Would it be better if there were no Christian denominations?

[MarkRome]

Jesus didn’t create a bunch of denoms

That is correct. And because of that, there are no “denominations”. It is a Protestant invention.

 

[Rozellelily]

Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[tafan2]

Of course it would be better, if there were no denominations, there would be no Protestantism, just the Church.

 

[Vico]

…
So instead of being unified, Christianity can look like to an outsider of people in discord.

Only if voluntary.

Nostra aetate, Saint Pope Paul VI, 1965:

The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their race, color, condition of life, or religion. On the contrary, following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this sacred synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to “maintain good fellowship among the nations” (1 Peter 2:12), and, if possible, to live for their part in peace with all men,(14) so that they may truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven.(15)

 

[Peeps]

I would not want to see the Protestant denominations unified.

The denominational labels gives seekers valuable clues as to what they are actually getting involved with.

If those clues were removed by calling all Protestant fellowships “Just Protestant”–a person could join up with a fellowship–and then discover that the fellowship supports abortion, or considers speaking in tongues a “sign” of being filled with the Holy Spirit (meaning that those who do NOT speak in tongues are NOT filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore, may NOT participate in certain ministries in that fellowship), or that the fellowship expects all members to share all their possessions with the other members!

These days, many MANY Protestant “churches” insist that they are “non-denominational” and that they welcome ALL Christians and have “no creed” or “no statement of faith other than accepting Jesus Christ as Personal Lord and Savior”. Some don’t even practice baptism, not even “believer’s baptism.”

But obviously, these “non-denoms” are kidding themselves. And it’s dangerous, IMO, for people to get involved with these non-denoms because most of them are pastored by a man (or sometimes a woman), and when that pastor decides to move on–the organization is left with no leader and no plan to acquire a new leader, and often, the whole thing just falls apart and the believers are forced to once again, go on the "Church Search,’ which is emotionally-draining and many people just give up and never get back to “church”.

So I think that as long as there is division between Christians, the Protestants should definitely keep their “denominations”. It’s safer.

 

[Rozellelily]

or that the fellowship expects all members to share all their possessions with the other members!

Where can I find one of these Churches lol. Christmas is sending me broke. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

And it’s dangerous, IMO, for people to get involved with these non-denoms because most of them are pastored by a man

I am glad that there is relatively not too much of this stuff in Australia. The USA seems full of of those types of Churches. To me they seem more about “cult of personality”.

 

[Peeps]

I am glad that there is relatively not too much of this stuff in Australia. The USA seems full of of those types of Churches. To me they seem more about “cult of personality”.

Exactly. And often, these men (or sometimes women) are tempted and end up getting caught up in sinful behavior or thinking because having so much adulation and power leads them away from their “First Love” (Jesus).

And lots of Christians are hurt in the resulting dissolution of their “church.”

At this point in the U.S., a very large percentage of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant (Orthodoxy is not a huge thing here in Northern Illinois, although we do have two Orthodox churches in our city) have stopped participating in any kind of organized “church.”

Some of these people claim that they don’t trust the pastors and priests anymore–some have been damaged by sexual predators in the church, and others are just wary of sexual predators in the church.

And some just don’t feel that “church” is necessary. It’s very sad.

I tend to think that churches in the U.S. will continue to shrink, and that the remaining members will have to hunker down and get very close with each other to keep the Church going.

I personally don’t think that’s a bad thing–I think that one reason why so many have left churches is that they feel left out when there are thousands of other people in the church, and they don’t seem to have any friends or anything to do in their church. They don’t have the “family” of God–they’re just “members” on a roster.

I think smaller church membership rosters will force us all to stick together and grow closer and more devoted to Christ and each other. I would like that.

 

[fhansen]

I do believe in the necessity of the magisterium of the Church of Rome, though. And that means that unity would occur only as the East accepted that authority.

 

[Hodos]

So instead of being unified, Christianity can look like to an outsider of people in discord.

This is nothing new. It has been around since the beginning as we see from even the apostolic epistles. That being said, of course, yes, there should be unity in the Church. However, unity needs to be based upon a common confession, not papered over.

Jesus didn’t create a bunch of denoms… I can say that I believe Protestant is incorrect and it broke away in 1500 etc, but then a non-believer can say “well there was no Roman Catholic originally, they broke away” and you know what, they are actually right!

I agree, but the question is whether the faith professed by Roman Catholics in the 1500’s to now is the same the faith professed by the apostles. Every denomination save the Roman Catholic Church itself would say no, it isn’t. Which brings us back to the point I made earlier about unity being based on a common confession of faith.

 

[Hodos]

That is correct. And because of that, there are no “denominations”. It is a Protestant invention.

There were denominations long before the Reformation, so clearly it isn’t a “Protestant” invention.

 

[sealabeag]

There were Christian Churches in various locations and various heretical sects. What do you mean by denominations?

 

[Hodos]

There were Christian Churches in various locations and various heretical sects. What do you mean by denominations?

Well, for one you have the schism between East and West in the 11th century over claims made about papal authority. That to me seems like a rather large oversight if you are talking about the divisions in the Church and attempting to blame them as unique to the Reformation. Nor is this incident the only instance of this in pre-Reformation Church history.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well, since Catholics are not a denomination (never broke away from anything), then yes.
Because then all Christians would be Catholic.

 

[BT3241]

Its not possible remember what the argument is about - faith alone versus where the Catholic church offer the sacraments as a way to salvation which they call works - good luck its been going on for centuries - I can understand why they believe in faith alone they believe they have a valid argument

 

[Hodos]

Well, since Catholics are not a denomination (never broke away from anything), then yes.
Because then all Christians would be Catholic.

Well, that would be the argument at issue, would it not? Your own denomination speaks of the development of doctrine regarding those doctrines that are uniquely Roman Catholic such as the power and supremacy of the papacy as well as the infallibility of the Pope, whereas other denominations would say it isn’t apostolic but was the result of doctrinal innovation. If that is the case, then the issue is not that other denominations separated from the Roman Catholic Church, but that the Roman Catholic Church changed its doctrine and that change resulted in schism within the ecumenical body of the Church.

 

[AlNg]

In 1054 the Roman Church authority, Cardinal Humbert, delivered a bull of excommunication and placed it on the altar of the Hagia Sophia. As time went by, communion between the two churches was broken, so there are now two churches which are not in communion with each other: The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church.

 

[Hodos]

They talk about ecumenical dialog and unity, but do they really want unity or are they all happy the way they are?

I can’t speak for all denominations, but I think I can speak for at least the LCMS. Our position is that we don’t believe it is good for the Christian faith to be fractured into denominations. We actually lament it. We would be happy if we could re-unite the Church under one banner. However, we also feel that we have an ecumenical duty to stand firm on the confessions of faith that we have made because we believe, teach, and confess, that they are correct in their exposition of scripture regarding key aspects of doctrine.

 

[MarkRome]

There were denominations long before the Reformation, so clearly it isn’t a “Protestant” invention.

The concept of denominations was created in the 18th century. Historically, and today, there has been only one Church, the Catholic Church. Other groups have broken off throughout the past 2,000 years with unorthodox belief systems or are in schism.

 

[Hodos]

The concept of denominations was created in the 18th century. Historically, and today, there has been only one Church, the Catholic Church. Other groups have broken off throughout the past 2,000 years with unorthodox belief systems or are in schism.

And I have already challenged that presuppositional position above by demonstrating that your own Church admits to the development of uniquely Roman Catholic dogmas.

 

[AlNg]

we also feel that we have an ecumenical duty to stand firm on the confessions of faith that we have made because we believe, teach, and confess, that they are correct in their exposition of scripture regarding key aspects of doctrine.

Is this not the position of each party? I don’t see the possibility of intercommunion until there is acceptance of the idea that mutually interdependent currents of Christian theological thought can be beneficial.