What are some unique doctrines that a denomination holds that makes them distinct from others?

[The Liturgist]

2. Amish with their Ordnung

Oh, here is something that might interest you on the subject of the Ordnung. It might surprise you to learn that this aspect of the Amish church is not inherently recent or innovative or of 17th century origin. Rather, the word Ordnung means “Order” in German, and there are books of church order dating back to the first century, for example, the Didache and a derivation of it called the Didascalia, which is still used officially by the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church.

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the equivalent document is called the Typikon, and it varies between jurisdictions, which can be independent regional churches like the Serbian Orthodox Church or the Antiochian Orthodox Church or the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and between parishes and monasteries, for example, in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the monasteries on Mount Athos in Greece still use the traditional Sabaite-Studite Typikon that is used by most parishes and monasteries, with minor variations, in the Church Slavonic-speaking Orthodox churches like the Russian Orthodox, Belarussian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and related traditional jurisdictions like the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whereas most parishes and monasteries under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which include most Greek Orthodox churches in the United States, use the recent and somewhat controversial Violakis Typikon (which is somewhat simpler, but even Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a loyal bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, described some aspects of the Violakis Typikon as “ill-advised.” Additionally, there are typikons used by the Old Rite Orthodox and the related Russian Old Believers who are not in communion with the canonical Orthodox churches. There is the disused “Cathedral Typikon” that was reconstructed by scholars such as the musicologist Dr. Alexander Lingas, who runs the choir Capella Romana, and which was used until the conquest of Constantinople by Venice in the 1200s for worship at the Hagia Sophia, and in a few other places, and in the US, there is a monastery in the Orthodox Church in America called New Skete that has a highly idiosyncratic typikon of its own inspired by the old Cathedral Typikon.

And other Eastern churches also have the idea of books of church order. The liturgical equivalent in the Armenian church would in English be called the “Directory”; I cannot recall the Armenian word.

Moving west, we find the concept exists in, for example, the Traditional Latin Mass, or Vetus Ordo, of the Roman Catholic Church, vs. the new mass, or Novus Ordo, and also in monastic rules, for example, the Rule of St. Benedict.

Thus these works include instructions pertaining to the life of the faithful or of monks in a monastery, like the Rule of St. Benedict or the Didache, whereas in other cases, an order might pertain only to liturgical matters, with other issues addressed in volumes of canon law.

The Methodist Book of Discipline represents the former approach, whereas the Directory for Public Worship instituted to replace the Anglican Book of Common Prayer during the tyrannical reign of Oliver Cromwell would be an example of the latter, a liturgical instruction book. In the Presbyterian churches in particular it was common to have, instead of specific liturgical books, to instead have more general instructions to ministers in a “Book of Order”, whereas Continental Calvinists like the Dutch Reformed or the French reformed theologian Boucher had no problems with the retention of written liturgical prayers for worship, but these bothered the Scottish Presbyterians, and for many centuries they resisted implementing them, until the liturgical revival in the 19th century, which coincided with the Scoto-Catholic movement in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

So the subject of the “Ordnung” is interesting, in that virtually every church has something like the Ordnung; what makes the Amish and Old Order Mennonite Ordnungs interesting is the extreme intensity with which they prescribe and proscribe certain aspects of the daily lives of their members, in a manner that goes far beyond that of most other denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Orthodoxy our doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the same as the Western Churches. Except that we strictly hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father per John 15:26. Most other Christians profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

While I believe this is crucial within our confession, I do not criticize how other Christians profess their faith on this.

Interestingly the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East all agree with the Eastern Orthodox on the rejection of the filioque.

Also, most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do not confess the filioque, and strangely, I have read that the Roman Catholic position is that the Filioque would be in error if used in the Greek language. If true that confuses me a bit, because I don’t see how it could be correct in Latin but not in Greek.

At any rate, I do agree with you that the avoidance of the filioque is crucial within Orthodoxy, but I regard it as less of an immediate issue in terms of dialogue with other liturgical Christians. Also I would note happily that among liturgical Protestants for some time there has been a movement, active within Anglicanism and a few related places, called “Drop the FIlioque” which argues against retaining the filioque in the Nicene Creed, in part because of the division it causes with us.

I do think the filioque could possibly be interpreted in a manner that is not heretical, if one understood that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone but proceeds from the Son insofar as He sent it to us as our Paraclete, but that is not how Roman Catholics usually interpret it, and the problem is the use of a common verb for both conditions. Additionally there is the problem that the mere existence of the filioque is contrary to the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which prohibit changing, tampering with or replacing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, that is to say, the Nicene Creed.

My understanding is that the filioque originated in Spain in response to a prolongued outbreak of an Adoptionist heresy, which is interesting in light of the fact that Spain is also where the Three Chapters Controversy engendered a schism after Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized by the Three Chapters of Justinian immediately prior to the Second Council of Constantinople in an unsuccessful attempt at rapprochement with the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[Lukaris]

Interestingly the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East all agree with the Eastern Orthodox on the rejection of the filioque.

Also, most Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches do not confess the filioque, and strangely, I have read that the Roman Catholic position is that the Filioque would be in error if used in the Greek language. If true that confuses me a bit, because I don’t see how it could be correct in Latin but not in Greek.

At any rate, I do agree with you that the avoidance of the filioque is crucial within Orthodoxy, but I regard it as less of an immediate issue in terms of dialogue with other liturgical Christians. Also I would note happily that among liturgical Protestants for some time there has been a movement, active within Anglicanism and a few related places, called “Drop the FIlioque” which argues against retaining the filioque in the Nicene Creed, in part because of the division it causes with us.

I do think the filioque could possibly be interpreted in a manner that is not heretical, if one understood that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father alone but proceeds from the Son insofar as He sent it to us as our Paraclete, but that is not how Roman Catholics usually interpret it, and the problem is the use of a common verb for both conditions. Additionally there is the problem that the mere existence of the filioque is contrary to the canons of the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus which prohibit changing, tampering with or replacing the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, that is to say, the Nicene Creed.

My understanding is that the filioque originated in Spain in response to a prolongued outbreak of an Adoptionist heresy, which is interesting in light of the fact that Spain is also where the Three Chapters Controversy engendered a schism after Theodore of Mopsuestia was anathematized by the Three Chapters of Justinian immediately prior to the Second Council of Constantinople in an unsuccessful attempt at rapprochement with the Oriental Orthodox.

Yes, thank you and I should have mentioned this particular. I actually have a tendency to take it for granted that they are Orthodox. I understand the matters of formal communion between our churches of course.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are many similarities between Christian denominations, the purpose of this thread is to help expand knowledge of distinct doctrines of each denomination that makes them different to others. These distinct doctrines will typically only be found within a particular denomination only or a small handful. Another purpose of this thread is to help people decide on a denomination on what doctrines to them that will either be a deal breaker, or a must have.

I will start with some examples:

1. Calvinism with its predestination doctrine
2. Amish with their Ordnung
3. Mennonites in some ways similar to Amish, but different because they allow modern technology
4. Baptists with their full immersion baptism, believer baptism. Maybe there are many more denominations that also have these doctrines, still learning.

These are some examples, there may be denominations that have the same doctrines, I don't know too many or which ones have the same doctrines, here to learn more.

I'm saddened by this post. Similarities yes however that's just not good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

" I never knew you"

Be blessed.

 

[9Rock9]

Baptists, many Messianic groups, Seventh-day Adventists, a number of community church groups all have believer's baptism - by immersion as the only form of accepted baptism.

A lot of Christian denominations affirm a future judgment - Seventh-day Adventists have a unique view based on Dan 7, and Rom 2 and 2 Cor 5:10 regarding the judgment in heaven seen in Dan 7 prior to the coming of Christ as depicted in Dan 7.

Yeah, I don't think an individual doctrine is enough to distinguish a denomination from the others. Like you said, there are plenty of denominations that affirm believer's baptism.

The real difference is over how they combine various doctrines.

On the surface, Seventh Day Adventists and Seventh Day Baptists may seem pretty similar as they both baptize believers by immersion and observe a Saturday Sabbath, but that's really where the similarities end. They're still gonna disagree over Ellen White, the investigative judgment, and 7th Day Baptists can go either way in free will and eschatology.

Anabaptists also affirm credobaptism, but don't seem to put as much emphasis on immersion, specifically. Depending on the particular denomination, they may immerse, or they might sprinkle. Even the ones that do immerse do it quite differently from Baptists.


I'd say, for Baptists, the uniqueness is the affirmation of believer's baptism (primarily, if not exclusively, by immersion), congregational polity AND a traditional Protestant understanding of soteriology.

The Church of Christ also practices believer's baptism and congregationalism, but they have a very different understanding as to how soteriology works.

 

[returntosender]

Prayer for salvation of the dead and belief that they are saved.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, thank you and I should have mentioned this particular. I actually have a tendency to take it for granted that they are Orthodox. I understand the matters of formal communion between our churches of course.

I myself regard the Oriental Orthodox as fully Orthodox, and I really like the sui juris Eastern Catholic churches (some of which would be Orthodox were it not for historical maneuvering in politics by the RCC, for instance, the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church owe their existence largely to the formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the subsequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Brest . Likewise, I really like the Assyrian Church of the East and regard it as approaching Orthodoxy, along with some Continuing Anglican churches in the US.

 

[The Liturgist]

Prayer for salvation of the dead and belief that they are saved.

I don’t understand what you mean by the concluding phrase “and belief that they are saved,” for the simple reason (without wishing to cause any offense) that the grammar of that phrase is incorrect, and the meaning of it in context with the opening phrase “Prayer for the salvation of the dead” is ambiguous. Are you talking about once saved, always saved? Or do you mean a denomination that prays for the dead and then believes that those prayers will definitely be 100% efficacious, perhaps something along the lines of Mormon baptism?

However, what I can say with certainty is that prayers for the salvation of the dead are definitely not unique to a single denomination, but can be regarded as a normative practice shared by an absolute majority of the world’s Christian population. But first, let us consider which churches specifically engage in the practice of prayer for the dead:

Christian communities that pray for the dead include the Assyrian Church of the East, most Anglicans (including, but not limited to, broad church and high church Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics, and the non-jurors and their successors, the Scottish and American Episcopalians, but not low church Anglicans such as the Archdiocese of Sydney, Evangelicals such as the Holy Trinity Brompton set, and in the US, the Reformed Episcopal Church), the Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans (Martin Luther specifically approved of prayers for the dead, but not of the Missa Pro Defunctis, which is actually unique to Roman Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism), Methodists (John Wesley regarded prayers for the dead as extremely important and composed new prayers for this purpose, for such prayers were absent from all English editions of the BCP other than the initial 1549 BCP, and the Deposited Book of 1928 which was approved by the Church but blocked in the House of Commons by a minority of Anglicans assisted by members of various other Protestant churches and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland).

Likewise, prayer for the dead is also an integral part of the faith of the Moravians (the Protestant denomination also known as the Unitas Fratrum, founded by in the 15th century by St. Jan Hus and St. Jerome of Prague, who are venerated as saints in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia), who set out to to restore to the Czech Christians things which they had been deprived of, like a vernacular liturgy and communion in both kinds, when the country was forcibly converted from Eastern Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism following its conquest by the Archduchy of Austria in the 13th century), the Old Catholics (who broke communion with Rome in opposition to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in the 1870s), the Oriental Orthodox (consisting of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Orthodox (who are from Egypt), the Ethiopian Tewahedo and Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Churches, the Indthe Roman Catholics, the Syriac Orthodox of the Middle East, who call themselves Suroye, who mostly live in Syria, Iraq, and in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and surrounding environs, but before the genocide in 1915 waged against Armenian, Syriac Orthodox, Assyrian and Pontic Greek Orthodox Christians, also lived in very large numbers in Turkey, with the headquarters located in a monastery in Tur Abdin, a Turkish province where the Suroye were particularly numerous, and finally the three Syriac Orthodox jurisdictions that serve the Mar Thoma Christians of India, first evangelized by the Apostle Thomas, who also founded the Church in several centers of the Suroye church and the Assyrian Church of the East before traveling to Kerala, home to a large Jewish population from around 200 BC until the 1950s, when most of its remaining members moved to Israel ; these Christians historically spoke Syriac and now speak a Syriac-influenced South Indian language, Malayalam, and like the Suroye and Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox, are largely of Jewish Descent.

Finally, we have, rather obviously, the Roman Catholics and the Sui Juris Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Pope of Rome (and in practice, subordinate to him), such as the Maronite Catholics of Lebanon, the Byzantine Rite churches that use the same liturgy as the Eastern Orthodox such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, the Ruthenian Greek Catholics, the Melkite Catholics, etc, and churches whose liturgy is based on Assyrian (the Chaldean and Syro Malabar Catholics) or Oriental Orthodox liturgies (the Armenian Catholics, nearly all of whom were martyred by the Ottomans during the horrible aforementioned genocide of 1915, the Coptic Catholics, the Malankara Catholics, and several others).

I would also note that many famous Christians, including, as mentioned previously, Wesley, Luther, Jan Hus, Jerome of Prague, and the fathers of the Early Church, as well as all Orthodox, Assyrian and Roman Catholic theologians, and many leading Anglican theologians such as Dr. Edward Pusey, Rev. Percy Dearmer, and CS Lewis, all prayed for the dead, and in many cases, such as that of Luther, Wesley and CS Lewis, openly advocated for the practice.

There are also other smaller denominations of Christians who pray for the dead which I omit for reasons of brevity. These include high church groups within other Protestant denominations, and some obscure Independent Catholic and Restorationist groups, some of dubious orthodoxy.

Additionally, most Jews also pray for the dead, for instance, in the Ashkenazi service known as Yizkor (Hazkarar Neshamor) so I would be interested to know if any Messianic Jewish groups also engage in this practice, and if so, which ones, and to what extent.

At any rate, it should be obvious from the listing of denominations which practice prayer for the dead that it is an extremely widespread practice, one engaged in by an absolute majority of all Christians, including all members of the largest, second largest fourth largest, and fifth largest denominational groups (the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists), and by most members of the third largest (the Anglicans), and by the Oriental Orthodox, who I reckon to be the eighth largest (behind the Pentecostals, who may or may not pray for the dead, owing to the diversity of their beliefs) (the largest group that generally does not pray for the dead is the sixth largest group overall, the Reformed churches, including Presbyterian and Reformed churches, mostly do not pray for the dead, with the exception of some extremely high church liturgical ”Reformed Catholics”, for instance, members of the 19th century Scoto-Catholic movement, and perhaps Dr. William E. Orchard, the Catholic-influenced pastor of the King’s Weigh House, and possibly his predecessor, the brilliant liturgist Rev. John Hunter, whose service book Devotional Services for Public Worship, first printed around 1900, was the most influential Protestant liturgical book to be published since the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Baptists are the other major denominational group that rejects prayer for the dead, and they do so categorically, and on doctrinal grounds.

Thus, since this belief is held by most Christians, including all Roman Catholics, Eastern Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and members of the closely related Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, and by all Lutherans and Methodists loyal to the doctrines of Luther and Wesley, and by a solid majority of Anglicans (as shown by the fact that the majority of editions of the Book of Common Prayer in use outside of England, and the BCP’s successor, Common Worship, contain prayers for the dead), and by the Moravians, the second-oldest Protestant denomination and the only Protestant denomination whose founders are venerated as saints by the Eastern Orthodox, it can be established as a normative belief for all Christians, and does not belong in the category of “Unique beliefs that a denomination holds that makes it distinct from all others.”

Rather, we can say that the rejection of Prayers for the Dead is a shared distinctive of Baptist, Reformed, Non-Denominational and some Restorationist churches (for instance, Adventists). So, in effect, neither prayers for the dead, nor the rejection thereof, are unique beliefs that distinguish one denomination from all the rest, since most Christians pray for the dead, while many Christians from many different Baptist and Reformed denominations do not pray for the dead.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm saddened by this post. Similarities yes however that's just not good enough for our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

" I never knew you"

Be blessed.

Are you saying there is a single correct denomination or are you making some kind of an argument against the existence of denominations? Are you aware of the fact that most Christian churches are involved in various forms of ecumenical dialogue, seeling reconciliation and reunification, a process that has been highly successful in restoring unity to separated Christians ranging from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, formerly estranged but now reconciled, in Syria and Egypt, to the mainline Protestant churches of Europe and North America, to the various hitherto isolated traditional Anglican churches of the Global South?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Are you saying there is a single correct denomination or are you making some kind of an argument against the existence of denominations? Are you aware of the fact that most Christian churches are involved in various forms of ecumenical dialogue, seeling reconciliation and reunification, a process that has been highly successful in restoring unity to separated Christians ranging from Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, formerly estranged but now reconciled, in Syria and Egypt, to the mainline Protestant churches of Europe and North America, to the various hitherto isolated traditional Anglican churches of the Global South?

I am saying there should be no denominations.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am saying there should be no denominations.

Well I agree, but the problem is, in 1054, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox, and then embraced radically different doctrines from those which had characterized the early church, which was not divided into denominations but which was one church, and as a result of these new doctrines and practices, such as Scholastic theology, Papal supremacy, a denial of the chalice to the laity, purgatory, and other teachings which were unknown to the Early Church, and also due to severe corruption during the Avignon Papacy, and the reign of Pope Alexander VI, and subsequently, the failed military campaigns of Pope Julius II, which resulted in Rome being sacked, as it had been by foreign invaders in the year 600 and before that, in the fifth century, only this time by soldiers from the Holy Roman Empire who had initially been sent to protect Rome from a feared invasion which never materialized, who grew bored and frustrated. The result of this third sacking of Rome was the end of the Roman Renaissance, and a severe shortage of funds, which led to Pope Leo X putting an emphasis on the sale of indulgences in an attempt to finance the completion of the beautiful design for St. Peter’s Basilica which was the work of the talented sculptor, architect and painter Michaelangelo, but this was the wrong way to finance such a project, for it caused righteous indignation on the part of Martin Luther, and it led to the Protestant Reformation, which resulted in numerous other schisms, and what is worse, the emergence of Pietism in the 18th century led many Christians to regard doctrine as unimportant and to be untroubled by the proliferation of denominations, which resulted in the emergence of several additional Protestant denominations whose existence otherwise would have been deemed unwarranted, as people stopped trying to address defects in existing denominations, and instead formed new ones.

And the Non-Denominational movement among Evangelicals is not the solution to this problem, but rather compounds it, for each Non-Denominational chapel or megachurch is like a denomination unto itself, with many of them being more like dioceses, with multiple “campuses”, for example, Mars Hill Church in Seattle, albeit with the distressing tendency to broadcast the sermon of a celebrity preacher to all of the “campuses” rather than de-emphasizing the individual pastor in order to emphasize Christ, following the example of St. John the Baptist, who said of himself and Christ, “I must decrease so that He may increase.” The mere existence of the “celebrity pastor” or the “rockstar pastor” is in opposition to the message of humility that is foundational to the Gospel.

Thus, unfortunately, the problem of denominations is not one easily solved. For my part, I work on helping to unite disparate churches that share a common doctrine and compatible praxis, and indeed am working on organizing such a reunion right now between two small Eastern churches