Why so many denominations?

DarylFawcett said:

I don't know if this question was ever asked and if this is even the most appropriate place to ask it.

Why are there so many denominations that seem to believe something from the Bible that in some instances contradicts the beliefs of one or more denominations with the beliefs of one or more other denominations?

Click to expand...

Maybe it has something to do with Perspicuity of Scripture or lack thereof.

<edit>

Denominationalism, the notion that there are Christians across denominational and sectarian lines and that we don't have to shout "heretic!" at every point of disagreement is the result of realizing that--quite frankly--killing one another just isn't what Jesus wanted from those who go by His name (that whole, "they will know that you're my disciples by the love you have for one another" and "a new commandment I give you, that you love one another as I have loved you" deal).

What I don't think solves the problem of divisions within Christianity is the construction of a new church and religious movement that claims to be the restored Church of Jesus Christ. That's just adding further division.

So, with all due respect, all that I think Joseph Smith, Jr. accomplished was to create a new schismatic group with radically different teachings than what has historically been believed and accepted by Christians--even Christians across all sorts of theological and denominational lines.

-CryptoLutheran

"Of a truth I perceived that God is no respector of persons; but in every nation (or denomi-nation) he who fears God, and works righteousness, is accepted of Him." Acts 10:34,35.


"Some seem to feel that they must be on probation and must prove to the Lord that they are reformed before they can claim His blessing. But these dear souls may claim the blessing even now. They must have His grace, the Spirit of Christ, to help their infirmities, or they cannot form a Christian character. Jesus loves to have us come to Him, just as we are, --sinful, helpless, dependent." E.G. White, Faith & Works, 38.

"Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you. Present your case before Him pleading the merits of the blood shed for you upon Calvar's cross." Ibid, 106.

If I understand the above correctly, Jesus loves to have us come to Him, day by day, just as we are, sinful, helpless, dependent, pleading the merits of the blood He shed for us upon Calvary's cross and thus His grace, His Spirit, will work in us both to will and to do His good pleasure. Thus we become a "new creature in Christ Jesus unto good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. " Eph.2:10.

Through faith in the merits of Christ the grace of the Holy Spirit fills up the measure of the law's requirements.

This is our work: to behold the uplifted Saviour and to accept His merits which it is our privilege to claim. This is the only faith that will benefit us for by laying right hold of the merits of Christ His righteousness is brought into the life and it accomplishes everything as it is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.

Thank God for the gift of all the merits and righteousness of Christ.

ritk

One thing we may be sure of is that anyone who comes to God just as he is, sinful, helpless, dependent, believing from the heart that the MERITS of Christ's infinite sacrifice are SUFFICIENT to present to the Father in his behalf in order to bring His righteousness into the life, (Rom.8:10) has become a member of Christ's body and as long as he continues in this faith which is the only true faith, (Gal.3:25;5:6) he cannot perish. He is a member of Christ's body and clothed with the robe of Christ's righteousness he becomes impregnable to the assaults of Satan and he may go on from grace to grace, from strength to strength, and from light to a greater light.

rits

bbbbbbb said:

Mosaic Order? I am familiar with the Mosaic Covenant established through Moses on Mount Sinai with the nation of Israel and of the Mosaic Lodge of Freemasonry, but not any Mosaic Order. Do you have any references from the ECFs for the Mosaic Order?

Click to expand...

On this matter, I will quote from an author whom I highly respect:

"It was tried once, and I know what it meant then. That is exactly the course that was taken in the second and third centuries after Christ in the first steps of the papacy. This can be verified by any one who will only look through the pages of the church history of that time. And that I may not be counted too personal and pointed in this, I will say here what I have written in another place of that first attempt in adopting the Mosaic order of Christian times. Here is what I said of that attempt then:

But again there came a falling away. Again God as King was abandoned. Christ as 'Leader and Commander of His people,' and as only entitled to pre-eminence, was set aside. Men 'loving to have the pre-eminence' assumed His place. (3 John 9) The Holy Spirit, as Sovereign and Guide in and of the Church, was supplanted with the devisings and machinery of men, again like 'all the nations.

Yet this was not done in open and confessed disregrard of God. It was all done under cover of the scrïpture, and as the manifestation of the divine order itself. This deception was accomplished through the pretense of adopting the Mosaic order of organization. But to go back to the Mosaic order was, in itself and at one plunge, the total abandonment of the Christian order.

This would have been true, even if the Mosaic order had been truly and completely adopted. But the true adoption of the Mosaic order was simply impossible. Under the Mosaic order the people were a compact mass, separate from all other people, and dwelling by tribes compactly within specific and narrow limitations; the area of the whole nation being one sixth less, and the people being four to six or even eight times more than that of Connecticut. To think, then, of applying that order in the case of a people who were scattered all over the known world, dwelling promiscuously among all the people of the world, one here, another yonder, two or three here, and four or five there, a small company in one city and no other within many miles--to think of applying in truth the Mosaic order and organization in such a situation as that, could not possibly be anything else than sheer wild humanisticallish nonsense.

And in fact, it never was either adopted or applied in truth. The scheme was never anything but a pretense, a contrivance to save appearances. But it served the ambitious clerics as a means of hoodwinking the people, and giving to themselves a show of divine sanction for their own assumed authority to reign against Christ and in the place of God. For how easy and natural it was under that 'Mosaic order' to hold before the people the presumption and fate of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and others, as the 'divine and awful warning to all men who should dare anything against the bishop,' for 'we must look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.'

And this humanisticallish thing, which from the beginning was only a wicked invention of perverse minded men; this thing that was wholly the fruit of apostasy; this thing that sprang only from the abandonment of the Christian order and the adoption of a fraud on the Mosaic order; this thing that was only the fruit of the rejection of Christ for Moses, and thus the substitution of themselves for Christ; this utterly anti-Christian thing, they who made it called it "the kingdom of God!" the one and only true church! But it was never anything else than only the kingdom of man in the place of God." An Appeal For Evangelical Order by A. T. Jones

This is in part what Lutherans call the Law and Gospel Dialectic. The Law simultaneously tells us what we are to do and reveals our weakness and inability to achieve it; the Gospel tells us that God loves us anyway, accepts us, forgives us and is with and for us. The Law can't save or give life, though it can kill us; the Gospel, however does save and it does this because God loves us and has mercy on us. The Law means the death of the sinner, the Gospel means life for the sinner. After all, "This is a good and trustworthy saying worthy of acceptance: Christ came to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners."

-CryptoLutheran[/quote]


Paul is Romans 7 says, "And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." Verse 10.

Of course the mere letter of the law engraved on stones or written with ink cannot impart life to the sinner. It is as cold as the stones it is engraved upon and as dry as the ink it is written with and it is a ministration of condemnation and death. The letter kills. (2 Cor.3:6,7)

Yet that same law spoken by Christ at Sinai was ordained to life. (Rom.7:10) If at Sinai the Israelites had looked to Christ and trusted in the merits of a Saviour to come for their redemption and received the ten commandments as the voice of God speaking to them in promise, the voice of God would have been a ministration of the Spirit to them and therefore a ministration of righteousness. (Rom.8:10) The ministration of the voice of God is much more glorious than the ministration of the mere letter!

The Psalmist discerned between the letter and the voice of God when He said, "This is my comfort in my affliction for Your word has given me life." "I will never forget Your precepts for with them You have given me life." Psalm 119:50,93.

After we have been convinced of sin by the letter of the law we are to rest in the merits of Christ's sacrifice for our acceptance with God and receive the ten commandments as the voice of God from Heaven speaking to us in promise. Thus every command becomes a most positive promise of its own fulfillment for the voice of God imparts power, it begets a new life. It brings with it the very life of the infinite One to fill up the measure of the law's requirements. "I the Lord speak righteousness." Isaiah 45:19,23.

"I know that Your commandment is life everlasting." John 12:50.

To all who trust wholly in the merits of a crucified and risen Saviour for their acceptance with God, the commandments of God are Spirit and they are Life, the voice of Him who can renew the soul unto everlasting life. (John 6:63,68)

rainbowinthesky

rainbowinthesky said:

Nothing is impossible to God.

Click to expand...

This statement is false. Many things are impossible for God.

For example: It is impossible for God to make Himself cease to exist. One of His divine attributes is eternal existence. He always was and always will be.

A true statement would be: God can do everything that is possible.

Jig said:

This statement is false. Many things are impossible for God.

For example: It is impossible for God to make Himself cease to exist. One of His divine attributes is eternal existence. He always was and always will be.

A true statement would be: God can do everything that is possible.

Click to expand...

Luke 1:37 "For With God nothing shall be impossible."

Are we not talking about what God can do for man that it is impossible for him to do for himself?

sky

Ah, so now we get to look at context. I was wondering when this would happen.

<edit>
Lets look at another passage within the same gospel: Mark 11:22-24. Here we are told that our faith can move mountains. Our we to take this hyper-literally at face value? Has anyone's faith truly moved mountains? When we study the characteristics of Semitic communicative style we see that it is common to make a point by exaggeration. We see this many times in Mark's gospel - such as the command to cut off our foot if it causes us to sin (Mark 9:45). Christ does not want you to actually cut off your foot! He is making a point!

The hyperbolic casting of a mountain into the sea (here in 11:22-24) by faith signals the exaggeration in these statements about prayer. The point of the saying is the absolute necessity of trust in God&#8217;s unlimited power, not a blank check for answered prayers.

In fact, Mark even starts his gospel off with such hyperbole. Check out Mark 1:5:

And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan...

Do you really believe that EVERYONE in Judea and Jerusalem got baptized by John? Even Pontius Pilate, King Herod, or the Pharisees? This is obvious exaggeration to stress the point that ALOT of people came to get baptized.

In much the same way Mark 9:23 is hyperbolic. Jesus is merely highlighting that the issue was not His lack of power but the father&#8217;s lack of faith.

DarylFawcett said:

I don't know if this question was ever asked and if this is even the most appropriate place to ask it.

Why are there so many denominations that seem to believe something from the Bible that in some instances contradicts the beliefs of one or more denominations with the beliefs of one or more other denominations?

Click to expand...

No offence meant to anyone but I think Sola Scriptura is the biggest culprit here.

Eternally Optimistic said:

No offence meant to anyone but I think Sola Scriptura is the biggest culprit here.

Click to expand...

When your religious institution issues a teaching through its Magisterium, who is to interpret its interpretation? Surely, this is not a circular situation.

Jig said:

When your religious institution issues a teaching through its Magisterium, who is to interpret its interpretation? Surely, this is not a circular situation.

Click to expand...

touche good sir, I suppose we both find the other to be circular. Though I would counter that any teaching that may come down from the Magisterium, rare that it is, is done so through the light of Scripture and Tradition, so in our perspective it would not be circular, rather the "end of the line" so to speak, or as St. Augustine would say, Roma locuta est, causa finita est!"

Eternally Optimistic said:

touche good sir, I suppose we both find the other to be circular. Though I would counter that any teaching that may come down from the Magisterium, rare that it is, is done so through the light of Scripture and Tradition, so in our perspective it would not be circular, rather the "end of the line" so to speak, or as St. Augustine would say, Roma locuta est, causa finita est!"

Click to expand...

All interpretation needs to be interpreted. It is not the "end of the line" for you, it is merely one more step removed from the Scriptures.

Jig said:

All interpretation needs to be interpreted. It is not the "end of the line" for you, it is merely one more step removed from the Scriptures.

Click to expand...

Obviously I can not agree it is a step removed, all three, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium go hand in hand (and in hand for all three I suppose), Scripture was codified and canonized by the Magisterium of the early Church, who relied on Tradition to ensure the orthodoxy of the various and competing texts, and Scripture and Tradition are used by the Magisterium of today when promulgating any teaching. I do acknowledge that from a non-Catholic perspective this can be perceived as circular, though I can tell you from a non-Protestant perspective S.S. is very illogical and is seen as leading to fragmenting beliefs.

rainbowinthesky said:

On this matter, I will quote from an author whom I highly respect:

"It was tried once, and I know what it meant then. That is exactly the course that was taken in the second and third centuries after Christ in the first steps of the papacy. This can be verified by any one who will only look through the pages of the church history of that time. And that I may not be counted too personal and pointed in this, I will say here what I have written in another place of that first attempt in adopting the Mosaic order of Christian times. Here is what I said of that attempt then:

But again there came a falling away. Again God as King was abandoned. Christ as 'Leader and Commander of His people,' and as only entitled to pre-eminence, was set aside. Men 'loving to have the pre-eminence' assumed His place. (3 John 9) The Holy Spirit, as Sovereign and Guide in and of the Church, was supplanted with the devisings and machinery of men, again like 'all the nations.

Yet this was not done in open and confessed disregrard of God. It was all done under cover of the scrïpture, and as the manifestation of the divine order itself. This deception was accomplished through the pretense of adopting the Mosaic order of organization. But to go back to the Mosaic order was, in itself and at one plunge, the total abandonment of the Christian order.

This would have been true, even if the Mosaic order had been truly and completely adopted. But the true adoption of the Mosaic order was simply impossible. Under the Mosaic order the people were a compact mass, separate from all other people, and dwelling by tribes compactly within specific and narrow limitations; the area of the whole nation being one sixth less, and the people being four to six or even eight times more than that of Connecticut. To think, then, of applying that order in the case of a people who were scattered all over the known world, dwelling promiscuously among all the people of the world, one here, another yonder, two or three here, and four or five there, a small company in one city and no other within many miles--to think of applying in truth the Mosaic order and organization in such a situation as that, could not possibly be anything else than sheer wild humanisticallish nonsense.

And in fact, it never was either adopted or applied in truth. The scheme was never anything but a pretense, a contrivance to save appearances. But it served the ambitious clerics as a means of hoodwinking the people, and giving to themselves a show of divine sanction for their own assumed authority to reign against Christ and in the place of God. For how easy and natural it was under that 'Mosaic order' to hold before the people the presumption and fate of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, and others, as the 'divine and awful warning to all men who should dare anything against the bishop,' for 'we must look upon the bishop as upon the Lord Himself.'

And this humanisticallish thing, which from the beginning was only a wicked invention of perverse minded men; this thing that was wholly the fruit of apostasy; this thing that sprang only from the abandonment of the Christian order and the adoption of a fraud on the Mosaic order; this thing that was only the fruit of the rejection of Christ for Moses, and thus the substitution of themselves for Christ; this utterly anti-Christian thing, they who made it called it "the kingdom of God!" the one and only true church! But it was never anything else than only the kingdom of man in the place of God." An Appeal For Evangelical Order by A. T. Jones

Click to expand...

It appears that Mr. Jones invented the term "Mosaic Order" to help defend and define his argument. When did Mr. Jones write this? It is quite evident that such a term was not used until he invented it and it is exceedingly unlikely that the concept was defined and understood in the early history of the Church as he has defined it for us. He frames an argument that never existed until he invented it for us.

Unfortunately, there is no historic basis for his use of that term. If you can find any use of that term by the Early Church Fathers I will retract my comments and discuss their writings with you.

Thank you.

I think one of the reasons for the the many denominations is because the believers, regardless of denomination, are literally betting their life on the doctrine they follow. This makes one's selection of doctrine a very high-stakes endeavor. They will be motivated to get it exactly right even if they have to come up with a new doctrine that believers fully accept.

Although any simple answer is an oversimplification of the many reasons for doctrinal diversity within Christianity, however, I did want to add some personal beliefs as to why not all motivations underlying diverse beliefs are evil or even &#8220;bad&#8221;.

I&#8217;ve come to the conclusion that some peripheral theological differences are almost inevitable due to our inherent differences in experiences, in knowledge and understanding. I do not think differences in opinion are completely avoidable but rather that they often are part of the moral milieu necessary for us to learn and gain moral qualities such as patience and empathy for those who are different than ourselves.


1) Regarding Changing doctrines due to changing knowledge and understanding within a single individual

Even single individuals do not believe the same as adults as they did when they were children since our own knowledge base enlarges and our understanding changes to reflect this constant change. We are, all of us, biased (dare I say &#8220;tainted&#8221 to some extent by "local" cultural traditions we&#8217;ve inherited and been exposed to.



2) Regarding Changing doctrines due to changing life experiences.
We also become "philosophically re-directed" by certain life experiences. For example, if I am a mother of an infant who died a few hours after birth, then a prior held tradition that even infants who have not &#8220;accepted Jesus&#8221; go to hell; may seem completely unfair. Even attempts by others to support that doctrine by claiming &#8220;God has the power to do what he wants to infants&#8221; may not make damnation of the innocent infant seem just or fair to this mother. Such a doctrinal-moral dissonance may motivate and underlie the search for a better understanding or doctrine which may seem more fair.

Any &#8220;new&#8221; doctrinal understanding gained by such a search may be less correct OR more correct than the prior belief, and this search was motivated by a personal experience not all individuals will have and it may result in a differing belief that not all share. Still, this experience was a source of a differing doctrinal understanding of the actual justice (or unjustness) of God. Even if the new and better doctrine is more correct than the prior-held tradition one grew up with, still, it will be seen as and declared &#8220;unorthodox&#8221; by those holding to the prior tradition (whether correct or incorrect......).

Because of these and other reasons, I do not think we can maintain a single assembly-line level of understanding and beliefs on &#8220;peripheral&#8221; doctrines to the degree that we can agree on a central, &#8220;core&#8221; doctrine such as the claim that Jesus was in one way or another, a "redeemer&#8221;.



3) There are many other reasons why beliefs in Christian doctrines we grew up with may change in a single individual.

For example, Religious Christian theists who become steeped in Judao-Christians history repeatedly experience doctrinal "shifts" as they are exposed to new historical discoveries regarding early Judao-Christian beliefs.

For example, as one becomes interested in early Judao-Christian texts such as early JudaoChristian diaries, hymns, written prayers, and other texts sacred to the earliest Judao-Christians, one will discover how beliefs in early Christianity differed from one&#8217;s modern Christianity and belief. When faced with such discoveries, the discoverer is faced with a new doctrinal choice he did not imagine before the discovery.

If the discovery is a doctrinal or interpretational difference between an earlier ancient christian belief and the belief the discovering historian currently holds, he then may experience the discomfort of having to change his own belief, especially if the ancient belief is undoubtably authentic; and is superior; and leads to greater understanding; and is less doctrinally discordant than a modern belief or interpretation.

Initially, such a choice to re-align one's beliefs, is often somewhat uncomfortable. However, the experience of gaining a superior doctrine at the expense of having to give up a prior, but inferior tradition, is itself, a rewarding experience such that, when such experiences occur over and over and the experience of discovery and giving up a prior held belief for a superior and more correct belief becomes easier, then at some point the motivation towards discovery of &#8220;authentic christianity&#8221; and the change of opinion it forces upon the Judao-Christian historian, becomes welcomed, rather than discomforting.

However, another source of doctrinal friction may then occur when a more enlightened, but impatient and un-empathetical Christian historian-discoverer then tends to condemn another person's doctrines : Another person who is no more ignorant than the historian used to be; and is no more dependent upon mere tradition as the historian used to be. Our attitudes in discussions may cause as much argument as continued ignorance.

For example; while in this journey toward ever greater understanding of authentic early judao-christian religion, the discoverer often tends to overestimate the amount of knowledge he has achieved and becomes proud and arrogant and, though his knowledge might be superior, still, he may lack the needed christian qualities of love and charity and patience and empathy for others and become argumentative to the point that it is counterproductive and cause &#8220;good&#8221; but ignorant individuals to simply &#8220;dig in their heels&#8221; against his better information. This is not necessarily because the historian's new doctrine is inferior, but because of the antagonistic nature of many disagreements.


Clearly
eidrtwacmn

I was reading this thread with interest, how does one get an orthodox Christian icon?

Jan Hus said:

I was reading this thread with interest, how does one get an orthodox Christian icon?

Click to expand...

Did you recently accept Jesus?