is his shepherd, vine, and head. If not, then he’s not a member of the one true church.
That’s how the NT describes church unity. Those are the NT terms of church unity–according to NT figures of speech which Catholicism itself identifies as ecclesiastical metaphors.
Unity is not defined by whether or not you belong to the same denomination. Rather, unity is defined from the top-down. If Christ is your shepherd, then you belong to his flock. If Christ is your head, then you belong to his body.
Church unity is defined by union with Christ.
And who is in union with Christ? Christian believers. Those who exercise saving faith in Christ.
Steve Hays: "Church unity is defined by union with Christ.
ReplyDeleteAnd who is in union with Christ? Christian believers. Those who exercise saving faith in Christ."
Don't disagreement here. Just a couple of observations.
#1. The RCC makes a big deal about the *visible* church as I'm sure you're more than well aware of. They don't seem to hold much stock in the ecclesiastical doctrine known as the "invisible" church.
#2. With respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus it seems to me that the RCC has backed away from the logical consequence of this doctrine through very confusing qualifications.
People who belong to the same local assembly can fail to have unity by apostolic standards (1 Corinthians 1:10-11, 11:18, Philippians 4:2-3). People who don't belong to one organizational structure, such as a denomination, can have unity anyway (Luke 9:49-50).
ReplyDelete"For even as the Lord who dwells in us is one and the same, He everywhere joins and couples His own people in the bond of unity, whence their sound has gone out into the whole earth, who are sent by the Lord swiftly running in the spirit of unity; as, on the other hand, it is of no advantage that some are very near and joined together bodily, if in spirit and mind they differ, since souls cannot at all be united which divide themselves from God's unity." (Firmilian, Cyprian's Letter 74:3)
In the second century, Celsus brought charges of disunity against Christianity similar to the charges Roman Catholics bring against Evangelicals. Origen responded by acknowledging that there was much disunity, in addition to the unity that existed, and he traced the disunity back to the time of the apostles (Against Celsus, 3:10-13).
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete"#1. The RCC makes a big deal about the *visible* church as I'm sure you're more than well aware of. They don't seem to hold much stock in the ecclesiastical doctrine known as the 'invisible' church."
My post was neutral on the visibility/invisibility of the church. I wasn't arguing for the invisibility of the church in this post, and the argument I posted isn't dependent on that ulterior assumption. True or false, it's not germane.
Rather, I was commenting on Catholic prooftexts for the unity/unicity of the church, and in that connection I'd point out that their own prooftexts don't make visibility a condition of ecclesiastical unity or unicity. For that they would have to find a different set of prooftexts.
Two points, which doesn't quite undermine your original intent, Steve:
ReplyDelete1. John 17 does specify that the unity of the church will be something that will cause the world to know something. This is prima facie reason to think that the unity describe must be in some sense visible publicly.
"20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, *so that the world may believe that you have sent me*. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, *so that the world may know* that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. "
2. On the other hand, given the rest of the OT, this does not preclude there being visible disunity with some who *claim* to be Christian and have some kind of visible similarity to the true church.
The RCs are ultimately begging the question by tying visible unity to unity with the pope.
However, Jesus doesn't say the world will know we are one because we belong to one Church.
ReplyDelete