LarrySanger.org

“Why we are the pure, primitive Church”

•

20 comments

Many partisans defend their particular Christian denominations by constructing arguments that have the conclusion, “This is the purest form of Christianity.” Look and see if I am not correct. Here, then, is a brief summary of how the various denominations think of their own claims to being the pure, primitive Church.1

Our denomination……is the purest form of Christianity because…
Orthodoxwe are the original, apostolic Church started by Christ and his Apostles, we demand the personal holiness they demanded, and our practices maintain continuity from the earliest Church Fathers. Therefore, our antiquity and holiness make us the pure, primitive Church.
Catholicwe are the original Church started by Christ and St. Peter, only we have maintained apostolic succession properly, and our doctrines and practices reflect those of the Apostles and of later Fathers, as guided by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, our papal lineage makes us the pure, primitive Church.
Lutheranwe are the Church restored to the pure doctrine of the Apostles, stripped of all unscriptural accretions that were added over the centuries [everything to this point is described below as “we are Protestant”]; also, we accept corrected, restored versions of the sacramental traditions, creeds, and councils that can be rooted in Scripture. Therefore, our adherence to all and only what the Apostles accepted makes us the pure, primitive Church.
Reformed and Presbyterianwe are Protestant, but we also reject the real presence in the Communion as precisely an accretion, and we also have more correct and refined ideas about divine sovereignty. Therefore, our superior theological insight into what the Apostles accepted makes us the pure, primitive Church.
Anglicanwe are Protestant, but we do not require Lutheran or Catholic sacramentalism or, for that matter, anything except what can be clearly demonstrated from Scripture, yet we agree that traditions, creeds, and councils rooted in Scripture are valuable, and we are open to any Christian who has a sound interpretation within the bounds of Scripture and a specific set of writings based on them. Therefore, our broad-minded yet firm commitment to what the Apostles accepted makes us the pure, primitive Church.
Baptistwe are Protestant, but we firmly reject sacramentalism and any traditions not universal to the Church, and we also reject paedobaptism as an accretion. Therefore, our strict adherence to what Scripture alone reveals to have been apostolic doctrine and practice make us the pure, primitive Church.
Anabaptist and Mennonitewe are Protestant, but we, being more focused on individual spiritual experience and the peaceful and simple living taught by Christ, represent the spirit and practice of the Apostles. Therefore, our radical obedience to Christ’s commands makes us the pure, primitive Church.
Methodist and Holinesswhat the Anglicans said (roughly), but we give more proper emphasis to personal holiness. Therefore, our sound doctrine married to proper Christian sanctification make us the pure, primitive Church.
Restorationist (Churches of Christ)we are Protestant, but we have restored the exact pattern of doctrine and practice according to Scripture alone, with no creeds, instruments, or denominational structures. Therefore, our strict adherence to what Scripture alone reveals to have been apostolic doctrine and practice make us the pure, primitive Church.
Pentecostalwhat the Baptists said (roughly), but we believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit within us and his manifold, miraculous gifts. Therefore, our strict adherence to scriptural doctrine and practice, together with the indwelling Spirit of the Apostles, make us the pure, primitive Church.

Having said all that, I can then actually explain what I like and concede—and where I am unconvinced and depart—about the different denominations:

What I concedeWhere I depart
Orthodox: Their antiquity and holiness are impressive.Their common claim that all their doctrines are unchanged from the earliest Church Fathers lacks credibility.
Catholic: One cannot doubt their extreme antiquity and (with caveats) the continuity of their institution.Many, many of their doctrines and practices cannot be shown to be apostolic.
Lutheran: Their doctrine and their approach to tradition and liturgy are excellent.On my view, they are wrong about sacramentalism.
Reformed and Presbyterian: Similarly to Lutherans, their doctrine is excellent.On my view, Calvinism is not, actually, superior theology.
Anglican: They make room for much of Protestant doctrine, while maintaining the best of traditional Christian practices.Their claim to being the pure primitive Church is excellent. I disagree on details with some Anglicans, but such disagreement is welcome in Anglicanism. This is why I am an Anglican.
Baptist: They really do get doctrine almost perfectly right.Their claim to being the pure primitive Church is excellent. They are doctrinally solid. The problem is that they reject the liturgy, which to my mind means they don’t worship God as fully as Scripture would have us do.
Anabaptist and Mennonite: Peaceful and simple living really does look like a Christian life.Doctrinally, I find little wrong here, although I am skeptical of extreme pacifism, and I doubt that Christ required that we all live “simply” according to Mennonite ideas.
Methodist and Holiness: Christians, especially in modern times, desperately need more focus on sanctification, which makes this very attractive.Their claim to being the pure primitive Church is excellent. My misgivings are mostly because I am not at all persuaded of the idea of “entire sanctification,” and due to their often (not always) having a “Low Church” approach to worship.
Restorationist (Churches of Christ): What Protestant can object to the project of discovering just what doctrines and practices are reflected by Scripture alone?While doctrinally they seem fairly solid (apart from their de facto rejection of sola fide, through their doctrine of baptismal regeneration), there is a little too much in the way of idiosyncratic strictness not actually required by Scripture.
Pentecostal: The desire to live more closely with the Holy Spirit is indeed fundamental to pure Christianity.I think a lot of the things Pentecostals believe to be miraculous are not. I also find their style of worship, sometimes, disorderly.

One last note: I know that this is very, very short and reductionistic. Much more can be said. But the idea I was trying to execute here is simply that different denominations have relatively simple claims to what make them the “pure, primitive Church.”

Footnotes

  1. Note: many of the rows below read “we are Protestant”. See the “Lutheran” row for a gloss on what this means.[↩]

by

Larry Sanger

“Internet Knowledge Organizer.” Currently President of the Knowledge Standards Foundation, started Wikipedia and various other educational and reference sites. Ph.D., Philosophy, Ohio State, 2000. [read more]

Posted

in

Comments

Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

20 responses to ““Why we are the pure, primitive Church””

  1. Robert

    Larry, I respect you in an intellectual capacity. I have not read nearly as much as you, but your faith is the most important decision of your life. I struggle to see how the Anglican Church can be called the “pure, primitive church” when its founding was rooted in sin. That seems like a no-brainer. Henry VIII broke with Rome when he was denied a divorce, which Christ himself forbade. That was not about restoring the primitive church but about justifying sin. A church born in disobedience to Christ’s command cannot claim to be purer than what came before. A corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit.

    You say the Orthodox Church corrupted the apostolic faith. I urge you to look deeper . Our faith was preserved through persecution and martyrdom. Its foundation is blood, and the fruit it bore is that it has been preserved for millennia under intense persecution. When Jerome altered a single word in Jonah, the people rioted. Athanasius endured exile and assassination attempts but did not yield. Under Islam, Christians were killed, churches destroyed, and their language banned for over a millenium, yet they kept the faith they received. How can Anglicanism, a faith originally founded for divorce, be purer than a faith preserved by blood and suffering?

    Honest challenge: Look for fruit. You say you admire the Orthodox people’s holiness. They are holy for a reason. A good tree bears good fruit. Intercession of the saints and icons serve no purpose apart from directing us towards Christ. We believe we have the “fullness of the faith”. This does not mean we guarantee that no one outside the Church is saved. It means we guarantee that you can find your salvation here, that our full healing is to be found within this hospital, this ark, but we cannot speak for those outside the hospital. We hope everyone comes for treatment, but if they do not, that is up to God to judge. You’re not the first Protestant whose view of Rome shapes their view of Orthodoxy. Thilo and Anastasia Young, authors of “My American Flight to Egypt: A Western Evangelical Discovers the Ancient Faith”, in their journey said at one point they were comfortable with most of Orthodoxy but intensely struggled with icons and intercession. From Thilo’s reading, he saw them as later theological developments. They admitted they were a real stumbling block. But they described two moments that changed their thinking. When they asked a priest, “were these practices by men, or by God?”, the answer came, “Men, of course. Men with God in them.” And when he asked why saints are venerated, another priest replied, “Are we really venerating them? Or are we venerating the Christ in them?”.

    If you want to see what it means to prefer death over denying the received faith, visit a Coptic church. We are called the church of martyrs for a reason. Visit, ask questions, and see the fruit. Do not dismiss what cannot be “demonstrated clearly from Scripture”, because that is liable to our human bias. Others have had the same objections you do. I also encourage you to read about the 21 martyrs of Libya.

    Reply
    1. Larry Sanger

      A brief answer:

      The Anglican Church was born at Pentecost, or perhaps with the Great Commission. There is one true Church; what makes it the Church are not human institutions but rather the fact that it is the great assembly of all the assemblies (this being the meaning of “ekklesia”) of the people of God. Thus, when you say “our faith was preserved through persecution and martyrdom,” I am puzzled. That was no more yours than it is mine. What, did it stop being my faith when Henry declared that the Church of England would no longer be subservient to the Bishop of Rome? Why don’t you say it stopped being my faith during the Great Schism? (And which side, East or West, was the One True Church?)

      The occasion for Henry declaring independence from Rome is not best characterized as his desiring to sin by divorcing. Rather, he sought to avoid the sort of civil wars that had racked England for over a century. (None of his wives had given birth to a son, and he believed a daughter would be an occasion of civil war—and he was not wrong, as the English Civil War broke out in the wake of the lack of a proper male heir.) In any event, it was not merely, or even mainly, Henry’s desire for a divorce that led to the emergence of the Anglican Church. Many, many Englishmen were already enamored of the profoundly purifying ideals of Protestantism. (Thus the Baptists, Puritans, Quakers, Anabaptists, etc.) Henry himself was trained for the Church, not expecting to be made king. Now, none of this excuses his sin, or denies that it is a sin. But, as you can see, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. Moreover, flawed, sinful men have often started and even been at the height of traditions that are (otherwise?) holy. Think of David and Solomon. Think of Peter, who sinned repeatedly, even denying Jesus.

      While I admire what indeed does seem to be an important tradition of holiness in the Eastern Orthodox Church, I think the same holiness may be found in many other traditions—yes, even faithful, orthodox Anglicanism. While it is true of persons and false doctrines that a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit, it is not true of whole holy traditions that happen not to submit to the authority of Rome—a point I should think Orthodox patriarchs would be able to understand. The notion that the Anglicans have produced nothing but bad fruit, which is what you imply, is not to be taken very seriously. I think perhaps you underestimate how deeply rooted and spiritually rich the Anglican tradition has been, especially in its more orthodox expressions. Not just great theologians like Thomas Cranmer and C.S. Lewis but centuries of faithful English men and women.

      Reply
      1. Robert

        Thank you for responding, Larry. I will respond as best I can, because I believe you have mischaracterised what I have said (and what I have not said) and what I believe in. I am Oriental, not Eastern Orthodox, as I stated. I don’t believe you caught this.

        Please be patient with me, because I am NOT learned. I am just explaining my faith to the best of my abilities. I once again invite you to actively visit parishes as much as you can. Ask and talk to actual theologically educated people (like Thilo Young) and priests there. They will do a better job. Your faith really is the most important decision of your life. If you don’t want to read this, I ask that you just read Point 6.

        Point 1: You said “the Anglican Church was born at Pentecost, or perhaps with the Great Commission” and is continuous with the early church. You also say “what makes it the Church are not human institutions but rather the fact that it is the great assembly of all the assemblies”.

        Response 1: Firstly, I’m not sure if by that second statement you mean some version of branch theory, but the early church was very clear. If you are excommunicated, you are out. Any schismatic church can claim they were born at Pentecost. There’s a fundamental difference between them and the major apostolic churches (RC, EO, OO). The difference is that, for a post-Luther church to make that claim, they have to show that their new doctrine is continuous: for Anglicanism you must somehow conclude that the early church was correct, then that they erred for time period X, then Anglicans, the correct ones, split off X time after the introduction of the RC’s error, which means that either a) there were secret true believers during time X who weren’t brave enough to split off and thus sinned by keeping communion with heretics instead of anathematising them like St. Paul ordered (Gal 1:8) or b) the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church for a while, and then came back, which is ridiculous. There must be continuity of belief. The “purifying Protestant ideals” were not Christ’s or the apostles’ ideals, but I know we might disagree on this.

        Point 2: You are puzzled at me saying “our faith was preserved through persecution and martyrdom”, and that I exclude the Anglican communion from this. You also say “That [faith] was no more yours than it is mine”

        Response 2: Respectfully, you and I do not share a faith. We share key tenets of faith, some very big ones, but disagree on big others, hence it is not the same faith. I know this is a terrible comparison, but just because martyrs are the reason Jehovah’s witnesses also know who Christ is, does not mean that they are their martyrs and it is their faith. They believe different things to the martyrs. “Protestant ideals” are things the martyrs did not endorse. Furthermore, the Anglican church was built and survived based on imperial concerns, we Oriental Orthodox were genuinely always persecuted, never persecuting, and always took the brunt of the empires that occupied our lands, save for a few short breathers.

        Point 3: “Moreover, flawed, sinful men have often started and even been at the height of traditions that are (otherwise?) holy. Think of David and Solomon. Think of Peter, who sinned repeatedly, even denying Jesus.”

        Response 3: This is a false equivalency. You cannot compare the personal sins of David, Solomon, and Peter, to someone purposely schisming for worldly gain. Every single bishop and clergyman has sinned. That does not invalidate them. However, Peter didn’t create a rival church because of his sin or create a new theology, he repented. David didn’t go worship Baal to further affirm his adultery/murder, he repented. I don’t know how to state this properly, but you don’t get to divide the Body of Christ because you’re sick of your bishop and you want to be free. You definitely don’t get to do it if you also happen to get the bonus of legalising a sin out of it. You call a council to examine him, and you pray that God judges amongst you.

        Point 4: “it is not true of whole holy traditions that happen not to submit to the authority of Rome—a point I should think Orthodox patriarchs would be able to understand.”

        Response 4: The issue is not that the Anglican church believed Rome/papal supremacy was wrong, because it was. The issue was that it non-canonically broke off for the sake of worldly things, by imperial rule, without councils,. A king doesn’t get to split from the Body of Christ and conveniently introduce sinful doctrine while also claiming to be the true Church. He made a theologically discontinuous Church that served his sinful interests, regardless of the main reason. He made his own church, he did not keep Christ’s Church. The early church was adamant about not bending to imperial will (at least Alexandria was, because we got persecuted for it many times).

        Point 5: “The notion that the Anglicans have produced nothing but bad fruit, which is what you imply,”

        Response 5: Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said they produced “nothing but bad fruit”. To say that would be to say they are demons. God is so kind and the Holy Spirit works even in the worst people possible, much less Anglicans who proclaim Christ’s name and love Him, but I don’t believe Anglicans have the fullness of the truth. A tree built on sick roots, while it can produce some good fruit, will NEVER be able to bloom as much as it ought to. What did the Anglicans do once they schismed? They persecuted the Catholics and continued to schism further and further, becoming arguably just as political in their religion as the Catholics. That was the fruit of the schism.

        Point 6: I “underestimate how deeply rooted and spiritually rich” the Anglican church is, and you “think the same holiness may be found in many other traditions”

        Response 6: I would kindly counter that perhaps you even more deeply underestimate how spiritually rich the Orthodox churches are. Please compare the saints of the Anglican church, pre- and post-schism. Compare their lives. Which had more fruit? Pre or post schism? Do they have modern St. Mercurius’s, Abba Anthony’s, Athanasius’s? I once heard an EO priest say “ask a denomination one question: show me your Saint Paisios [amazing modern saint]”. As an Oriental Orthodox, I can confidently do that. Recently, we’ve had Pope Cyril VI, Tamav Irene, Fr. Faltaous El-Soriany, Fr. Angelos El-Antony, Fr. Yostos El-Antony, the list goes on. You read their stories, it is like you are reading the saints of old.

        Finally, OO/EO history is super complicated. Dioscorus was never actually anathematised at Chalcedon; Chalcedon wasn’t even a defining moment like people make it out to be. In the following centuries, there was much reconciliation work, confusion, denouncing, and reaffirming of Chalcedon before the Arabs invaded and isolated us. We agreed that we had the same Christology in the 20th century through formal dialogues, and many wonderful steps were taken (even to the point of intercommunion in certain scenarios e.g. Antiochians and Syriacs), but we continue to pray for the unity of the churches since there are many other formal messy steps that need to be taken for reconciliation.

        I hope this helps clear up what I mean by what I said, Larry. Again, I ask you to keep searching your heart, and pray about it a lot. Don’t rely on just your mind. Our minds are all limited, and we are all biased. Pray, pray, pray. God bless you.

        Reply
        1. Robert

          Also, this has been weighing heavily on me. I don’t think it was right of me to say they aren’t your martyrs, too, or they didn’t die for your faith, too. That was very unkindly worded by me. They died for Christ, and they confirmed the faith that was handed down to them. They are His and a testimony to the whole world, not anyone in particular, and I’m sure they are constantly praying for everyone to come to Him and looking down on us all regardless of what we believe in with the love for mankind they learned from their Master. Sometimes though, people really were killed by both the Byzantines and the Crusaders for being “monophysites” (which we aren’t), so it was a martyrdom not simply for faith in Christ, but for an actual doctrine you might not agree with.

          What I really meant to express was that Oriental Orthodox history is fraught with constant persecution, poverty, and martyrdom. We were never really in power or persecuted others. We were just martyrs. We can, for the most part, confidently say we had no imperial streak/the least blood on our hands. The Church I am a part of survived not because of any ulterior motive, but through constant death. And we still wield basically no imperial/governmental influence.

          I hope that better brings to light what I meant to say. I don’t intend to imply that St. George for instance is the property of any particular group. I am certain those martyrs and saints look more favourably on little innocent non-Christian children than they do on me.

Older Comments
1 2

Leave a Reply to Robert Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Log in