# That They Be One?



## Ivan (Feb 27, 2010)

> John 17:20-21: “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 20 “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e] believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me., as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."



These are two of my favorite verses in the Bible and yet the two verses that causes me great concern for the Church and her mission in the world; especially the parts that say, "that they all may be one" and "that the world may believe that You sent Me..." 

How is the Church "one" and because of that how does the world believe that God sent Jesus? Does being "one" mean unity? Do we have a problem with the world believing God sent Christ if we don't have unity?

Here's Chapter 17 of the Gospel of John to read verses 20 and 21 in context: John 17 - Passage


----------



## dudley (Feb 27, 2010)

I will respond to this as an ex roman catholic and a convert to Reformed Presbyterian Protestant.Catholics cannot settle for anything less than the visible unity of the Body of Christ as their ecumenical goal. John Paul II has written: "The greater mutual understanding and the doctrinal convergences already achieved between us, which have resulted in an affective and effective growth of communion, cannot suffice for the conscience of Christians who profess that the Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. The ultimate goal of the ecumenical movement is to re-establish full visible unity among all the baptised" (Ut unum sint, no. 77).

Whatever our ecumenical orientation, we who call ourselves Protestants will naturally insist that the divisions of the sixteenth century were a faithful and legitimate ecclesial response to the abuses of the medieval Church and the threat to the gospel that 
they presented. we protestants believe the Reformers took the best option available to them. Roman Catholic theology too now usually accepts the legitimacy of the Reformation protest against the late medieval Church and its theology, even if it tends, 
understandably, not to endorse the division that resulted.

Surely, one might argue in defense of the Reformation, disunity is tolerable 
if the gospel itself is at stake. The Reformers for the most part did not initiate 
division, but reluctantly accepted it late in the game, after repeated efforts 
to maintain the unity of the Western Church had failed. By accepting disunity 
only for the sake of the gospel, it might seem as if the Reformers put as high 
a value on the public unity of the Church as it is possible for Christians to 
do. Nothing less than the gospel, and thereby Christ himself, could authorize 
us to accept a divided Church. 

I was from after Vatican II till my becoming a Protestant in 2006 a roman catholic open to dialogue and understanding with my Protestant bretheren.

In July 2007 the Roman church issued a document that said Protestant denominations of the Reformation "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery [and] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense". The Vatican document is very clear: it's the old doctrine of the return to the fold, At this point we can ask ourselves if it makes sense to continue the dialogue with Rome. With many Catholics, yes, but with the Roman institution maybe not. In 2005, immediately after his election as pontiff, Benedict said he was "disposed to do all in his power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism". However by 2006 I saw as a Roman catholic that pope Benedict was returning the Roman church to a pre Vatican II mentality and it was at that point I left and became an Episcopalian. In 2007 I renounced Roman catholicism and her pope entirely and became a Presbyterian.

I am now a Presbyterain and a mainline Protestant and could never accept Christian Unity on Romes terms. I believe the principals of the Protestant Reformation are essential to maintain.

The Principles of Protestantism taht must never be discarded are the ones where general Protestant agreement has always existed.the 5 solas:

Sola Scriptura - Doctrine is "by Scripture alone" as opposed to papal decree or council edict.
Sola Fide - Justification is received "by faith alone" as opposed to works or sacraments.
Sola Gratia - Salvation comes "by grace alone."
Sola Christus - Atonement for sins is "by and through Christ alone."
Soli Deo gloria - All glory is to be given "to God alone."
The other major dividing point is the Protestant doctrine of justification and the roman position of good works. 

Another major stumbling block is the issue of the Lords Supper. The Roman catholic position of transubstantiation Vs a spiritual presence of Christ in Communion as most protestants view thge Lords Supper. I no longer accept the roman teaching of transubsantiation and even while a roman catholic was very uncomfortable with the adoration of a bread wafer in a gold monstrance. I believe roman church totally distorted the interpretation in John 6 however I think we can be open to dialogue with how Chist becomes present to us, but never under the dictates of the roman teaching and her pope. 

I will close and ....I will point out in closing that "catholic " does mean universal in the Greek sense and we Protestants are "catholic". In many ways it is Rome who has moved away from "catholic"


----------



## dudley (Feb 27, 2010)

Pastor Ivan at the bootom of your screen is the qoute from Spurgeon that I also admire and agree with:
"I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it" . ~ Charles Spurgeon
I think that the Reformed Protestant fold is the church that Christ founded before she was corrupted by Roman power and it has been returned to us by the Reformed leaders;Calvin, Zwigli, Knox etc. We Protestants are the ones who have returned to the true Gospel and we are one in Christ.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 28, 2010)

dudley said:


> Pastor Ivan at the bootom of your screen is the qoute from Spurgeon that I also admire and agree with:
> "I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it" . ~ Charles Spurgeon
> I think that the Reformed Protestant fold is the church that Christ founded before she was corrupted by Roman power and it has been returned to us by the Reformed leaders;Calvin, Zwigli, Knox etc. We Protestants are the ones who have returned to the true Gospel and we are one in Christ.



To your previous post, I have no hope that we will ever be in unity with Rome. I never imagined when starting this thread that we would have to establish that. Let Rome reform and come back to Christ.

As to Protestants being the ones who have returned to the true gospel and are one in Christ...first, which (or all?) Protestants, and second, do you believe we display a unity in Christ that will cause the world to believe that God has sent Christ?


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 2, 2010)

Maybe the search for _visible_ oneness isn't what Jesus was praying for. Maybe this prayer (for mystical union) has already been fulfilled.


----------



## CharlieJ (Mar 2, 2010)

BlackCalvinist said:


> Maybe the search for _visible_ oneness isn't what Jesus was praying for. Maybe this prayer (for mystical union) has already been fulfilled.


 
I think most people who desire visible unity would agree with you. Jesus is praying for mystical union, and it is granted. The visible unity of the Church is also an implication of this prayer, or else it makes little sense to say this is how "the world may know that You have sent me." All of the appeals to visible unity in the NT (Philippians, 1 Corinthians) are grounded in the reality of our mystical union. 

I think it's safe to say that there are good many necessary and proper divisions in the Church, as long as the beliefs of various groups remain as they are. On the other hand, there are a number of bodies that are very similar doctrinally, yet for various reasons remain separate. Most likely, it is because the "ethos" of the groups are different, or the shear hassle of figuring out how to combine denominations schools, mission boards, publishers, etc.. I don't think conservatives at the moment place such a high premium on visible unity that they are willing to sort through those messes.


----------



## Michael (Mar 3, 2010)

I personally find it of great importance in the Scriptures...



Paul in his letter to the Ephesians said:


> 4:1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.





Paul again in his letter to the Philippians said:


> 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, 2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.





Peter in his first epistle said:


> 3:8 Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. 9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.


----------



## dudley (Mar 3, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the search for _visible_ oneness isn't what Jesus was praying for. Maybe this prayer (for mystical union) has already been fulfilled.
> ...



I would agree with Charlie and Black Calvinist above regarding many Protestant denominations. However I do think we Reformed Protestants could search for ways to demonstrate our shared unity of proclaiming the five solas and the basics of the Protestant Reformation and the Gospel. I do think that it might be possible for we Presbyterians and our fellow Reformed Baptists to explore ways of coming to a common understanding with groups like the Methodists who see The Lords Supper as a memorial and the bread and wine as symbols of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary for the redemption of all who place their faith in Him alone, our Lord Jesus Christ. Groups like the Methodists while saying the Lords Supper as Wesley taught recreates the sacrifice symbolically (not a reenactment as Roman catholicism does) on Calvary may be able to find common ground with we Reformed Protestants who see Christ becoming present to us spiritually in the Lords Supper by our common faith alone when we celebrate His Supper. I think Methodists and groups like them could find common ground with we Reformed Protestants. However Lutherans who teach consubstantiation and Christ becoming present in the bread and wine are too similar to Roman catholics and their teaching of transubstantiation which we Presbyterians and Baptists firmly deny. However Presbyterians and Baptists and Methodists share common ground in stating that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. Anglicans different from Methodists have a liturgy some even call a mass which is too similar to the Roman catholic position for us to ever have a common Lords Supper, but perhaps Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians could work towards a common understanding of the Lords Supper. While I myself am a Presbyterian my thinking and belief on the Supper is more like Zwigli and the Baptist position. I do believe as a Presbyterian Christ becomes spiritually present in the celebration of the Supper but definitely hold that the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine. There might be other Protestant groups like the Methodists who could also explore common ground with us on the Lords Supper which would become a further statement of our shared faith in our common savior, Jesus Christ and the public reception of His ordinance and sacrament he ordained to us to proclaim the redemption of those who place their faith in Him alone.


----------

