MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[tqualey]

Hi, Jmcrae,

After reading both posts, I think PRmerger has captured the essence of those who are not bound by anything but their own view of what to believe and how to interpret Scripture. I think you have captured the mechanics of how to actually count groups, arranged into categories, and present them as data. Both have valid uses… but, the problem comes in when you try to discuss. for example “Just how many apples are on that tree … and is that a peach on that tree?”

While trying to know how many of various types of an item exist is certainly a valid intellecutal activity - there are other considerations. The ability for a Catholic to sit in a pew during Mass and at the point of consecration say, “That is only a symbol or a memorial act.” is simply non- existant. To consciously and willfully do this (deny the Real Presence) would cause this person to no longer be a Catholic. The same is true for a Catholic who actively supports abortion - the minute they chose to do this murderious act, they are no longer Catholics. I do not know how such an individual would be ‘counted’ by a research organization - but, my understanding of how God counts would put such people in the ex-Catholic category (no matter where they were sitting on Sunday).

Protestants can accept or reject whatever is presented - and rely on their own personal interpretation of scripture to back them up (a position already condemned by the scripture they are trying to manipulate (2Peter 1:20).

From a personal perspective, I have taken the number 40,000+ (when I first learned about this, it was 20,000+…) to mean a large number. The reason for so large a number is quite instructive - they simply can not agree on anything (except, of course, that the Catholic Church is wrong!) Can you imagine two groups of people coming out to a stadium to play a game and one group was dressed for football and the other was dressed for baseball? This is what we have with the various and competing Protestant groups. Not even the playing field is configured to allow them to play together! And, yet, they would say that they are each following Christ! I think it noteworthy to identify that Christ instructed all of His Apostles the same way - there were not 12 different approaches to following Him.

So, while agreeing or disagreeing with a particular way of counting is a personal issue, I would recommend we look more at WHY there are so many competing groups rather than the reality that there are a bunch of them - we just don’t know/care how many.

God bless

Sorry, but I disagree with him on that point. It is not possible to create a Protestant denomination out of thin air, or by accident - certainly not by attending a Church and disagreeing with its teachings, without actually taking steps to do something about it. It is not possible, in any religion or subset of religious systems, to become a “denomination of one” - and it’s especially impossible to do so unwittingly.

In the earliest days of Protestantism, it took an Act of Parliament (or local government equivalent), and even today, there are the minimum requirements of any organization, to gain religious tax exemption.

 

[Adam_Warlock]

The existence of Protestant denominations seems to cause quite a disturbance here.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Adam,

Welcome to CAF! I think you will find this an excellent list for discussing items of interest.

Would you please clarify your post? I am not sure I understand what it is you are commenting on. Thanks.

God bless

The existence of Protestant denominations seems to cause quite a disturbance here.

 

[jmcrae]

While trying to know how many of various types of an item exist is certainly a valid intellecutal activity - there are other considerations. The ability for a Catholic to sit in a pew during Mass and at the point of consecration say, “That is only a symbol or a memorial act.” is simply non- existant. To consciously and willfully do this (deny the Real Presence) would cause this person to no longer be a Catholic. The same is true for a Catholic who actively supports abortion - the minute they chose to do this murderious act, they are no longer Catholics.

Well- they are no longer good Catholics.

In so doing, however, they haven’t established a new form of government, or a new religion. They are simply dissenting from the core teachings of the Catholic faith. This doesn’t make them into a new Protestant denomination, however - it just makes them bad Catholics.

Just as an apple that falls from a tree, bumps down a hill, and gets infested with worms doesn’t become “a peach” - it is simply a “bad apple” and no longer fit for consumption, either as an apple, or as anything else.

You can’t just decide to recategorize it as a different kind of fruit.

I do not know how such an individual would be ‘counted’ by a research organization - but, my understanding of how God counts would put such people in the ex-Catholic category (no matter where they were sitting on Sunday).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jmcrae,

OK, I got the idea of an apple just not turning into a peach simply because it fell from the tree. But, the idea of someone who would deny an Article of Faith being called a ‘bad Catholic’ as opposed to an ‘ex-Catholic’ has me stumped.

Are we saying the same thing just using different words? I am saying this person has excommunicated themselves. Are you saying something different?

God bless

Well- they are no longer good Catholics.

In so doing, however, they haven’t established a new form of government, or a new religion. They are simply dissenting from the core teachings of the Catholic faith. This doesn’t make them into a new Protestant denomination, however - it just makes them bad Catholics.

Just as an apple that falls from a tree, bumps down a hill, and gets infested with worms doesn’t become “a peach” - it is simply a “bad apple” and no longer fit for consumption, either as an apple, or as anything else.

You can’t just decide to recategorize it as a different kind of fruit.

By their nature, research organizations have no choice but to believe what they are told, so these people would be counted as whatever they identified themselves as.

The fact that they often do this only means that they “can” - it doesn’t mean that they “may.” Protestant organizations - at least, those that take themselves seriously and hope to be taken seriously by the general public - also have defined doctrines that they at least implicitly expect their followers to adhere to, at least most of the time. Some of them will say, Well, as long as you follow the spirit of the doctrine, you don’t have to actually believe it word for word - but even in those cases, there are things you can’t say or can’t believe, and still consider yourself a faithful XYZ, even “in spirit.”

I agree with you on this, but it would be the case, even if there were only one form of Protestantism. Throwing huge, unbelievable numbers around does nothing to advance the cause of serious Catholic apologetics.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi, Jmcrae,

OK, I got the idea of an apple just not turning into a peach simply because it fell from the tree. But, the idea of someone who would deny an Article of Faith being called a ‘bad Catholic’ as opposed to an ‘ex-Catholic’ has me stumped.

Are we saying the same thing just using different words? I am saying this person has excommunicated themselves. Are you saying something different?

God bless

No, under Catholic law, a person who privately believes something that goes against the teachings of the Church is simply a “bad Catholic.”

He doesn’t get excommunicated until he acts on those beliefs (by encouraging someone to have an abortion, for example) or until he teaches his false idea as if it were Catholic doctrine (by telling a class of RCIA candidates that abortion is an approved form of birth control in the Catholic Church, for example).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

Let’s take a look at your one point… and see where it goes.

Just want to re-emphasis one point.

A difference between Catholicism and Protestantism that is at the heart of all this is the freedom Protestants exercise in interpreting scripture as they choose to.

The choice is not all that simple. EDITED FOR BREVITY

Protestantism is very disunited, although there really are two main streams. One is liberal/moderate mainstream Protestantism which emphasizes the 'big tent'. In other words, it permits major differences of opinion.
 The other major branch of Protestantism is fervently sola scriptura. They can be quite dogmatic and have spun off many groups who disgree over this or that. The leaders of each group are likely to be quite sure that they have the full truth.

Peter tells us that he (speaking for the teaching authority of the Church of Christ - the Catholic Church as leader) has the prophetic message and it is reliable because the Holy Spirit is guiding the understanding of this message. Peter also tells that that private interpretation of Scripture is specifically condenmed ( 2Peter 1:16-21) Let’s look at these words - and they appear in your abridged version of the Bible, too.

16
We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17
For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10 when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”
18
We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain.
19
Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

But, it does not end there, Roy5! The whole idea of boasting in private interepretation, as you state in your opening, is simply inconsistent with boasting of how much you revere Scripture. This is not an incidental item like should women wear hats in church. This is a major issue - and one at the very core of Protestantism. All go for Sola Scriptura either by design or necessity because they have no recognized authoraitve teaching source from which differences can be resolved.

The issue may become more understandable when you consider where your point of view would have lead had it been in place in 325 when the Council of Nicea condemned Arius, Presbyter in Alexandria, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia for doubting the Trinity. Most Christians today believe there is One God composed of Three Divine Persons Who are separate and distinct from One Another, yet are One God and not three gods. Well, Sacred Scripture does not spell this out - and with every one having their own private interpretation chaos would have run throughout the Church. Fortunately, the Nicene Council (a Council of the Catholic Church) declared that the Father did not create the Son and Holy Spirit that the Three Divine Persons existed from all eternity and They are of the same Substance: God.

Think about this. Even today, amongst these 40,000+ denominations - some doubt the Divinity of Christ! Read over the Nicene Creed (here is a helpful link: newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm) and you will see that in no way could such a document come about with everyone boasting about how they love to do things their own way - as opposed to the way Christ gave us (Matt 16:18).

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jmcrae,

Thanks for the clarification.

God bless

No, under Catholic law, a person who privately believes something that goes against the teachings of the Church is simply a “bad Catholic.”

He doesn’t get excommunicated until he acts on those beliefs (by encouraging someone to have an abortion, for example) or until he teaches his false idea as if it were Catholic doctrine (by telling a class of RCIA candidates that abortion is an approved form of birth control in the Catholic Church, for example).

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, but I disagree with him on that point. It is not possible to create a Protestant denomination out of thin air, or by accident - certainly not by attending a Church and disagreeing with its teachings, without actually taking steps to do something about it. It is not possible, in any religion or subset of religious systems, to become a “denomination of one” - and it’s especially impossible to do so unwittingly.

In the earliest days of Protestantism, it took an Act of Parliament (or local government equivalent), and even today, there are the minimum requirements of any organization, to gain religious tax exemption.

We’re not really talking about organizations or denominations.

What we’re really doing on this thread is showing the fruit of this paradigm: The Bible is the sole rule of faith.

What that means is, as John Martignoni states, “I get to read the bible and, essentially, become my own magisterium”.

Clearly, the existence of 9,000, 40,000 or millions of different understandings of what the Bible says proves that paradigm (in brown) above FALSE.

 

[Wampa]

In case anyone is interested in reading more on this topic, we had essentially this same conversation three years ago, with the OP attempting to make the same point Byzantine_Wolf has tried to make here.

“There are 2,942 Catholic Denominations, Maybe more”:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=141315

Carry on…

 

[jmcrae]

We’re not really talking about organizations or denominations.

What we’re really doing on this thread is showing the fruit of this paradigm: The Bible is the sole rule of faith.

What that means is, as John Martignoni states, “I get to read the bible and, essentially, become my own magisterium”.

In real life, there aren’t actually very many Protestants who think like this - most of them assume that their pastors are well-educated men who are guided by the Holy Spirit, and they follow their pastors. There are probably any number of “non-denominational” pastors who have at some level mistaken themselves for the Holy Spirit, but this isn’t a problem of Protestantism; it’s a problem of unfettered individualism. Most Protestant organizations that I know of would seek to reign in a pastor like that, by means of a General Council, or a Synod, or a local Presbytry.

Clearly, the existence of 9,000, 40,000 or millions of different understandings of what the Bible says proves that paradigm (in brown) above FALSE.

I still think that the numbers are wildly exaggerated, and useful more for shock value than any kind of reasoned conversation.

 

[PRmerger]

In real life, there aren’t actually very many Protestants who think like this - most of them assume that their pastors are well-educated men who are guided by the Holy Spirit, and they follow their pastors.

Interesting! I only just (just!!) responded to a non-Catholic on another thread who stated this:

I get very little doctrine from preachers. I study for myself.

Now, one non-Catholic does not a trend make…but I’m just sayin’…it’s interesting that I just responded to his post and then read yours.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If there are more than one interpretation of Tradition and Scripture, does that also prove them false?

How many different groups does it take to prove something false PR merger?
I am examing the presuppositions behind the belief that more than one group disagreeing about the same thing negates the Truth of the belief.
I can elaborate if need be.
You see, in this case, I believe it is faulty apologetics and reasoning. One that actually gets used against us both atheists who argue essentially the same point about Christianity!
Thanks

 

[Araninski]

First of all, a warm Shalom (peace) to all.

Guys if you want to talk about differences on different protestant denominations, you first have to start with the core.

What’s the difference between a doctrine and a belief?

Let’s have an example, a pastor from a AoG church believes in the Second Coming of the Messiah, and believes in the rapture, however a pastor from a AoG church believes in the Second Coming of the Messiah, but does not believe on the rapture.

Here there is a difference of beliefs (that are not essential, for salvation). However both pastors have a unity of believe on doctrine. What is doctrine? A doctrine is not a dogma, a doctrine is a principle of law. A doctrine is to love God with all your heart, mind ,soul, spirit, and the ten commandments. Another doctrine, you can get saved if you accept Jesus’s gift of salvation. Long before Jesus came into the earth, God already had gave us the doctrine we were supposed to follow.

What is not a doctrine? Easy, anything that isn’t essential. It is essential to believe Jesus can save us. To believe in God, to obey His commands, otherwise we can lose salvation.
Are Marian “Doctrines” essential? No, because they are not doctrines. They are beliefs. Is the rapture “doctrine” essential? No. Is the doctrine of the purgatory essential? No. Is the believe that Jesus will come again essential, Yes. Is essential to believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, yes.

In fact most of the denominations, have differences in beliefs that aren’t essential or even important. Now if denominations have difference on doctrines which are essential beliefs then there is a problem. Of course we are all different, we are never going to all think exactly the same but we have to agree on the essential believes which are doctrines.

Are denominations teaching premarital sex is good? Are denominations teaching anything that contradicts the law our God gave us?There is the real problem.
Are churches teaching kissing statues and bowing to them is an act of reverence and not of idolatry. Well look to what things your church teaches that are not **accord with the sound doctrine of our Lord. **

Titus 2

1You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine. 2Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

9Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

11For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, 13while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, 14who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

15These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

No offense intended. Just wanted to tell there’s a difference between doctrine and non-essential beliefs.

Yahweh bless you!

 

[Rightlydivide]

What is essential and not essential is decided by whom exactly?
I think it is ALL essential.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rightlydivide,

Let me take you up on that offer to elaborate… An example or two may be helpful.

Thanks

God bless

If there are more than one interpretation of Tradition and Scripture, does that also prove them false?

How many different groups does it take to prove something false PR merger?
I am examing the presuppositions behind the belief that more than one group disagreeing about the same thing negates the Truth of the belief.
I can elaborate if need be.
You see, in this case, I believe it is faulty apologetics and reasoning. One that actually gets used against us both atheists who argue essentially the same point about Christianity!
Thanks

 

[Araninski]

You may believe the Pope has the guidance of the Holy Spirit and he cannot err, when in “ex-cathedra” or whatever. Or you can claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding you to understand (Sola Scripture) whatever secret there is hidden on the Word of God, but however if anything you interpreted or dictated or papal bull’d or read and understood to be the “revelation” the the Holy Spirit gave you or read what any super PHD theologian/apologist of any church wrote, if anything is not accord to the sound doctrine the Lord gave, is not from the Holy Spirit and is not true. Is what your flesh falsely declared you. And most of the time this things happen in innocence, this is the reason why we defend all of our “doctrines” which in the end aren’t even important, if in first place they aren’t accord to the sound doctrine of the Lord. And secondly if you are making assumptions.

Shalom
Yahweh bless you.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hi, Rightlydivide,

Let me take you up on that offer to elaborate… An example or two may be helpful.

Thanks

God bless

Okay sure.
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Both adhere to Scripture and Tradition.
There are other groups of course but even this one example should suffice to prove that the line of reasoning is faulty. I am saying the reasoning is faulty. Multiple groups holding different opinions does not invalidate the source of that information whether it be scripture OR scripture and tradition.
I can elaborate more. I am not intending to get into a Catholic/Orthodox thing but to elaborate on my point.
Thanks

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Araninski,

Glad to have you join the thread.

Now, tell me, where did you get these definitions of doctrine and belief and who actually decided what was ‘essential’ and what wasn’t?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

First of all, a warm Shalom (peace) to all.

Guys if you want to talk about differences on different protestant denominations, you first have to start with the core.

What’s the difference between a doctrine and a belief?

Let’s have an example, a pastor from a AoG church believes in the Second Coming of the Messiah, and believes in the rapture, however a pastor from a AoG church believes in the Second Coming of the Messiah, but does not believe on the rapture.

Here there is a difference of beliefs (that are not essential, for salvation). However both pastors have a unity of believe on doctrine. What is doctrine? A doctrine is not a dogma, a doctrine is a principle of law. A doctrine is to love God with all your heart, mind ,soul, spirit, and the ten commandments. Another doctrine, you can get saved if you accept Jesus’s gift of salvation. Long before Jesus came into the earth, God already had gave us the doctrine we were supposed to follow.

What is not a doctrine? Easy, anything that isn’t essential. It is essential to believe Jesus can save us. To believe in God, to obey His commands, otherwise we can lose salvation.
Are Marian “Doctrines” essential? No, because they are not doctrines. They are beliefs. Is the rapture “doctrine” essential? No. Is the doctrine of the purgatory essential? No. Is the believe that Jesus will come again essential, Yes. Is essential to believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, yes.

In fact most of the denominations, have differences in beliefs that aren’t essential or even important. Now if denominations have difference on doctrines which are essential beliefs then there is a problem. Of course we are all different, we are never going to all think exactly the same but we have to agree on the essential believes which are doctrines.

Are denominations teaching premarital sex is good? Are denominations teaching anything that contradicts the law our God gave us?There is the real problem.
Are churches teaching kissing statues and bowing to them is an act of reverence and not of idolatry. Well look to what things your church teaches that are not **accord with the sound doctrine of our Lord. **

No offense intended. Just wanted to tell there’s a difference between doctrine and non-essential beliefs.

Yahweh bless you!

 

[Araninski]

Originally Posted by Rightlydivide

What is essential and not essential is decided by whom exactly?
I think it is ALL essential.

If I don’t believe in the rapture, but only in the Second Coming of the Messiah, and I preach the Gospel (Good News) of the Lord, and follow His commandments , will I go to hell? No because the rapture isn’t essential. Not everything is essential. What is essential is what the Lord already said. The commandments, believing in Jesus, etc. You and I may disagree on theology and philosophy, but if we disagree in the commandments there’s real problem between you and I.