You are missing my point.
Indeed.
Most in positions of authority are weak in their understanding. If they were not? They would not hide tucked away in a denomination.
You're right. I don't understand what you're getting at here. Denominationalism is historically a post-Protestant thing, whereby after the Protestant reformation (and particularly after the original reformers, with the "radical reformation") splits over doctrinal matters, praxis, etc. proliferated, as each man read from the Holy Scriptures whatever seemed to them to be the case.
Prior to this (which is rather late on the Christian timeline), there were also divisions, but they were schisms whereby entirely different churches were created: in the wake of Ephesus in 431, the Nestorians/Persians cut off communion with the rest of the Christian world over the Christological title "Theotokos" and what they felt was the unfair treatment of their teacher Nestorius; in 451, in the wake of Chalcedon, the Egyptians and with them the Ethopians and many of the Syrians cut off communion with the rest of the Christian world over the Christological definition of the Tome of Leo, which they felt violated their preexisting Christology and understanding of the incarnation; in 1054, the Eastern and Western Chalcedonians officially anathematized each other over various issues that had brewed for centuries, and come to a head as the Pope of Rome and those who followed him more and more asserted the supremacy of their understandings over the entire Chalcedonian Church (see: the Dictatus Papae, 1075; it was never made 'official', as far as Roman Catholic encyclicals are concerned, but it is interesting to see as a measure of what the thinking was back then). And of course there were many other divisions that occured well before and well after these times, but the point is that only in the wake of Protestantism do we see "denominationalism" -- where one or more community that are 'on the same team' in the sense of being united in their commitment to the Protestant ideals of how a church should function nevertheless split from one another, beginning a sort of cascade of
splits within splits. The earlier divisions are not like this because they had retained some sense of at least being in communion
with each other on the local/regional level based on a shared faith (i.e., the Nestorians in Persia with the Nestorians in India; the Egyptians with the Syrians, Ethiopians, and Nubians; the Chalcedonians with one another, etc.), whereas in denominationalism, that really isn't even a part of the picture. If some guy down the road preaches a wildly different message than you, or even not that different but differing on some matter that you feel particularly invested in, then darn it, we're gonna pull up stakes and make our own church! Even if they're across the street from each other, like two Mattress Firm mattress stores or something.
I imagine that's not what you have in mind when you write denominationalism, but that's the difference between being a communion and being a denomination, and since they're not the same thing, it doesn't benefit anyone's understanding to play fast and loose with words.
When the Word of God is accurately taught... and, received by believers filled with the Spirit? No denomination exists. Its simply a local church with Christ as its head.
I agree; see above.
The reason denominations exist is because of religious people worshiping tradition, and rebuffing any correction that might come its way. The love for the traditions of men is the culprit.
No. The reason that denominations exist is because some guys got a whiff of the Protestant approach to church, said "We can do it better! These guys still kept some of the Roman Catholic stuff, and we don't believe that's necessary!", and then proceeded to split from one another, because their own fathers had shown them how easy to was, and one of the characteristics of denominationalism is that the people involved always become dissatisfied over time with their own founders, as they find what they presume to be new truths or better expressions than what they had originally been given.
I mean, I guess you could call that 'traditions of men' if you want to, but it doesn't seem like it's born out of
love for those traditions, since they don't hesitate to jettison them in favor of something that fits them better.