Different Denomenations

[alty29]

What is the difference between each denomenation?

 

[PaladinValer]

Well, all churches and denominations (if they are orthodox) teach the same essentials of Christianity, like the Deity of Christ, the Resurrection, Original Sin, the Trinity, etc.

To explain them all in one thread would be difficult. My suggestion is to visit all the denominational forums here on CF and ask them all the same questions. Some forums have an "FAQ"-type thread already, so you could also use that and then ask different questions or specific questions about what is discussed in the FAQ.

Good luck!

 

[Polycarp1]

It might be interesting to map out the different denominations in some sort of cladistic system. E.g., the Church of the Assyrians is the sole surviving Nestorian church, which does not accept the Nicene Creed as we know it today. The Oriental Orthodox (five national churches) are miaphysite, as opposed to the rest of Christianity which is duophysite. Eastern Orthodox split from the rest of Western Christianity over several issues, the key one being the filioque clause (the others are largely Catholic-specific). At the Reformation, a number of issues divided the various Protestant and Anglican Churches from Catholicism -- and various groups have split off from these, such as the Methodists separating from the Anglicans, the Holiness and Nazarenes from the Methodists, etc.

 

[Peter]

Two corrections:

1. The EO do not teach that man is born with the guilt of Adam on his head. This is a western teaching.

2. I would disagree with the east splitting from the west. After all, it was the official rep of the Patriarch of Rome that tried to excommunicate the Patriarch of Constantinople. But this is an old argument.

One thing I do agree on, however. With close to 30,000 denominations of Christianity, comparing and contrasting them would be a nightmare!

Peace.

Peter

 

[holyrokker]

Two corrections:

1. The EO do not teach that man is born with the guilt of Adam on his head. This is a western teaching.


Peter

Can you tell me more about this? It's a breath of fresh air to me since I don't see where the Bible teaches Original Sin and I've received tons of flack over it.

 

[verismo]

Can you tell me more about this? It's a breath of fresh air to me since I don't see where the Bible teaches Original Sin and I've received tons of flack over it.

Check out Romans 5: 12-21.

 

[holyrokker]

Oh - I'm quite familiar with Romans 5:12-21 - I don't think it teaches inherited sin from Adam.


I'm actually interested in the E.O. teaching on the topic of Original Sin.

 

[verismo]

Oh - I'm quite familiar with Romans 5:12-21 - I don't think it teaches inherited sin from Adam.


I'm actually interested in the E.O. teaching on the topic of Original Sin.

What do you think it teaches?

 

[holyrokker]

It teaches that the victory Christ brings far exceeds the destruction that sin brings.
Whereas sin came into the world through Adam - Righteousness comes through Christ.

 

[verismo]

It teaches that the victory Christ brings far exceeds the destruction that sin brings.
Whereas sin came into the world through Adam - Righteousness comes through Christ.

so, what don't you agree with then?

Adam made us sinners, Christ made us righteous: that is original sin.

And the difference between the EO, and RCC on original sin is guilt, not just consequence. OE does not believe that we are "guilty" of original sin, just that we feel the consequence of Adam's sin. To the OE, "original sin" refers to a thing in history that messed things up for us, to the RC, it refers to a state that you are in until you are Justified by Christ.

 

[holyrokker]

One problem with that line of thought is if Adam made everyone a sinner, then Christ made everyone righteous.

If this text teaches universal inherited sin, then it also teaches universal salvation.

 

[verismo]

One problem with that line of thought is if Adam made everyone a sinner, then Christ made everyone righteous.

If this text teaches universal inherited sin, then it also teaches universal salvation.

It's not a line of thought; it's Rom 5:18-19.

 

[holyrokker]

You said "Adam made us sinners, Christ made us righteous: that is original sin."

That's a line of thought.

Romans 5:18-19 says "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Paul is comparing the result of Adam's sin with the result of Christ's obedience.
How many people were made sinners through Adam's sin? If you say that all people were made sinners as a direct result of Adam's sin, based on this passage, then you'd also have to say that all people were made righteous as a direct result of Christ's obedience.

If this passage teaches universal inherited sin then it also teaches universal salvation.

I don't think that's what Paul is trying to teach us here.

 

[verismo]

You said "Adam made us sinners, Christ made us righteous: that is original sin."

That's a line of thought.

Paul is comparing the result of Adam's sin with the result of Christ's obedience.
How many people were made sinners through Adam's sin? If you say that all people were made sinners as a direct result of Adam's sin, based on this passage, then you'd also have to say that all people were made righteous as a direct result of Christ's obedience.

If this passage teaches universal inherited sin then it also teaches universal salvation.

I don't think that's what Paul is trying to teach us here.

It is a summary of 5:18; not a line of thought.

Ok, so, what do you think "all people" means? How does one enter in to Adam since you say all are not born there?

If you are saying that not all are under Adam, then you are saying that not all need Christ.

You say that I am not posing what Paul is teaching, but I can't tell what you think he is teaching. "Comparing results" is not a sufficient answer as you are not telling what those results are and to whom if not all.

 

[holyrokker]

If you are saying that not all are under Adam, then you are saying that not all need Christ.

All who have sinned have need of Christ and ALL have sinned. Therefore ALL have need of Christ.

Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Now - you claim that the first part of this verse means that everyone is born a sinner because of Adam's sin. If you accept that premise, then you'd also have to accept that the second part of the verse means that those who are made sinners by Adam are made righteous by Christ.

If everyone is automatically made a sinner by Adam, then everyone is automatically made righteous by Christ.

 

[verismo]

All who have sinned have need of Christ and ALL have sinned. Therefore ALL have need of Christ.

Romans 5:19 "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

Now - you claim that the first part of this verse means that everyone is born a sinner because of Adam's sin. If you accept that premise, then you'd also have to accept that the second part of the verse means that those who are made sinners by Adam are made righteous by Christ.

If everyone is automatically made a sinner by Adam, then everyone is automatically made righteous by Christ.

You continue to attack my view of the verse without explaining yours.

You say that all have sinned, you just have a problem saying that that is because of the fall of mankind through Adam?

Please, explain what the verse really means.

 

[Peter]

Seeing as how this is Church History, and NOT a debate forum, this thread has strayed faaaaarrrrr from the OP.

What prompted it, of course, was my attempt to clarify the idea that "orthodox Christians" all believe the same thing regarding Adam and the results of his sin.

Now, if we wish to discuss, and not argue, the HISTORICAL interpretations of Romans 5, that would be another matter. We could discuss the Ante-Nicean writings, Augustines interps and modern Orthodox and Protestant writings on this passage. This would be an historical, scholarly approach to the subject.

With this in mind, I suggest a new thread be formed addressing the issues above.

Peace.

Peter

 

[Gold Dragon]

It doesn't look like anyone gave a satisfactory answer. I'll try to give a quick historical rundown of some of the primary denominations and their uniqueness.


Christianity (1st century) - apostles, Paul's missions, persecutions, councils, Augustine, Bishops
Assyrian Church of the East (431) - The Nestorian Schism occured because they offered protection to followers of the heresy Nestorianism even though they did not follow its theology.
Oriental Orthodoxy (451) - Council of Chalcedon declared their Monophysite view as heresy. Syrian and Coptic churches.
Roman Catholicism (1054) - Gradual East/West Schism of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that became final in 1054 primarily over the authority of the bishop of Rome (Pope). Latin.
Eastern Orthodoxy (1054) - Same as above. Greek.

Protestant Reformation Link
Lutheran (1519) - Martin Luther. First church of the Protestant Reformation. Germany. Three Solas (Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone)
Reformed (1525) - John Calvin. Huldrych Zwingli. Second church of the Protestant Reformation. Switzerland. Calvinism (predestination).
Anabaptists (1525) - Rejected infant baptism. Persecuted by Catholics and Reformers. Modern day Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites.
Hutterites (1529) - Jacob Hutter. Anabaptist. Communal living. Pacifist.
Anglican/Episcopal (1534) - Henry VIII was not granted an annulment and split the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church. They wish to return to full communion with the Catholic church. Episcopal church in the US recently appointed gay bishop.
Mennonite (1537) - Menno Simons. Anabaptist. Holland/Germany. Pacifism. Some groups reject modern technology.
Presbyterian (1560) - John Knox. Scotland. Part of the Reformed churches. Calvinistic.
Baptist(1609) - Separatists from the puritan movement in the Anglican church. General (Arminian) and Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists
Congregationalists (1633) - John Cotton. Massachusetts. Separatists puritans.
Quakers (1647) - George Fox. Separatists puritans.
Amish (1693) - Jacob Amman. Anabaptist. Communal life. Avoid modernisms.

Great Awakening Link
Methodist (1738) - John Wesley. England. Methodical bible study movement in the Anglican church. Arminianism.
Campbellites (1826) - Alexander Campbell. Product of the Restoration Movement that tried to remove denominational barriers.
Millerite/Adventists (1830s) - William Miller. Predicted the date of the 2nd coming in 1844 until the Great Disappointment.
Messianic Judaism (1850s) - Jewish Christians who have retained their cultural and ethnic identity.
Seventh Day Adventists (1863) - Ellen G. White. Millerite origin. Worship on Saturday.
Salvation Army (1878) - William Booth. England. Methodist origin. Emphasis on social service.
Church of the Nazarene (1895) - Product of the Holiness movement initiated by Methodists. Merging many Holiness churches.
Christian and Missionary Alliance (1897) - Albert Simpson. Part of the Holiness movement. Focus on evangelism and missions.
Pentecostal (1901) - Product of the Pentecostal Movement, influenced by the Holiness movment. Speaking in tongues.
Disciples of Christ (1906) - Arose as a split in the Campbellite churches over liberal/conservative theologies. Became the moderate/liberal wing.
Church of Christ (1906) - Same as above. Tries to mimic early church. Non-instrumental. Conservative/fundamentalist wing.
Assemblies of God (1914) - Part of the Pentecostal churches
United Church of Christ (1956) - Merger of congregationalist and reformed churches. Very liberal theology.
Calvary Chapel (1965) - Chuck Smith. Non-denominational denomination that came out of the Jesus Movement.
Word of Faith (1967) - A controversial movement within some Pentecostal churches that emphasizes receiving things from the Holy Spirit. Benny Hinn. Yonggi Cho.

 

[Polycarp1]

Some nits require picking in this summary, which is otherwise quite good:

Nestorians (413) - Council of Ephesus declared their non-Trinitarian view as heresy. Associated with the Assyrian church.

Rather, the Nestorians were followers of Nestorius, who taught that Jesus assumed the role of Christ, rather than that God the Son and the man Jesus are the same individual, with divine and human natures united in a hypostatic union. The surviving church teaching Nestorian doctrine is the Church of the Assyrians, comprising most Iraqi Christians.

Oriental Orthodoxy (451) - Council of Chalcedon declared their non-Trinitarian view as heresy. Syrian and Coptic churches.

The OOs are not non-Trinitarian -- to the contrary, they are among the strongest defenders of the Trinity. How they differ from the Eastern Orthodox is in adherence to a doctrine usually called "monophysitism" but which they refer to as "miaphysitism" -- and that gets into details of Christology not essential to this thread.

Anglican/Episcopal (1534) - Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Uphold the Catholic Faith. In full communion with the Catholic church. Episcopal church in the US recently appointed Gene Robinson as bishop.

Two errors out of four sentences -- great work! Actually, Henry drew the Church of England, which was the national organization of the Catholic Church, out of allegiance to Rome's authority, because he wanted an annulment (not a divorce) and for political reasons, the Pope was refusing it, though he had regularly granted such annulments to other monarchs. Nor, unfortunately, are we in communion with (Roman) Catholicism, though we are with the Old Catholic Churches which separated from Rome in 1871 (with previous separate existence similar to the Church of England's). Anglicans were excommunicated by Rome in 1570, 39 years after Henry's actions, when he was in his grave, because Elizabeth I of England would not surrender to Philip II of Spain, with whom the Pope of the time was allied.

Pentecostal (1901) - Primary result of the Charismatic/Holiness movment. Speaking in tongues.

Better said that the Pentecostal churches (Assembly of God, Church of God, etc.) were the primary result of the Pentecostalmovement, ca. 1905; the Charismatic movement was a 1970s phenomenon which brought quasi-Pentecostal teachings into the mainstream churches.

Pretty good quick-and-dirty summary otherwise, though!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Thanks for the clarifications Polycarp1. I'll modify my post accordingly.