Difference Between Denominations?

[BleedingHeart]

This isn't a deep question obviously, but I've noticed that there are a lot of denominations. I was just curious as to the distinctions between them. Like what makes Catholicism different from Anglicanism different from Protestantism vs Methodism.
I know a teeny bit about the historical strife between Protestants and Catholics but little more than that.

 

[seashale76]

double post

 

[seashale76]

It may not be a deep question- but the answer could take a novel or two. Yes, there are a lot of denominations out there and the differences can be vast in some cases- some being so different from each other that they truly qualify as a different faith altogether. I don't think your question can be tackled without delving into history- so I'll give you a link to excerpts from a book that shows things from an Orthodox Christian perspective history and theology wise- as I recall the book delved into basic history plus differences between Orthodox Christianity and others (though I read the entire book and not the excerpts- so I don't know how much of it you'll get here- but it put things in lay terms).
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (part 1)
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (part 2)

If you enjoy reading history and theology- I've got some reading suggestions for you. This is really only if you're extremely serious about the pursuit of this topic. Check out Jaroslav Pelikan's works- he was a very well respected scholar of Christian history and theology and taught at Yale. He wrote a few well-researched volumes on the subject.

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600): http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Emergence/dp/0226653714

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700): http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tra...rine-Christendom/dp/0226653730/ref=pd_sim_b_1

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (9780226653754): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (9780226653778): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (9780226653808): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

Essentially, you've got a few categories- the non-Chalcedonian Christians (Oriental Orthodox), Orthodox Christianity (from which the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church split from the other sees officially in 1054), the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformed denominations that sprung out of the schism with the RCC, and then myriad upon myriad of groups that had their schism upon schism from the Reformation until today. My opinion- the further removed from the Ecumenical Councils one group is (more modern)- the less they tend to have in common with the faith that was Traditioned to the Apostles. We know where the Church is (wherein resides the fullness of the faith), but only God knows who among the heterodox are in His Church.

For example- from an Orthodox perspective- for the Christian, everything can be related back to Communion/Eucharist. Baptism brings one into the Body of Christ. You die to your old self when you put on Christ- and you are to live a new life in Christ's Holy Church- wherein you work out your salvation. When one is baptized into Christ they are part of the body of Christ- the temple of the Holy Spirit- receiving Christ in the Holy Mysteries.

If people are in the Church who don't believe as said Church does- then they really can't expect to take part of the holy mysteries (sacraments). When they engage in practices that are in direct opposition to the Faith that was Traditioned and hold beliefs/views that are not part of the Faith- it is a proclamation that they are refusing to deny themselves for the sake of Christ and are choosing to engage their passions and refusing to repent- they are knowingly excommunicating themselves. The Holy Mysteries are very important to us and we do not risk profaning them- for the protection of everyone. Willfully sinning in this manner is serious business- one risks their soul unless they repent and return to the hospital for what ails us. If someone outside of the fold doesn't believe as we do- we don't commune them either (even if they claim to be Christian).

Indeed, we see groups who also claim the Christian label who hold nothing in common with us belief-wise (we use some of the same words/terms yet often mean drastically different things), some don't even consider us Christian, and then get upset that we close communion to those who don't share our faith in all ways. The faith is much more to us than a mere intellectual assent to a belief in the Christian God.

 

[BleedingHeart]

It may not be a deep question- but the answer could take a novel or two. Yes, there are a lot of denominations out there and the differences can be vast in some cases- some being so different from each other that they truly qualify as a different faith altogether. I don't think your question can be tackled without delving into history- so I'll give you a link to excerpts from a book that shows things from an Orthodox Christian perspective history and theology wise- as I recall the book delved into basic history plus differences between Orthodox Christianity and others (though I read the entire book and not the excerpts- so I don't know how much of it you'll get here- but it put things in lay terms).
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (part 1)
Excerpts from the Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware (part 2)

If you enjoy reading history and theology- I've got some reading suggestions for you. This is really only if you're extremely serious about the pursuit of this topic. Check out Jaroslav Pelikan's works- he was a very well respected scholar of Christian history and theology and taught at Yale. He wrote a few well-researched volumes on the subject.

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (9780226653716): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) (9780226653730): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300) (9780226653754): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (9780226653778): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700): Amazon.com: The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 5: Christian Doctrine and Modern Culture (since 1700) (9780226653808): Jaroslav Pelikan: Books

Essentially, you've got a few categories- the non-Chalcedonian Christians (Oriental Orthodox), Orthodox Christianity (from which the Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church split from the other sees officially in 1054), the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformed denominations that sprung out of the schism with the RCC, and then myriad upon myriad of groups that had their schism upon schism from the Reformation until today. My opinion- the further removed from the Ecumenical Councils one group is (more modern)- the less they tend to have in common with the faith that was Traditioned to the Apostles. We know where the Church is (wherein resides the fullness of the faith), but only God knows who among the heterodox are in His Church.

For example- from an Orthodox perspective- for the Christian, everything can be related back to Communion/Eucharist. Baptism brings one into the Body of Christ. You die to your old self when you put on Christ- and you are to live a new life in Christ's Holy Church- wherein you work out your salvation. When one is baptized into Christ they are part of the body of Christ- the temple of the Holy Spirit- receiving Christ in the Holy Mysteries.

If people are in the Church who don't believe as said Church does- then they really can't expect to take part of the holy mysteries (sacraments). When they engage in practices that are in direct opposition to the Faith that was Traditioned and hold beliefs/views that are not part of the Faith- it is a proclamation that they are refusing to deny themselves for the sake of Christ and are choosing to engage their passions and refusing to repent- they are knowingly excommunicating themselves. The Holy Mysteries are very important to us and we do not risk profaning them- for the protection of everyone. Willfully sinning in this manner is serious business- one risks their soul unless they repent and return to the hospital for what ails us. If someone outside of the fold doesn't believe as we do- we don't commune them either (even if they claim to be Christian).

Indeed, we see groups who also claim the Christian label who hold nothing in common with us belief-wise (we use some of the same words/terms yet often mean drastically different things), some don't even consider us Christian, and then get upset that we close communion to those who don't share our faith in all ways. The faith is much more to us than a mere intellectual assent to a belief in the Christian God.

*Looks up at post*



But yeah, I didn't know it warranted so many books. I kinda thought that the differences might be explained with just a paragraph or two. I probably should've realized that wasn't true when I asked a Catholic once if he could explain to me the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, and he said "not in ten minutes". Because that was all the time he had left before he had to leave.

 

[Lukaris]

Many of the differences can be traced to history. In a minimal explanation, growing differences between Latin & Greek theology became a full split between the Latin west & Greek east beginning in 1054. In the 16th c. Martin Luther listed a grievance of 95 thesis against wreckless abuses of the faith in the Latin church (often rooted in money) (& Rome even later addressed much of these but things became too far gone). Meanwhile most of the Christian east avoided the west to a large extent (like Russia)or was overrun by Islam (& many still remain under Islam like the Copts of Egypt etc.).

So your basic groups are( Eastern & Oriental)Orthodox, Roman Catholic, & many groups of Protestants. Discussing these theologies can make anyone's head spin but in doses it can probably be done I guess.

 

[John Jay]

I know a teeny bit about the historical strife between Protestants and Catholics but little more than that.

Funny you should ask that. I just left Catholicism about two months ago and am in the process of joining a Reformed Baptist church.

The three primary differences between Catholics and Protestants are:

1. Imputed vs infused righteousness.

The Bible teaches that we are completely incapable of any works pleasing to God or worthy of earning forgiveness. As a result, it tells us that God takes Jesus' righteousness and applies it to us. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that God infuses us with righteousness and that we must hang on to that righteousness by not sinning and by participating in Catholic rituals.

2. The sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

The Bible teaches that when we are saved, we are saved once and for all and that it is only by repentance and faith in Christ's atonement on our behalf that we can be saved. Catholicism teaches that sinners must go to Purgatory to expiate their own sin that Jesus' blood could not cleanse. They call it the "stain of original sin", but the Bible says that Jesus' blood cleanses us from all sin, including original sin. They may also say that it's to remove our attachment to sin, but the Bible teaches that our attachment to sin is removed when we are regenerated (ie. "born again") by the Holy Spirit. Some Catholics may call it "disciplinary punishment" but, again, the Bible says that God has already punished Christ in our place and on our behalf.

3. Authority.

Simply put, Protestants believe in the Bible as the highest authority. We believe in creeds, confessions, and catechisms, church authority, etc, as well, but all of these things are valid and authoritative insofar as they are consistent with scripture. It is always scripture that is the authority, these things are just a vehicle for putting that authority into action. Catholics, on the other hand, have a belief similar to the Mormons that the Bible is kind of an authority, but is really just a tool for the Magesterium, which is considered to be the highest authority and infallible on "all matters of faith and morals". Mormons have prophets, presidents, and the "Quorum of Seventy" whom they believe all speak on God's behalf and have the ability to supercede the Bible. Catholics have the pope and the Magesterium who are pretty much the same thing. Very little difference between them in that regard.

 

[joey_downunder]

John Jay -I was also a Catholic and was baptised in a Baptist church in February.

Bleeding Heart, to put it in a very abbreviated form - some denominations have formed because of very major doctrinal issues and corrupt church leaders. In the Middle Ages Luther was correct to separate from the Catholic church at the time was so corrupt and money hungry. Protestants and Catholics disagree on sola scriptura.

I left the Catholic church because there was so much that was added to scripture that there was no evidence for in the Bible. e.g. Purgatory, ascension of Mary into Heaven, praying to saints instead of God.

To people not familiar with christian theology other denominations seem to have formed over less important issues. That makes it understandable that outsiders question why christians don't seem to agree with each other. Here is where looking at actual christian history is useful. Surprisingly Wikipedia is very helpful in showing how and why new christian denominations started.

 

[Mr Dave]

Hi there.

Here - http://www.christianforums.com/t7531284/#post56634548 I try and outline some of the differences quickly between Anglican and Roman Catholic.

There are a block of 'Reformed Churches' (those that came from the Protestant Reformation) which have many things in common so can generally be seen as one block. Yes they differ, but also have much in common. Reformed churches are Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationals and Anglicans. Anglicans differ, because they stayed as close to the traditions and practices as they felt they could. The things in common however are what is known as the 5 solas;

Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone contains all which pertains to salvation
Sola Fide - Faith alone is that which is necessary for jusification
Sola Gratia - Salvation by grace alone
Sola Christus - By Christ alone
Sola Dei Gloria - Glory to God alone

Reformed churches tend to hold (officially or in practice) to a Calvinist idea regarding salvation (1. Total Depravity of man, 2. Unconditional Election, 3. Limited Atonement, 4. Irresistible Grace, 5. Perseverance of the Saints) which boils down to 'Predestination'.

Methodism broke from the Church of England later than this so is not reformed but a Non-conformist Church. The differences between Meth and Angl would be that Methodists are 'Arminian' and not 'Calvinist' so don't believe in predestination. They believe that salvation is conditional on freely choosing Christ, and that all may be saved etc...

Many other groups descended from Wesleyanism/Methodism so Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal churches, Salvation Army etc... all tend to hold a similar view but they differ now on other issues.

Pentecostals particularly were influenced by a renewed expression of the Holy Spirit across the 20th Century and have a much stronger focus than other denoms over spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues, healing, prophecy etc...).

These would be a general outline (I'll leave the EOs to talk about Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy). Other differences would fall along he lines of church structure, are there bishops, is it a unified body/single church, do decisions come from the top through an ordered structure (connexional) or more locally tailored (congregational).

 

[Lukaris]

In Orthodoxy it is the incarnation, life, death on the cross, & resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ that redeems us from the mortality of death from which sin resulted (Romans 5). His primary reason was to give us life and we must give our faith to Christ and His cross through the 2 great commands (Matthew 22:36-40) & the golden rule (Matthew 7:12) & live our lives in prayer, fasting & alms giving (Matthew 6:1-18). We deal with our sins in private confession (Psalm 51) & to our priest (1st John 1) & give thanks through the blessed Eucharist (John 6, 1st Corinthians 10 & 11).