curious

[Dark_Lite]

But, regardless, what does it matter if it is 1, 2, or "40,000" (I think that number is blown far out of proportion - it's really not fair to count all the various national churches as separate, even if they are in fellowship with each other, and yet clump all the Orthodox together)?

The division rate of Protestantism is much higher than in any of the apostolic churches. Speaking from my point of view, the Catholic Church has seen the following schisms which persist to this day:
1. Oriental Orthodox
2. Eastern Orthodox
3. Protestantism from the Reformation
4. Old Catholics/Independent Catholics
5. Sedevacantists (people who think the chair of St. Peter is empty, so they elect their own Pope)

The Orthodox have seen the following schisms:
1. Old Calendarists
2. There's another fairly modern group that I can't remember the name of

The above list of the splinters of the apostolic churches is not meant to be complete; I may have missed a few. But it still remains that there is far more division within Protestantism than the apostolic churches (including Anglicanism). This is also not counting national churches.

Within Protestantism, the three main groups were the Lutherans, the Calvinists/Reformed, and the Anglicans. Lutherans have split into at least LCMS and ELCA in the modern era, Anglicanism has splintered into Methodism as well as a number of other Anglican-esque independent denominations. Methodism itself has splintered into Wesleyanism, Church of the Nazarene, and United Methodism. The Reformed churches have given rise to all kinds of different groups. There were also groups such as the Anabaptists which gave rise to their own child groups.

I agree that 40,000 is a rather large number--but whatever the actual number is, it is certainly not small.

 

[JeannieLee]

That is simply not true. There were always fringe groups splitting off, and there was a major schism before the Great Schism of 1054 - have you ever heard of the Chalcedonian controversy and the Oriental Orthodox? And even before that was the Nestorian split.

There isn't going to be a re-unification of East and West for at least another 200 years, because the Orthodox will not accept many of the Catholic dogmas about the Pope. That was, after all, one of the major reasons for the break.

But, regardless, what does it matter if it is 1, 2, or "40,000" (I think that number is blown far out of proportion - it's really not fair to count all the various national churches as separate, even if they are in fellowship with each other, and yet clump all the Orthodox together)? If one schism is one too many, than there should be no pointing of fingers - speck and log and all that.

I'm talking about Christianity, the Oriental Orthodox denied the Divinity of Jesus.. They aren't considered Christians but heretics, they believe that Jesus was a man chosen by God, not God himself..

There where soooo many heresies all throughout history but they where all contradicting to Christianity, but the difference between Eastern Orthodox is the fact that they where Christians and had a valid Bishop and therefor have valid Sacraments.. We are more in union still today with the Eastern Orthodox Church than any other Church in the World..

The split was more than just about Papal Authority, it was in reference to theological and doctrinal issues too.. They didn't agree with the Pope, and they would not stay in line with the Papal teaching so one person was excommunicated and then someone else was, and this and then that, and it all came to a stupid point of no reconciliation.. It is something truly stupid that never should have happened, and it is time to reconcile..

 

[JeannieLee]

A conservative estimate in 2001 states 33,000 and counting, so I say and always say near 40,000 and this is throughout the World.. I don't think it is far fetched at all, especially through the insane amount of growth and change in Christianity within the last couple of years.. Before it was just branches off of branches, but now a lot of them claim no relations to any religions.. There has been especially an over flow of new church's claiming to be the one and only true church and faith.. And then there have been the new movement of church's accepting homosexual priests, and has caused more separations.. It is never ending, church's are coming out of the wood work!!

 

[sfs]

I'm talking about Christianity, the Oriental Orthodox denied the Divinity of Jesus.. They aren't considered Christians but heretics, they believe that Jesus was a man chosen by God, not God himself..

The Oriental Orthodox did not, and do not, deny the divinity of Jesus. They were accused of being Monophysites, that is, holding that Jesus' human nature was absorbed by his divine nature (although they themselves deny holding that exact position), but that is hardly the same thing. It's possible you're thinking of the Nestorian churches, represented today by the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches, but they didn't deny Jesus' divinity either.

There where soooo many heresies all throughout history but they where all contradicting to Christianity,

There were many, many disagreements within Christianity throughout history. Both sides usually called themselves orthodox and the other heterodox. Generally, the larger side or the one with better access to state power got to keep the "orthodox" label. Some of those disagreements have since been recognized as pointless disputes over trivia or over terminology (e.g. the reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox).

 

[Willtor]

All this is kind of derailing the thread, but since it looks like the OP is gone, I guess he won't mind.

I think that Dark_Lite's list of schisms is good inasmuch as it lists orthodox (little "o," broad orthodoxy, not necessarily East vs. West) schisms. But the churches with episcopal polity have had far more schisms than this, if you include heretical sects.

I don't know whether to believe the 33,000 number. There are, e.g., independent Baptist churches. Are each of those counted individually? That wouldn't seem right. What about various "non-denominational" churches? Are they each separate? I don't dispute that there is a multiplying of denominations, but I worry that well-intentioned people/organizations distort figures to make a point. I question, for example, in what sense the 2001 study was conservative? JeannieLee, I assume it self-identified as conservative, but what did that mean to them?

 

[Dark_Lite]

All this is kind of derailing the thread, but since it looks like the OP is gone, I guess he won't mind.

I think that Dark_Lite's list of schisms is good inasmuch as it lists orthodox (little "o," broad orthodoxy, not necessarily East vs. West) schisms. But the churches with episcopal polity have had far more schisms than this, if you include heretical sects.

This is why I included the "persist to this day" qualifier. Many of the heretical sects that have split off over the years have been suppressed or otherwise ended. Some might see that as a victory for truth. One must also take into account the length of Christian history for each group. Protestantism has been around for ~500 years. Apostolic Christianity has been around for ~2,000 years.

 

[Willtor]

This is why I included the "persist to this day" qualifier. Many of the heretical sects that have split off over the years have been suppressed or otherwise ended. Some might see that as a victory for truth. One must also take into account the length of Christian history for each group. Protestantism has been around for ~500 years. Apostolic Christianity has been around for ~2,000 years.

Point taken. But I wonder if, once Protestantism has been around for 2,000 years, how many of today's denominations will still exist. Further, I wonder how many of the sects of the first 1,500 years would be around today if the movable-type printing press had existed since the time of Christ.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Point taken. But I wonder if, once Protestantism has been around for 2,000 years, how many of today's denominations will still exist.

Only time will tell.

Further, I wonder how many of the sects of the first 1,500 years would be around today if the movable-type printing press had existed since the time of Christ.

Probably all of the major ones would still be around. The printing press didn't put that big of a dent in any religion, though some will argue that it spurred on the Reformation. It's probably true to an extent--but the Catholic Church weathered through that so it would probably have weathered through it if the printing press was invented earlier.

 

[gluadys]

I don't know whether to believe the 33,000 number. There are, e.g., independent Baptist churches. Are each of those counted individually? That wouldn't seem right. What about various "non-denominational" churches? Are they each separate? I don't dispute that there is a multiplying of denominations, but I worry that well-intentioned people/organizations distort figures to make a point. I question, for example, in what sense the 2001 study was conservative? JeannieLee, I assume it self-identified as conservative, but what did that mean to them?

In a census each corporate body is counted separately and that does inflate the figures. In my home city there were about an equal number of United Church of Canada congregations and Baptist congregations, but because of the different polities, all the UCC congregations would be counted as one denomination while each of the Baptist ones (except the two that were Convention Baptists) would be counted separately to make seven denominations.

History sometimes divides denominations for reasons that are not doctrinal (at least not any more). Many American denominations split along the Mason-Dixon line in the 19th century and few have reunited. The issue at the time, of course, was slavery. Now it is more a cultural split though there is also a tendency for the southern denominations to be more conservative than the northern ones.

Approximately 95% of American Protestants belong the the 5 largest denominations. It is in the last 5% that most of the splintering occurs.

So, to me, it is more accurate to think in terms of traditions: but one will always dispute where to place the boundaries.

Here is my suggestion:

Lutheran/Anglican
Methodist/Wesleyan (includes groups such as Salvation Army, Church of the Nazarene, etc.)
Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian
Anabaptist/Baptist/Congregational (I would also put most independent or non-denominational groups here because although they are legally distinct they hold to such Baptist distinctives as believer's baptism and congregational polity. One might also place Pentecostal churches here for the same reason.)

The last group seems to be the most splintered, but that is largely because of the congregational-style of internal organization that does not recognize regional/national bodies as authoritative in respect to local congregations.

There are also some heterodox groups (LDS, JWs 7th-day, etc.) but as noted such heterodox groups exist in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions as well.

 

[JeannieLee]

The Oriental Orthodox did not, and do not, deny the divinity of Jesus. They were accused of being Monophysites, that is, holding that Jesus' human nature was absorbed by his divine nature (although they themselves deny holding that exact position), but that is hardly the same thing. It's possible you're thinking of the Nestorian churches, represented today by the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches, but they didn't deny Jesus' divinity either.

There were many, many disagreements within Christianity throughout history. Both sides usually called themselves orthodox and the other heterodox. Generally, the larger side or the one with better access to state power got to keep the "orthodox" label. Some of those disagreements have since been recognized as pointless disputes over trivia or over terminology (e.g. the reconciliation between Roman Catholics and Oriental Orthodox).

Your right, my bad bad bad.. I must have mistaken their dispute on the divinity of Jesus.. I guess it was more their ideas of Jesus' human and divine natures.. Thank you for kindly correcting me..

 

[JeannieLee]

All this is kind of derailing the thread, but since it looks like the OP is gone, I guess he won't mind.

I think that Dark_Lite's list of schisms is good inasmuch as it lists orthodox (little "o," broad orthodoxy, not necessarily East vs. West) schisms. But the churches with episcopal polity have had far more schisms than this, if you include heretical sects.

I don't know whether to believe the 33,000 number. There are, e.g., independent Baptist churches. Are each of those counted individually? That wouldn't seem right. What about various "non-denominational" churches? Are they each separate? I don't dispute that there is a multiplying of denominations, but I worry that well-intentioned people/organizations distort figures to make a point. I question, for example, in what sense the 2001 study was conservative? JeannieLee, I assume it self-identified as conservative, but what did that mean to them?

What I mean, by conservative is, just that.. Like the one Wikipedia did was 38,000 and they claimed that to be those under different doctrines, and then separated things that shouldn't have been separated..

 

[Willtor]

Only time will tell.



Probably all of the major ones would still be around. The printing press didn't put that big of a dent in any religion, though some will argue that it spurred on the Reformation. It's probably true to an extent--but the Catholic Church weathered through that so it would probably have weathered through it if the printing press was invented earlier.

To be sure. I don't mean to suggest that the Catholic Church would not have weathered whatever circumstances, just as it actually did with the invention of the printing press and widespread literacy. I mean to suggest that there are a number of groups that would probably still be with us, too, if those things had been around earlier. I also want to point out that any of the Reformation denominations might argue that they have "weathered" the splintering/faction-ing.

 

[Willtor]

What I mean, by conservative is, just that.. Like the one Wikipedia did was 38,000 and they claimed that to be those under different doctrines, and then separated things that shouldn't have been separated..

Okay. So it wouldn't have done what the studies Gluadys pointed to did? That number still surprises me. I don't know that I could identify that many meaningful permutations of doctrines that people find important.

 

[shernren]

Okay. So it wouldn't have done what the studies Gluadys pointed to did? That number still surprises me. I don't know that I could identify that many meaningful permutations of doctrines that people find important.

All you need to do is find 15 minor doctrinal propositions to which a Christian might answer "yes" or "no", poll a large sample, and then put every different answer into a separate bin. Voila! You've just created 2^15 = 32768 denominations. From thin air.

 

[Willtor]

All you need to do is find 15 minor doctrinal propositions to which a Christian might answer "yes" or "no", poll a large sample, and then put every different answer into a separate bin. Voila! You've just created 2^15 = 32768 denominations. From thin air.

That was my first thought, but many doctrinal views are connected. It isn't like throwing pennies in the air. E.g., if someone (today) believes that Jesus is God incarnate, (s)he is likely to believe in the virgin birth and a literal resurrection. Further, divisive as people are, I don't think people will divide over most points. For those who believe in a rapture, they may argue over when the rapture happens (w.r.t. the tribulation) but I've never heard of anybody dividing over it.

 

[shernren]

That was my first thought, but many doctrinal views are connected. It isn't like throwing pennies in the air. E.g., if someone (today) believes that Jesus is God incarnate, (s)he is likely to believe in the virgin birth and a literal resurrection. Further, divisive as people are, I don't think people will divide over most points. For those who believe in a rapture, they may argue over when the rapture happens (w.r.t. the tribulation) but I've never heard of anybody dividing over it.

Maybe here's another way to look at it: every denominational split is (at least) binary; assume that over time, half of our denominations split while half don't; assume for great simplicity that splits are roughly synchronous (any splits that occur will occur at about the same time). Thus at every "split" would increase the number of denominations by a factor of 1.5. If 25 splits occurred, the number of denominations would go from 1 to 2 x 1.5^24 = 33688 in 2000 years (the first "2" is because the first church split must have been binary!), giving on average one split every 80 years. That seems a little high, but still plausibly explicable by the general fractiousness of the human race.

 

[Willtor]

Maybe here's another way to look at it: every denominational split is (at least) binary; assume that over time, half of our denominations split while half don't; assume for great simplicity that splits are roughly synchronous (any splits that occur will occur at about the same time). Thus at every "split" would increase the number of denominations by a factor of 1.5. If 25 splits occurred, the number of denominations would go from 1 to 2 x 1.5^24 = 33688 in 2000 years (the first "2" is because the first church split must have been binary!), giving on average one split every 80 years. That seems a little high, but still plausibly explicable by the general fractiousness of the human race.

It's far more frequent division than that, though, if you only consider surviving groups, and only for the last 500 years (since Protestantism; ignoring Dark_Lite's list of Catholic/Orthodox denominations that are basically a drop in the bucket). In your model with that in mind, we're talking about splits in which both sides survive _every_ 21 years! That's less than a generation!

 

[Siyha]

That was my first thought, but many doctrinal views are connected. It isn't like throwing pennies in the air. E.g., if someone (today) believes that Jesus is God incarnate, (s)he is likely to believe in the virgin birth and a literal resurrection. Further, divisive as people are, I don't think people will divide over most points. For those who believe in a rapture, they may argue over when the rapture happens (w.r.t. the tribulation) but I've never heard of anybody dividing over it.

The Christian and Missionary Alliance was originally a ministry, not a denomination. One of the initial coniditions for entering into the Christian and Missionary Alliance before it became a denomination was a pre-millenial view. They had to drop pre-millenial because people were refusing to join the mission, or even leaving it.

People divide over everything.

 

[Willtor]

The Christian and Missionary Alliance was originally a ministry, not a denomination. One of the initial coniditions for entering into the Christian and Missionary Alliance before it became a denomination was a pre-millenial view. They had to drop pre-millenial because people were refusing to join the mission, or even leaving it.

People divide over everything.

Touche.

I still doubt that all combinations exist for any reasonably large set of doctrines.

 

[Siyha]

Touche.

I still doubt that all combinations exist for any reasonably large set of doctrines.

I have no idea where the argument is at in this thread or what anyone is saying. I was just skimming and saw your post on the rapture, thought I'd be cantankerous about it