Is denominationalism an obviously bad thing according to (most) Protestants?

[Tommy999]

I think most Protestants believe that you can be from a different denomination and still go to heaven, although they usually think their denomination’s beliefs and interpretations of scripture are the most correct. Personally, I am bothered by the proliferation of Christian denominations and think it hurts the heart of Jesus because I don’t think He meant or wanted Christianity to be divided like it is.

With that said, I think certain denominations have certain strengths that, if combined with those of others, would really be awesome for the cause of Christ. For example, I remember the sense of reverence I felt as a child in the sanctuary of the Presbyterian church of my parents. I think Baptists in general do a great job of teaching children how to memorize scripture and learn Bible stories – some of these kids are like human Bible encyclopedias. I think Pentecostal and non-denominational congregations are very welcoming and stress the work of the Holy Spirit in a charismatic sense. Many Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches combine liturgy with an evangelical zeal that is quite commendable. Catholicism, of course, has all the sacraments and can legitimately argue that they were the original Christians that can trace their spiritual lineage directly back to Christ and the disciples.

However, I think certain theological differences are divisive – some major and some minor. For example, some believe communion is really the body of Christ, most others believe it to be symbolic. Some believe in infant baptism while others believe a person should have a spiritual awakening and profess faith in Christ before being baptized. Of course, the abortion issue is a major divisive issue within Protestant groups – the more conservative ones lean pro-Life whereas the more liberal lean Pro-Choice. The list goes on and on.

In summary, I think the answer depends on who you talk to. In my view, the existence of so many denominations confuses non-Christians and may cause them to hesitate before considering Christianity as a faith option due to the lack of unity.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

I agree with most of this, but I’m not aware of any protestant churches that are pro-choice, except when the life of the mother is at serious risk.

 

[Crocus]

So thank you for your post, and for being very frank on your conviction on Real Presence, and what it means to believe otherwise. I feel the same way about having everyone make sure they are born again, to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that one is His child, and the fire it puts in us knowing that.

God bless you for your observation.

When that conviction, and that knowledge are united, in all Christians, the Day of the Lord will have arrived. Praise God!

 

[ltwin]

I agree with most of this, but I’m not aware of any protestant churches that are pro-choice, except when the life of the mother is at serious risk.

There are mainline Protestant churches where extreme views of abortion are tolerated, even among the clergy. Not too long ago, there was a president of an Episcopal seminary who caused controversy because she went around saying that “abortion is a blessing.” Note: She did not say “abortion is a necessary evil” or “sometimes abortion is tragically necessary to save the life of the mother.” She said, “abortion is a blessing” even when it is totally elective.

"When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.

"And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight – only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

 

[mcq72]

God bless you for your observation.

When that conviction, and that knowledge are united, in all Christians, the Day of the Lord will have arrived. Praise God!

Well thank you. Not sure it is an observation but really what a born again Christian has always been, the Spirit bearing witness. Not sure you can be a Christian otherwise, today or at His coming…gotta have the oil in your lamp, fire in your belly now, else He say depart from Him on the day of His coming, that He never knew us.

Again thank you , blessings

 

[TC3033]

I can’t refute your personal, subjective experiences of sermons / homilies…but I am surprised that a Protestant would reply “no, not really” to my question of taking discussion topics from the Scripture readings, collects, and antiphons of the day…I thought Protestants were all about studying and reflecting on the Bible? The Mass is 90% Scripture…the readings always give me something to think about.

Sorry to let you down…there’s so many times we walk out and ask each other…“what was he talking about” or “did he really say that”…really takes an empasis for us; especially when said homily was basically just a commercial for their school or it puts down non-Catholics or Catholic/non-Catholic marriage.

I will take a solid 10-15 minute homily

I’d say that 18-22 min is the normal “wheelhouse” for my minister back home. Some may be longer…but nowhere near 45 min, let alone 60.

My wife was a member at one parish where the homily was anywhere from 2-4 min…we’re pretty sure his goal was to keep Mass in the 40-45 min range, and I laid out above what we usually hear now.

So ya…we prefer the sermon from my ND minister back home. It’s always something that applies to everyday life that really gives us something to think about, to the point where my wife has brought up some of his sermons with her parents…at her parish not so much (as laid out above). I guess YMMV depending on the priest/minister… ¯_(ツ)_/¯, which was my point when poster above said that ND ministers are “feel good” and no substance, which isn’t our experience at my home church.

 

[rakovskii]

I think alot of Protestant denominations think it’s fine and normal for their churches to be broken up into so many denominations. It’s not uncommon for some Protestants to decide to create their own independent or nondenominational church someplace based on their own authority.

The main objection I see to this model is that the early Church in the 1st century had a much more organized model with regions being organized under bishops.

 

[Hodos]

I think alot of Protestant denominations think it’s fine and normal for their churches to be broken up into so many denominations. It’s not uncommon for some Protestants to decide to create their own independent or nondenominational church someplace based on their own authority.

The main objection I see to this model is that the early Church in the 1st century had a much more organized model with regions being organized under bishops.

Not necessarily. What the book of Acts and history seems to indicate is that the Church spread either purposefully as your say through the sending of missionaries to establish bases from which the gospel was proclaimed, or unintentionally as persecution caused the dispersion of Christians throughout the Roman world. In the latter case Churches often formed in new cities and areas, elders from the various Churches in a region would then begin meeting to discuss issues and eventually appoint an overseer or bishop. You see both models throughout Church history running concurrently. Additionally, we plant Churches not on our own authority, but through the command of Christ.

 

[rakovskii]

I think you just confirmed what I was saying. Sure, I could imagine cases where first-second century Christians dispersed and set up local churches, and then the Churches appointed a bishop/“overseer”. Even in that case, the overall model is still to have regions under bishops. This is different from the model that many low church nondenominational or independent Protestant groups use when they set up churches in regions where there are already Catholic and Protestant bishops and yet don’t want to be under bishops.

 

[Hodos]

I think you just confirmed what I was saying. Sure, I could imagine cases where first-second century Christians dispersed and set up local churches, and then the Churches appointed a bishop/“overseer”. Even in that case, the overall model is still to have regions under bishops. This is different from the model that many low church nondenominational or independent Protestant groups use when they set up churches in regions where there are already Catholic and Protestant bishops and yet don’t want to be under bishops.

I think it depends on the ecclesiology of the body that is planting a church. While, not all Protestants hold to an episcopal polity, most do have a structure that either maintains some hierarchy to theoretically hold the teaching and preaching of their member churches accountable to scripture (theoretically). The charismatic and non-denominational church bodies unfortunately do have a view of polity that the local church is self-contained and accountable to no one above the parish pastor. I think this is a sad thing. But that being said, I think history demonstrates that holding to an episcopal polity is not a guarantee of orthodoxy. Bishops are just as liable to play fast and loose with doctrine or to turn a blind eye to their supervisory roles as the parish priest or pastor is.

 

[rakovskii]

Thanks. Again, I don’t see anything in what you have written as factually contradicting what I wrote:

I think alot of Protestant denominations think it’s fine and normal for their churches to be broken up into so many denominations. It’s not uncommon for some Protestants to decide to create their own independent or nondenominational church someplace based on their own authority. (etc.)

 

[Hodos]

Thanks. Again, I don’t see anything in what you have written as factually contradicting what I wrote:

Well, what you wrote was contradictory to begin with. The conversation was about denominations, a fair question. You somehow turned that into a question of which is the correct polity in church planting. Two completely separate issues.

 

[steve-b]

So anyways. Do Protestants think so many different denominations is a bad thing? Or do they find it normal considering the nature of the Church?

Denominationalism Is the nature of THEM. … Endless divisions.

 

[steve-b]

If my knowledge is correct, the original Reformers like Luther and Calvin did accept a visible Church, which is part of the reason they were horrified over lack of Protestant unity. If only they could see what happened over time…

Luther saw the consequences to his actions quickly. He was excommunicated. Then came all the others after him.

 

[steve-b]

RealisticCatholic:

But these two beliefs are complete opposite: Symbolic Eucharist vs. Substantial Presence of Jesus that can be adored as God.

I’m not sure how else I can illustrate the significance of two so very different understandings of arguably the chief ritual Christ t old his followers to do in perpetuity.

Whichever Christian is wrong here is VERY, VERY wrong.

As I said, God’s love and grace is strong enough to take care of our “wrongness” about this and any other doctrine. We are not saved by being right about doctrine. We are saved because of God’s grace and gift of eternal life to us. We are saved because we are united with Christ by the indwelling Holy Spirit. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek to understand the things of God but it also doesn’t mean that even we don’t understand (or don’t understand correctly) that God disowns us or takes His grace and love away from us.

Ianman87,

Re: ERROR

Q:​

Does either tradition or scripture teach that

one can be in heresy, and after being given the knowledge of truth , they remain in heresy, they still will be saved?

 

[lanman87]

Q:​

Does either tradition or scripture teach that

one can be in heresy, and after being given the knowledge of truth , they remain in heresy, they still will be saved?

Do we trust our knowledge for salvation? Do we trust our own understandings? If we do then our trust is in ourselves and our ability to be “religious” and not in Christ.

I try to be a good person but I don’t trust in my goodness for my salvation. I try to understand the scriptures and God’s will and call for my life but I don’t trust in my understanding. I try to live a life of faithfulness and love but I don’t trust my ability to be faithful and loving for my salvation. Instead of trusting myself and my abilities to do any of those things, I trust in Christ alone. I rest on His Grace and Mercy and Love.

My cry to the Lord is simple. “Lord have mercy on me a sinner”.

God will decide if I’m a heretic or not. It will not be you and it will not be the Catholic church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Q:​

Does either tradition or scripture teach that

one can be in heresy, and after being given the knowledge of truth , they remain in heresy, they still will be saved?

Do we trust our knowledge for salvation? Do we trust our own understandings? If we do then our trust is in ourselves and our ability to be “religious” and not in Christ.

I try to be a good person but I don’t trust in my goodness for my salvation. I try to understand the scriptures and God’s will and call for my life but I don’t trust in my understanding. I try to live a life of faithfulness and love but I don’t trust my ability to be faithful and loving for my salvation. Instead of trusting myself and my abilities to do any of those things, I trust in Christ alone. I rest on His Grace and Mercy and Love.

My cry to the Lord is simple. “Lord have mercy on me a sinner”.

God will decide if I’m a heretic or not. It will not be you and it will not be the Catholic church.

You have a faith made up (composed) by you. I’m asking for specifics (evidence) in what I asked.

 

[lanman87]

You have a faith made up (composed) by you. I’m asking for specifics (evidence) in what I asked.

What is “heresy” to you? I have a feeling our definitions are different.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You have a faith made up (composed) by you. I’m asking for specifics (evidence) in what I asked.

What is “heresy” to you? I have a feeling our definitions are different.

That’s like saying your truth and my truth. Truth is truth.

 

[lanman87]

That’s like saying your truth and my truth. Truth is truth.

Yes, and we all believe that our truth is the one truth. I believe your truth is, in part at least, wrong and misguided. You believe what I believe to be true is, at least in part, wrong and misguided.

From what I can tell, you think that to be “saved” one must agree with the Catholic church and live in accordance with the Cannon Law inasmuch as they have been taught and shown what the Catholic church teaches.

I disagree with that premise completely. Salvation doesn’t come through intellectual agreement and following church laws. It comes from a Spiritual Union with Christ where the Holy Spirit changes ones heart from a heart of stone to a heart of flesh, makes one a new creation in Christ, adopts one as a Child of God, works in us to sanctify us so that our physical and temporal life will reflect what we already are spiritually and eternally (A Child of the most high God) , and changes our affections from being hostile toward God and His Creation to being loving toward God and His creation (including all Humans).

The reason most in denominations aren’t dogmatic** about things like mode and time of baptism, how often and purpose of the Lord’s Supper, OSAS or falling from grace, what type of music to have, how often to meet, speaking in tongues/Charismatic gifts and so forth, is because where you stand on those things isn’t what saves you. Those things are intellectual understandings and personal preferences and personal experiences. We understand it is possible for two men to have differing intellectual understandings/preferences/experiences and yet both still have a Spiritual Union with Christ and therefore those two people are Spiritual Brothers in Christ.

** by dogmatic I mean that they believe it is required in order to be saved.