Relationships of various Christian groups

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.

Abrahamic religions is chosen as the root so that Messianic Jews can logically be included.
Judaism is a branch in its own right which also gives rise to Messianic Judaism and Christianity
Islam is an independent branch that I follow no further
Judaism includes the Karaites, the Rabbinical Jews and the Messianic Jews; it is the root of Christianity.
Messianic Jews are contrasted to the "Gentile" Church - simply a term to cover the Christians who separated from Judaism.
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.
The Eastern Church (a historical, cultural division) includes most Orthodox, uniate Catholics and a miscellaneous category
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.
The Catholic Church is where it gets interesting - I have added a superfluous "post-counter-reformation" box to clarify the other relationships.
The Lutherans are not Protestants but rather are post-reformation Christians.
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
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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DominicM

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

William

In another thread, I learned something I should have known because it is perfectly logical - Lutherans do not consider themselves to be Protestants.

I would like to ask a question or two...

What is the restorationists church under the western church catholic? How would they be completely seperated from the Lutheran, or other post 1517 church bodies?

I fall into this Lutheran catagory. I do stand apart from Anglican (Church of England) and Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian) and the "Catholics." The only reason that I do is the "teachings." I do not feel that "they" have maintained the teachings of God and Jesus Christ his son. I want to be clear that I am referring "they" to the people outside the invisible church. I would say that there are many christians in each of the churches above just as there are non-christians in the churches. Only God really knows his people.

As a result, I do focus on conservative church teaching, I do stay with M. Luther and the "Lutheran" writers but I do try to understand everyone and all teachings so that I might be able to give an answer for what I believe. There is one truth and that truth is found in the Holy Scriptures.

I pray I have not stepped on anyones toes out there. I stand humble in the sight of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I did want to state again...I believe all "churches" have members in God's invisible church. Just as I would say there are some "Lutherans" that have jumped out of church and into the pit.

William

MJ. Smith

the ommission of the "coptic" church

You're right ... I was lumping them into the Eastern Church but they do deserve their own category.

DominicM

tbh I hate pigeon holes, like this,

I find them too constraining, the history/heritage stuff is fine, but I have none, being plucked from the fires of hell and from a non believing family, I have no heritage pigeon hole.to put myself into so always feel on the outside..not quite excluded. but sometimes forgotton

MJ. Smith

What is the restorationists church under the western church catholic? How would they be completely seperated from the Lutheran, or other post 1517 church bodies?

The Stone-Campbell movement takes the position that they are a restoration of the New Testament Church not a division off existing denominations. While that is not how most church historians would place them, I am trying to capture their self-identification. I'm quite sure that not all of them hold this position, e.g. Disciples of Christ (UCC).

I grew up in a small community in which many were Finnish Lutheran, which I believe is at the conservative end of the Lutheran spectrum

MJ. Smith

tbh I hate pigeon holes, like this,

I can understand that - however, my brain works top down in truth tables. So I naturally organize data - in this case how people posting in the forums classified themselves. I also am fascinated by tracing the history of scripture interpretation which requires that I can provide some probable context.

Don D. Thompson

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.

Paul Golder

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

Matthew C Jones

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)]

Matthew C Jones

I have no heritage pigeon hole.to put myself into so always feel on the outside..not quite excluded. but sometimes forgotton

As long as The Lamb has written your name in The Book of Life you belong in the only way that really matters! [H] And you won't be forgotten either.

Jim VanSchoonhoven

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

Joseph Colombo

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.

P.S. I find it interesting that the direct object of the protest is not Rome, but the secular princes.

Paul Golder

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

Friedrich

What is the restorationists church under the western church catholic? How would they be completely seperated from the Lutheran, or other post 1517 church bodies?

The Stone-Campbell movement takes the position that they are a restoration of the New Testament Church not a division off existing denominations. While that is not how most church historians would place them, I am trying to capture their self-identification. I'm quite sure that not all of them hold this position, e.g. Disciples of Christ (UCC).

I grew up in a small community in which many were Finnish Lutheran, which I believe is at the conservative end of the Lutheran spectrum

I am a member of a "Christian Church" that stems from the Stone-Campbell movement, and I am one of several who would not place us in a box by ourselves. I definitley appreciate the long heritage before our little 'movement' got going in the early 1800's as a call to unity under the name of Christ, and a focus on global mission and a high emphasis on God's written word for knowledge of faith and practice.

That movement has gotten a little cranky at times, has found themselves in the midst of divisions when they were supposed to be about unity, and have discovered that "Restoring NT Christianity" is not as simple as it sounds.

I have the benefit of growing up as a missionary kid in Germany, and benefitting from the influnce of many traditions (Methodist, E. Free, Catholic, etc) and having great profs in seminary who did not take such an exclusivist view. [<:o)]

Paul Golder

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.

Joseph Colombo

Thanks, Paul. I think I understand the sort of general taxonomy- and the limits of all these taxonomic conventions. I was just surprised at the first sentence of the original post, i.e., a Lutheran did not consider him or herself to be a "Protestant." Historically, the term only included Lutherans and not, e.g., the Church of England or many of the Swiss reform movements.

MJ. Smith

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.

I didn't know this - I consider it great news.

MJ. Smith

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.

MJ. Smith

It almost makes me think that Christianity has it's roots directly in Abraham like Judaism and Islam does.

Could you expand on this a bit? I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Bohuslav Wojnar

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?

MJ. Smith

If the term "Protestant" applies to anyone--I myself prefer to avoid it whenever possible--it would seem to apply to the Lutherans.

What had caused me to wonder how different a self-identification vs. historical chart might be was a thread that included a person who appeared to equate "Protestant" with "anti-Rome" and another person, a Lutheran, who commented that he did not view himself as Protestant. As I often find myself comparing the Orthodox-Catholic-Lutheran-AngloCatholic group against "everybody else", the Lutheran disclaiming the title "Protestant" made sense. You are absolutely right that the historical use of the term is different.

DominicM

As I understand it (which may be flawed), the origin of Islam can be traced back to 7th century Saudi Arabia, Muhammad introduced Islam in 610 A.D. after experiencing what he claimed to be an "angelic visitation" most likely a demon IMO

My understanding in the erroneous teachings is the Qur'an teaches that Ishmael was the child of promise (Sura 19:54; compare Sura 37:83-109 with Genesis 22:1-19) not Isaac.

The Koran also teaches that Muhammad is a direct descended of Ishmael, they not me claim the link.

how Islam could be called a "Christian Heresy" is beyond my understanding, as IMO its straight from of the pit of hell

but I will put my foot in my mouth so I dont say anything else..

David A. Peterson

I would submit that instead of a "Gentile Church" I would consider it the "catholic church," the small "c" to seperate it from the Catholic church. The early Christian church contained both Jew and Gentile that worshipped together, and would not have thought of each other as sepereate members, as there was one body of Christ that included both. The Eastern, Western churches and associated heresies were not just born out of the Gentiles.

In Christ,

<><

MJ. Smith

I would submit that instead of a "Gentile Church" I would consider it the "catholic church," the small "c" to seperate it from the Catholic church.

I struggled for terminology here and am not pleased with my choice. My first instinct was a simple "early church" but that seemed to exclude the Messianic Jews. I wanted to make the distinction between those who retained a Jewish identity and those who either never had it or who gave it up. 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.

Matthew C Jones

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

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.

Bryan Brodess

I think the chart is still missing.. First off your missing the saved gentiles of the OT.

second. The church did not start split. It started in jerusalem and spread throughout the world as one church. It did not split until later. Then we have the hundreds of years where the only belief we could see is roman or eastern christianity as any other belief would have been credited as a heretic and killed. thus there could be no other church.. Until the reformers finally somehow broke tradition without getting killed, and out from it cam many beliefs.

Dan Sheppard

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.

Abrahamic religions is chosen as the root so that Messianic Jews can logically be included.

Judaism is a branch in its own right which also gives rise to Messianic Judaism and Christianity

Islam is an independent branch that I follow no further

Judaism includes the Karaites, the Rabbinical Jews and the Messianic Jews; it is the root of Christianity.

Messianic Jews are contrasted to the "Gentile" Church - simply a term to cover the Christians who separated from Judaism.

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.

The Eastern Church (a historical, cultural division) includes most Orthodox, uniate Catholics and a miscellaneous category

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.

The Catholic Church is where it gets interesting - I have added a superfluous "post-counter-reformation" box to clarify the other relationships.

The Lutherans are not Protestants but rather are post-reformation Christians.

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

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.

Damian McGrath

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.

Dan, you are confusing the Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox...

Whyndell Grizzard

What bunk this chart is.

John Bowling

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.

Islam is a religious system, not a people group.

MJ. Smith

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.

I truly love it!

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 had bought into the argument that the line of prophets supported my current structure but the Isaac/Ismael argument is mighty compelling.

The difference between the Eastern and Western churches, it sounds like to me you are saying, is cultural and more location (historical).

I am saying that the East/West split is primarily cultural. I would point to the Uniate churches as evidence. But, then, I have spent 40 years in a Dominican parish; the O.P.'s have always leaned a bit more to the East. They even claim that if Thomas Aquinas, O.P. hadn't had the audacity to die on the way to the important meeting, the schism would have been closed centuries ago. [:)]

it is a big issue, in terms of the recognition of Christ as both true God and true man

Are you thinking of the Caledonian Council here? A Coptic deacon friend takes the position that the current situation in one of vocabulary rather than substantial disagreement. Given that the only other Copt I know is a Jesuit priest I can't claim to have a representative sample.

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).

This is part of what I am trying to capture ... I think both the Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans have substance behind their claims. To me, the Wikipedia diagrams do not depict the degree to which the Orthodox-Catholic-Lutheran-Anglican form a group often against the "rest of Protestants" in practices and theology. By capturing current self-identification, I want to bypass the arguments of who broke with whom.

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

I am so tempted ... but someone might ask who I'd put there.

Jim VanSchoonhoven

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

Paul Golder

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

Hi Jim,

Did not this address your comment?

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/8068/64148.aspx#64148

Jack Caviness

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.

The main argument of Romans 4 is that justification by faith preceded the Law and that faith has always been the vehicle of right standing with God. It does not trace the lineage of Christianity as rising from Abraham and bypassing Judaism. Jesus lived as a faithful Jew, practicing the Jewish religion, all the leaders of the early Church were Jewish. To deny the Jewish roots of Christianity is to ignore both Scripture and history.

William

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

that would have come from the other two brothers of Noah.

It took me a bit to figure out but I think you mean "sons" not "brothers". I'm not aware of churches that trace themselves back to Noah - but if there is one thing these forums have shown me is the amazing diversity. The Assyrian Church as shown on my chart may be loosely identified with the St. Thomas Christians. These include the early Christians of India - a group isolated enough to have avoided most awareness of the church divisions until the Portuguese explorers made an issue out of it.

It would also be interesting to chart the Christian Church against the 12 apostles (and friends); for the Oriental Church, this becomes:

St. Mark: Coptic (41 AD)

St. Philip: Ethiopian Orthodox (see Acts 8)

St. Thomas: Indian Orthodox (52 AD)

St. Peter: Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch (37 AD)

Mark Barnes

I know we're never going to agree on something like this, but it does seem to me that this is flawed in lots of ways:

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.
Why the separation between Messianic Judaism and Gentile Christianity? The Messianic Jews I know are nothing like the the Jewish 'Christians' Paul wrote to in Galatia. They're Christians by faith and Jews by nationality. They belong with us, and Jewish/Gentile is a false dichotomy.
Lutherans are protestant. Or at least they were in Luther's day.
Anglicans are protestant. Even thought there's a few Anglicans who wish they were Catholics, there's no way they straggle their division.
Within Protestantism you should probably have: Lutheran, Episcopalian, Reformed, Other. Within Reformed, you should then have Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregational. If you wished, you could then have more coming from the baptist tradition.

James W Bennett

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.

Mark Barnes

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.

John Bowling

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. (And I agree that Jew/Gentile is (now) a false dichotomy.)

John Bowling

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.

Bohuslav Wojnar

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 [:)]

Bohuslav Wojnar

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.

It is exactly true. Islam is just a bigger and older sect similar to Mormonism and other semi-christian sects. It is (as I and others stated already) a reaction to Judaism and Christianity, combined with the old pagan Arab religion of the moon god.

One more note: Some experts on Judaism would say that both Rabbinic Judaism and Messianic Judaism followed by Christianity are 2 streams which come out of the 2 Temple Judaism. Some would say Rabbinic Judaism is younger and is in a measure a reaction to the Messianic Judaism.

Saying that Christianity has nothing to do with the Judaism is wrong IMHO. All about the beginning of the Church is Jewish. The Church started as Jewish (not from the Rabbinic Judaism but 2 Temple Judaism in all it's variations) It started to include Gentiles. We accepted Jewish Messiah, not that Jews would accept a non-Jewish Saviour. The split between the Messianic Judaism and Messianic Gentiles (Christianity) happened gradually in the first few centuries with the tragic growth of the antisemitism.

Sorry if I messed up a conventional way of looking at the matter. I might be wrong.

Juanita

Please let me know if you think I have misrepresented the group to which you belong.

I can't find non-denominational, charismatic (not Pentecostal) house church in the chart. That is the group I am part of.

MJ. Smith

I'm really not sure there's any point inventing a religion called Abrahamic religion

"Abrahamic religions" is simply standard terminology for the 3 (Western) monotheistic religions. To delete it would remove the Ismael/Israel distinction that is part of the self-identification. If I decided to not include that piece of information, Abrahamic religions could be deleted with no redrawing of the diagram.

Why the separation between Messianic Judaism and Gentile Christianity?

I was unhappy with my terminology here and hoped someone could improve it. In the final version I changed "Gentile" to "non-jewish". The distinction I was trying to make was between the Christians whose practices and self-identification remain within Judaism vs. the Christianity that no longer considers itself to have direct (rather than historical) ties to Judaism.

Lutherans are protestant.

I have labeled them as Protestant in the historic sense of the term. However, Lutherans do not self-identify as Protestants and are theologically quite distinct from much of Protestantism. A Lutheran who has participated in this thread has stated this position eloquately.

Anglicans are protestant.

While the Anglicans in the US are usually associated with the Episcopal Protestant Church, the Anglicans self-identify as the middle way between Catholic and Protestant. This self-identification is what I am attempting to capture.

Within Protestantism you should probably have: Lutheran, Episcopalian, Reformed, Other.

I've already explained the placement of Lutherans and Anglicans. Unfortumately, I don't understand the divisions within Protestantism very well. In fact, I can't even understand why there are so many divisions. So for Protestants, I've only included subdivisions that were suggested in this thread that I thought I undestood the group being referenced.

Some of the broad points I wanted the diagram to show:

there is an Eastern church that as Westerners we tend to completely ignore - or at most note the Eastern Orthodox
the Catholic Church is not "Roman" but also has an Eastern component
Islam recognizes (positively) both Judaism and Christianity
in some aspects, Lutherans and Anglican are closer to Catholic than Protestant
that the church does not divide easily into Catholic and Protestant - which is a Western church only distinction
that Samaritans are not outside the scope
that not all of Judaism is rabbinic
that the three major groupings - Judaism, Christianity, Islam - had a mystic thread: Kabbala, Gnosticism, Sufism (a representative not comprehensive list)

A major thing I learned which needs to be fleshed out - I didn't know the distinction between the reformation and the radical reformation.

A major disappointment was that while the Oriental church members that I have known over the years would consider my placement of them as historic rather than self-identification, I don't know the area well enough to do it justice.

MJ. Smith

Even more problematic is the inherent assumption that this a linear process

I'm not trying to capture a process, I am trying to capture current state.

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.

This is true, but as we have seen in the forums, many see themselves as a correction to the Catholic Church - only a subset sees themselves otherwise.

leaves no room for rediscovery of lost doctrines, nor the shedding of earlier ones now viewed heretical.

That is the position I was trying to show in the "Restorationist" category.

Then that is an impossible task.

In detail, I agree completely But in a broad overview, I think I can get close enough to be useful. See my prior post of specific aspects I wanted to show because I thought they were not well known.

MJ. Smith

I can't find non-denominational, charismatic (not Pentecostal) house church in the chart. That is the group I am part of.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about such groups as to know how to place them. As soon as one moves outside the liturgical churches, my knowledge is very weak and disorganized or narrowed down to the single congregation of my childhood.

Juanita

What is beautiful is that we don't want to be on a chart or categorized because the heart of the matter is fellowship with Jesus and others and departing from lifeless institutionalism.

Alex Scott

What is beautiful is that we don't want to be on a chart or categorized because the heart of the matter is fellowship with Jesus and others and departing from lifeless institutionalism.

At the risk of drawing incendiary fire, I'll say amen to that.

Darrell Todd Maurina

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/64219#Comment_64219

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

The standard answer is to call the Waldensians and the Hussites "Proto-Protestant."

That gets somewhat complicated due to later history. Most of the Waldensians accepted the Calvinist wing of the Reformation and merged into emerging Reformed churches (as happened in France with the Huguenots), or were exterminated by Catholic persecution (as happened in most of Italy outside the Piedmont in the historic Waldensian heartland of the high Alps), and Waldensians for centuries have correctly been classified as being in the Reformed tradition, though predating Calvin and Zwingli. The Hussites/Unitas Fratrum/Moravians were, as you likely know, recognized by the Anglicans as being an "ancient episcopal church" and during the 1700s and 1800s played an important role in development of the Pietist movement in the existing denominations of Europe.

Deciding whether the Waldensians were "Calvinists before Calvin" or whether they were a medieval movement that jettisoned its history to become Reformed is a theological question that has been debated by scholars since at least the 1800s and the answer to that question will determine questions of classification.

In answering that question, it's not irrelevant that Calvin was first introduced to Protestant principles by his landlord while he was studying law, a Waldensian cloth merchant who had a boarding house, or that Calvin's cousin Olivetan, whose translation of the Bible into then-modern French was an update of the much older Waldensian translation dating back to Peter Waldo, and was paid for by the Waldensians. It's likely that Olivetan was either a Waldensian before the Reformation or was influenced by them.