Aside from the formation of an institution, many innovations were introduced. Once any man or group of men lift themselves up as authority figures with the final authority reserved for the Pope, we can expect many human inventions. Further, it makes little difference what the Bible teaches to a man who claims apostolic succession. Worse than this is the difference it makes to one who believes their claim and follows their teaching. Some of the changes were made to control the influence of certain men who posed a threat to the orthodoxy and the power of the church institution. As already observed, other innovations even had pagan origins but were adapted by the Roman Catholic Church so the practice could continue with their approval and without fear of losing the people to pagan influences.
We can build a long list of doctrines that developed over time that find its authority in the councils of men, not in the apostles of Christ (worship of Mary, infant sprinkling, sacrificial mass, sign of the cross, holy water, purgatory, etc). Many doctrines foreign to the New Testament were developed, until people were buried in an avalanche of human innovation.
After many years of the abuse of power and human innovations, the corruption reached its climax in the sixth century with the selling of “indulgences,” a practice whereby one could buy certificates to have his sins absolved. It took extreme corruption like this to influence conscientious men like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to take action against it. Once committed to speaking out against such abuse, these men changed the look of “the church” as they were more open to see other abuses and departures from the true pattern. Again, we repeat that they were reforming a system that had no authority to exist. One cannot find an institution made up of a ruling class of men who decide for the people about anything. Luther’s teaching on the priesthood of believers was on target but since the institution remained, there can be no full implementation of practice short of absolving the institution.
“Reformation” implies the need for modification and tweaking. For Luther, he had respect for the traditions believing that the tradition of the church had a divine origin. He never intended his followers to form another institution because he still had respect for the mother church. He merely believed that there was a need to repent and clean up the corruption. But, trying to fix a flawed system is like adding new cloth to old wine-skins. It cannot work for long without either creating other problems or having old problems reoccur. Luther is no different than many of us. We find ourselves reacting to the abuses instead of responding to the Word. Those reacting to the abuses of the reformation era were protesters and came to be known as “Protestants.” Yet, because they continued to think of the church as an institution, they inadvertently were responsible for building their own organizations. While noticeable differences existed between Catholicism and Protestantism, both supported the institutional concept of the church. Rather than putting new wine into new wine-skins, we are so wed to our churches that we are trying to patch them or fix them. Attempting to fix the institution is repeating the same flaw of the reformers. Our plea is to abandon the institutional model. It should never have been used from the beginning. It is the old wine-skin that fits the Jewish model of physicality (the shadow of spiritual realities). Placing new covenant ideology into the old wine-skins is not a good match. It will burst! Building church buildings, maintaining clergy/laity distinctions, and having “church services” to receive our weakly blessings does not find it’s origin among the apostles of Christ.
Many of my forefathers taught that we must seek the old paths by returning to the apostles’ doctrine and the traditions that were consistently taught everywhere; that we be united on the simple traditions recorded in the pages of the New Testament. It was noted that we learn from the reformation by not repeating the mistakes of our forefathers who, though well-intentioned, go only so far as their own tradition takes them. However, the entire process of thought that relegates the church to the organizational structure by creating forms of public worship, liturgies, and all things that pertain to the activities of a public assembly (“church service”) is the tradition that needs rethinking. Our appeal is not that we “choose the church of our choice” or “join the only right church in town” or the ones whose worship appeals to our personal preferences. Those are the areas about which the denominational world is divided. Instead, I am proposing that we divorce ourselves from all sectarianism and the denominational organizations with which we identify ourselves. Not everyone will do this; in fact, most will not. For that reason, Paul explains why divisions are necessary. He writes, “For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). Further, John writes, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). When applied to a church organization, we naturally apply these passages to those who are not teaching and practicing the same religious ritual and traditions “in church” as we do (“not of us”). So, they left “us” for another because they were not of the same opinion at the very start. This interpolation is assuming “church activity” within the organization instead of discipleship living that is applied individually. Regarding the former, how can a pattern be given for something that does not exist? Denominational structures and organizations are the product of human wisdom. Where, then, is the divine pattern for a humanly devised plan? Once it is created, the Scriptures that expect individual application are applied to the organization to authenticate it and offer proof for its right to exist. There are no patterns in the Bible for human productions or the work of church organizations. Religious zealots have produced authoritative systems whereby they have discovered exclusive patterns for work and worship, not realizing that the patterns for work and worship are enjoined upon every individual saint. For them, there are many patterns given in Scripture.
In these two passages above, we have those who are approved and those who are not approved. We are not talking about approved churches, but individuals. The phrase “among you,” for the one being approved does not imply membership in one, either. It does support the idea of local fellowship, but a fellowship that does not require a membership in a local church with its appointed times for worship and Bible study. The divine approval of these individuals are made manifest when division occurs. Again, not church division but the division of individual Christians.
Rather than erecting man-made organizations with spiritual policemen to control and influence the majority like the “Fathers” did in their day, we are individually held accountable for the way we INDIVIDUALLY handle the Word and practice its teachings. After contending for the faith and being a voice for truth, we must not seek to force conformity to a set of rules for which we can gain a majority vote. It is a comfort that even when we suffer loss when our work among men is unfruitful, we can still be saved (1 Cor. 3:15). God only holds us personally accountable to hold fast to the faith of the gospel and teach it to others with “sound words.” Men often measure their successes by numbers and the influence of their words to keep people following their teaching or the teaching of their church. Human beings can measure their preaching prowess, knowledge of the Scriptures and recount our baptisms, restorations, or how well we have done our job to increase the numbers of a local church. This is all done while still acknowledging that God gives the increase, not us! In the final analysis, what will matter the most to our God is whether we held fast to the faith of the gospel in word (“sound words”) and in deed. Our success in the eyes of God is not measured as man measures.