Relationships of various Christian groups

MJ. Smith said:

In another thread, I learned something I should have known because it is perfectly logical - Lutherans do not consider themselves to be Protestants. Which got me to thinking about what the relationships are from the point of view of the adherents not the historians.

This is my first, imperfect attempt. Please let me know if you think I have misrepresented the group to which you belong.

1. Abrahamic religions is chosen as the root so that Messianic Jews can logically be included.
2. Judaism is a branch in its own right which also gives rise to Messianic Judaism and Christianity
3. Islam is an independent branch that I follow no further
4. Judaism includes the Karaites, the Rabbinical Jews and the Messianic Jews; it is the root of Christianity.
5. Messianic Jews are contrasted to the "Gentile" Church - simply a term to cover the Christians who separated from Judaism.
6. The early church (Gentile Church) divides into three major categories - Eastern Church, Western Church and heresies. The latter is my way of handling groups that have been tagged as "not really Christian" by the bulk of Christianity.
7. The Eastern Church (a historical, cultural division) includes most Orthodox, uniate Catholics and a miscellaneous category
8. The Western Church divides into the Catholics and the Restorationists who believe they have restored the "original church" i.e. the Restorations do not define themselves against other groups.
9. The Catholic Church is where it gets interesting - I have added a superfluous "post-counter-reformation" box to clarify the other relationships.
10. The Lutherans are not Protestants but rather are post-reformation Christians.
11. The Anglicans view themselves as neither Catholic nor Protestant but rather the middle way. Note that they include both Anglo-Catholics and Episcopalian Protestant church so they truly straddle the Catholic/Protestant division
12. The Protestants are post-reformation Christians defining their reformation as a protest against the Catholic Church

I'm currently considering how this framework requires revisions of some of my assumptions about certain theologians. It also allows me a more concrete way to describe groupings based on approach to Scripture.  And, I am actually using Logos to build a hierarchy of collections which reflects this division ... although I cheat and put Catholic - east and west into a single collection. This allows me a quick way of verifying if a group as a whole reflects the generalized statements made about them.

MJ-

I like your chart.  I have examined the Lutheran portion, as well as the Catholic portion, with respect to the others.  I have some observations.

First, if you include the coptic church, then you have to refer to the person attending, as a copter.  If they become heretics, they will go to hell and be known there, as a hell-a-copter.

NOW on the more serious side....

The positioning of Islam troubles me.  They stemmed from Ishmael, while the Jews and Christians come from Isaac, so the two of them should be shown as a separate leg from Islam.  I would have to say, that Christianity should be a separate box below (or above) Judaism.  Although we have a common spiritual ancestry, we were "grafted in" as Gentiles.  Read that, "adopted".

Your treatment of "Various Heresies" do you put things there, like Mormonism, who allege they are Christian, but who most of us would say they are NOT?

The difference between the Eastern and Western churches, it sounds like to me you are saying, is cultural and more location (historical).  Actually it is a big issue, in terms of the recognition of Christ as both true God and true man.  So let's chalk that up as an irreconcilable difference.  But the both of us still think we are both catholic (small "C").  I almost think the various heresies should not be shown.

Interestingly enough, I would draw the line AFTER the East/West split, as a straight line, up to Protestant.  Like this:

Western Church -------[then a partial heresy/change called the Reformation]----Lutherans would maintain that we did not split off from the catholic (small "c"

"Roman"

church, but that the Roman church split from the catholic (small "c" church with their heresies -indulgences, for example).  Then along the line, Protestants and then several splits, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

As far as the Lutheran piece, there is something you are neglecting, which affects all the churches, including Roman.  That is the politics.  Within Lutheran, there are several very conservative wings.  Missouri Synod is not even the most conservative.  Somebody referenced Wisconsin Synod.  Then probably Missouri (LCMS), eventually ELCA.

The Scandinavian Lutherans came to America in several separate pots.  The American Lutheran Church was conservative.  The Lutheran Church in America was liberal.  Missouri Synod had a split in 1973, casting out many of their seminarians (called Seminex) and the liberal of the Missourians went, calling themselves the AELC.  THEN the AELC, LCA and ALC merged into ELCA.  So those wings are liberal.

In light of many issues such as homosexual marriage and inerrancy of the Bible, the more conservative Lutherans would even question the more liberal Lutherans' position as Christian.  NOT trying to get controversial, I will just say that things like was Jesus bodily resurrected are those types of issues.  Missouri says it was bodily, some but not all ELCA would say not necessarily bodily.

So just to say, the material that a person would get from places like Logos is of paramount importance to those denominations, which take seriously their doctrine and make great efforts at understanding it. 

Perhaps you could draw a garbage disposal at the bottom, for heretics, atheists, and those Christians, who have begun to flirt with apostasy.

What bunk this chart is.

In light of Romans 4, setting the foundation for Romans 9-11 I am not so sure that Romans 9 and 11 mean what has been stated. None of the comments have dealt with my comment on Romans 4 and how it appears to show that the church is related directly to Abraham just as Israel was.

In Christ,

Jim

No Paul, I do not believe that passage is addressing the issue of the church, but is addressed to an issue dealing with Israel, while Romans 4 is dealing with both groups and demonstrating that both groups of believers are connected to Abraham directly through faith.  He is the father of both groups, I believe the chapter actually uses that term.

In Christ,

Jim

JimVanSchoonhoven said:

No Paul, I do not believe that passage is addressing the issue of the church, but is addressed to an issue dealing with Israel, while Romans 4 is dealing with both groups and demonstrating that both groups of believers are connected to Abraham directly through faith.  He is the father of both groups, I believe the chapter actually uses that term.

In Christ,

Jim

It would seem to me that Paul is making the point that physical descendancy does not make one a true child of Abraham, but belief in Christ does.

For he is describing what the true Israel is, as apposed to those who felt they had special privilege as physical descendants.

Islam is not pre Christian.

Jesus in the Koran makes a strong argument that Islam is a Christian heresy to me.

MJ. Smith said:

But in this thread I am trying to capture self-identification

Alright I get to jump in. Enjoyed the conversation this day and the block diagrams very informative. How about a line from Abraham (Gen 15:6) through the ages, through Antioch were we were first called Christan's, through the Apostolic era were we would meet in homes celebrating the Lord's Supper, proclaiming His death till He comes, to the present, having no hierarchy, only elders and deacons supported by the Lord through the gifts of their brothers and sisters. (Assembly?)

Thanks, Larry

Larry Fisher said:

Hey no fair, this is my second post not the first!

Wuups, sorry, give it a minute to update.

I just wanted to say something. 

I have really enjoyed reading all of the posts here.  There is so much history that I now want to get a "feeling" for. 

 I guess I just have to ask if we know of anything about the religions that would have come from the other two brothers of Noah.  Abraham came from Shem....What about the line of Ham or the line of Japheth?  It would seem that from Genesis 10 that its not the line of Abraham that we get the Assyrians and/or others.  Maybe those are just all "dead" lines? 

Again, Thanks a great deal for all the discussion!

William

MJ. Smith said:

Here is what is probably the final draft - giving dual relationships to Islam and Radical Reformation.

Looks pretty good, but I would have to take exception still, with the positioning of Christianity.

If I were to change this, I would put a 3rd box on the same plane with Islam and Judaism.

Considering Romans, we were not grafted onto Judaism.  We were grafted onto where Judaism used to be.  But due to their own rigidness, they were "unseated".  So the hope remains for Israel to "come back" and we will be joined.  But Christianity must stand, in its own right.

JimVanSchoonhoven said:

MJ Smith, I believe if you start reading in Romans 3 and read to the end of Romans 4, you will see that Paul is demonstrating to the Jews that the salvation of the Gentiles without the law, was not something new, and he is pointing out to them that salvation was never dependant on the law, but rather the law was only an aid to show Israel of their need to be saved by faith alone.

He uses Abraham to demonstrate that he was saved before he was circumcised and demonstrates how this is the same way the current Gentiles are being saved.

 10     How then was it credited? While he was ¹circumcised, or ²uncircumcised? Not while ¹circumcised, but while ²uncircumcised;

     11     and he ^areceived the sign of circumcision, ^ba seal of the righteousness of the faith which ¹he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be ^cthe father of ^dall who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
     12     and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which ¹he had while uncircumcised.

¹ Lit in circumcision


² Lit in uncircumcision


^a Gen 17:10f


^b John 3:33


¹ Lit was in uncircumcision


^c Luke 19:9; Rom 4:16f


^d Rom 3:22; 4:16


¹ Lit was in uncircumcision


New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 4:10-12). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

Paul than goes into more details about Abraham and how he was saved and ends up showing once again how this is connected to the current believers, which is the body of Christ.

 
     22     Therefore ^ait was also credited to him as righteousness.
     23     Now ^anot for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
     24     but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those ^awho believe in Him who ^braised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
     25     He who was ^adelivered over because of our transgressions, and was ^braised because of our justification.



^a Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3


^a Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 9:9f; 10:11; 2 Tim 3:16f


^a Rom 10:9; 1 Pet 1:21


^b Acts 2:24


^a Is 53:4, 5; Rom 5:6, 8; 8:32; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2


^b Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:17; 2 Cor 5:15


New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 4:22-25). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

In Christ,

Jim

I agree here, The way to eternal life has been the same from adam until today. The only thing the law did was give us no excuse.. since no one can obey the law. Remember the passage that even before the law was given God passed over sins. And how could sin be charged if there is no law.

Paul made it clear. Abraham was saved before the law. He also became the father of all because of the promises God made to him.. which we share today in part. because Christ who came through him is our savior.

As paul said. He died because of every one of my sins.. He was raised because my justification ( right standing with him ) is complete..

Theworks of the  law did not save anyone,, nor will the works of many churches.. We are saved by faith in Christ.. our justification is complete because Christ rose from the dead proving God the father accepted his sacrifice as payment in full for our sins..

Praise be to God!!

Brian, I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish, although the first believers were part of Israel, but God created a new group which was neither Gentile or Jew.                                                                                                                                                     

 Although it would take a while for the early Jewish believers to understand this.

     11     Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called   “             Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh  by human  hands—

JimVanSchoonhoven said:

Brian, I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish, although the first believers were part of Israel, but God created a new group which was neither Gentile or Jew.                                                                                                                                                     

   

We agree. But he has them as non jew.. or gentile.. I would have put both jew and gentile so as not to leave one out.. The church is not strictly gentile..

Why would Christianity be considered a heresy like islam. When did the islamic religion started and by whom?

Mark Barnes said:

Islam is a corruption of Christianity and Judaism. I'm really not sure there's any point inventing a religion called Abrahamic religion just to place it on the chart.

Mark,

Martha is not trying to capture the historical or theological divisions of these religions or worldviews. She is trying to reflect how each of these sects view themselves. And from that angle Islam should be a parallel development of Judaism. Muslims and the Q'uran do not view themselves as an extension of either Jewish or Christian thought even though we know historically that Muhammad had been exposed to and taught by Christians. Muslims view themselves as a separate or parallel tract that is a more correct revelation of God's true will.

Onell McCarthy said:

Why would Christianity be considered a heresy like islam.

?? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Onell McCarthy said:

When did the islamic religion started and by whom?

In the seventh century A.D. by Muhammad. I tried to explain why it should be considered a Christian heresy earlier in the thread.

James W Bennett said:

Muslims view themselves as a separate or parallel tract that is a more correct revelation of God's true will.

Not exactly. Their belief is sort of like that of Protestants to Catholicism. Protestants, as Mark said, believe they have recovered what Catholicism lost. In the same way, Muslims believe they have recovered what "Christians" (and Jews) lost. This is parallel to what the Jehovah's Witnesses believe.

For example, Surrah 2.75 reads, "Can ye (o ye men of Faith) entertain the hope that they will believe in you?—Seeing that a party of them heard the Word of Allah, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it." and 10.37 "This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book—wherein there is no doubt—from the Lord of the worlds (Ali; cf. 12.111; 10.94; 35.31, 32; 62.5;) 

So if we are going to have Islam branching back then we need to add the Jehovah's Witnesses and other Christian heresies back there too.

This is why I think Islam needs to be viewed as a Christian heresy. Any argument that Islam is something other than that will end up extending to other groups that we (rightfully) consider Christian heresies. On the other hand, the same facts that lead us to consider something like Jehovah's Witness as a Christian heresy can be found in the origins of Islam.

Mark Barnes said:

James W Bennett said:

Martha is not trying to capture the historical or theological divisions of these religions or worldviews. She is trying to reflect how each of these sects view themselves.

Then that is an impossible task. The mutually-contradictory views held by these groups ensures that. Even more problematic is the inherent assumption that this a linear process. Protestants, for example, view themselves as going back to an earlier theological position. In no way do they view themselves as a 'child' of Catholicism. A linear graph like this leaves no room for rediscovery of lost doctrines, nor the shedding of earlier ones now viewed heretical.

I agree. If you would take only into account the self-description, you would have to change the chart even more. Many believe they were initiated directly by God himself. Not only Islam [:)]