How many Christian Churches are there?

[ChristineES]

For those of you that are not concerned with "minor" differences. Does it matter if you sprinkle or dip in baptism? Does it matter if works are necessary or not? Is faith alone all you need? Is the law still in effect or not? They all seem "minor" and insignificant and you may decide that all that maters is that you love God.

But the real question is does it matter to God? Your opinion really doesn't matter. If it didn't matter to God then why did He bother to include it in the Bible in the first place? God didn't have better things to do with His time? Look at the detail He goes into in describing the procedures for animal sacrifices and tell me things do not matter to God. I believe that all of those questions and many more make a difference to Him. Maybe it is just a question of obedience. Maybe just to see if we are paying attention. Maybe just to see if we will go to the trouble. Who knows?

If it matters to God then it should matter to us!

We'd have to be God in order to know if it matters to God. :cover:

 

[javajo]

I very nearly became a JW. I studied with them for quite awhile. I changed my mind at the last minute because of some doctrine I didn't agree with (1. That Jesus was Michael the archangel and 2.that Jesus wasn't raised in body, just spirit). I think they are a Christian sect, but they don't call themselves Christians (at least they didn't then), and I know they believe they are the only true Followers of Jesus).

Not believing Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is considered a 'core' doctrine by most, at least fundamentalists, believing Christ is God Incarnate is also a core doctrine. Fundamentalists (I'm not talking about legalists or people that say women can't wear makeup or pants and you can't mow or play ball on Sunday and all that), fundamentalists in the pure sense of the word simply believe that to be a Christian you must believe 5 core doctrines which are:

1. the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail.
2. the virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.
3. the physical resurrection of Christ and all dead.
4. the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
5. the second coming of Christ in bodily form.

If one agrees with these core doctrines they are considered brothers and sisters in Christ although they may disagree about some lesser doctrines. While I believe the originals were 100% inspired, we know there are some errors in the copies and some translations are better than others, but I believe we do have God's Word preserved for us today so we may understand his revelation to us and it is able to thoroughly furnish us for every good work and etc. Forgetting the first doctrine on the Bible, I feel quite strongly about the last 4. If one does not believe Jesus was born of a virgin and is God who died for our sins and rose physically from the dead and is coming again, I might have an issue with that, because that is the foundation that was laid, Jesus Christ who died, was buried and rose again. I know the simplicity of the gospel is we simply trust Christ to have paid for our sins on the cross and we are given eternal life. But what we believe about Christ and who he actually is is important, too. A child can trust Christ and may not understand all that, but should in time. I'm not trying to be divisive and God knows his own, but I believe some doctrines are quite important. What say ye?

 

[Quiddity]

I really do not think there is a cut of point that we can apply.
After all, they may equally apply a different criteria that excludes us....The only Judge in these matters must be God.

Any exclusion we make based on our own dogma.... is playing God.
Christianity is an Inclusive religion.

That is why the ecumenical trend is so strong.

I strongly disagree.

Any man can be called a Christian and believe in the silliest of things.

This is contradictory to our very nature of finding good and order in things.

I believe flexibility should be there and dialogue should be there; but not in vain.

 

[Katzpur]

Not believing Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is considered a 'core' doctrine by most, at least fundamentalists, believing Christ is God Incarnate is also a core doctrine. Fundamentalists (I'm not talking about legalists or people that say women can't wear makeup or pants and you can't mow or play ball on Sunday and all that), fundamentalists in the pure sense of the word simply believe that to be a Christian you must believe 5 core doctrines which are:

1. the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail.
2. the virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.
3. the physical resurrection of Christ and all dead.
4. the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
5. the second coming of Christ in bodily form.

If one agrees with these core doctrines they are considered brothers and sisters in Christ although they may disagree about some lesser doctrines. While I believe the originals were 100% inspired, we know there are some errors in the copies and some translations are better than others, but I believe we do have God's Word preserved for us today so we may understand his revelation to us and it is able to thoroughly furnish us for every good work and etc. Forgetting the first doctrine on the Bible, I feel quite strongly about the last 4. If one does not believe Jesus was born of a virgin and is God who died for our sins and rose physically from the dead and is coming again, I might have an issue with that, because that is the foundation that was laid, Jesus Christ who died, was buried and rose again. I know the simplicity of the gospel is we simply trust Christ to have paid for our sins on the cross and we are given eternal life. But what we believe about Christ and who he actually is is important, too. A child can trust Christ and may not understand all that, but should in time. I'm not trying to be divisive and God knows his own, but I believe some doctrines are quite important. What say ye?

That's odd. There's nothing in there about the Trinity. I'm surprised.

 

[ChristineES]

I am wondering if anyone ever compiled what Jesus in the Gospels said about being one of His followers- rather than dogma and doctrine compiled from both the New and Old Testaments. Maybe that will be a new project for me. Just the four Gospels.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

33 to 34 thousand different denominations, the majority claiming 1. to be sola scriptura, 2. in a literal interpretation of said scripture, and 3. that said scripture is self-interpreting, and yet, so many different churches. The bible says one church, that agrees with itself (meaning each particular church), and differs in nothing, because differing churches, schismatic churches, bring ridicule to Christ. And yet, today...it's mind boggling.

 

[not nom]

I am wondering if anyone ever compiled what Jesus in the Gospels said about being one of His followers- rather than dogma and doctrine compiled from both the New and Old Testaments. Maybe that will be a new project for me. Just the four Gospels.

do it! I'd love to read it.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think the Jesus Seminar did something similar.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

simply believe that to be a Christian you must believe 5 core doctrines which are:

1. the inerrancy, infallibility, and literal truth of the Bible in every detail.
2. the virgin birth and complete deity of Jesus Christ.
3. the physical resurrection of Christ and all dead.
4. the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world.
5. the second coming of Christ in bodily form.

How very odd.
None of those things are important to me.

I. This I believe to be untrue
2. The first is problematic, the second is not accurate. Jesus is the Son of God.
3. The first is problematic, the second I do not believe.
4. His death on the cross was indeed a sacrifice, but as an ultimate lesson and example of what faith in God means.
5. unlikely

Many Christians have their own list of certainties, Yours is an example of one such list. It is not universal.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I strongly disagree.

Any man can be called a Christian and believe in the silliest of things.

This is contradictory to our very nature of finding good and order in things.

I believe flexibility should be there and dialogue should be there; but not in vain.

I do not blame you for believing what your Church teaches. It has rather more to say about the nature and beliefs of other Christians than most, and even categorises them.

Flexibility and dialogue when conducted freely by equal partners can be truly productive. Unfortunately the Catholic Church insists on being the arbiter as well.
So very little progress has ever been made.

Far more other churches have come together in full Communion, with each other, than the very limited ecumenical agreements with the Catholic church.

The CofE, Methodists and Lutherans, share pulpits and in some circumstances share communion.

 

[ChristineES]

I want to say I was mistaken about what I said about JWs saying that they weren't Christians. It seems that only the people I studied with back then didn't consider themselves Christians and not JWs as a whole. I suppose it was because these particular JWs were former Catholic and wanted nothing to do with it. But I apologize to Pegg and other JWs for my mistake.
I have always considered them Christians myself.

 

[Katzpur]

I am wondering if anyone ever compiled what Jesus in the Gospels said about being one of His followers- rather than dogma and doctrine compiled from both the New and Old Testaments. Maybe that will be a new project for me. Just the four Gospels.

Actually, I think the closest thing we actually have in terms of a definition of the word "Christian" in the Bible is Jesus' own words to His disciples: "By this men shall know that ye are my disciples -- that ye have love one to another." If a follower of Jesus Christ is not a Christian, what could he possibly be?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Actually, I think the closest thing we actually have in terms of a definition of the word "Christian" in the Bible is Jesus' own words to His disciples: "By this men shall know that ye are my disciples -- that ye have love one to another." If a follower of Jesus Christ is not a Christian, what could he possibly be?

Which leads to an interesting point: John said in his first letter that God is love, and anyone that loves is from God. However, some of the most loving people deny the existence of God, or at least the Christian God, and some of the most hateful people call themselves Christian. If love is the test to show whether one is from God or not, the Christian religion is not an indicator of one's being from God, and in fact, is completely unnecessary.

 

[work in progress]

There are more than 3 verses that call for unity. Each person is his own authority. Each person has to decide for them self what is a true principle.

Pop Quiz: 1. what language are the books of the New Testament written in?
2. what was the language of the people spoken in Judea during the 1st century c.e.?
3. what language are we speaking here today?

If we just deal with the problem of language when trying to determine meaning, it's easy to see how many people will have different interpretations when they are reading a verse written in another language a long time ago. This happens all the time with literature....just last year, there was a whole new English translation of War and Peace created, because some Russian/English scholars had been feeling for a number of years that English readers were missing a lot of what Tolstoy was trying to get across with that book. Same thing happened in philosophy at the start of the 20th century, when Bertrand Russell, Wittgenstein, and some of the other major German and English philosophers realized they were at an impasse in trying to further develop various areas of philosophy because of the differences in their languages.

I'm not saying I personally accept as a given, that the Bible is inspired -- but those who do have to realize that modern translators can't claim divine inspiration, and there will be at least some differences regarding interpretations of certain verses, and how they relate to other verses in the Bible. If the differences can't be completely resolved to everyone's satisfaction, it would make more sense for the majority to say:"we all agree on what's crucial to being a Christian, but we have a few differences regarding the details." The alternative are those who declare:"we're the only ones who are right and everyone else is wrong," and that may not necessarily lead to the 100 Years War; but there will always be the potential for religious differences adding fuel to the fire during a time of conflict.

I think this policy of inclusion is going too far. I will wager that if I were to say (and this is just for arguments sake) that Jehovah's Witness are Christian Many would judge them not Christian and not tolerate that opinion. But people have no problem with 2 churches that differ on "minor" differences. I see no difference as "minor". Everything matters to God otherwise Galatians 1:6-8: would not be in the Bible.

What I don't get is how one can tolerate the mainstream Churches differences and reject the "Jehovah's Witness" type churches. What authority made that decision? There seems to be some major hypocrisy here.

I am very familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, since it's the religion I left home to escape from! Or, as a caveat I should say I'm familiar with what they used to say and believe in back in the 70's, since I am told a lot of things have changed since then. Regardless, I still hear that they consider themselves to be Jehovah God's one true church (they attach great significance to using the YHVH name for God in the Hebrew scriptures); so I don't think J.W.'s, Mormons, Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, or other churches which make an exclusive claim that only their churches are truly Christian and have God's favour, could or would want to be part of some larger Christian ecumenical movement. Now, as for how to deal with the churches who say "we're the real church, and the others are Christian, but not quite as good as us," I would say it would make more sense to put the emphasis on the unifying factors, rather than try to drive a wedge in and divide...but that's my opinion.

 

[work in progress]

I want to say I was mistaken about what I said about JWs saying that they weren't Christians. It seems that only the people I studied with back then didn't consider themselves Christians and not JWs as a whole. I suppose it was because these particular JWs were former Catholic and wanted nothing to do with it. But I apologize to Pegg and other JWs for my mistake.
I have always considered them Christians myself.

I wasn't sure if anything changed since I was in JW's many years ago, but back 35 to 40 years ago we were specifically told to identify ourselves as "Jehovah's Christian Witnesses" when we were learning the door-to-door ministry.

 

[javajo]

That's odd. There's nothing in there about the Trinity. I'm surprised.

I think the deity of Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (Phil. 2:5c-6) would infer the doctrine of the Trinity.

How very odd.
None of those things are important to me.

I. This I believe to be untrue
2. The first is problematic, the second is not accurate. Jesus is the Son of God.
3. The first is problematic, the second I do not believe.
4. His death on the cross was indeed a sacrifice, but as an ultimate lesson and example of what faith in God means.
5. unlikely

Many Christians have their own list of certainties, Yours is an example of one such list. It is not universal.

Yeah, I cannot consider this belief to be Christian, sorry.

 

[Katzpur]

...I don't think J.W.'s, Mormons, Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, or other churches which make an exclusive claim that only their churches are truly Christian and have God's favour, could or would want to be part of some larger Christian ecumenical movement....

I believe some clarification is in order with respect to Mormonism. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does claim to the the sole church today to be acting under the authorization of Jesus Christ, we definitely don't say that all other denominations are "not truly Christian." We believe that there is good and truth in all Churches and definitely don't believe Heaven is just reserved for us. As a matter of fact, we probably believe in the biggest Heaven and the littlest Hell of any Christian denomination there is.

 

[javajo]

I believe some clarification is in order with respect to Mormonism. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does claim to the the sole church today to be acting under the authorization of Jesus Christ, we definitely don't say that all other denominations are "not truly Christian." We believe that there is good and truth in all Churches and definitely don't believe Heaven is just reserved for us. As a matter of fact, we probably believe in the biggest Heaven and the littlest Hell of any Christian denomination there is.

Except Universalists

 

[not nom]

Pop Quiz: 1. what language are the books of the New Testament written in?
2. what was the language of the people spoken in Judea during the 1st century c.e.?
3. what language are we speaking here today?

1. greek?
2. aramaic?
3. that'd be english.. the language of angels! :areyoucra

 

[Katzpur]

Which leads to an interesting point: John said in his first letter that God is love, and anyone that loves is from God. However, some of the most loving people deny the existence of God, or at least the Christian God, and some of the most hateful people call themselves Christian. If love is the test to show whether one is from God or not, the Christian religion is not an indicator of one's being from God, and in fact, is completely unnecessary.

Love, mercy, compassion, charity, etc. are things one need not be a Christian to have. I would never go so far as to say that Christians have a monopoly on good qualities. I would say, though, that Christians should, by virtue of the fact that they claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, be examples of the virtues he taught.