How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[adf417]

EZweber:

I was not using that study.

You used their number. Don’t want to have it thrown back at you, don’t use it. It’s lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

Actually i thought the poster used a smaller number, 20,000, than the “original claim” of 30,000 or whatever it was from “the article”. Im sure either number is not accurate as was the response of “900” Catholic denominations that was supposed to reflect the original claim of 240ish.

This number thing on denominations is getting really hilarious and making it much easier to elude the elephant in the room. “One is too many” which is and has always been the point every time the original claim of whatever # is or should be used.

Peace!!!

 

[HopkinsReb]

This number thing on denominations is getting really hilarious and making it much easier to elude the elephant in the room.

Easiest way to avoid getting derailed because of bad statistics is to not use bad statistics.

 

[GKMotley]

That is probably taken from the (in)famous World Christian Trends/ World Christian Encyclopedia. Which defines, for the purposes of their ongoing study, a “denomination” as

“Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.”

This is regularly updated. The last time I saw it, the RCC was listed as somewhere over 250 “denominations”, based on increasing number of national divisions. It doesn’t mean that they are defining the RCC has being that many separate Churches, as they make clear.

This is usually the source of 20k-40K "protestant denominations "as normally cited, without any understanding of the idiosyncratic methods that the numbers are derived from.

No one knows the answer to how many such there might be. Anywhere between “lots” and “more than that” seems reasonable to me.

 

[Hodos]

This one is easy, so yes. Bye!

Exactly, so the apostolic Church is not circumscribed by Roman Catholicism.

 

[mcq72]

How do Protestants explain their existence, 1500 yrs after the fact, given Paul’s instruction to Titus?

double edged sword…they do explain it…the Catholic Church was admonished "twice’ to no avail…hence have nothing to do with them thereafter.?..is that the correct Pauline application?

 

[EZweber]

You used their number. Don’t want to have it thrown back at you, don’t use it. It’s lazy at best and dishonest at worst.

I have heard a ton of different numbers, so I just came up with a nice, round, number that seemed lower than most. If it’s a number that a study gives, great, but I wasn’t basing my post on the study.

 

[EZweber]

Exactly, so the apostolic Church is not circumscribed by Roman Catholicism.

Interesting. So aetheists are part of the Apostolic Church too? Their baptisms are valid if they use the right formula.
Edit: I’m only back for a bit.

 

[GKMotley]

It has gained a life of its own. I’ve watched it for around 20 years, in venues like this.

If 20K is your own, based on nothing that could be cited, cherish it. It’s as good as one might get.

 

[steve-b]

the early Church is constantly being corrected on its doctrine and practice.

When you said

"the early Church is constantly being corrected on its doctrine and practice"

Doctrines and dogmas can grow in explanation. They don’t however show up in one era and disappear in another era.

Also for further explanation, of what makes a teaching infallible

Infallibility defined Vat I

Papal infallibility

here is the language used in the definition at Vat I

(emphasis mine)

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

that is, when,

in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Vat I

Also

From Canon law,
when does the pope speak infallibly
. http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2011/02/17/when-does-the-pope-speak-infallibly/

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

How do Protestants explain their existence, 1500 yrs after the fact, given Paul’s instruction to Titus?

double edged sword…they do explain it…the Catholic Church was admonished "twice’ to no avail…hence have nothing to do with them thereafter.?..

is that the correct Pauline application?

Actually, can you show me where Paul accepted any excuses from one who he was correcting?

.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

This number thing on denominations is getting really hilarious and making it much easier to elude the elephant in the room.

Easiest way to avoid getting derailed because of bad statistics is to not use bad statistics.

Agreed! But then again bad statistics what keeps Catholic apologists in business.

Peace!!!

 

[steve-b]

EZweber:

This one is easy, so yes. Bye!

Exactly, so the apostolic Church is not circumscribed by Roman Catholicism.

Since the Catholic Church is headquartered in Rome, (because that is where Peter was martyred and buried, ergo Rome is Peter’s resting place and last see) people think of the Church as the Roman Catholic Church. Also, “Roman is a rite”, and is ~98% of Catholicism. That said, It is not circumscribed because of Rome the city, but because it is the see of Peter that everyone is to agree and be in union with THIS Church, and the successor to St Peter from this lineage.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Nonsense. That is why those called “disciples” left Him. They took Him literally and couldn’t accept it. The apostles OTOH stayed. They believed.

You are making assumptions. You are assuming the 12 apostles understood clearly what Jesus was talking about with eating of flesh and drinking of blood whereas all the disciples who left didn’t. Scripture doesn’t make that distinction.

I’m not sure why you elaborated on Jesus not going after the disciples who left as I don’t think anyone contested that.

Jesus already knew Peter’s answer but that doesn’t mean Peter didn’t have free will. Why doesn’t Peter say Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the blood and flesh of eternal life.

All of the disciples were made to understand by Jesus that he was talking figuratively. The ones who left did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus as the Messiah nor did they believe in his message.

This has all been stated many times by now. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeating it. I understand your views as a Catholic and why you believe what you do. I’m fairly certain by this point you understand my views and why I believe them. If you have a question regarding something simply ask but I believe the scripture to mean one thing, and you believe it to be another.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Nonsense. That is why those called “disciples” left Him. They took Him literally and couldn’t accept it. The apostles OTOH stayed. They believed.

You are making assumptions. You are assuming the 12 apostles understood clearly what Jesus was talking about with eating of flesh and drinking of blood whereas all the disciples who left didn’t. Scripture doesn’t make that distinction.

I’m not sure why you elaborated on Jesus not going after the disciples who left as I don’t think anyone contested that.

Jesus already knew Peter’s answer but that doesn’t mean Peter didn’t have free will. Why doesn’t Peter say Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the blood and flesh of eternal life.

All of the disciples were made to understand by Jesus that he was talking figuratively. The ones who left did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus as the Messiah nor did they believe in his message.

This has all been stated many times by now. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeating it. I understand your views as a Catholic and why you believe what you do. I’m fairly certain by this point you understand my views and why I believe them. If you have a question regarding something simply ask but I believe the scripture to mean one thing, and you believe it to be another.

You come from a completely different lineage. Your lineage comes from Luther, your father in faith, and all the others in revolt in the 16th century … down to this day. That is why you can’t accept what you are being shown. It goes against your teachers who accept from their teachers of the Protestant religions who followed the revolt… and all the errors they taught

Were you there when the NT was being written? No. Were you there in the time frame we’re talking about? Nope. But the Catholic Church was there. It has all of Our Lord’s promises.

 

[whatistrue]

You are assuming the 12 apostles understood clearly what Jesus was talking about with eating of flesh and drinking of blood whereas all the disciples who left didn’t.

Where did you get that? The statement was that the ones who left understood the same way as the ones who stayed, but that the ones who left refused to accept the clear meaning. Sound familiar?

This has all been stated many times by now. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeating it.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[ReadTheBible]

I come from no lineage of Luther.I do not agree with every single thing Luther espoused to. When I because a Christian and then began reading the bible I had not been taught anything about Catholicism nor why the Protestant movement happened.

When I read the bible I do so humbly. I pray to God that he will show me the truth of scripture that I may understand. There is scripture that I do not fully understand and most likely never will.

You have your Catholicism this is true. Scripture teaches we are to come together in fellowship with other Christians. Scripture does not teach that Catholicism is salvation. Jesus is my salvation not Luther, or the Pope, or any denomination of an organized church.

 

[ReadTheBible]

Where did you get that? The statement was that the ones who left understood the same way as the ones who stayed, but that the ones who left refused to accept the clear meaning. Sound familiar?

I’m not sure what you’re claiming.

If they (the apostles) were as clueless as you paint them, they would have also left with the others (the others called "disciples) who Jesus said had no faith.

Do you see where this is getting confusing? Correct me if I’m mistaken but Steve-b is saying the 12 apostles knew and understood Jesus to be speaking literally and agreed with it. This is why they stayed over the ones who left.

I said scripture doesn’t give us those details. When Jesus tells the disciples “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” were the 12 in attendance? I think we would all agree they were.

Jesus went out of his way to explain to all of them that he was talking about his doctrine. The non-believers left and the believers stayed. This is how I understand the scripture so please don’t chase that rabbit hole again. If you have a question about steve-b or if I’m mistaken on anything he believes he can chime in but I’m fairly certain we understand each other.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Nonsense. That is why those called “disciples” left Him. They took Him literally and couldn’t accept it. The apostles OTOH stayed. They believed.

You are making assumptions. You are assuming the 12 apostles understood clearly what Jesus was talking about with eating of flesh and drinking of blood whereas all the disciples who left didn’t. Scripture doesn’t make that distinction.

The 12 followed Peter’s lead. Peter spoke for THEM when he said where are WE to go?

ReadTheBible:

I’m not sure why you elaborated on Jesus not going after the disciples who left

I’m not elaborating, I’m stating a fact. He let them go. And He didn’t go after them. Which means what Jesus told them, is going to come true for THEM.

ReadTheBible:

Jesus already knew Peter’s answer but that doesn’t mean Peter didn’t have free will. Why doesn’t Peter say Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the blood and flesh of eternal life.

Peter’s response indicated he accepted everything Jesus taught in the bread of life discourse and Peter was speaking for the others as well.

ReadTheBible:

All of the disciples were made to understand by Jesus that he was talking figuratively. The ones who left did so because they didn’t believe in Jesus as the Messiah nor did they believe in his message.

If the ones who left thought Jesus was speaking figuratively, they wouldn’t have left.

They left because As Jesus said, THEY HAD NO FAITH.

It’s a waste of time talking to anyone who has no faith. They will not accept anything being said.

ReadTheBible:

This has all been stated many times by now. I’m not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeating it. I understand your views as a Catholic and why you believe what you do. I’m fairly certain by this point you understand my views and why I believe them.

If I strictly followed Paul’s instructions to Bp Titus 3:10-11 I would have been done after 2 tries.
Divisive, schism, Heresy αἱρετικὸν = those who form sects, are heretical, factious.

It’s comforting to know, scripture puts no pressure to successfully convince anyone of anything. I only have to give you the information you need to know. That’s it.

ReadTheBible:

If you have a question regarding something simply ask but I believe the scripture to mean one thing, and you believe it to be another.

I have no questions of you.

The CCC gives some definitions of people who exhibit serious problems

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

 

[steve-b]

Do you see where this is getting confusing? Correct me if I’m mistaken but Steve-b is saying the 12 apostles knew and understood Jesus to be speaking literally and agreed with it. This is why they stayed over the ones who left.

Yep. It’s called the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

ReadTheBible:

I said scripture doesn’t give us those details. When Jesus tells the disciples “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” were the 12 in attendance? I think we would all agree they were.

Jesus is NOT saying His flesh has no value.

Look, we’ve been all over this subject. I quote copiously valid sources properly referenced. If you choose to stay where you are, then so be it. What you do with the knowledge given, is up to you

 

[TULIPed]

It’s comforting to know, scripture puts no pressure to successfully convince anyone of anything. I only have to give you the information you need to know. That’s it.

True.

But you have to do it in love Steve. “Love your neighbor…”. “Love your enemy…”.

If your goal is to “make disciples”, the success rate isn’t up to you, but how you do it is.