For 40,000 denominations it only takes 16 issues ...

I got to wondering how many theological positions on how many issues exist to create the > 40,000 estimated denominations. Yes, I know that mathematically that a mere 16 yes/no positions is sufficient to reach 40,000 but I also that model is lousy for this case. Has anyone seen any articles/textbooks that try to estimate how many contentious issues there are in theology? Or the statistical possibility of being correct on all issues? Impetus for my musings is Theological Disagreement: What It Is, and How to Do It - ABC Religion & Ethics

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200946#Comment_1200946

It looks like this author has done a lot of the footwork you are looking for.

Thank you. An interesting and useful read. However, my question is not fundamentally the number of denominations but rather the number of theological issues.

Here is my effort to make a list of positions based on the Athanasian creed. Obviously, it does not include many issues that denominations are split over, but I tried to only list positions based on what is written in the creed that are held by at least some people who identify themselves as Christians; I attempted to group it where a group could conceivably hold to any combination of these, but that is pretty tough. I started listing groups that hold to some of the beliefs but quickly gave up. I think it is a potentially fruitful way to approach the problem, though. You could take a systematic theology and create a branch for each major doctrine, then create subtopics based on theologians who hole them.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200978#Comment_1200978

Dal.... what is your problem? Seems you want to rant against the coc or however you call it?

DAL is one of the strongest supporters of a Stone-Campell base package. He is not anti-COC based on his posts over many years. If you read his "about" page you will see he is COC himself. In the forums we don't hear tone nor see facial expressions -- be slow to attach words of emotion to a person's post. In this case, you are the one who comes across poorly. However, you are correct that DAL's mentions of your posts was inappropriate.

Thank you, MJ!

Here’s another theological issue within churches of Christ — The Anti- movement. Should we have one cup or many individual cups for communion? Should we have a kitchen and fellowship room to eat together after worship or not? Should we support orphan homes with the church’s money or not? Should we have preaching schools or not? Was the NT completed by 96AD or before 70AD?

These are just a few more of the issues that have affected the churches of Christ for decades. If you need more, I have more. And no, this is not an attack on the church. This just shows that all religious groups have theological issues that affect them in one way or another.

DAL

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200982#Comment_1200982

I think it is a potentially fruitful way to approach the problem

Brilliant -- thank you, yes this is a productive way to organize the data and a form in which people should be able to see if their view is missing.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200987#Comment_1200987

Wellll..... I think I have miss-understood this thread and made a big mistake... I'll try to fumble my way through trying to explain ...

When I first posted, in this thread, I thought the thread was about where did the theological ideas come from.... and I posted as I did listing where a lot of theological ideas came from... and started at a higher level than where this thread went......which was ok... I think???

But one mistake I made is.....(which brought the "wrath of Dal" on me- kidding)....that I did not list the CoC in that list as " 7. some from the teachings of the Church of Christ." There was no "blame game" intended in any way. The list was just a starting place for me.... but it appears now that MJ was wanting to get down into specifics of the individual "faiths" ... as I see it now.

2. In the following paragraphs... I'll use two designations...Church of Christ (CoC) and Church of Christ (coC). The acronyms are for distinguishing designation only and no other intention implied or otherwise meant.

A. Like many "faiths" The CoC has had its "branching" also, as Dal has pointed to some. I'll agree mostly with Dal on what he said.... now that I have a better understanding of what is going on. I don't know what is meant by Stone-Campbell movement, as it means different things to different people... but the CoC did not come out of that movement. It existed before that movement. That movement, often called the "Reformation period" by many, was where a lot of people argued to get back to the basics of the Bible. (might be a good study in another thread.) And, I'll add that Alexander Campbell was a member of what is called the "First Christian Church", for what it's worth. One of his main teachings was that baptism is essential for salvation, which agrees with the teachings of the CoC.

B. I add this... because I think it has a place in this "theological ideas" thread for clarification....

The CoC has no "centralized governing body" nor "any head person" or "any rule making body" or "Synod". And definitely, there is no "creed" or "creed book" that anyone in the CoC would agree on and say "must be taught in the CoC". None. Each congregation that call themselves "Church of Christ", is on their own as to how they worship, how they translate the Bible, how they teach, etc. and etc. Some congregations of the coC may use some book they feel must be taught... but not the CoC. In the CoC.. a teacher may use a book to help to teach a class, but by far and large, throughout the CoC, as I know it, the Bible, and only the Bible, is the main teaching. And this again confuses what the CoC really is and what it is about.

And there is none of what I call "legal action" to use the courts or law of the land to try to protect the name of the "Church of Christ". For the most part, the Church of Christ does not believe in suing others. As a result, any group can call themselves "Church of Christ" and many do, ethical or not.

C. As a result of that.... it is sometimes very confusing as to what the CoC really is and what it does teach and follow. Whereas, in some "faiths" the "governing body" or "synod" (sp?) or "hierarchy" can determine how all the congregations, of that faith, will/won't behave and such. For example... I know one church whereby the preacher/pastor told me he had to preach the "apostles creed" at least once a year during a certain month.

So.... while Dal is right in that the CoC has "branches" (as I call it) with different teachings and practices... not all of the "so called branches - the coC" is of what has come to be called "in the fellowship" of the CoC or the coC. Hope that makes sense. And this is true with almost all of the different teachings that Dal mentioned.

I'll try to illustrate... The CoC does not allow women in the leadership roles in their church organization, in their worship, etc. except for singing (commanded by Bible), confession of Christ (commanded by Bible). There are congregations that call themselves CoC, which I'll say are coC, that do allow women in leadership roles... Those congregations, the coC, are not in fellowship with the CoC and 99% of the time, that is agreed to by both parties involved. But that is not to say... that the CoC does not exist. And this concept can be true even among all the coC congregations.

And no place that I know of, in the CoC, are there lists of what congregations are/are not part of the fellowship. Each individual Christian is left to study the Bible for themselves and to make their own conclusions about the matters. I do know of one man, who wanted to make lists of such in the CoC and others chided him for it.

All the above, I believe, may also be true among other "faiths"... BUT....the one discerning factor being that the most "faiths" do have a "governing body" or "hierarchy" or "synod" (sp?) which keeps all of that faiths congregations in line with what is taught among them. It does appear to be more streamlined that way...

Bottom line... while it is a bit harder to diffuse what the CoC does believe and teach than some faiths.... because of the lack of the "hierarchy" one cannot say... that just because a congregation of the coC teaches "xyz" or teaches some book... that all "Churches of Christ" (coC and CoC included) believe or teach that way.

I know I seem to be determined... but I do think this is in keeping with what MJ originally asked about.... now that I think I understand...

Whew! I really didn't mean to cause any trouble...

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200978#Comment_1200978

In this case, you are the one who comes across poorly.

MJ is correct that typed comments do not reveal inflection or emotion. As an example of this, I disagree with the premise that Xnman is the one coming across poorly. In my reading of this thread I conclude DAL is the one who drew "first blood". I'm glad that we can reconcile past misunderstandings.

autonomous congregations are problematic for denominational thinkers. Just as some Baptist churches are "independent" and others are part of a movement/denomination, names get very confusing!!! My understanding of the Taxonomy (you probably divide differently) is that THE Church (capital C) of Christ is the invisible collection of all true believers at all time in all places. [there is no visible Church (big C) of Christ]. There is a movement of autonomous independent local congregations who each identify their belief system as reflecting the teachings of Christ and call themselves churches (small C) of Christ. To group any two of these churches (small C) of Christ as a "they" is to misrepresent each ones convictions about autonomy and doctrine. It is true (coincidentally?) that many of these independent churches (local, small c) find similarities with the "Stone-Campbell Movement" which (I believe is a loosely organized taxonomy of local churches who desire to restore early church practices to the current local assembly (i.e. restoration).

Now add in the "Christian churches" / "Christian" churches and the waters get even murkier. Is the church "Christian" because it claims to align with the teaching of Jesus (most denominations make this claim). Are they a "Christian Church" because they are part of the Disciples of Christ denomination? Are they an "independent" Christian church because they view their practices as being derived from Christ, yet they don't formally group or identify with any other local church?

In my limited framework I primarily identify 4 branches (and I admit there is more nuance than my broad categories)

Christian Church - all believer at all times in all places began at Pentecost

Christian Church - associated with the Disciples of Christ denomination

Independent Christian Church - claim the apostles' creed as their only doctrine, believe in baptismal regeneration and weekly communion, cooperate informally with like minded local congregations to support colleges

Autonomous churches of Christ - claim "no creed", yet all that I know of have no instruments in worship and hold to 5 "parts" of "to call upon the name of the Lord"

most of these local congregations group/separate based upon relationship and practice, rather than doctrine. so they may be a poor taxonomy for MJ's attempt to identify the THEOLOGICAL BELIEFS that identify the branches within the (started at Pentecost) Christian Church.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201028#Comment_1201028

Thanks David Thomas. I like your use of the term "autonomous"... it is a true description of what I was trying to say about the Church of Christ. Thanks

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201033#Comment_1201033

There is definitely a faster, better way to resolve these issues; creeds in one hand, Bible in the other. I am sure Logos 10 will have a means to implement this great new idea.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201028#Comment_1201028

I conclude DAL is the one who drew "first blood". I'm glad that we can reconcile past misunderstandings.

David, I'm smiling. But to illustrate why demoninationalists see the cOC as just one more, is the sign out front. To illustrate, I grew up in a cOC; even a not-a-cOC Bible college, with all cOC complying professors (complying to .... a common doctrine ... they kick out non-doctrinaires). Later, I attended a 'chapel' (name traditional to this area). Their beliefs were more conservative than the growing up cOC, or the Bible college. But ... here's the deal .... the sign out front didn't say cOC. And 'we' were most definitely not in fellowship, nor Fellowship of my cOC family.

So, unavoidably, you end up with an unavoidable denominational self-image ... us .... not them. Ergo DAL's points.

Later, the 'chapel' renamed to a 'Bible chapel' ... tourists wanted to get married, instead of a church.

I like Gao's illustration.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201038#Comment_1201038

There is definitely a faster, better way to resolve these issues; creeds in one hand, Bible in the other. I am sure Logos 10 will have a means to implement this great new idea.

Love it!!! Love it!! Love it!!! A great way to settle all differences!!! Thanks for sharing!

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201043#Comment_1201043

Here is a way I have drawn the idea expressed by GaoLu.....

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201040#Comment_1201040

I conclude DAL is the one who drew "first blood". I'm glad that we can reconcile past misunderstandings.

David, I'm smiling. But to illustrate why demoninationalists see the cOC as just one more, is the sign out front. To illustrate, I grew up in a cOC; even a not-a-cOC Bible college, with all cOC complying professors (complying to .... a common doctrine ... they kick out non-doctrinaires). Later, I attended a 'chapel' (name traditional to this area). Their beliefs were more conservative than the growing up cOC, or the Bible college. But ... here's the deal .... the sign out front didn't say cOC. And 'we' were most definitely not in fellowship, nor Fellowship of my cOC family.

So, unavoidably, you end up with an unavoidable denominational self-image ... us .... not them. Ergo DAL's points.

Later, the 'chapel' renamed to a 'Bible chapel' ... tourists wanted to get married, instead of a church.

I like Gao's illustration.

Can we just let the whole churches of Christ discussion go? It's not helping move MJ's project forward, it's outside the forum guidelines, and even if it weren't, a discussion forum like this isn't conducive to the kind of nuance that would be needed to really tease out how a consensus on doctrine develops, is maintained, and then can disintegrate over time in a movement made up of formally autonomous congregations. It's an important topic, but this just isn't the right place for it.

JBR

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201048#Comment_1201048

Can we just let the whole churches of Christ discussion go? It's not helping move MJ's project forward, it's outside the forum guidelines, and even if it weren't, a discussion forum like this isn't conducive to the kind of nuance that would be needed to really tease out how a consensus on doctrine develops, is maintained, and then can disintegrate over time in a movement made up of formally autonomous congregations. It's an important topic, but this just isn't the right place for it.

Thank you.

Greg Dement

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201049#Comment_1201049

Agreed.

Using rough estimates of others:

40,000 denominations

37,000,000 churches/congregations

15,000 coC/COC churches congregations

Reading this thread it is vey heavily weighted or entirely weighted on issues within the coC/COC. Very minor sampling of such a large discussion.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201048#Comment_1201048

Can we just let the whole churches of Christ discussion go? It's not helping move MJ's project forward, it's outside the forum guidelines, and even if it weren't, a discussion forum like this isn't conducive to the kind of nuance that would be needed to really tease out how a consensus on doctrine develops, is maintained, and then can disintegrate over time in a movement made up of formally autonomous congregations. It's an important topic, but this just isn't the right place for it.

I thought you'd have to eventually put your foot down.

But for the most part (ignoring the creedal lists), it's quite specific to MJ's question: does logic underlie 'denominations', and specific (not general) theological instances. My earlier point, was that creedal paths were an easier approach .... as you pointed out schisms, not doctrines.

The question intrudes in Logos in 2 ways:

- Folks try to track back theologies, but in Logos, are met with individuals (eg history of the church resources), and theology lists.

- And for going on 10 years, a Restoration package eludes, if only because 'which one'. Maybe it merits dicussion vs kicking the can?

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201055#Comment_1201055

I have been thinking about this thread.... and for the record...

I will state .... I am a member of the Church of Christ.... And understand, I am not upset angry or anything else. I am used to people taking "pot shots" at the Church of Christ".

And as I have shown earlier in my posts .... I feel this thread has come to be NOT about teachings and such BUT use this avenue to show the Church of Christ in an unfavorable view.

If I were to say things like has been said on this thread about some other church... I feel I would be chastised with energy.

So while a lot has been said about the Church of Christ... Maybe it's time for some some else to please take helm of this thread and let's discuss their church with the same vigor as has been used against the Church of Christ?

The Church of Christ is not the only "theological faith view" in the world you know!

Thanks. [8-|]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201089#Comment_1201089

If I were to say things like has been said on this thread about some other church... I feel I would be chastised with energy.

From my perspective, although it got off topic at times, the discussion of the Stone-Campell movement church has been conducted with politeness and accuracy, primarily by people who know the tradition thoroughly. I only noticed two posts where things started to get testy. It is Churches such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Bereans ... that get slammed. Catholics used to be in that camp, but for several years now, they are more frequently the subject of simple misinformation. Hopefully, the day is near when the groups mentioned are well enough understood to also be subject nothing worse than misinformation. Nonetheless, I am sorry you felt the CoC was attacked; I doubt that any of the participants intended that.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201089#Comment_1201089

This just goes to show that when it comes to “Theological issues” the churches of Christ are no different than the denominations around us. We must try to study with an open mind and always strive to accept only what’s acceptable in the sight of God. Then again, that’s another theological issue everybody struggles with.

Good night!

DAL

PS, By the way, us being described as the Stone-Campbell movement is our own fault for promoting “The Restoration Movement.” We should just do what we claim to do, i.e. “We should just go back to the Bible.” A popular quarterly magazine among churches of Christ (not going to name it) had an issue dedicated to “Pioneer Preachers.” Guess whose picture was at the front cover of that magazine? Yep, Alexander Campbell! A man who taught we could fellowship denominations (which is a huge no-no in today’s churches of Christ). So with that in mind, is it any wonder why people call us “Campbellites” when we ourselves (well, you can exclude me) are promoting magazines with Alexander Campbell’s picture at the front cover? Looks like we shot ourselves in the foot 😁 We claim the church of Christ has always existed before the restoration movement, yet what we do is promote the movement and it’s history and even putting in a pedestal the pioneer men that were part of the movement. Even in Spanish they call us “Campbelitas” because all we’ve done is just repeat what our American brothers have taught us! Isn’t that ironic?!

The more I read the history, the more I see where we’ve gone wrong in so many issues. Anyway, these are my closing thoughts! No more comments! Now let’s hear what the other guys struggle with 👍😁👌

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201092#Comment_1201092

This just goes to show that when it comes to “Theological issues” the churches of Christ are no different than the denominations around us. We must try to study with an open mind and always strive to accept only what’s acceptable in the sight of God. Then again, that’s another theological issue everybody struggles with.

Good night!

DAL

PS, By the way, us being described as the Stone-Campbell movement is our own fault for promoting “The Restoration Movement.” We should just do what we claim to do, i.e. “We should just go back to the Bible.” A popular quarterly magazine among churches of Christ (not going to name it) had an issue dedicated to “Pioneer Preachers.” Guess whose picture was at the front cover of that magazine? Yep, Alexander Campbell! A man who taught we could fellowship denominations (which is a huge no-no in today’s churches of Christ). So with that in mind, is it any wonder why people call us “Campbellites” when we ourselves (well, you can exclude me) are promoting magazines with Alexander Campbell’s picture at the front cover? Looks like we shot ourselves in the foot 😁 We claim the church of Christ has always existed before the restoration movement, yet what we do is promote the movement and it’s history and even putting in a pedestal the pioneer men that were part of the movement.

The more I read the history, the more I see where we’ve gone wrong in so many issues. Anyway, these are my closing thoughts! No more comments! Now let’s hear what the other guys struggle with 👍😁👌

2 things...

1. I remember reading many magazines that has pictures of Hitler on them. Does that make the publishers Nazis? I don't think so. Which again shows how you "twist" things. I think you know... that the Church of Christ does teach or follow all that Alexander Campbell taught, for example, his use of musical instruments in worship. Many in the Church of Christ (myself included) like the fact that Alexander Campbell was prominent in advocating "back to the Bible" and something it appears that he himself tried to follow.

2. Your distraught of the Church of Christ, which you have shown and show as you say "no more comments" is something that really is against the rules of the forum. I have tried to answer your rants, in a polite way... but no person should have to feel they are "put down" on the forum as you have tried to do with the Church of Christ. It appears you have a personal vendetta against the Church of Christ.

As I have said..... I am willing to discuss this with you in some venue other than on the forum. Any time.

I wish you well.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201091#Comment_1201091

From my perspective, although it got off topic at times, the discussion of the Stone-Campell movement church has been conducted with politeness and accuracy, primarily by people who know the tradition thoroughly. ....

And for the record.... the Church of Christ is not from or in the Stone-Campbell movement. That movement as I stated, is called the "Reformation Period" whereby the participates of that period were advocating people get back to the Bible basics. The Church of Christ does not follow, nor apply to, most of the teachings of the people of that period. But the Church of Christ is quite appreciative of anyone who advocates "getting back to Bible basics"...

I mentioned that Alexander Campbell, while he did advocate baptism for the remission of sins, he actually became a member of the "First Christian Church", which I understand they believe that also. I believe, if memory serves me right, he originally was a member of the Presbyterian Church.. (sometimes my memory jumps ship on me). I also seem to remember that he taught himself that baptism was necessary for salvation and was baptized (for the remission of his sins) by a deacon of the Presbyterian Church.

I visited the library of Alexander Campbell. He was quite a student in the Bible. I remember well the librarian stating that Mr. Campbell was a member of the First Christian Church... I asked her "He wasn't a member of the Church of Christ?" and she replied, "Never that she could find in his historical papers."

There is a lot of "church history" during the Reformation Period and there are several, if not many, men who championed the "Back to the Bible" idea. Two of my favorites are a man called John Racoon Smith and another called Marshall Keeble. Both are interesting reads.

But as I stated earlier... the Church of Christ did not come out of the Stone-Campbell era or the "Reformation Period". We are not "Campbellites" or "Stone-Campbell" people either. The Church of Christ was before that period started and was advocating before those men.... of "Back to the Bible basics" and still does.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201103#Comment_1201103

And for the record

Give it a break, xnman. Note my grandfather was in seminary (while his sons ran the farm) when the Church of Christ/Christian Church(Disciples of Christ) split was finalized. He stayed Church of Christ (Standard Publishing version) - the seminary went Disciples of Christ. Also note my sister and one brother are Harding College (Church of Christ) graduates; a close childhood friend is a Pepperdine (Church of Christ) graduate. My father was a major donor to Puget Sound College of the Bible (Church of Christ) (now defunct) and Boise Bible College (Church of Christ) -- to the point they sent their presidents to his funeral. Like DAL I do have solid knowledge of the Church of Christ.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1200959#Comment_1200959

These are only a few “theological” issues that have divided churches

One item I would add to that list is:

11 What Bible to use

[[Note to DAL: cut your statement at the word "churches" as your list [imho] may apply to all churches / denominations]]

(And as for why a church may split is the color of the new carpets.)

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201119#Comment_1201119

These are only a few “theological” issues that have divided churches

One item I would add to that list is:

11 What Bible to use

[[Note to DAL: cut your statement at the word "churches" as your list [imho] may apply to all churches / denominations]]

(And as for why a church may split is the color of the new carpets.)

Yes! In some states it’s KJV 1611 and/or ASV 1901. Which brings us to #12.

12. Pray using “Thee” and “Thou” when addressing God!

13. A man cannot serve as an elder if he’s been married before (even if his first wife is dead).

14. Social drinking

15. Allowing man to serve as elders while working on filling qualifications instead of meeting qualifications first and then get appointed as elders.

16. Even if it’s a church of Christ, many question if a church is Biblical if it doesn’t have elders and deacons.

17. Reelection of Elders or Reaffirmation of Elders and how long should elders be allowed to serve.

18. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage.

19. The gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38.

20. Head covering for women.

Phew! I’ll stop for now. There’s plenty more if you need more MJ!

DAL

PS. This thread is about providing theological issues that different religious groups struggle with. In no way are the issues mentioned here meant to put down or run down any particular religious group. Thanks!

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201127#Comment_1201127

Hi MJ,

As the end of your research, if you could summarize using, say, an Excel file, it would be great because it could be easy to digest. For example, the columns could be a series of Y/N questions on grounds of difference and the rows could be various denominations. For example, Justification by Faith along (Y/N) could be one such column. Then it is a matter of putting Y or N in the cells.

Thanks

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201144#Comment_1201144

Hi MJ,

As the end of your research, if you could summarize using, say, an Excel file, it would be great because it could be easy to digest. For example, the columns could be a series of Y/N questions on grounds of difference and the rows could be various denominations. For example, Justification by Faith along (Y/N) could be one such column. Then it is a matter of putting Y or N in the cells.

Thanks

I also would like a copy of the Excel spreadsheet, please. I do think it's a good project...as long as it doesn't get "lopsided"....

Also, I will add to the list that is started, as these are "theological issues" that I have come across, that do divide us the theological world of churches ....

21. Are apocryphal books canonized?

22. Is foot washing supposed to be practiced today?

23. How many different ways of "being saved" are there?

24. What is the name of the church? In CA they have the "Church of Satanology"???

25. Do we still want to have "tax breaks" for religious theologies?

26. What is the right way to baptize?

27 Is baptism needed at all?

28.Are we to keep the Old Testament Law today?

29.What is the meaning of "sacraments" and how are they determined?

30. Was Jesus a god or part of the Godhead?

31. When did the concept of choirs become acceptable in the church?

And I am sure this list could grow to as big as needed.

John Simpson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201152#Comment_1201152

I've found this helpful:

Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell BY C MICHAEL PATTON https://credohouse.org/blog/essentials-and-non-essentials-in-a-nutshell

Essential for salvation: These are the most essential doctrines of all essentials. This includes what every Christian should always be willing to die for. In essence, if someone does not believe the doctrines that are “essential for salvation,” they are not saved. Hence, it is at the center of the circle.

What I include:

Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)

Issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:

Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave for our sins (1 Cor 15:3-4)
Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)

As with all of them, I am sure that there are some ancillary matters that could be included, but this gives you the key doctrines. Without these, you simply don’t have any sense present of what it means to be a Christian.

Essential for historic Christian orthodoxy: These include beliefs “essential for salvation” but are broader in that they express what has been believed by the historic Christian church for the last two thousand years, no matter which tradition. This is expressed by the Vincentian Canon (434 A.D.): “that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.” The exception of fringe movements has never been valid for this canon. It is simply asking, “What have all Christians everywhere always believed?”

Some of what I include:

The doctrine of the Trinity as expressed at Nicea
The doctrine of the Hypostatic Union (Christ is fully man and fully God) as expressed at Chalcedon
The belief in the future second coming of Christ
A belief in the inspiration and authority of Scripture
A belief in God’s transcendence (his metaphysical distinction from the universe)
A belief in God’s immanence (his present activity in the world and our lives)
A belief in God’s sovereignty (while there are different ways to define sovereignty, this basically purports that God is in control)
Belief that Christ is the only way to a right relationship with God
Belief in eternal punishment of the unredeemed

To be sure, some of these doctrines “develop,” or mature, but their maturation is only in relation to their seed form which preexisted their more mature expression. (For more on this, see here.)

Please notice that these are essential, even if they are not as essential as those expressed in the previous category. In other words, these do not represent negotiables. These are still cardinal doctrines.

But we could also include in this section a grouping entitled “Essential for Historic Orthopraxy.” This would include all of those practices and sins about which the church has been united in its belief. This would include humility, helping the poor, belief that homosexuality is a sin, issues of stewardship, respect for the imago dei (which would deem abortion wrong), and the need to evangelize the lost.

Essential for traditional orthodoxy: Again, these will necessarily include all of those from the two previous categories, but add some distinctives of their own. Essentials here will include all of those that are foundational to one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism. These are beliefs that distinguish one tradition from the next, but are not absolutely essential from the broader Christian worldview expressed above.

Some Protestant distinctives would include:

General belief in the major pronouncements of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
Belief in the necessity for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
Belief that justification is through faith alone on the basis of Christ alone
Belief that Scripture alone has ultimate and final authority on all matters of faith and practice
The canon of Scripture made up of 66 books (excluding the Deuterocanonical books)

Some Roman Catholic distinctives would include:

Belief in transubstantiation (the bread and wine turn into the actual body and blood of Christ)
Belief that justification is through faith and works
Belief that both Scripture and unwritten tradition have ultimate authority as they are interpreted by the Magisterium
Belief in the authority of twenty-one ecumenical councils
Belief that the Pope is the infallible vicar of Christ
Belief in the Marian dogmas
Belief that the canon includes the Deuterocanonical books

Some Eastern Orthodox distinctives would include:

Belief in the infallibility of the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787 AD)
Belief that the liturgy of the Church is part of the Gospel
Rejection of substitutionary atonement and the imputation of Adam’s sin
Salvation by grace through faith as God works these out through our unification with Him (theosis)
Traditional inclusion of the Deuterocanonical book (although there is some debate about this)

Again, for each one of these tradition, these represent essential distinctions which, while not as cardinal as those in the previous two categories, are important nonetheless.

Essential for denominational orthodoxy: This will be similar to the above, but one step down in importance, dealing as it does with the particular and peculiar denominational expressions by the various Protestant traditions.

Some examples:

Credo-baptism, i.e., Baptism is only for believers (Baptists)
Infant baptism (Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans)
Unconditional election (Reformed and Presbyterians)
Arminian theology (Methodists, Nazarenes)
Belief in the continuation of the Charismatic gifts (Pentecostals, Church of God)

While these might be considered worthy of breaking local fellowship in practice, they are not important enough to break ultimate fellowship. In other words, these represent legitimate debates that should not affect our unity.

Important but not essential: These are those beliefs that do not describe any particular tradition necessarily. They are important, but not that important.

Some examples:

Beliefs about particulars in the creation debate
Belief whether the books of Jonah and Job are historical accounts
Beliefs about the authorship of 2 Peter
Belief about particular end-time schemes (i.e. premillennial, amillennial, post-millennial)
The order of books in the canon
Which translation of the Bible to use from the pulpit
Which Gospel was written first
How often one should celebrate the Lord’s supper
Whether or not Christ taught in Greek or Aramaic

Not Important: These are beliefs that people have concerning Christian doctrine that are not important for any expression and do not affect Christian devotion or spirituality.

Some examples

The date of Christ’s birth (Christmas)
What kind of music to play at church
Whether to use real wine or grape juice at communion
Whether to hold Saturday night services
Whether or not John the Baptist was an Essene

Pure speculation: That is just what these are – speculation. We just don’t know one way or another, nor does it matter.

Some examples

Did Adam have a belly-button? (yes, he did…it would just look funny otherwise)
Belief in the eternal destiny of pets? (except I know my dog Rocky is going to heaven)
What was God doing “before” creation? (creating hell for those who speculate such things)
Will there be meat to eat in heaven? (we can all hope)
Will there be sex in heaven? (we can all hope more)
How long was it before Adam and Eve fell? (two hours after Eve was created . . . ask me why some other time)

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201156#Comment_1201156

I've found this helpful:

Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell BY C MICHAEL PATTON https://credohouse.org/blog/essentials-and-non-essentials-in-a-nutshell

Mr. John Simpson.... you will never know how much I appreciate your post. Thanks for posting it!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201144#Comment_1201144

As the end of your research, if you could summarize using, say, an Excel file, it would be great because it could be easy to digest. For example, the columns could be a series of Y/N questions on grounds of difference and the rows could be various denominations.

Unfortunately, while I will have captured many differences I will not have captured which denominations take each route, only representative groups that have taken a specific route. For example, Masoretic vs. LXX canon - Calvin vs. Luther or Restoration movement Anabaptist vs. Luther or Apostolic tradition Anabaptist vs. Anglican or singing of non-psalms Scottish Presbyterian vs. Catholic or closed canon Quaker vs. Puritan... and representative groups may be in a category only for a certain historical period.

If someone is interested in tracking down the view on issues as I complete the argument map, I'd be delighted to work with them.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201152#Comment_1201152

as long as it doesn't get "lopsided"..

I fear it will be biased although not intentionally. I can only cover topics that I understand after reading my available resources and only topics that I know of, discover through holes in logic, or are brought to my attention.

Thanks for this list ... it brought some issues to mind as well as the vocabulary in which different groups discuss them.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201156#Comment_1201156

I've found this helpful:

This is very, very helpful. Thank you.

To tease you a bit:

one of the three main Christian traditions: Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism.

I've spent years trying to teach Logosians that the three major traditions are Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism [;)] The Oriental Orthodox was the first to split off and the first to spread widely -- to China and to India. It did not do well against the onslaught of Islam. The Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox was the next to spread widely. Catholicism (Western Christianity) was the slow poke in terms of spread ... and the first to splinter into many factions.

1Cor10 31

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201174#Comment_1201174

Unfortunately, while I will have captured many differences I will not have captured which denominations take each route, only representative groups that have taken a specific route.

There is no way to do a 100% job, so whatever you do will be valuable.

If someone is interested in tracking down the view on issues as I complete the argument map, I'd be delighted to work with them.

I am not smart enough to contribute, but dumb enough to consume the output you generate!

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201183#Comment_1201183

MJ... While I think it got off to a rocky start... I think a study like this would be very beneficial. I want to encourage you in this and I, like some others, am willing to help if I can.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201238#Comment_1201238

I think a study like this would be very beneficial. I want to encourage you in this and I, like some others, am willing to help if I can.

I agree. I dont know how I could help, but sometimes people have a gem here or there that can be found in the rough of all their mumblings. I think this research has merit.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201177#Comment_1201177

I've spent years trying to teach Logosians that the three major traditions are Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism The Oriental Orthodox was the first to split off and the first to spread widely -- to China and to India. It did not do well against the onslaught of Islam. The Byzantine (Eastern) Orthodox was the next to spread widely. Catholicism (Western Christianity) was the slow poke in terms of spread ... and the first to splinter into many factions.

MJ ....forgive me to ask a question.... do you have dates about the Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Western Catholicism? As to Islam, I am a thinking it began about 606 AD.... Thanks.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201318#Comment_1201318

do you have dates about the Oriental Orthodoxy, the Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism and Western Catholicism? As to Islam, I am a thinking it began about 606 AD...

All of the churches below were a single "Great Church" that was the orthodoxy and orthopraxis that coalesced out of the fragmented beginnings e.g. gnostics out, Marcion out, 2 Peter 2:1
The churches using Syriac as their primary liturgical language from the 1st century on

The Church of the East split off at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD i.e. Nestorianism this is usually thrown in with Oriental Orthodoxy
Oriental Orthodox split off at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD

The churches using Greek or Latin as their primary liturgical language from the first century on

The split (schism) between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism occurred in two parts in the 11th century - 1054 is a frequently given date
The Eastern Orthodoxy was composed of churches using the Byzantine liturgy or its derivatives
Catholicism retained their Latin base and ties to some portion of both the Greek and the Syriac language Christians and since 1054 some Syriac and Bzyantine groups have rejoined the Catholics.

The Western Church is the church that used Latin as their liturgical language; the Byzantine (Eastern) church used Greek as their liturgical language; the Oriental church used Syriac as their liturgical language.

The first two countries to have Christianity as their national religion (Armenia 301-314 and Georgia 337) do not fit neatly into this history ... but have incorporated themselves into the basic structure as necessary

In ecumenical discussions, excluding the Nestorians, the theologians find very few differences (0-3) in theology and find all liturgies compatible. The differences are cultural and in terminology -- and mistrust among the laity of the other groups.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201321#Comment_1201321

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201349#Comment_1201349

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

I think that is the division between the Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants (and divisions within all of these groups) in a nutshell.

I'd be reluctant to even try to state my position in neutral terms here because I realize those who are outside of my religious tradition would disagree, and quite possibly take offense because my "neutral terms" would probably have assumptions others would not accept.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201349#Comment_1201349

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201395#Comment_1201395

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.

DAL

Ekklesia was the original term. The Latin "Ecclesia" follows it. It is found throughout Acts and the Epistles.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201398#Comment_1201398

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.

DAL

Ekklesia was the original term. The Latin "Ecclesia" follows it. It is found throughout Acts and the Epistles.

I’m not going to argue your point of view, but I’m pretty sure “church” is not the original term in Acts 2:47, if anything, the first time it appears is in Acts 5:11 (In Acts, not counting Matthew 16:18, but definitely not found in Acts 2:47).

DAL

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201349#Comment_1201349

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament?

Yes, but I deliberately avoid it in the forums knowing the position of particular Christian theologies on the issue. I stick to the big picture where there is broad agreement. I generally avoid even mentioning what caused the split because people assume that that is still the belief of the group when often it is not.

However, I do believe it is essential for Christians to understand the very basic framework I laid out because in the West we often talk as if Western Christianity is the whole of Christianity and because the current political situation is creating a diaspora among Oriental Christianity -- fellow Christians whose refugee status should be our concern.

However, I will give you the traditional material from Wikipedia including a reservation that I am unwilling to defend the data except to say it is "traditional". Speak to the churches named if you wish to question the data further.

An early understanding of apostolic succession is represented by the traditional beliefs of various churches, as organised around important episcopal sees, to have been founded by specific apostles. On the basis of these traditions, the churches hold they have inherited specific authority, doctrines or practices on the authority of their founding apostle(s), which is understood to be continued by the bishops of the apostolic throne of the church that each founded and whose original leader he was. Thus:

The See of Rome says it was founded by Simon Peter (traditionally called the "Chief of the Apostles") and Saint Paul.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the primary patriarchate of the Eastern Orthodox Church, says Apostle Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) was its founder.

The Patriarch of Alexandria (Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria , Coptic Catholic Church and Coptic Orthodox Church) say they were founded by Mark the Evangelist.

The Patriarchate of Antioch (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Maronite Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole Levant, Melkite Greek Catholic Church) say they were founded by Simon Peter.

The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem says it was founded by James the Just.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, based at Etchmiadzin, says it was founded by the Apostles Bartholomew and Jude Thaddeus.

The following bodies say they were founded by the Apostle Thomas: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, originating in or around Mesopotamia, and churches based in Kerala, India having Syriac roots and generically known as the Saint Thomas Christians: the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church,and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

The Orthodox Tewahedo churches (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church) say they were founded by Philip the Evangelist and Mark the Evangelist.

The Orthodox Church of Georgia say the Apostles Andrew and Simon the Zealot were its founders.

The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, based at Nova Justiniana (Erdek), says it was founded by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church says it has a connection with Andrew the Apostle.

The Russian Orthodox Church says it has a connection with the Apostle Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kyiv later arose.

The LDS Church says it has apostolic succession. They hold that Joseph Smith was visited in 1829 by Peter, James, and John (three of the original twelve apostles) and by the laying on of hands, gave him the keys of the priesthood. These keys have been since passed down by the laying on of hands to subsequent leaders of the church (a.k.a. apostolic succession).

You can compare this with the testimony of Eusebius:

[quote]

IN SUCH A CONDITION were the affairs of the Jews, but of the holy Apostles and disciples of our Saviour who were scattered over the whole world, Thomas, as tradition holds, received Parthia; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia (and with the people there he lived and he died in Ephesus); but Peter seems to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia and Cappodocia and Asia to the Jews of the Dispersion, and at last, having come to Rome, was crucified head-downwards, for he himself had asked to suffer so. What need we say about Paul, who fulfilled the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum and later suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts have been stated exactly by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5, ed. and trans. Roy Joseph Deferrari, vol. 19, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 137–138.

In short, if you want to track the Church that Jesus founded, track the apostles ... with appropriate skepticism towards the data

According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second century. But this separation was put at various dates by different traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-four years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasii as Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of the apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions not only assign different fields of labor to the different apostles, but also give different lists of the apostles themselves.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201400#Comment_1201400

Thanks MJ

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament? I don't want to start a discussion about this.. .but ask an honest question....

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

Edit: Seems the best I've come up with is in the works of Josephus.

There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.

DAL

Ekklesia was the original term. The Latin "Ecclesia" follows it. It is found throughout Acts and the Epistles.

I’m not going to argue your point of view, but I’m pretty sure “church” is not the original term in Acts 2:47, if anything, the first time it appears is in Acts 5:11 (In Acts, not counting Matthew 16:18, but definitely not found in Acts 2:47).

DAL

never mentioned 2:47. You were the one who said it didn’t appear until the 5th century.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201404#Comment_1201404

David Wanat, I was referring to the word “Church” in Acts 2:47. I’m afraid you didn’t read the post correctly. The word church in Acts 2:47 is not in the oldest manuscript. That’s what I was trying to tell xnman.

No worries, reading a post will always be subject to it being misread all the time 👍😁👌

DAL

PS. This is what I wrote: “There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.” The bold “there” refers to the word church in Acts 2:47, which is a textual variant.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201408#Comment_1201408

David Wanat, I was referring to the word “Church” in Acts 2:47. I’m afraid you didn’t read the post correctly. The word church in Acts 2:47 is not in the oldest manuscript. That’s what I was trying to tell xnman.

No worries, reading a post will always be subject to it being misread all the time 👍😁👌

DAL

PS. This is what I wrote: “There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.” The bold “there” refers to the word church in Acts 2:47, which is a textual variant.

I‘ll accept the correction. It seems more clear with your explanation.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201398#Comment_1201398

Ekklesia was the original term. The Latin "Ecclesia" follows it. It is found throughout Acts and the Epistles.

M/M (Moulton/Milligan?) note a similar greek > latin, approx 103 ce, and non-Christian, as if the word was already latinized.

xnman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201402#Comment_1201402

In your studies/research...is there any thoughts/links etc... that would talk about the church Jesus started in the New Testament?

Yes, but I deliberately avoid it in the forums knowing the position of particular Christian theologies on the issue. I stick to the big picture where there is broad agreement. I generally avoid even mentioning what caused the split because people assume that that is still the belief of the group when often it is not.

However, I do believe it is essential for Christians to understand the very basic framework I laid out because in the West we often talk as if Western Christianity is the whole of Christianity and because the current political situation is creating a diaspora among Oriental Christianity -- fellow Christians whose refugee status should be our concern.

However, I will give you the traditional material from Wikipedia including a reservation that I am unwilling to defend the data except to say it is "traditional". Speak to the churches named if you wish to question the data further.

An early understanding of apostolic succession is represented by the traditional beliefs of various churches, as organised around important episcopal sees, to have been founded by specific apostles. On the basis of these traditions, the churches hold they have inherited specific authority, doctrines or practices on the authority of their founding apostle(s), which is understood to be continued by the bishops of the apostolic throne of the church that each founded and whose original leader he was. Thus:

The See of Rome says it was founded by Simon Peter (traditionally called the "Chief of the Apostles") and Saint Paul.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the primary patriarchate of the Eastern Orthodox Church, says Apostle Andrew (brother of Simon Peter) was its founder.

The Patriarch of Alexandria (Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria , Coptic Catholic Church and Coptic Orthodox Church) say they were founded by Mark the Evangelist.

The Patriarchate of Antioch (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, Syriac Orthodox Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Maronite Patriarchate of Antioch and the Whole Levant, Melkite Greek Catholic Church) say they were founded by Simon Peter.

The Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem says it was founded by James the Just.

The Armenian Apostolic Church, based at Etchmiadzin, says it was founded by the Apostles Bartholomew and Jude Thaddeus.

The following bodies say they were founded by the Apostle Thomas: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East and the Chaldean Catholic Church, originating in or around Mesopotamia, and churches based in Kerala, India having Syriac roots and generically known as the Saint Thomas Christians: the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, the Jacobite Syrian Christian Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church,and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church.

The Orthodox Tewahedo churches (Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church) say they were founded by Philip the Evangelist and Mark the Evangelist.

The Orthodox Church of Georgia say the Apostles Andrew and Simon the Zealot were its founders.

The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, based at Nova Justiniana (Erdek), says it was founded by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church says it has a connection with Andrew the Apostle.

The Russian Orthodox Church says it has a connection with the Apostle Andrew, who is said to have visited the area where the city of Kyiv later arose.

The LDS Church says it has apostolic succession. They hold that Joseph Smith was visited in 1829 by Peter, James, and John (three of the original twelve apostles) and by the laying on of hands, gave him the keys of the priesthood. These keys have been since passed down by the laying on of hands to subsequent leaders of the church (a.k.a. apostolic succession).

You can compare this with the testimony of Eusebius:

[quote]

IN SUCH A CONDITION were the affairs of the Jews, but of the holy Apostles and disciples of our Saviour who were scattered over the whole world, Thomas, as tradition holds, received Parthia; Andrew, Scythia; John, Asia (and with the people there he lived and he died in Ephesus); but Peter seems to have preached in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia and Cappodocia and Asia to the Jews of the Dispersion, and at last, having come to Rome, was crucified head-downwards, for he himself had asked to suffer so. What need we say about Paul, who fulfilled the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum and later suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts have been stated exactly by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Books 1–5, ed. and trans. Roy Joseph Deferrari, vol. 19, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 137–138.

In short, if you want to track the Church that Jesus founded, track the apostles ... with appropriate skepticism towards the data

According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second century. But this separation was put at various dates by different traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-four years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasii as Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of the apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions not only assign different fields of labor to the different apostles, but also give different lists of the apostles themselves.

MJ... Thanks for your answer. As far as I can tell... the word is "ekklesia" in Acts 2:47... but definitely the "ekklesia" is used early on in the book of Acts, regardless of the argument one uses...

Sometimes it's hard to get to facts because of all the "nay sayers" and "nit pickers" that want to argue over a period.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201425#Comment_1201425

David Wanat, I was referring to the word “Church” in Acts 2:47. I’m afraid you didn’t read the post correctly. The word church in Acts 2:47 is not in the oldest manuscript. That’s what I was trying to tell xnman.

No worries, reading a post will always be subject to it being misread all the time 👍😁👌

DAL

PS. This is what I wrote: “There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.” The bold “there” refers to the word church in Acts 2:47, which is a textual variant.

I‘ll accept the correction. It seems more clear with your explanation.

Thanks for your humble attitude David! We need more of this in the church 👍😁👌

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201457#Comment_1201457

David Wanat, I was referring to the word “Church” in Acts 2:47. I’m afraid you didn’t read the post correctly. The word church in Acts 2:47 is not in the oldest manuscript. That’s what I was trying to tell xnman.

No worries, reading a post will always be subject to it being misread all the time 👍😁👌

DAL

PS. This is what I wrote: “There’s a slight problem with the date of Acts 2:47 and the word “Church” there. The most common date given is actually 30 AD, though some could work with 33 AD. And the word “church” is not found in the oldest manuscripts. It actually started appearing in the 5th century if my memory serves me correctly; but that doesn’t mean it cannot be inferred from the text.” The bold “there” refers to the word church in Acts 2:47, which is a textual variant.

I‘ll accept the correction. It seems more clear with your explanation.

Thanks for your humble attitude David! We need more of this in the church 👍😁👌

DAL

You’re welcome. In retrospect, I don’t know how I went so wrong in reading that. 🤦‍♂️

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201349#Comment_1201349

And the reason I ask is ... in Mat 16:18 Jesus said he would build His church.... and nothing would stand against it. Then in Acts 2:47 we see that the church did exist. Now best I can make out.... Acts 2:47 happened about 33 AD...

But ... I have not found in secular history... links going back that far.. That's why I ask.

BDAG cites that ekklesia was in use before Christ.

ἐκκλησία, ας, ἡ (ἐκ + καλέω; Eur., Hdt.+)
① a regularly summoned legislative body, assembly, as gener. understood in the Gr-Rom. world (Jos., Ant. 12, 164; 19, 332, Vi. 268) Ac 19:39 (on ‘[regular] statutory assembly’, s. ἔννομος and IBM III/2, p. 141. The term ἐννόμη ἐ. here contrasts w. the usage vss. 32 and 40, in which ἐ. denotes simply ‘a gathering’; s. 2 below. On the ἐ. in Ephesus cp. CIG III, 325; IBM III/1, 481, 340; on the ἐ. in the theater there s. the last-named ins ln. 395; OGI 480, 9).
• —Pauly-W. V/2, 1905, 2163–2200;
• RAC IV 905–21 (lit.).
② a casual gathering of people, an assemblage, gathering (cp. 1 Km 19:20; 1 Macc 3:13; Sir 26:5) Ac 19:32, 40.
③ people with shared belief, community, congregation (for common identity, cp. the community of Pythagoras [Hermippus in Diog. L. 8, 41]. Remarkably, in Himerius, Or. 39 [Or. 5], 5 Orpheus forms for himself τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, a group of wild animals, who listen to him, in the Thracian mountains where there are no people), in our lit. of common interest in the God of Israel.
ⓐ of OT Israelites assembly, congregation (Dt 31:30; Judg 20:2; 1 Km 17:47; 3 Km 8:14; PsSol 10:6; TestJob 32:8 τῆς εὐώδους ἐ.; Philo; Jos., Ant. 4, 309; Diod S 40, 3, 6) Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23);
• e.g. to hear the law (Dt 4:10; 9:10; 18:16) Ac 7:38.
ⓑ of Christians in a specific place or area (the term ἐ. apparently became popular among Christians in Greek-speaking areas for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp. in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group).
α. of a specific Christian group assembly, gathering ordinarily involving worship and discussion of matters of concern to the community:
• Mt 18:17;
• συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐ. when you come together as an assembly 1 Cor 11:18; cp. 14:4f, 12, 19, 28, 35;
• pl. vs. 34.
• ἐν ἐ. ἐξομολογεῖσθαι τὰ παραπτώματα confess one’s sins in assembly D 4:14; cp. 3J 6 (JCampbell, JTS 49, ’48, 130–42; for the Johannines s. ESchweizer below).
• In Ac 15:22 the ‘apostles and elders’ function in the manner of the βουλή or council, the committee of the whole that was responsible in a Gr-Rom. polis for proposing legislation to the assembly of citizens.
• —Of Christians gathering in the home of a patron house-assembly (‘house-church’) Πρίσκαν καὶ Ἀκύλαν … καὶ τὴν κατʼ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐ. Ro 16:5; cp. 1 Cor 16:19.
• Νύμφαν καὶ τὴν κατʼ οἶκον αὐτῆς ἐ. Col 4:15;
• ἡ κατʼ οἶκόν σου ἐ. Phlm 2.
• —FFilson, JBL 58, ’39, 105–12;
• other reff.
• οἶκος 1aα.
• —Pl. ἐ. τῶν ἁγίων 1 Cor 14:33;
• ἐ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Ro 16:4.
• —1 Ti 5:16 prob. belongs here, s. βαρέω b.
β. congregation or church as the totality of Christians living and meeting in a particular locality or larger geographical area, but not necessarily limited to one meeting place:
• Ac 5:11; 8:3; 9:31 (so KGiles, NTS 31, ’85, 135–42; s. c below), 11:26; 12:5; 15:3; 18:22; 20:17;
• cp. 12:1;
• 1 Cor 4:17; Phil 4:15; 1 Ti 5:16 perh., s. α above; Js 5:14;
• 3 J 9f; 1 Cl 44:3; Hv 2, 4, 3.
• More definitely of the Christians in Jerusalem Ac 8:1; 11:22; cp. 2:47 v.l.; 15:4, 22;
• Cenchreae Ro 16:1;
• cp. vs. 23;
• Corinth 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1;
• 1 Cl ins; 47:6;
• AcPlCor 1:16;
• Laodicea Col 4:16; Rv 3:14;
• Thessalonica 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1;
• Colossae Phlm subscr. v.l. Likew. w. other names:
• Rv 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7;
• IEph ins; 8:1; IMg ins; ITr ins; 13:1; IRo 9:1;
• IPhld ins; 10:1;
• ISm 11:1;
• Pol ins. Plural:
• Ac 15:41; 16:5; Ro 16:16; 1 Cor 7:17; 2 Cor 8:18f, 23f; 11:8, 28; 12:13; Rv 2:7, 11, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 22:16;
• the Christian community in Judea Gal 1:22; 1 Th 2:14;
• Galatia Gal 1:2; 1 Cor 16:1;
• Asia vs. 19; Rv 1:4, and cp. vss.
• 11 and 20;
• Macedonia 2 Cor 8:1.
• κατʼ ἐκκλησίαν in each individual congregation or assembly Ac 14:23 (on the syntax cp. OGI 480, 9 [s. 1 above]: ἵνα τιθῆνται κατʼ ἐκκλησίαν in order that they [the statues] might be set up at each [meeting of the] ἐ.).
• On κατὰ τ. οὖσαν ἐ. Ac 13:1 cp. εἰμί 1 end.
ⓒ the global community of Christians, (universal) church (s. AvHarnack, Mission I4 420 n. 2 on Ac 12:1):
• Mt 16:18 (OBetz, ZNW 48, ’57, 49–77: Qumran parallels; s. HBraun, Qumran I, ’66, 30–37); Ac 9:31 (but s. 3bβ); 1 Cor 6:4; 12:28; Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23ff, 27, 29, 32 (HSchlier, Christus u. d. Kirche im Eph 1930; also ThBl 6, 1927, 12–17); Col 1:18, 24; Phil 3:6; B 7:11; Hv 2, 2, 6; 2, 4, 1 (with the depiction of the church as an elderly lady cp. Ps.-Demetr. 265 where Hellas, the homeland, is represented as λαβοῦσα γυναικὸς σχῆμα); 3, 3, 3;
• IEph 5:1f and oft.
• —The local assembly or congregation as well as the universal church is more specif. called ἐ. τοῦ θεοῦ or ἐ. τ. Χριστοῦ.
• This is essentially Pauline usage, and it serves to give the current Gk. term its Christian coloring and thereby its special mng.:
α. ἐ. τοῦ θεοῦ (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 63, 22) 1 Cor 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Th 2:14; 2 Th 1:4; 1 Ti 3:5, 15; Ac 20:28; ITr 2:3; 12:1; IPhld 10:1;
• ISm ins al.
β. ἐ. τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Orig., C. Cels. 5, 22, 14) Ro 16:16.
γ. both together ἐ. ἐν θεῷ πατρὶ καὶ κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ 1 Th 1:1.
δ. ἡ ἐ. ἡ πρώτη ἡ πνευματική the first, spiritual church (conceived in a Platonic sense as preexistent) 2 Cl 14:1;
• ἐ. ζῶσα the living church the body of Christ vs. 2;
• ἡ ἁγία ἐ. Hv 1, 1, 6; 1, 3, 4;
• ἡ καθολικὴ ἐ. ISm 8:2;
• ἡ ἁγία καὶ καθολικὴ ἐ. MPol ins;
• ἡ κατὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην καθολικὴ ἐ. 8:1; 19:2;
• ἓν σῶμα τῆς ἐ. ISm 1:2.
• —The literature before ’32 is given in OLinton, D. Problem der Urkirche in d. neueren Forschung (s. esp. 138–46) ’32 and AMedebielle, Dict. de la Bible, Suppl. II ’34, 487–691;
• before ’60, s. RAC;
• also s. TW, Sieben, and JHainz, Ekklesia ’72.
• Esp. important:
• EBurton, Gal (ICC) 1921, 417–20;
• KHoll, D. Kirchenbegriff des Pls usw.: SBBerlAk 1921, 920–47=Ges. Aufs. II 1928, 44ff;
• FKattenbusch, D. Vorzugsstellung d. Petrus u. d. Charakter d. Urgemeinde zu Jerusalem:
• KMüller Festschr. 1922, 322–51;
• KLSchmidt, D. Kirche des Urchristentums:
• Dssm. Festschr. 1927, 259–319, TW III 502–39. S. also:
• EPeterson, D. Kirche aus Juden u. Heiden ’33;
• KLSchmidt, D. Polis in Kirche u. Welt ’39;
• WBieder, Ekkl. u. Polis im NT u. in d. alten Kirche ’41;
• OMichel, D. Zeugnis des NTs v. d. Gemeinde ’41;
• NDahl, D. Volk Gottes ’41;
• RFlew, Jesus and His Church2, ’43;
• GJohnston, The Doctrine of the Church in the NT ’43;
• WKümmel, Kirchenbegriff u. Geschichtsbewusstsein in d. Urg. u. b. Jesus ’43;
• DFaulhaber, D. Johev. u. d. Kirche ’38;
• AFridrichsen, Kyrkan i 4. ev.:
• SvTK 16, ’40, 227–42;
• ESchweizer, NT Essays (Manson memorial vol.) ’59, 230–45;
• EWolf, Ecclesia Pressa—eccl. militans:
• TLZ 72, ’47, 223–32;
• SHanson, Unity of the Church in the NT ’46;
• HvCampenhausen, Kirchl. Amt u. geistl.
• Vollmacht in den ersten 3 Jahrh. ’53;
• EKäsemann, Sätze hlg.
• Rechtes im NT, NTS 1, ’55, 248–60;
• AGeorge, ET 58, ’46/47, 312–16; in ATR:
• JBernardin 21, ’39, 153–70;
• BEaston 22, ’40, 157–68;
• SWalke 32, ’50, 39–53 (Apost. Fath.);
• JMurphy, American Ecclesiastical Review 140, ’59, 250–59; 325–32;
• PMinear, Images of the Church in the NT, ’60;
• BMetzger, Theology Today 19, ’62, 369–80;
• ESchweizer, Church Order in the NT, tr. FClarke ’61;
• RSchnackenburg, The Church in the NT, tr. WO’Hara ’65;
• LCerfaux, JBL 85, ’66, 250–51;
• AHilhorst, Filología Neotestamentaria 1, ’88, 27–34.
• S. also ἐπίσκοπος 2 end; Πέτρος;
• πέτρα 1.
• —B. 1476f.
• DELG s.v. καλέω.
• M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 303–304.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201488#Comment_1201488

Yes, David Thomas, it was in use WAY before Jesus. Thanks for pointing that out 🙏 The thing is some people think it’s an exclusive term referencing the church of Christ, when in reality it has a wide range of meanings. Context determines the actual meaning, but the term doesn’t appear in Acts 2:47. For all we know we could even translate the term “church” as “the assembly of Christ,” “the assembly of God;” but then again, some might consider me liberal for saying that. If we would all just study with an open mind 👌

DAL

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1201490#Comment_1201490

I think, in a nutshell, the issue is not the age of the term, but in what Christ intended His ekklesia to be.