Recently, in one of the communities where I am an assistant administrator, one of the participants, who professed to be an Evangelical Christian, asked me the following question:
“Is Christ divided over Mary?”
Then he went on to cite the following passage:
“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren. What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apollos,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the Gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” 1 Corinthians 1:10-17
Continuing…
“Definitely, the Bible teaches us: that we should all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind. And definitely the mind of our Catholic friends is truly different and their judgment absolutely opposed, because while our old women still continue kneeling before a little statue, or go about trusting in their amulets, God teaches us through his precious word that we should speak with the same mind and with the same judgment. Catholic doctrinal thought is very different from divine thought. Definitely, with Marys and virgins—because endless ones have appeared (Virgin of Mount Carmel, of Chiquinquirá, Guadalupe, etc., etc., etc.)—the Cross of Christ is being made vain”
In order to analyze this question in depth, I wanted to prepare this brief study.
Unity: What does it refer to?
The first thing we must note is that Paul is speaking of unity “among believers.” Paul is not speaking of unity between believers and divine thought, but of unity among the thinking of believers themselves. It is obvious that our thinking must be in accord with the thought of our Heavenly Father, but here is where I see my friend’s criticism begin to fail, since she is comparing what “she says” is divine thought (her personal perspective of what she understands from the Bible) with what the Catholic people and the Church actually think. We must be honest: the criticism began by saying that Catholics “were divided” (among ourselves), not that our thinking was different from hers.
The second thing that is important to note in the passage is that this unity which the Apostle demands in the name of Christ is a “doctrinal” unity, a unity of “faith,” which includes the same “mind” and “judgment”. It is in that sense that she should be able to justify this criticism, since, despite there being more and more renewal movements, such as the “Catholic Charismatic Renewal,” the “Neocatechumenal Way,” “faroleros,” “Dominicans,” “Franciscans,” “Jesuits,” and so on and so forth, all of us without exception profess one and the same faith and one and the same doctrine. I have invited my separated brethren numerous times to mention to me even ONE SINGLE Catholic movement that rejects even a single fundamental dogma of faith, and so far none has been able to name one because, quite simply, such a movement does not exist.
This is what we call “unity in diversity,” many styles, but one same creed and one same faith.
“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.” Ephesians 4:1-6
When in the preceding passage Paul refers to the fact that we must live united in one faith, he is not referring merely to believing in Jesus—everyone was already a believer—but to a doctrinal unity of faith that involved much more than that: living united in one Body and one Spirit. One baptism and one God.
It is clear that, in this sense, the fact that a Venezuelan Catholic remembers the Virgin Mary under the title of Our Lady of Coromoto, just as a Mexican does as Our Lady of Guadalupe or a French person as Our Lady of Lourdes, does not mean that they believe these are different Virgins. All without exception are clear that, whether white or dark-skinned, blonde or brunette, she is the same one who almost 2,000 years ago said to the angel:
“…‘Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’…” Luke 1:38
Turning the criticism back
The interesting thing about receiving the criticism is that the person who makes it has to be truly willing to reflect on what she has said. It is not proper for a Christian to point fingers without first making an evaluation of his own condition; the Bible already says it:
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” Matthew 7:3
And so, after patiently listening to everything my sister wanted to raise, I wanted to return the question to her:
But do you think that what is called Evangelical Christianity today is doctrinally united?
Let us review whether the examination she has made of our faith is one that she herself can pass, and let us begin by clarifying that if Evangelical Christianity is doctrinally united in matters of faith, they should believe the same thing regarding fundamental topics such as “the Trinity and the divinity of Christ,” “salvation,” “baptism,” “original sin,” “the presence of Christ in the breaking of the bread,” “the sacraments,” “confession,” “ecumenism and the attitude toward other Christian brethren,” etc.
The Trinity and the divinity of Christ
One doctrine that Evangelical Christianity always shared with the Catholic faith is belief in the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. This doctrine teaches that God is ONE and at the same time TRIUNE. One God in three distinct persons but of the same nature: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The implication of this doctrine is that Jesus is true God and also that the Holy Spirit is true God.
Today the number of denominations that have arisen from the separation of these churches and call themselves Evangelical Christian, but now reject this fundamental dogma of faith, is growing alarmingly. It would be impossible to make an exact count, but I have taken from an Evangelical forum, Ekklesia Viva, a partial list of those whom they themselves call “Non-Trinitarian Sects,” some of which profess to be “Evangelical Christians” but are not recognized as such by the former. Among them they mention:
Oneness believers (modalists), who believe that God is one, but believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are manifestations, not Persons. Examples: United Pentecostal Church.
Those who believe that God has three “parts” and not three persons. This is typically what many Messianic Jewish groups believe.
Those who deny the full divinity of Christ. That is, they believe that Christ is the Son of God, but they do not believe that he IS God. They are subordinationists: they believe that the only true God is the Father and that the other two divine persons are only somewhat inferior manifestations that flow from the Father. Examples: “Iglesia La Luz del Mundo,” “Churches of God.”
The polytheists believe that the Father and the Son are two separate gods. Example: Tito Martínez of Spain and his group. He specializes in spreading his doctrine on the Internet.
Those who deny the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit: Worldwide Church of God -WCG (*), followers of Herbert Armstrong, and several of the groups already mentioned above.
And they also give this list as “heretical groups”:
United Pentecostal Church, Church of the Living God, Pillar and Ground of the Truth, United Church of God, La Luz del Mundo, Church of God (7th Day), Israelite Church of God, Apostolic Church of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus, Potter’s House, Churches of God, Growing in Grace, Spiritual Christian Evangelical Church, most Judeo-Messianic groups, some Quakers, Christian Biblical Church of God.
After they themselves mention such a large number of churches as heretical groups, several of which themselves profess to be Evangelical churches, is there doctrinal and faith unity regarding this fundamental dogma of faith? If they cannot even agree on whether Christ is God, can we say there is unity in mind and judgment?
Not long ago, even in a community where I usually discuss such topics, I had the opportunity to defend the doctrine of the Trinity with someone who professed to be an “Evangelical Christian” but who denied it “categorically” (according to his church’s official doctrine).
I remember asking him to explain to me that if Jesus was not God, why Thomas had said to him, “My Lord and my God,” and Jesus did not correct him. He answered me that it was simply a sign of astonishment at seeing him risen. In a moment he turned Thomas’s acceptance of Jesus as God and Lord into an “Oh my God!,” “Mamma mia!,” “Holy smoke!,” “Good grief!”
The curious thing is that several Evangelical Christians joined the dialogue and called the brother in question an “apostate” for denying the Trinity.
Is that unity of faith?
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist
In the Catholic Church we have always believed that Christ is alive and present in the “Eucharist” or “breaking of the bread”; we say that the bread truly becomes the Body of the Lord and the wine the Blood of the Lord. In this sense, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and a good number of Evangelical churches agree with us.
Despite this, this dogma was the first great conflict among Evangelical churches, when Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli tried to reach an agreement at the Marburg Colloquy in 1529, but that meeting was a complete failure and they ended irreconcilable.
The Augsburg Confession (the first of the great Protestant confessions [1530]; today most Orthodox Lutheran Churches base their teachings on it) teaches:
“Concerning the Lord’s Supper, we teach that the true body and true blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received in the Supper under the species of bread and wine. We therefore reject the contrary doctrine.” Augsburg Confession, Article 10, The Lord’s Supper
But, on the contrary, the Westminster Confession (which was the official confession of the Reformed Churches and by which Presbyterian Churches are governed today) teaches the opposite:
“That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, (commonly called transubstantiation), by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions, yea, of gross idolatries.” Westminster Confession, Chapter 29.VI, Of the Lord’s Supper
What for Lutherans is an absolute truth of faith is, for Presbyterians, a doctrine repugnant to Scripture and reason. Are they united in the same mind and judgment?
Salvation
There has been no more controversial topic than this one. It all began when Martin Luther separated from the Church under the banner of the three solas: “Faith Alone,” “Grace Alone,” and “Scripture Alone.” Regarding the doctrine of faith alone, he preached that man is saved by faith “alone”; works were not necessary for salvation. Luther preached that salvation was not “earned” but “given” because it was “grace.” The Catholic Church never denied that salvation was grace, but affirmed that after being justified by faith, works cooperate with faith to bring it to perfection.
“Do you see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works?… You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James 2:22, 24
Despite this, all the churches of the Reformation unanimously proclaimed the doctrine of Faith Alone, affirming that salvation could not be lost. But the peace did not last long; soon detractors of these doctrines arose within their own churches, beginning to affirm that it was indeed possible to lose salvation. That movement grew, gained strength, and to this day the debate continues among Evangelical churches.
In the seventeenth century, for example, Jacob Arminius preached that human free will can exist without limiting the power of God or contradicting the Bible. After Arminius’s death, a group of ministers who sympathized with his views developed a systematic and rational theology based on his teachings. In their declaration, a protest published in 1610, the Arminians affirmed that election was conditioned by faith, that grace could be resisted, that Christ’s work was intended for all people, and that it was possible for believers to fall from grace.
At the Synod of Dort or Dordrecht (1618-1619), the High Calvinists prevailed over the Arminian group and condemned those who disagreed with their theory. The Synod of Dort declared that Christ’s work was intended only for those elected to salvation, and that people who believed could not lose grace. The Arminian Evangelicals were then totally banned in Holland by the rest of the Calvinist Evangelicals until 1630, and from then on not without restrictions until 1795. Nevertheless, the Arminian tradition remained in the Netherlands into the late twentieth century.
The British theologian John Wesley studied and affirmed the work of Arminius in his Methodist movement during the eighteenth century in England. For ordinary people, Arminianism is summarized in the idea that predestination does not exist and that people are free to follow or reject the Gospel.
Other Evangelical churches, unlike the previous ones, affirm that salvation is not lost but rather “rejected,” which is, in essence, an elegant way of giving way, since in the end it is the same thing. Someone who was on the road to heaven yesterday may be on the road to hell today.
From here the positions on this point vary from church to church; it is not rare to hear comments like this from Evangelical pastors:
“Some [referring to other Evangelical pastors] teach that salvation can indeed be lost… The truth is that such statements contradict the total revelation of the Bible.” Ministerios de Vida Eterna, Salvation Is a Process, by Jorge L. Trujillo
“On one occasion, while I was speaking about this subject with a person who sadly pastors an Evangelical church… he assured me without thinking much about it, ‘salvation is by faith and works,’ just like that. I tell you that when I heard these words my soul was saddened; I could not believe what I was hearing, but for this person it was easier to add ‘works’ to salvation than to abandon his tradition.” Ministerios de Vida Eterna, How Is Salvation Lost?, by Jorge L. Trujillo
In the preceding quotation the same pastor tells us how he and another Evangelical pastor have “opposite” positions on the subject of salvation. For each one, it turns out that the other has not understood the message of the Gospel. If they have not been able to agree on something so fundamental to the faith as the way in which a person is saved, are they united in the same mind and judgment?
Baptism
Baptism is another fundamental point on which the separated brethren are very, very divided. The Augsburg Confession teaches:
“We teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that through Baptism divine grace is given to us. We also teach that children should be baptized and that by this Baptism they are offered to God and receive the grace of God. For this reason we condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children.” Augsburg Confession, Article 9, Baptism
The Westminster Confession teaches:
“Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.” Westminster Confession, Chapter 28.IV, Baptism.
“Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.” Westminster Confession, Chapter 28.III, Baptism.
Many Evangelical churches, on the contrary, preach that children should not be baptized because they cannot “believe” or “repent”; others affirm that baptism by immersion is the only valid one and accuse the Catholic Church of apostasy for such practices, not realizing that a good percentage of other churches (such as those that profess the confessions mentioned above, and are also Evangelical) not only do baptize children and by sprinkling, but condemn them for their attitude.
Today the differences do not stop there. Evangelical churches such as “Jesus Only” affirm that one should baptize only in the name of Jesus and not in the name of the Trinity. Others “rebaptize” new converts from other churches.
Is that a faith founded on one Lord, one faith, one baptism, as the Word of God demands?
Original sin
The doctrine of original sin teaches that, from the sin committed by Adam, we were all “constituted sinners.”
“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” Romans 5:18-19
There is a group of Evangelical churches that share this doctrine with the Catholic Church. The Augsburg Confession says in this regard:
“We teach that since the fall of Adam, all men born according to nature are conceived and born in sin. That is, without fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence. This hereditary sin and this innate and contagious corruption is a true sin that brings condemnation and the eternal wrath of God upon all who are not regenerated by Baptism and the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we reject the Pelagians and others who have despised the merits of Christ’s passion by making human nature good through its own natural powers and who maintain that original sin is not a sin.” Augsburg Confession, Article 2, Original Sin
The Westminster Confession says much the same:
“Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit… By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be pardoned and mortified through Christ, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.” Westminster Confession, Chapter 6, The Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
The Protestant reformer John Calvin himself, in his book Institutes, writes, speaking about original sin:
“For this reason those holy men, especially Saint Augustine, labored as much as they could to show that our corruption does not come from the force of bad examples that we may have seen in others, but that we come from the very womb with the perversity we have, which cannot be denied without great shamelessness” John Calvin, Institutes, Vol. I
Despite this, today other Evangelical churches affirm that original sin “does not appear in the Bible” and is an invention of men. Is this doctrinal unity in mind and judgment?
The sacraments
While some Evangelical churches affirm that Christ instituted three sacraments (those governed by the Augsburg Confession), others say that he instituted only two (those governed by the Westminster Confession), and still others say that the sacraments are a human invention that does not appear in the Bible.
Ecumenism
The attitude of the separated brethren toward members of other churches also varies greatly from church to church. In my own journey, for example, I have made great friends in other churches; neither have I doubted the sincerity of their faith, nor they mine. But, on the contrary, for others, because I am Catholic, I am a “son of Satan” who obeys the Antichrist (the Pope) and am a member of the Great Whore of Babylon (the Catholic Church).
Not long ago, when I happened to visit the Evangelical forum Ekklesia Viva, I saw, astonished, comments such as:
“The Biblical Ecumenism indicated by the Bible is not Roman Catholic Ecumenism, nor the one that many Evangelical leaders and, as you rightly say, dear brother Carlos Calcina (pseudo-Evangelicals), want us to believe it is. That ecumenism so desired by several prominent Christian leaders such as Billy Graham, Charles Colson, Bill Bright, Swindoll, and others will only strengthen Roman Catholicism more doctrinally and politically… causing this Babylon of Revelation 17 to reach its greatest power and spiritual authority (which is a false authority, of course, but many Evangelicals and pseudo-Evangelicals believe it is biblical and legitimate). It seems incredible that such prominent and recognized Christian leaders now say that the Catholic gospel is biblical and that it agrees with the Bible and Evangelical Christianity; they show tremendous ignorance. That is nonsense.
Luis Palau, a prominent Evangelical leader, is also in favor of Ecumenism with Roman Catholicism. How bad it is that Christian leaders who know the biblical Gospel that saves call a false gospel true… Not to mention pseudo-Evangelicals such as Paul Crouch, Benny Hinn, and others who have Religious Empires and who promulgate an Authority and Merchandise that is curious but very much resembles the Vatican. For a reason the Bible says that as the Mother is, so is the Daughter (Proverbs). Rome is the Mother of Harlots, and many Harlots are her daughters, of whom many pseudo-Evangelical churches bear witness to the fulfillment of this word and identify more with the VATICAN than with Christianity” Ekklesia Viva Forum, Ecumenism, by Edgar Treviño
In this forum sponsored by Evangelical pastors, one sees recognized pastors of the caliber of Billy Graham, Charles Colson, Luis Palau, etc., called “pseudo-Evangelicals,” sons of the harlot, simply for recognizing that Catholic doctrine has a biblical foundation. Although I am Catholic, every time I enter this forum I feel “second-hand embarrassment” at seeing how they insult one another.
Conclusion
These are only a few points as far as fundamental dogmas are concerned. Not to mention topics such as abortion, or the acceptance of gay marriage already approved by not a few Evangelical churches. The truth is that it would be impossible to enumerate the doctrinal differences that exist among the more than 34,000 denominations, as Martin Luther already said in the sixteenth century:
“This one will not hear of baptism, that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world of difference between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, others teach this and those teach that; there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No peasant is so rude as when he has dreams and fantasies, he believes he has been inspired by the Holy Spirit and is a prophet.” – (De Wette III, 61. Cited in O’Hare, The Facts About Luther, 208.)
“If the world lasts much longer, it will be necessary again, taking into account the different interpretations of Scripture that now exist, to preserve the unity of the faith that we received from the Councils and decrees [of the Catholic Church] and to flee to them as a refuge.” Martin Luther (Letter to Zwingli)
I think it is time to stop pointing fingers. Let us first make a sincere analysis of ourselves before coming to accuse a sister Church of being “divided,” especially if the arguments are not in one’s favor.
The intention of my study is not to offend anyone; it is simply to issue a call to reflection. The Word of God demands unity of us, but this unity cannot occur with each person wanting to impose his private interpretation of the Bible, each one feeling called to “found the true Church,” but rather by recognizing that division is clear proof that there has been a deviation from the truth. The Holy Spirit simply cannot tell one thing to some and another thing to others; one side must necessarily be mistaken. Let us remember that the Word teaches:
“They said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’ It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.” Jude 18-19
“until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles,” Ephesians 4:13-14
Let us pray, brethren, that this division may come to an end and that we may soon see the day arrive when we are one as Christ and the Father are one, and so may it be:
ONE FLOCK….
…AND ONE SHEPHERD.
Author: José Miguel Arráiz
