Heresies Family Trees

My heresies project is far from complete (and it is just a small portion of a much larger project anyways, my goal is to have it totally done by 2017--yes, I think it will take me that long, thanks to my inability to focus on one thing for too long without getting bored or distracted, and other things going on in my life... like baby in 6-ish months), so as I expand it further and/or receive edits from various individuals, this will be updated.

For now, here is what I have come up with for a family trees of heresies.  If you notice an error in categorizing, or a heresy you know of that is missing from the list, please comment and I will correct/look into adding!

Also, keep in mind that with some of these, I just made up names for to describe heresies that I see but couldn't find another name already in use for (such as "Osteenism"/"Prosperitism" to cover the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel).

Note: I plan on starting a "Heresy of the Week" post (thanks to the suggestion of a friend), hopefully every Monday, on 15 October.  Any votes for the first heresy you'd like to learn more about?  If I hear nothing, we'll default to my "favorite" (not because it is good, but because it's the most prevalent in Christendom today from my perspective) to kick this off.  Anyone want to guess which heresy that is?

Antidicomarian

• Antidicomarianism
• Bonosianism
• Helvidianism
• Jovinianism

Antitrinitarian

• Arianism (also Arian)
• Deism
• Dystheism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Arian)
• Marcionism (also Gnostic)
• Mohammedanism (also Arian)
• Monarchianism (also Arian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Arian)
• Paulicianism (also Arian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Arian)
• Samosatenism (also Arian)
• Unitarianism (also Pelagian)
• Christadelphianism (also Pelagian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Arian)
• Noeticism
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Arian)
• Photinianism (also Arian)
• Polytheism
• Socinianism (also Gnostic)
• Subordinationism (also Arian)
• Tritheism
• Universalism

Arian

• Anomœanism (also known as Aëtianism, Anomeanism, Eunomianism, Heterousianism, Heteroousianism)
• Arianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ebionitism (possibly Pelagian)
• Eudoxianism
• Kenosism
• Macedonianism (also known as Pneumatomachism, Tropicism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Mohammedanism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Monarchianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Adoptionism (also known as Dynamic Monarchianism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Gnostic)
• Psilanthropism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Samosatenism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Patripassianism (also known as Patripassionism) (also Antitrinitarian)
• Photinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Semi-Arianism
• Subordinationism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Tritheism (also Antitrinitarian)

Ascetic

• Albigensism (also Gnostic)
• Archonticism (also Gnostic)
• Cerdonianism (also Gnostic)
• Donatism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also Gnostic, Monophysite)
• Fraticellism (also Other)
• Free Spiritism (also Other)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Pelagian, Protestant)
• Priscillianism (also Gnostic)

Eschatological

• Christian Zionism
• Futurism
• Historicism
• Idealism
• Millenarianism (also known as Millenarism) ( slightly Protestant)
• Joachimism
• Dulcinianism
• Millennialism (also known as Chiliasm)
• Postmillennialism
• Premillennialism
• Dispensationalism
• Dispensational Premillennialism
• Millerism
• Preterism

Eucharistic

• Impanationism
• Symbolism (also Protestant)
• Transubstantiationism

Gnostic

• Archonticism (also Ascetic)
• Bogomilism
• Albigensism (also known as Albigensianism, Catharism) (also Ascetic)
• Bosnianism
• Patarenism
• Paulicianism (also Antitrinitarian, Arian)
• Tondrakianism
• Borboritism (also known as Barbalitism, Koddianism, Phibionitism, Secundianism, Socratitism)
• Cainitism
• Carpocratianism
• Cerdonianism (also Ascetic)
• Marcionism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Cerinthianism
• Colobasianism
• Docetism (also Monophysite)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Monophysite)
• Euchitism (also known as Messalianism)
• Gnosticism
• Luciferianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Ophitism (also known as Ophianism)
• Johannism
• Notzrimism (also known as Nazaraiosism)
• Mandaeism (also known as Mandaeanism)
• Elcesaitism (also known as Elchasaitism, Elkasitism, Elkesaitism) (also Monophysite)
• Manichaeism (also known as Manichaeanism)
• Bagnolianism
• Naassenism
• Peratism
• Sethianism 
• Bardaisanitism (also known as Bardesanitism)
• Valentinianism
• Basilidianism (also known as Basildeanism)
• Thomasenism (also known as Thomasinism)
• Priscillianism (also Ascetic)
• Simonianism (also known as Helenianism)
• Socinianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Swedenborgianism (also Pelagian, Protestant)

Monophysite

• Apollinarianism (also known as Apollinarism)
• Docetism (also Gnostic)
• Elcesaitism (also Gnostic)
• Encratitism (also known as Hydroparastatæism, Saccophorism, Severianism) (also Ascetic, Gnostic)
• Eutychianism
• Miaphysitism
• Monoenergism
• Monophysitism
• Monothelitism
• Polemianism

Other

• Audianism
• Averroism (also known as Aristotelianism)
• Circumcisionism (possibly Protestant-related)
• Conciliarism
• Donatism (distantly Gnostic)
• Circumcellionism (also known as Agnosticisism) (possibly Pelagian or distantly Gnostic)
• Ebionitism
• Feeneyism
• Fraticellism
• Heliocentrism
• Nestorianism
• Nicolaitanism (also known as Nicholaism, Nicolaism, Nicolationism)
• Novatianism (also known as Sabbatianism)
• Origenism
• Quartodecimanism
• Traducianism (also known as Generationalism)

Pelagian

• Asceticism
• Free Spiritism
• Legalism
• Molinism (also Protestant)
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Protestant)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Protestant)
• Pelagianism
• Semi-Pelagianism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Protestant)
• Synergism (also Protestant)
• Unitarianism (also Antitrinitarian)
• Christadelphianism (also Antitrinitarian)

Protestant

• Anabaptism
• Anglo-Israelism (also known as British Israelism)
• Antinomianism
• Covenantalism (also known as Federalism)
• Henricianism
• Hypercalvinism
• Jansenism
• King James Onlyism
• Molinism (also Pelagian)
• Monergism
• Montanism (also known as Cataphrygianism, Phrygianism) (also Ascetic, Pelagian)
• Osteenism (also known as Prosperitism) (also Pelagian)
• Reconstructionism
• Restorationism
• Swedenborgianism (also Gnostic, Pelagian)
• Symbolism (also Eucharistic)
• Synergism (also Pelagian)
• Waldensianism (also known as Vaudoisism and Waldensism)

UPDATE: Why I am not Catholic

I'm going to keep this simply to the topics why, rather than explaining them at this point.  I'll also do "why I am not [fill in one of three protestant sects]" posts soon.

Part of what I am working on now is a study of why the Book of Concord (UAC) is still necessary today, which is why I have been more and more convicted that the teaching of the dogmas below are why I cannot be Catholic.  As my project progresses, my hope is to post short summaries on a number of theological topics with the Catholic, Lutheran and other protestant teachings on each of them so you can see more clearly from where I am coming.  My first topic is Original Sin.

That said, if I was forced to choose between Catholicism and protestantism (Arminianism, Calvinism, Radical Reformed), I wouldn't hesitate for a second to choose to be a Catholic.  Thank God I can be a Lutheran instead, though.

1. The Infallibility of the Pope
2. The Office of the Pope (in general)
3. The deification of Mary*
4. Worship of the Saints**
5. Purgatory and penance
6. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus 
7. Definitions of Justification and Sanctification
8. The number of Sacraments
9. Transubstantiation
10. The Theology of the Cross vs. the Theology of Glory

P.S. I haven't forgotten about the Heresies family tree list, it is just taking longer than I expected to finish up.


* Update 1: For clarification, I am referring to four separate things here: 
1) The hyper-Marian Catholics, a few of whom I have had conversations with, who are a small but vocal sect pushing for Mary to become the fourth part of the Godhead (but not part of the Trinity as I understand it) which is not, from my understanding, common Catholic teaching.  
2) The immaculate conception of Mary, which from a Lutheran perspective would make her God (since God is the only perfect being, and no human since the Fall can be perfect, therefore for any human, such as Mary, to be perfect, she cannot be truly human because of Original Sin). 
3) The use of the term "co-redemptrix" (which makes it sound as if Mary plays a role not in being the Mother of our Savior, but in our own salvation with Jesus, which is false).
4) Prayer to/in the name of Mary--which, from a Lutheran perspective, is the same as worship of Mary in addition to and/or in place of God.  

There are other items which would be of concern from a Lutheran perspective as well, such as the assumption of Mary, but are less of an issue than the four above.

** Update 2: By "worship" I mean prayer to, or (probably more specifically) prayer in the name of, Saints.  As a Lutheran, we believe we need no intercessor but Jesus, and, as the redeemed children of God, we are even bold enough to pray in the name of Our Father, through Jesus Christ, as taught to us in Matthew.  Again, prayer is a form of worship, and to pray in the name or to the name of anyone but God is tantamount to worship of that person rather than God from the Lutheran perspective.


Originally published on 28 August, 2012; updates on 13 October 2012.

Why I am not "protestant"

It might be easier for all three "protestant" sects to share only what I actually agree with them on, rather than disagree.  I think the "agree" lists will be much shorter in all three cases than the "disagree" lists.

I'm referencing below strict adherence to Arminianism, Calvinism and Radical Reformed teachings, rather than the various denominations and their further misunderstandings of theology today.  Most of them are even worse and I would agree with them less than I do with their root sects.

Arminianism

1. The existence of Free Will (although they seriously over-emphasize it to the point of heresy)
2. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
3. Infallibility of the Word of God

Calvinism

1. Original Sin (or Total Depravity from TULIP)
2. Unconditional Election ("U" from TULIP, although they misapply and misunderstand it)
3. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
4. Infallibility of the Word of God

Radical Reformed

1. God
1. The Trinity
2. Who God is
3. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ
2. Infallibility of the Word of God

---------------------------------------------------------

And... that's all I can think of off the top of my head.  I'll add to these lists as I think of more, because I feel like there has to be more than this, but I honestly can't think of anything else at the moment.

They're so short because I disagree with all three on everything from tradition in the church to Justification and Sanctification, to eschatology, to free will/predestination (none get it right on this count), to the sacraments, to soteriology, to civil affairs and the church's role in that, to law and gospel, to the office of the keys, to confession, to even simple things like the creeds... and on and on.  When so much that is basic to our faith can't be agreed upon... we have problems.

This is why I've often said if I can't be Lutheran, I'd be Roman Catholic.  I agree with them on far more than I disagree with them, certainly in comparison to "protestants" at least.

A Brief Note on the Term "Theologically Illiterate"

As I was falling asleep last night, I realized just how truly arrogant "theologically illiterate" sounded in my last post.  It sounded, even to me, as if you can't be a good Christian if you don't know or believe exactly as I do.  I'm sure you can guess that wasn't my intent.  So let me clarify now that I'm not rushing to finish my post before leaving the house (impatience often leads me to come across more bluntly than I usually intend--ironic considering the subject of this post and the "twitter timespan" I mention below).

Most American Christians today seem to become "theologically literate" in spite of, rather than because of, the Church.  This is a travesty.  Our churches, more often than not, churn out "shallow" Christians (by this, I am thinking of the James analogy of "milk" vs. "meat"--you can't graduate to eating meat if you don't know how or don't want to, both of which are far too common in American Christendom).  It isn't really anything new, I would dare say it's been around as long as Christianity has, but it seems to occur more frequently of late.  Or maybe it just seems that way since we are all so much more connected now than we used to be thanks to the internet.

Part of it I blame on the advent of the mega-church.  It's unreasonable to expect a church that large to be properly shepherded, even with a whole team of Pastors.  There simply isn't a human way to do it. Even with "small groups" and Bible studies, the time and attention you receive directly from a Pastor is minimal at best, according to friends who attend these types of churches as well as my own research into it.  That is a huge part of the problem--the inaccessibility of the Pastor, and his inability to do his job because of the size of the congregation (yes, I used the masculine pronouns on purpose, and always will when referring to Pastors).

I also blame the twitter timespan of this generation.  It seems that no one wants to take the time to learn and understand the seemingly difficult things anymore because they want instant gratification.  It's good enough for far too many people in general, not just in the church, to have someone tell them what they want to hear.  They want to feel good.  They don't want to contemplate the bad.  They like to write off parts of the Bible that they don't like or don't understand and don't want to understand further, so they just ignore them.  They don't want to be bothered with questioning information or studying it or learning the "who, what, when, where, how and why" of anything.  If it can't be done in 30 seconds or less than 144 characters, why should they listen?

Part, too, lies with far too many Pastors who don't challenge their parishioners enough.  They give into the twitter timespan mentality.  They do just the minimum.  They want to make you feel good.  No one likes to preach the Law, but without it, you cannot have the Gospel.  Pastors are only human, too.  Part of that problem here, I think, comes from the lack of proper training or prior education of a Pastor.  I'm a big fan of seminaries and ordination so that I know my Pastor has had significant training in the original languages, context, theology, early church fathers, etc.  That isn't to say you can't learn all that without a seminary, but I can definitely tell when a Pastor has studied and when one simply hasn't.  If our Pastors aren't properly educated, how can we expect them to properly educate their flocks?


Finally, this isn't a phenomenon unique to any one denomination.  In fact, I can't think of a single denomination (include, all too often, Lutheran) where this doesn't occur.  Case in point from a Lutheran perspective: I had three other ladies in my confirmation class.  I was the only one who bothered to even try to memorize what I was supposed to, or answer any of the questions, or ask questions of my own.  Since it wasn't strictly enforced, these gals skated through without really challenging themselves to actual understand what they were being taught.  I only ever saw one at church after confirmation on anything but Easter or Christmas, and rarely at that (although, granted, she was at college the last few years and now I attend a different church in a different city).

It's not enough to know the Bible, or think you know what you believe.  Both are important.  But equally important, as Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV), is being prepared to give an answer for your faith, something you cannot do if you only superficially understand it.

But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

It is ultimately up to us to ensure we know and understand our faith as much as humanly possible.  Others may help along the way, but the only ones we can ultimately praise or censure in this endeavor are ourselves.  Even with a "bad" Pastor in a mega-church with unfocused fellow congregants, you can still be entirely theologically literate if you make the effort.  It just takes work--something I know very well first hand, even though I've been, overall, very lucky to be surrounded by those who want to help and encourage me learn (my Mother most especially).  Lifelong catechis is very important.  That is, in some part, why I started this blog and why I'm working on the book project I am now--to keep me accountable in continuing to learn.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").

History of Denominations

While I'm finishing up my family tree of heresies (these things always take longer than I'd like them to), I thought I might post a few other things I've been working on lately.  This first one is a look at which sect of theology (in protestantism, that means Arminian, Calvinist, Lutheran or Radical Reformed) our modern denominations trace their theological heritage.  If you notice any glaring errors or thing I've miscategorized something, leave me a comment or shoot me an email.


---

Christendom began united in the Early Church.  However, quickly, heresy and heterodoxy began creeping into the Christian faith.  That is when various sects began to form and break off from the main church body (Roman Catholic Church).  However, even the Roman Catholic Church sunk into heresy, which was the initial cause of the Lutheran Reformation, and the other reformation movements that followed.  This is a brief guide to who these groups are and when and why they broke off from the Roman Catholic Church, as well as a look at to whom modern protestant churches trace their theology—Lutheranism, Radical Reformed, Arminianism or Calvinism.

Assyrian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches

After the Council of Ephesus in 431, we see the first major “fracture” in the church, with the Assyrian Orthodox Church (Church of the East) splitting from the rest.  20 years later saw the exodus of the Oriental Orthodox sect.  Both are still in existence, but neither are “major” churches.

Eastern Orthodox Church

The Great Schism occurred in 1054, resulting in the separation of the Eastern Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic (Western) Church.

Pre-Reformation Sects

Rumblings of reformation began in 1170 in Lyons, France, with the Waldensians.  In the early 15^th century, the Hussites emerged, lead by Jan Hus.  The Hussites are known now as the Moravian Church, or “Unity of the Brethren”, a title which became common in 1457 in Bohemia.  It is still an active, though small, sect of Christianity today.  The Utraquists movement was started by Jacob of Mies, a University of Prague philosophy professor, in 1414.  This merged largely with the Hussites, as it was more a dogmatic movement than a denomination.

Anglican Church

While the Reformation was going on in other parts of Europe, the Church of England (Anglicans) broke off from the Roman Catholic Church in the mid 16^th century to assert local authority and control over the church.

Protestant Sects

There are essentially four branches of Protestant theology: Lutheranism, Radical Reformation (Anabaptists), Arminianism, Calvinism (of which Zwinglianism is a subset).  To at least one of those each branch of the modern “reformed” or “protestant” church can trace its roots.  Lutheranism is really the only branch of Protestantism that didn’t splinter further into other denominations besides its own.

Modern Sects and Denominations

Anglican, Episcopalian, Orthodox (Eastern, Greek and Russian in particular) and Catholic churches (all originating from Roman Catholicism) still have strong roots in American Christianity.  In America, there are several fairly distinct groups of Protestant churches, under which a number of denominations fall.

Anabaptist and Friends

Anabaptist churches trace back to the original radical reformed movement, including the Amish, Brethren, Friends and Mennonite denominations.

Baptist and Stone-Campbell

The Baptist churches grew out of the Puritan (Anglican) and Anabaptist (Radical Reformed) movements, and include a variety of Baptist denominations (including Southern Baptist and African-American Baptist) as well as Stone-Campbell Restorationist churches.

Charismatic

The Charismatic movement grew out of the Pentecostal church, which traces back to Methodism (Arminianism), and includes denominations such as: Born Again Movement, Calvary Chapel, Faith Christian Fellowship International, Full Gospel, New Life Fellowship Association, and Sovereign Grace Ministries.

Holiness and Pietist

The Pietist movement traces back to unorthodox Lutheranism, while the Holiness movement traces back to Methodism (Arminian), these sects include a variety of denominations, such as the Evangelical Free Church of America, Church of the Nazarene, Salvation Army, Seventh-day Adventist Church and Wesleyan Church.

Lutheran

There are three major Lutheran synods in America: the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the latter two are traditional Lutheran synods, while the previous follows fallen Lutheran teachings (such as subscribing to the Variata and picking up on Pietism).

Methodist

The Methodist church traces back to Arminianism, and there are several Methodist denominations in America, most notably the Free Methodist Church and the United Methodist Church.

Pentecostal

The Pentecostal church grew out of the Holiness movement, which traces back to Methodism (Arminianism), and includes the following denominations in their sect: Assemblies of God, Full Gospel Fellowship, Intl. Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Pentecostal Church of God.  Oneness Pentecostalism is an antitrinitarian subset of this sect.

Presbyterian and Reformed (Congregationalists)

The Presbyterian, Reformed and Congregationalist sects are Calvinist in their lineage, and include the following denominations: Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Presbyterian Church in America, Reformed Church in America, and United Church of Christ.

Other

These churches don’t seem to fall into any other category, most (but not all) are heretical and not really Christian at all.  They include: American Unitarian Conference, Church of Christ Scientist (Scientology), Grace Gospel Fellowship, Jehovah's Witnesses, LDS Church, Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, Non-denominational churches, Plymouth Brethren, and Vineyard USA.

An Introduction

Before I begin posting, I feel it necessary to give you my perspective.  As with any person, I come into everything with a bias.  This bias does not discount the writing, the speech, the discourse, or whatever else it is, but without understanding the worldview that shapes every word that is formed in whatever medium you come across it in, you cannot fully understand what the intent is behind those words.

My name is Sarah, I am 23 (as of this writing) and I am a cradle Lutheran. I was baptized in a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in Colorado Springs on June 10, 1989, fourteen days after I was born. I was communed for the first time in the same church I was baptize in on Pentecost in 2001, and confirmed three years later in May 2004 (and married in that same church just a few months ago). My parents firmly believe in life-long catechis (as do I), and I have been immersed in God’s Word, the Small Catechism (in particular) and the Book of Concord (in general) for many years (being homeschooled helped significantly with this).

I am what would be considered an extremely conservative, confessional, quia Lutheran. "Quia" means that I believe the Book of Concord to be accurate because it is supported entirely by Scripture (the alternative is to be a "quanteus" Lutheran, which means that they believe the Book of Concord to be accurate insofaras it is supported by Scripture--they are considered to be the more liberal side of Lutheranism and likely subscribe to the Variata, which is the watered-down, Calvinist-flavored Augsburg Confession). I subscribe to the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (UAC), which is the one presented by Lutherans at the Augsburg Council in 1530. I believe in extremely traditional services and in-depth exegesis in sermons and Bible Study. I don't want to feel good or get feed fluff in church--I want to be made uncomfortable and challenged just a little bit every Sunday.

I may post commentaries here on various topics, I may pose questions from time to time, I may post lists and I even might be controversial.  I’m not really sure what all I will share, nor how regular it will be.  I’ve never been a faithful blogger.  I’m hoping this will be a better, more constructive outlet than Facebook, though, where I tend to make my friends grumpy with me over theological posts.

When I originally started this blog 5 years ago, it was meant for me and two friends (a Catholic and a Calvinist) to post weekly on the same topic from our differing perspectives.  I’m sad that didn’t work out, but happy to finally make use of this blog that has been sitting here for so long.  One of the things that happened, though, before we decided to try this was one of them, my Catholic friend, asked me which I would pick: the Good, the Beautiful or the Truth. I chose the Truth. Since all three of us chose a different one, we intended to use them here as our names. Mostly I share this because I wanted to tell you why I picked the Truth: because in all things, the good and the beautiful, I find truth. In fact, I don't think I could appreciate the other things without truth. Truth is paramount to me, perhaps because I was a debater, and thus I seek the Truth and evidence of it in everything. So now you know.