# Defending a divided Christianity



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 4, 2004)

In some encounters with unbelievers, I am asked which group of Christians are right since there are so many disagreements. Usually, my initial answer is, that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian. The smart ones then will ask, we'll how do you know you are right when these others guys claim they believe the Bible too? Usually I will simply point out where they differ in general from the Bible, and it's what the Bible says that really matters. (Then it's gets sticky, especially when you may have some brothers from an arminian persuasion as part of the conversation with this unbeliever.) 

How should we answer this question of so many divisions among Christians? I always feel like  when having to explain the errors of other Christians.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 4, 2004)

Some good suggestions Paul. Thanks. It's makes it even more difficult when the true gospel is held by only a minority of the church today. 

I agree that it's easier when one on one. I can handle the particulars if the person is willing to listen. It's the group assault that sometimes throws me off. Because you get one after another without time to sufficiently answer the previous objection. I suppose grace, time, and experience will help me out in the long run.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 4, 2004)

As long as christians tolerate sin, humanism, and universalism there will never be unity in the earthly body of christians. 

Unity begins and ends with Christ.

blade


----------



## duke (Nov 4, 2004)

You need to strip back the question and get at the reason why the person is asking it. Are they using it to just pick an argument or does this issue genuinely cause them to stumble over the claims of Jesus Christ.

I would not labour too long on such questions. Go quickly to the claims of Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. In my experience the questions about divisive Christianity pale in comparison to the questions people then have about the good news.

Duke.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 4, 2004)

The objection raised is standard among not only unbelievers in general but Roman Catholics in particular, since they claim to be the only true church while the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, in their view, inherently leads to a division of the church ending up with every man's conscience assuming the role of Pope. The objection has apparent merit because we look around today and we see a splintered Protestant church, which does in fact undermine the witness that Christians should bear to Christ's prayer for unity. But Scripture also teaches that there must be heresies that will arise among us (I Cor. 11.19). The fallen nature of man, as historically taught by the Protestant church, will naturally tend to suppress the truth (Rom. 1.18ff). The purest church under heaven, being made up of sinners, may contain error, and church councils may and indeed do err (WCF XXV.IV; XXI.IV). Yet, God has preserved His word and His church, and His testimony is true (WCF I.IV-V). It is also true that the abuse of something (cf., the Bible) does not negate the proper use of that something. Therefore, the objection by unbelievers that there are so many claims to truth out there that no one can be expected to accept the Protestant gospel alone as exclusively true is nothing more than a dodge, a red herring, a straw man argument. An exclusive claim to truth cannot be disregarded merely because there are competing truth claims. Neither does the fact that the truth is presented by a sinner inherently undermine the witness of the truth itself, ie., that men are sinners! Ultimately and presuppositionally, the claim of the gospel to be the truth is a ethical dilemma for the unbeliever more than an intellectual dilemma. That is the true heart of the matter. 

For a refutation of the RCC version of this objection, see http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/unityprotestant


----------



## alwaysreforming (Nov 4, 2004)

One thing I try to keep in mind when answering these kinds of questions is, I try not to "air our family's dirty laundry" to the unbeliever. That is, if they are asking about all of the different divisions within Christianity, I try to contain my enthusiasm to point out the errors of others and rather breifly explain how there are "essentials" of belief and for the most part, a lot of these groups would still be within the realm of saving faith. 

I've found that most who ask this type of question really have NO idea what Christianity is, and to then be polemical is not going to be at all helpful since they have no way to absorb the "inside information" we'd give them.

Of course, the idea's mentioned above are very helpful, too: that all Truth needs to come from a proper interpretation of the Bible; that all who profess are not necessarily Christians; etc.

However, I think we should be cautious of showing such a "divided front" to the watching world. In many cases, it denegrates the cause more than helps it. 
 
(I couldn't live without this two-cents icon!)


----------



## openairboy (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> In some encounters with unbelievers, I am asked which group of Christians are right since there are so many disagreements. Usually, my initial answer is, that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian. The smart ones then will ask, we'll how do you know you are right when these others guys claim they believe the Bible too? Usually I will simply point out where they differ in general from the Bible, and it's what the Bible says that really matters. (Then it's gets sticky, especially when you may have some brothers from an arminian persuasion as part of the conversation with this unbeliever.)
> 
> How should we answer this question of so many divisions among Christians? I always feel like  when having to explain the errors of other Christians.



I think this is a legitimate objection and question, especially if they consider the fact that Jesus prayed for our unity, i.e. why aren't we unified? I think one of the problems with much of modern apologetics is that it doesn't consider the effects of community, or lack thereof, on our evangelistic endeavor. For the most part, I don't believe it is simply about providing them with answers or showing why their position doesn't make sense. These are helpful, but hopefully a mere tool in our bag. 

They will know we are Christians... 

Basically, I would invite them to live among you for a while. "Come and see..."

To the question: I would address it through the creeds. I would point out that the catholic (universal) church has always held to these basic doctrines and point to what Paul passed on as first importance. Next, I would point out that we have family differences, which include a myriad of IMPORTANT issues, but they aren't essentials. I do a lot of ministry with a gentleman that is a baptist and an Arminian, although he claims not to fall into the arminian camp, and we are constantly asked this question. The fact that we are together demonstrates true unity in diversity and, I believe, people respect us and understand because of the practical outworking of the unity. A simple analogy, "Who is the true Republican? Pat Buchanan or George Bush? How about Democrat? Zell Miller or John Kerry or Howard Dean?" I don't hear too many people ask, "What brand is the true party?" We do, however, hear about fights for the "heart of the party", which, broadly considered, are the essentials of that party. So it is with the Church. The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon identify the True Churches. 

So, if you can pull it off w/ your tongue in your cheek then tell them, "My brand", and go on to the next question.

openairboy

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by openairboy]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I would address it through the creeds. I would point out that the catholic (universal) church has always held to these basic doctrines and point to what Paul passed on as first importance. Next, I would point out that we have family differences, which include a myriad of IMPORTANT issues, but they aren't essentials....So it is with the Church. The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon identify the True Churches.



Keith, 

Is it your contention then that the Roman Catholic Church is a "True Church"? 

Ricky


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ricky,
> 
> I think he means "catholic" as in the universal church militant, not RCC.



I'm sorry Paul; I should have been clearer. What I meant to convey was that if a church affirms The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon (as Rome does), are they still necessarily a "True Church"? I hope that clears it up.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Nov 12, 2004)

One simple thing to remember also is that even though Christian disagree on a lot of things, we agree on enough to stand together. The fundamentals of the faith united even Arminians and Calvinists together (unless you don't believe Arminians are Christians.  )


----------



## openairboy (Nov 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> I'm sorry Paul; I should have been clearer. What I meant to convey was that if a church affirms The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon (as Rome does), are they still necessarily a "True Church"? I hope that clears it up.



This was discussed briefly in the theological forum, and you can see my comments there. That is beyond the apologetics forum.

openairboy


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

Hi Keith!

I tried looking for the thread you referred to in the theological forum but could not find it. Do you think you can link to that thread, or maybe even the just the provide the title of that thread? Thanks!

I'm not sure I agree entirely with your opinion that this topic is beyond the apologetics forum, especially since in my view (I do not mean to imply that this is not your view also - but I don't know, hence my question), the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian institutian, and hence we should defend Christianity from this error also. But perhaps a better forum might be the 'Cult and World Religions' forum.

In Christ,
Ricky Reformed

[Edited on 13-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 12, 2004)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> One simple thing to remember also is that even though Christian disagree on a lot of things, we agree on enough to stand together. The fundamentals of the faith united even Arminians and Calvinists together (unless you don't believe Arminians are Christians.  )



While I agree with your statement, I can't help but wonder if we would still agree after we defined "Christians" and "fundamentals". For instance, if I defined Christians as anyone who invokes the name of Christ (including Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentacostals, Pelagians, etc.), would we still agree?

From the outset, one of my 'fundamentals' (of the faith) is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If a church agrees with the Apostle's Creed, the Nicean Creed, and Chaldedon, but denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone, I cannot, in good conscience, consider them a Christian church.

Sincerely,
Ricky


----------



## openairboy (Nov 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_
> Hi Keith!
> 
> I tried looking for the thread you referred to in the theological forum but could not find it. Do you think you can link to that thread, or maybe even the just the provide the title of that thread? Thanks!



Ricky, 

The thread is "I was saved twice", which is about 10 threads down and "locked". Be sure to read the Hodge link, b/c that is essential to to my thinking on the subject and, I believe, will give you a bit more of an historical perspective. Bringing in the historical perspective is key, I believe.

WIthout debating it, yes, I believe the Apostles Creed, Nicene, etc., is more central to my belief.

openairboy


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 13, 2004)

Keith,

Do you consider Eastern Orthodox baptism valid? Would Hodge? (I don't recall)


----------



## RickyReformed (Nov 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> Ricky,
> 
> The thread is "I was saved twice", which is about 10 threads down and "locked". Be sure to read the Hodge link, b/c that is essential to to my thinking on the subject and, I believe, will give you a bit more of an historical perspective. Bringing in the historical perspective is key, I believe.
> ...



Thanks Keith! I'll check it out.
Ricky


----------



## openairboy (Nov 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Keith,
> 
> Do you consider Eastern Orthodox baptism valid? Would Hodge? (I don't recall)



I don't know enough about EO. I don't know of or can't remember any explicit statements from Hodge on the subject.

openairboy


----------



## Scott (Nov 22, 2004)

Why would EO baptism not be valid?

[Edited on 11-22-2004 by Scott]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 22, 2004)

I have been asked that question a whole lot. When I attended the Reformed Presbyterian Church, I was taught about why there were different church Governments. There are examples of all three types of Authority mentioned in the Scriptures. I explain that even though the Bible is one book it shows us these different forms of governing authority and some groups believe one is better than the other. If that works I just explain the Gospel as it is. If it doesn't I explain the gospel of works and the gospel of grace and how the pride of men causes blindness.


----------

