denominations tree

[A New Day]

Hi

Does anyone know about a time tree like below that shows more denominations?

Another thing that I see is that Methodism originated from Anglicanism?

Thank you

 

[Tangible]

Um, ELCA are only (roughly) one half to two thirds of all Lutherans in the US, and the rest are not in fellowship with the Episcopal church. Although the 95 theses were part of the beginning of the Reformation, they are not really very indicative of the doctrinal stance later taken by the reformers.

Also, modern Baptists originated within the Anglican church along with Methodists.

All in all, it's not a very good representation.

 

[Albion]

I agree that, while this particular diagram may be helpful to some people, it is quite selective about which church bodies are mentioned and also makes it look as though the line of descent from church to church is in the same category as the intercommunion agreements made recently between churches of entirely different backgrounds (ELCA & TEC; Anglican Communion and Old C's, for example).

Baptists, by the way, are normally said to descend from the Anabaptist movement on the continent. It's almost incidental that early converts to the Baptist congregations in England were, logically enough, drawn from the ranks of former members of the established church.

 

[PaladinValer]

Anglicanism includes The Episcopal Church, which is merely one of 38 interdependent provinces within Anglicanism.

If anything, Continuing bodies and the Reformed Episcopal Church should be depicted as schisms from Anglicanism.

Furthermore, Baptists are a type of Puritanism with (moderate to strong) Anabaptist influence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Specifically the earliest Baptists were part of an umbrella group known as the Non-Conformists. Non-Conformist was a term for anyone (well, any Protestant) in England who refused to conform to the Church of England really, and as such describes a lot of different groups with no real relation to one another. Baptists and Quakers are the two most well known. But technically can also refer to Presbyterians, Methodists, and others who simply didn't accept the 1662 Act of Uniformity.

Puritans are sometimes said to be Non-Conformists, but they are perhaps different in that they saw themselves as Anglicans who desired to bring the Church of England toward Calvinism. Some Non-Conformists can be described as Separatists, and it is this description that best describes, perhaps, the earliest Baptists.

The earliest Baptists are perhaps best described as England's Anabaptists, though the Baptist tradition began well after the established Anabaptist groups had existed on the Continent. Actual or substantial influence from the Continental Anabaptists upon the earliest English Baptists is and remains a matter of continued debate.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

If anything, Continuing bodies and the Reformed Episcopal Church should be depicted as schisms from Anglicanism.

Schisms from a church belonging to the "Anglican Communion," perhaps, but not schisms from Anglicanism, surely. Not unless one were to imagine that Anglicanism was born when that particular federation of churches was founded. BTW, it didn't exist at the time your province was founded.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I note no mention of other branches of 'eastern' (using the term in a geographic descriptive sense) churches. The Syriac and Coptic date from a time prior to Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official state church of Rome.

Nor am I convinced that all who are labelled as 'splitting' from the Roman Catholic Church were ever really part of the RCC. In earlier times, the Pope claimed jurisdiction over anyone who claimed the name of Jesus, but not all accepted that claim of jurisdiction.

Just for the record, I have no desire to re-fight old battles. I'll discuss history, but I will not partake in animus on the subject.

New Day, to answer your question, No. I know of no fully comprehensive 'tree' diagram or even text discussion of such nature. There is a pamphlet - booklet - called Trail of Blood, by James Carroll, published in 1931. It is written from a Baptist perspective and does not - ahem! - fully agree with the established Roman Catholic view of church history. It is a history of the Baptist movement.

Probably there are other such books by 'spokesmen' for various groups. Some are historical, some are less so.

If I may say so, I find such research pointless. I say this because I find 'who' was first in chronological order means much less than the accuracy of how a group presents the Bible and Biblical truth.

On the other hand, if you feel directed to such research, may God bless you in it.

 

[PaladinValer]

Schisms from a church belonging to the "Anglican Communion," perhaps, but not schisms from Anglicanism, surely.

No; schisms.

And I'd say the same about the Non-Jurors before they returned to the fold.

Not unless one were to imagine that Anglicanism was born when that particular federation of churches was founded. BTW, it didn't exist at the time your province was founded.

Not in name perhaps, but it did exist.

 

[Dave-W]

I noticed the little note "Disputed" by Wm Miller who started the Adventest/ SDA branch. He was not a Baptist but a holiness Methodist preacher/evangelist.

It would be interesting to see where the author of this tree would place Messianic Judaism.

 

[Dave-W]

Another thing that I see is that Methodism originated from Anglicanism?

Quite right. The Wesley brothers (John and Charles) were both devout Anglicans; John a priest and Charles an organist and hymn writer. The Methodist church they started in England was under the umbrella of the Anglican Church of England; and in the USA they established the Methodist Episcopal Church which had ties to the Episcopal church here at first. That name persisted into the 1960s when they joined the Evangelical United Brethern Church to form the United Methodist Church.

 

[Biblicist]

When it comes to the massive number of Pentecostals very few have their roots from within the Holiness Movement. The Charismatic congregations did not originate from the Pentecostal denominations but from the historical denominations where essentially they still remain.

A Pentecostal is someone who belongs to a denomination/congregation that originated within a Pentecostal theological framework, whereas a charismatic (neo-Pentecostals) originated or are still a part of a more traditional/historic denomination.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Typical western POV that ignores the fact that the Roman church was not all-encompassing before the Reformation, and therefore excludes a huge portion of the world's Christians, then and now.

Mary

 

[Albion]

Typical western POV that ignores the fact that the Roman church was not all-encompassing before the Reformation, and therefore excludes a huge portion of the world's Christians, then and now.

Mary

None of these kinds of charts is all that helpful IMO, but as for the omission of Eastern Orthodoxy from most of them, I'd put that off to something less disrespectful.

The purpose of these charts is to try to show where the proliferation of denominations IN the WESTERN church came from. Because not much of that happened in the Eastern church, it's easy to save space and leave it out.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

I didn't think of it as disrespectful. It makes me think that the creator of the chart didn't know any better than to lump the pre-reformation times into the RCC. That is often the view I've encountered here.

Mary

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hi

Does anyone know about a time tree like below that shows more denominations?

Another thing that I see is that Methodism originated from Anglicanism?

Thank you

This is absurd.

From 30 AD to roughly 313 AD, there was no denomination at all.

In the early 4th century, the Roman Empire founded a denomination FOR ITSELF - only for those parishes within the Empire. We'll stand back and witness the OOC, EOC and RCC all continue their irrelevant fight over which of them that was (personally, I don't think it was ANY of them but the proto to all of them - indeed, directly or indirectly, to most denominations).

That Roman Church split in 451, as the OOC was spun off. And while functionally the remainder became "united' only theoretically, it officially split in 1054. Of course, there were other unrelated denominations too. The western side (now often referred to as Roman Catholic) split itself again in 1521 as it spun off the Lutherans.

From it, others broke off. The Anglican Church soon thereafter (although it did not immediately become Protestant in theology, just a separate denomination). Calvin and his followers were soon kicked out, too - and the Reformed bodies were formed (Like Lutherans, never one denomination but rather a fairly loose community united by doctrine but not by denomination). Anabaptists also broke off a bit later in the 16th Century.


The chart is SO absurd at many points. For example, Luther never started any denomination at all. And there are today some 300 Lutheran denominations in the world (of which the ELCA, mentioned, is just one - and far from the largest). And the Reformed church is far, far, far larger than just the Presbyterian Church in the USA (which some would argue isn't even Reformed anymore).

It's a very inaccurate and unhistorical "chart."




I hope that helps.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Job8]

Does anyone know about a time tree like below that shows more denominations?

Your chart needs some revision:

PROTESTANTS = LUTHERANS + REFORMED + ANGLICANS/EPISCOPALIAN

NON-PROTESTANTS = ANABAPTISTS + BAPTISTS + BRETHREN + OTHERS

 

[Albion]

Your chart needs some revision:

PROTESTANTS = LUTHERANS + REFORMED + ANGLICANS/EPISCOPALIAN

NON-PROTESTANTS = ANABAPTISTS + BAPTISTS + BRETHREN + OTHERS

Religious researchers, historians, and statisticians classify all of the above as Protestant.

I say that with apologies to any church or group that has tried to make out that they are different from the Protestants that they disagree with. The truth is that they are simply Protestants who are not the same as those other Protestants, but they're all Protestants by definition, because they share the defining the differences.

 

[PaladinValer]

Your chart needs some revision:

PROTESTANTS = LUTHERANS + REFORMED + ANGLICANS/EPISCOPALIAN

NON-PROTESTANTS = ANABAPTISTS + BAPTISTS + BRETHREN + OTHERS

Hardly.

Anglicans/Episcopalians, as well as the schisms of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the ACNA, and the Continuing Churches (and +Mark Lawrence's schism qualifies as a schism from true Anglicanism too), are Catholic.

Lutherans are arguably either Catholic or Protestant, and a good case can be made for either.

Baptists are a schism of Puritanism, which was a schism of Anglicanism. They are Protestants. Anabaptists, which is part of the larger Radical Reformation, are also Protestants. The "Brethren" is actually four different groups just using the same title, and are all Protestants

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hardly.

Anglicans/Episcopalians, as well as the schisms of the Reformed Episcopal Church, the ACNA, and the Continuing Churches (and +Mark Lawrence's schism qualifies as a schism from true Anglicanism too), are Catholic.

Lutherans are arguably either Catholic or Protestant, and a good case can be made for either.

Baptists are a schism of Puritanism, which was a schism of Anglicanism. They are Protestants. Anabaptists, which is part of the larger Radical Reformation, are also Protestants. The "Brethren" is actually four different groups just using the same title, and are all Protestants

There are many, many varieties of Brethren. Even the Plymouth Brethren which originated in the Anglican Church have divided into at least twenty-eight denominations within two larger categorizations.

 

[PaladinValer]

There are many, many varieties of Brethren. Even the Plymouth Brethren which originated in the Anglican Church have divided into at least twenty-eight denominations within two larger categorizations.

They can, however, been categorized in the same Plymouth Brethren group. I wasn't attempting to be exhaustive.