Schism in the Protestant Churchs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter heisenburg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

heisenburg

Guest
I was thinking…

Are we in the process of seeing a schism in the protestant churches…

Here is what I mean.

There are two camps that are becoming glaringly obvious in protestant churchs. You have the more traditionalist view. These are churches that are closer in line to catholic teaching, though still outside the church. They believe in the trinity, baptism, importance of acting in ones faith, so on and so forth. These also tend to be much less hostile towards the Catholic church.

The opposite side of this schism are the more “fundamentalist”. These are so amazingly bible alone that they do not beleive ANYONE is allowed to help you in your learning. All personal interpretation is valid as it will come for the spirit, THey are far les likely to believe in the trinity, and baptism is mearly a symbol, and not required. You can learn just as much, if not more so from private reading and praying than you can with the help of a preacher/paster/sundayschool teacher… so on and so forth. Many even believe reading the bible in context is actually against what jesus wanted. They also see denomonations as a whole regardless as bad. These also tend to be extremly anti catholic

THe reason I wonder is a slow schism in progress is because there are fewer and fewer people in the middle and a noticible gulf between these two lines of thought is developing.

In 100 years, will there be 4 distinct groups as opposed to 3?

Roman Catholics
Orthodoxs
Protestants
the new group…
Fidaists

Define my new term
Fidaists - Faith is the cornerstone to everything. Nothing else we say do or read matters. how we read the bible is unimportant, how we interpret the bible is unimportant. OSAS is a core principle. Works are in no way shape or form required. for most, there is no such thing as the trinity. Trinitarian belief will be considered the traditionlists in the group. ANYTHING outsdie of faith is suspect. the more you have outside of faith be the only way, the closer to damnation you are. Extremists in this group see normal protestants as extreme protestants see catholics. Top on the list of heritical protestant churchs are Anglican and Lutheran.

Anyway… jsut something I am noticing…

In Christ
 
I noticed that there have been schisms in the Protestant ranks scince the start with calvinism (which came around when Luther was still alive). “Fundamentalist” came around I think (please note the “I think”) around the early 1900s.

Though I think it is funny that Fundamentalist, for the most part, with deny anything that Catholics beleive dispite how overtly biblical it is, showing them to be non-“Bible alone” people (i.e. Transubstaniaon, divinity of Christ) just look at Jahovahs Witness (though I guess one could make a case if you go by their bible from which I understand is extremly twisted to fit their beleifs).
 
Monty when I grew up we (calvinists) called your fidaists or in latin america “fidaista’s” FUNDIES. We never spoke bad of catholics there were none in Zeeland Michigan, but we had a few baptists. We never talked to them and they recipricated.

And I would say as I recall maybe Fundies came around in the 1800’s

HILDE
 
there are several groups within the umbrella of “protestantism” already.

Typically, there are classified as Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals.

Mainliners are your typical, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist.

Evangelical are your baptists, nazarenes, free will evangelicals, etc.
 
jjoshjl, you are right about these schisms, but they have been going on for several hundred years now. As Dan-Man916 says, there have already been splits from the mainline denominations into new, evangelical denominations. Now there is tension between traditionalists and liberals within the mainline denominations. The most newsworthy example recently has been within the Anglican group of churches. Without the Magisterium, there is no one to preserve doctrinal unity.
 
jjoshjl,

As others have pointed out, this isn’t something that is “slowly developing.” There have been divisions between more traditional and more radical forms of Protestantism since the beginning of the Reformation.

I’m pleased that you recognize the existence of traditional Protestantism at all. The two most vocal and visible manifestations of Protestantism these days are liberals and fundamentalists. Rather than a “developing schism,” Protestantism falls along a broad spectrum–actually it’s more of a triangular spectrum, with liberals at one corner, fundamentalists at another, and traditional “confessional” Protestants (Missouri Synod Lutherans, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.), at the other. Most of us, though, fall somewhere in the middle. It’s not clear-cut at all and shows no signs of becoming so.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
jjoshjl,

Protestantism falls along a broad spectrum–actually it’s more of a triangular spectrum, with liberals at one corner, fundamentalists at another, and traditional “confessional” Protestants (Missouri Synod Lutherans, Orthodox Presbyterians, etc.), at the other. Most of us, though, fall somewhere in the middle. It’s not clear-cut at all and shows no signs of becoming so.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Very well said…the lines are certainly not clear cut between many denominations. In fact, I predict that the lines will become increasingly indistinctive as time progresses. For this reason, in our community, many members simply switch churches when they’re unhappy or offended with the present leadership (quite sad). I wonder if Luther would have still posted his letter on the door if he saw what resulted from it? Nonetheless, I’ve been through one church split and I’ve also seen other pastors leave our congregation only to go and start their own within our small city. I’ve seen the tension and hurt that it has caused. I do give kudos to our church, however. It has been gracious so far as providing financial assistance to these other churches at times.

I was baptized Catholic, but was raised in a charismatic Apostolic church (very similar to Pentecostal). I’ve been studying the Catholic faith from the Biblical perspective and just trying to digest it all. I agree with many doctrines, but I’m still undecided on others (Transubstantian, Mariology and Church Authority - big issues for Protestants).

CSJ
 
jjoshjl:
I was thinking…

Are we in the process of seeing a schism in the protestant churches…
Click to expand...
There were schisms in protestantism before Luther had even aged. He even complained about their lack of respect for authority. It is congenital to protestantism.
 
I think the tendency to go into schism is genetic among Protestant churches.

I’ve had some firsthand experience among Lutherans, and Missouri Synod members won’t take communion at services held in Evangelical Lutheran churches.

Talk about schism!!!

I like to think of the protestant reformation as being the first crack in a pane of glass…with every subsequent stress, another crack forms, until you’ve got this web-like mass of cracks…to me, that’s what the protestant world looks like now…

I just wish the Church hadn’t excommunicated Luther…maybe this all wouldn’t have happened…at least in this way!
 
awalt,

How are you defining “denomination”?

You do know that the Catholic Church is made up of 22 (or is it 23?) sui juris churches in full communion with each other, right? So to make your case you need to show that these 20,000 denominations are not in full communion with each other.

There’s really no meaningful way to say how many Protestant divisions there are. But it’s in the dozens or maybe low hundreds (even counting the small, extreme groups) rather than the thousands, if you apply the same standards you apply to your own Church.

Not that that makes a lot of difference. Our record is still shameful. But as I see it the root of the problems is the East/West division. Make things right with the Orthodox, and then you can talk to us about the sin of schism.

Edwin
 
Yes, but if you actually read your reference you will see that the source counts each church in each country as separate. So Catholicism counts as more than 200 denominations by this standard.

The problem is that a lot of Catholics can’t distinguish between decentralized structure and division. You can argue that one leads to the other, but you have to prove it–you can’t just assume it by counting separate structures as separate churches. Otherwise you’re playing into the hands of Protestants who argue that you are only interested in “organizational” unity.

If, as you claim, what you are interested in is “organic” unity; if ideally this is what would unite Eastern and Western Catholic churches; then you have to take this into account in assessing Protestant divisions.

So, for instance, the Church of England and the Episcopal Church are not separate churches in the sense that Catholics and Presbyterians, or Presbyterians and Baptists, are separate churches. They are rather analogous to the Roman Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church.

Edwin
 
40.png
Contarini:
awalt,

How are you defining “denomination”?

You do know that the Catholic Church is made up of 22 (or is it 23?) sui juris churches in full communion with each other, right? So to make your case you need to show that these 20,000 denominations are not in full communion with each other.

There’s really no meaningful way to say how many Protestant divisions there are. But it’s in the dozens or maybe low hundreds (even counting the small, extreme groups) rather than the thousands, if you apply the same standards you apply to your own Church.

Not that that makes a lot of difference. Our record is still shameful. But as I see it the root of the problems is the East/West division. Make things right with the Orthodox, and then you can talk to us about the sin of schism.

Edwin
Click to expand...
I think most protestants and Catholics are in union with eachother in belief in christ is son of God, died for our sins, on third day rose again ascended into heaven.

Everything the bishops stated in the nicene profession of faith.

It is all the perifery that makes them different and opposed to eachother.

Maybe if we just stick to the basics we can all be harmonious.
 
40.png
Contarini:
The problem is that a lot of Catholics can’t distinguish between decentralized structure and division. You can argue that one leads to the other, but you have to prove it–you can’t just assume it by counting separate structures as separate churches. Otherwise you’re playing into the hands of Protestants who argue that you are only interested in “organizational” unity.
Click to expand...
I was going to disagree with this, and say that any two churches which are not under the authority of the same body are separate for that reason. I then considered the extension of that to the fact that any Protestant who follows sola scriptura is thereby not under the authority of anyone in particular, in which case there are about 700 000 000 separate Protestant faiths, one for each believer. Moving back to a more intermediate position, I might just take the etymological view: any church which calls itself by a separate denominational name is a separate denomination.
 
40.png
buzzcut:
Without the Magisterium, there is no one to preserve doctrinal unity.
Click to expand...
I was going to agree with this, and cite the Muslims as a parallel example (no centralised authority after the Mongols ended the Caliph and the Caliphate in 1258; lots of splinter groups), and then I thought of the Jews. While they are not absolutely united, they do tend towards considerable unity despite their lack of an authorising body.
 
40.png
buzzcut:
jjoshjl, you are right about these schisms, but they have been going on for several hundred years now. As Dan-Man916 says, there have already been splits from the mainline denominations into new, evangelical denominations. Now there is tension between traditionalists and liberals within the mainline denominations. The most newsworthy example recently has been within the Anglican group of churches. Without the Magisterium, there is no one to preserve doctrinal unity.
Click to expand...

Actually, we have had plenty of our own:​

Mariavites
SSPX
CMRI
Old Catholics
Liberal Catholic Church
Polish National Catholic Church
  • and that’s just since 1870, without looking any up.
We are as prone to splits as most bodies. We are not free of them, at all. 😦 ##
 
40.png
Mystophilus:
I was going to disagree with this, and say that any two churches which are not under the authority of the same body are separate for that reason. I then considered the extension of that to the fact that any Protestant who follows sola scriptura is thereby not under the authority of anyone in particular, in which case there are about 700 000 000 separate Protestant faiths, one for each believer. Moving back to a more intermediate position, I might just take the etymological view: any church which calls itself by a separate denominational name is a separate denomination.
Click to expand...

That’s overlooking a few things 🙂​

The “Church of England in Scotland” can’t call itself that, even though it is in full communion with the Church of England. The C of E calls itself that, because it is the established Church for England - in Scotland, the established Church is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland: not the Episcopalian Church, which is in full communion with the C of E but not with the Presbyterians.

Both in turn are sister-churches in the Anglican Communion. They agree in faith and discipline, and differ in history. (Don’t tell a Scot that England = Great Britain. It doesn’t 🙂 Scotland had its own Reformation and its own Church history. As did Ireland, up to a point.)

Another thing - the Episcopalians are in communion with, but not under the jurisdiction of, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Episcopalians have their own bishops.

It’s a great mistake to think Protestants have no ecclesiology, no liturgy, & no care for Church discipline, & never enforce it. Even USA Protestantism is no mere anarchy - far from it.

Hope that clarifies ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## That’s overlooking a few things
Click to expand...

How polite of you! I would have called it “a gross oversimplification”. Still, what I mean by it is that, when a church feels the need to give itself a name which distinguishes it from another church, it is saying something about its relationship with that other church. The difference in name does not require complete dissociation, but is does involve differentiation.
The “Church of England in Scotland” can’t call itself that, even though it is in full communion with the Church of England. The C of E calls itself that, because it is the established Church for England - in Scotland, the established Church is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland: not the Episcopalian Church, which is in full communion with the C of E but not with the Presbyterians.

Both in turn are sister-churches in the Anglican Communion. They agree in faith and discipline, and differ in history. (Don’t tell a Scot that England = Great Britain. It doesn’t 🙂 Scotland had its own Reformation and its own Church history. As did Ireland, up to a point.)
Click to expand...
Hence the Church of Ireland, a.k.a. “the Anglican Compromise”, another branch of the Anglican Communion.

As for telling a Scot that England is Great Britain, what is even worse is mentioning “Britain” at all in Northern Ireland. Say that the North is not part of Britain and you will have to deal with the Protestant Loyalists. Say that the North (or, even worse, the whole island) is part of Britain and you will have to deal with the Catholic Nationalists.
Another thing - the Episcopalians are in communion with, but not under the jurisdiction of, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Episcopalians have their own bishops.
Click to expand...
I think that the disagreement over the ordination of homosexuals is grounds for the suggestion that the two are separate groups, even if they are related. While I share no body parts whatsoever with my brother, he is still my brother: we are related, but not identical.
 
So to sum this thread up, in short to say that there is NOT Schism in Protestantism is an oxymoron. To say there is Schism in Protestantism is redundant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top