Why so many Protestant denominations

  • Thread starter Thread starter pete_29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pete_29

Guest
I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.:confused:
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible. 🙂
 
As a protestant from the reformed tradition, I think it is primarily important to state that most Christians truely do long for a time when the Church is truly united.

However unfortunate it is, the chruch on earth is not united. This is not a new phenomonen. The split between the Catholic and Orthodox chruch came well before the protestant movement, and the Anglican split had little to do with the reformation agenda. There were also the 14th and 15th century reformers Wycliff and Hus who promoted reform even before Luther. Skipping to the split in the Protestant chruches though, it was also an early split. Luther and his agneda (based in Germany) were contrasted early on by Zwingli and his followers in Switzerland and Zwingli was dealing with the Anabaptist reforms led by Grebel and Manz. The major debates were over the sacraments, although it is important to note these were not the only reasons for divisions. Luther, Zwingli and Grebel agreed that the only sacraments proscribed biblically were the eucharist and baptism. Luther and Zwingli agreed on infant baptism but the anabaptists believed only adults after having professed faith could receive baptism. Luther and Zwingli famously split after meeting in Marbourg and could not agree over exactly how Christ was present in the eucharist.

From those early dealings in a small section of German speaking Europe, protestantism has split many times, for many reasons, some theological some political. For example, many of the American chruches split from their parent chruches in Europe because of distance and political reasons and have evolved over time to become distinct.

I happen to be a Presbyterian and know that the Presbyterians have split in the past over education of cleargy, ordination of femal pastors and are currently struggeling with ordination of gays. Splits in opinion are inevitable, the important thing is to remember we are all one in Christ, even if we seem split, his love overcomes all boundries.
 
pete_29 said:
I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.:confused:
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible. 🙂
Click to expand...
There is some points to your question that need to be understood. First, the Church did not change or corrupt any doctrine, it was a corruption of discipline, a significant difference. Secondly, Luther was excommunicated from the Church for changing doctrine i.e., Sola scriptura and Sola Fide and was welcomed back if he stopped his heresy. Put these points together and it is a doctrinal error by protestant communities not to be in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There is no justification to be in any church other than the one founded by Jesus Christ.
 
First of all you have to believe that there was only one church to begin with. When the Roman Catholic Church began its reign not everyone that professed Christ was Lord belonged to it. The Roman Catholic Church just labeled those people heretics the same way it does now even though they had nothing to do with them from the get go. Luther did belong, but when he became aware of the corruption within the church, he did what he did. Even Roman Catholic priests admit that there was corruption at that time, yet the people of the church keep proclaiming that there wasn’t. My suggestion would be to read an unbiased History book.

🙂 Bamm
 
why so many denominations?

sola scriptura(bible alone as authority) is the reason. the invented doctrine of martin lither in the early 16th century which was never heard of previous to him.

when you have a man interpreting scripture for himself, he can make it say whatever he wants. without a teaching authority, ordained by God, to keep the teachings of the apostles in line, you have chaos and division which is evident in the last 500 years of Church history.

previous to the 16th century the church was a virtual monolith, teaching basically the same thing throughout the world, other than the few differences of the orthodox split in 1054. after the 16th century and the advent of sola scriptura, we now have well over 30,000 splits in the protestant realms. The fruits are very evident.
 
justinthemartyr said:
why so many denominations?

sola scriptura(bible alone as authority) is the reason. the invented doctrine of martin lither in the early 16th century which was never heard of previous to him.

when you have a man interpreting scripture for himself, he can make it say whatever he wants. without a teaching authority, ordained by God, to keep the teachings of the apostles in line, you have chaos and division which is evident in the last 500 years of Church history.

previous to the 16th century the church was a virtual monolith, teaching basically the same thing throughout the world, other than the few differences of the orthodox split in 1054. after the 16th century and the advent of sola scriptura, we now have well over 30,000 splits in the protestant realms. The fruits are very evident.
Click to expand...
 
justinthemartyr said:
why so many denominations?

sola scriptura(bible alone as authority) is the reason. the invented doctrine of martin lither in the early 16th century which was never heard of previous to him.

when you have a man interpreting scripture for himself, he can make it say whatever he wants. without a teaching authority, ordained by God, to keep the teachings of the apostles in line, you have chaos and division which is evident in the last 500 years of Church history.

previous to the 16th century the church was a virtual monolith, teaching basically the same thing throughout the world, other than the few differences of the orthodox split in 1054. after the 16th century and the advent of sola scriptura, we now have well over 30,000 splits in the protestant realms. The fruits are very evident.
Click to expand...
This is kind of my point. If sola scriptura is right then why didn’t the early Protestants, who I’m sure prayed very hard for guidance, all come up with the same interpretation of the Bible. Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Baptists in one direction, the Mormons in another direction, the Methodists in still another direction and so on. It reminds me of the story of the detective who questioned ten eyewitnesses to a robbery and got ten different answers in return.
 
pete 29;:
If sola scriptura is right then why didn’t the early Protestants, who I’m sure prayed very hard for guidance, all come up with the same interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
a) With Sola Scriptura, all one has is the Bible. If the Bible is at all vague, then it is possible to have two or more conflicting beliefs about what a passage means.

b) Is the starting point “Only that which is explicitly permitted, is not a sin?” Or is it: “Only that which is explicitly prohibited is a sin?”

Combining the above two points, it is very easy for a church to split.

Take for example, “the use of a musical instrument during a worship service”.
If one practices Sola Scriptura, and adheres to “That which is not explicitly permitted is a sin”, then the use of a musical instrument is a sin, because the Bible does not sanction it. If, OTOH, one adheres to “That which is not explicitly prohibited is not a sin”, then one may play a musical instrument during a church service, without fear of committing a sin.
[The use of a musical instrument during a church service is the sole theological difference between “Church of Christ (instrumental)” and “Church of Christ (Non-Instrumental)”. FWIW, both sides can quote scripture to support their position. Most other theological splits within/between churches aren’t nearly as clearcut and easy to explain.]

c) One major challenge for Sola Scriptura is how much of tradition does one throw away, both implicitly, and explicitly?

Take one example of implicitly accepting tradition. Defining what is “Canonical”. Whilst Sola Scriptura can make a case for defining what is canonical for the Tanakh, and part of the NT, it doesn’t, AFAIK, make a scriptural case for defining the current New Testament. (Indeed, one can argue that Sola Scriptura mandates at least one book in the NT that both Catholic and Protestant Christianity have explicitly rejected.)
Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Baptists in one direction
Click to expand...
a) Is it the Holy Spirit doing the leading? Or is it man doing the leading, rejecting the Holy Spirit during that process?

b) Different groups have different ways of defining/applying what is in the Bible to current socio-economic-political realities.

c) Most of the “founders” of Protestant denominations were trying to reform the existing church that they were in. They didn’t want to start anything. Booth wanted to remain a Methodist, and just focus on a specific socio-economic group for his mission work. The higher-ups in the church didn’t like what he was doing, so he was stuck out on a limb, with no option but to form a new denomination. (Had Booth been Catholic, he would have formed a new religious order.)

xan

jonathon
 
One evening while flipping channels I heard what was perhaps the best reasoning as to why so many different denominations.
First, a religious leader will present an attractive means of following Christ. The focus may be reading scripture. Another leader comes along with the ability to heal and some of those following the first leader will separate to follow the second. A third demonstrates other gifts of the Holy Spirit or may place the focus on contemplative prayer. The speaker was using these various examples and others as a reason to remain non-denominational. My reaction, however, was that these various means of worshipping Christ and following God are all available within the Catholic Church. We read Scripture. We have a Sacramental life. We have a number of different devotions ranging from the rosary to novenas for various saints. We have shrines devoted to saints who had the gift of healing. Father D’Orio has laid hands on people and healed them. There are others of us involved in the Charismatic Renewal, exhibiting the Pentecostal gifts.
As has been already noted, divisions occurred in the earliest Church and St. Paul addressed this very issue. He reminded everybody that he did not baptize in the name of Paul but in the name of Christ. The number of ways that a person may follow Christ is as individual as the person who has been called and is baptized. There is room within the Church for these various expressions of faith.
 
Too many people want to be shepherds…instead of sheep (members of a flock). " I think I want to get my own followers so here is the doctrine I have formulated." Is it much more complicated than that?😊
 
Why so many Protestant denominations.

Well why so many Catholic denominations.
  1. Conservative
  2. Liberal
  3. Eastern Rite
  4. Traditional (sspx)
  5. Charismatic Renewal
  6. Folkloric
 
pete_29 said:
This is kind of my point. If sola scriptura is right then why didn’t the early Protestants, who I’m sure prayed very hard for guidance, all come up with the same interpretation of the Bible. Why would the Holy Spirit lead the Baptists in one direction, the Mormons in another direction, the Methodists in still another direction and so on. It reminds me of the story of the detective who questioned ten eyewitnesses to a robbery and got ten different answers in return.
Click to expand...
mormons aren’t Christians. just fyi.
 
pismopal said:
Too many people want to be shepherds…instead of sheep (members of a flock). " I think I want to get my own followers so here is the doctrine I have formulated." ** Is it much more complicated than that?:**blush:
Click to expand...
yes, it is.
 
pete_29 said:
I assume that everyone in this forum except the atheists and agnostics believe that God is incapable of error, that being said then why after the first group of protestants split from the Catholic church didn’t the splitting away end. I mean, if the Holy Spirit told, Martin Luther, ( just as an example, I don’t mean to single him out in any way), that the Catholic church was teaching false doctrine and the Lutheran churh was formed, then why was the split of any other denomination from the Catholic church necessary. I would think that the Holy Spirit would have given Luther all the information he needed to correct the problem. (Again let me state that I’m not picking on Luther but he is the most famous Protestant that I know.) It seems to me That since many Protestant denominations split from the Catholic church, and that some if not most of them have split apart themselves, that A: the original problem still exists, or B: The original organization, i.e. the Catholic church, was the correct one.:confused:
I’m just a high school graduate so please keep the words as small as possible. 🙂
Click to expand...
Jesus wants christians to live in unity and what Luther did was against God’s will. Pope is the person who represents God on earth but some christians don’t want to obey him, which means they don’t want to fully obey God. Destroying the unity is the original sin of protestantism. All those who found their own denominations, they just follow Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and others. They simply have to do it because that’s the protestant mentality, and there will be more and more protestant demonimations. In the CC there are over one billion of people, we can live in unity, protestants can’t do it.
 
pismopal said:
please illuminate and bear in mind you are addressing other posters who have said essentially the same thing I did only in a more complicated way.
Click to expand...
i don’t see where anyone else said the same thing you did. you said that it was because people want to be the leaders not followers and that was the reason. that’s not true (i would say for the most part). i would say that people become convinced of something and feel that they need to “obey their conscience” or “follow God” as they would say. luther, calvin, hus, wycliffe, zwingli all became convinced and had to be true to that conviction. whether they were correct or not is not the issue, the issue is why and your simple (and somewhat offensive) explanation is not accurate.
 
LexCatholic said:
Why so many Protestant denominations.

Well why so many Catholic denominations.
  1. Conservative
  2. Liberal
  3. Eastern Rite
  4. Traditional (sspx)
  5. Charismatic Renewal
  6. Folkloric
Click to expand...
These are not separate Catholic denominations. Members of the Charismatic Renewal, for instance, may meet weekly to praise God, to pray for each other and the community, and for fellowship. They still attend Mass on Sunday with everybody else and may belong to other organizations within the Church. There are individuals who meet weekly for Bible study and others who attend rosary cenacles or novenas. These are simply different ways of expressing faith within the overall Catholic community. Members of the Charismatic Renewal are in union with Rome as are many Eastern Rite Churches. What differentiates Charismatics from other Catholics is merely the expression of Pentecostal charisms as listed in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church. SSPX is the only “sect” that I recognize as not being an intregal part of the Catholic Church.
 
bengal_fan said:
i don’t see where anyone else said the same thing you did. you said that it was because people want to be the leaders not followers and that was the reason. that’s not true (i would say for the most part). i would say that people become convinced of something and feel that they need to “obey their conscience” or “follow God” as they would say. luther, calvin, hus, wycliffe, zwingli all became convinced and had to be true to that conviction. whether they were correct or not is not the issue, the issue is why and your simple (and somewhat offensive) explanation is not accurate.
Click to expand...
What could possibly be offensive about what I said (and standby) in light of the fact that there are over 25,000 denominations? You name 5 theologists. That would not explain the thousands of denominations which all claim to be the truest expression of Christianity. They are in schism as I type and I suppose that fact is offensive too but don’t blame the messenger. If you don’t think that most of that “lets start a new church” mentality has to do with greed and avarice, thats ok but I think you are wrong. Why does an explanation need to be complicated and why is it important that it not offend you?
Please explain why there are more than 25,000 denominations formed by people who "had to be true to their convictions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top