MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[elvisman]

Seeing you believe that CC’s ST is 100% inspired you’d accept the following as definitive. Seeing that I don’t hold to this understanding, I need evidence from Scripture of infant baptism. Your argument from Scripture is lacking, IMO. Sorry.

Well - I certainly cannot make you see what God has been trying to make you see until you decide to cooperate with his grace and remove the scales from your eyes.

The earliest quote you sited is AD 189, 150+ years after Jesus. Sure is ‘early’ compared to us, but not real early seeing all who live when Jesus died were MOST likely dead for 80 yrs or so, which is more than a generation in and of itself.

If you think that the Church 's beliefs became so perverted in the 80 or so years after the last Apostle - why do you accept the Canon of Scripture that wasn’t even decided upon unril 300 years after the last apostle??

Jesus surely is for infants. I’m having trouble finding from you earlies quote anything about infant baptism. If you think, from your quote of Ireanaeus, that this is about infant baptism, you have to read into this from your pre-supposition. You may be convinced, I’m not. I don’t see Jesus leaving an infant out of Heaven because their parents did not get them baptized. I see the mercy of God taking care of infants, young children and mentally challenged people without the ritual baptism. His love, mercy and grace is far bigger and more extensive than our rituals.

Because this quote was talking about the “SACNTIFICATION” of infants. I don’t know one, single, solitary Protestant denomination (which does not teach Baptismal Regeneration) that believes in the sanctification of infants unless those infants are dead. In other words - since they only believe that Baptism is only symbolic an infant cannot possibly be reborn and sanctified.

You are inventing a yet another new doctrine, Doki.

An interesting quote: do all baptisms in areas (like the USofA) where there’s plenty of water include water poured in a stream over the adult being baptized? If not, why isn’t this ECF’s teaching followed?

**Because the ECF’s didn’t have only ONE Baptismal formula.

This is what I’m taking about Doki - DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you make ludicrous statements like this.

This is straight from "The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)" - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dokimas]

Well - I certainly cannot make you see what God has been trying to make you see until you decide to cooperate with his grace and remove the scales from your eyes.

If you think that the Church 's beliefs became so perverted in the 80 or so years after the last Apostle - why do you accept the Canon of Scripture that wasn’t even decided upon unril 300 years after the last apostle??

I would never say the CC teachings are perverted, wrong sometimes, but not perverted. I hope you’re not trying to ‘put words in my mouth’ again.

As for your evaluation of my spiritual eyes, looking at how you interact with non-catholic Christians and others, your comment is meaningless.

Because this quote was talking about the "SACNTIFICATION" of infants. I don’t know one, single, solitary Protestant denomination (which does not teach Baptismal Regeneration) that believes in the sanctification of infants unless those infants are dead. In other words - since they only believe that Baptism is only symbolic an infant cannot possibly be reborn and sanctified.

If I understand what you’re saying (this is a bit confusing) then you haven’t done your homework about non-catholic Christian beliefs of baptism of infants.

You are inventing a yet another new doctrine, Doki.

Funny you keep telling me to do my homework yet you make this statement. I guess you don’t understand the general non-catholic understanding of baptism, no new doctrine from me, silly person.

**Because the ECF’s *didn’t ***have only ONE Baptismal formula.

This is what I’m taking about Doki - DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you make ludicrous statements like this.

This is straight from "The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)" - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In the USofA there’s plenty of running water. I would guess from reading your progression of baptism, most baptism is with running water (notice #2)

 

[Ginger2]

Well, I’m not sure why you guys are talking about baptism in this thread, but…

If you think that the Church 's beliefs became so perverted in the 80 or so years after the last Apostle - why do you accept the Canon of Scripture that wasn’t even decided upon unril 300 years after the last apostle??

read your Bible and you’ll see various churches (with a small “c”) were becoming perverted even while the Apostles were still with us.

**Because the ECF’s *didn’t ***have only ONE Baptismal formula.

**This is what I’m taking about Doki **- DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you make ludicrous statements like this.

This is straight from "The Didache (The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles)" - a FIRST CENTURY document (circa A.D. 70):
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

This is interesting as the RC does not follow this. They arbitrarily choose to Baptize in the 4th manner when clearly allchoices following the 1st are in the event the previous manner is not available.

But this conversation is probably best moved to a thread on Baptism.

 

[jmcrae]

I would never say the CC teachings are perverted, wrong sometimes, but not perverted. I hope you’re not trying to ‘put words in my mouth’ again.

The point is, if you think that they could have been wrong about something as important as how we are initiated into Christ, then what makes you think that they could have been right, more than 300 years later, about which books belong in the Bible, and which books needed to be excluded from it?

In the USofA there’s plenty of running water. I would guess from reading your progression of baptism, most baptism is with running water (notice #2)

This is why, in Baptism, the water is poured over the person three times, rather than the person just going into the water.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The point that you miss is that all of this is made possible by sola scriptura…

Let’s not go into SS. It’s just another myth Catholics like to spout off about…another example where truth is not enough, rather embellishments and misquotes are needed for the Catholic to defend his beliefs.

Luther did not teach Sola Scriptura. Luther is misquoted and falsely accused to discredit Protestants.

Here is the quote used by Catholics:
“Your Imperial Majesty and Your Lordships demand a simple answer. Here it is, plain and unvarnished. Unless I am convicted [convinced] of error by the testimony of Scripture or…by manifest reasoning,”

Furthermore, all cults are not formed out twisting Scriptures, yet all non Catholic churches and cults are lumped into protestanism - even those based on ideas spawn long before Luther and even some that existed before Christ.

When one denies church authority, as Luther did, then what is one left with as an authority except scripture? Let’s not try to canonize Luther here. Luther did more to splinter christianity than any other heretic, before or since. The one thing that all non Catholic christians have in common is sola scriptura. Doesn’t matter if you are Lutheran, Baptist, Assembly of God, Jehovah Witness, Unitarian or Mormon, you are sola scripturist. You may be Trinitarian or Unitarian. You may have 66 books in your Bible or yoju may supplement that Bible with another book. Doesn’t matter you are sola scripturist. So what’s the difference between a sola scripturist and a protestant? Nothing, absolutely nothing. So protestant = sola scripturist and sola scripturist = protestant.

As for your comment, ‘all cults are not formed out twisting Scriptures’ I would like you to show me one either past or present that does not try to justify themselves without perverting the scriptures.

 

[Ginger2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The point that you miss is that all of this is made possible by sola scriptura…

This thread is not about SS please take your discussion to an appropriate area or start a new thread. Thank you

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Well there are Scriptures that point out your error - so, let’s take a look at them…

If the baptism of one infant were directly recorded in the NT, then it would prove that infants can be baptized with meaning.

I guess it is really a matter of what you believe with the words of Scripture that are already there. Many groups (don’t know if you belong to one of them) claim that they believe something because it is written in Scripture. Others say this, but as soon as something is presented that does not square with their pre-existing belief system, they find ways to discount the actual words. What this means is that the words are clear, until someone says they aren’t… or, Sola Scriptura with a spin!

Matt 19:13-15 The Apostles are rebuked by Chris (in both Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels) for keeping the little children away from Him, yet you claim that keeping them from baptism (keeping them from the freely offered Grace of God) is acceptable.

13
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked them,
14
but Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
15
After he placed his hands on them, he went away.

Luke 18: 15-16
15
People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them.
16
Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Now, when you read these two passages, you get the impression that Christ is not requiring these infants and children to make an ‘altar call’ or a profession of faith.!

Acts 2:38-39 - Peter, after the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost tells people to repent and be baptized - and this is offered to their children

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

The rule for those incapable of repenting is that the mercy, grace and love extends to these people without our ritual attempt to get them in right relations to our God.

And, just what verse are you quoting here? Seriously. Christ tells His Apostles to baptize everyone - (Matt 28:18-19) “all nations”. Infants and children make up the inhabitants of “all nations”.

18
Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

Of course Jesus’ comment, ‘Let the little children come to me …’ was NO off-hand comment. However, to acknowledge that Jesus takes special care of infants and children without our ritualistic intervention is to give real substance to His command.

You may have a baptism that is a ritualistic interventions - but, in the Catholic Church, we take the words of Scripture and apply them. For example, in Col 2:11-12, we see how circumcision which God commanded be done on the 8th day afte birth (in other words, an infant) has been replaced by baptism.

11
In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.
12
You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

I’m wondering how believing Jesus takes care of infants and young children so they don’t need to be baptized is a man made tradition.

Simple, show you the verse you are citing that allows you to draw this conclusion. If it does not clearly state that children are NOT TO BE BAPTIZED becuse of this reference, then it is simply a tradition of men.

It’s no tradition but an understanding of the mercy, love and grace of God toward those who are helpless. Getting in God’s way or doing God’s job seems to result from man made traditions.

Actually, what you are doiing here is tempting God! This refusal to baptize an individual - although there is a clear diretive to baptize everyone - is putting God to the test. Luke 4:12 condemns this practtice - and it should be noted who Jesus is talking to.

It sure is serious to get in God’s way of doing His work of redemption.

AMEN! to that statement! Now, Elvisman gave you numerous quotes from the Early (Catholic) Church Fathers that support, encourage and order that infants be baptized. While there may be some who think they can come in 1,600 years after the fact and try to re-write history and say that those closest to the situation had it wrong - reality stands against such a position.

God bless

 

[inkaneer]

This thread is not about SS please take your discussion to an appropriate area or start a new thread. Thank you

Yeah. I understand completely. If I were protestant I wouldn’t want to discuss sola scriptura either.

 

[inkaneer]

As a Catholic I am bemused by the number of times I see this or even much higher figures than 40,000 denominations thrown in to bolster an argument about why sola scriptura is wrong. I think it unfair in debate if it can’t be substantiated.

I want to see a list of these 40,000 denominations. I personally know of perhaps 20 or 30.

These numbers are not “Catholic numbers” by no means. There is no one at the Vatican counting protestant denominations. These numbers come from legitimate and highly reputable protestant sources such as the World Council of Churches or the Oxford University School of Divinity or the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary. These are the numbers that protestants admit to, therefore, they are perfectly legitimate to use.

 

[jmcrae]

These numbers are not “Catholic numbers” by no means. There is no one at the Vatican counting protestant denominations. These numbers come from legitimate and highly reputable protestant sources such as the World Council of Churches or the Oxford University School of Divinity or the Gordon Conwall Theological Seminary. These are the numbers that protestants admit to, therefore, they are perfectly legitimate to use.

Actually, they don’t - which is why, if you are trying to be taken seriously, you should not throw these numbers around. If you want to make the point that there are a great many Protestant denominations due to the loss of authoritative teaching, simply say that there are a great many Protestant denominations - don’t say a number, because people will call you on it - and there aren’t any legitimate sources for these numbers.

If you want to make someone mad and get into an interminable argument, on the other hand, the perfect way to do so would be to bring up a number and then try to justify it.

 

[elvisman]

I would never say the CC teachings are perverted, wrong sometimes, but not perverted. I hope you’re not trying to ‘put words in my mouth’ again.

**For you to imply that the Early Church went from a doctrinal position of non-belief in Baptismal Regeneration of infants and did an about face 80 years later WOULD have been a complete perversion of Apostolic teaching. **
Thank God you’re wrong.

**That’s why I can’t understand how you can reject certain doctrines of the Early Church based on Apostolic Tradition - yet accept the canonicity of Scripture declared by the Church. **
You cherry-pick only the which doctrines you like - is that it?

 

[LutheranDK]

That same Encyclopaedia also stated there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations, but I’m sure if I started a thread asking, “Why should I join the Roman Church if there are 242 denominations?” I’d get a lot of people responding with, “Huh? What? There aren’t 242 denominations of Roman Catholicism!”

Picking and choosing the facts, ladies and gentlemen, picking and choosing the facts.

:clapping:
I think “pwnage” is the word

 

[elvisman]

Well, I’m not sure why you guys are talking about baptism in this thread, but…

Hey - I didn’t start the Baptism topic but it all ties in with WHY there are so many Protestant denominations.

read your Bible and you’ll see various churches (with a small “c”) were becoming perverted even while the Apostles were still with us.

They weren’t different “Churches” as in denominations. They were different Church communities – parishes and dioceses if you will.

When they went astray – they were ALWAYS admonished by the Church leaders and put in their place. This practice has NEVER stopped since the beginning.

The Problem with Protestantism is that it refusesto be corrected and admonished. THAT is why we have the thousands of denominations.

This is interesting as the RC does not follow this. They arbitrarily choose to Baptize in the 4th manner when clearly allchoices following the 1st are in the event the previous manner is not available.

But this conversation is probably best moved to a thread on Baptism.

There you go making ridiculous blanket statements again, Ginger.
I’ve seen Catholic Baptisms is all of the above-mentioned forms.

By the way - I’ve never heard of a small ‘c’ Church or a small ‘c’ Catholic until I came to this forum.
There’s no such thing as either . . .

 

[Cruxis117]

How many of these “denominations” are in full communion with the Pontiff and the Papacy in general? Can you tell me that?

Now, lets consider the possiblity, unless I’m proven wrong, that some of them are in communion with the Pontiff and Papacy, then they would still be united to the Catholic Church, and therefore would be different from, lets say, A Lutheran and a Non-Denominational and a Baptist and an Anglican, which will all derive different things from Sacred Scripture, and are not united at all. Those which would not be in full communion with the Pontiff and the Papacy (SSPX comes to mind) would not be recognized as a “Roman Catholic Denomination”, or anything related to Catholicism. Furthermore, we see that compared to the 242 “denominations”, of Roman Catholicism, which if I am not mistaken probably are in communion with Rome , to the 40,000 Denominations of the Protestant Reformation, which are not in any way united together at all (meaning that all 40,000 are united in teaching and doctrine), there is a big difference.

I would like a list of these denominations please. Thank you.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

Well there are Scriptures that point out your error - so, let’s take a look at them…

AMEN! to that statement! Now, Elvisman gave you numerous quotes from the Early (Catholic) Church Fathers that support, encourage and order that infants be baptized. While there may be some who think they can come in 1,600 years after the fact and try to re-write history and say that those closest to the situation had it wrong - reality stands against such a position.

God bless

You kind of remind me of a bully: notice how BIG you words are and how small mine are.

I’ve spoken several times to the points you bring up. It’s possible you are reading into those verses what’s NOT there. In fact I’ve spoken to the issue of Jesus wanting the children to come to Him. Your attempt to make my understanding look like I’m tempting God is kind of a bully attempt. Sorry, I don’t learn from this kinds of tactics.

BTW, I’m not trying to rewrite any history. I’m sure the CC held the beliefs you have since the 3rd century at least. However, if you’re incorrect, guess how rewrote the history between 30AD and the 3rd century?

 

[Dokimas]

That’s why I can’t understand how you can reject certain doctrines of the Early Church based on Apostolic Tradition - yet accept the canonicity of Scripture declared by the Church.

Cuz I don’t find them in the Bible and at times, it appears the Bible says something different.

You cherry-pick only the which doctrines you like - is that it?

Statements like this remind me of the phrase, ‘wise in your own conceit’.

 

[jmcrae]

Cuz I don’t find them in the Bible and at times, it appears the Bible says something different.

You won’t find anything at all on the subject of the canonicity of the Bible, in the Bible - and yet, you accept it - while at the same time rejecting every other teaching of the people who put the Bible together.

Either trust them in all things - the Bible, the Sacraments, the disciplines of the Church, Mary, and everything - or don’t trust them in anything, and throw out the Bible along with Mary and the Sacraments and the disciplines of the Church, and everything else.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that the Bible is true, but that none of these other things are true, unless there is some other way to know what the Bible is, other than by listening to the Church. (There isn’t. People have tried.)

 

[Ginger2]

They weren’t different “Churches” as in denominations. They were different Church communitiesparishes and dioceses if you will.

By the way - I’ve never heard of a small 'c’Church or a small ‘c’ Catholic until I came to this forum.
There’s no such thing as either . . .

:banghead: I really, truly thought I was making a clear statement by emphasizing “church” with a small “c”. But here I am being told once again, the RC doesn’t have denominations and neither did the 1st century Church.

For the life of me I cannot understand how you Catholics keep coming to the assumption I think the RC (or the first century Church) is made up of many denominations - especially since I have pointed out several times over the year on CAF that I don’t. It is the erroneous source you all like to quote from that makes that claim.

 

[Ginger2]

You won’t find anything at all on the subject of the canonicity of the Bible, in the Bible - and yet, you accept it - while at the same time rejecting every other teaching of the people who put the Bible together.

jmcrae,

Jesus himself mentions which books of the Old Testament are "cananized.
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

The Apostles affirmed the sufficiency and authority of Scriptures over the teaching of men.
1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

2 Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2 Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

In the temptation, the Lord Jesus three times resisted Satan, saying, “It is written” Matthew 4:4, “he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

Jesus stated the importance of Christians to depend on the Scriptures and not what men teach:

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Galatians 1:11-12
Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin.
For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph 3:3-5 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

There is not a “list” of Scriptures in the NT. But these verses show that Christians definitely knew the Apostles’ writings were indeed inspired of God. From the beginning we have known which books were Holy Scriptures.

The Scriptures tell us. History in the 1st century affirms it. The claim that the RC gave us the canon in the 4th century is ridiculous. It is a claim that denies the Apostles knew their writings were inspired Scriptures - and that is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures proclaim.

The issues arose as men began trying to introduce pseudo-gospels into mix. Many false gospels were being written to deceive Christians. They were not written by Apostles, but some of them claimed to be as I’m sure you are aware.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

Jesus himself mentions which books of the Old Testament are "cananized.
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you–that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.”

At that time, there were two canons of Scripture - the Five Books of Moses, and the 43-book canon of the Law, the Prophets, and the Wisdom (including the Psalms).

But if all of the Wisdom books except for the Psalms are to be excluded, then why do Protestants include some of them?

But if they are to be included, then it makes sense to include all of them, rather than picking and choosing which ones to include. Same with the Prophets. But the Jews reject some of the Prophets, because they speak a bit too plainly about Jesus.

Jesus was affirming the 43-book Old Testament, here.

The 39-book Old Testament did not yet exist - it began to exist in about 90 AD, when some Jews threw out some of the Prophets and some of the Wisdom. Christians, however, continued to use the old 43-book Old Testament, until the mid-1600s, when certain English-speaking Protestants decided to go with what they thought was the “Jewish” Old Testament, because they were under the false impression that that was what Jesus was using.