30,000 denominations Argument

[Carrye]

And also use raised bread for the Eucharist

This is again one of those "sometimes" answers. Not all Eastern rites use raised bread for consecration, but some do.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Of course, but when all the chips are down they are still Baptists, Presbys, Catholics, Lutherans, etc.

diane

When the chips are all down, just like the rites of the Catholic church we are all protestants or just plain born again christians.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

I don't want to foment division. Actually, I think today this is becoming more and more true, but we have to admit that historically, denominational splits among protestants have usually happened because of a difference in belief one group was so important that they could no longer fellowship with anyone who disagreed. I think the point of the 30,000/8,000 denominations argument is that protestants tend to have difficulty deciding which issues are important enough to break fellowship, and tend to err on the side of excessive schism.

I don't see denominational splits as "breaking fellowship"-most major Protestant denominations see the others as Christian and invite Christians of all denominations to the Lord's Table (though there are exceptions to open communion). IMO, it is those denominations who have closed communion policies that are breaking fellowship with their brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Diane

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I don't see denominational splits as "breaking fellowship"-most major Protestant denominations see the others as Christian and invite Christians of all denominations to the Lord's Table (though there are exceptions to open communion).Diane

I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters. IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes. Or was that just your opinion Liz?

 

[SumTinWong]

That is the article that I am talking about. This article linked above doesn't have a RC rebuttal correct?

diane

Actually that is the second article withan RC rebuttal in it.

 

[SumTinWong]

As far as I can see, this is a fact, and we should acknowledge and confess it, rather than quibble about the numbers used to illustrate the argument.

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

 

[SumTinWong]

I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters. IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes. Or was that just your opinion Liz?

I think there are major differences, but they keys are the same. The reormed church taught predestination while many of us do not. There are some protestant churches that teach "real" presence of sorts while we do not, and they have infant baptisms, when we do not. That is different than what robes or the liturgy changes.

I think that is what Liz was trying to say anyway.

 

[Diane_Windsor]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

You said it much better than I could have!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

Do protestant denominations, in fact, keep splitting?

Is a poor estimate of the actual number of splits a lie?

 

[Crazy Liz]

I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters.

So you are saying Christians who baptize babies are not your brothers and sisters? They are not part of the same one body?

IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes.

I don't know what you mean by a denominational split being "valid." could you explain?

Or was that just your opinion Liz?

The different rites did not split from each other over their differences. They view their differences as minor variations that can be tolerated, like different colors of robes. Their liturgical traditions vary, like two Baptist churches where one uses choir robes and the other doesn't, or one takes the offering before the sermon and one after, and one observes communion monthly and the other quarterly. The differences in rites make as much differences to Catholics as that.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

So you are saying Christians who baptize babies are not your brothers and sisters? They are not part of the same one body?

.

Infant baptism NOR baptism does not make someone IN the body of Christ. Its not a biblical teaching. This is a whole other topic.
GEL

 

[Crazy Liz]

Infant baptism NOR baptism does not make someone IN the body of Christ. Its not a biblical teaching. This is a whole other topic.
GEL

Actually, I don't think so. The topic is what causes protestant denominations to split off from each other, or restrains church splits.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

I agree.
Throwing around an unsubstantiated statistic loosely with no effort to verify isn't exactly telling the truth though I do not believe there is the intent to lie, per se.

And as I wrote earlier, not all "splits" are over doctrine. Technically, the American Baptists and the Southern Baptists never "split" from each other, but simply developed conferences that independent churches joined. And then each conference started more churches.

I do not see that the number of denominations is such a big issue it can be made out to be..

 

[Crazy Liz]

Technically, the American Baptists and the Southern Baptists never "split" from each other

Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html

One is hard pressed to argue with that.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html

NO, they didn't, Liz. Go back and read that better. Do you see that ALL - as in every single Baptist church in America was united in one denomination, in one conference, in the 1770's? They weren't. There were already those that were Calvinists and those that were not. Regular vs. General. They arose in the reformation differently. AND the conferences didn't form until the 1800's. Didn't you read what I wrote? The American Baptists are a conference, Liz. The churches of the SBC never belonged to the ABC. They formed separately.
The purpose of their forming was to promote missions. Other Baptist groups also formed associations.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Hmmm. I have been mis-informed somewheres about Baptist history then, as I thought a major contention was over the issue of slavery. The SBC unless im mistaken, formed in 1845 a few years before the civil war. Slavery had nothing to do with it, it was just missions?

 

[FreeinChrist]

The churches were alighned only in a missions society, not a denominational structure with president, etc. Yes, the focus was missions and the issue of slavery caused concern from the south that certain missionaries were not recieving monetary support.
So the SBC was formed.
I do not see this as a split because it was only a separation for a cooperative mission society.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ahhh... I thought I accidently erased this reply and so made the short one above....here is a better reply.


Slavery was an issue that helped lead to the formation of the SBC....but the SBC did not 'split'. There was a rather loose network (Mission society) of before that, and churches remained autonomous. This is from the site provided:


By 1790, liberty for Baptists had been won and they now began to organize and expand. At this time Baptists organized missionary societies to spread the Christian lifestyle to others. It was these mission societies that led to other organizational structures that would eventually define and make a denomination of Southern Baptists. In 1814, a convention for organizing the first national Baptist missionary society was held in Philadelphia. 10 .

"Camp meetings" held in the Kentucky and Tennessee frontiers laid the foundation for the denomination in the South. These "camp meetings" were simply places where Baptists spread their beliefs. Strong appeal and evangelistic activity spurred growth for the Baptists during the nineteenth century, especially in the south. 11 .

By the 1830's tension began to mount between the Northern and Southern Baptists. Baptists in the South were embracing slavery because it was the core of their social and economic order. Baptists of the North were saying that God would not condone treating one race as superior to another while Southerners said that God intended for races to be separate. In around 1835, the Southern states began complaining that they weren't receiving money for mission work.

In 1844 the issues of missionary work and slavery came to a peak. The Home Mission Society gave a statement saying that a person could not be a missionary and wish to keep his slaves as property. This caused the Home Mission Society to separate northern and southern divisions. As a result of this the Baptists in the south met in May of 1845 and organized the Southern Baptist Convention . 12 . The first annual convention of the Southern Baptists was held in 1845. In this convention the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board were established. The purpose of each board is still to "the propagation of the gospel," with one board focusing on national issues and the other on foreign issues. 13 .


The focus was on missions and spreading the gospel. The formation of the SBC had a lot to do with concerns about which missionaries received monetary support and then formed.I don't see this as a denominational "split" as they were networked only for the purpose of missions, and each church remained autonomous.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

ahhh... I thought I accidently erased this reply and so made the short one above....here is a better reply.


Slavery was an issue that helped lead to the formation of the SBC....but the SBC did not 'split'. There was a rather loose network (Mission society) of before that, and churches remained autonomous. This is from the site provided:


By 1790, liberty for Baptists had been won and they now began to organize and expand. At this time Baptists organized missionary societies to spread the Christian lifestyle to others. It was these mission societies that led to other organizational structures that would eventually define and make a denomination of Southern Baptists. In 1814, a convention for organizing the first national Baptist missionary society was held in Philadelphia. 10 .

"Camp meetings" held in the Kentucky and Tennessee frontiers laid the foundation for the denomination in the South. These "camp meetings" were simply places where Baptists spread their beliefs. Strong appeal and evangelistic activity spurred growth for the Baptists during the nineteenth century, especially in the south. 11 .

By the 1830's tension began to mount between the Northern and Southern Baptists. Baptists in the South were embracing slavery because it was the core of their social and economic order. Baptists of the North were saying that God would not condone treating one race as superior to another while Southerners said that God intended for races to be separate. In around 1835, the Southern states began complaining that they weren't receiving money for mission work.

In 1844 the issues of missionary work and slavery came to a peak. The Home Mission Society gave a statement saying that a person could not be a missionary and wish to keep his slaves as property. This caused the Home Mission Society to separate northern and southern divisions. As a result of this the Baptists in the south met in May of 1845 and organized the Southern Baptist Convention . 12 . The first annual convention of the Southern Baptists was held in 1845. In this convention the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board were established. The purpose of each board is still to "the propagation of the gospel," with one board focusing on national issues and the other on foreign issues. 13 .


The focus was on missions and spreading the gospel. The formation of the SBC had a lot to do with concerns about which missionaries received monetary support and then formed.I don't see this as a denominational "split" as they were networked only for the purpose of missions, and each church remained autonomous.

Fascinating. At least I wasnt completly wrong . What ever became of the southern baptist view of slavery after this?