MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[tqualey]

Hi, Publisher,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post … hope you are still with us…

As I appreciate your two statements, they seem to have a degree of cynacism that is hard to match! Let me explain…

That’s the gist of the issue…Catholics say Protestants went out and founded a church of their own…

I think there is a historical basis for this thought.

Luther founded his church in 1526 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Calvin founded his church in 1555 historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

Fox founded his church in 1640 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends

most Protestants do not believe their denomination…the organizational structure through which The Church on earth operates as organized bodies of believers…comprises the True Church.

And Christ founded His Church on Peter in about 32AD (Matt 16:18) and that represents a big difference from the relativism you are proposing and the Gospel message of Christ.

Catholics are defining their ecclesiastical body with the Body of Christ…Protestants…do not…why is it so hard to comprehend…

Well, one reason is that Christ has made several statement about His Church being special to Him and “…the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it”. He did not make this promise to individuals - but, to His Church: those united under the the leader (Peter) established by Christ.

We need to be connected to Christ - physically as the brances are attached to the vine (John 15:5)

We need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood if we are to have life in us (John 6:53)

We need to be attentive to His teaching - not all of which are contained in the Bible! (John 16:12, John 21:25) and that is why we have a organized structure (Matt 16:18) because Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide His Church (John 15:26).

we do NOT believe our respective orgainization through which the Church operates IS the TRUE CHURCH that Jesus established…but then…neither are the Catholic or Orthodox eccleastical bodies…your man made organization may have a long history…but it’s not the Body of Christ in and of itself…THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE between our understandings.

Oooooooooh, Quaker, that is only one of the many differeces. So, you really think that Christ was just playing around when He founded a Church He (according to you) had no intention in supporting with the Presence of His Holy Spirit? Christ suffers, dies, is burried and then rises from the dead - so that guys like Luther, Calvin and Fox can go out and found their own man-made churches, based on their own ideas and the traditions of men? Do you have any scriptural references to support this idea?

God bless

 

[rskempf]

The number is normally cited as over 33,000. No kidding!

This is what happens when individual interpretation of sacred scripture is accepted.

Regarding the “one true path to God”, they may not claim this overtly but seriously, no one would stick around if this was not the firm belief in the “ecclesial community.”

A recent newsletter from John Martignoni discussed the number of denominations. You can find John at www.biblechristiansociety.com.

 

[Roy5]

Numbers are tricky things, and perhaps not a proper hardstick for anything.

In the US Catholics number between 20-25% of the population. Just how many of these are practicing is another matter. Only about 30% appear to attend mass faithfully. Roughly 30,000,000 US Catholics have left the church. The percentage of Catholics has remained rather steady because of immigration, legal and illegal.

Just about 50% of Americans identify as Protestant of one sort or another. The mainline denominations have been losing. The evangelicals have been growing.

Now as to worldwide figures, that can be quite uncertain. Take France. Catholicism claims that 85% of the country is Catholic, but a study has shown that about 25% are atheist or agnostic. And I've read somewhat that only about 5% attend mass. Or, consider Italy. The church has claimed 97.5% are Catholic. Anyway you cut it that seems a highly inflated percentage. There is enormous secularism and even anti-clericalism in Italy. Remember when one of every three Italians voted Communist?

 Spain. The Catholic Almanac has listed 98.5% of the Spanish as Catholic. And recently the legislature there voted to permit same-sex marriage. I would estimate (I have been to Spain several times) that 50% of the population practices Catholicism and that mass attendance is below that. 

 In the Scandinavian countries, where 95% of the population has been seen as Protestant (Lutheran), there is a preponderance of secularism and also considerable atheism/agnostism. 

 Catholicism in Latin America has suffered considerably from gains by evangelicals as well as secularism. What did I read recently? Was it Argentina which now permits same-sex marriage?

 These sort of figures suggest that valid membership figures among both Catholics and Protestants worldwide are suspect.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Byzantine_Wolf,

Ooooooooooooh…where to begin… I am shocked… I can’t believe you would ‘cherry-pick’ scripture and avoid the obvious items that did not conform to your hypothesis. But, live and learn!

Tell 'ya what… I’ll try to be brief… but, apparently I had to go into a second page!

tqualey:

If I understand correctly, you’re responding to the statement that the churches through Asia Minor were founded by the apostles by stating that the church was founded on Peter.

No. Christ built HIs Church on Peter. (Matt 16:18) and then Christ sent the Apostles out to spread the Gospel throughout the world and baptize everyone.

You of course jump to Matthew 16:18, ignoring that the focus of that entire passage is on the faith of Peter and his declaration of Jesus as the Christ.

I realize this must be especially annoying (Matt 16:18) so much in fact that you neglected to read what preceeded it. Did you catch the part where Christ identifies that God the Father selected Peter and gave him the correct answer to Christ’s question? Peter made a declaration of faith, alright - and Christ then made him the leader (binding and lose authority, and the symbol of the keys)

It is likewise interesting that the evangelists Mark and Luke, recounting this moment in their respective gospels, leave out the supposedly all important declaration of Peter as the rock of the church.

That is truly an excellent observaton - and, I would recommend you take it up with the Author who inspired Matthew to write what he did…and Mark and Luke to not write what they didn’t write! If your point is that this declaration by Christ did not happen because it only appears in Matthew - you are really on thin ice here… because what you are saying is that the Bible has an error! Actually, your tone would suggest fraud. Considering it appears in your abridged version of the Bible - you really need to check this out!

The evangelist and apostle John is likewise silent about this declaration of Peter being a rock to be built upon the church. It is also interesting to note that whenever spiritual rocks are mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments, it’s never in reference to Peter but to God.

This is where the cherry-picking comes in. Yes, John fails to mention this declaration. (But, the other three fail to mention that Christ commanded that we eat His Body and drink His Blood - and this clearly appears and is repeated in various ways about 20 times in John 6! Is that the reason Protestants don’t believe that - it was only mentioned this way by one Sacred Write? ) Go to John 21:17. Now, we all know that Christ was a carpenter and not a shepherd - so, there was not a flock of 4-legged wooly critters going ba-ba-ba in the background! No. This is when Christ works on Peter rehabilitation for his three time denial - and reconfirms that he (yeah, the same guy that denied Christ!) is the leader of the Apostles. Peter is teach and guide the sheep (leaders) and lambs (laity). Please recall, that from all eternity, Christ knew Peter would deny Him - and still Christ chose Peter over the other Eleven to be the leader. Chirst knows what He is doing.

One would think if this was an important teaching and claim for the early Church, then it would be found throughout the New Testament and would be established in more than one tiny verse in one gospel.

No, one wouldn’t. And, the reason for this lies in the very last verse of St. John’s Gospel which clearly tells you that the Scriptures do NOT contain everything. One would, however, go look at what happened after John died in 100AD - we have the Early Church Fathers looking to Rome - the Pope - to resolve issues. And, here we have hundreds of years of their writings where heresy and division and persecution rocked the early Catholic Church and the Church in Rome guided by the Holy Spirit, made the decisons that have brought us doctrinally to where we are as Catholics today.

On the other hand, the Great Commission, which you quote in your post, is given to all the apostles. The power to forgive sins and perform signs are given to all the apostles (Matthew 10; Mark 16). Christ breathes the holy spirit and gives the power to bind and loose to all the apostles (John 20:19-23). Pentecost happens to all the apostles (Acts 2). Christ even instructs the apostles not to lord over one another as the Gentiles do (Matt 20:25-26). The apostle Peter, writing to elders in the church, refers to himself simply as “a fellow elder” (1 Pet 5:1).

I have to hand it to you - this is fancy footwork… while everything you have presented is true - it evades the point And, that point is, there was ONLY ONE LEADER selected by Christ in Matt 16 and John 21. Yes, Peter and the others received the power to forgive sin (Protestants don’t believe that either…) but, the issue is the Primacy of Peter.

Now, we really do need some consistency here - you complain that no one is to “lord it over” others and then complain that Peter “refers to himself simply as a fellow elder”. Which is it, is he lording it over them or just one of the guys?

God bless

CONTINUED…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Byzantine_Wolf,

***CONTINUED… Page Two ***

It’s worth noting here that of all the epistles and gospels in the New Testament - all of which carry great apostolic authority - only two are written by a supposed pope (1 and 2 Peter).

Now the complaint is that he did not write enough? The Great Commission was to and preach and baptize - not write - and you are trying to fault Peter for this? Again, this is really an issue to take up with the Author who inspired the Sacred Writers do do what they did. . Christ built HIs Church on Peter. (Matt 16:18) and then Christ sent the Apostles out to spread the Gospel throughout the world and baptize everyone.

So in response to your question as to whether or not Jesus “formed a committee”…well, scripture says He sent His apostles out to carry out His will. John 14-17 carries the message that His church would be all the apostles (not just the 12) and indeed the early believers holding strong to their teachings…and no where is Peter primacy even hinted at.

Wrong. Go back to Matt 16 and John 21 which are way more than mere hings - and see previous comments.

The fact is (to return to the subject), apostles did find all the Holy Sees, and hence they all have some “apostolic authority,” if we are to be consistent with what that word means.

I must confess I am a bit surprised at this - you are essentially using a reference NOT found in scripture. While I have no doubt that the Apostles founded the Catholic Church in other countries - it is good to see you use a non-Scriptural reference here. Really, think about doing it more often… Now, we still have to go back to the idea of Peter being given the authority (the keys - and note, Christ did not have 12-sets of keys… just one set). There is nothing to off-set this. So, if you are looking for support that Peter was just one of the guys and Christ really did not mean what He said - you will have to come up with something that revokes Peter’s authority. And, that just does not exist.

So I must again, ask, going by this standard which has always been present, when the five holy sees split from Rome and the East, did the Church of Christ, founded by His apostles (which we know included more than Peter) fall apart? Did the gates of hell prevail against it?

And, again, I must respond that after the Great Schism - the man in charge: the Bishop of Rome - was still in charge. The proof is still before your eyes: Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and all of his successors have never taught error, have never backtracked on an Article of Faith and have been consistent for 2,000 years. No Protestant can claim consistency for even 500 years or 250 years or … everytime you turn around there is some new change (same-sex marriage is OK! and homosexuality and abortion are OK! just for two items.)

There are a bunch (40,000+ Protestant denominations) because everyone is lead by their own spirit and not the Spirit of God.

God bless

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi, Nine_Two,

I don’t want to be a pest here … but, your methodology for determining the number of denominations has no real basis - besides averaging averages and then guessing at the difference. You may have a valid point when it comes to the WCC being included and this has effectively inflated the number - but, your approach is falwed, too - and considering that you have a potentially vested interest here … there is at least the potential for a bias - leading to a deflated number.

Condsidering that the other source is probably not suspected of having a bias … I would give the benefit of the doubt to the in print source rather than a fellow poster (sorry, nothing personal…) Now, a long time ago… when I was growing up, it was 20,000+ Protestant denominations … and there weren’t mega churches, either. I certainly won’t do any serious arguing with 20,000+ but, that is not the point. While they didn’t have mega churches back then…they also did not have strip mall churches either - and non-denominationals are popping up like mushrooms!

In my view, this multiplicity is that sola scriptura has run wild and apparently no one really believes 1Tim 3:15 that says that the Church (and Paul was writing about the Catholic Church founded on Peter and his successors) “…is the pillar and foundation of truth” - no everyone who opens up a building and calls it a church. Also, even fewer apparently believes 2Peter 1:20 which says that scripture is NOT for private interpretation. Put these two items together and you have this vast multiplicity of Protestant churches - all saying one thing in common: welcome to chaos !

God bless

My Methodology has a basis, but I fully admitted it is not accurate, it’s a guess based on certain information… I’m not sure what my vested interest in there being less is, since I’m not a Protestant, I’m Orthodox.

Second the “other source” has been denounced when it comes to its number of “Catholic Churches”, yet fully accepted on its number of total denominations. This is cherry picking statistics. Which is it? What makes this even worse is that the source in question gives some 20,000, not 40,000. There is a significant difference there. Next I tackled the question of independant churches in my post, they most certanly aren’t considered in the number I put forward because they aren’t denominations unto themselves, and it seems to me to count them all seperately as “denominations”, particularly when they aren’t particularly diverse in their beliefs.

Finally I agree with you that the number of denominations which believe in “Sola Scriptura” evidences an issue with the doctrine, however using fake statistics that no one seems able to back up (I refer you to all the people who have argued there are 40,000 denominations and the lack of a single source they’ve had to back themselves up on this number.) does not help your argument, if anything a passing protestant is going to look at these arguments, notice they are dishonest, and question the fruits of Catholicism.

 

[lutherlic]

There is no requirement of authority to start a new denomination. We could all do that. Many have. Many more will.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nine_Two,

Good points … Forgive the momentary memory lapse in forgetting you were Orthodox.

Yes, indeed: “Lies, damn lies and statistics!” was the famous cry of Mark Twain - that still rings true today. Bogus numbers do no one any good.

God bless

My Methodology has a basis, but I fully admitted it is not accurate, it’s a guess based on certain information… I’m not sure what my vested interest in there being less is, since I’m not a Protestant, I’m Orthodox.

Second the “other source” has been denounced when it comes to its number of “Catholic Churches”, yet fully accepted on its number of total denominations. This is cherry picking statistics. Which is it? What makes this even worse is that the source in question gives some 20,000, not 40,000. There is a significant difference there. Next I tackled the question of independant churches in my post, they most certanly aren’t considered in the number I put forward because they aren’t denominations unto themselves, and it seems to me to count them all seperately as “denominations”, particularly when they aren’t particularly diverse in their beliefs.

Finally I agree with you that the number of denominations which believe in “Sola Scriptura” evidences an issue with the doctrine, however using fake statistics that no one seems able to back up (I refer you to all the people who have argued there are 40,000 denominations and the lack of a single source they’ve had to back themselves up on this number.) does not help your argument, if anything a passing protestant is going to look at these arguments, notice they are dishonest, and question the fruits of Catholicism.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It is not true that most denominations think that they are the one true church. Even we do not go that route and Fundamentalists would be the ones to do that if that were the case.

 

[Hesychios]

Can some one tell me how many non-cathloic Denominations do we have in the world today

I don’t think anyone really knows, but an intelligent guess can be made depending upon how on defines a denomination.

The problem is most people don’t declare what criteria they use when announcing a claim, and most inquiries [like this one] don’t specify what they would assume a denomination is if they got the information.

I don’t know were the 30,000 or more number comes from, it has bandied about for years, usually without a good solid reference. I must say I distinctly remember a Catholic apologist making a claim of 12,000 denominations quite a few years ago, then higher numbers later from various other people until the ‘magic thirty’ popped out somewhere.

If one wants to count every non-denominational or independent chapel as a ‘denomination’ I suppose the number could be reached easily, but one would have to define the term very loosely.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To tqualey:

I have to admit that I am a bit startled reading your response, and that you continually accuse me of avoiding scripture, using sarcastic and emotionalized terms such as “this is fancy footwork” (you even added the smiley), when you don’t really respond directly to what I have given.

For example, in response to my analysis of Matthew 16:18, you simply say: “No. Christ built His Church on Peter.” In other words, you simply repeated your argument. You say that I “neglected to read what preceded it” - actually, I didn’t neglect it at all, I knew that verse was there, but it doesn’t present anything new. Christ says that the Father gave Peter the correct answer, yes - but that was nothing unique to Peter. Our Lord told the disbelieving disciples: “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45). The Father granted Peter the ability to have faith in Christ as the Son of God - it was upon this rock, that saving faith, which Christ declared He would build His church. In fact, in my original response I made mention of the fact that throughout the Old and New Testaments the context of spiritual rocks always pointed back to God and not any mortal man - something you did not respond to.

You respond to my pointing out that Mark and Luke did not write of the declaration of Peter as the rock with: “If your point is that this declaration by Christ did not happen because it only appears in Matthew - you are really on thin ice here… because what you are saying is that the Bible has an error!” I’m sorry, but that’s an absolute, 100% straw man. That was not at all the argument I was making. My point was that if Peter had such a high place as the modern Roman Catholic Church gives him, and this moment was the pinnacle of that, why wasn’t it written about more in the other gospels, especially the synoptic gospels? Mark, according to church tradition, was receiving his dictations from Peter - why didn’t Peter make sure to include that or make mention of it? The issue is not whether or not it happened, but the level of importance. The only thing the other synoptic gospel writers focus on is Peter’s declaration of faith, and nothing more.

You say: “Go to John 21:17.” I have, and nothing in there talks of Peter’s authority. Rather, it is the redemption of Peter, as you said, because, if you’ll notice, John’s gospel does not include Peter’s lament after his denial like the synoptic authors do. John showed Peter’s repentance in another way, but nowhere is authority given to him that was not given to the other apostles as well, especially as Peter himself considers himself a fellow elder and shepherd with many other elders and shepherds.

I brought this up, but you responded with: “you complain that no one is to ‘lord it over’ others and then complain that Peter ‘refers to himself simply as a fellow elder’. Which is it, is he lording it over them or just one of the guys?” I have to really wonder if you’re reading my responses in depth or glancing over them quickly and immediately writing a response. My point was that Christ commands the apostles not to claim either one to be greater over the others, and we see in Peter’s epistles him carrying out that command and not doing so with any great authority.

You respond to the point that only two epistles in NT scripture are written by a “pope” with: “Now the complaint is that he did not write enough?” Again, that’s a straw man - no one is “complaining,” but rather the epistles of Peter are treated with the same authority as the epistles of Paul (of whom most of the New Testament is comprised) and other apostles and evangelists. Again, that was the point - nowhere in his epistles did Peter exercise any greater authority than that of simple apostle. They all had equal authority because all were sent by God, with not one over another. Note, for example, that the epistle to the Romans is not written by Peter, but by Paul. You might say, “Well, he wasn’t there yet.” That is the point, however: the authority over the churches was on all the apostles, not Peter alone.

You respond to my discussion of those Holy Sees founded by the apostles with: “you are essentially using a reference NOT found in scripture.” What source? I am merely speaking in the context of which those at the time would have. The Second Ecumenical Council listed all five Holy Sees: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Yes these were founded by the apostles, and they considered themselves “catholic,” but not in the context most know it today. They were, however, “apostolic” and they were founded by the apostles, using the standards of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

What I asked was: if the apostolic churches split between the one church and the four others - even if you want to say the Pope of Rome is in charge - then did the gates of hell overcome the church? Did the church become divided? To argue, “No, because the pope was still in charge of Rome” is like saying, “America wasn’t divided during the civil war because the president was still in charge in Washington, DC,” or even, “England wasn’t divided during their civil war because the king was still in charge of his section.”

So I ask again: if the apostolic churches split, did the gates of hell overcome them?

 

[stephe1987]

I guess each church that is not in communion with other churches could be considered its own denomination. Each communion of churches should count as a single denomination.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I guess each church that is not in communion with other churches could be considered its own denomination. Each communion of churches should count as a single denomination.

There could be an issue with that definition. Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, United Methodists, ELCA(Lutheran), Reformed Church in America, and Morovian church all are different but have a complete relationship — that is even the clergy of one can come in and officiate the service at one of the other churches. They are all different denominations but with that close of a relationship I’m not sure they really meet the definition that some would put front. Also, one needs to recall that there are a number of “different” denominations that are based on language. culture and color and have little to nothing to do with scriptural interpretation and continue mainly because of history and cultural connections.

 

[JustaServant]

Very true, although there’s a big difference between people using what are obviously metaphorical numbers (“seventy times seven”) and people who say, “There are 40,000 Protestant denominations!” and believe it to be a fact.

I think the problem comes in with ‘independents’. They are not ‘denominational’ in the common sense of the word. yet they are in the strict sense (relationship with one another).
If we counted each ‘independent’ church as its own ‘denomination’, I think we’d have a number much higher. The key is the correct definition of the word ‘denomination’ IMO.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think the problem comes in with ‘independents’. They are not ‘denominational’ in the common sense of the word. yet they are in the strict sense (relationship with one another).
If we counted each ‘independent’ church as its own ‘denomination’, I think we’d have a number much higher. The key is the correct definition of the word ‘denomination’ IMO.

It’s an almost impossible question. While non-denominationals are, in a way, a denomination, in another sense they are right to call themselves that. They have a basically congregational philosophy, which sees the Church (with a big C) as constituted at the local level of the individual congregation. From that POV, the idea of aligning with any larger “denomination” just doesn’t make sense. And if it were true, talk of denominations would just be a red herring anyway.

But the list that includes things like the Oxford Movement just doesn’t work at any level. That is like calling Franciscans another denomination.

 

[tester]

Most of us posting on these boards live in a country where you can become a Minister by filling out a form on the internet.

For ex: INSTANT ONLINE ORDINATION FOR FREE !!
themonastery.org/?destination=ordination-form
or spiritualhumanism.org/

I thank God for the freedoms I have in my country. But, like any freedom or liberty, it can be abused.

The 40,000 has less to do with the Protestant Reformation and more to do with the freedoms (and tax laws)in a country.

Or do you want the “State” to only give their religious “stamp of approval” to the selected few?

 

[Esdra]

The WCC has 349 member churches and claims to represent 560 million Christians. This number represents about half of the estimated non-RC Christians in the world. Further it includes Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), and Assyrian Churches which are not Protestant, and which take up several of those membership spots. Without them you can decrease it to (estimating here) 300 million and 325 members. You can further decrease membership since groups like the Anglican Communion have individual provinces represented, so let’s take it down to an even 300 (That’s rough, I didn’t count)

As a wild estimate lets say there are 800 million protestants, more than a third are represented by 300 churches.

If the non-member churches average out to the same size as the WCC Churches that would mean another 500 denominations. This is likely since there are some sizable denominations (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) which are not members. We of course have plenty of independant churches, but unless you count each one as a denomination you’re limited to no more than 1,000 denominations (as a high number). If you do count every unaffiliated church as a denomination unto itself then you should make sure to clarify that when you make the claim of 40,000 (which is still high) because that isn’t the standard definition of “denomination”.

Hi

very good post.
Did you also count “non Christian” Churches like Christian Science, LDS (and all their splinters) or JWs - because one of your previous posters did so - ?
Finally there is one who doesn’t believe that there 40000 denominations. Thanks god.
I have never believed that the number is that high.

Esdra

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Byzantine_Wolf,

This is a difficult post. Essentially, when a presentation is made to you - it is denied to have its stated meaning. For example:

Peter’s primacy in Matt 16 - obviously the keys mean nothing and Peter just had faith

Peter’s command to feed and tend to Christ’[s lambs and sheep in John 21 - obvously means nothing and Peter was just getting rehabed for his three time denial of Christ.

Peter’s command of the Council of Jerusalem and deciding against circumcision in Acts 15 - obviously a meaningless statement because James adds soemthing and everyone agreed with it anyway.

And, you return to your answered question claiming it has not been answered… So, let me try a different approach:

Since you are so interested in knowing if the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church founded by Christ on Peter and his successors - what kind of criteria are you looking at? What are the marks of Church that has been overcome by Hell? You really need to define just what it is you are look for. And, in your enthusiasm for providing the answer here - what are the marks of a Church that has not been overcome by Hell? Naturally, all of these marks will have at least some scriptural backing.

You may find this link of interest: catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9101fea2.asp

I will await your response.

God bless

To tqualey:

For example, in response to my analysis of Matthew 16:18, you simply say: “No. Christ built His Church on Peter.” In other words, you simply repeated your argument. You say that I “neglected to read what preceded it” - actually, I didn’t neglect it at all, I knew that verse was there, but it doesn’t present anything new. EDITED FOR BREVITY

My point was that if Peter had such a high place as the modern Roman Catholic Church gives him, and this moment was the pinnacle of that, why wasn’t it written about more in the other gospels, especially the synoptic gospels? EDITED FOR BREVITY

You say: “Go to John 21:17.” I have, and nothing in there talks of Peter’s authority. Rather, it is the redemption of Peter, as you said, because, if you’ll notice, John’s gospel does not include Peter’s lament after his denial like the synoptic authors do. EDITED FOR BREVITY

My point was that Christ commands the apostles not to claim either one to be greater over the others, and we see in Peter’s epistles him carrying out that command and not doing so with any great authority. EDITED FOR BREVITY

You respond to the point that only two epistles in NT scripture are written by a “pope” with: “Now the complaint is that he did not write enough?” Again, that’s a straw man - no one is “complaining,” but rather the epistles of Peter are treated with the same authority as the epistles of Paul (of whom most of the New Testament is comprised) and other apostles and evangelists. Again, that was the point - nowhere in his epistles did Peter exercise any greater authority than that of simple apostle. EDITED FOR BREVITY

So I ask again: if the apostolic churches split, did the gates of hell overcome them?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi

very good post.
Did you also count “non Christian” Churches like Christian Science, LDS (and all their splinters) or JWs - because one of your previous posters did so - ?
Finally there is one who doesn’t believe that there 40000 denominations. Thanks god.
I have never believed that the number is that high.

Esdra

I didn’t “count” anyone, but the thought of those groups had occured to me, but the fact of the matter is that the “arguable” denominations really aren’t that numerous. They won’t affect numbers much whether they are accepted or not.

 

[JustaServant]

It’s an almost impossible question. While non-denominationals are, in a way, a denomination, in another sense they are right to call themselves that. They have a basically congregational philosophy, which sees the Church (with a big C) as constituted at the local level of the individual congregation. From that POV, the idea of aligning with any larger “denomination” just doesn’t make sense. And if it were true, talk of denominations would just be a red herring anyway.

But the list that includes things like the Oxford Movement just doesn’t work at any level. That is like calling Franciscans another denomination.

The term “denomination” generally referred to Protestant churches for the sake of “denominating” themselves from other Protestant churches. That’s really all the term means. It never had anything to do with the type of church government.
“Independent" churches are a type of denomination because it is a name applied (“denominated”) to these churches. Each church is connected by a “Bible college” or a “camp”. “Independent” Baptist churches are connected with other IBCs, same with Church of Christ or Congregational.