Why Are There So Many Different Denominations?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The first philosophy — tradition, and why it cannot safeguard doctrine

• The question posed (in the host's frame): why are there so many different denominations, in the world today? How can we all claim to read the same book, and yet come to such vastly different conclusions, about what it says? And the question's own framing (from a social-media question): why do groups have different fundamental doctrines? You can find believers of varying stripes, that will take the same scriptures, and they'll argue opposing viewpoints. And so, as a result, believers have broken off into — it really is a staggering number of different denominations. In fact, the question cites one study's count of denominations worldwide — in the tens of thousands (the figure stands in the question's layer, in split form). How do we all read the same book, and yet come to vastly different conclusions, about what it says? The answer: well, let me give you a very broad answer. And then we'll focus more narrowly. And if someone is really interested, in studying this question in greater detail: I recommend my history series — a history of christian doctrine, volumes 1, 2 and 3. I narrate the 2000 years of church history. And in the process, I explain how different denominations are formed, and different religious traditions were formed. So, for a detailed answer, from a historical point of view: that series. And it's also available, as an abridged one volume. (The host interjects his praise of the books — verbatim-only in the record's layers.) Well, thank you. And so I tried to — it's not just a history of christianity, it's history of doctrine. So, how these various ideas evolve. But to give a simple answer: there are basically three different philosophies, for the christian church. And when I describe them, I'm not attacking anybody. I'm trying to be descriptive. But the first one, you might call tradition. And that's represented by the roman catholic church, and eastern orthodoxy. So the way they establish doctrine, is saying — just to say: the church we have today is the direct successor, of the apostles. So we go back to church leaders. In the case of the catholic church, they use the pope. Eastern orthodox: they use some of the ancient churches. And they say: our church is the successor, of the church of the previous generation. The previous generation. All going all the way back, to jesus christ. To peter, the first pope, in the first case of the catholics. Of course, that's false — both theologically, and historically. But that's the theory: that the reason why we can justify our beliefs, is this unbroken chain of tradition. However, as a matter of historical fact, there is no such unbroken chain. And even if there were: historically, you don't have to look at 2 000 years of history, to see the flaw. Just look at the last 50 years. Because people change their beliefs. I use an analogy: let's say you wanted to cut 20 boards, of equal length. And so you measure the first one, you cut it. What if you take the first one, to measure the second one. The second one, to measure the third one. And so on, to the 20th board. You will find a significant variation. Because slight variations will crop up, in the process. And by the time you get to the end, they will be distorted, and magnified. Well, the same thing would happen — another analogy I use, is a little game, that's sometimes called gossip. Where one person thinks of a sentence, and they whisper it in the ear of the second person. The second person whispers it in the ear of the third person. And so on, all the way around the room. Let's say you had 20 people. And then the last person gets up, and announces the sentence. And then the first person announces the real sentence. And invariably, there's no relation. Because each person hears something, just a little bit different. Or they miss something. They instinctively fill in the context, so it makes sense to them. But they end up distorting the message. Well, if that's true, in a simple matter of cutting boards, or whispering sentences: well, 20 centuries of teaching doctrine — can any false ideas creep in the church? Yes. Whether intentionally, or not. For example: 50 years ago, the major protestant denominations in america would have opposed fornication, adultery, same-sex marriage. Or even homosexual relationships, transgenderism. Now they ordain bishops — leaders of the church — who practice these various sins. So we can see, before our eyes, how the church can evolve. So tradition is not a sufficient safeguard.

The second philosophy — reformation: repair without return

• So then, the second way of doing church, is the protestant reformation. So what happened: in the middle ages, of course, martin luther — in 1517 — became the catalyst. That he began studying the scripture, and he realized that the church of his day did not follow scripture, in major ways. Now, he focused on justification by faith. And so he pronounced: we've got to go back to the word of god. But he did not completely go back, to the beginning. He took the medieval church, and he reformed certain key elements, that he felt were essential. But other elements, that he recognized were not biblical, but still: he left alone. So that's why it's called the protestant reformation. Protestant, meaning they protested the medieval church. Reformation, meaning they reformed the medieval church. So, on a doctrine such as salvation by faith, versus works: luther was adamant. Salvation by grace, through faith. And so, we're going to reform the church. But on, say, baptism: luther admitted that, in the bible, baptism is by immersion. But he didn't try to reform that, because he didn't think it was essential. So he left it alone. There's even a place, in luther's writings, where some people are baptizing, in the name of jesus christ. And so, luther's followers — probably they were inspired by luther's emphasis: let's go back to the bible. And some of luther's followers came to luther, and said: you know, we need to rebuke these people. They're giving us a bad name. Apparently, they were protestants. And they're denying the trinity. And they're making everybody think that we're of that sort. And so luther's answer was: we cannot forbid them from doing this, because they're only doing what the apostles did, in the new testament. So, in essence, luther admitted: when you read the new testament, the apostles baptized in the name of jesus christ. But he did not feel compelled, to go back to that practice. Because his idea was: let's just fix what is essential, to be fixed. We don't have to overhaul everything. Let's keep — so he kept the merger of church and state. He believed in executing the more radical reformers, like the anabaptists. Which is not at all the practice, of the new testament church. So he very much kept many elements of the medieval church. Even when he, or others, realized it's not the same as the original church.

The third philosophy — restoration, on the lordship of Jesus

• The third way of doing a church, is restoration. And this is represented by the pentecostal movement — trinitarians. But even more consistently, oneness. When the early pentecostals of the 20th century received the holy ghost: it wasn't based on their experience. It was based on scripture. So men such as charles parr (as heard) and william seymour: they began preaching the baptism of the holy ghost, with the initial sign of speaking in tongues. Even though they themselves had not received this experience. So it wasn't based on emotion. It wasn't based on their experience. It wasn't based on their tradition. It wasn't based on their denomination. It was actually contrary, to all those things. But it was based on the word of god. So they had this concept, of restoration. Whatever we find in the new testament, we should follow that. Whatever the apostles preached, taught, received, consistently practiced: we need to go back, and recapture that. That's what led to the baptism of the holy ghost, speaking in tongues. And then, for the oneness people, they took another step. Well: in the early church, they baptized in the name of jesus christ. Not in the threefold titles. Not only that — why did they do that? Well, that led to the understanding of: in jesus dwells all the fullness of the godhead, bodily. Father, son, and holy spirit is revealed, in jesus christ. So that complete restorationism led back to jesus name baptism, and the oneness of god. Now, as you might guess: I believe that third way is the correct way. And you say: well, why is that better than the other way? In my short answer: it's based on the lordship of jesus christ. If you accept jesus as lord, then you accept his method, of starting the church. Notice: jesus did not start any local churches. He did not write any books. But he commissioned the apostles — initially the 12 apostles, then later the apostle paul, as the special apostle to the gentiles. He trained them, and commissioned them. You see the great commission — matthew (the range as he gives it). He said: I want you to go evangelize the world. Preach the gospel, in every nation. Make disciples. Baptize those disciples. And then, the range's closing verse says: teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever i have commanded you. Now, there are many other scriptures, that I won't take the time to go into. But basically, the way jesus set up the church is: he trained — he selected, trained the apostles. They established the church. And so we are supposed to be in continuity, with the original apostles, as we see in the new testament. In fact, acts (the verse as he gives it) summarizes the early church. On the day of pentecost, after the initial 120 received the holy spirit, 3 000 more came (as the figures stand). The church were filled with the spirit. And then, this is what characterized the early church. And it's a model for us today. The verse: they continued steadfastly, in the apostles doctrine, and fellowship, breaking of bread, in prayers ('breaking a bread in prayers', as quoted). So they continued in the original experience, and the original doctrine, or teaching, of the apostles. So I say restorationism is the plan of jesus. And what that simply means, in practice: every generation — and I would say every local church — should not be content just to accept tradition, handed down. Tradition has a role. It can be valuable. But you cannot uncritically accept a tradition, handed down to you. Nor can you merely be content, with reforming some things you identify as erroneous, or dysfunctional. But every generation, and every local church, has to intentionally go back, to the original church — and compare yourself, to the original. Just like the 20 boards: if you want them to be as close as possible in length, you cut each one by the first one. Okay? If you want — like gossip — if you want to make sure there's no deviation: each person needs to hear the original statement, by the original person. There still may be some slight variation. But you're much more likely to get the accurate message. And when you compare: if there are any slight deviations, you can easily identify that deviation, because you got 19 other people, who heard the very same words. And so you're much more likely to get the exact, original message. And so, that's what we need to do.

Scriptures: Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:42

Why the splits multiply — and the John 17 answer: oneness around the apostolic faith

• So my answer to your question is: the reason why there are so many denominations, is people have uncritically accepted tradition. And then, as they saw flaws, they tried to fix those flaws, in one area. Which led to another branch. And then, of course: people interpreting scripture — each has their own interpretation. And if they just compare it in their own thinking, or among their small group, or among their friends, or people with like experience: then they have their own group. Of course, as a practical matter: many groups are formed by power struggles — by people who want to be in leadership. Or cultural issues. Even language issues. And so different groups splinter, because of culture, society, language, leadership. And I'm not saying we all have to be organized, into one organization. But I do believe we should have the common apostolic doctrine. And I would say: even though there are thousands of denominations, there may be many people in some of those groups — even though the group may not be totally accurate — but people can have a genuine, exciting experience with god, through being born again of the water, in the spirit — even in some of those groups. So I'm not just writing off every group. And I'm not saying you have to belong to the upci. I do believe you should be restored, to the apostolic doctrine. So, to summarize: I think there are many religious groups, because people have followed traditions that have changed over time. And then, when people realized that there were flaws, they tried to fix the flaws they observed. Which led to more groups. And some of the people in those groups said: well, you fixed a, but you didn't fix b. So now we're going to form a group, that fixes a and b. And that just keeps adding, and adding, adding. And then, when you multiply: well, I want to be the leader. No, I want to be the leader. And so they both believe in a and b, but they split over leadership. And so — or over cultural issues, or social issues. And so then it's split, split, split. But I think, behind your question, is: how can we get at the truth? And the answer is: the one true church is the original apostolic church, as revealed in the new testament. And so if every one of us will go back to that, and compare ourselves to that church: we're much more likely to have truth. And we can be united, with the original church. And in fact, jesus prayed, in john (the chapter as he gives it). He prayed for his disciples. He said to god — and of course, jesus here is a man, representing us. He prayed, in the chapter's verse (the first verse as he gives it), of those disciples that were there — the apostles: sanctified them by your truth ('sanctified them by your truth', as heard). A sanctified means: to set apart. And then he said: thy word is truth. So what is supposed to separate us, from the rest of the world, is truth. And where we find truth, is in the word of god, the bible. And then, in the chapter's next verse (as he gives it): he says, not only do I pray for these, but I pray for all those, who will believe on me, through their word. Well, that's us. We've never met jesus, in the flesh. But we believe on jesus, through the words of the apostles, and their associates, as recorded in the new testament. That's why we believe on jesus. So that's an interesting point, by the way: jesus prayed for us. To the extent that we believe on jesus, through the original apostles: that prayer, that blessing, comes directly to us. But notice, as I said earlier: that's the method jesus used, to start the church. They're supposed to — all these other believers are supposed to believe on me, through the words of the apostles. And then he says, in the next verse (as he gives it): that they all may be one. Now, some have said: well, that means catholics, and protestants, and pentecostals, are all joining one organization. He's not talking about that. He's saying: I want the future believers, to be joined with the apostles, so they would all be one. And that's where we find oneness. Even though we may have different organizations: that's secondary. That's just a matter of practicality, in many cases ('a matter of uh you know practicality', as his words run). But there should be a genuine oneness of believers, around the apostolic faith. And I do believe the united pentecostal church international does represent the apostolic faith. Although we're certainly not the only group that does. And we believe that people can be saved, by following the apostolic faith, of the new birth — even in other groups, that don't fully adopt it, as official doctrine. But the key, to reversing that dysfunction — or that disunity, that you see — is to unite around the original apostolic faith.

Scriptures: John 17; John 17:17; John 17:20; John 17:21

Scripture index: Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:42; John 17; John 17:17; John 17:20; John 17:21.