Relationships of various Christian groups

2

Comments

  • Jack Caviness
    Jack Caviness MVP Posts: 13,603

    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.

    I believe that Romans 11:11-24 ties Christianity very solidly to a Jewish root.

  • Bryan Brodess
    Bryan Brodess Member Posts: 198 ✭✭

    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.

    I believe that Romans 11:11-24 ties Christianity very solidly to a Jewish root.

    I would agree. Christ was the prophesied jewish messiah who would take the sins of the world. and make jews and gentiles on.. Thelegalistic jews rejected him.. Those who understood Gods grace and what the messiah had to do did not.. Not to mention. Christ will still keep his promise made to abraham ( all the land which israel has never had) and david ( his son ruling from jerusalem and the world worshiping him.) even though many think he will not.. so the jews will again be in Gods plan..

  • Dan Sheppard
    Dan Sheppard Member Posts: 377 ✭✭

    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.

     

     

     

  • Damian McGrath
    Damian McGrath Member Posts: 3,050 ✭✭✭

    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...

  • John Bowling
    John Bowling Member Posts: 324 ✭✭

    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.

    perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    The three traditional strands are Western, Eastern, and Oriental (this includes Coptic Christianity)

    Quite true. However, the majority of the Oriental group that I know self-identify as Orthodox although in both the Coptic and the St. Thomas Churches I know individuals who identify as Orthodox, Catholic and Oriental/Other. It is a puzzle how to best represent the groups barely known in the West.  But I may well switch to the Oriental terminology.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    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.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Jim VanSchoonhoven
    Jim VanSchoonhoven Member Posts: 579 ✭✭

    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
    Paul Golder Member Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭

    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

     

     

    "As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

  • Jim VanSchoonhoven
    Jim VanSchoonhoven Member Posts: 579 ✭✭

    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

  • Jack Caviness
    Jack Caviness MVP Posts: 13,603

    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.

  • Paul Golder
    Paul Golder Member Posts: 1,698 ✭✭✭

    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.

     

    "As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."

  • Dan Sheppard
    Dan Sheppard Member Posts: 377 ✭✭

    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.

     

    You hit the nail on the head.

     

  • Mike Childs
    Mike Childs Member Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭


    "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    Islam is not pre Christian.

    Correct. But in this thread I am trying to capture self-identification. For Islam this has two components - the Ismael connection and the post-Christian time frame/influences.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Mike Childs
    Mike Childs Member Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭

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


    "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

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

    image

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Larry Fisher
    Larry Fisher Member Posts: 10 ✭✭

    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
    Larry Fisher Member Posts: 10 ✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

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

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

    Larry

  • Larry Fisher
    Larry Fisher Member Posts: 10 ✭✭

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

    Wuups, sorry, give it a minute to update.

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    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?)

    The closest to that scenario that I know of is the Restorationists - which I see as moving through the western Church in order to have something to restore. What groups see themselves as coming from Abraham but not through Judaism? You are not the only one to mention it, but I've not heard of it before and do not know to what group of churches this self-identification belongs.

    FYI: as the diagram does not intend to show time, such an entry is simply another entry parallel to Judaism and Islam

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • William
    William Member Posts: 1,152 ✭✭

    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
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    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)

     

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Dan Sheppard
    Dan Sheppard Member Posts: 377 ✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

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

    image

     

    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.

     

     

  • Dan Sheppard
    Dan Sheppard Member Posts: 377 ✭✭
  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    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".

    Your point is well taken and accurate. However there is also Matthew 15:21-28 (thank Logos for my being able to find the reference) implying that Jesus' mission was first to the Jews - and the original "band of Christians" were initially Jews ... and the early Church argued over whether or not one had to first become Jewish to become Christian. So, at the moment, I think I'll leave it as it is and see if I ultimately am convinced by your argument.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Jim VanSchoonhoven
    Jim VanSchoonhoven Member Posts: 579 ✭✭

    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





  • Bryan Brodess
    Bryan Brodess Member Posts: 198 ✭✭

    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!!

     

  • Bryan Brodess
    Bryan Brodess Member Posts: 198 ✭✭

    As for the chart, it is still wrong.. For you have the church -non jewish- The church began jewish and spread to the gentiles.. It is not now, nor has it even been non jewish..

  • Jim VanSchoonhoven
    Jim VanSchoonhoven Member Posts: 579 ✭✭

    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.                                                                                                                                                     

         26     For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

         27     For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

         28     There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

         29     And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.



    New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ga 3:26-29). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.


     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—

         12     remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

         13     But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

         14     For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,

         15     by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

         16     and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.



    New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Eph 2:11-16). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.


    I believe the last half of Romans 4 is addressing this new man the body of Christ when talking about them calling Abraham their father.  Both Israel and the Church have they roots in Abraham if they are believers.


    In Christ,


    Jim


  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish,

    In a very real sense this is true. However, for my purposes, I would show any Christian group that recognizes the Old Testament as being a branch through Judaism. Similarly, because Islam accepts the (uncorrupted) Torah and Gospels I show it as a branch of both.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Bryan Brodess
    Bryan Brodess Member Posts: 198 ✭✭

    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..

     

  • Dan Sheppard
    Dan Sheppard Member Posts: 377 ✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

    I believe the church of this age also called the body of Christ was never actually Jewish,

    In a very real sense this is true. However, for my purposes, I would show any Christian group that recognizes the Old Testament as being a branch through Judaism. Similarly, because Islam accepts the (uncorrupted) Torah and Gospels I show it as a branch of both.

     

    Who said Muslims accept (uncorrupted) the Gospel?

    I would maintain that Islam is closer to apostasy, than Gospel.

     

     

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    Who said Muslims accept (uncorrupted) the Gospels?

    The Qur'an -The Qur'an teaches that Islam is the continued faithful religion in
    the same line as the Prophets who were before Muhammad: The same
    religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah ...
    and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus
    (42:13
    AYA). The result of this view is that the scriptures given by these
    Prophets are considered to be genuine scriptures from God: But say, "We
    (Muslims) believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that
    which came down to you (Jews & Christians); our Allah and your Allah is One"

    (29:46 AYA).

    In the Qur'an there are many references to the Jewish and Christian
    Holy Books. In fact the Qur'an addresses Christians and Jews in terms of
    the Book: O People of the Book! (5:68 AYA).

    Most Muslims I have read on the subject limit this to the Gospels and the Torah i.e. a 9 book canon. They also imply that are manuscripts are corrupt - sufficiently that they need to consult only the Qur'an despite this broader canon.

    ...

    The key sentence from the above is, For each We have
    appointed a divine law and a traced-out way.
    This verse is
    teaching that the different religious groups (Jews, Christians
    and Muslims), have each been given a divine law (Torah, Gospel and
    Qur'an) and that each group is to make their decisions based upon
    what they have been given.

    Thus the Qur'an encourages Jews to judge by the Torah:


    How come they (come) unto thee (Muhammad) for judgment
    when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered
    judgment (for them)? (5:43, MP)

    And the Qur'an urges Christians to judge by the Gospel:


    Let the People of the Gospel judge by that
    which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that
    which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. (5:47, MP)

    And it encourages Muslims to judge by the Qur'an:


    And unto thee (Muslims) have We revealed the Scripture (the Qur'an)
    with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it,
    and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which
    Allah hath revealed. (5:48, MP)

    Again, we see that the Qur'an refers to the scriptures of the Christians
    and Jews as God's reliable word. Jews and Christians are commanded to consult their
    scriptures when desiring to know God's
    will. The Qur'an therefore considers these scriptures to be reliable. Surah 5:43-48
    also shows that the Qur'an is not claiming to abrogate (replace)
    the Gospel and Torah but is a parallel revelation to them.

     

    Note my correction to your quotation of me .. Gospels, as in the 4 Gospels.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • Mark Barnes
    Mark Barnes Member Posts: 15,432 ✭✭✭

    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.

    This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!

  • Onell McCarthy
    Onell McCarthy Member Posts: 16 ✭✭

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

  • James W Bennett
    James W Bennett Member Posts: 308 ✭✭

    MJ. Smith said:

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

    MJ,

    I admire your intent to build a view of the hierarchy of the sects of the "Abrahamic" religions as viewed from the perspective of the different sects. I do hope that you carefully weigh the input given and keep to this goal.

    One thing I have noted that should be corrected is the boxes describing the "Assyrian Church" and the Nestorians. The Assyrian Church is what the sect that was traditionally known as the Nestorians calls themselves. So this is really the same group. Therefore you might want the box to be labeled the "Assyrian Church."

    This effort may get real complex, or may simplify greatly, within the next several years :) The Catholic Church is working through differences with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is working through differences with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church. The Anglicans and Lutherans are working out their differences. Now if the Oriental Orthodox Church would work with the Assyrian Church...

    It might become one big happy family in the next century or so. Except that is for the sects that fall under the modern term of Protestant, the Restorationist Church(es) (which is from where I hail), and the Messianic Jewish movement.

    ---

    James W Bennett

    http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

  • James W Bennett
    James W Bennett Member Posts: 308 ✭✭

    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.

    ---

    James W Bennett

    http://syriac.tara-lu.com/

  • Mark Barnes
    Mark Barnes Member Posts: 15,432 ✭✭✭

    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.

    This is my personal Faithlife account. On 1 March 2022, I started working for Faithlife, and have a new 'official' user account. Posts on this account shouldn't be taken as official Faithlife views!

  • John Bowling
    John Bowling Member Posts: 324 ✭✭

    Why would Christianity be considered a heresy like islam.

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

    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.

    perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

  • John Bowling
    John Bowling Member Posts: 324 ✭✭

    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.)

    perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

  • John Bowling
    John Bowling Member Posts: 324 ✭✭

    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.

    perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com

  • Don D. Thompson
    Don D. Thompson Member Posts: 50 ✭✭

    [

    This effort may get real complex, or may simplify greatly, within the next several years :) The Catholic Church is working through differences with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is working through differences with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Assyrian Church. The Anglicans and Lutherans are working out their differences. Now if the Oriental Orthodox Church would work with the Assyrian Church...

    It might become one big happy family in the next century or so. Except that is for the sects that fall under the modern term of Protestant, the Restorationist Church(es) (which is from where I hail), and the Messianic Jewish movement.

    Even though there are ongoing discussions and even some agreements between some of the various denominations (which I am pleased to see), which lead to co-operation and mutual acknowledgment of ministry and orders, I believe that there are formidable barriers to any amalgamation or merging.  At best, I see your time frame as optimistic. [:O][:)]

     

    Windows 7 Home Premium Version 6.1.7600 Build 7600 (x64)

    Acer Aspire 5738G laptop

    4G RAM

    Intel Core 2 Duo T6600

    ATI Mobility Raedeon HD 4570

     

  • Bohuslav Wojnar
    Bohuslav Wojnar Member Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭

    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

  • Bohuslav Wojnar
    Bohuslav Wojnar Member Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭

    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.

    Bohuslav

  • Juanita
    Juanita Member Posts: 1,339 ✭✭✭
    MJ. Smith said:

    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
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    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.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

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

    This is very much an us vs. them question:

    When did Judaism start and by whom?

    • Moses, a man  [non-followers of Abrahamic religions excluding Baha'i]
    • Moses, a religious educator [Baha'i]
    • God [followers of Abrahamic religions]

    When did Christianity start and by whom?

    • Jesus, a man [non-Christians excluding Islam and Baha'i]
    • Jesus, a prophet [Islam]
    • Jesus, a religious educator [Baha'i]
    • Jesus, man-God [Christianity]

    When did Islam start and by whom?

    • Mohammed, a man [non-Islamics excluding Baha'i]
    • Mohammed, a religious educator [Baha'i]
    • God [followers of Islam]

    What I find fascinating is how non-Christians read and use Christian Scripture - not a topic Logos is strong in ... and probably not a topic with much market given how little I've seen. Yes, I know this chart is justly faulted in it detail ... but this is an "off the top of my head" cut not a dissertation.[:)]

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."

  • MJ. Smith
    MJ. Smith MVP Posts: 54,937

    The Assyrian Church is what the sect that was traditionally known as the Nestorians calls themselves. So this is really the same group.

    Let me double check on this - I've had conflicting information on whether the Indian St. Thomas Christians connect to the Syrian or Assyrian Church - they were the basis of my distinction.

    This effort may get real complex, or may simplify greatly, within the next several years

    I truly hope for and pray for the simplifications. While there are some thorny issues, so much is culture and language rather than substantive theological differences.

    Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."