Why so many Protestant denominations

[jblake]

I listed a whole series of major differences-you ignored them.

I’m not sure which message you are referring to here. There are a couple of message in this thread that refer to differences, but not of them compare specific denominations and their doctrine, teachings, beliefs, or practices. The closest is one that points to two Episcopalian churches that have different opinions about female priests and homosexuality. (Were both Episcopalian churches in the same organization?)

Since I said specifics were needed, I’m going to use Baptism as an example.

Baptist: Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, symbolizing the believer’s death to sin, burial of old life and resurrection to a new life in Christ.

Catholic: Baptism is a sacrament in which a child or adult is cleansed of sin to begin a new life. Water is poured over the candidates head. It marks cleansing, and the beginning of a new life, and entry into the church.

Church of Christ: Baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, to place one in Christ, and to place one in the Church. The mode is immersion by believers only.

Episcopal: Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ’s body the church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God. It is conducted at birth by pouring.

Lutheran: Baptism plants the seed of salvation and should be administered at birth by sprinkling.

Methodist: Baptism is a sacrament, a sign of God’s grace by which He works within us to strengthen and confirm our faith. Infants are baptised as an initiation into Christian community by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

Pentacostal: Baptism is a sacred ordinance to be obeyed but it does not save. Believers are baptised by immersion.

Presbyterian: A visible sign of God’s Word portraying Christ’s redemption. Baptism is administered by sprinkling or pouring water on adults. Baptism is the sign and seal of our ingrafting into Christ.

If there are no major differences why the need or different denominations?

a) To quote from The United Methodist Members Handbook (Nashville, TN: Discipleship Resources: 1989 ISBN: 0-88177-219-4) “We represent a broad spectrum of Christian beliefs. There are a number of issues on which we would find different positions even within a single congregation:…” United Methodists might not be a good example, because they are extremely ecumenical.

b) Going back to the doctrinal differences I listed for Baptism, the most obvious differences are:

• When to perform it: Paedobaptism versus credobaptism;
• How to perform it: Sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.
• Is a commandment: Yes, no, or maybe.
• Saves one: Yes, no, plants the seeds for salvation,

Each of those positions has some scriptural support. In some instances “the plain meaning” is the support. In other instances, “an inferred meaning” is the support.

Most Protestant denominations recognize baptisms performed by other denominations. Landmark Baptists are a notable exception, in that they do not always recognize baptisms performed by other Landmark Baptist churches.

There are obviously major differences in theology, doctrine, and practices. Are these different practices and doctrine something that is “essential” or “non-essential”?

Why don’t the Mennonites, Lutherans , Pesbyterians and Anglicans unify?

It is very easy for an organization to split into two. It is very difficult to patch up an organization after it has been split.

The “liberal” mainline protestant denominations in the US are in unification talks with each other, and/or the Episcopalian Church (USA).

Some of the “conservative” Protestant denominations are also in unification talks with each other.

The major stumbling point in unification talks is to determine what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”, and reach agreement on those issues.

• Is it “essential” that everybody believes the exact same thing for each and every doctrine, teaching, and practice of the resulting merged organization?
• Is is acceptable that the membership have a range of beliefs for and about each and every doctrine, teaching, and practice of the resulting merged organization?

Do Baptists preach from you pulpit? Christian Scientists? Seventh Day Adventists? Catholics? Church Of Christ?

Once the individual congregation or minister gets past the liturgical clash, preachers do cross denominational boundaries.
(It is much easier for liturgical churches to have preachers from other liturgical churches, and non-liturgical churches to have preachers from other non-liturgical churches, than to have one being from liturgical background, and the other being from a non-liturgical background.)

xan

jonathon

 

[jblake]

jediliz;:

There are 50,000 protestant denominations. Almost none of them agree on anything, a

I suspect that you are confusing “New Age Christianity” with “Protestant Christianity”, with “Restoration Movement Christianity”, with “Gnostic Christianity”, with “Celtic Christianity” along with or two other branches of Christianity, as well as one or two non-Christian movements as well. [On a different thread, I pointed two or three organizations that somebody classified as Catholic Christianity, for which there is probably zero chance of the Holy See ever granting them anything which even could be remotely misconstrued as equivalent to “being in partial communion with”.)

Within the different branches of Christianity, there is usually an agreement on the fundamentals. The differences in teh specifics.

a few of them might even refuse to celebrate the birthday of Jesus because they’ve fallen for the “its too pagan” or something.

Try the “or something” reason. I’m not sure which group you are referring to here, but the reasons for not celebrating Christmas usually fall into one of these groups:

• That which is not explicitly permitted in the Bible is a sin. Celebrating Christmas is not mentioned, hence doing so is a sin;
• The Bible does not provide a specific date for the birth of Jesus. As such, setting up such a date is adding to the Bible, and therefor a sin;
• Christmas is not one of the festivals which the New Testament commands one to observe;
• Christmas is not one of the festivals which one is commanded to observe by either the Old Testament or the New Testament;

If you can present a church whose official reason for not celebrating Christmas is “its too pagan”, I’d be interested in knowing which group it is. It is used by individuals, who point to the celebration of Saturnia as the source for the celebration of Christmas.

xan

jonathon

 

[DrewC]

I am aspiring to be a protestant minister and I do long for the unity of all Christian churches but it will never happen until Christ returns. I have some different belifs than most protestants though, I believe in Purgatory and I believe that we can pray to Mary and the Saints for intercession. I believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins and the Life everlasting. I will teach these things as a minister also.

I really wish we could all be one Chruch but we are divided by doctrines and beliefs and I know that when Christ returns we will all be one body agian! God bless all of you!

 

[jmcrae]

I am aspiring to be a protestant minister and I do long for the unity of all Christian churches but it will never happen until Christ returns. I have some different belifs than most protestants though, I believe in Purgatory and I believe that we can pray to Mary and the Saints for intercession. I believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins and the Life everlasting. I will teach these things as a minister also.

If you do so, know that you will not be in line with the official teachings of whichever denomination of Protestants you will be affiliated with, which will make it difficult for you to retain a job in paid ministry.

I really wish we could all be one Church but we are divided by doctrines and beliefs and I know that when Christ returns we will all be one body agian! God bless all of you!

Or rather, those who are already of the One Body will be made manifest. Heretics and unbelievers will be cast into Hell on that day, since the Age of Mercy (when repentance and conversion remain possible) will have come to its end the day before. Judgement Day is one day too late to be making any sudden realizations about the location of the True Church.

 

[justasking4]

If you do so, know that you will not be in line with the official teachings of whichever denomination of Protestants you will be affiliated with, which will make it difficult for you to retain a job in paid ministry.

Or rather, those who are already of the One Body will be made manifest. Heretics and unbelievers will be cast into Hell on that day, since the Age of Mercy (when repentance and conversion remain possible) will have come to its end the day before. Judgement Day is one day too late to be making any sudden realizations about the location of the True Church.

Are you saying a person must belong to the “True Church” to be saved?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying a person must belong to the “True Church” to be saved?

Yes, absolutely. There is only one Saviour, Jesus Christ, and He only founded one Church.

There are “invisible modes” of knowing Jesus and of belonging to His Church, as you already know, but if you want to know for certain that you are saved, rather than just hope that you are one of the “invisibles,” then you should call on Jesus Christ audibly by name, and physically, visibly belong to His Church.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This is a good place to clarify terms using the American Heritage Dictionary:

denomination–an organized group of religious congregations.
The Charismatic Renewal within the Catholic Church does not fit this definition. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are expressed by members of various denominations.
…

Agreed. I was using the term denomination loosely to make a point that many Protestant christians consider those of other denominations to still be members of the same religion, which they call Christianity.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…Catholic worship centers around the Eucharist.
CCC1324 The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life”…
CCC1326 by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.
CCC1327 the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking:
The bond among [Catholics]is not ethnicity, political preference, economic status or like-mindedness. It is the Lord (Little Blue Book)
… The Mass, however, is constant in its essentials, wherever I may be.

Yes, i understand and suppose that the beliefs about the Eucharist are what separate Catholics from Protestants. From an Evangelical point of view, the idea that receiving the Eucharist is somehow a requirement to enter heaven is seen as a deception. While i imagine that from a Roman Catholic point of view the idea that it would not be a requirement is a lie from the pit of hell that smells like smoke!

Actually, i’d be interested in examining any biblical text you have found that indicate the Eucharist is essential to salvation. Is there anything, for example, in the New Testament that makes this claim?

 

[jfallaw]

One thing that can hardly be denied is that each group believes passionately in Christ and their understanding of the Gospels. I think that’s the most important thing to remember and the first place to start.

 

[estesbob]

One thing that can hardly be denied is that each group believes passionately in Christ and their understanding of the Gospels. I think that’s the most important thing to remember and the first place to start.

And they often have diametrically opposed doctrines about the nature of Jesus and what it takes to be saved. It would seem like a dispute over how ones immortal soul is saved is a difference that can not be papered over by asserting “well we all love Jesus”

If , as many in this thread contend, that are no major differences why did the Church go from one Faith to 30.000 diferent versions of the faith in the last 500 years?

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, i’d be interested in examining any biblical text you have found that indicate the Eucharist is essential to salvation. Is there anything, for example, in the New Testament that makes this claim?

Great Googly Moogly, man!! Have you not been reading along?

The commandment from Christ to receive the Eucharist is found in John 6:53-55, which says,

**
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.**

The requirement is repeated at least four more times, in the Last Supper accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in the instruction from St. Paul on the Eucharist in I Corinthians 11.

 

[estesbob]

Great Googly Moogly, man!! Have you not been reading along?

The commandment from Christ to receive the Eucharist is found in John 6:53-55, which says,

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

The requirement is repeated at least four more times, in the Last Supper accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and in the instruction from St. Paul on the Eucharist in I Corinthians 11.

Pretty straightforward isn’t it? But then we must remember the first rule of Sola Scripturu is that scripture is to be interpreted literally except were doing so supports Catholic doctrine.

 

[teofilo]

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

A Denomination, is a group of people within a faith that has its own system of organization. As Catholics, weather we may be conservative or liberal in our thinking, we do not act on our own but follow the teachings and doctrine of the Roman catholic church, especially the Charismatic renewal Catholic Movement , not denomination. This movement along with all the other movements within the Catholic Church are people who are organized and moved by the holy spirit to effect constructive change in an effort to know and live our faith as Christians , they do not change doctrine nor work to oppose the teachings of the church . Once they have done so , then it is them who have separated themselves from the church .

 

[SyCarl]

Pretty straightforward isn’t it? But then we must remember the first rule of Sola Scripturu is that scripture is to be interpreted literally except were doing so supports Catholic doctrine.

No not because it supports Catholic doctrine, but when it doesn’t make sense otherwise. What does Jesus say?

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. "For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.
(John 6:53-55 NASB)

We can note two things about this passage.

1. Jesus says that only those who have eaten His flesh and have drunk His blood will be saved. This is an exclusive statement that something is required before something is received. If applied to the Eucharist it would mean that someone who has never partaken, including those who have baptized but not received First Communion, would not be saved. We know that the Catholic Church does not teach this.
2. Jesus says that he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. This is an uneqivocal statement that doing something results in something. If this is taken literally and applied to the Eucharist, anyone, whether they believe or not, would be saved simply by sneaking into a Catholic church and partaking in the Eucharist. This is not a reasonable interpretation.
   But Jesus says something else in similar words earlier in John 6.

"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
(John 6:39-40 NASB)

This is another unequivocal statement that doing something results in something. Here it is beholding and believing in Jesus. This would not be a problem if there was not the statement that unless you eat and drink you will not be saved. The problem is that someone can behold and believe but never have partken of the flesh and blood. This problem can be solved by taking the eating and drinking to be symbolic of beholding and believing. This allows the whole passage to make sense. It is no longer necessary to partake of the Eucharist for salvation, nor is salvation guaranteed to anyone who eats and drinks.

This interpretation is even clearer if we look even earlier in the same discourse.

Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
(John 6:35 NASB)

Here coming to Jesus is related to not hungering. You don’t hunger when you have eaten so coming to Jesus is eating. Those who believe will never thirst. You don’t thirst when you have had a drink. Therefore believing in Jesus is equivalent to drinking. So we see that the whole passage is about spirtual hunger and thirst.

My interpretation of this passage agrees with Augustine’s. Note this does not necessarily mean Augustine does not believe in the real presence but just that this passage doesn’t do so.

1. “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perishes, but for that which endures unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures unto eternal life. To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, Paragraph 12)
   newadvent.org/fathers/1701025.htm

Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.-Augustine (Tractates on the Gospel of John. Tractate 26, Paragraph 1)
newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm

 

[estesbob]

No not because it supports Catholic doctrine, but when it doesn’t make sense otherwise. What does Jesus say?

We can note two things about this passage.

1. Jesus says that only those who have eaten His flesh and have drunk His blood will be saved. This is an exclusive statement that something is required before something is received. If applied to the Eucharist it would mean that someone who has never partaken, including those who have baptized but not received First Communion, would not be saved. We know that the Catholic Church does not teach this.
2. Jesus says that he who eats His flesh and drinks His blood has eternal life. This is an uneqivocal statement that doing something results in something. If this is taken literally and applied to the Eucharist, anyone, whether they believe or not, would be saved simply by sneaking into a Catholic church and partaking in the Eucharist. This is not a reasonable interpretation.
   But Jesus says something else in similar words earlier in John 6.

This is another unequivocal statement that doing something results in something. Here it is beholding and believing in Jesus. This would not be a problem if there was not the statement that unless you eat and drink you will not be saved. The problem is that someone can behold and believe but never have partken of the flesh and blood. This problem can be solved by taking the eating and drinking to be symbolic of beholding and believing. This allows the whole passage to make sense. It is no longer necessary to partake of the Eucharist for salvation, nor is salvation guaranteed to anyone who eats and drinks.

This interpretation is even clearer if we look even earlier in the same discourse.

Here coming to Jesus is related to not hungering. You don’t hunger when you have eaten so coming to Jesus is eating. Those who believe will never thirst. You don’t thirst when you have had a drink. Therefore believing in Jesus is equivalent to drinking. So we see that the whole passage is about spirtual hunger and thirst.

My interpretation of this passage agrees with Augustine’s. Note this does not necessarily mean Augustine does not believe in the real presence but just that this passage doesn’t do so.

The above is valid ONY if we accept you personal interpreation of Scripture. Which nicely brings us back to why there are so many
different protestant denominations. Once you accept that you get to decide on your own what scripture means anything goes. Thus the interpreatiaon of the Mormon or the JWs or the Seventh day adventist is every bit as valid as yours. And by gosh if you belong to a Church that doesnt interpret scriptue the way you want it to be you can just stomp off and start your own church. right?

 

[jblake]

estesbob;:

Once you accept that you get to decide on your own what scripture means anything goes.

Some of the Messianic Christian organizations apply traditional Jewish methods of Exogesis to both the Tanakh and NT.

The standard Protestant Christian, and Fundamental Christian stance is “the plain meaning of the text”.

The debates are about what the “plain meaning of the text” is. When the method of exogesis switches from the exoteric, to the esoteric, their is a radical reduction in both the points that are in dispute, and the meaning of those points.

Thus the interpretation of the Mormon

Their interpretation is influenced by The Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price,and Doctrines and Covenants.

the Seventh day adventist is every bit as valid as yours.

Have you studied why the Seventh Day Adventists have their beliefs? And then understood why they have those beliefs? More to the point, can you make a convincing case to a fellow Catholic that the Seventh Day Adventists are correct, and the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. {if you can’t do that, then you neither know, nor understand the beliefs that they hold.}

xan

jonathon

 

[estesbob]

Some of the Messianic Christian organizations apply traditional Jewish methods of Exogesis to both the Tanakh and NT.

The standard Protestant Christian, and Fundamental Christian stance is “the plain meaning of the text”.

The debates are about what the “plain meaning of the text” is. When the method of exogesis switches from the exoteric, to the esoteric, their is a radical reduction in both the points that are in dispute, and the meaning of those points.

Their interpretation is influenced by The Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price,and Doctrines and Covenants.

Have you studied why the Seventh Day Adventists have their beliefs? And then understood why they have those beliefs? More to the point, can you make a convincing case to a fellow Catholic that the Seventh Day Adventists are correct, and the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. {if you can’t do that, then you neither know, nor understand the beliefs that they hold.}

xan

jonathon

Why is you personal interpretation any more vaild than theirs?

 

[flewen]

A small point. I notice that you don’t capitalize Catholic. I detect a little hatred there maybe.

i think there is…

 

[SyCarl]

The above is valid ONY if we accept you personal interpreation of Scripture. Which nicely brings us back to why there are so many
different protestant denominations. Once you accept that you get to decide on your own what scripture means anything goes. Thus the interpreatiaon of the Mormon or the JWs or the Seventh day adventist is every bit as valid as yours. And by gosh if you belong to a Church that doesnt interpret scriptue the way you want it to be you can just stomp off and start your own church. right?

Protestants are often accused of picking and choosing what scriptures thet quote. However this seems to be the case with the Catholic interpretation of John 6:48-55. They interpret it as being literal without considering the whole discourse running from verse 26-62. Can you give me the Catholic interpretation that doesn’t result in a conflict between the various absolute, unconditional statements Jesus makes?

 

[jblake]

DrewC;:

I have some different beliefs than most Protestants though,

Out of curiosity, can I ask why you want to be a Protestant minister?

The beliefs you cited are far more congruent with either Catholic Christianity or New Age Christianity than with Protestant Christianity.

xan

jonathon