Denominations

If the Bible is sufficient for our understanding, why are there so many denominations that all say they interpret the Bible differently?

As an adult Sunday School,teacher, I often got this question, particularly from new converts. It’s a legitimate question, and one that has bothered me over the years as well. I had a cursory understanding of most denominations, but I lacked detailed information about them. So, I decided to delve more deeply into when and why different denominations of Christianity arose—and what those differences were.

First, a few caveats. Keep in mind that the Bible, on which all these denominations are based, is a translation. Some popular speakers like to say it’s a translation of a translation, which may be true in some cases. For the majority, though, translators went back to the original copies as best as they could. Why did they need to make new translations, then? Because manuscripts have been found that shed new light on the meaning of words.

Take a word like the Greek word for perjury, pseudorkía, for example. We all know that perjury is a very specific form of lying, but early translators may have had no idea what that greek word meant. So, they took the meaning from its context in the sentence. The best they might have come up with was lying. Later translators may have had access to newer manuscripts that gave a clearer definition. Hence, some of the differences in translations.

Second, is my definition of Christianity. After digging through the denominations, I based my definition on the Nicean Creed, upon which, I believe, all Christian denominations follow. The creed is Christ-centric and believe Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, died for our sins on the cross (substitutionary atonement), rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven (transfiguration), sits on the right hand of God, and will return to judge everyone who is alive or dead. We also believe Christ was both truly human and truly God.

Also keep in mind the this is not a scholarly piece. Certainly I have done appropriate research. but I've written this to b understandable and coherent. So, its not full of footnotes, although most of what Ive written iis common knowledge anyway. All I've tied to do is organize diverse knowledge in a factual way and give a positive understanding of why we have so many denominations.. That makes it an opinion piece of knowledge Ive gained. Take it or leave it

That’s basically it in a nutshell, but the full text is in the appendix. That’s why certain “denominations” like Jehovah Witnesses I’ve excluded and others like Catholicism I’ve included. Besides, it’s impossible to understand the roots of Protestant denominations without including. the Catholic Church.

CHAPTER I
FROM JESUS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Much has been written about the early church, and I couldn't possibly cover the full scope of it here. For the purpose of discovering the roots of denominations, it should be sufficient to say the beginning of the church was not without disunity. While no denominations arose out of some early conflicts, we can certainly see how the opinion of people worked against the true gospel, which was not of works but of faith. The most serious of these conflicts came from Jewish and Gnostic converts to Christianity.

Jewish Christians

The earliest Christians were Jewish converts. Later, especially after the apostle Paul’s missionary journeys, gentile (non-Jewish) converts entered the fold in increasingly large numbers. This, at first, caused conflict. Some Jewish converts, called Judaizers, felt new gentile converts needed to be circumcised. The apostle Paul was vehemently opposed to this, even going so far as to say, “I could wish that those who trouble you would even mutilate themselves” (Galatians 5:12).

Even though Paul and other apostles eventually prevailed, two groups continued to practice circumcision: the Nazarenes (continued to observe the Torah) and the Ebionites (believed Christ was a mere man and called Paul a false apostle). They eventually died out and Modern Messianic Jews don’t trace their lineage back to those ancient Jewish Christians.

Gnostic Christians

Coming on the heels of the Jewish Christians as a genuine threat were the Gnostics. In truth, those who believed in the precepts of Gnosticism in one form or another had been around for some time. However, by picking up on Christianity, they almost took over in their beliefs and practices.

The Gnostics were a diverse group, having no unified sects, but almost all believed at least two things:

1) they believed they had access to secret knowledge about the spirit world. Gnosticism derives from Gnosis, which means knowledge. If there’s one thing we can say with certainty, it’s don’t mess around with the spirit world—leave that to Jesus.

2) They emphasized Jesus’ divinity and downplayed his humanity. They believed the physical world was corrupt, so how could a divine being exist also as corrupt matter. This was the real conflict with what the apostles believed, that Christ was fully human and fully divine, which is what Christians believe today.

Examples of gnostic sects were the Sethians, Valentinians, and Basilideans. All of these gnostic Christianity sects came in direct conflict with Pauline Christianity (from the apostle Paul who wrote most of the New Testament), which emerged as the true Christian religion. The gnostics sects eventually died out, though modern Mandaeism, until recently practiced in southern Iraq, may trace its roots to ancient Gnosticism.

The Holy Catholic (universal) Church

Besides the gnostics, there were a number of other heretical sects with whom the new religion had to contend. Marcionites hated the Bible, Montanists were self-denying and prophetical, and Docetists thought Jesus couldn’t have been human. It wasn't until the period between 180-313 A.D. that the Pauline Christians began to coalesce. They became more unified and emerged as a distinct religion.

To think the Christianity we know today began as a singular religion and then dissolved into denominations is false. I remember inviting a group of evangelizers in to discuss the Faith. Their contention was that Christianity has started out unified and then became disunited. Their religion sought to bring everyone back under "one" religion that hadn't existed since the early days of Christianity. They were surprised to learn just how divisive it had once been. There have always been contentions for the faith, which is just human nature, I suppose.

Though Christianity finally came together and was growing, it remained illegal in the Roman Empire and Christians were persecuted, often violently. That all changed in 313 A.D. when Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which gave Christianity legal status (though not the official state religion), protecting it from persecution. What followed was a formalize structure to the church under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church.

CHAPTER II
FROM NICEA TO CHALCEDON

While the Roman Catholic Church gave the new religion structure, it was not without its conflicts. A far as I've been able to determine, there was never a time in the history of the church when all seemed quiet. The need to call ecumenical councils is proof that there were constant divisions among the theologians of the time. It was not long before the first denomination arose, but first, theyh had to sort out just who Jesus was.

The Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. (the 1st Council)

This was the famous council during which most people think the canon of the New Testament was decided upon. I've heard it said that the books of the New Testament were picked by a bunch of old men sitting around a table. Nothing could be further from the truth. The canon of the New Testament had, for all intents and purposes, been picked by a grassroots movement of the churches. The Gospels and Paul's Epistles were already being circulated from church to church. In fact, there never was a formal declaration of what books of the New Testament were to be included.

No, the Council of Nice was not called to decided on the books of the Bible. It was called by the Roman Emperor Constantine to put to rest an argument that arose over just who Jesus was. A theologian named Arias said Jesus was like God, but that Jesus didn't always exist. He was made by God and so was subordinate to God, both in his human and divine form. And that made the Holy Spirit subordinate to Jesus. At the Council of Nicea, two bishops said this was heresy, Nicholas (yes that St. Nicholas), and Athinasius.

The Council finally decided that Jesus was truly God and that God the father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit were co-eternal—they have one essence, but three persons. It developed the Nicene Creed upon which, today, all Christian churches are founded. That became written in stone when in 380 A.D., Roman Emperor Theodosius I (not Constantine) made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.

It seemed Arias had lost, but he refused to concede. He kept pusingh his belief year after year until all of the bishops of the church sided with him, mainly because they were weak and just wanted the argument to go away. It was Athinasius who worked tirelessly over the years following the Council to overcome Arianism (from Arias). At one point, a bishop said to Athinasius that the world was against him, to which he famously relied, “Then I am against the world.”

He eventually died, but all his papers lived on, which were based on scripture. It was his writings that eventually convinced the world that Arianism was heretical. We owe our thanks to Athinasius for following scripture and presenting the true nature of God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit. Today, no one believes in Arianism except the Jehovah Witnesses. They are very much Arian in their theology, which makes them, in my opinion, not Christian.

The Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D. (the 2nd Council)

In 381, another council was called because of errant beliefs put forward by Apollinaris. He proposed that Jesus had a human body, but instead of a human mind, He had a divine mind. Apollinaris's rejection of Christ having a human mind was considered an over-reaction to Arianism. The Council decided that Jesus was fully human in both body and mind and that the Holy Spirit is also God. The beliefs of Apollinaris died out withinin the following decade.

The Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D. (the 3rd council)

Now it gets a bit messy. In the 400s A.D., a Christian theologian named Nestorius rejected the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one individual personhood (called hypostatic union). He proposed instead a much looser union. Unfortunately, his ideas, labelled Nestorianism, came to mean radical dyophysitism, in which Christ's two natures are eternally separate—having asserted the existence of two persons, not merely two natures, in Jesus Christ. It is doubtful Nestorius ever denied Christ's oneness, which is why the precise Christological teachings of Nestorius are shrouded in obscurity.

The reason Nestorianism became popular was because if Christ was fully divine, Mary could be called the mother of God. This was called theotokos, meaning "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." This is what Nestorius objected to. However, under the leadership of Cyril of Alexandria as well as the Ephesian bishop Memnon, they labeled Nestorius's idea as "neo-adoptionist," meaning that the man named Jesus is divine though adopted as the Son of God by grace and not by nature. Cyrol said the whole point was God becoming man to die for us.

As a result, Nestorius was expelled as a heretic, though some sided with him, seeing more of a distinction between Jesus divinity and his humanity. It coincided with the Antiochene theology (based in Antioch, Syria) of the Assyrian churches. What resulted was a controversial split between the Roman Catholic Church and The Assyrian churches of the East, who considered themselves a continuation of the Church that originally developed among the Assyrians during the first century A.D. They fall under The Assyrian Church of the East (ACOE), sometimes called the Church of the East and officially known as the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East (HACACE)

The Assyrian Church of the East belongs to the eastern branch of Syriac Christianity. It's an apostolic church established by Thomas the Apostle, Addai of Edessa, and Bartholomew the Apostle. It’s officially headquartered in northern Iraq, though it spread into southeastern Turkey, northeastern Syria and northwestern Iran—corresponding roughly to ancient Assyria.

Antiochene theology has its roots in the early church at Antioch and emphasizes Christ's humanity and the reality of the moral choices he faced. The unity of his person is defined in a looser fashion, like Nestorius suggested. The position of the Church of the East was written by Babai the Great during the controversy that followed the Council of Ephesus. Babai held that within Christ there exist two unmingled, but everlastingly united in the one (person) of Christ.

Since the Third Council of Ephesus decided that Jesus is both truly human and fully divine, it resulted in the first split of the Church. The Church of the East was in the Sassinid Empire, outside of the Roman Empire. So, they were outside of Roman Catholic rule as well. They didn't accept the doctrinal definitions that were adopted at the Council of Ephesus (and later, the Council of Chalcedon) and split from the Roman Catholic Church. You could say, and quite correctly, The Assyrian Church of the East was the first denomination of the Christian Church, though this wasn't the Great Schsism nor the Reformation.

The Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D. (the 4th Council)

The Council of Chalcedon led to another split. At this time, there were two distinct beliefs about Jesus:

Miaphysites—Jesus had one united nature. They had His nature too united.

Dyophysites—Jesus had two natures, divine and human. They couldn’t separate them like the Nestorians, but couldn’t mix them into one either. So, they said He has two natures united into one person.

The Diaphysites won out and the Miaphysits split from the Roman Catholic Church, becoming the Oriental Orthodox Church. This is not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which comes in the Great Schism. This is just a small schism. At the time, there were five centers of Christianity: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The majority of the Alexandrian churches were miaphysites and became the Coptic Orthodox Church. Likewise, the majority of the Antioch churches were miapysites and became the Syriac Orthodox Church.

Today, four additional denominations grew from the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox Churches. The Eritrean Orthodox Church was given self-head out of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (supposedly has the Ark of the Covenant), which in turn had been given self-head out of the Coptic Church. The Maiankera Orthodox Church had been given self-head out of the Syrac Orthodox Church. The Armenian Apostolic Church is part of Oriental Orthodoxy. It's one of the most ancient Christian institutions—the first state in history to adopt Christianity as its official religion.

While dispute had always been a signature characteristic of the church, it was now leading to irrepairable breakdowns. This was all in a little over 400 years and the failures in unity were all over the nature of who Jesus was. We haven't even gotten to the nuances of biblical understanding yet.

CHAPTER III
FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE REFORMATION

The influences from five cities of Christianity were soon reduced to two. The minority of Latin Catholic Churches left in Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem were soon overrun by Islam. As a consequence, their influence waned. What was left was Rome and Constantinople.

For many years the two centers of Christianity were unified. But in the 11th century, a power struggle developed between them. They drifted further and further apart, with two distinctive empires: Holy Roman in the west and Byzantine in the East. The west lost some of its influence when the Roman Empire fell, though the Church remained. Their difference all came to a head in 1054 A.D. in what would become the Great Schism.

The Great Schism, 1054 A.D.

Their disagreements were two-fold:

1) Rome thought the Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, was over the entire Roman Catholic Church. That was not so according to the church in Constantinople.

2} It has to do with something caledl the filioque, meaning "and from the son." The Pope wanted this added to the Nicene Creed to indicate the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Church in Constantinople said the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.

The second article above was really the major point of contention. Neither side would give in. The disagreements came to a head in 1054 and the Roman Catholic Church spilt down the middle. The Latin Catholic Church was centered in Rome, but includes 23 eastern churches under the Popt. The Eastern Orthodox Church was centered in Constantinople.

After the split, each side had their own primary theologian to speak for the faith. In the west it was St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote about God's divine simplicity—that God is not made of parts, but has one singular nature. We then can understand God and so study Him. Thats why the western church started universities and the study of science (which is the study of God); the attitude that religion is antithetical to science is false. Ih the east, their theologn was St. Gregory Patamas. He wrote that Eastern Orthodoxy believed we couldn't understand what God is, rather they studied what God isn't. They appeaedl to mostly the mystery of God.

Today, there are many Eastern Orthodox Churches who answer only to God and can be considered denominations: Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, Albanian, Serbian. Polish, Russian, Georgian, Ruthenian, Czeck & Slovakian, Ukranian, and American. Then there are the three others located in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That's 15 altogether.

Throw in Rome and Constantinople and along with those that previously left, its a lot of denominations even before the Reformation. And it's all because we couldn't figure out who Jesus was and where the Holy Spirit came from. We have been trying to understand the Trinity ever since.

The Catholic Church (at the time of the Reformation)

In my opinion, the Catholic Church became apostate at some point in it's history. Any capable theologian might be able to dig through all the writings and be be able to point to a certain point in time, but I can't. In the beginning, I included the Catholic Church as a Christian church. Don't forget, iy gave us the Nicene Creed … but something happened along the way. By the time if the reformation, they had began to see the church itself as the kingdom of God here on earth and salvation was about participating in it.

That’s why they rejected salvation by faith alone. Their salvation became faith that includes cooperation with and participation in the church, specifically through works of the sacraments. As such, it became a different Gospel. That's why, when the reformation come, they were no longer a Christian Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches that parted from Catholicism remains a Christin denomination—they're rooted in tradition.

To the Catholic Church, it was all about authority. That authority descended directly from St. Peter, who was given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus, making him the first “Pope.” Since then, there’s been an unbroken chain of Popes leading up to the current Pope—because of apostolic succession. The church wields that authority many ways, but specifically to forgive sins, cast out demons, and interperate scripture (which is why they clung to the Latin Vulgate for so many centuries).

The Church has the authority over severe other practices as well:

— "transubstantiation" is where the wine and bread literally change into the blood, body, soul, and divinity of Jesus. This became a major issue among the Protestant reformers that its the cause of some denominations.

— the Saints that have died and gone to heaven are still part of the church, That's why they pray to the saints and to the Virgin Mary—not as a form of worship, but asking them to pray for us.

— The church had the authority to get payment for their sins. This was the practice of selling indulgences. An indulgence is a remission for the punishment or sin. Absolution is granted by a priest, though its not enough to simply wipe it away. A person is temporally punished for the sins accumulated in life So, an indulgence is a way to reduce that punishment.

Thats unbiblical enough, but to compound the issue, priests were selling these indulgences, allowing people who paid to get their punishment reduced. Indulgences remain as part of Catholic doctrine, though the practice of selling them has stopped—remission is usually through some sacrament.

The Reformation, 1517 A.D.

The story of Peter and John who preached at the Temple following Pentecost and healed a lame man is well-known to most Christians. When Peter approached the lame man who was begging for alms Peter said, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.”

When St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25-1274) visited the Vatican, Pope Innocent IV invited him to view the treasures that had been accumulated by the Church. The Pope said, “No longer can the Church say, ‘Silver and gold have we none’!” To which Aquinas replied, “Holy Father, that is very true indeed. But neither can we say to the poor and afflicted, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk!'” Is it any wonder that people believed that the medieval Catholic Church had grown corrupt. Because of this, people began protesting the church.

In 1517, Martin Luther wrote his "99 Theses" in which he refuted many of the practices of the Church, particularly the practice of selling indulgences. Luther was not trying to start a new religion; it's doubtful he even posted them on the church door as the story goes. Most likely he simply handed them to his bishop. But they were quickly copied and widely circulated. Possibly someone else posted them.

Regardless of his intent, he became the seminal figure of the reformation. Unfortunately, others took what Luther was doing and turned it into a revolution. Those who wanted to retain the good vestiges of the Catholic Church and keep a traditional structure were the Magisterial Reformers. Those who wanted to tear down the Catholic Church and start over were the Radical Reformers,

CHAPTER IV
THE DENOMINATIONS FOLLOWING THE REFORMATION

The reformation can be broken down into the Magisterial Reformation and the Radical Reformation. Rather than list the denominations chronologically as they arose, it's of more value to list them categorically under these two forms to see where they came from and what they believe.

Magisterial Reformation

The magisterial reformation included denominations that followed secular authorities, such as local governments, as long as they they didn't conflict with the Bible. It still produced churches that had different ways of conducting Christian worship and Christian life relative to the Roman Catholic Church. Though the Catholic Church continued its claim to be the one true church, the churches that sprung out of the Magisterial Reformation continue to claim that they were part of the continuation of the catholic ("all-embracing"} church as it was referred to in the Nicene Creed.

The major reformers of the Magisterial Reformation were Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, and Cranmer. They taught that salvation was by faith alone, not good works. The church was still the Kingdom of God and so it needed to be involved in every aspect of society (connected to universities, hospitals, and secular governments).

Magisterial reformed churches stopped believing in purgatory, prayers the saints and to Mary, and stopped selling indulgences. They continued to conduct infant baptism, and believed Christianity needed to be institutional (not just about a personal relationship with God).

Differences between them can largely be traced to differences in the Lords Supper—it was probably the defining issue.They tried to come together in a one Protestabt Church, but couldn't agree on it,

Roman Catholics—believed in Transubstantiation, where the bread becomes the body and the wine becomes the blood. Only the appearances of the bread and wine remain.

Luther—the bread WAS the body and the wine WAS the blood. He said, "IS means IS" (pounding the table). Not quite like Catholic—the bread stays bread, the wine stays wine; Christs's body is PRESENT in the bread; His blood PRESENT in the wine.
↳Melanchthon was his follower. Hw wrote the official

Zwingli—Disagreed with Luther.
↳Calvin was his follower. His view of the Lord's Supper was a similar to Luther's, but the two never meshed

↳Lutheran—The Lutheran Church was started by Martin Luther, the man who was given credit, or discredit depending on your perspective, for starting the reformation. They followed Luther in what he belief about communion; believed in infant baptism (lots of things save), but they can loose their salvation if they stop having faith. Faith must produce good works. (doesn't save).
     ↳Pietists—a 17th century holiness movement that emphasized revival of piety in he Lutheran Church.

↳Reformed (Calvinist)—Believe in total depravity (can't turn toward God) and pre-destinaion (God decides who gets saved). Believe in infant baptism.
     ↳Hugenots
     ↳Germn Reformed
     ↳Hungarian Reformed—It accepts the Heidelberg Catechism (sometimes referred to as the "Palatinate Catechism") and the Second Helvetic Confession. The Helvetic Confession is expanded beyond the limits of a popular creed into a lengthy theological treatise. It is scriptural and catholic, wise and judicious, full and elaborate, yet simple and clear, uncompromising towards the errors of Rome, moderate in its dissent from the Lutheran dogmas. It proceeds on the conviction that the Reformed faith is in harmony with the true Catholic faith of all ages, especially the ancient Greek and Latin Church.
     ↳Dutch Reformed
     ↳Presbyterian (Scottish)
     ↳Congregationalist (Puritan)
         ↳Conservative Congregational Christian Church—the most conservative and oldest Congregationalist denomination in America following the dissolution of the Congregational Christian Churches
             ↳Nat. Associ. of Christian Congregational Church—The church was founded in 1955 by former clergy and laypeople of the Congregational Christian Churches in response to the pending merger with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to form the United Church of Christ in 1957.
             ↳United Church of Christ—Generally theologically liberal, and the Bible, though written in historical times and places, still speaks to us.

↳Anglican/Episcopal
     ↳Methodist—Generally believe in free will (reject predestination). Also believe salvation is a 2-setp work of grace: the 1st is a free-will choice to accept the gospel, the 2nd work of grace is entire sanctification. Its possible to reach a state of perfection.
           ↳Church of the Nazarene—Part of the Holiness Movement. Methodists striving for spiritual growth.
           ↳Pentecostal—Very diverse, but they add a third work of grace: they are a Christian immediately but not a spirit-filled Christiaan. Focus on fruit of the Holy Spirit so believe in speaking in tongues.
      ↳Baptist—Come from the Church of England but have many of the characteristics of radical reformationists. Makes it hard to classify them. They deny infant baptism, believe in retreating from institutions, and are skeptical of church history and traditions. They believe in a "born-again" experience where the believer goes from non-Christin to Christian. They must be baptized through full immersion, though baptism doesn't save. Its a symbol of a changed life.
           ↳Non-denominational/Evangelical—These churches didn't come from Baptists, but its inappropriate to put them as coming from any other church. They are so similar to Baptists as to be an offshoot of what Baptists believe. All the churches above besides the Baptists believe the church needs to be institutional. By their very nature, non-denominational churches are not institutional churches. The only church that has a theological framework suitable for them is the Baptist church.

Radical Reformation

The defining feature of all Radical Reformational churches is a retreat from institutions and being separate from society. It was a revolution for them, rather than a reformation. A characteristic of all Radical Reformational churches is that they didn't baptize infants because they rejected it as a Catholic practice. They believed the Catholic Church was rotten to the core and needed to be torn down.

↳Millenarianism—the belief in a coming fundamental transformation of society. These were not always churches, but groups that probably pre-dated the Reformation. Millenarianism exists in various cultures and religions worldwide, with various interpretations of what constitutes a transformation.The native American Ghost Dancers are an example

↳Anabaptist—does not mean anti-baptism like some people believe, rather "re-baptize." Believed the practice of infant baptism was not biblical and so re-baptize people after they reach the age of consent.
    ↳Amish—Originally followers of Jakob Amman. Live completely apart from society. Don't use modern conveniences, rather take a step back in time to previous centuries in how they live (horse-and-buggy, horse-drawn plows, windmills to draw water, no electricity). The point is not to revert in time, but to live life more simply.
    ↳Mennonite—Originally followers of Meno Simon, of Friesland in the 16th century, emphasizing adult baptism and rejection of institutions, military service, and public office.
    }↳Hutterites
↳Non-Anabaptist

Non-denominationaj/Evangelical

↳Moravian (Czech Republic)—Followers of John Hus who tried to reform the Catholic Church about a century before Luther. He was unsuccessful in that the movement failed to spread. He was successful in tne sense that he created the Moravian Church that still exists today.

Restoratotionists such as the Church of Christ snd Disciples of Christ are not Christia because they tried to build Christianity from scratch. They have no creeds or confession, so they are not rooted in the early Church and certainly not in the Nicean Creed.


THE FOUR ILLARS OF METHODIM
TRADITION
EXPERIENCE
REASON. :
SCRIPTURE

Anglicanism and Methodist—obviously all four, but scripture takes precedence.
Baptists—all about the Bible, so they start from scripture.
Eastern Orthodox—sceptical of reasoned look at scripture through thousand years of tradition
Deists and modern liberalism value reason move both Tradition and scripture.
Lutheran—valued scripture and tradition.
High churche like catholic and Easern Orthodox value tradition. Lowers like Baptists sn. Methofists value Scripture over tradition.
Pentecost—skeptical of reason. All about experience, speaking in tongues,

Conclusion
All these different denominations is what brought us to the original question: how do we know which one tp believe? But Protestants don't believe in a one-church organization. They can still take communion with one another, evan if they're of different denominations.

Because of that, Protestant denominations are fine with having different organizations and church bodies, as long as their core values are the same.