MERGED: Where are these 40,000 plus Protestant denominations

[Dokimas]

Only concerning Elvisman. Just kidding!!!

I was raised Catholic and I thank God for that, because if my only experience with Catholics came from this forum, I would be extremely anti-catholic.

But fortunately, half my family are wonderful Christian Catholics whom I love dearly.

When someone says something terribly nasty to me, like telling me I’m going to hell because I have commited an unforgivable sin by leaving the RC or I have a demon on my back or outright says I’m a liar, I try to remember that cyberspace is no way to know a person. I am certain if I met anyone of the Catholics in this forum in person we could be good friends…with the exception of one or two…because they are decent people who mean well.

Ginger

Elvis owes you an apology.

He owes all who read him one as well.

 

[Ginger2]

WRONG, Ginger.

The verses you provided - and others concerning the necessity to adhere to the Scriptures are mostly about the OLD Testament as I already pointed out to you.
Paul doesn’t speak to the sufficiency of the NEW Testament because - as I ALSO pointed out - most of the NT hadn’t even been written yet.

**Most **of what the Epistle writers were referring to was the Old Testament. They were telling the early Church that they could learn from Jesus in the OT because THERE WAS NO NT YET.

This historical fact obliterates your argument and bolsters, instead - the Catholic position about Oral Tradition.

You are once again mistaken

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. Therefore their writings were considered Holy Scriptures as it was from God and not man.

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 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.
and
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now, if you go back to my other post and read more carefully, I’m sure you will see I quoted Scriptures concerning New and Old Testament writings. As being sufficient and complete concerning all we need to know about God.

 

[waxwing]

Gosh, lots to read and digest.

One point.

It is my observation that Protestants move easily from one denomination to another. Sometimes it's simply a matter of moving from one community to another. They might have been Methodist before, but a friendly Presbyterian Church is near their new home with new friends who attend there, an effective preacher and pastor, and a good Sunday School - so, they become Presbyterian. Or maybe there is no Methodist Church in the new town, very small town, and they go to the Baptist Church. 

Then there are those - often more adamant theologically - who want the 'whole Bible preached faithfully'. If the preacher doesn't do what is expected, it's off to a different church. This is rare among mainline Protestants, rather common among more evangelical Protestants.

I had two experiences this week, which may or may not be relevant. I had lunch with a priest and then I chatted with a priest at a repast following a funeral. In both cases I found them very dissatisfied with the hierarchy. Neither had much use for EWTN. One said if he watched it he became so annoyed that he didn't sleep well that night, etc.

 A thought. They say 30 million Catholics have left the church in the USA. While Protestants will go from one denomination to another in their frustration, could it be that Catholics leave the church and either 'go Protestant' or become nothing? I wonder.

 As for me, I try to love everybody. Wasn't it Christ who told us to love one another? I don't recall him saying that we should love only those who go to any one church. I don't care how many Protestant denominations there are. It depends, of course, on defining terms - Protestant and denomination, to name two. Since I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage with loved ones in 'both camps' I am distressed by all this silly pettiness. When Jesus was asked how to inherit eternal life, it seems to me that he didn't mention theology or a church, but love God and our neighbor. I try my best to do that, though some neighbors make it tough. I'm not sure I would get along with some CAF posters if they moved next door. I'd try.

Some good points here - as someone who does also have a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage I too can attest that within the Protestant Church the switching from denomination to denomination or church to church is done readily and fluidly all the time, this constant movement of course has it effects on churches and individuals, some pro and some con. I think this behavior suits us well in western society as(don’t mean to go off the deep end here ) we are society that are Consumers (at least there be some sort of equilibrium if we still made things here) and as consumers we are taught at least two things; We are always Right, We have many Choices just to make it clear that the first point is always right. As a Catholic I realize their is never going to be unity all under the Catholic tent, but I think it doesn’t serve anyone well do have X amount of thousands of Protestant denominations - even the term Denomination seems to be passe with all the Mega Church Non Denominations which it often seems just .based on the ‘coolness’ and speaking ability of its Pastors, sorry for the cynicism…I know I have heard the Mainline are losing members, but for me this is where the hope is, there is a sense of stability and fixed beliefs(ie creeds) and practices that aren’t prone to sway with the times as much, of course there is the ongoing split amoung conservative and liberal churches for them, but as a conservative (theolgically) person I’d love to see some unity amoungst them

 

[jmcrae]

1. The church was not called the Catholic Church. The term ‘universal’ was an adjective not a noun. Huge difference

It had a Pope, who just so happened to be standing on the same line as the one that is between the Apostle Peter, and our current Pope, Benedict XVI.

In addition to Peter’s successor, the Pope, it also had Bishops, priests, and deacons. They had Mass, and the Sacraments of Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Confirmation, and Holy Communion. They recognized the Saints, especially Mary.

There is also no “breaking off” point between that organization, and the organization that today calls itself the Catholic Church - they are one and the same organization.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t read the NY Catechism. What does it say in the Universal Catechism?

See the thread below regarding this NY Catechism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=141468

I came across some anti-Catholic rantings that cited the New York Catechism. The quotes were pretty “out there” to say the least, and I have been trying to locate any information I can on what I believe to be a non-existent New York Catechism.

Does the New York Catechism exist ? If not (which I believe is the case) what is the history of the references to it ? I know alot of a-c propogandists can ultimately be traced back to Boettner, but all I come up with when I google it are hits to other a-c sites, and a few other forum entries in which people like me are trying to validate the source.

 

[PRmerger]

If we say, how we know that the Bible is true is that the Pope made an infallible declaration based on the findings of the Council of Carthage, who examined the Holy Tradition and found it to be so, then what you are saying is that how we know it’s true, is that the Pope is infallible, first, and that the Councils are reliable.

And one would also be acknowledging that the paradigm “The Bible alone is my sole rule of faith” is false. For this canon of Scripture was revealed…not through Scripture, but through Tradition.

 

[jmcrae]

And one would also be acknowledging that the paradigm “The Bible alone is my sole rule of faith” is false. For this canon of Scripture was revealed…not through Scripture, but through Tradition.

Exactly. I know of no other way that it even could have been revealed.

If it were simply a matter of a burnin’ in the bosom, each Christian would have his own Bible, because every bosom burns a little differently - and sometimes it has more to do with the condition of one’s luncheon meat, than the Holy Spirit.

 

[elvisman]

You are once again mistaken

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. Therefore their writings were considered Holy Scriptures as it was from God and not man.

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 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.
and
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now, if you go back to my other post and read more carefully, I’m sure you will see I quoted Scriptures concerning New and Old Testament writings. As being sufficient and complete concerning all we need to know about God.

You play pretty fast and loose with the facts. Nobody is doubting that Peter held Paul’s writings in high esteem or that he considered them Scriptural.
The fact is that Paul was telling the Galatians (1 Gal. 1:11-12) about the Gospel he PREACHED – not that he had written it down because he hadn’t.

In 1 Cor. 14:37, he is indeed speaking of his writings. That is why he tells the Thessalonians that they were to hold fast to the ORAL as well as the written (2 Thess. 2:15).

You missed the point entirely. I’m NOT talking about how the ECF’s looked upon the Apostolic writings – I’m talking about the contemporaries of the Apostles. For that matter - the ECF’s held OTHER writings on par with Scripture such as the Letters of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistles of Barnabas. They were read in Mass for the first few centuries until the Church declared which books were canonical and which weren’t.

The Scriptures that you have pointed to in defense of Sola Scriptura are talking about the reality of Jesus found in the OLD Testament – not the NEW.

For example, when Paul spoke of the Bereans searching the Scriptures every day to make sure that his teachings were true – they were searching the OLD TESTAMENT. There was NO NT to speak of yet, as I have shown you, ad nauseam. **** It hadn’t been completed yet OR declared canon by the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly. I know of no other way that it even could have been revealed.

If it were simply a matter of a burnin’ in the bosom, each Christian would have his own Bible, because every bosom burns a little differently -

'zactly.

I mean, really, what “burnin’ in the bosom” does one receive when one reads the absolutely inspired words: “my breath is offensive to my wife” or “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself”?

and sometimes it has more to do with the condition of one’s luncheon meat, than the Holy Spirit.

<snicker>

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PRmerger,

Thanks for that clarification! I honestly thought it was a typo the first time I saw it!!

God bless

See the thread below regarding this NY Catechism:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=141468

 

[PRmerger]

Hi, PRmerger,

Thanks for that clarification! I honestly thought it was a typo the first time I saw it!!

God bless

The thread on this alleged and elusive “New York Catechism” is quite interesting, and short. It takes but 5 minutes to read the entire thing.

Clearly, no one has ever been able to find a copy of this NYC.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

Actually, it is you who are mistaken… Let me explain.

You are once again mistaken

First century Christians knew who the Apostles were and that they were indeed spokesmen for God and what they wrote was indeed inspired of God. Therefore their writings were considered Holy Scriptures as it was from God and not man.

Knowing the Apostles does not put their work in the Canon! There were 12 Apostles and then Paul was added, so now we have 13. But most did not write (that we know of) and Luke was not one of the listed Apostles! Truly, Ginger2, you will need a to get a permit from the EPA on the number of ‘red herrings’ you throw out on these threads!

The Apostle Paul claimed inspiration* 1Galatians 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.
and
1 Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

Peter acknowledges Paul’s writings are indeed God’s written Word.

2 Peter 3:15-16 …as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Now, if you go back to my other post and read more carefully, I’m sure you will see I quoted Scriptures concerning New and Old Testament writings. As being sufficient and complete concerning all we need to know about God.

Actually, Ginger2, I read your post very carefully (do you recall I asked you how you thought the Bible got to us - since you claim that the Catholic Church was a “ridiculous” answer. I’m still waiting for an answer!

The issue before you is one of simple dates - the first book of the NT ws written about 60AD and the last was written about 100AD… One, two or even several books do not the NT make! And, as was previously stated, certain inspirational texts that some of the ECFs liked were not included in the Canon which appeared around 400AD.

Simply stated, this means there was no officially recognized NT for the first 400 years of after Christ’s birth. This is really a matter of fact and it can not be dismissed with an unsupported claim that it is “ridiculous”. Really, Ginger2, you are capable of doing better than this… now is the time to rise to the level required to acknowledge historical fact.

Actually, to help you understand the role of the Catholic Church in getting you the Bible - even your abridged version - here is a Protestant site you may find helpful: agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html

God bless

 

[Ginger2]

The fact is that Paul was telling the Galatians 1 Gal. 1:11-12 about the Gospel he PREACHED – not that he had written it down because he hadn’t…

In 1 Cor. 14:37 he is indeed speaking of his writings. That is why he tells the Thessalonians that they were to hold fast to the as well as the written 2 Thess. 2:15

Well then, show me the passage where it states Paul or any other Apostle taught things that were never wrote down by them.

They New Testament writings were written by the Apostles as they were preaching. Whether people heard it from their lips or read it in a letter makes no difference unless they were telling stories that they never wrote down - which seems to be what you are claiming.

So, show me the Scripture that clearly states something of value was left out of the Holy writings.

I’ve shown one that says nothing necessary, nothing that we need to know, is left out:

John 20: 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But **these are written **that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Would you look at that!! Jesus did many things that are not written down, yet the things that are written down are enough to lead us to eternal life!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Well then, show me the passage where it states Paul or any other Apostle taught things that were never wrote down by them.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35[/BIBLEDRB]

I defy you to find any passage in the Gospels where Jesus said, “It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.”

You won’t find it.

Thus, Paul taught something that Jesus said that was never written down.

How did he know?

Through Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve shown one that says nothing necessary, nothing that we need to know, is left out:

John 20: 30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But **these are written **that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Would you look at that!! Jesus did many things that are not written down, yet the things that are written down are enough to lead us to eternal life!!!

Hmmm…John claims that things are recorded “in this book”–clearly he can’t be talking about the Bible, which did not exist yet.

So he’s talking about his own writings.

So, by your paradigm, everything we need to know to lead us to eternal life is written in the book of John?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

It looks like you are going further and further out on a limb! Here is the answer to your question:

Well then, show me the passage where it states Paul or any other Apostle taught things that were never wrote down by them.

**"Is Scripture the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition.

Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. "**

Here is the link where that came from: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp You really can not simply ignore all of this history - or dismiss it by calling it ridiculous - and think this will end the topic. I see this as addressing why there are so many (160,000?) Protestant denominations - they all feel obligated to come up with their own version of scripture to conform to their particular views.

God bless

 

[Todd520]

PRmerger,
If you don’t mind quoting John, yes - everything you need to believe in Jesus and thus have life in his name is in the book of John

How do you explain that John is wrong and much more is required, to be saved?

Hmmm…John claims that things are recorded “in this book”–clearly he can’t be talking about the Bible, which did not exist yet.

So he’s talking about his own writings.

So, by your paradigm, everything we need to know to lead us to eternal life is written in the book of John?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,
If you don’t mind quoting John, yes - everything you need to believe in Jesus and thus have life in his name is in the book of John

How do you explain that John is wrong and much more is required, to be saved?

I do not say that John is wrong and I rebuke you for putting words into my mouth.

I interpret that verse, as all verses should be interpreted, in the light of the teaching, handed down from the Apostles, which produced that verse.

What that verse tells us is that the Sacred Scriptures provide us with assistance in coming believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does NOT say that the Bible is all you need. It does NOT say that the Bible is needed to come to an understanding of the atoning death of our Savior.

 

[Ginger2]

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 20:35[/BIBLEDRB]

I defy you to find any passage in the Gospels where Jesus said, “It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.”

lol
Acts 20:35 (Douay Rheims)
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.

There it is written in the New Testament!!!

Thus, Paul taught something that Jesus said that was never written down.

How did he know?

Through Tradition.

Uh uh! He knew because Jesus gave him the gospel by revelation and Paul wrote it down so we have it. This is not oral tradition - it is written in the Scriptures!!!

Now, try again.

Show me where, any where, in the Scriptures where it states Paul or any other Apostle taught things that were never wrote down by them.

 

[Ginger2]

Hmmm…John claims that things are recorded “in this book”–clearly he can’t be talking about the Bible, which did not exist yet.

So he’s talking about his own writings.

So, by your paradigm, everything we need to know to lead us to eternal life is written in the book of John?

Actually, that would be an accurate statement. I’ve know a couple people who did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, but after reading the Book of John they believed. That’s enough proof for me!

You see it is not in paper and ink we find the power of God, it is the Holy Spirit who reveals Him to us when we read. God is all powerful and can draw someone to Himself without the Scriptures. He can call you from within.

Ginger