Church Shopping

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get used to the schismatic Protestant numbers, Blue. They change in here daily. I’ve come in and read 40,000, 33, 000, 20, 000 or 50,000 and then 11,000 or even just hundreds? Just like the “witnesses” who testified against Jesus couldn’t keep their story straight about their lies, you’ll see different versions of the “true” numbers.

These protestant splinter counts go up and down so much in here that it’s like the CAF stock market…

The Dow Jones Pentecostal and Lutheran rates dropped today by 50,000 points upon news that women’s ordination might start among these groups. LOL

If they made such a mistake about Catholicism, why accept their report on Protestants? The reason people point this out is because it poses questions about the methodology of how they are counting. If they have separated the Catholic Church into soi many groups, have they done the same with others? Do they divide the Orthodox into many groups, which is not how they understand themselves? Anglicans? Other Protestants?

This also points to a more difficult point - because of the way Protestant ecclesiology works, one could have two groups with identical doctrine and practice, in two areas of the world, and they might have different names and governors. From their POV, that is ok - the Church is realized in local bodies, and governance is understood to be at the local level. From this perspective, counting them as separate denominations is like counting each congregation as a denomination!

This just isn’t really a very sophisticated or useful way to criticize non-Catholic groups.

 

[PRmerger]

If they made such a mistake about Catholicism, why accept their report on Protestants? The reason people point this out is because it poses questions about the methodology of how they are counting. If they have separated the Catholic Church into soi many groups, have they done the same with others? Do they divide the Orthodox into many groups, which is not how they understand themselves? Anglicans? Other Protestants?

This also points to a more difficult point - because of the way Protestant ecclesiology works, one could have two groups with identical doctrine and practice, in two areas of the world, and they might have different names and governors. From their POV, that is ok - the Church is realized in local bodies, and governance is understood to be at the local level. From this perspective, counting them as separate denominations is like counting each congregation as a denomination!

This just isn’t really a very sophisticated or useful way to criticize non-Catholic groups.

Fair enough.

You believe 40,000 is incorrect.
So what’s the correct number of Christian denominations? And how do you know? Please cite your source.

 

[PRmerger]

This also points to a more difficult point - because of the way Protestant ecclesiology works, one could have two groups with identical doctrine and practice, in two areas of the world, and they might have different names and governors.

Yet they are under no centralized authority, thus they are independent and ought to be counted as separate denominations. They owe no submission or assent of faith to each other, so why wouldn’t they be counted separately?

While I have no research to back me up–admittedly this is simply logic speaking here–I doubt that, say, the Assemblies of God church in Botswana has identical doctrine and identical practice as the AoG in Tasmania. The paradigm of “The Holy Spirit will lead me to correct doctrine” lends itself to differing doctrines and differing practices. Each fallible, non-authoritative AofG preacher decides for himself what each verse he plans to preach on means. They do not even read the same readings at their worship services.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks as usual for the response. PRmerger. I wonder about this part. Goes back to the free will thing. I wonder how much of that there really is. Seems to me that there is less of that than we commonly think, but that’s just me again.

Thanks again!

Fair enough.

But it seems to me the fact that you can “wonder how much of that there really is” seems to speak of…free will, yes?

 

[Sufjon]

Fair enough.

But it seems to me the fact that you can “wonder how much of that there really is” seems to speak of…free will, yes?

Oh sure - yes, I do think it happens. Just not nearly as much as we suppose. In fact, when you think it through, it seems almost inevitable that we even had this conversation. That’s why I think things often look so synchronistic or coincidental. By the way, I keep forgetting to tell you how much I like your signature quote. That’s such a kind thing to even think of - to pray for the intentions of fellow posters. That’s one of the best ideas I’ve learned from all of my discussions on this post, and it wasn’t even part of a discussion. Funny how that works.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh sure - yes, I do think it happens. Just not nearly as much as we suppose. By the way, I keep forgetting to tell you how much I like your signature quote. That’s such a kind thing to even think of - to pray for the intentions of fellow posters. That’s one of the best ideas I’ve learned from all of my discussions on this post, and it wasn’t even part of a discussion. Funny how that works.

Why, thank you! Did you get a great parking spot or something today that I can take credit for?

So you have an intriguing concept, although, I suspect, not fully articulated and investigated. Your premise: we indeed have free will, but not all the time.

So, of course, the questions arise:
-when is free will exercised?
-what prevents us from fully utilizing this gift, especially if there is no god (which I assume you entertain this as a possible reality)
-when I look at others’ actions, how do I know if their behavior was a product of free will? And if it wasn’t free will, what was it? What controlled their actions?
-Is there a Deity with puppet strings? If so, why does he sometimes “cut the strings”?

Intriguing, indeed!

 

[Bluegoat]

Fair enough.

You believe 40,000 is incorrect.
So what’s the correct number of Christian denominations? And how do you know? Please cite your source.

I have no idea. I don’t think the number is actually very important.

Yet they are under no centralized authority, thus they are independent and ought to be counted as separate denominations. They owe no submission or assent of faith to each other, so why wouldn’t they be counted separately?

While I have no research to back me up–admittedly this is simply logic speaking here–I doubt that, say, the Assemblies of God church in Botswana has identical doctrine and identical practice as the AoG in Tasmania. The paradigm of “The Holy Spirit will lead me to correct doctrine” lends itself to differing doctrines and differing practices. Each fallible, non-authoritative AofG preacher decides for himself what each verse he plans to preach on means. They do not even read the same readings at their worship services.

1. Why should having no centralized authority mean they should be counted as seperate denominations? Neither Protestant nor Orthodox churches require this, nor did the Early Church.
2. The differences in doctrine have to be over issues that are considered substantial by those groups, and worship is not required by most to be identical. In general, Protestants allow for more differences in doctrine than Catholics do. Looking at it this way, you can certainly find substantial differences between Protestant groups, but you can also begin to lump them into groups who generally agree on a wide range of issues.

For example, here in Canada you could, as a Methodist, attend Anglican, United, Congregationalist, or Lutheran parishes with no difficulty. They would be happy to have you as part of their congregation, they would likely admit you to the Eucharist, and so on. In some cases there are formal agreements even allowing clergy to move between congregations. You could also group together many Calvinist congregations, and anabaptists.

And do please remember that the Catholic Church is not the monolith you are making out. The Latin Catholic rite is not the same as the Eastern rites, and they do not even have the same readings! And their theological expressions might differ far more than a lutheran an an Anglican, for example.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Yet they are under no centralized authority, thus they are independent and ought to be counted as separate denominations. They owe no submission or assent of faith to each other, so why wouldn’t they be counted separately?

While I have no research to back me up–admittedly this is simply logic speaking here–I doubt that, say, the Assemblies of God church in Botswana has identical doctrine and identical practice as the AoG in Tasmania. The paradigm of “The Holy Spirit will lead me to correct doctrine” lends itself to differing doctrines and differing practices. Each fallible, non-authoritative AofG preacher decides for himself what each verse he plans to preach on means. They do not even read the same readings at their worship services.

And we see that as a strength. When a 9/11 happens to a local community the teacher is not locked into the worldwide assigned message of the day but can tailor the message the community that he pastors needs at that moment of history.

 

[PRmerger]

And we see that as a strength. When a 9/11 happens to a local community the teacher is not locked into the worldwide assigned message of the day but can tailor the message the community that he pastors needs at that moment of history.

Um…there is no “worldwide assigned message of the day”. The Sacred Scriptures, the Word of God, Divine Revelation are not an “assigned message”. Please have some respect.

Incidentally, are you under some misapprehension that Catholic priests did not address the tragedy of 9/11 in their homilies? Really?

 

[4Squarebaby]

Um…there is no “worldwide assigned message of the day”. The Sacred Scriptures, the Word of God, Divine Revelation are not an “assigned message”. Please have some respect.

Incidentally, are you under some misapprehension that Catholic priests did not address the tragedy of 9/11 in their homilies? Really?

But is the message integrated with scripture or is that day’s assigned scripture just out there alone. Check list item X did that, now to move on as the Priest does a 180 to get to his homily which may or may not have any relation to the scriptures

 

[PRmerger]

But is the message integrated with scripture or is that day’s assigned scripture just out there alone. Check list item X did that, now to move on as the Priest does a 180 to get to his homily which may or may not have any relation to the scriptures

*Any *verses in Scripture, when moved by the Holy Spirit, can speak to us and give us a “tailored message”.
That’s the beauty of God’s Word, isn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

I have no idea. I don’t think the number is actually very important.

Yes. Anything more than 1 is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

But if you don’t know the actual number of Christian denominations, you really can’t say that 40,000 is wrong, can you?

1. Why should having no centralized authority mean they should be counted as seperate denominations?

Because that’s the entire point of our argument. We see the fruit of no centralized authority in this obscene number: 40,000 different denominations, each claiming that their fallible, non-authoritative pastor can read the Scriptures for himself and come to a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Neither Protestant nor Orthodox churches require this, nor did the Early Church

Arguing from what Protestant or OCs require to a Catholic is irrelevant.
As for the Early Church not requiring a central authority that is absolutely not true. See Matt 16:18. And Acts 15.

1. The differences in doctrine have to be over issues that are considered substantial by those groups,

Yet, Scripture does not tell us what issues are “considered substantial”. They have to rely on a man-made, non-authoritative, non-Scriptural norm for what’s “substantial.” Ah, the irony!

For example, here in Canada you could, as a Methodist, attend Anglican, United, Congregationalist, or Lutheran parishes with no difficulty. They would be happy to have you as part of their congregation, they would likely admit you to the Eucharist, and so on. In some cases there are formal agreements even allowing clergy to move between congregations. You could also group together many Calvinist congregations, and anabaptists.

Until they start discussing theology.

And do please remember that the Catholic Church is not the monolith you are making out. The Latin Catholic rite is not the same as the Eastern rites, and they do not even have the same readings! And their theological expressions might differ far more than a lutheran an an Anglican, for example.

Can you give an example of a theological expression in the Eastern rite that differsfrom the CC far more than a Lutheran or Anglican theological expression?

 

[Sufjon]

Why, thank you! Did you get a great parking spot or something today that I can take credit for?

So you have an intriguing concept, although, I suspect, not fully articulated and investigated. Your premise: we indeed have free will, but not all the time.

So, of course, the questions arise:
-when is free will exercised?
-what prevents us from fully utilizing this gift, especially if there is no god (which I assume you entertain this as a possible reality)
-when I look at others’ actions, how do I know if their behavior was a product of free will? And if it wasn’t free will, what was it? What controlled their actions?
-Is there a Deity with puppet strings? If so, why does he sometimes “cut the strings”?

Intriguing, indeed!

Hi PRmerger: Actually, I suppose I didn’t articulate it very well, but I keep thinking that eventually someone is going to jump me for making such long-winded posts. Here’s how I see it, but again this is my unqualified view. As I said, I think we have free will, but in a more limited way than people normally think. I have read that the smallest unit of time that is perceptible in a conscious or aware way is about 200 milliseconds. I don’t know if that’s right but it sounds right. Let’s say that for observation purposes, I took the entire event sequence of my life and partitioned it or divided it into 200ms frames or blocks, similar to frames in a move film. If I take one of those frames out of the sequence and examine it I can start to draw some conclusions about it. One of them might be that the conditions present, or state of affairs during that frame were almost inevitable or unavoidable at the point at which we had arrived at the 200 ms frame just prior to it. The same can be said of that frame prior to it, and every frame backward into the event sequence as well as forward into it. To make matters worse, the event sequence of my life isn’t occurring in a vacuum. It’s being influenced heavily by the event sequences of the people around me., as they interact with one another, either intentionally or unintentionally. The event continuums in these peoples lives in turn are being influenced by scenarios playing out in the lives of people more in proximity to them, and less in proximity to me, and so on out into the populace. My free will seems greatly diminished. Now if we add learned behaviors and conditioned responses that I’ve accrued over my lifetime, the probability that I will react in a particular way to a given event becomes more predictable, since most of the things we do start to happen in more and more of an automatic mode as time passes. For example, when I learned to drive a car, I was fully aware of things like the feel of the gas pedal, the brake, the steering wheel, and how they responded to me. I was heavily engaged in the activity of driving the car. As time passed, all of these things became more automatic and built off of past experience. Plainly put, a large percentage of what I do every day is in automatic mode and very predictable. In spite of this. there seems to be some aspect of my being that is able to step outside of this continuum and reason things out. Finally – is this my free will? I might wake up this morning and decide to take a trip somewhere because I felt like I have stagnated and needed to grow. I seem to have exercised some free will at last! But did I? The fact that I took other trips in the past, only made that decision fit a pattern I already established by prior actions. It was reinforced by the positive nature of those past experiences, and becomes the way that Sufjon deals with boredom, whereas the guy across the street might decide to buy a sports car instead. His past experience and learned responses took him in a different direction, and the conditions that lead to that point in his decision making process made a sports car a more accessible alternative to him than it is to me. Aside from that, Sufjon’s decision was based on the predictable reaction his wife (SufJane) would have to buying a sports car. So how much is free will, and how much is inevitable consequences of the event continuum I am living in, the event continuums of everyone else, habit, conditioning, automatic response and learned behaviors? Now, if I had but one lifetime at the end of which I would be judged according to what I did or did not do, it seems rather unfair, but there are other possibilities. So Sufjon continues to look. Is he on the right track? Who can say? But he sure makes long posts.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jim,

=Jim Dandy;7028044]
This is Sola Scriptura at work. What hath Luther wrought? These thousands of denominations are the consequence of separating the Catholic Church from her Book.

What hath Luther wrought?

Can you provide a list of denominations that are splinters from Lutheranism? Not the Calvinist/Reformed. Not the anabaptists/Baptists. Not Angicanism/Methodist. Not Pentecostalism. Certainly not American evangelicalism. None of these were ever Lutheran.

The only legitimate claim might be those Lutherans who have moved to a more liberal protestant POV in recent times, whom Luther himself I believe would condemn.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PRmerger: Actually, I suppose I didn’t articulate it very well, but I keep thinking that eventually someone is going to jump me for making such long-winded posts. Here’s how I see it, but again this is my unqualified view. As I said, I think we have free will, but in a more limited way than people normally think. I have read that the smallest unit of time that is perceptible in a conscious or aware way is about 200 milliseconds. I don’t know if that’s right but it sounds right. Let’s say that for observation purposes, I took the entire event sequence of my life and partitioned it or divided it into 200ms frames or blocks, similar to frames in a move film. If I take one of those frames out of the sequence and examine it I can start to draw some conclusions about it. One of them might be that the conditions present, or state of affairs during that frame were almost inevitable or unavoidable at the point at which we had arrived at the 200 ms frame just prior to it. The same can be said of that frame prior to it, and every frame backward into the event sequence as well as forward into it. To make matters worse, the event sequence of my life isn’t occurring in a vacuum. It’s being influenced heavily by the event sequences of the people around me., as they interact with one another, either intentionally or unintentionally. The event continuums in these peoples lives in turn are being influenced by scenarios playing out in the lives of people more in proximity to them, and less in proximity to me, and so on out into the populace. My free will seems greatly diminished. Now if we add learned behaviors and conditioned responses that I’ve accrued over my lifetime, the probability that I will react in a particular way to a given event becomes more predictable, since most of the things we do start to happen in more and more of an automatic mode as time passes. For example, when I learned to drive a car, I was fully aware of things like the feel of the gas pedal, the brake, the steering wheel, and how they responded to me. I was heavily engaged in the activity of driving the car. As time passed, all of these things became more automatic and built off of past experience. Plainly put, a large percentage of what I do every day is in automatic mode and very predictable. In spite of this. there seems to be some aspect of my being that is able to step outside of this continuum and reason things out. Finally – is this my free will? I might wake up this morning and decide to take a trip somewhere because I felt like I have stagnated and needed to grow. I seem to have exercised some free will at last! But did I? The fact that I took other trips in the past, only made that decision fit a pattern I already established by prior actions. It was reinforced by the positive nature of those past experiences, and becomes the way that Sufjon deals with boredom, whereas the guy across the street might decide to buy a sports car instead. His past experience and learned responses took him in a different direction, and the conditions that lead to that point in his decision making process made a sports car a more accessible alternative to him than it is to me. Aside from that, Sufjon’s decision was based on the predictable reaction his wife (SufJane) would have to buying a sports car. So how much is free will, and how much is inevitable consequences of the event continuum I am living in, the event continuums of everyone else, habit, conditioning, automatic response and learned behaviors? Now, if I had but one lifetime at the end of which I would be judged according to what I did or did not do, it seems rather unfair, but there are other possibilities. So Sufjon continues to look. Is he on the right track? Who can say? But he sure makes long posts.

Each and every volitional choice you make–whether you’ve been influenced by in-utero events, the fact that you weren’t breastfed, had a bully for an older brother, didn’t get chosen first for the kickball team, etc etc etc–in the end, is up to you. (I’m not poking fun. Well, maybe just a bit. )

You can *choose *which way to react.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes. Anything more than 1 is just what the devil ordered, IMHO.

But if you don’t know the actual number of Christian denominations, you really can’t say that 40,000 is wrong, can you?

You have rather missed the point. You have reccomended the use of a source that divides Catholisism into differnt denominations, a conclusion you reject. But you are happy to accept the sources conclusions about other groups. THat shows that you either don’t know how to judge the worth of a source, or don’t care if it is accurate as long as it supports the point you want to make.

Because that’s the entire point of our argument. We see the fruit of no centralized authority in this obscene number: 40,000 different denominations, each claiming that their fallible, non-authoritative pastor can read the Scriptures for himself and come to a correct interpretation of Scripture.

Few would make such a claim. No individual is understood to have such a power. Also, I hope you are not trying to argue that the OC is a denomination, or that they have an individualistic understanding of Scripture. If anything they could argue that the Catholic Church, due to the inovations attributable to strong central authority, has created new interpretations of Scripture.

Arguing from what Protestant or OCs require to a Catholic is irrelevant.
As for the Early Church not requiring a central authority that is absolutely not true. See Matt 16:18. And Acts 15.

Re the early church - perhaps if you look at how the early church actually functioned, it would be more useful than proof texts that could mean many different things.

Yet, Scripture does not tell us what issues are “considered substantial”. They have to rely on a man-made, non-authoritative, non-Scriptural norm for what’s “substantial.” Ah, the irony!

Oh really now. You sited differences in daily readings as substantial, which is not considered so by anyone, including the CC! And in fact Scripture has a lot to say on what is important and what is less so, I can’t for a moment imagine why you would say it doesn’t.

Can you give an example of a theological expression in the Eastern rite that differsfrom the CC far more than a Lutheran or Anglican theological expression?

How about original sin? Or transubstantiation. Even in many cases the role of the papacy. In practices we could look at confirmation. Or the communication of infants, which is a big deal.THe larger groupings of Protestants (Lutheran types, Anglicans, Calvinists, Babptists) tend to agree within the groupings other on most issues.

 

[PRmerger]

You have rather missed the point. You have reccomended the use of a source that divides Catholisism into differnt denominations, a conclusion you reject. But you are happy to accept the sources conclusions about other groups. THat shows that you either don’t know how to judge the worth of a source, or don’t care if it is accurate as long as it supports the point you want to make.

As I have said not a few times: ok.

What’s the correct number of Christian denominations? And how do you know? Please cite your source.

I’d be happy to entertain a different accounting. But I’d just like to see a source.

It’s like I’m proposing that there’s 40,000 books in my library. You come to me and say, “40,000 is ridiculous! You counted one book 242 times.”
To which I respond: Ok, I have 40,000 minus 241. OR, Ok, how many do I actually have?
Your response: Um…I don’t know. I just know it’s not 40,000.

 

[PRmerger]

Re the early church - perhaps if you look at how the early church actually functioned, it would be more useful than proof texts that could mean many different things.

Perhaps.

If you care to start a thread on this I may join you there.

Oh really now. You sited differences in daily readings as substantial, which is not considered so by anyone, including the CC!

Actually, it was just as an aside.

And in fact Scripture has a lot to say on what is important and what is less so, I can’t for a moment imagine why you would say it doesn’t.

Examples of something Scripture says is essential and something Scripture says is non-essential? Chapter and verse, please!

How about original sin? Or transubstantiation. Even in many cases the role of the papacy. In practices we could look at confirmation. Or the communication of infants, which is a big deal.THe larger groupings of Protestants (Lutheran types, Anglicans, Calvinists, Babptists) tend to agree within the groupings other on most issues.

Eastern rites do not have any disagreement with us on Original Sin, or Transubstantiation. Or the papacy.

Perhaps you’re confusing the Eastern Catholic rites with the Eastern Orthodox?

The CC has 22 different rites, of which the Latin is only one. All other rites are in agreement with the Bishop of Rome on the papacy, original sin, transubstantiation.

 

[Sufjon]

Each and every volitional choice you make–whether you’ve been influenced by in-utero events, the fact that you weren’t breastfed, had a bully for an older brother, didn’t get chosen first for the kickball team, etc etc etc–in the end, is up to you. (I’m not poking fun. Well, maybe just a bit. )

You can *choose *which way to react.

Yes, but more and more over time, we way you react is probably shaped by past experience and for the most part automatic responses. In most cases, we will react so automatically as to be unconscious. My point is that while conscious reaction is possible, it is probably less common than conditioned auto-responses. My feeling is more and more becoming that if you accept traditional Christian views, the only solace is to see more free will than there probably is. But it’s not so grim, as I see other possibilities. Still looking.

 

[facetious5487]

Thats so funny that you asked that – I have recently been wanting to get back into going to church – I was confirmed Methodist at age 13, in high school/young adult years, attended a southern baptist church, and now (age 26), have started attending an Episcopalian church, because I want something that is very “traditional” in feel/liturgy.

The catholic church has interested me, but I guess I never really considered checking one out because it seems (I know this might be ignorant to say), like something that if you aren’t a part of, you don’t just “show up” to one day – kind of like, I wouldn’t feel comfortable going to a synagogue out of the blue –

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it feels like a type of church you need to be born into.

I have been watching some catholic masses on television, and they seem VERY similar to the Episcopalian Eucharists/services I have just started attending (I’m sorry if this seems uninformed- - remember, I grew up very protestant – so event he Episcopalian church is very new/different to me)

I think I have been wanting to learn more about the catholic church – but just haven’t had the courage to seek it out.