Are Protestants bothered by the gazillion denominations?

[maltmom]

This one helps me, as I am still understanding the visible authority. Just today, I fully realized that I would probably never recite the rosary as many do. For no other reason than it is doubtful I’d ever memorize it. So that would be the Protestant in me. Then I saw the following from Maltmom on another thread…

"As a Catholic one is required to accept the dogmas of the Church regarding her. “Praying the Rosary is a private devotion that you are not required to do. The Church advises that we ask Mary and the Saint’s for their intercession. We are not required to. Anything that is a private revelation is something that each person can decide for themselves whether the revelation can bring them closer to God or not.”

But I speak of and to Mary in my prayers. It just makes sense; For Protestants and Catholics alike, she is the Mother of God.

I’m glad this helped you.

 

[CMatt25]

To be honest, it’s never bothered me. What does bother me is when churches can’t get along charitably. So, to me, when different churches do interact charitably in spite of differences, it’s more encouraging to me to see that than if everyone was in the same visible church, officially believing the exact same thing about every point of doctrine. That charity, respect and cooperation amidst differences speaks of God at work to me.

I realize I’m likely to get hammered around here for saying this.

Not reaching for a hammer.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, there is only one God. He knows Himself, and the entirety
if the truth of Himself, with perfect knowledge and no contradiction.

It doesn’t follow, though, that we humans, seeing “through a glass darkly” diminish His perfection if in our very limited understanding we mis-perceive Him and make mistakes in trying to understand Him.

Amen to that and I’d just add God in only His infinite wisdom can understand our hearts and minds.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

It did not bother me when I was a protestant… at first. I just always though that some churches teach good doctrine and I was to stay clear of those that dont. Of course… I was the judge of what church was good or not based on my own (Or a preacher/minister/pastor whatever they want to call themself) interpratations of the Bible.

I was a Bible Christian. fast foward about ten years later though, the many different denomination did bother me alittle. After all… If one man starts a church while claiming that god is leading him to do so, then another man does the same but their churches teach contradicting doctrine, then one must be right and must be wrong. Or they are both wrong. But they cannot both be right. Now repeat this several thousand times over. That is part of what bothered me about all the different denominations in my last protestant days. Of course there were lots of other things, but it would be off topic.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I am a former Protestant (Catholic revert). I never really dwelled on the fact that there were so many denominations with all kinds of beliefs , sub beliefs and doctrines. I knew they were there but my adverse “feelings” toward the Catholic church caused me to bury it or justify it.

I’m curious. How do my devout Protestant friends feel about the multitude of denominations there are? Yes, your particular denomination has an authority but there is really no collective protestant authority unless you are going to just say the bible or Jesus. But the problem there is different translations so it is not unified in belief and understanding.

Do you as a Protestant think there are too many denominations and/or denominations that should not be? I’d like a Catholic perspective as well.

No, it doesn’t bother me; for whatever reason, this is part of the faith. One need only read the New Testament and early church history to see that Christianity has been pretty contentious and diverse in its theological understandings from the very beginning. As imperfect beings we humans will never perfectly understand or grasp the depth and significance of God’s revelation to Jesus Christ, nor do we have the capacity in language to capture this revelation in a way that is fully “perfect,” all-encompassing, or even in some sense “correct,” that is, stated in a way that will be fully defined and understood in the same way by all. In my opinion, to claim to be able to do so is absurd.

 

[CMatt25]

I don’t know why they would be. They may believe Christ’s church is His entire body of believers and where 2 or 3 are gathered in His name, there He is. They love, show their faith in Him and gather to hear His Word and to receive sacraments. They may believe even that Christ has needed to reform His church along the way or that new understandings of God are arrived at over time.

In addition when there is unity in Christ as Lord and Savior, His church does not fall apart and the gates of hell prevail just because His body is not united on this earth on every single dotted “i” and crossed “t”.

Or as another poster alluded to, only those who believe there ever was such a thing as a church from the beginning where every single person believed the exact same thing on every point of doctrine might be bothered.

Not every member is holy anyway regardless of the church or denomination or tradition we speak of. Including leaders.

And finally not all have been led to accept Catholic belief but follow Him to the best of their understanding.

 

[CMatt25]

No, it doesn’t bother me; for whatever reason, this is part of the faith. One need only read the New Testament and early church history to see that Christianity has been pretty contentious and diverse in its theological understandings from the very beginning. As imperfect beings we humans will never perfectly understand or grasp the depth and significance of God’s revelation to Jesus Christ, nor do we have the capacity in language to capture this revelation in a way that is fully “perfect,” all-encompassing, or even in some sense “correct,” that is, stated in a way that will be fully defined and understood in the same way by all. In my opinion, to claim to be able to do so is absurd.

I like this answer.

 

[ChrisB103]

No, it doesn’t bother me; for whatever reason, this is part of the faith. One need only read the New Testament and early church history to see that Christianity has been pretty contentious and diverse in its theological understandings from the very beginning. As imperfect beings we humans will never perfectly understand or grasp the depth and significance of God’s revelation to Jesus Christ, nor do we have the capacity in language to capture this revelation in a way that is fully “perfect,” all-encompassing, or even in some sense “correct,” that is, stated in a way that will be fully defined and understood in the same way by all. In my opinion, to claim to be able to do so is absurd.

Dave,

I’ve often wondered what Protestants who hold beliefs such as yours think the significance of Paul, Peter, John, etc., writing letters to the Church in various parts of the world is. The letters were often prescriptive in nature, where Paul, for instance, would exhort believers to put behind them sinful activity X. It seems to me that wouldn’t be possible to write a well-received letter of this sort across denominational lines. To write letters such as those we find in the New Testament seems to necessitate a type of unity and even hierarchy that doesn’t exist in all of modern Christianity. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ChrisB103]

As a Catholic, the vast variety of denominations certainly bothers me. I see it as disobedience (with varying degrees of culpability, of course) to Jesus’ exhortation that we all be one as he and the Father are one (John 17). Not only this, but then how could a Church in severe disunity in certain areas be the final arbiter in matters of disagreement (Matthew 18:17), much less be the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15)?

My girlfriend was raised Methodist and now is looking into Catholicism, and she has begun to be significantly bothered by the enormous number of denominations as well.

 

[Adamski]

Blessings JR,

I have to ask upon reading this; what gives you the impression that we do not believe that our respective congregations have the authority to declare certain teachings or doctrines to be sinful and/or heretical?

For one there are thousands of baptist or baptist like churches I have spent a lot of time on baptist board or baptist forum and they are constantly arguing against each other who has the right answer

 

[Adamski]

No, it doesn’t bother me; for whatever reason, this is part of the faith. One need only read the New Testament and early church history to see that Christianity has been pretty contentious and diverse in its theological understandings from the very beginning. As imperfect beings we humans will never perfectly understand or grasp the depth and significance of God’s revelation to Jesus Christ, nor do we have the capacity in language to capture this revelation in a way that is fully “perfect,” all-encompassing, or even in some sense “correct,” that is, stated in a way that will be fully defined and understood in the same way by all. In my opinion, to claim to be able to do so is absurd.

Well we can know the apostles and thier decendants had/have authority (acts 1, Matt 16, John 20…)

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave,

I’ve often wondered what Protestants who hold beliefs such as yours think the significance of Paul, Peter, John, etc., writing letters to the Church in various parts of the world is. The letters were often prescriptive in nature, where Paul, for instance, would exhort believers to put behind them sinful activity X. It seems to me that wouldn’t be possible to write a well-received letter of this sort across denominational lines. To write letters such as those we find in the New Testament seems to necessitate a type of unity and even hierarchy that doesn’t exist in all of modern Christianity. What are your thoughts on this?

Yes, for example it’s very clear historically (and simply from 2 Corinthians for that matter) that Paul’s first letter or series of letters to the Corinthians was not at all well-received. The relationship was so contentious between Paul and Barnabas (just as an example) that they had to part company. Paul rebuked Peter to his face on a point of doctrine–I have a feeling that did not go over well. It was not all wine and roses in the early church.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well we can know the apostles and thier decendants had/have authority (acts 1, Matt 16, John 20…)

Authority and perfection are pretty far removed, in my opinion.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Before I answer I just want to say that I mean no insult by anything I am about to say. Some might sound “blunt” but I speak in all charity - and because you asked.

None taken.

Certainly you believe that your respective congregations have such authority and they do…but it is only “in house” so to speak. Not even all Baptist Churches teach the same things. Do southern Baptists have any control over “freewill” baptists? What authority do you have over the Church of the Nazarene or Church of God, Church of Christ, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians - etc…

What you say here is based on your observance of non-catholic churches through the lens of your own ecclesiology. I know that’s something that is naturally but it isn’t how we see things. Outside of apostolic authority, which is not comparable to present authority, churches simply did not have any direct control over churches outside of their jurisdiction. This was the case both in the apostolic and post-apostolic time period. Each congregation was under their own elders and deacons.

Let’s say hypothetically the church in Ephesus A. D. 115 hears that the church in Smyrna is teaching that Christ was really just a human prophet. The elders of the church in Ephesus could, certainly, write letters, send emisaries, etc., to Smyrna and say “You are teaching false doctrine. Repent.” If the Smyrneans did not listen, the Ephesian church could not just depose their elders. What they could do would be to say “You are heretics and we no longer are in Christian fellowship with you.” They could also spread the word around to other churches that the Smyrneans had apostasized. The kind of central authority that is read anachronistically into the early church by present day Catholics is simply non-existant. Even Clement of Rome could only send a letter to Corinth exhorting and warning them. There’s no threats of excommunication or papal censure.

So (and I can only speak for Baptists here), I can say that other church bodies, say Lutherans, teach false doctrine on baptism so we do not fellowship officially with Lutheran churches and Lutheran visitors may not come to our eucharistic table. We don’t presume to have any authority over their own churches.

Between these groups there is no authority to determine if a given doctrine or teaching is or is not a correct understanding of Scripture.

Same goes for the churches that have a central hierarchy though. The RCC and EO haven’t fixed their disagreements.

The fact is that the authority you speak of is limited in this way due to the fundamental and sacrosanct protestant Tradition that rejects the idea of a universal, visible and authoritative Church.

Yes because it has never existed.

This is evident today in the fact that, if your community booted someone out for holding false beliefs…that person can go down the street (possibly even another baptist church) and be accepted. OR if that person could find no church home but he was convinced of his spirit guided interpretation of the bible…he could just start his own community and just be another “flavor” of protestant Christianity.
It goes on all the time - and it is simply not biblical.

Nor does having a central hierarchy stop people from going elsewhere when they get booted out. Are we to believe that when the Council of Chalcedon condemned the heretics their churches just disappeared? I don’t mean to be blunt here but the RCC does not have a good track record on disciplining those who reject Catjolic dogma. Just watch the Kennedy’s go to Mass to see if central hierarchies are not all they’re cracked up to be.

Peace to you James

 

[Indifferently]

No.

Religion, to me, is like art. It is a continuity, with much latitude and few certainties. The fundamentals of Christianity, to me,are clear, and worthy of belief. Society falters without them. The message is all there, if you want to find it. In this vast spiritual continuity, I find a home in the Church of England. Its poetry, in its liturgy and architecture, it’s magnanimity in accommodating a variety of beliefs and practices, kts music, it’s Authorized Version, it’s great history and how that fits into Britain’s narrative as a fearless island ready to overcome the rest of the world… it ties into all those things.

Only God knows the whole truth. Roman Catholicism is certainly a great tradition, like Orthodoxy, but the Church of England is my home. When I go to well executed Latin Mass, I feel like I am in another, mystical world glorifying God (by contrast the vernacular RC Mass seems like Protestant-lite with the congregation mumbling the responses and not singing the hymns). But when I am at a proper Church of England service, be it Choral Evensong or Sung Eucharist, I feel like I am at home with God, in touch with the generations gone before me, swept away in wonder at the inheritance I have been given.

All those questions about denominations, and complex doctrinal matters just don’t come into it, really.

 

[JRKH]

No, it doesn’t bother me; for whatever reason, this is part of the faith. One need only read the New Testament and early church history to see that Christianity has been pretty contentious and diverse in its theological understandings from the very beginning.

See - when I read the NT I don’t see anything that supports what I call the “protestant model”. I do see that there were disagreements and such but the model presented in the NT is a councilior one aimed at maintaining visible and authoritative doctrinal unity by getting at the true Spirit Guided Truth.
In Church history I see this councilior model continued in both the Eastern and Western Church…for 1500 years.
Only in the last 500 years do we see the novel idea doctrinal diversity, “locally independent” communities, “invisible church” and so forth.

As imperfect beings we humans will never perfectly understand or grasp the depth and significance of God’s revelation to Jesus Christ, nor do we have the capacity in language to capture this revelation in a way that is fully “perfect,” all-encompassing, or even in some sense “correct,” that is, stated in a way that will be fully defined and understood in the same way by all. In my opinion, to claim to be able to do so is absurd.

Please do not take this as a personal attack but I find this to be a weak argument for having a multitude of diverse and sometime conflicting communities.
Imperfect or not…Jesus prayed for our unity - to be one as he and the Father are one. Paul and Peter both (in scripture) exhort the faithful to unity with phrases like “be one”, “strive together”, “avoid dissension” etc. The one example of serious doctrinal conflict between local communities in Scripture is resolved in council and effective for the entire church.

Again - I am not attacking here - but if one truly embraces “Sola Scriptura” then one must eventually come to the recognition that what is described in the NT is not what we see in the protestant world today.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yes, for example it’s very clear historically (and simply from 2 Corinthians for that matter) that Paul’s first letter or series of letters to the Corinthians was not at all well-received. The relationship was so contentious between Paul and Barnabas (just as an example) that they had to part company. Paul rebuked Peter to his face on a point of doctrine–I have a feeling that did not go over well. It was not all wine and roses in the early church.

Just a couple of brief points…and hoping not to sound contentious…

1. I don’t think any Catholic would argue that things were all “wine and roses” at any point in Church history. Believe me - any who have done much studying at all know that is not the case. So if you are thinking that is how we view these things…be assured that we do not.
2. When Paul and Barnabas parted company it does not mean that Barnabas started his own independent “church”…There are many within the Church who “don’t get along” and yet accept the authority of the Church herself.
3. I would say that Paul confronted Peter on a point of practice rather than a point of doctrine.

Just some thoughts.

This is a wonderful thread.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Authority and perfection are pretty far removed, in my opinion.

Yet they need not coincide to be valid.

Look at Mt 23:1-3…We know how “perfect” Jesus thought the Pharisees were…yet what did He tell the people to do?

To me - I think that the beauty of the Church as Christ established it lies not in some idea of remote autocratic authority (as I think some see it) but rather in the very imperfections that you mention.
Consider Mt 18:15-18 and where it says “sin” in vs 15…let us assume the perceived sin is teaching something false.
The progression of the instruction we have here brings in more and more “imperfect” people seeking the truth. Eventually it is taken to the whole community (or their representatives in the Bishop(s))…If everyone comes together in humility and the spirit of seeking God’s Truth and God’s Will…then each man submits his argument and others submit theirs.
The arguments are then prayerfully dissected and that which is found to be true is kept while that which is found to be false is discarded. It is very likely that, (and I suspect most often) in this process that truth and error will be found in both sides of the argument.
Thus at the end of the process we have a more perfect (or less imperfect…) understanding of the matter than we could ever have had by the opposing groups each going their own way.

Peace
James

 

[Cat]

I was evangelical Protestant for 47 years before converting to Catholicism.

When I was Protestant, I would have agree with many Protestants on this thread–that the denominations didn’t matter because we all believed in the fundamentals. (And yes, there are five Fundamentals of Christianity that were written down in the early part of the 20th Century, and that Protestants AND Catholics teach and believe).

In the early part of this Century, Protestant leader (Baptist) Chuck Colson (RIP) wrote a fantastic book called Being the Body. This book is one of the reasons I converted to Catholicism. I highly recommend it to Catholics and Protestants.

The basic premise of the book is a cry for unity among Christians because we are demonstrating an increasing lack of effectiveness in combatting blatent evil in our world today due to our divisions.

Mr. Colson deals extensively with Catholic Protestant relations, and devotes quite a few pages to discussing Pope John Paul II’s role in bringing down the evil of the Communist regime in Europe.

Mr. Colson discusses a number of Catholic practices (e.g., the Sign of the Cross) and demonstrates the historicity of the practices and why Protestants should have no objection to them, but rather, should embrace these practices. I’m guessing that a lot of die-hard separatist Protestants have Mr. Colson and his book on their list of “heretical things to avoid.”

Now that a decade has gone by since Mr. Colson wrote this book, I am more convinced than ever of the need for unity of Christians. Here in the United States, a tiny fraction of people have managed to persuade the majority of people that it is a good thing for two men or two women to have the right to get married. This should be disgusting to Christians, who recognize that this is a travesty, an insult, to God’s beautiful creation of male-female marriage and procreation. Instead, we have many Christians (including Catholic Christians) and many Protestant denominations that “feel” that homosexuals should have the same “right to marry” that heterosexuals have, and we have elected a President who boldly and unapologetically professes, on his inauguration day, his committment to “gay marriage.”

Christians who teach differently are now considered “extremists,” and “intolerant.” If we are foolish enough to speak up about our Christian beliefs in our places of employment, we can be fired for “intolerance.” We are considered “dangerous” by many of our fellow citizens.

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT!!!

I think that it’s because we do not have unity, and we all–and I’m including Catholics–“feel” that we have the “right” to make our own decisions about God, church, and our faith. There is no way that we will ever be able to bring down the evil that is taking over our world unless we present a strong, UNITED front.

Read Being the Body.

 

[johnnyjones]

What adds to why I started this thread is not just truth, because if you have Christ as your savior, you have the truth, just not the fullness of the truth from my perspective as a Catholic.

The problem with having so many denominations is that it gives an overall look of confusion. I could put on my Protestant hat and say from scripture that God is not the author of confusion. No matter how much we want to make it palatable to our liking though, we are saying to each other, based on strong denominational issues, “your wrong” .

Why would there be multiple ways of understanding scripture verses, how to worship etc.? When you start traveling down the road that everything is up for interpretation it creates division. This opens up the “many paths to God” philosophy for those who are misguided or non Christian as seen from a distance. This is why authority is paramount. Most Protestants relay on the established doctrines and/or viewpoints of thinkers and writers that broke away from the Catholic church because they felt on some level that the church was wrong.

Hence, we have all the denominations you now see. At some point somebody said ,“no” and came up with a personal exegesis and new doctrines to follow. This is why the PROTEST–tant should take a second look at Mother church and think about how it compiled sacred scripture and the sensibility of apostolic succession. I speak as one who was steeped in Fundamentalism for 15 plus years.

I see all these denominations as evidence of disorder and that God must have instituted one universal church for all people, and it was the first church. Don’t take me the wrong way, I know there is stability in many Protestant denominations. What I mean is that as a whole, it doesn’t fit to have so many offshoot beliefs.