Hello Zig Forums i am somewhat new to Christianity but have no official denomination. My question is does this even matter? I like the teachings from all three main branches to be honest.
Having no denomination
Christ has established a Church, and he is one with it. So, yeah, you need to be part of his church in order to be "complete".
That leaves you with two options, Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
It's important to be part of the living tradition, the visible church, that Jesus Christ actually started 2000 years ago through the Holy Spirit and his apostles. Christianity is a liturgical religion, it's a sacramental religion, it requires action and participation.
It's important to get your theology and exegesis from reliable sources that are consistent with early Christianity.
It's important to admit that we don't have all the answers and there are people smarter than us, the bible is in one sense easy to read but also very deep and has many layers, so going to people wiser than us is necessary. It's important that these people are from the authentic tradition.
If God actually started a church and safeguarded it, wouldn't you want to check it out? There really are no "denominations". There is only the Church, and it is currently in schism. So you have to pick a side within the church. There are only two options tbh.
t. Timothy 3:14-15
Give me a quick rundown on this? Why is Protestantism disregarded?
I dont have time today, maybe someone else can chime in. Maybe tomorrow I'll check back
Here's where I'm at.
Same boat as OP, but with more despair.
just visit as many churches as you can to see where God is calling you. your only options are baptist, ortho, or catholic really
Protestantism is a very large umbrella term for a collection of denominations that hold contradictory views on theological issues.
You'll commonly hear the "30,000 denomination" figure thrown around, but that's not really used in the way we think of denominations.
At most, there might be around 10 or 15 main Protestant branches (Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, etc.).
However, if we're going to count each Protestant church that considers itself "independent," then we could fudge a number like 30,000.
Every denomination either broke off from Roman Catholicism, as was the case with Lutheranism and Anglicanism, or broke off from another Protestant denomination, as was the case with Methodism from Anglicanism.
At worst, Protestantism makes every man a pope, free to interpret the Scriptures and faith at his leisure.
At best, Protestantism is a diluted, but well intentioned, break from Roman Catholicism that shoots for true faith but misses the mark.
As previously mentioned, they (Prots) weren't founded by Christ himself. They exclude a lot of book from the canon and they don't have even apostolic succession. With them having no theological authority, they can very easily get into error even within a single denomination, thus leading to more schism and heresy. (against which Christ prayed [John 17:20-23])
Nah, that's just Roman Catholicism.
Don't start, you guys already have a bickering thgread for that.
Read the bible, research different denominations, read some apologists, pray, go to the one you're led to.
What Is A Predenominational Christian?
A predenominational Christian is a Christian or disciple of Christ who seeks to base all of his religious beliefs and practices upon the New Testament itself, starting with the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He desires to recover original New Testament Christianity, or the faith once delivered unto the saints. He is neither Catholic nor Protestant and rejects any and all Catholic and Protestant traditions that are inconsistent with or contrary to the New Testament, no matter how deeply-entrenced these traditions may have become. His overriding goal is to be true to Christ and true to the New Testament.
Saying that protestantism is the correct denomination implies that either you don't know history(which would make you innocent, but, really) or that for 1500 years the word of God was submerged under the power of the Catholic Church and only with Martin Luther we realized something was wrong. Or if you're not Lutheran, that, even worse, Martin Luther realized it was wrong but the real church only was (semi?) realized by your church leader.
What did you just say
Is that a new name for the "I just follow Christ" folks.
So every man his own denomination? lol
This is the same problem with Catholics. All 33,000 denominations are schismed among each other because they come from sacerdotalism, but they can't decide what man is to interpret. But none of them has any theological authority because there wasn't any there to begin with. Not Lutheran priests, not Cath priests, not anyone else. And that's also why they do infant baptism, sprinkling and other inversions of baptism, so you know they're not the true church.
The church of God has always done baptism correctly, by immersion on profession of faith of the believer. And it is always held to the existence of the Holy Spirit to guide the believer into all truth, therefore not making up a bunch of Cath/prot denominations in the process. Like Roman orthodox, Eastern orthodox, etc.
My church has no schisms and follows the word of God, safeguarding it against corruption, which is the final authority for faith and practice, and not manmade traditions. The choice then should be obvious.
And which might that be?
Lol, it's actually Orthodox who have schismated in 1054 (and in 1272 and 1439).Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Christ himself.
This one is better.
Off-topic, so polite self-sage. That is a really nice tree. Considering that there's so many children in Heaven, this makes me want to build tree houses for them when I get there.
The creed wasn't altered
Sorry about that. Realized my mistake after posting. Early morning.
I'm glad to see that he is Orthodox.
OP this is a better chart as it gives you the view from the other Church's perspectives.
now begom gadolig
join the one holy catholic and apostolic church
If the gospel is the determining factor of salvation for all men, then yes, it would matter.
The main difference between Romanists/Easternists and Christians is the way they placed their presuppositions in relation to history.
Christians make the assumption that Jesus, the Son of the Living One, is our standard (and what we know about His teachings are through his students), thus looks foreword in Christian history from said standard.
Where Romanists/Easternists make the assumption their present teachings is the standard and looks backward into the christian history, resulting in the assumption that their orthodoxy have always existed with fragments to 'prove' it.
Yes, I know my bias shows, but if you start from I called the "Christian"'s view you wouldn't conclude a conclusion like the Romanists/Easternists do. Once you read the written history of the "church" you'll know that the view of church hierarchy changed, the laity changed, the standard of piety changed, interpretations changed, baptism (kinda) changed, the view of the dead changed-all of these views changed over time. Of course, I don't expect Zig Forums to accept this, but at least start from the beginning and see how development lead to the present.
martin luther is like the poettering of the christian world
Prevail doesn't mean uninterrupted success - kind of like how we dont say the Kaiser prevailed against the Entente because he defeated Russia or that the gates of hell did not prevail over the Catholics during the period of Anti Popes.
Why don't any of these show the Old Believer schism in Orthodox Church, and the reforms of Nikon as a change in doctrine.
Or may I add, other changes in Orthodox doctrine like Peter's reform of the Church or Patriarch Sergius' delcaration in which he subdued the Church under Soviet government authority, under which they were developing liberation theology (althought with that being possibly (I am not sure) anathematized). Also there was another schism when Sergius also condemned ROCOR which protested against the obediance of the communist government.
Because in these cases you mention it was not a split over theology and dogma. Its for the same reason why the Catholic chart does not show a seperate branch for the roughly 30 antipopes the Catholic Church has had or the 7 Popes of the Avignon Papacy nor does it have Vatican II
i couldnt choose between catholicism and orthodoxy, so I just took both calendars, both theological schools of thought, and both daily practices, taking larping out of the equation by simply attending the local catholic church
Who was Avaakum?
A key figure in the Old Believer movement which as said before did not schism over theology and dogma.
Sergius had no choice. He either signed this paper or let 200 of his brothers bishops be shot in Gulag and all monasteries and seminaries closed. That did not help him though. Three generation of priests were shot. In 1943 where Stalin summoned him to create red church only 3 or 4 bishops were not in Gulag. Those bishops who broke communion with Moscow fled the country leaving their people behind during and after the revolution were in safety from communists and had the audacity to judge Sergius who had seven heart attacks after 1927. It's like judging a woman who is constantly beaten and raped calling her a whore.