Denominations: why

[Marilyn C]

Denominations were bred from failed end times hysteria.

Why denominations?


How does the Body of Christ Mature.

The Apostle Paul gave the early disciples the whole counsel of God. They were taught the full revelation of Christ, His character and His purposes.

`For I (Paul) have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.` (Acts 20: 27)

Here is a summary of the main truths, then the errors that came in and finally the restoring of those truths through the centuries.

1. Ministry gifts (Eph. 4: 11) - Bishops were substituted. (AD 110)
2. Holy Spirit infilling and gifts - Formalisation of worship. (3rd C)
3. Holiness - Amalgamation of Church and State. (AD 323)
4. Baptism for believers - Infant Sprinkling. (6th C)
5. Justification by Faith - Penance Indulgence. (AD 1063 / Dark Ages)
6. Reformation, Lutheran - Justification by Faith. (1517)
7. Baptist - Full Immersion. (1608)
8. Methodist - Holiness. (1738)
9. Pentecostal - Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. (1906)
10. Apostolic - Christ`s ministries (Eph. 4: 11) (1916) & the Eternal Purposes.

Christ`s ministries, (apostle, prophet, teacher, pastor, evangelist) develop the believers and the whole Body into spiritual maturity and understanding. They stimulate the perfecting of the `Christ life` and promote the function and ministry of each member in the Body.


When Christ ascended `He gave some (people) to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ,

Till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ......may grow up in all things into Him who is the head - Christ.` (Eph. 4: 11 - 15)

 

[parousia70]

So, when did the last days end for Christians? According to my pretorist friends the last days ended in 70 A. D. when Jesus Christ returned to reign on earth and ushered in His millennial kingdom.

Let’s start with correcting your misunderstanding on when they began, shall we? You say they begin at Pentecost, yet, According to Hebrews 1:1-2 they were already underway during Christ’s earthly ministry:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

I trust you’ll amend your incorrect view on when the last days began, to match the scriptural testimony.

Next, Your preterist friends are in good company with you, a fellow preterist.

All Christians are preterist, we only vary by degree. You yourself agree that at least some last days prophecy was fulfilled in the first century. Only preterists believe that.
Welcome to the club!

Lastly, let’s address your question.

It is a biblical fact that the apostles and Jesus were born in the Old Testament Age. This age was marked by the Temple/tabernacle, the blood animal sacrifices, circumcision, the tribal system, and the priesthood of Aaron -- all of which vanished at AD 70 when Jesus' prophecy took place:

He approached Jerusalem, He saw the city and wept over it, saying, "If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:41-44)

Some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." They questioned Him, saying, "Teacher, when therefore will these things happen? And what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" (Luke 21:5-7)

Jesus, while on earth, had very specific enemies, as did the apostles. These were the Jewish leaders. About these enemies, and to them, Jesus said:
"You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment...behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city; that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar. Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I would have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. (Matthew 23:33-38).

This prediction of the destruction of Christ's enemies is repeated at Matthew 21:40-45, where Jesus says he is the Cornerstone that will fall on them and crush them to pieces (Mt 21:44-45). This was FULFILLED at AD 70, plain and simple. Indeed, all the righteous blood ever shed on the earth fell on them for killing Christ and the apostles, exactly as stated and right on time.

Again, if the "last days" just means "thousands of years" generically, As you infer, then the whole phrase has no meaning in and of itself. Rather, the phrase was understood to signify the end of some age -- namely, the Mosaic Age. The O.T. prophets all looked forward to the time of Messiah which was to end the Age of Moses as Law giver (Acts 3:22-24). Matthew 24:3's "end of the age" was spoken during the Mosaic Age even before Jesus had announced the New Covenant. So the phrase "the Last Days" means the Last Days of the Old Covenant Age -- AD 30 to AD 70.

For sure, the AD 70 Day of the Lord was executed by Christ the Lord God. Jesus said he was the Stone that crushed them (Matt 21:40-45). Jesus said they were to suffer that fate because they insulted God's Visitation (Lk 19:40-44). Jesus said those were the Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:20-22).

To be absolutely clear, none of this means Christ isn't going to judge nations again, now or at the end of time. Indeed he does judge nations today and will have a final judgment.

However, The timing and details of that event have not been revealed to men. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

At the very least, I hope this exercise will also give you pause before you paint us Catholics with the broad “I know scriptural study isn’t important to you” brush.

I’ll happily compare my zeal for scriptural knowledge and understanding to that of any Protestant, such as you, who cares to challenge me on it.
As it is already apparent I’ve had to provide you the opportunity to bring your incorrect, incomplete views in line with the actual scriptural teaching, it would appear you have some brushing up to do yourself.

 

[Marc Perry]

The reason and formation of denominations. What’s your take on it. Why do they exist? Is this something that God orchestrated or is this something conceived from man?

I'm not an expert on church history, but I'll give you my best idea.

It seems like the early church held a wide diversity of ideas depending on where they lived. And they had no problems with this. They all still considered themselves as followers of 'The Way' and didn't see a diversity of views, and sometimes a diversity in what they considered inspired texts, as something that divided them. They were united by a shared faith. There are some exceptions of course (looking at you Ignatius Theophorus) and you should only take what I just said with a grain of salt since so many Christian books from this era were lost or burned (looking at you medieval church) that there isn't a good basis to know what really happened.

Years later the church needed to start developing more philosophically in order to defend themselves against the pagan philosophers. The most famous defense came from Origen in 'Contra Celsum'. It was a detailed response against a philosophical attack from Celsus. Unfortunately, Celsus' original book has been lost to history (looking at you again medieval church). What's interesting, though, is that Origen was arguably the most educated person in the Roman empire and was connected to leaders throughout the Christian world, yet his writings are full of uncertainty. In other writings he always talks about 'maybe this', 'perhaps this', and so forth. My favorite quote of his says something like, "It is a sign of stupidity to claim to know something that is unknown".

This way of thinking caught on and people began thinking more like Greeks and focused on developing the 'philosophical' backbone of Christianity. This came to its undisputed climax with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine was very brilliant and a good philosopher, so his ideas gained a lot of traction. The issue with philosophy, though, is that it necessarily leads to divisions when someone takes a hard view rather than looking at them as 'Schools of Thought'. The church was forced to take a hard view at the Council of Nicea (which largely featured Augustine's ideas) and this naturally caused a division with those who weren't predisposed to indiscriminately support those ideas. After all, there were competing philosophies.

I can keep going, but I think you get the spirit of what I'm saying here. My point is that division comes from people taking hard views on irrelevant(*) issues rather than focusing on the only thing that really matters, faith in God through Christ Jesus our lord.

*(can't think of the right word here for what I'm trying to express here)

 

[parousia70]

You may find this helpful

I would find it helpful if you chose to stick to scripture, instead of appealing to extra an biblical authority that You don’t find authoritative anyway.

2nd time I’ve asked.

Any chance you’ll oblige?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

You’re kidding, right?
Luther absolutely believed - falsely - that the pope was the end times Antichrist, And was so convinced he was living in the end of days that he even believed - again, falsely -that the end would come before he had finished translating the Old Testament.
RESEARCH: Martin Luther and the End of the World

He was so convinced that the times he was living in were so full of peril and dispair, without comparison, that he just HAD to be living in the end of days... And that hasn’t changed much among Protestants of every generation since...They just keep moving the goalposts after each failed end times prediction...

Sort of like the days of Noah. He preached 120 years about it and no one believed and laughed at him. Than one day it came true and all perished who didn't believe or listen. If you believe in the Bible, than you have to believe in end times for this earth as we know it. I think it will be similar to the days of Noah, but hopefully many more believers and doers of God's law.

 

[Albion]

And what do they all have in common? 100% failure rate in such predictions .

For sure end time hysteria is the leading cause for the fact that we have 20,000 denominations today…

So...those are two comments that don't answer the question.

The question aske about claim I read in your earlier post about some supposed "hysteria" being a feature of Luther's response to the Papacy in the 1500s.

 

[Pathfinder627]

The reason and formation of denominations. What’s your take on it. Why do they exist? Is this something that God orchestrated or is this something conceived from man?

Some for understandable reasons - like the Great Schism and Reformation. Others not so much. Sadly, half of the Protestant denominations that exist now are due to America and it's pioneer age. People spread out in the middle of nowhere, and kind of just nurtured their own peculiar ideas, without overarching church authorities. Either that, or some denominations were created because their original denomination weren't Abolitionists and didn't call out Slavery for the sin it was. So some people rightly went their own way. It wasn't that they always disagreed on theology, but these other important matters.

 

[parousia70]

So...those are two comments that don't answer the question.

The question aske about claim I read in your earlier post about some supposed "hysteria" being a feature of Luther's response to the Papacy in the 1500s.

what would you call it?
What would you call the false accusation that the pope was the antichrist and the False claim that the end of the world would surely arrive before he had finished his OT translation?

Cogent, sober, reasoned, evidence based deduction?

Sounds to me it was just the opposite.
Hysterical, non fact based, ramblings of someone blinded by fear and not seeing clearly.

and the legacy he left in his wake is plain... his Protestant descendants have not only continued to propagate this hysteria, they’ve only amplified it, again it total absense of any cogent, reasoned, evidence based deduction..

They’ve even turned their hysteria into a cottage industry that generates millions of $$ and deceives millions of people.

a very troubling legacy indeed.

 

[Albion]

what would you call it?

Not hysteria.

What would you call the false accusation that the pope was the antichrist

There would have been no way to know that the Pope was not, in fact, the anti-Christ. It offends a Catholic today to contemplate such a thing, but if a man has assumed the position of sole ruler of the church of Christ and his actions are injurious to the faith, it is not strange that 16th century people would have thought he might be the anti-Christ. This was not many years from the era in which people thought that the Black Death was caused by the Jews and that maniacal dancing could cure the disease.

and the False claim that the end of the world would surely arrive before he had finished his OT translation?

As Christians of all denominations are aware, we are told in Scripture that the day and hour of the Second Coming cannot be known. Only general indications are available and, as I already pointed out, that age was one in which many people believed, not without reason, that all the signs were there for it to be the right time. Wars and rumors of war, check. Sun darkened, check. etc. All political and religious institutions falling apart, check.

 

[Fidelibus]

Why Denominations?

First off, the question needs to be asked, what is a denomination?

For me to answer this, my Catholic faith tells me that a denomination is nothing less than a division within Christianity.

Secondly, it come down to authority. A denomination is made up of one or more persons and/or one or more individual churches that answer to no other earthly authority than their own. They are an independently operating segment of Christianity with its own authority structure and its own set of doctrines, dogmas, moral teachings, and practices.

Independent you might ask? Think about it, a denomination can be a single independent church, and it can even be a single individual, if that church or individual considers itself or himself to be the sole authority for determining doctrine, morality, and practice for that church or individual.

Then one might ask..." How about non-denominational churches? Well, it dosen't matter what they call themselves , be it independent, evangelical, non-denominational - they are still a division within Christianity that answers to no one other than themselves. They are a denomination/division of Christianity.

There are denominational churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc., as well as independent churches, non-denominational churches, mom and pop churches, evangelical churches, etc. I see a denomination as any church that answers to no higher earthly authority other than themselves. Which is why there is so much division in Protestantism which results in tens of thousands of denominations.


I know, many non-Catholics are probably thinking about now .... "Well wait a minute, isn't the Catholic Church a denomination?"

I will let fellow Catholic R.Jared Stautdt from Catholic Exchange explain why the Catholic Church is not a denomination:


"Many other Christians consider the Catholic Church to be a denomination, or even a sect or cult, but we cannot fall into sectarianism in the way we think about ourselves or our relation to other groups. We cannot have a narrow view of the nature of the Church and of God’s plan. The word “Catholic” is meant to be an adjective, not a noun. We are not a denomination which goes by the name “Catholic,” but are members of the Church of Christ who have a mission to bring the “fulness” of God’s plan to “all” people."

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[parousia70]

There would have been no way to know that the Pope was not, in fact, the anti-Christ.

sure there was, and is.
Scripture gives us very specific teaching on the identity of antichrist.
Popes don’t fit the description.

and yours is an argument from silence...
What you’re saying Is, since there’s no way to know who it is, we have the scriptural instruction and authority to point to anyone we want and say: “it’s him!”.
Preposterous.

As Christians of all denominations are aware, we are told in Scripture that the day and hour of the Second Coming cannot be known. Only general indications are available and, as I already pointed out, that age was one in which many people believed, not without reason, that all the signs were there for it to be the right time. Wars and rumors of war, check. Sun darkened, check. etc. All political and religious institutions falling apart, check.

Sorry, it was absolutely without reason.
1500 years doesn’t qualify as “at hand, about to take place, in a very little while, without delay, must shortly take place for the time is near”

Only a willful disregard for the meaning of language and disregard for apostolic authority can lead anyone outside the 1st century apostolic generation to misapply their admonitions, claiming the apostles were wrong in their expectation, and that their urgent warnings are ONLY to be applied to their own day, thousands of years removed from that apostolic end time generation.

I know it offends Protestants to picture their hero as a false prophet, but on the time of the end, he was gravely mistaken and should not have made those false proclamations as they have only done damage to the church and that damage is great, and has lasted for centuries.

 

[Albion]

And I know that many Catholics will defend whatever a Pope and their Church does, not matter what...just as you did. Therefore, for you to actually take up the information I presented--which, by the way, does not say anything in particular about who was right in the disputes of the 16th century but just why people of whatever religious persuasion saw things as they did then--would be difficult, I realize now.

Some people can do so without feeling that this in itself compromises their loyalty to their denomination. But others cannot.

 

[Marc Perry]

You’re kidding, right?
Luther absolutely believed - falsely - that the pope was the end times Antichrist, And was so convinced he was living in the end of days that he even believed - again, falsely -that the end would come before he had finished translating the Old Testament.
RESEARCH: Martin Luther and the End of the World

He was so convinced that the times he was living in were so full of peril and dispair, without comparison, that he just HAD to be living in the end of days... And that hasn’t changed much among Protestants of every generation since...They just keep moving the goalposts after each failed end times prediction...

Being a Lutheran, I read a lot of the early Lutheran texts growing up (unlike most Lutherans b.t.w.). Luther wrote a lot and, in my opinion, was a little crazy. And he freaking hated the pope. He wrote chapters and chapters doing nothing but hurling every insult he could think of toward the pope, including calling the pope the antichrist. The other people who helped build the early Lutheran church (it wasn't just Luther!) weren't nearly as extreme and, in the end, it wasn't the talk about the antichrist or the end times that converted the German population. The Catholic church was incredibly messed up at the time, as even Catholics now agree (I think), and people felt they were being taken advantage of. There were other reformers before the Lutherans, but the reason the message really took off was because the printing press just came out. The Lutherans translated the bible into German and were able to spread massive amounts of information (or propaganda depending on your views). The message that converted the population wasn't about "end of times hysteria", it was about the abuses of the Catholic church and making religious information available to everyone rather than just clergy.

 

[Marc Perry]

You’re kidding, right?
Luther absolutely believed - falsely - that the pope was the end times Antichrist, And was so convinced he was living in the end of days that he even believed - again, falsely -that the end would come before he had finished translating the Old Testament.
RESEARCH: Martin Luther and the End of the World

He was so convinced that the times he was living in were so full of peril and dispair, without comparison, that he just HAD to be living in the end of days... And that hasn’t changed much among Protestants of every generation since...They just keep moving the goalposts after each failed end times prediction...

I want to add one more thing here. While the Germans weren't converted to Lutheranism because of the antichrist talk, it did make a lot of them more enthusiastic once it was mentioned. My favorite is "The Pope-Ass Explained", which talked about a weird animal that washed up near a river and how it could be a minion of the antichrist.

This talk was nothing new, and it wasn't something normal Catholics weren't doing. The people in those days were very superstitious and were always looking for signs from God or the Devil.

Besides, if you want to throw out every Saint who thought they identified the antichrist, you can through out:

Polycarp (though to be fair he called everyone who preaches a false doctrine the antichrist)
Irenaeos
Tertullian
Origen (similar thoughts to Polycarp ... And, I know, church father not saint. But cut the guy a break. He did more for the church than 99.9% of the people you call saints.)
Athanasius of Alexandria
Jerome
Pope Gregory VII

And, really, it doesn't take much imagination to see why they would think of the papacy as the antichrist on its own merits. Leader of a powerful empire, spreading doctrine that he/himself declared divine and using the 'divine' information to further secure the grip-lock held over the common people, and just being a terrible person (for the pope's at the time at least). Not the worst case for the antichrist.

 

[coffee4u]

Our Lord founded one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Man, however, has founded many denominations.

God did not found the Catholic Church. God founded the bride of Christ, the believers in Christ. Believers are across churches and denominations as well as those who belong to no particular denomination.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The label they have applied doesn't matter to salvation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

God did not found the Catholic Church. God founded the bride of Christ, the believers in Christ. Believers are across churches and denominations as well as those who belong to no particular denomination.
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
The label they have applied doesn't matter to salvation.

I sure hope you're right.

You should hope so too.

 

[coffee4u]

I sure hope you're right.

You should hope so too.

Well, you tell me who will be saved according to this scripture. Does it mention Catholic, Anglican or Baptist?
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Marc Perry]

Well, you tell me who will be saved according to this scripture. Does it mention Catholic, Anglican or Baptist?
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

I'll defend him here. The thread was about letting people give their take on denominations. He did that and hasn't really bothered defending himself.

 

[Albion]

Well, you tell me who will be saved according to this scripture. Does it mention Catholic, Anglican or Baptist?
Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

What about this: You will be SAVED, but that would be the result despite believing a list of doctrinal errors along the way. (?)

Would not the believer want--as a true believer--to do what God wants and the Bible teaches, apart from the matter of salvation??

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'll defend him here. The thread was about letting people give their take on denominations.

True.

He did that and hasn't really bothered defending himself.

Also true. It doesn't seem worth it to elaborate upon my earlier post. I said my piece and that's that. Everybody else is welcome to believe whatever they like.