Be fore I reply, let me say this first and foremost. Although I disagree with Catholicism, I respect their right to worship God in their own way.
I do, however, have problems with some of the teachings of the Catholic church.
I don't see denominations being a bad thing. There is evidence in scriptures that "denominations" came into existence around AD 47-50.
We see this, rather, we can gleen this from what came out of the first Apostolic Counsel as recorded in Acts 15.
From the "theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we read:
"The question of the Law first became an issue when the Apostles began their missionary journeys.
When they moved out to the Gentile world, more specifically the Gentile nations, there was so much conflict that the first Apostolic Council is recorded. With regards to this meeting, and the decision they came to, we can work best work out what the fundamental understanding of the Law was in the primitive community.
A problem that had existed from the Day of Pentecost was how to integrate Gentile believers into the church. Apparently, Paul taught his Gentile converts that they did not need to submit to the Law in order to be members in good standing, a point which not all agreed on. Pauls first missionary journey took him from Jerusalem to Antioch to Galatia and back to Jerusalem which led to the first Apostolic Council meeting. As in Pauls day, there were a group of people who are commonly called legalists. Of whom believed that not only was a belief in God required, but also a strict observance to the Law of Moses was required.
According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Pauls gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word important thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.
The second point is equally certain, namely, that practical questions over and above the unanimity of principle was not so fully cleared up as to make impossible the dispute at Antioch as Paul describes it in
Galatians 2. To understand this passage it should be noted that neither directly nor indirectly does Paul have any word of censure from James. The concrete question is whether and how far those born Jew may live together in fellowship with Gentile Christians who do not keep the Law. In particular, can they have fellowship with them at table and in the Lords Supper? For if they do, they necessarily surrender essential parts of the strict observance of the Law. The measure of clarity reached thus far was simply that purely Gentile Christian churches were free from the Law with the consent of the primitive community, and purely Jewish Christian churches should keep the Law with the consent of Paul.
The findings of the Apostolic Council, then, are that the Law is not to be kept as though one could be righteous by its observance, that faith in Jesus brings salvation to both Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Law is still binding on Jews. On this basis, it seems that the separation of Gentile and Jewish evangelization (Gal. 2:7) had to be accepted by both Paul and the primitive as necessary and appropriate.
c. But this raises the question of why Jewish Christians were obliged to keep the Law. The main reason is concern for the possibility of the Jewish mission. The preaching of Jesus as the Christ of scripture could not be believed by Jews if His followers left the Law of God. That Paul could agree with this view is shown beyond any question in 1 Cor. 9:20. He neither demands nor makes any demonstration of his freedom from the Law which might consist in transgression of the Law.
d. From the basic and practical decision of the primitive community in these matters we may work out its understanding of the Law during the preceding period. The actual commitment to the Law was not monism in the sense that fulfillment of the Law w regarded as a presupposition of belonging to the Messianic kingdom. On the contrary, it regarded observance of the Law as the obedience concretely required of it as this people - an obedience which it had also to render for loves sake in the service of the Gospel. What constituted the community and separated it from others, however, was not a specific understanding of the Law but faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Historically speaking, it is probable that the Synoptic accounts of Jesus attitude to the Law are correct and that fundamentally the primitive community took its attitude to the Law from Jesus Himself.
e. Further developments in the primitive community is also to be understood in light of the conflicts, motives, and decisions brought to light in the first Apostolic Council and the events relating to it. The radical party, traditionally called the Judaizers, insisted that in spite of the councils decision, circumcision and the Law must be laid on Gentile Christians, since otherwise they could not enjoy salvation or belong to the community of Christ. They evidently propagated this view with zeal, especially in the Pauline churches, though it is open to question whether the situation presupposed in Rome can be explained by Judaising propaganda.
f. Distinct from the position of the Judaizers is that of James, Peter, and the community controlled by them, who seem to have kept essentially to the lines laid down by the Apostolic Council. This certainly corresponds to the depiction of James in Acts 21:148, and it is confirmed by the account of his death in Josephus. In regards to Peter, it is best to assume that he returned to the position of the Apostolic Council and James after accepting the view of Paul for a period in Antioch. Certainly the attempt to make Peter a champion of the Judaizers lacks enough exegetical support in the available sources and it suffers from intrinsic improbability.
As concerning the understanding of the Law in normative circles of primitive Christianity, it may thus be said that they regarded the Law as the obedience to be rendered by Jewish Christians. They were also conscious of being under this obligation for the sake of winning the Jewish world for the Gospel. They did not believe that by achieving this obedience man could attain to righteousness before God.
They were prepared to extend brotherly fellowship to Gentile Christians even though the latter did not keep the Law. In mixed congregations, Gentile Christians were obliged to observe such points as would make fellowship of Jewish Christians with them defensible in the eyes of the Jewish world."
TDNT, pp 1068-69
In the first century, there were in most respects, two "denominations". One comprised of Jewish Christians who kept at least part of the OT law, and Gentile Christians who kept very very little of the OT law.
Some 300 years later, the question of denominations came to the forefront again in the issue of the Donatists and "baptism".
John Calvin later on gives us a testimony that one of our "denominations" today can trace their roots back to the Donatists.
John Calvin called the Anabaptists the "neo-donatists".
"In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers.
The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1200 years before the Reformation."
Are Baptists Reformed? Because of what Baptists Believe about Church and State, Lawrence Justice
We can safely say that "denominations" have been around since at least the time of the First Apostolic Counsel.
God Bless
Till all are one.
