Relationships of various Christian groups

The only thing I see on first glance is the ommission of the "coptic" church which would fit in same row as eastern/western

Thanks for sharing this.  I find it interesting and helpful.  I acknowledge that labeling people has many problems, but understanding history and relationships has benefits too. 

If you are willing to share, I would be interested in seeing how you grouped your resources/theologians.

Obviously the chart is a "big picture".  It would get overly complex if you tried to indicate the many divisions within each box.  In terms of theology, I am not sure how things like the full communion between the Anglican Church and (some branches of) the Lutheran Church fit.  In Canada, this is being worked out in practical ways, such as clergy ordained in one denomination being fully accepted in the other.  (This means that an Anglican priest could be in charge of a Lutheran congregation for example).  There are still the two traditions, but I wonder how the relationship will change both.  

MJ. Smith said:

I'm currently considering how this framework requires revisions of some of my assumptions about certain theologians.

Pretty good job in such a small chart.

 Since you include "various heresies" the next level down. Kabbalah might belong under Judaism (next to Messianic & Gentile) It is the singular heresy of Judaism not being strictly a philosophy or ethical system any more than Scientology is.

Then there is that strange doctrine of Baptist Succession that traces it's roots all the way back to John the Baptist instead of Jesus Christ, Pentecost or the Apostles. I actually had the book and it DOES make that claim. Many IFB churches deny the present existence of a universal invisible church. They teach the rapture "call out" is when the one bride of Christ comes into existence. They proudly proclaim an independence from all mainstream churches.

Alexander & Thomas Campbell came out of the Presbyterian Church abandoning infant baptism for believer baptism thus aligning themselves with the Baptists for a while. The Jehovah's Witnesses & Joseph Smith view their respective "churches" as  Restorationist. And from what I've read of the Penecostals, they too believe the last days outpouring of the Holy Spirit is God restoring His church.

There are three ways of defining this chart.
1) The Historical relationships of each group - like you seem to be attempting
2) The Theological relationships - or what they say they believe.
3) The de Facto standards -  what they really believe and practice.

So MJ,  I guess I'm saying if you want to present a chart on how people view themselves you would have to have two parallel lines. One for the "true church" and the other for "heresies." [^o)]

Based on the teaching in Romans 4, I am not sure I would agree with the chart.  It almost makes me think that Christianity has it's roots directly in Abraham like Judaism and Islam does.

In Christ,

Jim 

JimVanSchoonhoven said:

Based on the teaching in Romans 4, I am not sure I would agree with the chart.  It almost makes me think that Christianity has it's roots directly in Abraham like Judaism and Islam does.

But does not Romans 9 show that it does?

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
Romans 9:6-8

Joseph Colombo said:

Now I--a Roman Catholic--am very confused.  The term "Protestant" originates with the Second Diet of Speyer (1529) when the six Lutheran princes "protested" the majority decision of the princes to reinstate the Edict of Worms (1521), reversing its suspension at the First Diet of Speyer (1526).  The "protest" was a specific juridical form: essentially a direct appeal to Charles V.  If the term "Protestant" applies to anyone--I myself prefer to avoid it whenever possible--it would seem to apply to the Lutherans.

When describing different areas of Christianity Protestantism is one of the four major divisions, together with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church traditions. The term 'Protestant' is most closely tied to those groups that separated from the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century's Protestant Reformation when in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences to the door of the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

An argument can be made that Islam is actually a Christian heresy. It certainly doesn't deserve to be side by side with Judaism stemming back to Abraham (and if it does then it seems that Christianity does too).

John Bowling said:

An argument can be made that Islam is actually a Christian heresy. It certainly doesn't deserve to be side by side with Judaism stemming back to Abraham (and if it does then it seems that Christianity does too).

The argument is unsustainable.

Jewish Maybe, but impossible to be a Christian Heresy, as its pre Christian era, at least in the bible I read.

DominicM said:

impossible to be a Christian Heresy, as its pre Christian era, at least in the bible I read.

...Islam is not in the Bible. Muhammed, prophet of Islam, did not live until the 6th century AD, placing Islam decidedly after Christianity. There are some hints that he "stole" ideas from Christianity when he invented Islam. But I would not call it a Christian heresy, though I can see the concern of placing it all the way back by Judaism.

DominicM said:

John Bowling said:

An argument can be made that Islam is actually a Christian heresy. It certainly doesn't deserve to be side by side with Judaism stemming back to Abraham (and if it does then it seems that Christianity does too).

The argument is unsustainable.

Jewish Maybe, but impossible to be a Christian Heresy, as its pre Christian era, at least in the bible I read.

I am not sure I follow your argument but I agree with John. Islam IMHO is a reaction on Judaism and Christianity (a distorted version of one actually). So I would not put Islam to the same root as Judaism. I would put Judaism as the only, very broad body, from Abraham and than, we get 2 streams (speaking simply) continuing from that. Messianic Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. Than from the Messianic Judaism we get the Gentile Christianity. That's my 2 cents. Of course I might be wrong.

Interesting question would be also, were you put all churches like Unitas Fratrum (Czech Brethren, being before Luther) Waldensians and others?

MJ. Smith said:

Paul Golder said:

I'm thinking that the Holiness-Protestant churches (Methodist, Wesleyan, Missionary, Nazarene, etc...), would come as a 7th column

Thanks - I didn't know how to subdivide the Protestants as my only real experience is with Lutherans and Church of Christ - neither of which see themselves as Protestant.

Where would you put Pentecostals, especially Indigenous 3rd World Pentecostal movements?

Paul Golder said:

Pentecostals are a direct result of the Methodist-Holiness movement.

Well, not all, at least here in Continental Europe. Great part of the movement has been a direct offspring of the Pietist Lutheranism.

Take note, this is how threads get off topic. 

DominicM said:

The argument is unsustainable.

Jewish Maybe, but impossible to be a Christian Heresy, as its pre Christian era, at least in the bible I read.

Where does the Bible mention Islam, Muslims, or any sort of distinctive Islamic theology?

The peoples of Arabia practiced traditional religions (like animism and totemism), henotheism, and polytheism prior to Muhammed's reforms (the Hanifs tried similar reforms, but their theology was not Islamic and they were a *reaction* to Judaism and Christianity). And while the Arabs believed the Ka'ba was originally founded by Adam, they never held to anything remotely resembling Islamic *or* Abrahamic (biblical) theology. It served as the house of pagan gods such as Hubal, al-Uzza, al-Kutba, Jesus and Mary. Muhammed simply borrowed from these pagan beliefs and also from Nestorianism and, probably, Arianism. There is no evidence that something similar to Islamic theology preceded Mohammed. I believe the only evidence we have of a pre-Islamic monotheism in Arabia (Hanifism) was explicitly a reaction to Judaism and Christianity. 

So there is absolutely no basis for saying that Islam predates Christianity, in any sense (other than the sense that Muhammad borrowed from Christian and Jewish theology).

You are right IMHO. Do you think it has something to do with the evangelical and other parts of the Protestantism?

John Bowling said:

Take note, this is how threads get off topic. 

DominicM said:

The argument is unsustainable.

Jewish Maybe, but impossible to be a Christian Heresy, as its pre Christian era, at least in the bible I read.

Where does the Bible mention Islam, Muslims, or any sort of distinctive Islamic theology?

The peoples of Arabia practiced traditional religions (like animism and totemism), henotheism, and polytheism prior to Muhammed's reforms (the Hanifs tried similar reforms, but their theology was not Islamic and they were a *reaction* to Judaism and Christianity). And while the Arabs believed the Ka'ba was originally founded by Adam, they never held to anything remotely resembling Islamic *or* Abrahamic (biblical) theology. It served as the house of pagan gods such as Hubal, al-Uzza, al-Kutba, Jesus and Mary. Muhammed simply borrowed from these pagan beliefs and also from Nestorianism and, probably, Arianism. There is no evidence that something similar to Islamic theology preceded Mohammed. I believe the only evidence we have of a pre-Islamic monotheism in Arabia (Hanifism) was explicitly a reaction to Judaism and Christianity. 

So there is absolutely no basis for saying that Islam predates Christianity, in any sense (other than the sense that Muhammad borrowed from Christian and Jewish theology).

 

I think you are perfectly correct.

Bohuslav Wojnar said:

Paul Golder said:

Pentecostals are a direct result of the Methodist-Holiness movement.

Well, not all, at least here in Continental Europe. Great part of the movement has been a direct offspring of the Pietist Lutheranism.

Actually John Wesley's theology has it's roots in Pietistic Lutheranism. Europe has just "jumped" over the Methodist-Holiness step and gone right on to Pentecostalism. (you guys are always so "forward thinking" [:)] )

It is human nature that when we start to think that we can gain, keep, or improve our salvation with our actions/behavior, we start to expect so-called "greater things" based on how much faith we have.

MJ. Smith said:

Bohuslav Wojnar said:

Where would you put Pentecostals, especially Indigenous 3rd World Pentecostal movements?

I think that they would fall under Protestant - to the best of my knowledge as their own subtype.

Some writers would put it as a separate sub-stream of Christianity as Catholics, Protestants, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox etc. but IMHO it is better to describe it as part of the Evangelical Protestantism.

Very nice chart.     Thank you once again for your diligent creativity.

MJ. Smith said:

I was afraid that some people have a gut reaction against the word "catholic" even with a small c - obviously the creedal churches are fine with the term. But you may be right that it is a better choice.

The catholic (with a small "c") label better fits the chart for representing a universal (non-Roman) set. Those who would object to the word "catholic" will also object to "universal" and "unseen" and "corporate".   ("The Unseen Church" is a pulpit jest in many IFB circles. A jest I find no humor in.  [:(])  One of the great changes in my perspective came from reading Chuck Colson's The Body.