Why so many denominations?

[Albion]

Comparing theological divisions today within the CC to Protestant divisions among different denominations is hyperbole. I think it's interesting that so many here seem to down play these divisions and at the same time almost praise theological diversity. Or even more interesting exaggerate divisions within the CC.

Open both of your eyes and you'll get a more complete picture of the matter.

That's the real issue here--posters living in glass houses who throw stones. Catholic, Protestant, they all are victims of division, schism, etc.

 

[pathfinder777]

Open both of your eyes and you'll get a more complete picture of the matter.

That's the real issue here--posters living in glass houses who throw stones. Catholic, Protestant, they all are victims of division, schism, etc.

My eyes are wide open, some posters tend to get defensive and resort to sarcasm and/or character insults or categorize/label people eg those who live in glass houses and have closed eyes......at any rate there are multiple contributing factors to the answer of this post not the least of which is obviously the rejection of Church authority and the rallying cry of SS.

 

[Albion]

My eyes are wide open, some posters tend to get defensive and resort to sarcasm and/or character insults or categorize/label people eg those who live in glass houses and have closed eyes.

If you feel that way, I'll simply say that your thesis--that the one denomination of your preference is more united than all other churches if they were to be treated as if they were a single church--is absurd.

And as has been noted many times, the Catholic churches are probably less united than the Protestant churches. For certain, no two of the Catholic churches agree with each other.

 

[pathfinder777]

If you feel that way, I'll simply say that your thesis--that the one denomination of your preference is more united than all other churches if they were to be treated as if they were a single church--is absurd.

And as has been noted many times, the Catholic churches are probably less united than the Protestant churches. For certain, no two of the Catholic churches agree with each other.

I think it's fair to say that Christendom has undergone an accelerated fragmentation theologically since the Reformation of which nothing remotely comes close prior to. Today the RCC is not fragmented theologically, quite the opposite, as other groups have changed on a multitude of teachings eg contraception, same sex, female bishops etc the CC been unchanging. "Catholic Churches"?? Are you referring to EO? Surely your not claiming the RCC is less unified doctrinally than the different traditions of the reformation combined??? Now that would be absurd!

 

[Albion]

I think it's fair to say that Christendom has undergone an accelerated fragmentation theologically since the Reformation of which nothing remotely comes close prior to.

Nothing else, I think you mean.

But as has been mentioned before, there were scads of splits and heretical groups before the Reformation. In fact, they were considered epidemic in the Middle Ages. And most of the Protestant splits are over jurisdictional or administrative matters, not theology. SO, it may be that there has been more splitting in recent times (in both Protestant and Catholic churches), but it's far from clear cut that that's the case.

Today the RCC is not fragmented theologically, quite the opposite, as other groups have changed on a multitude of teachings eg contraception, same sex, female bishops etc the CC been unchanging. "Catholic Churches"?? Are you referring to EO? Surely your not claiming the RCC is less unified doctrinally than the different traditions of the reformation combined??? Now that would be absurd!

Well, any church can be made to look united if all the dissenters are deemed to be miraculously outside it. The RCC itself has experienced a number of splits in just the last several generations, so it's certainly not united--and that's to look only at the formal splits. The internal factions and struggles between traditionalists and reformers are well-known.

 

[Awaken4Christ]

I would wager that it is because people like to read in between the lines and make huge theological decisions based on smaller parts of the text. Instead of coming together under the banner of Christ which is a beautiful, powerful, and a comprehensive theology, people succumb to the doctrines and traditions of men.

This applies to everything from Calvinism to Pentecostals and everything in between.

So we have some movers and shakers in the History of Christianity, but there are far too many to mention. What we can mention is a few major influences.

Pagan Rome found its way into Christian traditions and even doctrine. (I'm not suggesting the scriptures them selves were influenced but the way they are sometimes interpreted.)

Some of the traditions of Catholicism played a role. But should the reformation just stopped? Did anybody beg to wonder if there will still old pagan influences at play?

Also the modern world plays a part. Sometimes people create churches that look like the world, while others try to protect them against becoming like that.

Another reason there is division is that a particular topic has to be hot or cold, this way or that, but no middle ground. Its like you have to make up your mind on the proposals offered even when it would be acceptable to just have it "undeclared".

Well anywho that's just my 2 cents.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would wager that it is because people like to read in between the lines and make huge theological decisions based on smaller parts of the text. Instead of coming together under the banner of Christ which is a beautiful, powerful, and a comprehensive theology, people succumb to the doctrines and traditions of men.

Noble words. The issue here is that the Word of God is made up of words... and those words at times translate to fact-based propositions. Said propositions are either true and reflective of God's will and desires or they are not.

"Coming together under the banner of Christ" is what the so-called Restoration movement attempts to do but it leads inevitably to theological disunity. People with otherwise nothing in common as far as religious beliefs are concerned pretend to be "united" with each other simply because they both confess that Christ is the Son of God. You can do just that but (A) it's completely superficial and (B) it leaves a *LOT* on the table.

Pagan Rome found its way into Christian traditions and even doctrine.

*sigh*

I really wish people would think twice before saying things like this. In the majority of cases I know about, the "paganism" people refer to are practices the Church had first and which pagans attempted (to varying degrees of success) to co-opt. Why should the Church abandon centuries-old beliefs, symbols and practices just because some pagans wanted them for themselves?

Another reason there is division is that a particular topic has to be hot or cold, this way or that, but no middle ground.

Any statement of fact you make is either factually true or it is not factually true. What middleground is there between truth and non-truth?

Should abject lack of truth be tolerated in the name of maintaining the illusion of unity? How has that worked out for the Anglican Communion?

Its like you have to make up your mind on the proposals offered even when it would be acceptable to just have it "undeclared".

Again, proposals are either true or they are not true. I happen to think we have (at the very least) an intellectual duty to ourselves to develop an opinion on the matter.

 

[Albion]

I would wager that it is because people like to read in between the lines and make huge theological decisions based on smaller parts of the text. Instead of coming together under the banner of Christ which is a beautiful, powerful, and a comprehensive theology, people succumb to the doctrines and traditions of men.

This applies to everything from Calvinism to Pentecostals and everything in between.

I'd say that it's more often because of the need to throw off the doctrines and traditions of men. And that's good.

 

[Targaryen]

I think it's fair to say that Christendom has undergone an accelerated fragmentation theologically since the Reformation of which nothing remotely comes close prior to. Today the RCC is not fragmented theologically, quite the opposite, as other groups have changed on a multitude of teachings eg contraception, same sex, female bishops etc the CC been unchanging. "Catholic Churches"?? Are you referring to EO? Surely your not claiming the RCC is less unified doctrinally than the different traditions of the reformation combined??? Now that would be absurd!

And I could say Rome started the fragmentation of theological and unity that led to the Great Schism.

Sorry but you lot don't get a free pass on theological and unity issues either.

 

[Laureate]

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.

It is impossible also for Him to lie, yet whatsoever is impossible for Elohym to do or not do, He is capable of achieving the equivalent thereof, i.e., "lead us not into..."

In essence, He is aware of all that any individual is aware of, and everything that any one is not aware of, thus He knows precisely what two or three words an individual needs to hear at a given moment to reap whatsoever response He desires from any individual, He knows exactly what to say in order to make one cry, laugh, be enraged, sad, etc., thus He is capable of speaking a truth that is above our heads, and we can either rely on Him to explain these things, or nurture our speculations which is predisposed to be a lie when it is not in harmony with the divine truth.

 

[Laureate]

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 “bad”.

I’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 “tainted”) to some extent by "local" cultural traditions we’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 “accepted Jesus” go to hell; may seem completely unfair. Even attempts by others to support that doctrine by claiming “God has the power to do what he wants to infants” 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 “new” 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 “unorthodox” 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 “peripheral” doctrines to the degree that we can agree on a central, “core” doctrine such as the claim that Jesus was in one way or another, a "redeemer”.



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’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 “authentic christianity” 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 “good” but ignorant individuals to simply “dig in their heels” 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

Love it simply Lo....well how can I not, it is a pretty good discription of my reality.

I can not tell you how many times a denominationalistic babe responded to a testimony of scripture that I was moved to share, with total disregard for what was being said, but expressed unwaranted fear that anyone would dare climb out of their diapers, and step away from their nursing bottle teaching, and quote scriptures precept upon precept, etc., which the denominations for one reason or another do not touch....


It's their concern that I have the basics down first, not knowing you can not get where I am in my faith and relationship with Elohym without embodying those basics, and unless I demonstrate otherwise, why go there?

They do not realize, it takes one to be able to recognize another of the same, thus if he fails to recognize that which is good and from on high, then it is because he is yet blinded by his own shortcomings of the basics, and is, (as it is for many) easier to superimpose our own disposition onto another, and suspect they are no better off than themself as it pertains to disposition, than to rely on scriptural principles so that they do not have to be found....so lacking!

 

[agua]

Love it simply Lo....well how can I not, it is a pretty good discription of my reality.

I can not tell you how many times a denominationalistic babe responded to a testimony of scripture that I was moved to share, with total disregard for what was being said, but expressed unwaranted fear that anyone would dare climb out of their diapers, and step away from their nursing bottle teaching, and quote scriptures precept upon precept, etc., which the denominations for one reason or another do not touch....


It's their concern that I have the basics down first, not knowing you can not get where I am in my faith and relationship with Elohym without embodying those basics, and unless I demonstrate otherwise, why go there?

They do not realize, it takes one to be able to recognize another of the same, thus if he fails to recognize that which is good and from on high, then it is because he is yet blinded by his own shortcomings of the basics, and is, (as it is for many) easier to superimpose our own disposition onto another, and suspect they are no better off than themself as it pertains to disposition, than to rely on scriptural principles so that they do not have to be found....so lacking!

Hear hear ! I think in general people are lazy because it takes effort and much time to study the scriptures. I suggest you will have an excellent grasp of OT soteriology, being Messianic, which many Christians gloss over.

 

[Laureate]

1. Because God allows it.
2. Because "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:22
3. Because many claim and many believe that they have experienced the new birth who either knowingly have not or unknowingly have not.

Why are there so many varieties of other religions? Not all Muslims agree. And there aree Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Sikhs, etc. Why are there so many religions?

Even on CF, the icon a person uses may not be genuine. One can claim to agree with the Nicene Creed while secretly disagreeing with it.

For some of us it is not a matter of accepting or rejecting the Nicene Creed, personally I feel it is an earnest attempt to provide all believers a common ground in which to stand on, but foundation has already been laid, so if the Creed ommits one verse, it has nothing to do with me, if the Creed hinders, or prohibits believers to do what is scripturally expected for believers to do, then again, I say, What does it have to do with me?

 

[Laureate]

I know this might be a controversial answer but I don't think any of them would fit that descriptor. People just don't think like they did in late Antiquity. Our collective psychology has changed pretty drastically and we can't go back there again.

Clinically, when we experience something so traumatic that it forces us to change, and not allow us to go back, it is referred to as PTSD, except I like to think of the D as 'deliverance', or in alignment with what our savior might say, If Disorder rises against disorder, than how can the kingdom of disorder stand?

It's what a rude awakening is capable of doing!

 

[Laureate]

Some define it the way I did. Others will tell you that it teaches everything you need to know to get to Heaven, though they don't say whether it's the only authoritative source to get it from here on Earth. In the list I'm quoting here from Bible.ca, it's hard to know what the writer means by the word "means." It could mean "implies" or something like, "a statement we make with a declarative sentence." But I doubt that it means, "a definition in a dictionary." The list author seems to tell us what sola scriptura excludes, not what it consists in.

If we actually go according to the Scriptures to interpret the scriptures, as Sola scriptura intends, then the last three definitive points listed above go against scripture, for Interpretation may be a gift of Ruach H'Kodesh, and Y'shua said he had many things yet to say, but because of our denominational babe attributes, were not ready to bear those things, however he would send Ruach H'Kodesh to bring us into remembrance (by quoting) the things he has said, and guide & teach us concerning these things.

Thus without Ruach H'Kodesh how can anyone come unto the truth, or receieve the gift of interpretation! The last on the above list makes null and void what the scripture say will occur in the last day i.e., pretty much everyone will be prophecizing, which will only be as vauge or clear as we all know prophecy to be.

I am still Solo Scriptura, just not quite like the guy whose ascription includes the omission of scripture.

 

[Crusader knight]

Ok, then I ask, with all this confusion, how do I TRULY find God?+CK+

 

[rnmomof7]

Because the Reformation opened the floodgates for anyone and everyone to pick and choose what bits of historical Christianity they wanted to adhere to, or in some cases, just make up new stuff. Schisms existed before that, but they were nothing like what came after the Reformation.

Actually there is as much agreement within the various protestant denominations as there is within Rome.

Protestants have agreement in the doctrines necessary for salvation.. they accept the Solas of the reformation and look to Christ alone for their salvation.. the differences do not negate that ..

 

[rnmomof7]

Its because of false teachers and false prophets! we were told they would infiltrate the flock, appearing as sheep but actually being wolves (see 2 Peter 2)

In the case of the reformation it was to run away from the false teachers that infiltrated the NT church

 

[Norah63]

denominations are just a way to group folks togeather, a safe haven of fellowship.

 

[Albion]

Actually there is as much agreement within the various protestant denominations as there is within Rome.

Protestants have agreement in the doctrines necessary for salvation.. they accept the Solas of the reformation and look to Christ alone for their salvation.. the differences do not negate that ..

True. But some people will say that the minister/priest doesn't stand in the right place during worship, or that there should be more--or fewer--candles on the Communion table, or something else like that. To them, all this matters a lot.