C
CDNowak
Guest
It originated with the wiki article on page 3, so the second group (as well as being more useful).
How many different Beliefs Systems are there within Post Reformation Western Christianity
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Thank you for chiming in.
Yes, I am aware that my premise and “methodology” is certainly flawed, but if anything it has clearly demonsterated that the number of “different belief sets” could far exceed the 30,000 figure.
I also agree that the various “belief set” in many protestant communities is very “Pastor” specific. In fact, I was just reading Marcus Grodi"s converson testimony (host of the journey home program on EWTN) and he mentions this very thing was something that frustrated him in his minstry. That when he would speak to other pastors each would have a differing take on how to approach a subject or bible verse or whatever, and nobody seemed to have a problem with that. It was one of the things that set him off looking at the ECF’s and so forth to see how the Early Church answered some fo these questions.
Anyway, my simple hope with the thread was to shift the thinking away from “Names” of denominations and look more at the “doctrinal issues”. In that it has been quite successful I think. AND - - - –
I think it points up one of the reasons why the catholic church has so many documented teachings and explanations. Just look at how we started off with a list of 15 or 17 or 21 different doctrinal issues, and now people are bringing ups how many different permutations there are within those 15 or 17 or 21 different doctrines.
Is it any wonder that The Church, with her 2000 year history of wrestling with these very doctrines and issues, has so many detailed teachings on these matters?? And even WITH all these historical teachings people, both inside and outside the Church, STILL want to tell the Church she is wrong, and/or to pick and choose what to follow.
Doesn’t surprise me one bit.
Peace
James
C
Contarini
Guest
Right, with a few caveats:
- As I’m sure you know, the “independent Christian churches” and the Churches of Christ would deny being a denomination. This denial is substantive inasmuch as they don’t have a denominational hierarchy and bureaucracy.
- Historically, the surprising fact is that there are a lot of links between the Mormons and the Campbell-Stone movement, and initially they had quite similar rhetoric and basic premises. Obviously the huge difference is that Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet and thus gave Mormons a whole set of alternate Scriptures, while the Campbell-Stone movement remains focused strictly on the New Testament and hence remains within the broad stream of orthodox Christianity for the most part.
- I say “for the most part” because the Campbell-Stone movement (including Stone himself from what I’ve heard) does have some tendencies toward questioning or downplaying the Trinity. It is Trinitarian for the most part, but Restorationists seem to find it easier to cross over the line to anti-Trinitarianism than most other Christians.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, I’m glad you said that, James!
Several posters have referenced this thread on other threads as affirming that there are really only a few belief systems.
It made me wonder if I’d been understanding this discussion incorrectly. It seemed to me that the evidence that was being presented here clearly showed that there has to be more** than 30,000 denominations. **, not less…but then there were posters who seemed to say, “See, it’s only 200!”
Puzzling to me that people can read the same thread, the exact same posts, and come to different conclusions…
J
JRKH
Guest
Well part of the problem may be that my faulty calculation early on presented a number somewhat less than 200 based on a binary (yes or no) option between 17 different doctrines.Well, I’m glad you said that, James!
Several posters have referenced this thread on other threads as affirming that there are really only a few belief systems.
It made me wonder if I’d been understanding this discussion incorrectly. It seemed to me that the evidence that was being presented here clearly showed that there has to be more** than 30,000 denominations. **, not less…but then there were posters who seemed to say, “See, it’s only 200!”
Puzzling to me that people can read the same thread, the exact same posts, and come to different conclusions…
Other folks who are better at math have corrected my mistake and the number is considerably larger. Plus it has been demonstrated that using a strict binary model is not terribly very good due to non-binary permutations possible in some of the listed doctrines.
So by the time we list all of the possible permutations of certain doctrined in order to arrive at a workable binary model the list of doctrines could easily exceed thirty or forty. Then the possible number gets huge.
As for different people reading the same posts and coming to different conclusions, pratly that may be caused by when they read the thread and if they read the entire thread up to date.
Peace
James
B
Bluegoat
Guest
And then there is the question of which doctrines are really separate and important. One listed was divorce, for example. I would never include that, it is to my mind very much derived from other, more fundamental ideas, for example about sacraments. Most groups would not consider it the basis of their beliefs.
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes I agree with what your saying.
Perhaps one of the criteria for something being a “Core” Doctrinal issue would be if the issue has caused a split within a group. Would divorce fit that Criteria??
Peace
James
C
CDNowak
Guest
Ok, I just have to say it, one group does stand out on separating over (a) divorce
.But it probably would fall under a broader category of sexual morality and/or sacraments.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I can think of one big guy (had 6 wives) who caused a split because of his wanting a divorce.
J
JRKH
Guest
Just as a point on this, when the English broke away from Rome, was divorce actually made legal and acceptable accross the board in the Anglican Church, or were other causes given as the pretense for the split?
Peace
James
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No, he in fact did not divorce Catherine. He used the same reasoning which he had petitioned the RC church with, which was that the original dispensation to marry Catherine had been made in light of false information that her first marriage to Henry’s brother had not been consummated. There were other possible grounds that were not pursued for various reasons. In any case, he expected it to be granted, but due to the rather difficult political position of the Pope, it was not.
Just as a point on this, when the English broke away from Rome, was divorce actually made legal and acceptable accross the board in the Anglican Church, or were other causes given as the pretense for the split?
Peace
James
After Henry rejected the supremacy of the Pope for the Church of England, he had the marriage to Catherine declared invalid. Off the top of my head, the other marriages except one which was never consummated all ended with the death of the wife, by fair means or foul.
In general, rules on divorce have only begun to change substantially in the Anglican Communion Churches in the 20th century. Henry did not make such a change.
J
JRKH
Guest
Thank you. So doctrinally speaking the split was not over whether it was OK to divorce but whether the Church erred in it’s decision re: the validity of the marriage.
If the Issue had truly been one of divorce as a doctrine, then the rules would have changed immediately.
That seems to remove Divorce as a “Core Doctrine” when determining numbers of different belief systems. Unless there was another church split where divorce WAS a major doctrinal issue.
Peace
James
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
One thing that makes doctrinal division among Protestants extremely tricky is the weight that various Protestants place upon a particular argument of practice. Church A and Church B might both agree on a particular doctrine, but Church A insists on it, while Church B doesn’t consider it a hill to die on, and is a bit leery about the Catholic-sounding word “doctrine.”
In the church I grew up in, the members were pretty evenly divided about OSAS, but neither side thought the issue was something to get heated over, or somehow critical to the church’s identity. How does one classify that?
In the church I grew up in, the members were pretty evenly divided about OSAS, but neither side thought the issue was something to get heated over, or somehow critical to the church’s identity. How does one classify that?
J
JRKH
Guest
Perhaps we would then need a trianary system where the answer is Yes, No or “Yawn”.
Peace
James
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, I would say it was over the relation of secular to ecclesiastical government, and the roles and powers of each. The particular issue of Henry’s marriage was just what brought it all to a head in England, because it was important to him personally. But it was a difficulty throughout Europe, and was very important in looking at why many secular governments chose to support reformers like Luther. Even in those states like France and Spain that remained Catholic, there were serious troubles and power politics going on because of this issue.
J
JRKH
Guest
Precisely.
I think that anyone who looks seriously at the issues of the Reformation should readily see that the Doctrinal Issues were, in most cases, not nearly as devisive as earlier issues such as Arianism and such. The thing that made it so explosive was the socio-political climate of the day. If the issues of the reformation had been kept clearly within the bounds of a Theological “Church” issue, I feel it would have been resolved without the permanent split we see today.
Unfortunately, Politics, Power, Money, and all things “Worldly” got involved and “Set in Stone” things that should have been completely resolved by, during or shortly after, the Council of Trent.
Please know that I am not pointing any fingers at my NCC brothers here. There was plenty of greed within the Church as well as outside of her at that time. I’m so glad that God has seen fit to take away the lands of the old “Papal States” and thus removed from the Church, the temptations associated with being both a spiritual as well as temporal power.
Peace
James
P
PRmerger
Guest
What about this (throwing some more variables to this discussion):
What about *an individual *who leaves the CC because if its teaching on divorce? (vs another church which formally splits from another denomination based on its doctrinal teaching on this issue of divorce.) Does that count as another belief system, even if it’s an individual and not a formal organized effort to separate oneself from the CC?
We Catholics all know individuals who divorced, wanted to re-marry and were not allowed a Catholic wedding… and thus left the CC because of this disagreement.
J
JRKH
Guest
For the sake of the topic here such would not apply in my opinion. If we get into every variation on every teaching in every church by every individual we’d have 5 billion one person Churches.
You rpost does raise an interesting idea thoug, and that would be to discover what the major reasons are for people leaving one Church for another.
Peace
James
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, I’ve looked at the issues pretty seriously, and I don’t see anything of the sort. Just because the issues weren’t as fundamental doesn’t mean that they weren’t equally divisive. Both sides believed that essential issues of the Faith were at stake: sola fide and the supreme authority of Scripture for the Protestants; the authority of the Church and the integrity of sacramental doctrine and practice for the Catholics. (I don’t think sola fide would have been divisive from the Catholic perspective if other issues had not been involved.) If you don’t see that, then with all due respect you are the one who hasn’t looked seriously enough at the period. You are assuming that because everyone agreed on the Trinity therefore doctrine wasn’t the main issue. That is illogical.
Same with the Arian controversy. Constantine’s desire to have a unified Church to help hold the Empire together was one of the reasons that the controversy was so divisive.
Edwin
B
Bluegoat
Guest
We could call it a Trinitarian system, and then it will be sure to work!Perhaps we would then need a trianary system where the answer is Yes, No or “Yawn”.
Peace
James
- Status