How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[PRmerger]

Ok, Folks! (Contarini, Amateur Pianist, NonServiam et al)

Far be it for me to be called intractable. I hereby disavow myself from PhilVaz’s article.

After considering the posts made, I concede that the methodology was flawed.

I will no longer refer to that article.

HOWEVER! Until someone can provide me with a source which tells us what the actual number of Christian denominations is, I will continue to say that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations. If someone says that there are only 2000 denominations, but can’t provide a source for that either, we are both in the same boat then, aren’t we? I won’t criticize him for his unsupported claim, and he ought not criticize me for my unsupported claim.

Actually, I believe mathematically, the number is much much larger. Heck in my metropolitan area alone there are 3600 listings for non-Catholic churches. Each of those churches are autocephalus–they read their own readings at their services, they have their own rituals, they have their own interpretations of Scripture…

But, I stand corrected and will never refer to that site.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, Folks! (Contarini, Amateur Pianist, NonServiam et al)

Far be it for me to be called intractable. I hereby disavow myself from PhilVaz’s article.

After considering the posts made, I concede that the methodology was flawed.

I will no longer refer to that article.

HOWEVER! Until someone can provide me with a source which tells us what the actual number of Christian denominations is, I will continue to say that there are over 40,000 Christian denominations. If someone says that there are only 2000 denominations, but can’t provide a source for that either, we are both in the same boat then, aren’t we? I won’t criticize him for his unsupported claim, and he ought not criticize me for my unsupported claim.

Actually, I believe mathematically, the number is much much larger. Heck in my metropolitan area alone there are 3600 listings for non-Catholic churches. Each of those churches are autocephalus–they read their own readings at their services, they have their own rituals, they have their own interpretations of Scripture…

But, I stand corrected and will never refer to that site.

LOL on the smiley, PR.

The only source I know of in print that has a listing of denominations is the World Christian Encyclopedia. I think that one is from the year 2000 (maybe? Not sure). I know the numbers are from 2000, though.

“GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY
had
26,350 33,820 denominations/paradenominations
with
1,391,020 3,445,000 congregations/churches
composed of
1,130 **1,888 **million affiliated Christians
dichotomized into
the 2 global categories below”

The first number is from 1970, the bolded number from 2000. The two “global categorizations” offered are “denominationalism” and “postdenominationalism.” The 33,820 number combines all the “denominations” included in both lists. It is not a listing of “denominations” arising from the Protestant Reformation (which is contrary to the claims of many Catholic apologists such as Steve Ray and Tim Staples). 21,990 of these denominations are in the “postdenominationalism” category, 11,830 in the denominational. The denominational number includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. In fact, aa was mentioned, this source lists 242 Roman Catholic denominations. This source lists 781 “Orthodox” denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025. This source lists 242 “Roman Catholic” denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025. The over-arching group “Protestant” is listed as having 8,973 denominations in 2000, predicting 9490 by 2025. As you begin to work through the list of “Protestant” denominations, you discover that they include non-Trinitarian groups such as the Oneness denominations, as well as other groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists. This includes “Gnostics” (!), Mormons (122 denominations worth) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (228 denominations).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The only source I know of in print that has a listing of denominations is the World Christian Encyclopedia. I think that one is from the year 2000 (maybe? Not sure). I know the numbers are from 2000, though.

 

[larkin31]

…Protestants on the other hand, fall under many different authoritative figures who interpret their own christian teachings…

Some Protestant denominations have centralized control that picks weekly scripture readings, hymns, etc, sermon themes, etc.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Some Protestant denominations have centralized control that picks weekly scripture readings, hymns, etc, sermon themes, etc.

This is great, it shows protestants are willing to return to their Catholic roots who hear the same scriptures and Gospel every Sunday world wide this also reveals the Catholic as being one Church because we all hear the same scriptures and Apostolic teaching and Gospel teaching of Jesus Christ.

It would be wonderful if Protestants could follow all one liturgical calender. But I think authority and private biblical interpretations will never see the day of this type of Catholic unity world wide.

 

[Danny_Clover]

Is there any reason a Protestant should not accept what the bishops did at those councils? Surely I can acknowledge the RCC as being right about some things without saying they’re right about everything?..But when they’re right, it’s because they’re right, not because they have more authority than any other Christian guided by the Holy Spirit, which is available to all Christians.

Well said. To this, I would add that what the Catholics don’t seem to understand is that up until the Reformation, their history is our history as well.

 

[larkin31]

This is great, it shows protestants are willing to return to their Catholic roots who hear the same scriptures and Gospel every Sunday world wide this also reveals the Catholic as being one Church because we all hear the same scriptures and Apostolic teaching and Gospel teaching of Jesus Christ.

It would be wonderful if Protestants could follow all one liturgical calender. But I think authority and private biblical interpretations will never see the day of this type of Catholic unity world wide.

The unity isn’t primary; other matters take on more importance. But unity is more important in some denominations than in others.

There are denominations that follow the same liturgical calendar. But the effort is not to be “Catholic.” lol

 

[Contarini]

Since when is a lack of evidence now become evidence in acheology?

A lack of evidence where you’d expect there to be evidence is certainly relevant. For instance, it’s relevant to the claims of Mormonism that there is no evidence supporting their sacred account of American history. You can’t exult over the cases (such as the Hittites) where archeology has supported the Biblical account without also taking into consideration the places where it hasn’t.

I agree that many scholars go way too far in this, making categorical claims about the inaccuracy of Scripture just because they haven’t found external evidence.

You should look at this prophecy in detail concerning the city of Tyre; you might understand just how precise God is.

Hardly. The context of Ezekiel 26 clearly appears to be speaking of the siege under Nebuchadnezzar (see v. 7)–yet your source admits that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled until the time of Alexander several centuries later. Of course it may be that the prophecy had a double fulfillment, but since there is no indication of this whatever in the text–which seems to be speaking of Nebuchadnezzar throughout–you can hardly call it precise.

The odds of such a prophechy coming to pass is astonomical

The odds of a wealthy city in a strategic location being destroyed at some point in centuries of warfare and instability? Hardly astronomical.

and it is one of many. But you are unable to see or believe anything concerning the Scripture until you have received the Spirit of God.

I knew this was coming.

I don’t know if it’s possible to get through to you and show you the harm you are doing to the Christian faith, but here’s a try:

If it’s really the Spirit who witnesses about Scripture, why bother with these dishonest arguments? What you are essentially saying above is that the Spirit causes people to see bad arguments as good ones. I think better of the Spirit than that.

The Spirit *does *testify to me that the Bible is divine, as a matter of fact. And that’s why I can afford to be historically honest. Why can’t you?

Edwin

 

[Non_Serviam]

I don’t know if it’s possible to get through to you and show you the harm you are doing to the Christian faith, but here’s a try:

If it’s really the Spirit who witnesses about Scripture, why bother with these dishonest arguments? What you are essentially saying above is that the Spirit causes people to see bad arguments as good ones. I think better of the Spirit than that.

The Spirit *does *testify to me that the Bible is divine, as a matter of fact. And that’s why I can afford to be historically honest. Why can’t you?

Edwin

This is the result of belief in infallibility and development of doctrine. One can’t question arguments because one isn’t the official interpreter of Scripture, and arguments don’t have to make sense or line up with the known facts about the early church because if you the non-member of the “true church” can’t see them, it’s because of your spiritual blindness. Whatever “proves” your understanding of the official beliefs must be right because the beliefs are right. It’s imputed truth(iness).

You mock “primitivism” but take a good look at at what’s at the end of the road you recommend. You simply haven’t had the courage (or liked the taste of Vat I kool aid enough) to follow it to its conclusion. Instead you want those at the end of the road to put down their cups, come back and stand at the crossroads with you. Not going to happen, so why not consider the other fork? A desire to return to the Apostolic teaching and practice of the faith, for all of its limitations, is at least trying to do so with a mix of reason and belief.

Are there mistakes? Sure, but there is an objective goal that can be worked toward-the Apostles and those who worshiped with them, said and did SOMETHING objective, and we can work to recover it, however imperfectly at any given moment. That’s part of studying to show one’s self approved and being led into all truth. Which is impossible if you believe you’ve been absolutely right about everything for the last 2000 years.

 

[Contarini]

This is the result of belief in infallibility and development of doctrine.

Are you suggesting that Amy is Catholic? On what basis? Her profile does not indicate this in any way, and her posts sound like standard fundamentalist Protestant apologetics to me.

One can’t question arguments because one isn’t the official interpreter of Scripture, and arguments don’t have to make sense or line up with the known facts about the early church because if you the non-member of the “true church” can’t see them, it’s because of your spiritual blindness.

Fundamentalist Protestants are much more likely to engage in this kind of rhetoric than Catholics. Again, you are missing the mark in a quite spectacular manner.

You mock “primitivism” but take a good look at at what’s at the end of the road you recommend.

I mock primitivism in part because in my experience this is what most primitivists sound like. I recognize that that’s unfair, but it’s not quite as spectacularly off the mark as your post

You simply haven’t had the courage (or liked the taste of Vat I kool aid enough) to follow it to its conclusion. Instead you want those at the end of the road to put down their cups, come back and stand at the crossroads with you. Not going to happen, so why not consider the other fork? A desire to return to the Apostolic teaching and practice of the faith, for all of its limitations, is at least trying to do so with a mix of reason and belief.

Truly hilarious. I have found far more respect for reason among Catholics than among conservative Protestants. That’s the thing that first drew me to Catholicism.

Are there mistakes? Sure, but there is an objective goal that can be worked toward-the Apostles and those who worshiped with them, said and did SOMETHING objective, and we can work to recover it, however imperfectly at any given moment. That’s part of studying to show one’s self approved and being led into all truth. Which is impossible if you believe you’ve been absolutely right about everything for the last 2000 years.

I do not think that the Roman Communion has been absolutely right about everything for the last 2000 years. Whatever is true, that certainly isn’t.

Edwin

 

[simspt]

This is the result of belief in infallibility and development of doctrine. One can’t question arguments because one isn’t the official interpreter of Scripture, and arguments don’t have to make sense or line up with the known facts about the early church because if you the non-member of the “true church” can’t see them, it’s because of your spiritual blindness. Whatever “proves” your understanding of the official beliefs must be right because the beliefs are right. It’s imputed truth(iness).

You mock “primitivism” but take a good look at at what’s at the end of the road you recommend. You simply haven’t had the courage (or liked the taste of Vat I kool aid enough) to follow it to its conclusion. Instead you want those at the end of the road to put down their cups, come back and stand at the crossroads with you. Not going to happen, so why not consider the other fork? A desire to return to the Apostolic teaching and practice of the faith, for all of its limitations, is at least trying to do so with a mix of reason and belief.

Are there mistakes? Sure, but there is an objective goal that can be worked toward-the Apostles and those who worshiped with them, said and did SOMETHING objective, and we can work to recover it, however imperfectly at any given moment. That’s part of studying to show one’s self approved and being led into all truth. Which is impossible if you believe you’ve been absolutely right about everything for the last 2000 years.

I disagree, I dont think this kind of argumentation is the result of belief in Infallibility or development of doctrine but rather interpretation. These beliefs are right out of apologetics 101 by fundamentalists. Trust me I know I use to be one.

 

[simspt]

i knew this was coming.

I don’t know if it’s possible to get through to you and show you the harm you are doing to the christian faith, but here’s a try:

If it’s really the spirit who witnesses about scripture, why bother with these dishonest arguments? What you are essentially saying above is that the spirit causes people to see bad arguments as good ones. I think better of the spirit than that.

The spirit *does *testify to me that the bible is divine, as a matter of fact. And that’s why i can afford to be historically honest. Why can’t you?

Edwin

exactly!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The unity isn’t primary; other matters take on more importance. But unity is more important in some denominations than in others.

There are denominations that follow the same liturgical calendar. But the effort is not to be “Catholic.” lol

Sacred Scripture teaches contrary to your understanding here about unity. Unity begins from One. You can never have the body without the head, Unity is everything if the body is not united to Jesus Christ our head. IF the body is not united to its head, you never have the Church Jesus built upon Peter and his apostles, what you end up with is man following man not God.
And we all know what happens when man follows man, you end up with more than one denomination of believers believing different doctrine that contradicts one another, in short “chaos”.

Can you name one matter that supersedes unity?

What you appear to be misunderstanding is “Authority” when the body is united to one head “authority” always. Sure every denomination headed by man follows the mans authoritative liturgy which belongs to man. Protestants can prove their head “authority” comes from man, because every protestant denomination was founded by men not God.

Jesus himself built his Church upon Peter and his apostles this is uncontested. The Catholic church is the only body of believers both on earth and in heaven who remain united to Jesus Christ from the unbroken Apostolic succession.

 

[larkin31]

Can you name one matter that supersedes unity?

Faith in resurrection: John 3:16

Anything from the Sermon on the Mount.

Love: love and mercy and healing supersede unity.

The Covenant supersedes unity.

But I am an agnostic, so I am speaking from my past believer’s life…

“Unity” is a bureaucratic concern of an institution. I don’t think that Jesus cared much about it at all. He refers to it a few times (more in later Gospels, which makes me suspicious), but the core of his teaching is about spiritual cleansing, spiritual healing, and spiritual humility and wisdom.

 

[larkin31]

…The Catholic church is the only body of believers both on earth and in heaven who remain united to Jesus Christ from the unbroken Apostolic succession.

Whatever. I can’t believe that you just spoke for who believes what in heaven. As if you have any idea.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=larkin31;6676712]Faith in resurrection: John 3:16

Anything from the Sermon on the Mount.

Love: love and mercy and healing supersede unity.

The Covenant supersedes unity.

But I am an agnostic, so I am speaking from my past believer’s life…

“Unity” is a bureaucratic concern of an institution. I don’t think that Jesus cared much about it at all. He refers to it a few times (more in later Gospels, which makes me suspicious), but the core of his teaching is about spiritual cleansing, spiritual healing, and spiritual humility and wisdom.

Without unity nothing what you posted supersedes “unity” It takes two to tangle “unity” in everything you posted, so they in themselves never supersede “unity”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Whatever. I can’t believe that you just spoke for who believes what in heaven

. As if you have any idea.

Amazing what Truth reveals “does it not”. Communion of Saints is just one of many coins in the deep treasures in the mystical body of Jesus Christ.

It’s tempting to obey the scriptures here “do not cast your pearls among swine”. But we are not in that type of raised discussion because many like you have not been informed “Yet”. Seek God and the Holy Spirit will reveal him to you. No one else can do that for you except the Holy Spirit. The Catholic church can only point you the correct way, it is the Holy Spirit himself who teaches us all, if we have faith to believe as small as a mustard seed to begin with.

Peace be with you

 

[larkin31]

Without unity nothing what you posted supersedes “unity” It takes two to tangle “unity” in everything you posted, so they in themselves never supersede “unity”.

Please explain how “the last shall be first; and the first, last” is dependent on the Catholic idea of “unity” (which I took to mean the unity of congregants under the apostolic line).

Or “Love thy neighbor as thyself”

Or “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you."

 

[PRmerger]

Your parent/child analogy is frankly blasphemous.

Just to be clear: **that was not an analogy. ** It was an example of someone having authority without being superior.

Here’s an analogy:
Using artificial contraception during the marital act is akin to eating a delicious dinner and then intentionally regurgitating it.

Here’s an example:
Ortho-Tricyclene is a type of artificial birth control.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Please explain how “the last shall be first; and the first, last” is dependent on the Catholic idea of “unity” (which I took to mean the unity of congregants under the apostolic line).

Sure do want the past intepretation, the present interpretation or the future interpretation? I don’t know how you can tie this scripture passage to the OP or Unity?

Or “Love thy neighbor as thyself”

Here’s my take on this, all of what you mentioned here, a person by himself outside of unity can never Love thy neighbor as thyself, or give his cloak away, or turn the other cheek etc.

The unity begins when a person is in unity with Jesus Christ himself that one is able to do all things. The baptised are (sacramentally) partakers of Jesus divine nature (see 2 Peter 1:4) which proves a child of God is never alone but is united with the blessed Trinity. In fact no one can take these out of the Fathers hand.

Peace be with you