Why are there so many different Christian denominations?

[BabylonWeary]

My claim is that each person's individual faith belief, is based on their own personal interpretations.

Since so many Christians have different interpretations (and many claim to have seen the light), I would think this fact is self explanatory.

When all Christians agree with your specific interpretations, let us know.

Yeah, no, brother makes a valid point. You're interpreting things in your own way and found lacking in true discernment. Perhaps if you disagree with me you can prove your case by offering your interpretation of Job 41:1-34. Peace.

 

[bhsmte]

Yeah, no, brother makes a valid point. You're interpreting things in your own way and found lacking in true discernment. Perhaps if you disagree with me you can prove your case by offering your interpretation of Job 41:1-34. Peace.

What is true discernment? What if other Christians discern differently?

 

[bhsmte]

OK, thanks for that. What I see is that people do not all love the light, and because of this, they will not all go toward the light. If they find others who practise darkness as they do, that will give them comfort, and together they will grow more experience in the darkness. Now when they think their darkness is light, they will preach it as light. But the light will reveal the errors. At that point, the one who is preaching darkness as light must decide whether they will come toward the light so everyone can see they are doing what is right in God's view, or they can decide to refuse to go near that light lest their deeds be exposed. On this basis, there is clear distinction between someone who is easily corrected and refines their understanding of the truth compared to someone who is unrepentant and continues to let their attachment to evil prevent them from coming to the light. Those are the ones who stray far away from what the scriptures simply say. I expect even you, a person who has strayed so far away from what the scriptures simply say, can see that some people use scriptures in a straight forward way to express ideas that are obviously true, while observing that some people use scriptures in a way that can clearly be seen to be so far removed from what the author of the scripture actually meant. In this way I propose that even someone who refuses to go near the light is able to recognise the inconsistencies that the light reveals. This is why I was very eager to insist on evidence of your complaint, because if you did produce evidence, the light would reveal whether I had been in error. Obviously that is something I would want to know. Please do let me know therefore whether you can demonstrate that others have said my interpretation of scripture is wrong. Thanks!

Yea, you keep talking about this light and other Christians talk about this light, who have different interpretations than you.

So, you can claim to follow the true light and they can do the same.

 

[bhsmte]

Yea, you keep talking about this light and other Christians talk about this light, who have different interpretations than you.

So, you can claim to follow the true light and they can do the same.

The evidence of my claim is something I will state one more time since you have missed it. OTHER CHRISTIANS INTERPRET DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU AND THEY ALSO CLAIM TO BE CORRRECT.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[oi_antz]

Yea, you keep talking about this light and other Christians talk about this light, who have different interpretations than you.

So, you can claim to follow the true light and they can do the same.

Any examples to show why you believe I am wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

Any examples to show why you believe I am wrong?

Did I say you were wrong?

I said others claim to follow this light and they have different interpretations of what this light is. Do you deny that other Christians have different interpretations than you and they think their interpretation is correct?

 

[bhsmte]

Did I say you were wrong?

I said others claim to follow this light and they have different interpretations of what this light is. Do you deny that other Christians have different interpretations than you and they think their interpretation is correct?

And, since I don't believe in this light and have made no claims about this light, it would be up to you to support your claim, that you are following the correct path, with evidence.

 

[oi_antz]

Did I say you were wrong?

I said others claim to follow this light and they have different interpretations of what this light is. Do you deny that other Christians have different interpretations than you and they think their interpretation is correct?

Yes, you are saying that you believe I am wrong. Look it up, I sense you aren't paying enough attention to this conversation. You said that others have said I am wrong. Three times I have asked you to show me this. Once again, please, I insist.

And, since I don't believe in this light and have made no claims about this light, it would be up to you to support your claim, that you are following the correct path, with evidence.

I am happy to do this, sure. I would rather comply with site rules though. Will you prefer private message or public discussion?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, you are saying that you believe I am wrong. Look it up, I sense you aren't paying enough attention to this conversation. You said that others have said I am wrong. Three times I have asked you to show me this. Once again, please, I insist.

I am happy to do this, sure. I would rather comply with site rules though. Will you prefer private message or public discussion?

You really, really should read more closely to what I have stated. It would appear (as I have encountered before with you) you either don't comprehend what I am saying, or you have a need to alter the clear meaning of what I am saying.

I have made my point abundantly clear, the words are their to read for all.

 

[oi_antz]

You really, really should read more closely to what I have stated. It would appear (as I have encountered before with you) you either don't comprehend what I am saying, or you have a need to alter the clear meaning of what I am saying.

I have made my point abundantly clear, the words are their to read for all.

Well I too have made past observations that you are comfortable to make unjustified accusations and not back up your beliefs with evidence. This accusation of yours appears to be an attempt to claim some right to ambiguity. I have read and followed you closely, and asked repeatedly for evidence of your claims. However, you are allowed to refuse to go near the light for fear of your deeds being exposed. I would not hold that against you!

 

[bhsmte]

Well I too have made past observations that you are comfortable to make unjustified accusations and not back up your beliefs with evidence. This accusation of yours appears to be an attempt to claim some right to ambiguity. I have read and followed you closely, and asked repeatedly for evidence of your claims. However, you are allowed to refuse to go near the light for fear of your deeds being exposed. I would not hold that against you!

Great.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In Him. Forget what "some" do. The Holy Spirit witnesses to you. He won't tell you one thing, and then someone else something different. HE is the interpreter and applier.

So there's this guy, Bob, who while reading Scripture is convinced the Holy Spirit is telling him that Scripture says and means X.

There's this other guy, Greg, who while reading Scripture is convinced the Holy Spirit is telling him that Scripture says and means Y.

Both claim to be submitting to the Holy Spirit and that it is the Holy Spirit leading them to their understanding of Scripture.

Obviously Bob and Greg can't both be right.

And, indeed, Bob says Greg is wrong because Greg is not listening to the Holy Spirit but is instead listening to human wisdom and tradition.

Conversely, Greg says Bob is wrong because Bob is not listening to the Holy Spirit but is instead listening to human wisdom and tradition.

See why there might be a problem here?

The problem here, ultimately, is that both Bob and Greg are claiming to have direct, special insight to the Scriptures through direct, special illumination from God via the Holy Spirit. Neither are willing to admit that they are only fallible human beings, and fallible human beings have not been promised by God special, direct spiritual illumination of Scripture; and so both have placed themselves in the position of being their own super-pope.

Why "super-pope"? Because even the Pope in Rome does not consider all his views as the infallible illumination of the Holy Spirit, and is always held accountable to the wider interpretation and authority of the Church. In other words, if the Pope were to claim to speak infallibly on a subject that is completely antithetical to the core tenets of Roman Catholic Christianity the Pope would be regarded as a heretic.

Egopapism--the idea that one is one's own pope--is what many well-meaning Christians are ultimately subscribing to. They are electing themselves as their own pope, their own supreme religious head, by speaking and thinking that they have a special access to Scripture and that God speaks specially to them. They are unwilling to accept their own fallibility, but speak as though God Himself illuminates and enlightens their minds to the right understanding of Scripture. If one wants to know "Why so many denominations?" This is certainly a significant reason why.

Scripture certainly never promises this. Indeed what Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead "you" into all truth He was not talking to you or me or the Pope in Rome, He was talking to His twelve apostles; further the "you" here is plural, not singular. No individual is promised to have "all truth". Why would I consider this interpretation to be more valid than that interpretation that individuals are led to "all truth"? Here are a few reasons:

1) The grammar: The Greek word ὑμᾶς is the accusative plural substantive form of σύ ("you"). Modern English lacks a plural second person pronoun, except colloquially (e.g. "y'all"); though "you" used to be the plural and "thou" the singular; thus such nuances can be lost in modern English translation.

2) The occasion and context of the text: We need to go back several chapters to John ch. 13, as this begins following the Supper while in the company of His apostles, to whom He is speaking directly.

3) Christ established a gathered community: In Matthew ch. 16 Jesus, talking to Simon Peter, says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church." The Greek word translated as "Church" here is ἐκκλησία, meaning roughly "a called out gathering". In the ancient democracy of Athens all free men would be summoned to a place outside the city to gather for voting, this gathering outside the city was the Athenian ἐκκλησία. It is a gathering, a community of people that Christ calls and establishes. Jesus did not institute a "Me and my Bible" study guide to be done alone in a corner; He instituted a Church and called apostles to go and build that Church by preaching the Word He gave them, which they did, and communities of Christian people sprouted up from as distant places as Jerusalem and Rome. They didn't have a Bible to read, but they had a community of faith to participate in.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bhsmte]

So there's this guy, Bob, who while reading Scripture is convinced the Holy Spirit is telling him that Scripture says and means X.

There's this other guy, Greg, who while reading Scripture is convinced the Holy Spirit is telling him that Scripture says and means Y.

Both claim to be submitting to the Holy Spirit and that it is the Holy Spirit leading them to their understanding of Scripture.

Obviously Bob and Greg can't both be right.

And, indeed, Bob says Greg is wrong because Greg is not listening to the Holy Spirit but is instead listening to human wisdom and tradition.

Conversely, Greg says Bob is wrong because Bob is not listening to the Holy Spirit but is instead listening to human wisdom and tradition.

See why there might be a problem here?

The problem here, ultimately, is that both Bob and Greg are claiming to have direct, special insight to the Scriptures through direct, special illumination from God via the Holy Spirit. Neither are willing to admit that they are only fallible human beings, and fallible human beings have not been promised by God special, direct spiritual illumination of Scripture; and so both have placed themselves in the position of being their own super-pope.

Why "super-pope"? Because even the Pope in Rome does not consider all his views as the infallible illumination of the Holy Spirit, and is always held accountable to the wider interpretation and authority of the Church. In other words, if the Pope were to claim to speak infallibly on a subject that is completely antithetical to the core tenets of Roman Catholic Christianity the Pope would be regarded as a heretic.

Egopapism--the idea that one is one's own pope--is what many well-meaning Christians are ultimately subscribing to. They are electing themselves as their own pope, their own supreme religious head, by speaking and thinking that they have a special access to Scripture and that God speaks specially to them. They are unwilling to accept their own fallibility, but speak as though God Himself illuminates and enlightens their minds to the right understanding of Scripture. If one wants to know "Why so many denominations?" This is certainly a significant reason why.

Scripture certainly never promises this. Indeed what Christ said the Holy Spirit would lead "you" into all truth He was not talking to you or me or the Pope in Rome, He was talking to His twelve apostles; further the "you" here is plural, not singular. No individual is promised to have "all truth". Why would I consider this interpretation to be more valid than that interpretation that individuals are led to "all truth"? Here are a few reasons:

1) The grammar: The Greek word ὑμᾶς is the accusative plural substantive form of σύ ("you"). Modern English lacks a plural second person pronoun, except colloquially (e.g. "y'all"); though "you" used to be the plural and "thou" the singular; thus such nuances can be lost in modern English translation.

2) The occasion and context of the text: We need to go back several chapters to John ch. 13, as this begins following the Supper while in the company of His apostles, to whom He is speaking directly.

3) Christ established a gathered community: In Matthew ch. 16 Jesus, talking to Simon Peter, says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build My Church." The Greek word translated as "Church" here is ἐκκλησία, meaning roughly "a called out gathering". In the ancient democracy of Athens all free men would be summoned to a place outside the city to gather for voting, this gathering outside the city was the Athenian ἐκκλησία. It is a gathering, a community of people that Christ calls and establishes. Jesus did not institute a "Me and my Bible" study guide to be done alone in a corner; He instituted a Church and called apostles to go and build that Church by preaching the Word He gave them, which they did, and communities of Christian people sprouted up from as distant places as Jerusalem and Rome. They didn't have a Bible to read, but they had a community of faith to participate in.

-CryptoLutheran

This is precisely what I was trying to convey with another poster on this board, about people having different interpretations and each believing they could never be wrong.

I don't believe he wanted to accept this fact though.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is precisely what I was trying to convey with another poster on this board, about people having different interpretations and each believing they could never be wrong.

I don't believe he wanted to accept this fact though.

A lot of Evangelical circles teach that each individual, personally, can empirically know the truth of Scripture because the Holy Spirit will tell them or enlighten them or illuminate them (etc) if they just submit to the Holy Spirit's "voice". That's a theology which is taught in some circles, it's a pretty strong tradition in modern [primarily American] Evangelicalism. If it makes you feel any better, I can guarantee you that I won't be any more listened to than you on this subject. I've been in this rodeo several dozen times before, and I expect to be in several dozen more.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oi_antz]

This is precisely what I was trying to convey with another poster on this board, about people having different interpretations and each believing they could never be wrong.

I don't believe he wanted to accept this fact though.

You keep making accusations without backing it up. I asked you three times to provide examples that I can look into. I reckon you just want to believe what you believe about me, and are scared to actually produce evidence because it might prove that you are wrong. On the other hand, what I have said repeatedly (now the fifth time on this thread), show me where I have been in error, because I would like to make sure I am right.

Concerning what ViaCrucis has said here and you have taken to describe me, this part does not identify me:

They are unwilling to accept their own fallibility, but speak as though God Himself illuminates and enlightens their minds to the right understanding of Scripture.

.. Because I have without doubt, emphatically insisted that I want to be informed of my error, yet you have continuously refused to produce examples. Now you might think you have safety in numbers because ViaCrucis is patting you, but I tell you that you are visibly in error by making claims against me without proving any cause. I also know I have been in the rodeo with ViaCrucis and he got chose to get off the horse. He has begrudged me for that.

Also further objection to being described as such that ViaCrucis has said here, I believe that when two or three are gathered in His name, He is here with us. We are gathered in His name, and you and I make two. ViaCrucis is welcome to join us. Do you know what I make of this? Jesus said "I am the truth". Therefore, you and I are gathered in the name of truth, and the truth is in our midst. Therefore, if we do not find agreement, then one of us is insisting to be wrong. You have levelled accusations at me, I have asked for you to substantiate them, the truth testifies that you are refusing to back up your claims with evidence. Do you therefore submit that your opinion is not justified?

 

[bhsmte]

You keep making accusations without backing it up. I asked you three times to provide examples that I can look into. I reckon you just want to believe what you believe about me, and are scared to actually produce evidence because it might prove that you are wrong. On the other hand, what I have said repeatedly (now the fifth time on this thread), show me where I have been in error, because I would like to make sure I am right.

Concerning what ViaCrucis has said here and you have taken to describe me, this part does not identify me:



.. Because I have without doubt, emphatically insisted that I want to be informed of my error, yet you have continuously refused to produce examples. Now you might think you have safety in numbers because ViaCrucis is patting you, but I tell you that you are visibly in error by making claims against me without proving any cause. I also know I have been in the rodeo with ViaCrucis and he got chose to get off the horse. He has begrudged me for that.

Also further objection to being described as such that ViaCrucis has said here, I believe that when two or three are gathered in His name, He is here with us. We are gathered in His name, and you and I make two. ViaCrucis is welcome to join us. Do you know what I make of this? Jesus said "I am the truth". Therefore, you and I are gathered in the name of truth, and the truth is in our midst. Therefore, if we do not find agreement, then one of us is insisting to be wrong. You have levelled accusations at me, I have asked for you to substantiate them, the truth testifies that you are refusing to back up your claims with evidence. Do you therefore submit that your opinion is not justified?

I feel like this is a "Cool Hand Luke" moment with; what we have here, is failure to communicate.

One more time for the road and I am done.

You have stated this light has shown you what is true regarding interpreting your faith and scripture. I stated, some Christians also claim to have this light and some have a different interpretation of what this light is telling them. I hope that is clear.

One simple question for you:

Do you agree, that some Christians have different interpretations of faith and scripture, than you do? Yes or no?

 

[oi_antz]

I feel like this is a "Cool Hand Luke" moment with; what we have here, is failure to communicate.

One more time for the road and I am done.

You have stated this light has shown you what is true regarding interpreting your faith and scripture. I stated, some Christians also claim to have this light and some have a different interpretation of what this light is telling them. I hope that is clear.

One simple question for you:

Do you agree, that some Christians have different interpretations of faith and scripture, than you do? Yes or no?

Yes, I have seen it happen.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I have seen it happen.

Which was my entire point, from the get go.

 

[oi_antz]

Which was my entire point, from the get go.

No, you said that some people say I am wrong. I wanted you to show me what you had in mind when you said that, so I can examine whether there is visible error. Why refuse to provide this evidence after multiple requests? Do you think maybe the original statement is a bit misleading and needs to be changed? Surely when you claim that others have said I am wrong, you have an example in mind? I just want to know what it is, so I can be sure that I am right and you are wrong, because if you are accusing me of being wrong (as you are), then the light will show the error. Then the only thing that causes us to not agree, is our preference to lie against our conscience, than to stand corrected.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you said that some people say I am wrong. I wanted you to show me what you had in mind when you said that, so I can examine whether there is visible error. Why refuse to provide this evidence after multiple requests? Do you think maybe the original statement is a bit misleading and needs to be changed? Surely when you claim that others have said I am wrong, you have an example in mind? I just want to know what it is, so I can be sure that I am right and you are wrong, because if you are accusing me of being wrong (as you are), then the light will show the error. Then the only thing that causes us to not agree, is our preference to lie against our conscience, than to stand corrected.

You know, I am beginning to worry about you.

If you admit that other Christians have different interpretations of their faith and scripture, wouldn't it be obvious they think they are right and if you disagree you are wrong (in their minds)?