Why are there even denominations to begin with?

jmldn2 said:

I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

Click to expand...

good question.

In fact why do we even have "Two" for the people of God, Jews in the OT then Christians in the New with some Jews converting to Christianity over time

Acts 2, 3000 Jews convert in one day
Acts 3, 5000 convert in one day
Acts 5:14-16 Multitudes of JEws convert
Acts 21:20, Many myriads of Jews had been convert in Jerusalem (10's of thousands)

Jesus laments that even two should arise opposed to each other at the end of Matt 23.

Acts 13 Paul says "it was necessary that we preach the gospel to you first, but since you object..."

Acts 15 points to factions inside Christianity
Jude 1 points to division in the church
2 John 1 and 3 John 1 point to divisions inside Christianity

2 Thess 2 predicts that in the feature a great falling away, a great apostasy would come

The bible itself was on the list of banned books for Christians still in the 20th century in certain nations (for example in America the Catholic church in America had the King James Bible on the list of banned books until 1966)

It is not the nice neat picture one might have hoped for

jmldn2 said:

I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

Click to expand...

Of course a denomination does not determine salvation. I don't personally know of anyone who says it does, though I have heard the same sentiment from the negative—that if one does not believe as they do, that one is not saved.

But do you have a better suggestion outside of denominations? Even those I have run into who decry denominations are themselves a denomination, whether they realize it or not.

jmldn2 said:

I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

Click to expand...

Broadly, denominations happen for a couple of reasons:

1. Different theologians and Christian communities give different answers to questions of faith and practice that arise. What is the best way to organize a church's government? Should we baptize infants, or wait until people can profess a faith for themselves? What, exactly, happens during Communion? and so forth. Christians answer these questions in different ways. We could avoid asking theological questions, I suppose, but that's really dissatisfying for people who are inclined toward theological curiosity.

2. Sometimes, a Christian community is willing to tolerate a variety of beliefs and practices within its borders. But sometimes it is not, and then schisms occur. If Bob really thinks we need bishops and Steve really thinks that each congregation should be independently self-governing, it's hard to accommodate both of those views in one church, and a split may result.

An obvious negative aspect of multiple denominations is the one you've hinted at, that if I'm terrible toward your church because you do/don't baptize babies or you do/don't believe in Real Presence, well, I'm being terrible.

I think a positive aspect of denominations is that within a community that shares a body of beliefs and practices, it's possible to explore the meanings of those beliefs and practices in depth. There's wisdom in Lutheran theology, in the Baptists' utter devotion to the Bible, in Catholic and Orthodox worship, in the Friends' attentiveness to the Light in each person. By committing to one of these approaches to Christian faith, and studying it and living within it for some decades, there is spiritual insight to be found, beyond what one can easily find simply living as an individual outside of a community.

jmldn2 said:
I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

PloverWing said:

Broadly, denominations happen for a couple of reasons:

1. Different theologians and Christian communities give different answers to questions of faith and practice that arise. What is the best way to organize a church's government? Should we baptize infants, or wait until people can profess a faith for themselves? What, exactly, happens during Communion? and so forth. Christians answer these questions in different ways. We could avoid asking theological questions, I suppose, but that's really dissatisfying for people who are inclined toward theological curiosity.

2. Sometimes, a Christian community is willing to tolerate a variety of beliefs and practices within its borders. But sometimes it is not, and then schisms occur. If Bob really thinks we need bishops and Steve really thinks that each congregation should be independently self-governing, it's hard to accommodate both of those views in one church, and a split may result.

An obvious negative aspect of multiple denominations is the one you've hinted at, that if I'm terrible toward your church because you do/don't baptize babies or you do/don't believe in Real Presence, well, I'm being terrible.

I think a positive aspect of denominations is that within a community that shares a body of beliefs and practices, it's possible to explore the meanings of those beliefs and practices in depth. There's wisdom in Lutheran theology, in the Baptists' utter devotion to the Bible, in Catholic and Orthodox worship, in the Friends' attentiveness to the Light in each person. By committing to one of these approaches to Christian faith, and studying it and living within it for some decades, there is spiritual insight to be found, beyond what one can easily find simply living as an individual outside of a community.

Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I will give an example as to why I'm glad for Denominations. I moved recently to another part of the country. I know what I believe, and find myself unable to fellowship as openly and readily with those who believe very differently from what I believe, and who love, (or at least, emphasize), different aspects of Christian life and Scripture's teachings from what is so precious to me. By name, I found 3 or 4 prospective places of worship, visited some close ones besides, then went to each of those until I found one where I felt at home, and loved the teaching because it was like eating food. (Meat, by the way, not pastries.) (Well, ok, the occasional sweet pastry).

I don't (generally) worship well, not freely, not in heart, with Charismatics, nor with United Methodists, nor with congregations that spend more time teaching on the Last Days than on the Pursuit of Christ, or on the Doctrine of God Proper, or on simple Scripture exposition. In most settings I find myself frustrated having to keep my mouth shut listening to tripe that sounds like human invention.

These I worship with now are my brothers, even though I had never met nor heard of any of them before. I'm not saying that other believers who hold to other systems, theologies, and even worldviews, cannot be my brothers. One fellow I love —not more, but— unlike any other, is an avowed atheist! I call him my brother even though he is not a believer, and I don't expect that if indeed God saves him from this vanity of temporal frustration and he sees his sins forgiven he finds himself in Heaven that he will worship the way I do on earth, but I say it to show the huge disparity between denominations is not the problem here, but rather, that the antagonism between them might be. I do not despise Roman Catholics. I despise Roman Catholicism. I don't despise Faith Healers. I despise the notions behind their focus. I don't worship with my atheist "brother". But I do tell him about the Magnificent God that I love. I do correct his constant renditions he hears (that make no sense to him) of the Gospel.

In the beginning there was only the Catholic church. Then, the big split happened. People jumped ship and now we have countless little boats trying to navigate the heavy seas!

Interesting to note..
---
Some denominations started..as 'Movements' in Christian history.
- When the movement is recognized/accepted..it becomes another
denomination.
- Often, it loses/changes..original vision, commitment & fervor.
---
Example
The Methodist Movement.

I think it comes from the human predilection to form tribes, or in gentrified terms clubs. Even in Catholicism which is supposed to be unified there are Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans etc.

jmldn2 said:

I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

Click to expand...

Well, it always comes down to what do they believe, and as for the Reformers, Martin Luther continued to hold to many beliefs he got as a priest including Transubstantiation, that the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ. The leading Protestant reformers Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli clashed over this at meeting with many leaders of the reformers in Germany in order to develop a unified Protestant theology. Luther actually because of the differences refused initially to acknowledge Zwingli and his followers as Christians, imagine that.

The two prominent reformers, Luther and Zwingli, found a consensus on fourteen points, but they kept differing on the last one pertaining to the Eucharist. On this issue they parted without having reached an agreement, and you see the result. The denominations of the Reformation never united and instead went into Creeds and basically locked out any more unveiling of truth and understanding at that point.

​

Here is what AI came up with which seems pretty spot on..

The primary disagreement between Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli centered on the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, which was famously debated during the Marburg Colloquy in 1529.​

Background of the Disagreement​

The theological rift between Luther and Zwingli emerged during the Protestant Reformation, particularly regarding the Lord's Supper. While both reformers sought to address the abuses of the Catholic Church, they held fundamentally different views on the Eucharist.

Key Points of Disagreement​

1. Real Presence vs. Symbolism:
   • Luther's View: Luther believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, asserting that the bread and wine are not merely symbols but that Christ's body and blood are truly present "in, with, and under" the elements. He maintained that the words of Jesus, "This is my body," should be taken literally Wikipedia+1.
   • Zwingli's View: In contrast, Zwingli argued that the bread and wine are purely symbolic and serve as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice. He believed that the elements represent Christ's body and blood but do not contain them, emphasizing a spiritual communion rather than a physical presence lutheranreformation.org+1.
2. The Marburg Colloquy:
   • The Marburg Colloquy, held in October 1529, was an attempt to resolve these differences. Despite agreeing on fourteen theological points, the two reformers could not reach a consensus on the fifteenth point regarding the Eucharist. This failure highlighted the deep theological divide between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions Wikipedia+1.
   • Luther and Zwingli's inability to reconcile their views at the colloquy was significant, as it solidified the split between their respective movements, with Lutherans affirming the real presence and Zwinglians adopting a symbolic interpretation

Implications of Their Disagreement​

The disagreement between Luther and Zwingli had lasting implications for the Protestant Reformation. It not only defined the theological landscape of the time but also influenced the development of distinct Lutheran and Reformed traditions that persist to this day. The differing views on the Eucharist became a defining characteristic of these branches of Protestantism, shaping their worship practices and theological teachings Desiring God+1.
In summary, the disagreement between Luther and Zwingli over the nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist was a pivotal moment in the Reformation, illustrating the complexities of theological interpretation and the challenges of achieving unity among reformers.

jmldn2 said:

I'm not a scholar (far from it) of history of religion but I have never understood why the Christian world even is divided into "denominations." We are not saved because we are in a certain denomination

Click to expand...

Honestly, to me, it comes down to power, control and money. The first-century early church fundamentally rejected the pursuit of power, control, and money.Scripture records that early believers willingly sold their possessions and distributed the proceeds to anyone in need, ensuring that "nor was there anyone among them who lacked".

All through the centuries there were a remnant of believers who maintained the simplicity of His Good News but they were slowly slaughtered by the powers that be of the time. Additionally, with that power and greed came bad theology in order to maintain its control over the people. So split, after split, after split , occurred and still does today. Sadly, denominations have become a cottage industry.

Today, the only Church that has any authority here on earth is the one where Jesus Christ of Nazareth lives, in the believer. Fortunately, a denomination is not needed.

Sorry for being so candid.

Thanks for sharing!
Be blessed.

Divide and Conquer?

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Ephesians 6.12

Denominations I get. I think a more interesting question is why do we allow denomination affiliation choices to divide us?

Maria Billingsley said:

All through the centuries there were a remnant of believers who maintained the simplicity of His Good News but they were slowly slaughtered by the powers that be of the time.

Click to expand...

It amazes me that people still repeat this falsehood.

Maria Billingsley said:

Home churches, they are popping up everywhere.

Click to expand...

Home churches didn't just "pop up" in the 1st century. They were established after the Apostles had stayed with them for months, teaching them sound doctrine.

PloverWing said:

Sometimes, a Christian community is willing to tolerate a variety of beliefs and practices within its borders. But sometimes it is not, and then schisms occur.

Click to expand...

Actually, imposed liturgical changes have caused nearly all enduring schisms since the Chalcedon-adjacent schism (which occurred due to a political vendetta against Pope Dioscorus in which the Oriental Orthodox were falsely accused of being the Monophysite followers of Eutyches despite DIoscorus literally having anathematized Dioscorus) have either been related to or derived from imposed changes in worship, which was also a contributing factor in the Nestorian schism (Nestorius devised his warped Christology by borrowing from the some of the more problematic writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia in an attempt to justify having persecuted with violence those who used the phase “Theotokos” to describe the Blessed Virgin Mary, and thus the Council of Ephesus upheld that yes, St. Mary is the Mother of God since there is no way to separate Christ’s humanity from His divinity without rejecting the Incarnation and engaging in crypto-Arianism, with the subsequent Council of Chalcedon needed to clarify that we also cannot conflate, confuse, or declare Christ to be the result of a synthesis of humanity and deity, since that also does violence to the Incarnation - the Oriental Orthodox agree with this premise and while they are using the Miaphysite formulation, this is less different from the Chalcedonian formulation than one might think - specifically it boils down to one word, Chalcedon says Christ is in two natures and the OO say he is fully human and fully divine, from those two natures, while affirming that He is human and divine without change, confusion, separation or division. Indeed the main Christological hymn used to uphold Orthodoxy in the East, Ho Monogenes, was most likely written by St. Severus of Antioch.

Now Lutheranism was not over a liturgical divide primarily although it developed liturgical consequences, but subsequent schisms including the lamentable but largely healed Nikonian schism in the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Old Calendarist schism caused by the imposition of the Revised Julian Calendar on the Eastern Orthodox, and the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae caused a schism with the SSPX which recently became a hot schism again thanks to Leo XIV (there is an eerie correlation with Popes named Leo and schisms - Leo I was at Chalcedon and his Tome contributed to the confusion, Leo IX was the Pope who presided over the beginning of the schism with the Eastern Orthodox, Leo X can be regarded as bearing substantial responsibility for the Lutheran schism because while Pius V had the moral courage to reject the sale of indulgences at the Council of Trent, Leo X decided to just try to stamp out Luther with Exsurge Domine, and Leo XIII was Pope during the declaration of Papal Infallibility) - until the recent excommunication technically the SSPX was not schismatic thanks to the work towards reconciliation by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, which was initially continued by Pope Francis before opposition to him from traditional Catholics over an incident which if I recall was related to the Amazonian synod and which was regarded by traditionalists as idolatry presaged Traditionis Custodes, and then of course we have your own church’s schism in 1979 over the new BCP with the Continuing Anglicans, although that’s been an unusually friendly, very civilized schism, with, for example, the Episcopal Diocese of Las Vegas having very good relations with the local Anglican Province of Christ the King parish, whereas meanwhile I recall reading on the website of the Roman Catholic diocese of that city a warning about schismatic churches back in 2018 which included SSPX chapels despite the fact that at the time they were not excommunicate nor schismatic, officially at least. They are now however.

Relatively few schisms can be attributed to religious persecution by the government of a country - the Old Believer schism being a rare example.

Indeed a lack of an official state religion makes schism much easier, since in the US the First Amendment, which I support, guarantees the right of congregations to separate for any reason no matter how silly although the real estate can become a thorny entanglemenet.

prodromos said:

Home churches didn't just "pop up" in the 1st century. They were established after the Apostles had stayed with them for months, teaching them sound doctrine.

Click to expand...

And where possible, they became non-house churches. For example, the Cathedral of St. Thomas in Kerala, or the Holy Etchmiadzin Cathedral in Armenia, which are among the oldest in the world and in both cases predate the Edict of Milan.

prodromos said:

It amazes me that people still repeat this falsehood.

Click to expand...

Well in a sense its accurate if one identifies that remnant as being the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, which collectively, with occasional cooperation from the Church of the East, kept things together after the Roman Catholic Church embraced the ornate Scholastic theology which represented a departure from the much simpler Patristic model. The relative simplicity of Orthodox Patristic vs. Roman Scholastic theology is best demonstrated by comparing the length of the Fount of Knowledge of St. John of Damascus with the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas (He is among the Roman Catholic saints who I refuse to venerate as such due to his support for the Dominican participation in burning of heretics, which by the way was not an idea mentioned by St. Dominic Guzman, who I will venerate as a saint because his idea, of a mendicant order to preach to the Albigensians in an attempt to convert them, did not mention burning anyone, and indeed the formal name of the Dominicans translates to “Order of Preachers.”

Unfortunately the people who repeat that phrase are not using it as such, rather they’re using it to attack the Orthodox and all other traditional Christians by repeating one or more of what I think are best referred to as misunderstandings of the historical record (and we have a few of these, for example, that of the Landmark Baptists, another one found in “The Great Controversy” which is fairly similar but differs in the list of groups it seeks to enlist as proto-Sabbatarians, by for example including the Waldensians, despite there being no evidence of Sabbatarianism on their part, and the Albigensians despite there being no evidence of Christianity on the part of the Albigensians, unless one were to use a definition of Christianity other than that found on this site’s Statement of Faith, one inclusive of dualism, docetism and emanationism, and then an ad hominem is used to dismiss the evidence we do have about the latter, and an appeal to ignorance in the case of the former (where we do have documentation about what they believed before they willingly united themselves with the Calvinist movement, but it is scant, and worryingly contains a hint of Donatism, that is to say, of the belief that a righteous man is required to celebrate the Eucharist, which becomes a problem when one realizes that according to the New Testament only one Man is known to exist who could be regarded as entirely righteous and He also happened to be God.

seeking.IAM said:

Denominations I get. I think a more interesting question is why do we allow denomination affiliation choices to divide us?

Click to expand...

Because I would leave the Orthodox Church as would most of our members if we entered into communion with a church that denied the Trinity, denied the importance of the Trinity, rejected icons, performed gay marriage or otherwise departed from the pale of Orthodoxy.

That said ecumenical reconciliation is important and the EO and OO are getting very close to this, unfortunately the problem is that the excesses of the WCC and others have made some of our members, in both groups, justifiably twitchy about reconciliation, so the result is a very delicate process which I would describe as, for want of a suitable English phrase, θανατηφόρος ερωτοτροπία. And likewise I imagine a similar process to reconcile us with the Polish National Catholic Church, the Norwegian Catholic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East and/or the Ancient Church of the East, and the Continuing Anglicans, and the Evangelical Catholic Lutherans such as my friend @MarkRohfrietsch (the latter will involve some long and heated debates about monergism and the filioque but perhaps with enough high-quality beer and/or vodka both sides could get through it).

prodromos said:

Home churches didn't just "pop up" in the 1st century. They were established after the Apostles had stayed with them for months, teaching them sound doctrine.

Click to expand...

Now.