• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why are there different denominations, anyway?

ssammoh

Just another kid
Aug 10, 2012
482
56
28
chicago
✟23,519.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why are there even different denominations? Like catholic, baptist, etc.

Aren't christians just supposed to believe in the whole bible?

If the denominations are set up by how they interpret the bible, then still. What's the point of labeling people? Even two baptists or two catholics might disagree on some interpretations of the bible...
 
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Why are there even different denominations? Like catholic, baptist, etc.

Aren't christians just supposed to believe in the whole bible?

If the denominations are set up by how they interpret the bible, then still. What's the point of labeling people? Even two baptists or two catholics might disagree on some interpretations of the bible...

A lot of denominations come down to Tradition. Catholics and Orthodox have each their own Oral Tradition which they claim was passed to them from the Apostles in addition to the Bible.

IMO denominations usually develop because they add things to the Bible, not because they don't believe the Bible to be true.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟256,121.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why are there even different denominations? Like catholic, baptist, etc.

Aren't christians just supposed to believe in the whole bible?

If the denominations are set up by how they interpret the bible, then still. What's the point of labeling people? Even two baptists or two catholics might disagree on some interpretations of the bible...

the reason we have differant denominations is because there are real differances between how people interprete the Bible, when the differances grow too great, there are splits and breaks and schisms, there have also been splits over disagreements on Church leadership or sometimes because of geographic reasons (back in the day communications over long distances were much harder and some people liked the idea of local leadership)

now everyone will interpret the Bible a little differantly, the Holy Spirit speaks to us all in differant ways, but I think most denominations have that built in
like in the Catholic Church for example we have Dogmas that are defined very clearly, and we have doctrines, now if you are a Catholic you should believe in all the Dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church, but the doctrines are not as rigidly defined so through the ages differant people have had differant views on them.
but a lot of things do not follow into either doctrine or dogma, some people have differant theories, and as long as they do not go agianst the teachings of the Catholic Church, Catholics can believe them as long as they recognize that it is just a theory and do not try to force it on other people
i mean you can try to convice other people but you should not pretend it is as important as a Dogma
I hope this makes sense?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,584
29,132
Pacific Northwest
✟815,013.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Why are there even different denominations? Like catholic, baptist, etc.

Aren't christians just supposed to believe in the whole bible?

If the denominations are set up by how they interpret the bible, then still. What's the point of labeling people? Even two baptists or two catholics might disagree on some interpretations of the bible...

Consider just this one detail:

The Roman Catholic Bible contains 73 books.
The Eastern Orthodox Bible contains 78 books (more or less).
The Protestant Bible, without Apocrypha, contains 66 books.
The Protestant Bible, with Apocrypha, contains 80 books (counting material found in other books in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as separate books here).

So even saying "believe the whole Bible" requires asking, "What constitutes, accurately, the Canon of Holy Scripture?"

A question that, as can be seen above, has not been fully settled for all Christians once and for all. Principally over whether the Deuterocanonical Books ("The Apocrypha") is to be included or not, and to what level, and also which books exactly constitute these.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
Consider just this one detail:

The Roman Catholic Bible contains 73 books.
The Eastern Orthodox Bible contains 78 books (more or less).
The Protestant Bible, without Apocrypha, contains 66 books.
The Protestant Bible, with Apocrypha, contains 80 books (counting material found in other books in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as separate books here).

So even saying "believe the whole Bible" requires asking, "What constitutes, accurately, the Canon of Holy Scripture?"

A question that, as can be seen above, has not been fully settled for all Christians once and for all. Principally over whether the Deuterocanonical Books ("The Apocrypha") is to be included or not, and to what level, and also which books exactly constitute these.

-CryptoLutheran

Actually, by common agreement there is nothing in the additional books found in non-Protestant Bibles which forms a basis for any belief that divides Protestants from other Christians. One can, as did Martin Luther and many other Protestants, include these additional books in their Bibles and still come to the same conclusions.

It is not a matter of having or not having said books in the Bible that causes the differences by, as Rhamiel has pointed out, it is a matter of interpretation.
 
Upvote 0

Prodigal Son1

Bible Catholic
Aug 18, 2012
151
3
70
US
✟15,296.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
A lot of denominations come down to Tradition. Catholics and Orthodox have each their own Oral Tradition which they claim was passed to them from the Apostles in addition to the Bible.

IMO denominations usually develop because they add things to the Bible, not because they don't believe the Bible to be true.

The oral tradition is much older than the Apostles.

Interpretations were taught long before Christ. See Nehemiah 8. The priests read the scriptures to the people and interpreted the scriptures, causing the people to understand.

Just as there were authoritative men in Nehemiah, Christ chose and appointed men over His Church. Christ taught with the oral tradition. To the multitudes, He spoke in parables; to the Apostles, He explained all things.

I was raised to believe that everything in the Bible was being spoken directly to me; however, I could not reconcile the differences of what Christ taught to the multitudes and only explaining all things to His Apostles. How could I apply all instructions to those He chose and appointed to myself, when His teachings to the multitudes was different?

Further reading explains Apostolic succession. Would those of Apostolic succession teach any differently than Christ had taught them? Personally, I don't think so. They too would have explained all things to those they chose and appointed, with all authority given them by Christ.

Below is copied and pasted from notes in my electronic Bible. (Disclaimer)I would provide the link, but no longer know exactly where I got the information.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, the oral Torah, oral Law, or oral tradition (Hebrew: תורה שבעל פה, Torah she-be-`al peh) is the oral tradition received in conjunction with the written Torah (and the rest of the Hebrew Bible), which is known in this context as the "written Torah" (Hebrew: תורה שבכתב, Torah she-bi-khtav). The Mishnah is the record of the oral Torah.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah ("teaching") from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an oral tradition passed on by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation, and according to classical Rabbinic interpretation, the teachings of the oral law are a guide to that interpretation of the written law which is considered the authoritative reading. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions. Further, the basis of halakha (Jewish law) is the premise that the written law is inherently bound together with an oral law.

The "oral law" was ultimately recorded in the Mishnah, the Talmud and Midrash.


The laws transmitted to Moses were contained in the Torah written down on scrolls. The explanation however, was not allowed to be written down. Jews were obligated to speak the explanation and pass it on orally to students, children, and fellow adults. It was thus initially forbidden to write and publish the Oral Law: written material would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation (and abuse).

After great debate, however, this restriction was lifted. Following the destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem, it became apparent that the Palestine community and its learning were threatened, and that publication was the only way to ensure that the law could be preserved.
 
Upvote 0

Prodigal Son1

Bible Catholic
Aug 18, 2012
151
3
70
US
✟15,296.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Here are more of my notes copied and pasted from my electronic Bible. These are a few examples of oral tradition in scriptures.

Two of the Gospel authors were not Apostles, who learned directly from Christ; Mark and Luke. Where did they get their knowledge of what Christ specifically said and did?

Luke also wrote Acts of the Apostles, where we find that Christ said:

Act 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.
That statement is not recorded anywhere in the Gospels. How would Luke have known that if he didn't learn it through the 'oral tradition'?

Paul wrote about:

2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.
The two magicians whose staffs were eaten up by Moses' staff. They are not named specifically in the Old Testament. How did Paul know their names if he didn't learn it through the 'oral tradition'?

Paul also wrote:

1Co 10:4 And all drank the same spiritual drink: (And they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.)
Where did Paul learn this? It's not written in the Old Testament.

Christ spoke to the multitudes and told them:

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Christ didn't explain what the 'chair of Moses' was. How did the people know what He was talking about; it was not written about in the Old Testament?

Matthew tells us:

Mat 2:23 And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.
'He shall be called a Nazarene', is not found anywhere in the Old Testament.

Jude wrote:

Jud 1:9 When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee.
Where is that written about in the Old Testament?

James wrote:

Jas 5:17 Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth. And it rained not for three years and six months.
When you read the story in the Old Testament it does not mention Elias 'praying'.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟256,121.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Actually, by common agreement there is nothing in the additional books found in non-Protestant Bibles which forms a basis for any belief that divides Protestants from other Christians. One can, as did Martin Luther and many other Protestants, include these additional books in their Bibles and still come to the same conclusions.

It is not a matter of having or not having said books in the Bible that causes the differences by, as Rhamiel has pointed out, it is a matter of interpretation.
i would say it is a matter of Tradition
Protestant Tradition holds this cannon of scripture
Catholic Tradition holds a few more books in the OT to be part of the Cannon
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
i would say it is a matter of Tradition
Protestant Tradition holds this cannon of scripture
Catholic Tradition holds a few more books in the OT to be part of the Cannon

I agree. I also think too much is often made of this difference because the additional books of the Catholic Bible do no teach anything not found in the other books of the Bible.

Tradition does play a role in doctrinal development. Some denominations are very forthright in believing that Tradition is evolving and others maintain that they have remained utterly unchanged since the first century. I do not believe that any denomination can prove the last position to be true and that all denominations do carry various sorts of Tradition with them. The problem is to determine a means of verifying the claims of those Traditions.

For example, the Catholic Tradition of Purgatory which has been recently discussed on another thread can be shown as having evolved over time and being still in a state of development. At best there is scant scriptural evidence for it so the Bible can't be used to determine its validity, at least in its various forms. It then devolves to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has determined its validity. If one believes the Magisterium to hold the same, or more, authority than the Bible, the issue is very simple. If, as most Christians do, their authority lies elsewhere, as in the Bible, then Purgatory is, at best, suspect, and, at worst, an error and, perhaps, a heresy.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I agree. I also think too much is often made of this difference because the additional books of the Catholic Bible do no teach anything not found in the other books of the Bible.

I agree.

Tradition does play a role in doctrinal development. Some denominations are very forthright in believing that Tradition is evolving and others maintain that they have remained utterly unchanged since the first century. I do not believe that any denomination can prove the last position to be true and that all denominations do carry various sorts of Tradition with them. The problem is to determine a means of verifying the claims of those Traditions.

For example, the Catholic Tradition of Purgatory

Let's be sure to keep to one meaning of "Tradition" at a time. When the word is capitalized, it normally means an alternative to Scripture. In that sense, Protestants have no "Tradition," and in fact reject "Tradition." But if what is meant is that which is customary, and the word is not capitalized, then of course churches of all sorts do hold to those theological perspectives and conclusions that they traditionally, customarily, historically have. You understand this, but we need to keep our posts clear as to which meaning of the word is intended.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟256,121.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Let's be sure to keep to one meaning of "Tradition" at a time. When the word is capitalized, it normally means an alternative to Scripture. In that sense, Protestants have no "Tradition," and in fact reject "Tradition." But if what is meant is that which is customary, and the word is not capitalized, then of course churches of all sorts do hold to those theological perspectives and conclusions that they traditionally, customarily, historically have. You understand this, but we need to keep our posts clear as to which meaning of the word is intended.
Protestants do have Tradition
the Cannon of the Bible is a Tradition that Protestants hold
other doctrines that Protestants hold can also be seen as Tradition but this is less clear and is more involved in interpretation of Scripture
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Protestants do have Tradition

No, they don't

the Cannon of the Bible is a Tradition that Protestants hold

Nope. The Bible is revelation. We may traditionally have accepted certain books, but the Bible or the canon is not Tradition. That doesn't even make sense, if truth be told. It's like saying that God is a Tradition or truth is a Tradition.

other doctrines that Protestants hold can also be seen as Tradition

I know that you're working hard to disprove, by sentence structure, the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura and to suggest that the Protestant rejection of the Catholic idea of Holy Tradition as a replacement for Scripture is hypcritical or contradictory, but you can't do it merely by misusing this word.
 
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟256,121.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
how does that not make sense?
Genisis did not come with a table of contents
what books are cannon was accepted by the Church as Devine Revelation that was not written down in the Bible
non-written Divine Revelation, that is a good definition for Tradition
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,263
✟584,002.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
how does that not make sense?
Genisis did not come with a table of contents

The Bible is not a Protestant Tradition. It is what it is and we acknowledge that. Yes, men arranged the texts, translated them, and decided which books appear to be inspired and so belong in the Bible, but that's just an administrative function. Otherwise, the Bible books are there, do we use them and recognize them for what they are, or not? There's nothing in that which amounts to tradition (or Tradition).

what books are cannon was accepted by the Church as Devine Revelation that was not written down in the Bible

You mean, the Bible did not say "this is the Bible?" Do you really think that if God gave revelation to mankind, he had to include a signed certificate of authenticity along with it?

non-written Divine Revelation, that is a good definition for Tradition

OK, "non-written Divine Revelation," or the claim of anything to be such, IS what is meant by "Tradition." But Protestants don't accept anything like that. Therefore, there is no "Protestant Tradition."
 
Upvote 0

WisdomTree

Philosopher
Feb 2, 2012
4,018
170
Lincoln
✟23,579.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Consider just this one detail:

The Roman Catholic Bible contains 73 books.
The Eastern Orthodox Bible contains 78 books (more or less).
The Protestant Bible, without Apocrypha, contains 66 books.
The Protestant Bible, with Apocrypha, contains 80 books (counting material found in other books in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as separate books here).

So even saying "believe the whole Bible" requires asking, "What constitutes, accurately, the Canon of Holy Scripture?"

A question that, as can be seen above, has not been fully settled for all Christians once and for all. Principally over whether the Deuterocanonical Books ("The Apocrypha") is to be included or not, and to what level, and also which books exactly constitute these.

-CryptoLutheran

Don't forget the Oriental Orthodox, with the Ethiopians having 81 (plus more with their "Broader Canon")!
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible is not God's revelation to mankind; it is various accounts of man's encounter with God's revelation, but it is itself not the revelation. Christ is God's revelation to mankind.

As to why there are so many denominations, simply put, people departed from orthodoxy and they and their descendants never returned to it.
 
Upvote 0
B

bbbbbbb

Guest
The Bible is not God's revelation to mankind; it is various accounts of man's encounter with God's revelation, but it is itself not the revelation. Christ is God's revelation to mankind.

As to why there are so many denominations, simply put, people departed from orthodoxy and they and their descendants never returned to it.

Or - did orthodoxy evolve and shift from its roots (the Bible) as it absorbed various beliefs from the cultures it encountered, thus alienating those who did not agree with this evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Knee V

It's phonetic.
Sep 17, 2003
8,417
1,741
43
South Bend, IN
✟115,823.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Or - did orthodoxy evolve and shift from its roots (the Bible) as it absorbed various beliefs from the cultures it encountered, thus alienating those who did not agree with this evolution?

If it did that, then it would no longer be orthodoxy.

And to use the same language that I did in my last post, the "root" of the church is not the Bible - it is Christ. Giving the Scriptures the wrong place in the life of the church is one cause of the many divisions in christendom.
 
Upvote 0