Are Protestants bothered by the gazillion denominations?

[SteveVH]

today’s roman catholic church is not the same as the 1st century church Jesus and the apostiles layed the ground work… one example is the inclusion of Man-Made cerymonies and rituals

So where is the the Church of the first century, the one that Jesus founded and for which the Apostles laid the ground work? Did it just disappear? Christ said he would remain with it until the end of time. So where is it and what is its name?

Christianity as we know it today is a break-off from Catholicism with a good deal of false and pagan teaching.

Most of which was put in place through the mandate of Constantine.

This is what Constantine would demand,with the cooperation of the Church with its bishop’s, elders & teachers.

All of which were appointed by him. Any one, especially the Jews. In order to become
what is called a Christian, he must adhere to Constantine’s Creed -

• 325 CE—Constantine’s Creed

“I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms,

unleavened breads and sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews,

and all the other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspirations, purifications, sanctifications, and propitiations, and fasts and new moons,

and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants, and observances and synagogues.

absolutely everything Jewish, every Law, rite and custom

and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the

Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Cain and the leprosy of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable.

And may I be an anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down

with Satan and the devils.”

(Stefano Assemani, Acta Sanctorium Martyrum Orientalium at Occidentalium, Vol. 1, Rome
1748, page 105)

Furthermore, any follower of the “Jewish Messiah” (Yahushua HaMashiach)

who wished to join this “holy community” was compelled to adopt a different set of rules and customs.

Subsequently special creeds were drafted, to which the Christian would have to swear such as:

“I accept all customs, rites, legalism, and feasts of the Romans, sacrifices.

Prayers, purifications with water, sanctifications by Pontificus Maxmus (high priests of Rome), propitiations, and feasts, and the New Sabbath “So! dei” (day of the Sun, ), all new chants and observances, and all the
foods and drinks of the Romans.

In other words, I absolutely accept everything Roman,catholic every new law, rite and custom, of Rome, and the New Roman Religion.”

Additionally, in approximately 365 AD, the Council of Laodicea wrote, in one of their canons:

Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.

Rather,
honoring the Lord’s Day. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers,

let them be anathema (against) from Christ”.

Note: Protestants are included as they still observe the holidays and Sabbath of Rome,

as in “are you going to church this coming Lord’s day”.

Do you have a question?

 

[SteveVH]

This is true, but every protestant denomination (unless they are apostate or a cult, etc…) is going to ultimately hold Christ as their head. Which is why a protestant considers and believes they are part of the One Body of Christ, aside fron the chaotic protestant “churches” which are not part of the body.

Who gets to decide who the “chaotic” protestant “churches” are?

I dont know how you feel about the different types of Catholic churches. The different names and those who oppose the pope or his teachings. It can be confusing sometimes

I love the different rites. There are Catholic Churches who practice the eastern rites. Those who are not in communion with the Pope are grouped under the heading “Eastern Orthodox” which is made up of a number of nationalistic Churches (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.)

Your first sentence is true b/c the pope/magisterium is seen as the head, correct?

Christ is the head of the Church. It is his Church, after all. He is the founder. The pope is the vicar of Christ; his prime minister, so to speak.

Christ is the head of His church and a protestant church is required to use the Word of God as the guide book and the inquiry of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as their tool to carry out the gospel. They are called to be faithful to that word. Once again this is where sinful, finite minds come into play.

And this is a big difference. The Catholic Church is not a Church of the Bible, but rather of the Apostles. The Catholic Church existed some 400 years before it canonized the Bible, which is a sacred book of the Catholic Church. The Bible did not give us the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

This is understood by me. It’s just unfortunate my co-workers don’t care enough to understand their religion.

Amen!

I attend a church that is faithful to the word of God.

How do you know that? Does your faith community follow the teachings of the Apostles? Do you celebrate Mass? They did. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? They did. How do you know that the faith community you have chosen is faithful to the word of God? Who would be the final authority in determining just who is following the word of God and who is not?
ephesians2;10299901:

I do all days. That does not mean that I am sitting on my backside, looking to the heavens and waiting. I am called to spread the gospel, to spread His love and charity, to tell others that Christ is the ONLY way, the truth and the life and you don’t get to be with Him unless you believe that. He is our Redeemer, Savior and Friend. God is not a God of chaos. Those who are part of the body of true believers recognize that.

 

[jrtrent]

Having read the entire thread, I can’t find positions I agree with better than these two from the first page:

I don’t have a problem with it. There are groups that I think are teaching false doctrines and people need to stay away from. But many have good teaching (even if I don’t agree with all their fine points in doctrine). You just have to be watchful that you stay away from the theologically faulty groups.

I’d say the same thing thing. To be honest, it’s never bothered me. What does bother me is when churches can’t get along charitably. So, to me, when different churches do interact charitably in spite of differences, it’s more encouraging to me to see that than if everyone was in the same visible church, officially believing the exact same thing about every point of doctrine. That charity, respect and cooperation amidst differences speaks of God at work to me.

While there are very real disagreements between Protestant groups (such as the mode, subjects, and meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; Calvinism vs. Arminianism; and forms of church government), there is also substantial agreement on what Boettner called the essentials of the faith: that the Bible is the word of God and our authoritative guide in church affairs; the deity of Christ; His sacrificial death on the cross for the salvation of those who place their faith in Him; that Christ is the Head of the Church; the importance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the personal and visible return of Christ; the resurrection of the body and future judgement; of heaven and hell; of moral character and spiritual life. Charles Hodge had given three reasons why the various Protestant churches remain one: they are subject to the same Lord and animated by the same Spirit; they recognize each other as Christian churches; they are subject to a common tribunal (at first the apostles, now the Bible).

Boettner pointed out the Protestant churches are also united by what they reject, saying, “Protestants thus acknowledge fellow Protestants in other denominations as true Christians. And they are united in rejecting what they believe to be the errors of the Roman Church, such as the priesthood, mass, confession, purgatory, worship of the Virgin Mary, etc.” After all, Protestantism exists because it was protesting something, and that something was the Catholic Church.

That’s not to say that all divisions are good. Boettner also acknowledges that “many of the divisions that have occurred in the Christian church have been unnecessary and that some have been detrimental. Some have arisen because of evil motives on the part of certain groups, or because of the personal ambitions of strong willed leaders.” (Posters on this forum have also mentioned churches splitting over issues such as women’s ordination and acceptance of homosexual practice.) On the other hand, “many others have arisen because of natural circumstances, such as those of race, language, nationality, geography, or honest difference of opinion . . . The spiritual unity that characterizes evangelical Protestants is more important than the organizational diversity that places them in different denominations.”

 

[SteveVH]

While there are very real disagreements between Protestant groups (such as the mode, subjects, and meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; Calvinism vs. Arminianism; and forms of church government), there is also substantial agreement on what Boettner called the essentials of the faith: that the Bible is the word of God and our authoritative guide in church affairs;

I would agree that the great majority of Protestant faith traditions fall into this error (the authoritative guide part).

that Christ is the Head of the Church;

I would agree, but what “Church” do you believe Boettner was speaking of? Some invisible “Church” which is divided thousands upon thousand of times?

the importance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper;

I have no idea what this means. Baptism means something different to an Anglican or a Lutheran than it does to a Baptist or your average “Bible believing church”. When it comes to the Eucharist, the “Lord’s Supper”, there are large voids between beliefs. So what is the meaning of “importance”.

To the Catholic Church, the Ecuharist is so important that we would not have a Church without it. It is the source and summit of our fiath. How important is it to an Anglican? A Lutheran? A Methodist? A Prebyterian? A Pentecostal? A Baptist. A Fundamentalist? A Quaker, A non-denominational? We would be here for the next five years discussing degrees of importance of the “Lords Supper” in every Protestant denomination. Most believe it is absolutely unimportant in the scheme of salvation.

Charles Hodge had given three reasons why the various Protestant churches remain one: they are subject to the same Lord and animated by the same Spirit;

Even unbelievers are subject to the same Lord and animated by the same Spirit.

they recognize each other as Christian churches;

Okay. And that means what? Do they recognize each others beliefs? Obviously no or they would not be divided.

 

[SteveVH]

they are subject to a common tribunal (at first the apostles, now the Bible).

They follow the precepts of their various organizations, in some cases just one preacher, or a small committee. They interpret the Bible differently than the next so it is of no use as any kind of authority. And besides, the Bible is not a tribunal. A tribunal is made up of men (and/or women) who make decisions based upon an interpretation of evidence. The Bible cannot interpret itself. If it could we would have no Protestant divisions. Boettner’s attempt to anthropomorphize the Bible into some living authority is ludicrous. And this is how the Protestant denominations are “one”?

Boettner pointed out the Protestant churches are also united by what they reject, saying, “Protestants thus acknowledge fellow Protestants in other denominations as true Christians. And they are united in rejecting what they believe to be the errors of the Roman Church, such as the priesthood, mass, confession, purgatory, worship of the Virgin Mary, etc.”

The true Christians. We finally know who they are. Those who can pretty much believe anything they want so long as it is not anything Catholic (oh, excpet the Bible, they somehow got that right). He even throws in the lie that we worship Mary. Why would you think that anything that Lorraine Boettner has to say would hold any credibility on this forum? He is truly a rabid anti-Catholic, worse than Jack Chick because people actually believe him. Case in point.

That’s not to say that all divisions are good.

Why would any division be good? Aren’t we called to be “one”? Truly one, with the same beliefs and everything?

The spiritual unity that characterizes evangelical Protestants is more important than the organizational diversity that places them in different denominations."

Interesting. He is speaking only of “evangelical Protestants” as far as having spiritual unity. Sorry for the rest of you. I don’t know, do all Protestants consider themselves to be “evangelical protestants”? And “organizational diversity” is the culprit causing all the divisions. Sounds like all it would take to bring unity to Protestantism is a good organizational seminar.

 

[Attejohannes]

I have said this before, but this multitude of protestant groups, which I also noticed when I stayed in the USA in 1980’ies, is a ver American thing. In Europe most protestants belong to the established Anglican, Lutheran or Reformed churches. This has also made it possible to have doctrinal and ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Churches ( though I am rather pessimistic, whether the results will be anything more than changing the word “anathema” to " limited but not perfect communion with the Church")

 

[SteveVH]

I have said this before, but this multitude of protestant groups, which I also noticed when I stayed in the USA in 1980’ies, is a ver American thing. In Europe most protestants belong to the established Anglican, Lutheran or Reformed churches. This has also made it possible to have doctrinal and ecumenical dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Churches ( though I am rather pessimistic, whether the results will be anything more than changing the word “anathema” to " limited but not perfect communion with the Church")

I think you’re correct. Its that good old American spirit of “individualism”. “No one’s going to tell me what to believe. I’ll start my own church.”

 

[jrtrent]

Why would you think that anything that Lorraine Boettner has to say would hold any credibility on this forum? He is truly a rabid anti-Catholic, worse than Jack Chick because people actually believe him. Case in point.

You’ve done a dandy job of shredding my post apart with your Catholic convictions; however, I was simply responding to the OP’s question about whether I, as a Protestant, am bothered by the gazillion denominations, and for the most part, I’m not, and for the reasons given.

As to Loraine Boettner’s credibility here, I wouldn’t expect him to have any amongst Catholics, but this is, after all, the non-Catholic Religions forum, and he was one of the most influential of the Reformed Protestant writers of the 20th century.

 

[SteveVH]

You’ve done a dandy job of shredding my post apart with your Catholic convictions; however, I was simply responding to the OP’s question about whether I, as a Protestant, am bothered by the gazillion denominations, and for the most part, I’m not, and for the reasons given.

As to Loraine Boettner’s credibility here, I wouldn’t expect him to have any amongst Catholics, but this is, after all, the non-Catholic Religions forum, and he was one of the most influential of the Reformed Protestant writers of the 20th century.

What I was really doing was shredding Lorraine Boettner’s notions. I mean really. Catholics worship Mary? That gives you an idea of this guys perspective and it doesn’t stop with that issue. I’m sorry, but that kind of stuff cannot go unanswered. I mean no disrespect to you.

 

[jrtrent]

What I was really doing was shredding Lorraine Boettner’s notions. I mean really. Catholics worship Mary? That gives you an idea of this guys perspective and it doesn’t stop with that issue. I’m sorry, but that kind of stuff cannot go unanswered.

I can appreciate that position, and understand how the use of the word “worship” can be seen as an offensive polemical device. The use of the word worship can imply putting a creature, Mary, on a par with God, a heresy I know Catholics do not commit and would find as or more repugnant than any Protestant would. It is, however, the word I find most often used by Protestant writers, and if I’m to quote accurately, I have to include it. At any rate, I think it’s fair to say that most Protestants find the position and qualities ascribed by Catholics to Mary to go beyond what they find Biblical, and to be a shared reason for their “protest” against Catholicism.

I mean no disrespect to you.

Thank you for that, and I’ll add that I didn’t find your response offensive or disrespectful, just surprising. The OP asked how Protestants feel about the multitude of denominations that exist, and I agreed with Itwin and AbideWithMe, adding some thoughts about the type of unity many Protestants believe they have with one another despite organizational separation and some significant doctrinal differences. I know that Catholics see unity and being one in a very different way, but I thought I was just sharing a Protestant perspective, not entering into debate.

Interesting. He is speaking only of “evangelical Protestants” as far as having spiritual unity. Sorry for the rest of you. I don’t know, do all Protestants consider themselves to be “evangelical protestants”?

Interesting question. As Boettner used it, I believe “evangelical Protestant” referred to the movement in the first several decades of the 20th century that reacted against what became known as modernism or liberal Protestantism:

Twentieth-century evangelicalism has been primarily shaped by theological battles that occurred in the first three decades of the century, most notably by what is called the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. This controversy was fought largely in Presbyterian and Baptist denominations over what many conservative Protestants perceived as a dilution and modification of classical doctrines of the Christian faith. Evangelicals felt that liberal Protestants, or “modernists,” were altering core doctrines of the faith in order to accommodate the findings of modern science, especially Darwinian evolution. Evangelicals found modernists to be increasingly untrustworthy in their theological orientation as they reinterpreted the faith in accordance with the new “higher criticism” of scripture and the naturalism of the new science. firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=245&theme=home&page=1&loc=b&type=ctbf

Boettner was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which was started by J. Gresham Machen and others after their attempts to turn back modernistic theology within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and preserve adherence to the historic Westminster Standards and Calvinistic theology proved unsuccesful. Here’s a little idea of what they had been fighting against:

The doctrinal decadence of the Presbyterian Church in the USA came to a head in 1924, when some twelve hundred leaders in that denomination affixed their names to the Auburn Affirmation. That infamous document denounced the infallibility of Holy Scripture as a “harmful” doctrine. It also stated as the conviction of the signers that it was unnecessary for a minister in the church to believe in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection, or the miracles of the Bible generally. The precious doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice by which he expiated sin and satisfied divine justice was further decried as but one of many theories of the atonement and nonessential to the faith. opc.org/new_horizons/Kuiper.html

“Fundamentalism” has a somewhat pejorative connotation today, but originally it was simply a fight against liberalism, and defended such concepts as the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary, atoning work of Christ on the cross, and the physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Christ to the earth. These “first generation fundamentalists included Presbyterians, Baptists, Reformers, Reformed Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Congregationalists, and Wesleyan Holiness brothers.” (thriceholy.net/fundamentals.html) A diverse group, but united in some important core beliefs.

 

[Miriam1947]

=jrtrent;10307494snip . . .

Boettner was a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which was started by J. Gresham Machen and others after their attempts to turn back modernistic theology within the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and preserve adherence to the historic Westminster Standards and Calvinistic theology proved unsuccesful. Here’s a little idea of what they had been fighting against:

The doctrinal decadence of the Presbyterian Church in the USA came to a head in 1924, when some twelve hundred leaders in that denomination affixed their names to the Auburn Affirmation. That infamous document denounced the infallibility of Holy Scripture as a “harmful” doctrine. It also stated as the conviction of the signers that it was unnecessary for a minister in the church to believe in the virgin birth of Christ, his bodily resurrection, or the miracles of the Bible generally. The precious doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross was a sacrifice by which he expiated sin and satisfied divine justice was further decried as but one of many theories of the atonement and nonessential to the faith.opc.org/new_horizons/Kuiper.html

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Classification Protestant
Theology Reformed Evangelical
Governance Presbyterian
Origin June 11, 1936
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Separated from Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Separations Bible Presbyterian Church
Congregations 275
Members 30,279
Statistics for 2011

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Presbyterian_Church

Boettner had few sources for his famous book: Roman Catholicism

catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catholic-bible

At first glanceRoman Catholicismseems impressive. Its 460 large pages of text are closely packed with quotations. The table of contents is broken down into dozens of categories, and the indices, though skimpy, at least are there. But a careful reading makes it clear that the author’s antagonism to the Catholic Church has gravely compromised his intellectual objectivity.*

The book suffers from a serious lack of scholarly rigor. Boettner accepts at face value virtually any claim made by an opponent of the Church. Even when verification of a charge is easy, he does not bother to check it out. If he finds something unflattering to Catholicism, he prints it.*

When the topic is the infallibility of the pope, Boettner quotes at length from a speech alleged to have been given in 1870 at the First Vatican Council, where papal infallibility was formally defined. The speech, attributed to “the scholarly archbishop [sic, bishop] Strossmeyer,” claims that the “archbishop” read the New Testament for the first time shortly before he gave the speech and found no mention at all of the papacy. The speech then concludes that Peter was given no greater authority than the other apostles. The trouble is that the speech is a well-known forgery. Bishop Strossmeyer did not make that speech, and, in fact, when it was being circulated by a disgruntled former Catholic, the bishop repeatedly and publicly denied that it was his and demanded a retraction by the guilty party. A glance at theCatholic Encyclopediaor a work like Newman Eberhardt’sA Summary of Catholic Historywould have clued in Boettner.*

This gross error has been repeated by many of the anti-Catholic groups that rely on Boettner. None of them, apparently, became suspicious, though the speech reads as though it came from a stereotypical “Bible thumping” Protestant rather than a “scholarly” Catholic bishop.*
Sometimes Boettner’s mistakes are just juvenile. He calls All Souls’ Day (November 2) “Purgatory Day,” a term never used by Catholics because the feast is not in commemoration of purgatory but of the souls there.*

Boettner’sRoman Catholicismcontains a mere two dozen footnotes, all of them added to recent reprintings to reflect minor changes in the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council. Within the text, biblical passages are properly cited, but references to Catholic works are so vague as to discourage checking by making it difficult or impossible to locate the work or the reference. Many times there is no reference. A certain pope will be alleged to have said something—but there is no citation given to support the claim. A Catholic author of the seventeenth century is alleged to have claimed something—but again no reference that can be checked. Sometimes there may be mention of a Catholic book, but no page number or publication information given.*

By contrast, when non-Catholic authors are cited, the reference usually includes title and page number. One suspects that Boettener took his alleged Catholic quotations and citations from Protestant works and then deliberately failed to reference them in order to conceal the extent to which he is dependant on secondary sources. This is a common tactic among writers who have not done primary source research and rely on second-hand sources.*

What is even worse, Boettner seems to have no appreciation of the Catholic Church from the inside. He seems to have made little effort to learn what the Catholic Church says about itself or how Catholics answer the objections he makes. His “inside information” comes from disaffected ex-priests such as Emmett McLoughlin and L. H. Lehmann, or outright crackpots like the nineteenth-century sensationalist Charles Chiniquy.*

Get the book by Karl Keating: Catholicism and Fundamentalism.

Great book.

 

[1roman]

Interpreting Scripture (Hermeneutics)

Hermeneutics is defined in one dictionary as “the art of finding the meaning of an author’s words and phrases, and of explaining it to others.” When applied to Scripture, accurate hermeneutics would require the scholar to:

Study the context of the passage and the theme of the book.
Look up the actual meaning of each word in the original languages.
Note the verb tenses, the cases, and other grammatical determinants.
Learn the cultural setting of the passage.
Determine what the original readers understood it to mean.
Check out cross-references to see how the words are used in other contexts.
See how the first mention of the word or topic is presented in the Bible.
Confirm an interpretation with two or three similar passages.

These are all proven study methods. However, it has always puzzled me how Bible scholars who claim to follow all of them arrive at totally opposite interpretations of the same passage.

 

[Mike_SoCal]

Even in the early New Testament Church there was division. The Gnostic movement for example fell into heresy and fell away from what was Orthodox Christian teaching.

That process continues today. Recently, the Episcopal Church has seen splits. When heresy creeps into a church it is difficult to remove. If the heresy continues people leave and start over.

Unfortunately, we are fallible creatures and the devil always persists in corrupting churches. Big institutions are less likely to correct heresy or corruption. Scandals break out and tend to linger for years. The LA Dioceses is still facing much scrutiny about their dealings with priests who abused children.

Fortunately, when these splits occur, Christians will take a good hard look at Bible Doctrine and begin again.

There’s an old joke in the South. It’s nice that there are churches on every street corner. Why is that? That wasn’t the plan, they just didn’t all agree.

What churches call themselves isn’t all that important. What is important is that we all are spreading the Good News and God willing there will always be local congregations of believers who hear the Gospel preached and send out missionaries to evangelize a lost world.

Mark 16:15-16 NIV
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

 

[adf417]

Even in the early New Testament Church there was division. The Gnostic movement for example fell into heresy and fell away from what was Orthodox Christian teaching.

Hi Mike
Are you implying the Gnostics that left the early church were still Christians? Were they still part of the one body of Christ? If not what is this point?

What is important is that we all are spreading the Good News and God willing there will always be local congregations of believers who hear the Gospel preached and send out missionaries to evangelize a lost world.

Mark 16:15-16 NIV
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

I have to disagree with the simplicity of the news you are implying in which we are to spread. If the bible were a one page brochure highliting only this message then I would tend to agree with this message.

Peace to you!!!

 

[themaccauk]

Im anex Jehovahs Witness and left because i did not like the idea of going round telling everyone their faith was wrong.I have attended other churches and now find myself set apart from all churches though i still reasearch all claims, faiths etc. Im now researching the catholic church and while i agree that they are the original church. I do find it hard to accept some of the teachings… But after listening to catholic radio shows i know they are people with deep faith

 

[Brendan_64]

When Christ said we should be one so that the world would believe that the Father sent Him, well—again, just being descriptive of myself—it really does greatly help me to believe in Him when I see churches with differences still being charitable and cooperative despite the human tendency to distrust the “other”.

Do we hold that the body of Christ on Earth include all Christians, or do we hold that it only includes the members of particular denominations?

Romans 12:4-5 “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Im now researching the catholic church and while i agree that they are the original church. I do find it hard to accept some of the teachings.

Teachings that are easy to accept are often not the best teachings to accept, teachings that are more difficult to accept often are. Come along to Mass and see for yourself. Non-Catholics can are welcome to participate in all parts of our Mass, with the exception of Communion, or you can just sit and observe. Our doors are open to all.

 

[philv]

I am a former Protestant (Catholic revert). I never really dwelled on the fact that there were so many denominations with all kinds of beliefs , sub beliefs and doctrines. I knew they were there but my adverse “feelings” toward the Catholic church caused me to bury it or justify it.

I’m curious. How do my devout Protestant friends feel about the multitude of denominations there are? Yes, your particular denomination has an authority but there is really no collective protestant authority unless you are going to just say the bible or Jesus. But the problem there is different translations so it is not unified in belief and understanding.

Do you as a Protestant think there are too many denominations and/or denominations that should not be? I’d like a Catholic perspective as well.

Yes, these numerous churches I visited basically scared me into the Catholic Church. I had to look back into the source of what the original church was, what it taught, and it led me home. Praise be to God!

 

[Mimi]

ONE faith, ONE baptism
Eph 4
1 I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, 2 With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. 3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

7 But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.

**What is the foundation of Truth?**
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground (foundation) of the truth. 

``````````````````````````````` NOT the Bible. The bible alone doctrine is a tradition of men. Also, which Church did Christ mean? He founded ONE church, not many. As many have found, that Church is Catholic, having examined the writings of the early Christians (early Church fathers; Iraneaus of Antioch, Clement, etc). 
[newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm)

Peace,
Mimi

 

[Telestia]

I am a former Protestant (Catholic revert). I never really dwelled on the fact that there were so many denominations with all kinds of beliefs , sub beliefs and doctrines. I knew they were there but my adverse “feelings” toward the Catholic church caused me to bury it or justify it.

I’m curious. How do my devout Protestant friends feel about the multitude of denominations there are? Yes, your particular denomination has an authority but there is really no collective protestant authority unless you are going to just say the bible or Jesus. But the problem there is different translations so it is not unified in belief and understanding.

Do you as a Protestant think there are too many denominations and/or denominations that should not be? I’d like a Catholic perspective as well.

Not at all. ‘Denomination’ to us evangelicals is similar to the Catholic use of the word ‘Parish’. So your question " Are Protestants bothered by the gazillion denominations?" would be similar to my asking you, “Are Catholics bothered by a gazillion parishes?” But it is very rare that we call ourselves protestants anymore. Protestants was a term used by Catholics reformers seeking to reform the Catholic Church in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, seeking what they deemed to be the original intent of the Christianity of the New Testament.

Today, we are not protesting Catholicism per se. We do call ourselves Evangelicals in that we focus on bringing people to salvation by means of their accepting the blood atonement of the Perfect Paschal Lamb of God, JESUS, whose blood was shed on the cross, washes away all our sins, past - present - and Future. This is the FREE GIFT of God to all who accept it as washing their sins, upon which they receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, God in us, Whom works in us to transforms our very nature that we may be pleasing before God as we walk with God daily, and apply the good changes HE makes in us that we may truly love one another and to do the good He created us to do.

We are individuals whom are united in Him, walking with Him daily as if we were back in the Garden of Eden, hoping to provide genuine love to others in mind and heart and deeds, and to make amends to those we offend or hurt when we sin (we are not perfect).