How divided are Protestants?

[humble_in_doubt]

josie_L:
respectfully josie … yes the CC was oppressive by today’s standards. The inquisition, crusades, the scandal concerning indulgences, and many other events in the history of your church were clearly acts of oppression (and indeed show a pattern of oppressive behavior). Be that as it may … you view your church as the representative of what I believe is ancient mythology. You’re entitled to your view & I’m entitled to hold steadfast to common sense and practical logic.

 

[BrianH]

The differences among Catholics are due to a lack of obedience by certain individuals, not a lack of doctrinal unity.

Among protestant denominations, there are major doctrinal differences on central matters of faith and morals.

Because the only thing the word means is not Catholic in my opinion. They started from different places in different times by different individuals.
It is akin to saying because the Democrats are the oldest part existing, the lack of unity among Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists is somehow surprising. The only thing they have in common is they are not Democrats.
Thats why the term is a waste of time and misleading.

 

[survive]

Issues that divide Protestants include the type and scope of proper church government (ranging from a worldwide leader with several levels of subdivisions, to nationwide leaders independent of one another, with two or three middle levels and the local pastor and sub-pastors, to independent pastors/congregations, to no clergy at all); liturgy (from the entire service a liturgy to the liturgy at the beginning, middle or end of the service, to none at all); who can be a pastor/minister/elder/preacher (anyone who graduates from any seminary of the same denomination; anyone who graduates from any college with credit in theology and is versed on the denomination’s beliefs; men only; people above 21 or some other age only; anyone who apprenticed to the previous pastor; couples only); beliefs about communion (consubstantiation, symbolic, no communion etc.); there are many points of difference. In theory, if there are, say, one hundred issues, with an average of ten possible positions per issue, there would be many times more denominations than there are people. Of course, some positions rule out others, so it can’t spin out of control that far. So, say, with ten clusters of opinions to match in groups of ten, a conservative estimate of how many denominations are possible, that’s still 10 000 000 000 – still outnumbering the population of the world today. Denominations will likely as not keep forming and keep merging. Big issues will fade to historic oddities and fall out of the space between people, who will get back together. Tiny quibbles will become important as the circumstances change, and people will split and start house churches and take collections for the new buildings. It’s no use counting them all. But it’s interesting to learn about what various Christians believe.

 

[josie_L]

respectfully josie … yes the CC was oppressive by today’s standards. The inquisition, crusades, the scandal concerning indulgences, and many other events in the history of your church were clearly acts of oppression (and indeed show a pattern of oppressive behavior). Be that as it may … you view your church as the representative of what I believe is ancient mythology. You’re entitled to your view & I’m entitled to hold steadfast to common sense and practical logic.

1. Do you know what the inquisition was, or the Crusades . . . etc. What about the scandal concerning indulgences? Please elucidate.
2. As for holding steadfastly to common sense and practical logic, are you stating I do not?

Mythology is a strange word to be using for someone who we know existed in space and time.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

1. Do you know what the inquisition was, or the Crusades . . . etc. What about the scandal concerning indulgences? Please elucidate.
2. As for holding steadfastly to common sense and practical logic, are you stating I do not?

Mythology is a strange word to be using for someone who we know existed in space and time.

asking me what the inquisition or crusades were really does insult my intelligence & I’m not interested in the Catholic revisionist explanation of these historical events, nor do I want to quibble over this matter. As to your last assertion; that is a fair and credible attack on my views. I frankly do not necessarily dispute the historicity of Jesus Christ. Josephus and several secular (or pagan) Roman historians wrote about him (i.e. Tacitus).

I’ve heard it said that there is more in the way of writings on Jesus than there is on Alexander the Great. However, no one claims Alexander was a god man who rose from the dead either (where the standard of evidence is naturally much higher). It would be absurd to say that people (going back around 2,000 years) did not believe in a Jesus (and all the surrounding mythology). However, none of this makes it true.

Although events like the many who martyred themselves for what they thought was true is compelling … it in itself offers absolutely no evidence showing the events depicted in scripture (particularly the miraculous events) occurred.

Again, all religion operates using the same basic modus operandi. There is always a god or gods who only revealed themselves to ancient men & there is always a profound reason why they don’t reveal themselves to us, today. Of course the real profound reason is it’s nonsense.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Because the only thing the word means is not Catholic in my opinion. They started from different places in different times by different individuals.
It is akin to saying because the Democrats are the oldest part existing, the lack of unity among Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, Constitutionalists is somehow surprising. The only thing they have in common is they are not Democrats.
Thats why the term is a waste of time and misleading.

I understand your point, although I don’t think your analogy is very good.

However, given that Jesus promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, and that he would be with them until the end of the world, it is difficult to imagine that the fullness of truth could be found anywhere in the protestant world.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Although events like the many who martyred themselves for what they thought was true is compelling … it in itself offers absolutely no evidence showing the events depicted in scripture (particularly the miraculous events) occurred.

QUOTE]

There is zero experimental evidence that there are multiple universes, that there are more than four dimensions, or that string theory is any more plausible than silly string theory.

These are faith based belief systems.

Human experience is evidence for God.

 

[kalt]

Thats Christian like telling some one their question is stupid…

Contrary to what they tell you in elementary school, some questions are stupid.

The OQ, imo, isn’t only stupid–it begs the question.

The OP obviously believes that Catholics have decided that Protestantism is more divided than Protestants think it is.

Fact - by dividing when the do, Protestants decide how divided they are. If they didn’t think the differences were make-or-break differences, they wouldn’t divide over them.

It’s a nonsense question.

 

[josie_L]

Hi Josie,
There are some issues that prevent me from leaving my current communion and joining yours, but the number of reasons has decreased of late. Suffice: the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, I remain unsure about purgatory, and intercessory prayer.
Curious, why do you ask the question?

Because the RC church is that church which provided you the Nicene Creed.

The question presumes, again, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, which I’m not ready to accept, even historically.

If you do not believe that Jesus gave Peter the singular authority to tend and feed the flock, as well as loose and bind, then there will never be christian unity. The truth is the truth whether one can accept it or not. Maybe praying for understanding is the key. It worked for me.

Would you ask the same if I were Orthodox? Are the Orthodox, as they were, in part, the Nicene writers, Catholic?

Yes, I would. And, yes they were.

But yes, I consider myself Catholic, albeit evangelical Catholic, since the separation between our communions happened long after. IOW, the councils are part of our history, too.

It is part of our (RC) Catholic Tradition/history. Martin Luther broke away from Tradition therefore cutting himself off from the historical early Church which took part in these councils (that you will find developed RC Tradition).

The Catholic writers of the Creed (which at the time included the Orthodox who were under papal authority) were writing the creed for the benefit of other Catholics (who were under papal authority) never knowing that the one Church would one day experience upheaval, by men who rejected her authority (magisterium/papal infallibility) and Traditions.

God bless.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

One of the criticisms made by Catholics about the Protestant movement is that it is continually dividing into more and more “denominations.” The number of denominations cited can be anything from 33,000 and upward. The reason invariably given to explain this state of affairs is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I’m not so sure that this argument is quite as overwhelming as Catholics might like to think. The logic seems unsound. If it were sound then when we Protestants see division in the ranks of the Catholic Church we would by using the same logic suggest that the Catholic Magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint. Presumably, most Catholics would see such an assertion as wayward? Well, then, if a Protestant believes that the Bible rather than the Magesterium is a sufficient rule of faith how is it that Catholics conclude that a difference of opinion abut our sufficient source is a valid argument against its sufficiency?

Whatever. That’s merely an en passant observation since my focus here is not upon the method of argumentation used against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura but upon the actual division within the Protestant movement since that division is undoubtedly a reality. The suffix that Catholics usually add to their argument against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that the denominations “all disagree with each other.”

Does that assertion adequately describe the reality? Do we Protestants all disagree with each other? The 33,000 figure (apparently lifted from the World Christian Encyclopedia – check it out, it’s only $300+) implies that there are 33,000 different viewpoints or opinions i.e. total cacophony. But I respectfully submit that an objective analyst would probably not draw that conclusion. We Protestants do not disagree about everything. For example, it’s reasonable to assume that most Protestants have no trouble reciting the Nicene Creed – including the filioque, incidentally – as a public profession of faith.

So, how “divided” are Protestants? Not as much as some might suggest, perhaps?

Cordially,
Mick

Gabriel of 12;
I follow you Mick, but I must disagree about the Sola Scriptura analogy from this Catholics perspective that causes the Protestants to splinter. What Sola Scriptura does; it gives the freedom to anyone to interpret the bible their own way without no one authority to correctly teach them, thus you have many splits in protestantism.

Now the term protestantism is used loosely here, because many who are not protestant but are non catholic who claim to be protestant is another big cause for divide here. So it is not necessarily that all protestants disagree with each other, it is the self imposed freedom to believe what ever one wants to believe according to the way he/she interprets the Bible for themselves. Leaving all protestants and non catholics in their freedoms and at peace with each other making the “Word of God” their religion and their community their theological structure and authority to teach from based on their own authority of Sola Scriptura.

As a Catholic I can support a Sola Scriptura that teaches these are the only inspired writings of God, but then comes the question which writings are canonical? And because I subscribe to biblical Apostolic Traditions along with Sacred Scripture, the Sola would have to be dropped, because not everything Jesus did got written down. One other aspect is the multiple different belief’s in a Sola Scriptura theology since Martin Luthers inception of his Sola Scriptura.

 

[josie_L]

asking me what the inquisition or crusades were really does insult my intelligence & I’m not interested in the Catholic revisionist explanation of these historical events, nor do I want to quibble over this matter. As to your last assertion; that is a fair and credible attack on my views. I frankly do not necessarily dispute the historicity of Jesus Christ. Josephus and several secular (or pagan) Roman historians wrote about him (i.e. Tacitus).

I am interested in knowing how much you actually know about the inquisition and/or crusades, if that makes you feel insulted, then prove me wrong. Let’s discuss. I mean it should be pretty easy to win the argument, no?

I’ve heard it said that there is more in the way of writings on Jesus than there is on Alexander the Great. However, no one claims Alexander was a god man who rose from the dead either (where the standard of evidence is naturally much higher). It would be absurd to say that people (going back around 2,000 years) did not believe in a Jesus (and all the surrounding mythology). However, none of this makes it true.

Did you know that the earliest biography we have of Alexander the Great was written more than 500 years after his death? Did you know that the earliest writings of Jesus were written less than two decades after his?

I would recommend the book “The Case for Christ” and “The Case for Faith” both written by Lee Strobel, a former Atheist.

Although events like the many who martyred themselves (they did not martyr themselves they were killed) for what they thought was true is compelling … it in itself offers absolutely no evidence showing the events depicted in scripture (particularly the miraculous events) occurred.

Yes it did, they (the apostles and followers of Christ) were compelled to preach, suffer, and die for something they had witnessed with their own eyes, if they had not, they would have to be, all of them, crazy, insane, psychotic! Not even the most masochistic being would want to suffer in the manner that the early Christians did. That means by reason alone they had to have seen the resurrected Christ. They beheld him with their own eyes. Do you think yourself wiser and/or more perceptive than these men and women that you think they could not tell the difference between someone dead and someone who is alive? Do you think then that they would die for something they truly had not seen?

Don’t you want to know why these people, some of whom knew Jesus, would suffer the tortures of being skinned alive, boiled in oil, eaten by lions, and crucified, before they would renounce their belief in Jesus as the divine son of God, the second person of the Trinity? Why did the apostles renounce all worldly goods and comforts to proclaim the Word of God, what had they to gain from preaching far and wide on foot no less and separated from family?

Again, all religion operates using the same basic modus operandi. There is always a god or gods who only revealed themselves to ancient men & there is always a profound reason why they don’t reveal themselves to us, today. Of course the real profound reason is it’s nonsense.

Did it never occur to you that God was preparing the way for the Messiah, hence the similarity (although in some cases superficially so) one will see in certain religions?

And ask yourself, are most of those religions around today? It took only three hundred or so years for Christianity to become the state religion of the Roman empire, notwith standing severe persecution. What was so compelling about the Christians back then that propelled others to become followers of Christ even under threat of death? They managed to bring the Roman empire to its knees without a single act of violence.

 

[SSTeacher]

Gabriel of 12;
I follow you Mick, but I must disagree about the Sola Scriptura analogy from this Catholics perspective that causes the Protestants to splinter. What Sola Scriptura does; it gives the freedom to anyone to interpret the bible their own way without no one authority to correctly teach them, thus you have many splits in protestantism.

There are some within Protestantism who prefix the term Sola Scriptura with the word classic. I’m coming at this with an Evangelical mindset, which is doubtless more correctly described as SOLO Scriptura. It is the perception that the Bible (of 66 books) is one’s authority and basic guide for living. I’ve been an Evangelical for some nine years. It has been very challenging because I’ve had to work my way through all the “issues,” both major and minor. Such an exercise can never be fruitless, of course, provided that consistent prayer accompanies it. But although I’ve gained knowledge and insight and moved closer to God than when I was an agnostic I simply can’t be sure of my conclusions. That’s why I’m considering Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Now the term protestantism is used loosely here, because many who are not protestant but are non catholic who claim to be protestant is another big cause for divide here. So it is not necessarily that all protestants disagree with each other, it is the self imposed freedom to believe what ever one wants to believe according to the way he/she interprets the Bible for themselves. Leaving all protestants and non catholics in their freedoms and at peace with each other making the “Word of God” their religion and their community their theological structure and authority to teach from based on their own authority of Sola Scriptura.

One of the reasons I put up the question in the Non–Catholic Religions forum was that I hoped to draw out differing perceptions from the various camps of the divisions we see in Christendom and perhaps even hear some analysis as to why they exist. The divisons are not always caused by differences in doctrine (many Protestants agree upon what they describe as “fundamentals”). It seems to me that the Catholic perception is usually rather different from the non–Catholic one. I think you’ve used a phrase in the above paragraph that reflects the perspective most Catholics find natural. You declared:

… it is the self imposed freedom to believe what ever one wants to believe according to the way he/she interprets the Bible…

I think herein one sees a difference in mindset between the Catholic and the non–Catholic (I’m speculating in general terms). Catholics perceive themselves as being under a visible authority and engaging in a very structured manner of Christian living. For them, that is the way it ought to be. Therefore they see Protestants/western non–Catholic Christians as participating in an ill–advised exercise of using their personal freedom to “believe whatever they want.” That is doubtless what it looks like from the outside but I would respectfully suggest that describing the process as ***believing whatever one wants ***demonstrates that the difficulty of living the kind of Christian life which Biblical Christianity calls for has been overlooked. I’ve read some of your posts so I know you’re not simple–minded and that you’ll be able to understand what I’m trying to put across.

As a Catholic I can support a Sola Scriptura that teaches these are the only inspired writings of God, but then comes the question which writings are canonical? And because I subscribe to biblical Apostolic Traditions along with Sacred Scripture, the Sola would have to be dropped, because not everything Jesus did got written down. One other aspect is the multiple different belief’s in a Sola Scriptura theology since Martin Luthers inception of his Sola Scriptura.

Well said.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

(many Protestants agree upon what they describe as “fundamentals”).

I disagree. There are further disagreements on what the “fundamentals” even are. I would say that for Lutherans their Sacraments (the Lord’s Supper and Baptism) are fundamental (please correct me if this is not so). Try asking a baptist or a non-denomination Christian if they agree that the Lutherans Sacraments (and how they are believed within Lutheranism) are fundamental.

God bless

 

[SSTeacher]

(many Protestants agree upon what they describe as “fundamentals”).

I disagree. There are further disagreements on what the “fundamentals” even are. I would say that for Lutherans their Sacraments (the Lord’s Supper and Baptism) are fundamental (please correct me if this is not so). Try asking a baptist or a non-denomination Christian if they agree that the Lutherans Sacraments (and how they are believed within Lutheranism) are fundamental.

God bless

You’re correct. I declared that many Protestants agree upon what is fundamental not that there is universal agreement.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

You’re correct. I declared that many Protestants agree upon what is fundamental not that there is universal agreement.

Respectfully,
Mick

I know and I still disagree. I am not saying that many disagree with the fundamentals, I am saying that there is further disagreement on what the fundamentals even are. So to say “many” “some” “most” or a “few” agree on the fundamentals is irrelevant because the fundamentals are not agreed upon. Therefore you cannot make a determination as to whether or not there are “many” Protestants who agree with the “fundamentals”. There isn’t agreement on what the fundamentals are

God bless

 

[JonNC]

I disagree. There are further disagreements on what the “fundamentals” even are. I would say that for Lutherans their Sacraments (the Lord’s Supper and Baptism) are fundamental (please correct me if this is not so). Try asking a baptist or a non-denomination Christian if they agree that the Lutherans Sacraments (and how they are believed within Lutheranism) are fundamental.

God bless

More than fundamental, they are central and critical, along with Confession and Holy Absolution. With the word, they are the way Christ makes His grace and forgiveness of sins available to us.
I, as a Lutheran, would much sooner accept the 4 remaining sacraments as such than deny these three.
It is said by some protestants that Catholics teach “a different Gospel”. Without intending to offend, I would contend that those who deny forgiveness of sins through the sacraments are, more likely, teaching a different Gospel.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic writers of the Creed (which at the time included the Orthodox who were under papal authority) were writing the creed for the benefit of other Catholics (who were under papal authority) never knowing that the one Church would one day experience upheaval, by men who rejected her authority (magisterium/papal infallibility) and Traditions.

Josie,
The Orthodox, and I think history, would deny this. Papal authority as we know it, or even as Luther knew it, would have been unrecognizable to the writers of the Creed. If it had been, the schism might have happened much sooner.
I would say they were writing for all of Christendom.
Jon

 

[JJHIII]

Many Protestents are united in their deep fear of Catholocism. It isn’t so much as they hate the Church, but it is a fear of what they think it represents. I know Protestants who truly believe that the Pope is the anti-christ. I don’t know many Protestants at all who would say that the Pope is right. So they are united in fear and misunderstanding.

 

[ojohn]

explain how all those reglions got started by one man with super natrual expericence and contunie even till this very year to come up with something new and proclaim how GOD spoke to them and told this that and the other???

 

[JonNC]

Many Protestents are united in their deep fear of Catholocism. It isn’t so much as they hate the Church, but it is a fear of what they think it represents. I know Protestants who truly believe that the Pope is the anti-christ. I don’t know many Protestants at all who would say that the Pope is right. So they are united in fear and misunderstanding.

I think you give too much weight to the issue here. I would suggest that the vast, vast majority of protestants really couldn’t care less about the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or even other protestant churches. They are what they were raised in, and believe what they were taught, and the others are irrelevent. Why would they fear the Catholic Church two blocks down on the opposite side of the street that the next door neighbor goes to? They don’t, because they’ve never considered it an issue.

Jon