Are Protestants bothered by the gazillion denominations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyjones
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
I think we need to be very careful here. We live in another time which is distanced from the original “reformers” by nearly 500 years. I don’t believe that the average non-Catholic Christian today is protesting anything at all. They don’t know enough about the Catholic Church or its doctrines to form a protest. Yes, they are lacking in the fulness of truth and their doctrines may have many errors which have been passed down to them, but they really are not protesting anything, much less the Catholic Church. This is not to say that there are no rabid anti-Catholics (i.e. Lorraine Boettner) that are out there still fighting against the Catholic Church. But they are in the minority. So to paint all non-Catholic Christians as Protestants is to cut off communication with those who, for good reason, do not see themselves in that light.
Click to expand...
My friend, I never said any Protestant was a rabid anti-catholic. As a matter of fact I said I once was, thats it. Yes "protest’ sounds like a strong word. It makes it sound like people are in the streets railing against something. Originally, the word "protest’ did have a stronger meaning. But when i say “protest” today, I’m speaking of a collective body of Christian opposition to Catholicism.

Your right, Protestants may not fully know what they are opposing. Thats why I was informing this particular poster who can’t even say he’s Protestant… and he’s Evangelical. The words “Evangelical Protestant” go hand in hand like Batman and Robin.

The definition (and it is not some far reaching re-definition) of a Protestant is a Christian who is not of the Roman Catholic faith. Wheres the wiggle room?
 
Telestia said:
Thanks SteveVH. As an evangelical Christian, I want all Catholics to be risen up into Heaven, to be ever with our Lord. And I pray for Catholics, that this be so.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
Telestia said:
If I were to share just one thing as important in regard to salvation, it would be to accept the atoning blood of Jesus Christ as washing away all their sins for all time - past, present, and future, and we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
And what must one do in order have all of their sins washed away and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
Telestia said:
Salvation can not be earned by our good deeds, rather, salvation is a true gift from God to us, to all who accept the atoning blood of Jesus, to all who call on the name of Jesus, our perfect Paschal Lamb.
Click to expand...
Its interesting that you use the term “Paschal Lamb”. Do you realize that the term Paschal relates back to the Passover? Moses gave very clear and precise instructions to the Jews in Egypt. They had to find an unblemished lamb, slaughter it at twilight, take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes, and then they had to do one last thing. They had to eat the lamb. If they didn’t, when they awoke they would have found their eldest son dead.

As Catholics, the term “Paschal Lamb” has great meaning as it relates to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Jews during the passover could not subsitute something else for lamb for any reason. It had to be the real lamb; not tofu in the shape of a lamb, but a real lamb. The Eucharist, the Lamb of God, the Paschal Lamb, must be the real Jesus for the same reason. He is the Paschal Lamb.

I say all of this because if we are right, aren’t you missing out on something absolutely necessary? Our Church believes that the Eucharist is so necessary that we would not have a Church without it. It is the source and summit of our faith.

So is calling on the name of the Lord enough? And what does it mean to accept the atoning blood of Jesus? How does one do that?
 
SteveVH said:
Thank you.

And what must one do in order have all of their sins washed away and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

Its interesting that you use the term “Paschal Lamb”. Do you realize that the term Paschal relates back to the Passover? Moses gave very clear and precise instructions to the Jews in Egypt. They had to find an unblemished lamb, slaughter it at twilight, take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes, and then they had to do one last thing. They had to eat the lamb. If they didn’t, when they awoke they would have found their eldest son dead.

As Catholics, the term “Paschal Lamb” has great meaning as it relates to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Jews during the passover could not subsitute something else for lamb for any reason. It had to be the real lamb; not tofu in the shape of a lamb, but a real lamb. The Eucharist, the Lamb of God, the Paschal Lamb, must be the real Jesus for the same reason. He is the Paschal Lamb.

I say all of this because if we are right, aren’t you missing out on something absolutely necessary? Our Church believes that the Eucharist is so necessary that we would not have a Church without it. It is the source and summit of our faith.

So is calling on the name of the Lord enough? And what does it mean to accept the atoning blood of Jesus? How does one do that?
Click to expand...
yes most bible literate people know the breaking of bread is in memory of the pass over lamb that jesus said he was.

.and like most people i like the "real Presence of the Holy
Spirit " the real presence of any thing related to Jesus and the ministry that he passed on 2 the followers–

but if you can’t tell the difference between someone providing a religious ceremony-- and the real presence-- then there is a disconnect–

i found a big difference when Jesus fulfillling john the baptist quote

that Jesus baptising me in the Holy Spirit similar to what happened to Saint Pau;l-- in that it was a life changing spiritual experience.

or as Jesus said – in Acts – don’t go preaching before you are endued with power from on high…

and ther are a lot of people not enduded with the “real presence”
 
Christian_Unity said:
It doesn’t bother me that there are a gazillion denominations because the Catholic Churches and Orthodox churches are part of the gazillion denominations alongside with all of the other Christian mixes. We are all into this togther.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Click to expand...
Unity,

Wikipedia is not the source of the origin of the word denomination as this word did not exist at the time of Christ. In fact this word is of rather recent origin as is your belief system of Protestant thought. While you want to include yourself in the mystery of revelation it is only as a side note of resistance to the truth and your lack of understanding in that regard is understood as less than adequate knowledge that would be tantamount to the fortress that cannot be overcome sometimes referred to as lack of ability to understand that is invincible to put it kindly…

yet you persist and for that you should be praised…🙂
 
johnnyjones said:
The definition (and it is not some far reaching re-definition) of a Protestant is a Christian who is not of the Roman Catholic faith. Wheres the wiggle room?
Click to expand...
Words can have more than one meaning, and apparently some people don’t accept your rather simplistic one. There are some Baptist groups that don’t associate themselves with that term, and I strongly doubt that the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox, or the Eastern Orthodox accept your defintion that they are Protestants. A source often used to support the contention that there are a gazillion Protestant denominations is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia. In that source, religions are divided into seven major ecclesiastical blocs: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Non-White Indigenous, Anglican, Marginal Protestant, and Non-Roman Catholic. So, at least by that author, even Anglicans (like me) are separate from Protestants, though there are Anglicans who happily embrace the term.
 
jrtrent said:
Words can have more than one meaning, and apparently some people don’t accept your rather simplistic one. There are some Baptist groups that don’t associate themselves with that term, and I strongly doubt that the Assyrian Church, the Oriental Orthodox, or the Eastern Orthodox accept your defintion that they are Protestants. A source often used to support the contention that there are a gazillion Protestant denominations is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia. In that source, religions are divided into seven major ecclesiastical blocs: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Non-White Indigenous, Anglican, Marginal Protestant, and Non-Roman Catholic. So, at least by that author, even Anglicans (like me) are separate from Protestants, though there are Anglicans who happily embrace the term.
Click to expand...
You can “not associate with that term” all you want but good luck telling an individual “I’m a Baptist, but I’m not Protestant.” It’s laughable.

Your getting ultra technical with a word like “Protestant” that 99% of people understand the general usage of. We speak in the vernacular and man makes a dictionary to reflect that. The 1st definition of Protestant stands. “Simplistic” view? The reason someone belongs to a Christian faith other than Catholicism is because their particular body of faith does not align with catholic belief, therefore making them Protestant. Has it really come to the point where the basics have to be explained on this level.
 
johnnyjones said:
You can “not associate with that term” all you want but good luck telling an individual “I’m a Baptist, but I’m not Protestant.” It’s laughable.
Click to expand...
It’s only laughable if you get your kicks by laughing at other people’s beliefs.
Your getting ultra technical with a word like “Protestant” that 99% of people understand the general usage of. We speak in the vernacular and man makes a dictionary to reflect that. The 1st definition of Protestant stands. “Simplistic” view? The reason someone belongs to a Christian faith other than Catholicism is because their particular body of faith does not align with catholic belief, therefore making them Protestant. Has it really come to the point where the basics have to be explained on this level.
Click to expand...
It seems there’s more than one dictionary in the world, too:

Prot·es·tant [prot-uh-stuhnt or for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt]

noun
  1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
  2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
  3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
  4. ( lowercase ) a person who protests.
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/Protestant
Some Baptists would deny the validity of the first definition and state that they do not fit the second, since they consider themselves to pre-date the Reformation. What purpose is served in quibbling with people over what they choose to call themselves?
 
jrtrent said:
It’s only laughable if you get your kicks by laughing at other people’s beliefs.

It seems there’s more than one dictionary in the world, too:

Prot·es·tant [prot-uh-stuhnt or for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt]

noun
  1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
  2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
  3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
  4. ( lowercase ) a person who protests.
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/Protestant
Some Baptists would deny the validity of the first definition and state that they do not fit the second, since they consider themselves to pre-date the Reformation. What purpose is served in quibbling with people over what they choose to call themselves?
Click to expand...
Trent,

I used to go to the library and check out the oldest dictionaries and compare them with modern dictionaries. I suggest all lurkers do this. You will find that older dictionaries define things differently than modern ones. Word usage is what determines definition and definitions are not determined by what is in a book because not all agree.

It was not until Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) that a truly noteworthy, reliable English Dictionary was deemed to have been produced, and the fact that today many people still mistakenly believe Johnson to have written the first English Dictionary is a testimony to this legacy.

johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/

Catholic
Christian
Protestant
Jesus

Do not exist…

In a later dictionary, Catholic, Christian and Protestant appear thus…

1828.mshaffer.com/
Christian
Click to expand...
  1. A believer in the religion of Christ.
  2. A professor of his belief in the religion of Christ.
  3. A real disciple of Christ; one who believes in the truth of the Christian religion, and studies to follow the example, and obey the precepts, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by real piety.
  4. In a general sense, the word Christians includes all who are born in a Christian country or of Christian parents.
    CHRISTIAN, a. [See the Noun.]
  5. Pertaining to Christ, taught by him, or received from him; as the Christian religion; Christian doctrines.
  6. Professing the religion of Christ; as a Christian friend.
  7. Belonging to the religion of Christ; relating to Christ, or to his doctrines, precepts and example; as christian profession and practice.
  8. Pertaining to the church; ecclesiastical; as courts Christian.
    CHRISTIAN, v.t. To baptize.
Click to expand...
catholic
CATHOLIC, a.
  1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
  2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
  3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
    Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
    CATHOLIC, n. A papist.
Click to expand...
protestant
PROT’ESTANT, a. Pertaining to those who, at the reformation of religion,protested against a decree of Charles V. and the diet of Spires; pertaining to the adherents of Luther, or others of the reformed churches; as the protestant religion.
PROT’ESTANT, n. One of the party who adhered to Luther at the reformation in 1529, and protested, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from a decree of the emperor Charles V. and the diet of Spires, and appealed to a general council. This name was afterwards extended to the followers of Calvin, and Protestants is the denomination now given to all who belong to the reformed churches. The king of Prussia has, however, interdicted the use of this name in his dominions.
Click to expand...
Reality is that however a word is used and defined in a population is not determined by what is accepted in a book…on this thread Protestant is defined and used as accepted by the Catholic Christian Population, since this is a CAF and is geared towards answers and apologetics…

Words are used and defined as we view them not by those that come to the thread and want to use them…

These definitions are accepted or rejected since they reflect an understanding of Reveled Truths and Dictionaries do not define Revealed truths…The Deposit of Faith does.
 
CopticChristian said:
Unity,

Wikipedia is not the source of the origin of the word denomination as this word did not exist at the time of Christ. In fact this word is of rather recent origin as is your belief system of Protestant thought. While you want to include yourself in the mystery of revelation it is only as a side note of resistance to the truth and your lack of understanding in that regard is understood as less than adequate knowledge that would be tantamount to the fortress that cannot be overcome sometimes referred to as lack of ability to understand that is invincible to put it kindly…

yet you persist and for that you should be praised…🙂
Click to expand...
That view appears to lack Christian humility. I think the Apostle Paul disagrees with you brother:

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - Apostle Paul

All churches are imperfect and are in continual renewal, transformation, and internal reformation. Catholic doctrine grew over the years…so the Catholic Church grows in her understanding too.
 
jrtrent said:
It’s only laughable if you get your kicks by laughing at other people’s beliefs.

It seems there’s more than one dictionary in the world, too:

Prot·es·tant [prot-uh-stuhnt or for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt]

noun
  1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
  2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
  3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
  4. ( lowercase ) a person who protests.
    dictionary.reference.com/browse/Protestant
Some Baptists would deny the validity of the first definition and state that they do not fit the second, since they consider themselves to pre-date the Reformation. What purpose is served in quibbling with people over what they choose to call themselves?
Click to expand...
There is no desire to “quibble”, just present facts that are longstanding.
A Baptist is a Protestant. The definitions you posted are accurate depending on how old a dictionary is. The common usage of Protestant is one who is Christian but not Roman Catholic. Start a thread that your a non Protestant Christian who is not Catholic and wait for the results.

Whatever new definition you are looking for is extremely narrow.
 
CopticChristian said:
Trent,

I used to go to the library and check out the oldest dictionaries and compare them with modern dictionaries. I suggest all lurkers do this. You will find that older dictionaries define things differently than modern ones. Word usage is what determines definition and definitions are not determined by what is in a book because not all agree.

It was not until Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (1755) that a truly noteworthy, reliable English Dictionary was deemed to have been produced, and the fact that today many people still mistakenly believe Johnson to have written the first English Dictionary is a testimony to this legacy.

johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/

Catholic
Christian
Protestant
Jesus

Do not exist…

In a later dictionary, Catholic, Christian and Protestant appear thus…

1828.mshaffer.com/

Reality is that however a word is used and defined in a population is not determined by what is accepted in a book…on this thread Protestant is defined and used as accepted by the Catholic Christian Population, since this is a CAF and is geared towards answers and apologetics…

Words are used and defined as we view them not by those that come to the thread and want to use them…

These definitions are accepted or rejected since they reflect an understanding of Reveled Truths and Dictionaries do not define Revealed truths…The Deposit of Faith does.
Click to expand...
We have discussed word usage before. Your right, the vernacular for Protestant stands.
 
Christian_Unity said:
That view appears to lack Christian humility. I think the Apostle Paul disagrees with you brother:

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - Apostle Paul

All churches are imperfect and are in continual renewal, transformation, and internal reformation. Catholic doctrine grew over the years…so the Catholic Church grows in her understanding too.
Click to expand...
Unity,

You know how families are. Here my older Brother John Chrysosotom has more to say and a better understanding than you do about what Paul says…

newadvent.org/fathers/220133.htm

newadvent.org/fathers/220134.htm
Now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known. Do you see how in two ways he pulls down their pride? Both because their knowledge is in part, and because not even this have they of themselves.
Click to expand...
You see my brother, I have been close to home, never left home, know what the Father wants me to know and how the household is to be kept.

You have seen families where one guy leaves, travels, learns another language, all kinds of new fangled things and ideas and then comes home to the family and quite honestly is out of place.

God is our Father, eternal and has not changed, nor has His Revealed Truths…

Christ is our Brother and Mary His Mother and also ours as well…

The Son built a house and that house has rules and ways of doing things that while you were away have pretty much been the same and have not changed. While your new fangled beliefs and understandings suit you…coming home and believing you have something to offer that unites is nothing more than other than what you believe it to be.

Brothers are like that. My Father says I should tell you and I have. I wish you could be a complete part of the family however to be in this house you have to follow the rules in their entirety and it starts with complete acceptance of this…
We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."
Click to expand...
Just conduct yourself as if you are home, understand the rules…as Paul says…
14I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.
Click to expand...
You want to know how to conduct yourself, and that means leave all your new fangled notions, thoughts, beliefs and whatever you believe you have that you want to change at the door.

Come on in…🙂
 
johnnyjones said:
We have discussed word usage before. Your right, the vernacular for Protestant stands.
Click to expand...
Correct, if one understands its origin, and not misunderstand protestant as being somehow a once monolithic church or communion that has since splintered. If one wants to use the term as a general catch-all shorthand to refer to western non-Catholic communions, well then ok.

Jon
 
Christian_Unity said:
Code: 
That view appears to lack Christian humility. I think the Apostle Paul disagrees with you brother:
For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. - Apostle Paul
Click to expand...
You are mixing up apples and squash here CU.

The Church contains the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. It is not possible for mankind to completly grasp the full revelation of God,but man’s lack does not equate to God’s lack.

He did not leave us to figure out on our own what we need to know. He has given us everything, and that fullness of Truth is preserved in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church infallibly by the Holy Spirit.
Christian_Unity said:
All churches are imperfect and are in continual renewal, transformation, and internal reformation. Catholic doctrine grew over the years…so the Catholic Church grows in her understanding too.
Click to expand...
No, CU, Jesus’ Church is perfect, because He has perfected her.

The imperfections belong to the human beings who are members of His Holy Bride, the Church. Humans are always in need of renewal, transformation, and reformation. The Doctrine of Christ, however, was perfect when He deposited to the Church, and is kept perfect by the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church. Jesus’ teaching was never in need of reform.

Yes, human beings do grow in their understanding, and that is what is meant by the development of doctrine, but the doctrine itself never 'grows" or changes over time. The deposit of faith is a once for all event, and this public revelation was closed with the the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted from it.

The Church does not “add” or “grow” doctrine. What is added and growing is our understanding of the once for all doctrines given to the Church.
 
PJM said:
So Ben my friend,

Are we to understand that Christ Did and does intend for their to be only:

One God

One set of Faith beliefs

& Only One Church

God Bless you,
Click to expand...
yes anything added to the “TORAH” adds confusion to the riligious, as Jesus said he was not creating or adding to the torah-- either he was wrong-- or the catholic religion - added specific “new” religious ordinaces
 
Christian_Unity said:
It doesn’t bother me that there are a gazillion denominations because the Catholic Churches and Orthodox churches are part of the gazillion denominations alongside with all of the other Christian mixes. We are all into this togther.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Click to expand...
yes anything added to the “TORAH” adds confusion to the riligious, as Jesus said he was not creating or adding to the torah-- either he was wrong-- or the catholic religion - added specific “new” religious ordinaces

in addition- the sister chruches or splinter churchs – that follow the catholic church teachings-- are no different in their confusion –

all though the catholic church dosen’t recognize "baptism " out side of it’s sacremental system
as being a “valid” method of being a part of the church “body”

but if you don’t get the baptism of the HOLY Spirit-- then you are “NOT” part the christ any way-- but each church defends it own “water baptism” ceremony
 
I guess I’m a Protestant since the last 2 churches I’ve been attending are a Lutheran church and an Episcopal one.

Personally I don’t hold tightly to denominations. I like the idea that there are different churches to go to, as people differ in how they like to worship.
 
Lisa1967 said:
I guess I’m a Protestant since the last 2 churches I’ve been attending are a Lutheran church and an Episcopal one.

Personally I don’t hold tightly to denominations. I like the idea that there are different churches to go to, as people differ in how they like to worship.
Click to expand...
How do explain
Ephesians 4:5
New International Version (NIV)
5*one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Should it say one lord, 38,000+ faiths, and zero to a couple baptisms ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top