How many non-denominations in the US and what causes this?

[Rolltide]

There has also been unification among Protestants. For example in both Canada and Australia there has been unification of the Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregationalists, although there is a continuing Presbyterian Church in Canada. Even then it should be noted that there were 4 Presbyterian denominations in Canada at Confederation which united into one in 1870.

This is a continuation of the “Presbygational” Movement that began during the Second Great Awakening in the early United States. It’s not entirely surprising, since most of the differences between Presbyterians and Congregationalists are in administration, not doctrine. That said, I agree, it is a positive development.

 

[ralphinal]

Hi

Is it a myth? If not, then kindly quote starightforward passages for the **Text from Bible **and **for Reason **also. I don’t think you can add to the wisdom of John the Baptist or his cousin.

Regards

No one said anything about a myth. oneGodoneChurch showed one passage about how the two baptisms are different.

 

[ChristianKnight]

It’s telling, however, that as Protestant denominations across the world continue to split, the Catholics and the Orthodox are gathering in many large groups outside the church and reunifying.

For example, a large group of American Episcopalians, tired of the increasing liberalism of their denomination, split to form a rival Anglican Church this week. This is the largest Protestant denomination in the world, and it’s unity is absolutely imploding.
(By the way, some of these Anglican parishes, rather than staying in their chaotic denomination, voted to join the Catholic Church as a group.)

Earlier this year, a large portion of the Assyrian Church of the East, a group of Christians that broke from the Catholic Church in the 400s AD, REUNITED with the Catholic Church. The rest of the denomination is now in talks for reunification. The Traditional Anglican Communion, a denomination of over 400,000 people, has petitioned the Catholic Church for reunification, and are awaiting the details of the settlement. Catholic discussion with various Orthodox groups has also become more productive in the last few years, and we have signed a joint declaration on justification with the Lutherans, virtually solving one of the biggest theological disputes between our churches.

um, I don’t care. You still forget, I don’t give a rip about other protestants, until someone messes with them, then I’ll gladly fight that person.

 

[Rolltide]

um, I don’t care. You still forget, I don’t give a rip about other protestants, until someone messes with them, then I’ll gladly fight that person.

So is unity among Christians a good thing, or not?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Well - no. John the Baptist was baptizing before Christ assumed his ministry.

**And John the Baptist was baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. Do you think this task was taken upon John and Jesus didn’t know this? **

 

[4given]

Ephesians 4:5 for starters

Christ’s real church does have that. All Christians have the same faith, the same Lord, and the same baptism: the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit that baptizes each saved person into Christ’s body. Nothing to do with the RCC.

 

[4given]

Originally Posted by xixxvmcm85
30,000 denominations and counting is not 1 faith no matter how much you try to trivialize the “secondary matters”.

You can’t even find two Protestants that agree on baptism (also mentioned in the verse I cited).

You’d do well to look at this:

justforcatholics.org/a86.htm

Down at the bottom of the page are two links that goes into detail on the so called 30,000 denomination lie.

And I think you might be exagerating (sp?) a bit on that last statement.

 

[Snow]

**And John the Baptist was baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. Do you think this task was taken upon John and Jesus didn’t know this? **

1. Could you please cite the scriptures that support your claim, specifically, that John baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?
2. Could you please cite your sources that Christ invented baptism (the claim we are discussing)?

Using your logic - that God is ultimately aware of what’s happening and sanctions it or some of it, we could say that God invented the cotton gin or the Nicene Creed, but that’s not a very useful concept.

 

[ChristianKnight]

So is unity among Christians a good thing, or not?

Depends for what. Christians are not united. Even if they believen the same thing, they will never combine forces, at least, not in my lifetime.

 

[ralphinal]

1. Could you please cite the scriptures that support your claim, specifically, that John baptized in the name of Jesus Christ?

John did not. He preached a baptism of just repentance. There was no spiritual side to it. He said as much himself.

1. Could you please cite your sources that Christ invented baptism (the claim we are discussing)?

He did not invent it. He did institute it as part of his Church. Two different things.

Using your logic - that God is ultimately aware of what’s happening and sanctions it or some of it, we could say that God invented the cotton gin or the Nicene Creed, but that’s not a very useful concept.

Well, for one of those examples, he did inspire men to doit

 

[Snow]

Well, for one of those examples, he did inspire men to doit

Here’s a question. It seems to me that the nature of God - in this case the Trinity, is a pivotal doctrine in Christianity. It is one of the top two or three doctrinal issues.

If it is so important, why do you think God Himself never mentioned it? (the creedal Trinity of the 4th and 5th centuries) and why do you think that no NT author demonstrated any understanding of either such Trinity itself or even the importance of it?

And - if it was so important, why would God wait 300-400 years to clarify it and do so at the behest of a murdering non-Catholic?

 

[ralphinal]

Here’s a question. It seems to me that the nature of God - in this case the Trinity, is a pivotal doctrine in Christianity. It is one of the top two or three doctrinal issues.

If it is so important, why do you think God Himself never mentioned it? (the creedal Trinity of the 4th and 5th centuries) and why do you think that no NT author demonstrated any understanding of either such Trinity itself or even the importance of it?

And - if it was so important, why would God wait 300-400 years to clarify it and do so at the behest of a murdering non-Catholic?

The Trinity is alluded to in Scripture. AS to why it took 300-400 years to be DEFINED, it is because it was not disputed until then.

The Church only defines things when a heresy enters the picture.

 

[Snow]

The Trinity is alluded to in Scripture.

I’ll ask again. What scripture demonstrates consubstantiality?

AS to why it took 300-400 years to be DEFINED, it is because it was not disputed until then.

That may be true is a sense - but not the way you mean it.

Prior to Nicea, the orthodox view of God’s nature was NOT trinitarian. To the extent that there wasn’t a dispute about it, it’s because there was a different, mostly unchallenged view of God than the Trinity:

“‘Subordinationism’, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.” Henry Bettenson, editor and translator, The Early Christian Fathers:A Selection from the Writings of the Fathers from St. Clement of Rome to St. Athanasius, (Oxford University Press: 1969), 239.

“Writers who are usually reckoned orthodox but who lived a century or two centuries before the outbreak of the Arian Controversy, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian and Novatian and Justin Martyr, held some views which would later, in the fourth century, have been branded heretical…Irenaeus and Tertullian both believed that God had not always been a Trinity but had at some point put forth the Son and the Spirit so as to be distinct from him. Tertullian, borrowing from Stoicism, believed that God was material (though only of a very refined material, a kind of thinking gas), so that his statement that Father, Son and Spirit were ‘of one substance’, beautifully orthodox though it sounds, was of a corporeality which would have profoundly shocked Origen, Athanasius and the Cappadocian theologians, had they known of it.” RPC Hansen, “The Achievement of Orthodoxy in the Fourth Century AD”, in Rowan Williams, editor, The Making of Orthodoxy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 151–152.

The Church only defines things when a heresy enters the picture.

Can you tell me the heresy that entered the picture when adoration of angels and dead saints? Or the assumption of Mary?

 

[Rolltide]

Can you tell me the heresy that entered the picture when adoration of angels and dead saints? Or the assumption of Mary?

Well, with adoration of angels and dead saints, the Iconoclastic Controversy played a role in the definition of this in the early 700s. With regard to the Assumption of Mary, that actually was a logical conclusion derived from the Immaculate Conception, and it was formalized in the 1800s. If Mary never sinned, and death is the ultimate punishment for sin, then she either did not die, or could not die in a normal manner. Her body would never have decayed.

 

[Snow]

Well, with adoration of angels and dead saints, the Iconoclastic Controversy played a role in the definition of this in the early 700s.

Did not the veneration of Saint come around 375 AD?

With regard to the Assumption of Mary, that actually was a logical conclusion derived from the Immaculate Conception, and it was formalized in the 1800s. If Mary never sinned, and death is the ultimate punishment for sin, then she either did not die, or could not die in a normal manner. Her body would never have decayed.

What was the heresy that preceded the birth of the new doctrine?

 

[Rolltide]

Did not the veneration of Saint come around 375 AD?

Actually, quite a bit earlier than that. However, as far when this was defined as an intrinsic practice… the Iconoclastic Controversy played a role in this.

Sorry, my dates were off in that post. The Assumption of Mary was infallibly defined ex-cathedra on November 1, 1950. The heresy was simply recent attacks by Protestant scholars that were denying it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimmy_B]

30,000 denominations and counting is not 1 faith…

30,000 X 1 = 30,000

Hey…you’re right!

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh…I almost forgot…Five Stars…BAM!

 

[Syele]

They have Articles of Faith and a list of Doctrines
salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/CE33D354A0544F368025732500314AF5?Opendocument

salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn.nsf/vw-dynamic-index/85256DDC007274DF80256B7D004E8E3A?Opendocument

If you read it, it is clearly a Protestant mentality (no one would have denied that).

That would create alot of “Denominations” out of charitable organizations and other groups that have no desire to be a church. The town I just moved from has a “service” 3 times a year, they gather all the protestants from all the churches in town (and some Catholics) go to the civic center and worship together and the clergy take turns preaching. They worship together and have clergy but are not a denomination. Now, Its my opinion that Salvation army should stop meeting sunday mornings or become a denomination. they are trying to do both which is likely to cause problems, but Im not one of them so they dont care what I think .

Anyhow, I guess what I disagree on is your chosen definition of Denomination.

To me they have to intend to be a group of churches. If they don’t intend to be a church I dunno how they can be classified as a group of churches with a clergy.

All too often, non-denominational means anti-Catholic. At least in Alabama it does.

Well I never went to one that was anti-Cathlic… The ones I have attended for years even have many families that are mixed marriages, like a Catholic husband/Protestant wife and vice versa. if they were preaching anti-Catholic stuff, those families would not be comfortable there. When I was engaged to a Catholic we went together to Catholic Mass followed by my non-denominational Church. there were 3 other families doing the same at that time.

I agree. I want to point out that what I am saying is that to the person who leaves, the devisive issue is not minor.

I recently left a church cause there were only 4 people left attending there. I had zero problems with anything they preached or how they worship. I have zero issue with the people who are still there. I do believe its a minor thing. Its no different than the people at the Catholic Parrish down the road leaving it to go to a different one cause that one is ALL college students and they are in their 50s. Comfort level issues have nothing to do with being a denomination.

ChristianKnight;4516189:

we were asked for a source i provided a source if there are people out there that don’t like that source then they need to provide source that refute one that was provided. I other words don’t kill the messenger because you don’t like like the message.

You just assumed that cause there are 4 Baptist churches that they are all different though. Its not a fair assumption. It has nothing to do with only not liking your message, if i declared that all the Catholic parishes in one town are different denominations you’d complain too, and rightfully so. If you did not assume that then it is unreasonable to claim they are not countable… they phone book generally divides them by denomination for you.

I can count that high quite easily, depends on the town but prob around 25. That one town has 4 Catholic Churches and 9 Baptist ones does not mean that they should be counted as 13 Denominations.

No, I didn’t provide a separate “Source” to refute your link, instead I refuted it myself. Would it somehow be more credible if I made a website with what I typed? Anyone can say anything on a website. IF you post a source and people show you 25 things in it that are lies, then why do you need a link? I asked for the first source cause you made a claim with no real reason for it. I answered with with alot of logical arguments that you then ignored and requested a link instead. Not sure what sort of link you want.

 

[ralphinal]

That would create alot of “Denominations” out of charitable organizations and other groups that have no desire to be a church. The town I just moved from has a “service” 3 times a year, they gather all the protestants from all the churches in town (and some Catholics) go to the civic center and worship together and the clergy take turns preaching. They worship together and have clergy but are not a denomination. Now, Its my opinion that Salvation army should stop meeting sunday mornings or become a denomination. they are trying to do both which is likely to cause problems, but Im not one of them so they dont care what I think .

Anyhow, I guess what I disagree on is your chosen definition of Denomination.

Actually, they are a unique case. They do claim on their own site to have clergy. They do help everyone. If we wanted to throw them out of the count, fine, but they are not just a civic group.

To me they have to intend to be a group of churches. If they don’t intend to be a church I dunno how they can be classified as a group of churches with a clergy.

I know what you mean. It is the fact that they have clergy that makes me lean toward calling them a denomination

Well I never went to one that was anti-Cathlic… The ones I have attended for years even have many families that are mixed marriages, like a Catholic husband/Protestant wife and vice versa. if they were preaching anti-Catholic stuff, those families would not be comfortable there. When I was engaged to a Catholic we went together to Catholic Mass followed by my non-denominational Church. there were 3 other families doing the same at that time.

It is just my experience. Not worth much, I know, but it is one thing that I have. It is most evident in non-denominational groups. There was a non-denominational martial arts group that I looked to join. The theology that they required you to agree to was very anti-Catholic. I contacted them about it and was told I had no place in the group.

I recently left a church cause there were only 4 people left attending there. I had zero problems with anything they preached or how they worship. I have zero issue with the people who are still there. I do believe its a minor thing. Its no different than the people at the Catholic Parrish down the road leaving it to go to a different one cause that one is ALL college students and they are in their 50s. Comfort level issues have nothing to do with being a denomination.

Would it be better if I said that for those who leave over theology, there are no minor issues?