Why Christianity got many sub divisions

[SummaScriptura]

Can any one tell me why on earth as we Christians got many sub divisions in our own religion?

Why some of them are called… Roman Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican / Jehovah's witness
what went wrong! why do we have all this divisions?

Can we just unite and love each other in one single vision? Do we have to have different views.

Diversity is bad? Viva la difference!

I'll let the Lord sort it all out when He returns.

Fact is, we ARE one in the Spirit. Jesus prayer for union WAS answered and is being answered. This Baptist believes in the holy catholic church and the communion of saints in the here-and-now.

I've enjoyed the Lord's Supper with "Closed" Bretheren, believe it or not, and then on down the block to the Pentycostals in Tourcoing, France.

If the church had not enforced an artificial unity from 600 AD until 1000 AD, I believe we'd have even more variety today and the world would be a better place.

Freedom of thought in society fosters variety. I can live with that. Someday the Supreme Arbiter will settle all disagreements.

Maranatha!

 

[Tomm]

Can any one tell me why on earth as we Christians got many sub divisions in our own religion?

Why some of them are called… Roman Catholic / Orthodox / Anglican / Jehovah's witness
what went wrong! why do we have all this divisions?

Can we just unite and love each other in one single vision? Do we have to have different views.

In the beginning, there is only 1 Church, with its headquarter set up in Rome, which was headed by the successors of Saint Peter. There were no such things as denominations whatsoever, unlike today where the situation is like a supermarket of religions.
Everyone listened to the Pope, the successor of Saint Peter, who was guided by the Holy Spirit. So there was unity.

The many denominations started to spring up when, in 1517, Martin Luther rebeled and made the Pope "redundant" -- he taught that the Holy Spirit will guide each person to interpret the Holy Bible without the Pope and that everybody can be his own Pope, and then left the Church to create his own denomination called Lutheranism. So since then every follower of Luther would stop listening to the Pope and instead bought his own copy of the Bible to interpret it. Very luckily, the printing press was invented not long before Luther taught his new idea. Otherwise many wouldn't get a copy until they reach 80, since hand copying the Bible took a long time.

Then others joined him and then the situation became out of control and now there are huge number of denominations and huge confusions. He says this, she says that and I say another thing. So now every follower of Luther/Calvin/Wycliff etc is supposed to interpret the Bible with the "guidance of the Holy Spirit".

Once I went to one of their Bible Study Meetings and listened to their pastor ...

 

[Albion]

In the beginning, there is only 1 Church, with its headquarter set up in Rome,

Only the Roman Church thought that

There were no such things as denominations whatsoever, unlike today where the situation is like a supermarket of religions.

Yes and no. There were not denominations, if by that we mean organized, rival institutions in competition with each other. There were, however, by the estimation of historians over 80 different varieties of Christianity in the first century alone.

Everyone listened to the Pope, the successor of Saint Peter, who was guided by the Holy Spirit. So there was unity.

In fact, the bishop of the richest diocese in the Christian world (Rome) and in the capitol city of the Empire had more influence than less well-off Christian centers. And Rome's bishop used it to his advantage whenever possible. The older churches in the East, to be accurate, never acknowledge anything like what you are saying here.

denominations started to spring up when, in 1517, Martin Luther rebeled and made the Pope "redundant" -- he taught that the Holy Spirit will guide each person to interpret the Holy Bible without the Pope and that everybody can be his own Pope,

No, Luther taught neither of those things.

create his own denomination called Lutheranism.

As a matter of fact, Luther opposed the idea of a new denomination and that name which was what Catholics called his followers in order to insult them.

Once I went to one of their Bible Study Meetings and listened to their pastor ...

Maybe a bit more experience in this area than that would prove helpful.

 

[Tomm]

No, Luther taught neither of those things.

Is that so ? If that is true, then I was slightly wrong.

If a follow of Luther does not interpret the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then he/she must be interpreting the Bible himself/herself -- this is confirmed by what I found on the Worlds Apart website:

"The Sufficiency Principle: Each and every believer who is devout and competent can understand scripture."

From this, it follows that everybody can interpret the Bible himself and thus becomes his own Pope. Although Luther didn't say it explicitly, but it is implied.

But, for me, I go to Bible studies because I don't think I can understand the Bible myself. I was always amazed when I found that followers of Luther or Calvin or Wycliff or Wesley or Smyth etc also go to Bible Studies.

I am here not to argue about whether Luther was right or wrong, I just wanted to say what I know about why there are so many sub-divisions, in response to Damian7's question.

No matter whether Luther was right or wrong, Jesus Christ founded only one Church and it will exist until the end of time, as Jesus Christ promised to Peter the apostle.

Which Church is this, for a beginner it is hard to tell amidst the HUGE confusions. But only one of them is true, NOT all -- since the Truth cannot have 200 versions.

 

[Albion]

Is that so ? If that is true, then I was slightly wrong.

OK.

If a follow of Luther does not interpret the Bible through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then he/she must be interpreting the Bible himself/herself -- this is confirmed by what I found on the Worlds Apart website:

"The Sufficiency Principle: Each and every believer who is devout and competent can understand scripture."

From this, it follows that everybody can interpret the Bible himself

Yes, but look at the mistake you are making. The statement you quoted cited COMPETENCY, not some direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit. To be competent means only that one understands the meaning of words, context, etc. and this doesn't require one to be the world's leading authority on such matters, only educated in them. This is hardly any different from saying that to understand Chemistry or Taxidermy it takes some training or familiarity.

The problem that Luther and almost every other Christian faced in his day was that they were instructed by the Church authorities not to attempt any understanding of Scripture, but to be guided, automatically, by the Church leadership's interpretations.

cand thus becomes his own Pope. Although Luther didn't say it explicitly, but it is implied.

No. And that, in fact, doesn't even make sense when you get right down to it. The Catholic Church hasn't decided the meaning of various Bible verses by referring them to the Pope at that particular moment. Luther denied the Pope's authority, but that refers essentially to his position as GOVERNOR of the Church, not some status as sole interpreter of Scripture. The process of determining doctrine in the Catholic Church is far more complicated than to say "Pope." You might want to consult something dealing with "Holy Tradition" for more on this subject. (And, BTW, if you or Luther were to oppose the idea of there being, properly, a "Pope" at all in Christ's Church, you certainly are not going to make yourself into a replacement Pope.)

But, for me, I go to Bible studies because I don't think I can understand the Bible myself. I was always amazed when I found that followers of Luther or Calvin or Wycliff or Wesley or Smyth etc also go to Bible Studies.

Of course. No one said that understanding the Bible is as easy as reading the Yellow Pages. Neither is the study of Medicine or Electricity or Physics. But we don't say that it's impossible and you must, therefore, defer to some supposed "Vicar of Christ on Earth" who alone can know the answers. When you and I approach these issues, we come as ordinary people, but Luther still said that we are entitled to our conclusions, right or wrong, and not to be condemned for believing what we may. He, it may also be worth noting, was the greatest Bible Scholar of his day, and yet he who did certainly know more than we was still supposed by the Church apparatus to just take what the Church's leadership told him to believe. That's wrong on several counts.

I am here not to argue about whether Luther was right or wrong

If you say so. But at the same time, you can see how I might consider the charge that Luther wanted to make himself a Pope somewhat judgmental.

I just wanted to say what I know about why there are so many sub-divisions, in response to Damian7's question.

Of course. But the real reason there are so many denominations or splits, which is something that goes back to the earliest days of the Church, is because Christ DID NOT establish a rigid structure for governing his church. As a result, the movement saw the development of factions inspired by various men thinking that they saw something implied in Christ's teachings that bore upon this issue.

Jesus Christ founded only one Church and it will exist until the end of time, as Jesus Christ promised to Peter the apostle.

Which Church is this, for a beginner it is hard to tell amidst the HUGE confusions. But only one of them is true, NOT all -- since the Truth cannot have 200 versions.

Not necessarily. First you have to decide what is meant by "church." It may not be a structured, membership organization. Then you have to decide what is meant by "true." If it is the case--which I think can be shown--that most of what divides the various church bodies is personalities, trivia, ways of doing things, custom, culture, points of emphasis and--all round-- non-essentials, not essentials of the faith, then there may be any number of "true" churches of Christ in the sense of holding to the truth about that which matters.

 

[Tomm]

[/size]

Of course. But the real reason there are so many denominations or splits, which is something that goes back to the earliest days of the Church, is because Christ DID NOT establish a rigid structure for governing his church...


Not necessarily. First you have to decide what is meant by "church." It may not be a structured, membership organization. Then you have to decide what is meant by "true." If it is the case--which I think can be shown--that most of what divides the various church bodies is personalities, trivia, ways of doing things, custom, culture, points of emphasis and--all round-- non-essentials, not essentials of the faith, then there may be any number of "true" churches of Christ in the sense of holding to the truth about that which matters.

No, I don't agree with you, I am totally UNconvinced.
But I don't have time to argue with you -- I know the more I argue,
the more you will bring up or make up strange doctrines (for example: you said the Church is not a rigid organization ; but how can it be ?).
It is a contradiction to belive Luther's teaching on private interpretation of the Bible and , on the other hand, go to Bible Studies to listen to pastors.

I believe there is only one true representative of Christ and only one True Church. Is it the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, etc ?

The answer I already know. Also many Christians already know deep down in their conscience, some followed their conscience but, unfortunately, some rejected because they didn't like it that way.

I was re-assured of my beliefs some years ago, when I heard of the Blessed Virgin Mary's apparitions at Lourdes, France (1858) and Fatima, Portugal (1917).

 

[Iefan]

Can we just unite and love each other in one single vision?

Where does Jesus place the importance of unity? Doesn't it say he comes to divide, and set brother against brother?

But I don't have time to argue with you.

DO NOT ASSERT YOUR POSITION IF YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.

 

[Albion]

No, I don't agree with you, I am totally UNconvinced.
But I don't have time to argue with you

I don't mind. I wanted to set the record straight for whoever was following along.

ye zn'tuoe-- I know the more I argue,
the more you will bring up or make up strange doctrines

Everything's strange to someone, I suppose, but I was just recounting for you how the church came to be, as recorded in the New Testament.

(for example: you said

the Church is not a rigid organization ; but how can it be ?).

No, I didn't say that.

It is a contradiction to belive Luther's teaching on private interpretation of the Bible and , on the other hand, go to Bible Studies to listen to pastors.

I think all that that shows is that you badly misunderstand Luther. Being allowed to follow one's own conscience and being an expert in the Bible are two quite different things, so there's no contradition there. Do you follow the part about being free to follow one's conscience and that this doesn't guarantee that you'll necessarily arrive at the right answers?

I believe there is only one true representative of Christ and only one True Church. Is it the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, etc ? The answer I already know. Also many Christians already know deep down in their conscience, some followed their conscience but, unfortunately, some rejected because they didn't like it that way.

I was re-assured of my beliefs some years ago, when I heard of the Blessed Virgin Mary's apparitions at Lourdes, France (1858) and Fatima, Portugal (1917).

If that works for you, it's fine with me. It doesn't concern me one way or the other which church you've decided to consider an "only one true" one or what impressed you about it. What I was doing was keeping the historical record correct vis-a-vis the early church and what Luther, whom you introduced into the discussion, had to say. We have the right to join any church we want, but it's a good idea to not misrepresent the others along the way.

Cheers

 

[SummaScriptura]

No, I don't agree with you, I am totally UNconvinced.
But I don't have time to argue with you -- I know the more I argue,
the more you will bring up or make up strange doctrines (for example: you said the Church is not a rigid organization ; but how can it be ?).
It is a contradiction to belive Luther's teaching on private interpretation of the Bible and , on the other hand, go to Bible Studies to listen to pastors.

I believe there is only one true representative of Christ and only one True Church. Is it the Baptist Church, the Lutheran Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, etc ?

The answer I already know. Also many Christians already know deep down in their conscience, some followed their conscience but, unfortunately, some rejected because they didn't like it that way.

I was re-assured of my beliefs some years ago, when I heard of the Blessed Virgin Mary's apparitions at Lourdes, France (1858) and Fatima, Portugal (1917).

[edit] Got my answer.

 

[JobM]

I wondered about the different denominations. In some ways it is good. The good being that different denominations can provide you with an understanding of some passages of scripture better than other denominations. I think about scripture where Paul talks about different body parts. Something like, "The hand can't say to the foot, I have no need of you. At it's best, denominations can be branches of Christianity. The bad thing about it is the denominations are in competition against each other.