How long did it take for denominations to split and divide after their creation by men?

[Harpazo]

I have been wondering how people can say that Protestant Christianity was sanctioned by God when it constantly began dividing from the beginning. I’m not saying that Protestants are not Christians, but rather I am wondering why the try to justify their divisions.

I hope to find out how long many of the mainstream denominations of Protestantism took before they split as they continue to do to this day, sadly. If any of the fine posters on CAF could help me in this endeavor, I would greatly appreciate it.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[LutheranDK]

I have been wondering how people can say that Protestant Christianity was sanctioned by God when it constantly began dividing from the beginning. I’m not saying that Protestants are not Christians, but rather I am wondering why the try to justify their divisions.

I hope to find out how long many of the mainstream denominations of Protestantism took before they split as they continue to do to this day, sadly. If any of the fine posters on CAF could help me in this endeavor, I would greatly appreciate it.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

I have never really understood the “division”-argument. In my view - a unity that is only maintained by force is a fake one - not too different from the “unity” which exists in North Korea.

Now, to your questions:
All protestant denominations have some things in common:
1: Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone shall be the supreme authority in matters of theology, faith, and morals
(the fact that a lot of churches in Western Europe calling themselves protestant have turned their back on this in favor of liberal theology is irrelevant. I’m talking about protestant orthodoxy here)
2: Sola Fide - Faith alone is what brings salvation. The true faith, which as a matter of course is followed by works. But the works do not save.
3: Sola Gratia - Grace alone. It is only by God’s grace that we are saved - not through any merit of our own (i.e: Related to Sola Fide)
4: Solus Christus - Christ alone. There is no way to salvation, apart from the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: Christ Jesus.

Finally: Of course unity is preferable! I would have MUCH preferred if the Holy Catholic Church (which I have defined in another thread - NOT identical to the Roman-Catholic church) was indeed also only ONE denomination - ONE “limp”.
But at the price of the Gospel - the price for unity was too high.

Only God knows what might have happened if the pope in 1517 had been a good Christian…

 

[elvisman]

I have never really understood the “division”-argument. In my view - a unity that is only maintained by force is a fake one - not too different from the “unity” which exists in North Korea.

Now, to your questions:
All protestant denominations have some things in common:
1: Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone shall be the supreme authority in matters of theology, faith, and morals
(the fact that a lot of churches in Western Europe calling themselves protestant have turned their back on this in favor of liberal theology is irrelevant. I’m talking about protestant orthodoxy here)
2: Sola Fide - Faith alone is what brings salvation. The true faith, which as a matter of course is followed by works. But the works do not save.
3: Sola Gratia - Grace alone. It is only by God’s grace that we are saved - not through any merit of our own (i.e: Related to Sola Fide)
4: Solus Christus - Christ alone. There is no way to salvation, apart from the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: Christ Jesus.

Finally: Of course unity is preferable! I would have MUCH preferred if the Holy Catholic Church (which I have defined in another thread - NOT identical to the Roman-Catholic church) was indeed also only ONE denomination - ONE “limp”.
But at the price of the Gospel - the price for unity was too high.

Only God knows what might have happened if the pope in 1517 had been a good Christian…

**Unity **“Preferable”??
That’s not what Jesus thought. He thought is was ESSENTIAL:
**"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. **
**And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, **I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."

There is, was and ALWAYS will be only ONE Holy Catholic Church - regardless of your hatred for the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[rpp]

I have never really understood the “division”-argument. In my view - a unity that is only maintained by force is a fake one - not too different from the “unity” which exists in North Korea.

Now, to your questions:
All protestant denominations have some things in common:
1: Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone shall be the supreme authority in matters of theology, faith, and morals
(the fact that a lot of churches in Western Europe calling themselves protestant have turned their back on this in favor of liberal theology is irrelevant. I’m talking about protestant orthodoxy here)
2: Sola Fide - Faith alone is what brings salvation. The true faith, which as a matter of course is followed by works. But the works do not save.
3: Sola Gratia - Grace alone. It is only by God’s grace that we are saved - not through any merit of our own (i.e: Related to Sola Fide)
4: Solus Christus - Christ alone. There is no way to salvation, apart from the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: Christ Jesus.

Finally: Of course unity is preferable! I would have MUCH preferred if the Holy Catholic Church (which I have defined in another thread - NOT identical to the Roman-Catholic church) was indeed also only ONE denomination - ONE “limp”.
But at the price of the Gospel - the price for unity was too high.

Only God knows what might have happened if the pope in 1517 had been a good Christian…

You are comparing the Catholic Church to North Korea? By implication you compare the Pope to Kim Jong Il?

That was so profoundly insulting and so clearly mean-spirited that I quit reading your post after that. Nothing else you can say after that is worth the time it would take to read.

 

[rpp]

To answer the OP’s question, it took very little time, a matter of months, in fact, before the initial protestant denominations themselves became divided. Within 5 years of Luther’s break, there were already hundreds of sects.

The Lord has always had an organization and hierarchy. Look at how the Jewish Priests were organized. There was a single High priest who lead the other priests. While there were different “movements” within Judaism, and still are, there was never the sense of a roll-your-own Judaism until the post Christian diaspora.

God is not a God of chaos. The differing and contradictory doctrines between the different Christian denominations cannot all be correct.

The logical conclusion is that there is one True Church that has the fullness of His teachings. The other logical conclusion is that these teachings could not have been hidden for 1000, 1500 or 2000 years and suddenly discovered by a particularly spiritual or smart guy. No. Logically, it would be the first Church, the one founded by the Apostles, that has the fullness of the Truth.

 

[Contarini]

I have never really understood the “division”-argument. In my view - a unity that is only maintained by force is a fake one - not too different from the “unity” which exists in North Korea.

Now, to your questions:
All protestant denominations have some things in common:
1: Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone shall be the supreme authority in matters of theology, faith, and morals
(the fact that a lot of churches in Western Europe calling themselves protestant have turned their back on this in favor of liberal theology is irrelevant. I’m talking about protestant orthodoxy here)

Of course it’s relevant. If you get to cherry-pick which Protestants count as “real Protestants,” then your argument is meaningless. It amounts to saying “all Protestants who agree with these teachings agree with them.” It’s called tautology.

2: Sola Fide - Faith alone is what brings salvation. The true faith, which as a matter of course is followed by works. But the works do not save.

I come from a Wesleyan background. It seems to me that Wesley’s teaching on this subject is much closer to that of the Council of Trent than to that of Luther. But admittedly there are more Protestant-minded Wesleyans who would disagree with me.

The only sense in which all Protestants agree with these principles (except for sola scriptura) is a sense in which Catholics agree with them as well. There are Protestants who have as much of a works-oriented salvation as Catholics–maybe more so.

Of course it depends on how we are defining Protestants. But for the purposes of this thread the only reasonable definition I can see is “churches stemming from the Reformation.” The point is that the Reformation led to division. To respond “no, it didn’t, because look at this band of Protestants over here who all believe the things I think are important” does not address the problem being raised.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

To answer the OP’s question, it took very little time, a matter of months, in fact, before the initial protestant denominations themselves became divided. Within 5 years of Luther’s break, there were already hundreds of sects.

Nonsense. Name them. (And when are you dating “Luther’s break”?)

Edwin

 

[elvisman]

Nonsense. Name them. (And when are you dating “Luther’s break”?)

Edwin

**Many Protestants hold that Luther split in 1517, when he nailed the 95 Theses Against Indulgences on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg. But, he remained a Catholic for a few years. If you want to go by the Diet of Worms in 1521, where the vote went against Luther then, in that same year, Thomas Munser split from Luther. **

**By 1600 there were over 200 splits. **
By 1900, there were over 1000.

 

[ralphinal]

I am sorry if this is not the place, but I am confused.

How can you have sola fide and sola gratia? It cannot be sola for both, but only both together. Saved through grace from faith, or saved by faith through grace, but not saved by faith alone and grace alone.

I don’t want to derail, so one person only answer.

 

[DaveBj]

Somewhere (and I’d love to find the documentation on this), I read a quote from Luther late in his life to the effect that early in his career he had only one Pope to deal with; now he had 300 (i.e., 300 people who thought that only they and their interpretation of Scripture was authoritative.

Luther got the ball rolling downhill. It didn’t take long to get away from him.

DaveBj

 

[LutheranDK]

Unity ****“Preferable”??
That’s not what Jesus thought. He thought is was ESSENTIAL:
"I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me."

There is, was and ALWAYS will be only ONE Holy Catholic Church - regardless of your hatred for the Roman Catholic Church.

Why, oh, WHY am I told each and every time I don’t automatically say: “YES! Of course, the Roman branch of the One Catholic Church is right!” that I hate it.
I’m getting tired of telling people that’s not true, only to be told that I’m lying, or some other s…t.

Now: If that’s the definition of unity, then it was a sin for the Early Church to not stay in the synagoge, regardless of what happened.
And the Roman-Catholic church seems to be so fond of interpreting all the “difficult” verses in some kind of “spiritualistic” way…why can that not apply to those words from Our Lord?

Oh, that’s right…“The church says so, and the church says so because it’s true, and it’s true because the church says so.”…

 

[LutheranDK]

You are comparing the Catholic Church to North Korea? By implication you compare the Pope to Kim Jong Il?

That was so profoundly insulting and so clearly mean-spirited that I quit reading your post after that. Nothing else you can say after that is worth the time it would take to read.

I’m sorry, mate, but are you able to read at all??
I never compared the Roman-Catholic church to North Korea! I illustrated that “unity” is not always neccessarily (yeah, typo - sue me…) for the good. That is the case in North Korea - AND it was the case at the time of the Reformation. Two seperate cases, but they both had one thing in common: Those in power attempted/attempts to preserve “unity” by the sword, and corrupt, and foul men were/are in power.

But hey, it’s easier to just say: “I don’t want to read your post, because I don’t like the way you illustrate your point”, than actually reading the post, and adress the point.

 

[LutheranDK]

Of course it’s relevant. If you get to cherry-pick which Protestants count as “real Protestants,” then your argument is meaningless. It amounts to saying “all Protestants who agree with these teachings agree with them.” It’s called tautology.

I come from a Wesleyan background. It seems to me that Wesley’s teaching on this subject is much closer to that of the Council of Trent than to that of Luther. But admittedly there are more Protestant-minded Wesleyans who would disagree with me.

The only sense in which all Protestants agree with these principles (except for sola scriptura) is a sense in which Catholics agree with them as well. There are Protestants who have as much of a works-oriented salvation as Catholics–maybe more so.

Of course it depends on how we are defining Protestants. But for the purposes of this thread the only reasonable definition I can see is “churches stemming from the Reformation.” The point is that the Reformation led to division. To respond “no, it didn’t, because look at this band of Protestants over here who all believe the things I think are important” does not address the problem being raised.

Edwin

I’m sick and tired of people reading into my posts what they would have LIKED that I wrote, and not reading what I ACTUALLY wrote. It’s so frustrating, that words can hardly express it.

There is such a thing as “orthodoxy”. What falls outside of this is not Protestantism; it is not even Christianity. That is the case with the liberal “churches”. They may claim to confess Christ, but their theology and practise is miles from actual Christianity.
I’m not even going to go into the rest of your reply, because there’d be a great risk that I’d write something uncharitable…

 

[LutheranDK]

I am sorry if this is not the place, but I am confused.

How can you have sola fide and sola gratia? It cannot be sola for both, but only both together. Saved through grace from faith, or saved by faith through grace, but not saved by faith alone and grace alone.

I don’t want to derail, so one person only answer.

Of course, both go together. That is also why they are mentioned together They compliment eachother. If someone is too daft to catch the meaning of the first “sola”, it gets across during the second.

 

[LutheranDK]

Many Protestants hold that Luther split in 1517, when he nailed the 95 Theses Against Indulgences on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenburg. But, he remained a Catholic for a few years. If you want to go by the Diet of Worms in 1521, where the vote went against Luther then, in that same year, Thomas Munser split from Luther.

By 1600 there were over 200 splits.
By 1900, there were over 1000.

If you would be so kind as to provide some kind of documentation for your statement that:
**By 1600 there were over 200 splits. **
By 1900, there were over 1000, I’d be much obliged. Until then, I’m gonna let it pass as yet another bit of unsubstantiated nonsense…

 

[rpp]

LutheranDK,

Insulting people and hinting at profanity are forbidden on this board. It is also forbidden to mock any religion, Catholic or not. You have done all of these things on this thread.

If you want people to take you seriously, you should limit the pejorative terms you use, realize that you may actually need to learn something and bring some Christian humility to your posts and stop playing the victim.

 

[YADA]

Seperated Brethren by William Joseph Whalen

This book provides a good summary of how various christian churches got their start and the time frame … at least the general history with a focus on the multiple splits that occurred here in America [you might say protestantism American style] … it was recently revised and updated from earlier versions in 2002 … and it inlcudes some non-christian sects that it did not in the original like Islam, Mormanism, etc …

One thing to note when you read it … take notes and try to keep track … some churches were fracturing and the fractures were fracturing before they even got established …

The Church of Christ is one of these *

Ifound it a great read but keeping track of the time lines and theological differences … it get harder and harder … the closer you get to the present day … the numbers are exponential in form …*

 

[elvisman]

Why, oh, WHY am I told each and every time I don’t automatically say: “YES! Of course, the Roman branch of the One Catholic Church is right!” that I hate it.
I’m getting tired of telling people that’s not true, only to be told that I’m lying, or some other s…t.

First of all - calm down and grow up. If you’re going to resort to cursing by leaving blank spaces between to obvious first and last letters - keep that kind of garbage to yourself.

Now: If that’s the definition of unity, then it was a sin for the Early Church to not stay in the synagoge, regardless of what happened.

This is COMPLETE nonsense. Why stay in the synagogue when Jesus fulfilled the law?

And the Roman-Catholic church seems to be so fond of interpreting all the “difficult” verses in some kind of “spiritualistic” way…why can that not apply to those words from Our Lord?

Oh, that’s right…“The church says so, and the church says so because it’s true, and it’s true because the church says so.”…

The Church interprets scripture because she wrote, compiled and canonized it.

St. Augustine - a Church Father, highly respected by Protestants and Catholics alike said:
"I would not even believe in the Gospel itself if the authority of the Catholic Church had not moved me to do so."

He was less angry than you - and more mature.

 

[deb1]

Okay, what is the answer to the question? Leave out if people who call themselves Baptists, Pentecostal or other any other church can be counted as Protestant or not. How quickly did the different denominations split from the first Lutheran Church? Its an interesting question and I am not certain why it would offend anyone.

 

[brycelaliberte]

There is such a thing as “orthodoxy”. What falls outside of this is not Protestantism; it is not even Christianity. That is the case with the liberal “churches”. They may claim to confess Christ, but their theology and practise is miles from actual Christianity.
I’m not even going to go into the rest of your reply, because there’d be a great risk that I’d write something uncharitable…

I couldn’t let this go by.

What’s your authority to say what Christianity is and is not?