I am not alone.

[MoreCoffee]

Daniel B. Wallace Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary wrote:

The Problem with Protestant*Ecclesiology

I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly:*simul iustus et peccator*(“simultaneously justified and a sinner”).

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

“But unity in falsehood is no unity at all,” some will protest. To a degree that is true. If the unity of the church meant that we would all deny the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person, then that would be unity against an essential of the Christian faith. But there is no thinking Christian who agrees lock, stock, and barrel with what his pastor teaches. Yet, he is a part of that church. In this respect, he has prized unity over truth. We all have to do this. If we didn’t, each Christian would be his or her own church. The fellowship would be awfully predictable and quite boring!

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.

... (source)​

 

[Josiah]

Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome.

Dan is wrong.

The RC Denomination split itself in 1521. No force on Earth or in Heaven mandated that it do so. It ended up loosing about one-third of its members because of what it itself willingly did in 1521 (it gained a bunch in the Americas - so it pretty much evened out). It's absurd to argue that Luther's voice MANDATED, NECESSITATED the RC Denomination to split itself. It could have not done so. It could have ignored Luther or could have listened to Luther or even cared if what it taught/did was right and good. It instead chose to split itself. It could have welcomed that Ecumenical Council Luther asked for (and agreed to submit to) but of course it had also split itself with the EOC some 500 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that, and with the OOC about 1000 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that either so such a Council was not something the RCC was willing to do. That TOO is the fault and free choice of the individual RC Denomination. Luther did not hold a gun to the head of the Pope and force him to deny that call for a Ecumenical Council to which all would submit.

Dan is just wrong.

Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity

.


Yes, the Reformation was a necessity. NOT the RC Denomination splitting itself, excommunicating Evangelicals, denying any Ecumenical Council to resolve this.

Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity

Yes, Protestants felt that truth mattered. The RC Denomination chose to split itself, deny any Council rather than discuss truth.

There was no unity (as Catholics and Mormons mean it) in 1521. NOT all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (as well as Christians in Japan, China, India, Sudan, etc.) agreed with ALL others in ALL matters of faith and practice - no unity in faith or practice, and there were at LEAST 3 major denominations already in 1521 - the RCC, the EOC and the OOC (all of which had LONG AGO excommunicated each other), not to mention the tens of thousands of congregations in the world at the time that didn't belong to any of those 3 denominations. No "unity" in faith and practice. No 'unity" of denomination. True - the choice of the RC Denomination to create a few more denominations had the result that the RC chose, but there were already numerous denominations. By FAR, the largest "split" in Christian history happened in 1054 (not 1521) - and Luther didn't hold a gun to the head of anyone then, either.


- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

I looked at the bio from the source link of Daniel B. Wallace. Look at the very bottom. How proud he is to break one of God's holy commandments and display it for the world to see:

Dan and his wife, Pati, have been married 40 years. They met at Biola University and within minutes stole a car together

 

[Brighten04]

I looked at the bio from the source link of Daniel B. Wallace. Look at the very bottom. How proud he is to break one of God's holy commandments and display it for the world to see:

Dan and his wife, Pati, have been married 40 years. They met at Biola University and within minutes stole a car together

Ah ha! See, this is why we need to read the Bible ourselves and allow the Holy Spirit to be our teacher. The church is us. We are the Body of Christ, not some organization made by man.

 

[psalms 91]

Exactly Brighten, we are not be mindless robots following the approved script but rather being led by the spirit of God and having thta personal relationship ourselves not through someone else or some organization

 

[MoreCoffee]

The analysis in the blog post from Daniel B. Wallace is the theme of this thread. I suppose almost everybody has broken one or more of the ten commandments at some time in their life. Does that mean that everything they say from the moment of their commandment breaking is unworthy of attention? Is the argument based on the biography statement intended to discount his comments?

Jesus said 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone.'

 

[Josiah]

Dan is wrong.

The RC Denomination split itself in 1521. No force on Earth or in Heaven mandated that it do so. It ended up loosing about one-third of its members because of what it itself willingly did in 1521 (it gained a bunch in the Americas - so it pretty much evened out). It's absurd to argue that Luther's voice MANDATED, NECESSITATED the RC Denomination to split itself. It could have not done so. It could have ignored Luther or could have listened to Luther or even cared if what it taught/did was right and good. It instead chose to split itself. It could have welcomed that Ecumenical Council Luther asked for (and agreed to submit to) but of course it had also split itself with the EOC some 500 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that, and with the OOC about 1000 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that either so such a Council was not something the RCC was willing to do. That TOO is the fault and free choice of the individual RC Denomination. Luther did not hold a gun to the head of the Pope and force him to deny that call for a Ecumenical Council to which all would submit.



Yes, the Reformation was a necessity. NOT the RC Denomination splitting itself, excommunicating Evangelicals, denying any Ecumenical Council to resolve this.




Yes, Protestants felt that truth mattered. The RC Denomination chose to split itself, deny any Council rather than deal with truth.



There was no unity (as Catholics and Mormons mean it) in 1521. NOT all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (as well as Christians in Japan, China, India, Sudan, etc.) agreed with ALL others in ALL matters of faith and practice - no unity in faith or practice, and there were at LEAST 3 major denominations already in 1521 - the RCC, the EOC and the OOC (all of which had LONG AGO excommunicated each other), not to mention the tens of thousands of congregations in the world at the time that didn't belong to any of those 3 denominations. No "unity" in faith and practice. No 'unity" of denomination. True - the choice of the RC Denomination to create a few more denominations had the result that the RC chose, but there were already numerous denominations. By FAR, the largest "split" in Christian history happened in 1054 (not 1521) - and Luther didn't hold a gun to the head of anyone then, either.


- Josiah


.

The analysis in the blog post from Daniel B. Wallace is the theme of this thread.

There's been a good discussion of his feelings.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

There's been a good discussion of his feelings.
- Josiah

Feelings are not the subject under discussion.

 

[psalms 91]

we could just leave you to your own thoughts if you arent willing to examine the speaker since that is important if he is to be believed

 

[MoreCoffee]

we could just leave you to your own thoughts if you arent willing to examine the speaker since that is important if he is to be believed

This is a discussion about a topic not an invitation to salacious gossip against the man who wrote the blog quoted in the first post.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I see no problem with the OP or the opinions there. Imo, the 'Protestant' church is quite fractured, and the author has a point, especially in drawing attention to the dis-unity of the non-denom churches. Each seem to be an entity unto themselves, or (if affiliated) only loosely for the purposes of fellowship or sharing of resources.

 

[Sword7]

The analysis in the blog post from Daniel B. Wallace is the theme of this thread. I suppose almost everybody has broken one or more of the ten commandments at some time in their life. Does that mean that everything they say from the moment of their commandment breaking is unworthy of attention? Is the argument based on the biography statement intended to discount his comments?

Jesus said 'Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone.'

good things people do are not wholly unworthy of attention God will lead such a person to Jesus .where they must then believe ,and repent because there is no other way to salvation. so while they are not unworthy of attention they are vain outside of Christs righteousness .

 

[Josiah]

Feelings are not the subject under discussion.

Truth is. On that issue, Dan is clearly wrong.


The RC Denomination split itself in 1521. No force on Earth or in Heaven mandated that it do so. No one held a gun to the Pope's head and MADE him split the RC Denomination. Your denomination ended up loosing about one-third of its members because of what it itself willingly did in 1521. It's absurd to argue that Luther's voice MANDATED, NECESSITATED the RC Denomination to split itself. It could have not done so. It could have ignored Luther or could have listened to Luther or even cared if what it taught/did was right and good. It instead chose to split itself. It could have welcomed that Ecumenical Council Luther asked for (and agreed to submit to) but of course it had also split itself with the EOC some 500 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that, and with the OOC about 1000 years earlier and didn't want to do anything about that either so such a Council was not something the RCC was willing to do. That TOO is the fault and free choice of the individual RC Denomination. Luther did not hold a gun to the head of the Pope and force him to deny that call for a Ecumenical Council to which all would submit.



Yes, the Reformation was a necessity. NOT the RC Denomination splitting itself, excommunicating Evangelicals, denying any Ecumenical Council to resolve this.




Yes, Protestants held that truth mattered. The RC Denomination freely chose to split itself and deny any Council rather than deal with truth.



There was no unity (as Catholics and Mormons mean it) in 1521. NOT all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (as well as Christians in Japan, China, India, Sudan, etc.) agreed with ALL others in ALL matters of faith and practice - no unity in faith or practice, and there were at LEAST 3 major denominations already in 1521 - the RCC, the EOC and the OOC (all of which had LONG AGO excommunicated each other), not to mention the tens of thousands of congregations in the world at the time that didn't belong to any of those 3 denominations. No "unity" in faith and practice. No 'unity" of denomination. True - the choice of the RC Denomination to create a few more denominations had the result that the RC chose, but there were already numerous denominations. By FAR, the largest "split" in Christian history happened in 1054 (not 1521) - and Luther didn't hold a gun to the head of anyone then, either.


- Josiah

 

[psalms 91]

This is a discussion about a topic not an invitation to salacious gossip against the man who wrote the blog quoted in the first post.

I cant gossip about him as I dont know him

 

[TurtleHare]

Daniel B. Wallace Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary wrote:

The Problem with Protestant*Ecclesiology

I am unashamedly a Protestant. I believe in sola scriptura, sola fidei, solus Christus, and the rest. I am convinced that Luther was on to something when he articulated his view of justification succinctly:*simul iustus et peccator*(“simultaneously justified and a sinner”).

But with the birth of Protestantism there necessarily came a rift within the western church. By ‘necessarily’ I mean that Protestants made it necessary by splitting from Rome. Jaroslav Pelikan had it right when he said that the Reformation was a tragic necessity. Protestants felt truth was to be prized over unity, but the follow-through was devastating. This same mindset began to infect all Protestant churches so that they continued to splinter off from each other. Today there are hundreds and hundreds of Protestant denominations. One doesn’t see this level of fracturing in either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not even close.

“But unity in falsehood is no unity at all,” some will protest. To a degree that is true. If the unity of the church meant that we would all deny the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person, then that would be unity against an essential of the Christian faith. But there is no thinking Christian who agrees lock, stock, and barrel with what his pastor teaches. Yet, he is a part of that church. In this respect, he has prized unity over truth. We all have to do this. If we didn’t, each Christian would be his or her own church. The fellowship would be awfully predictable and quite boring!

Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity.

... (source)​

This man wants unity on earth but ignores the unity we have in our faith in the savior and I can't help but be concerned that he wants us all to put aside any doctrine for the sake of saying we agree on things of which we do not. He wants a central head but Christ is our head, isn't he? And he wants missional empahasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations but all it takes is for one man to just preach the good news and the seed is planted so why is so much monetary support from hundreds of congregations being pushed?

 

[MoreCoffee]

This man wants unity on earth

Jesus wants unity on Earth too [SUP]Matthew 6:10[/SUP] and he Prayed that the Father enable it on Earth [SUP]John 17:9-11[/SUP].

but ignores the unity we have in our faith

With whom is this unity in faith? Surely not with Baptists because all but other Credo-Baptists cannot agree with them about baptism which is a matter of faith [SUP]Eph 4:4-6[/SUP] nor with Presbyterians because they teach Predestination as a matter of faith. It cannot be with independent groups because they teach many things with which others disagree as a matter of faith. And the disagreements are so serious that the denominations are separated one from another being unwilling to share the sacraments together under the same roof. The disunity is so great that a member under discipline in one group can move to another and be received as a brother/sister in good standing. Protestant groups do not answer to any authority but their own as if there were no Church outside their own small circle. So the ones ignoring something would be Protestants, right? They ignore the disunity in matters of faith that they have with their fellow Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox. They have a "common faith" on a minimum of matters - only on the matters with which they can agree like that God is triune, Christ was incarnate, and salvation comes from God but go any deeper and the divisions appear.

in the savior and I can't help but be concerned that he wants us all to put aside any doctrine for the sake of saying we agree on things of which we do not. He wants a central head but Christ is our head, isn't he?

If Christ is head - and indeed he is - then why do Protestants disobey him when he calls them to the unity of the faith [SUP]Eph 4:11-14[/SUP].

And he wants missional empahasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations but all it takes is for one man to just preach the good news and the seed is planted so why is so much monetary support from hundreds of congregations being pushed?

But never let that one man preach as a Catholic, no never, right? I preach as a Catholic and what I receive is gainsaying from some here on CH. It isn't "one man to just preach the good news" that is wanted. What is wanted appears to be "one man to just preach my denomination's doctrines"

 

[psalms 91]

Jesus wants unity on Earth too [SUP]Matthew 6:10[/SUP] and he Prayed that the Father enable it on Earth [SUP]John 17:9-11[/SUP].



With whom is this unity in faith? Surely not with Baptists because all but other Credo-Baptists cannot agree with them about baptism which is a matter of faith [SUP]Eph 4:4-6[/SUP] nor with Presbyterians because they teach Predestination as a matter of faith. It cannot be with independent groups because they teach many things with which others disagree as a matter of faith. And the disagreements are so serious that the denominations are separated one from another being unwilling to share the sacraments together under the same roof. The disunity is so great that a member under discipline in one group can move to another and be received as a brother/sister in good standing. Protestant groups do not answer to any authority but their own as if there were no Church outside their own small circle. So the ones ignoring something would be Protestant would it not? They ignore the disunity in faith that they have with fellow Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox. They have a "common faith" on a minimum of matters - only on the matters with which they can agree like that God is triune, Christ was incarnate, and salvation comes from God but go any deeper and the divisions appear.



If Christ is head - and indeed he is - then why do you disobey him when he calls you to the unity of the faith [SUP]Eph 4:11-14[/SUP].



But never let that one man preach as a Catholic, no never, right? I preach as a Catholic and what I receive is gainsaying from some here on CH. It isn't "one man to just preach the good news" that is wanted. What is wanted appears to be "one man to just preach my denomination's doctrines"

You preacj catholic doctrine so pot calling kettle, I see that more in you than anyone else and sadly you just present what the church says, not your own beliefs but then I guess you like a denom thinking for you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Psalms 91, of course I present Catholic teaching - I am a Catholic so it is a matter of truth in labelling.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Instead of this turning into another 'bash the Catholic' thread, why not address what Dr. Wallace has actually said? Some of the reasons I left the evangelical church are stated very succinctly by him:

First of all, we Protestants can be more sensitive about the deficiencies in our own ecclesiology rather than think that we’ve got a corner on truth. We need to humbly recognize that the two other branches of Christendom have done a better job in this area. Second, we can be more sensitive to the need for doctrinal and ethical accountability, fellowship beyond our local church, and ministry with others whose essentials but not necessarily particulars don’t line up with ours. Third, we can begin to listen again to the voice of the Spirit speaking through church fathers and embrace some of the liturgy that has been used for centuries. Obviously, it must all be subject to biblical authority, but we dare not neglect the last twenty centuries unless we think that the Spirit has been sleeping all that time. (emphasis mine)

https://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/18/the-problem-with-protestant-ecclesiology

 

[Sword7]

Jesus wants unity on Earth too [SUP]Matthew 6:10[/SUP] and he Prayed that the Father enable it on Earth [SUP]John 17:9-11[/SUP].



With whom is this unity in faith? Surely not with Baptists because all but other Credo-Baptists cannot agree with them about baptism which is a matter of faith [SUP]Eph 4:4-6[/SUP] nor with Presbyterians because they teach Predestination as a matter of faith. It cannot be with independent groups because they teach many things with which others disagree as a matter of faith. And the disagreements are so serious that the denominations are separated one from another being unwilling to share the sacraments together under the same roof. The disunity is so great that a member under discipline in one group can move to another and be received as a brother/sister in good standing. Protestant groups do not answer to any authority but their own as if there were no Church outside their own small circle. So the ones ignoring something would be Protestant would it not? They ignore the disunity in faith that they have with fellow Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox. They have a "common faith" on a minimum of matters - only on the matters with which they can agree like that God is triune, Christ was incarnate, and salvation comes from God but go any deeper and the divisions appear.



[B]If Christ is head - and indeed he is - then why do you disobey him when he calls you to the unity of the faith[/B] [SUP]Eph 4:11-14[/SUP].



But never let that one man preach as a Catholic, no never, right? I preach as a Catholic and what I receive is gainsaying from some here on CH. It isn't "one man to just preach the good news" that is wanted. What is wanted appears to be "one man to just preach my denomination's doctrines"

in regard to this accusation "If Christ is head - and indeed he is - then why do you disobey him when he calls you to the unity of the faith".

what you actually mean is, you consider it to be disobedience when people won't curtail to YOUR denomination .Because you display your faith is in your denomination .so "the faith "YOU speak of is that faith in your denomination. not that unity of faith in Christ . the word teaches we cannot be in unity with those who practice things(sin) that are opposed to God .faith in christ is simply NOT faith in "your' [or ANYONE'S ]denomination .
are you wiling to forsake your (anyone's) denomination so that you can come into a unity in the faith of the lord JEsus
..no? then you will never enter that unity .