Number of Protestant Denominations

[Jestocost]

So definitions are not important? How can we have a discussion without definitions?

Semantics? Being clear, accountable for what one says, gaining common understanding are semantics?

As for mattering very little, I would qualify that by suggesting that it may matter very little to YOU, but it obviously mattered to Jesus, otherwise He would not have prayed for unity.

If one Baptist groups claims truth and another Baptist group also claims truth but bases its claims on different doctrines, then one group must be wrong.

Why? Because truth cannot contradict truth.

And being wrong IS important. It may not be important for the folks who think up doctrine. But it sure is important for the ordinary folks in the pew.

Again, I never claimed that there is nothing wrong with disunity. I also never claimed that protestant splintering isn’t a problem. I also never claimed that there is more than one truth or that it isn’t important that doctrine conform to that one truth. I’m saying that throwing numbers around invites trivial disputes about things like how to count denominations and detracts from these very same important points.

 

[Palladio]

Again, I never claimed that there is nothing wrong with disunity. I also never claimed that protestant splintering isn’t a problem. I also never claimed that there is more than one truth or that it isn’t important that doctrine conform to that one truth. I’m saying that throwing numbers around invites trivial disputes about things like how to count denominations and detracts from these very same important points.

The numbers are not being thrown around: the higher the number, the worse the chance for a non-believer; the higher the number, the more the Protestants imply that God is a prankster with a lottery with really perverse odds.

If there is a problem settling the number, that is one for Protestants to own up to: they are the sectarians, and increasingly so.

I think the numbers might help the more rational ones to wake up and confront the sad lot they’ve been assigned to since the sixteenth century, a lot which gets sadder as it grows, as it is, more numerous.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You lot broke away in the sixteenth century, broke away from one and another, and do so seemingly continually.

PC Master:

That doesn’t even matter, and it’s rhetoric anyway.

The Reformation doesn’t matter? So, in future, any time you refer to Reformation thinking, we can quote you and say “The Reformation doesn’t matter.” Right? It seems to me that anything with which you disagree but cannot refute gets dismissed by you as “rhetoric.”

I’ll not even give you credit for trying this monkey shine here. It works only with people ignorant, lazy, and prejudiced.

PC Master:

More rhetoric.

No. Simply something you decline to refute.
PC Master:

What’s the point here? Trying to make sure the lurkers are more drawn to your opinion than to mine? If so, good work.

Yes. Why? Because you are not listening. Neither are you discussing. What you are doing is begging questions, equivocating, and evading to gain unjustified advantage for your own points of view. That is rhetoric.
PC Master:

Rhetoric works like that.

No. Reason and reference work like that.
PC Master:

If, however, your goal was to actually substantiate a point, I’d recommend leaving the rhetoric elsewhere and sticking with facts.

Which point would you like substantiated? Is there a reason why you have not specified the point in question and chosen to throw out an accusation hoping it will stick? Well, it didn’t stick. Pot, meet Kettle.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

OK! Good! I have denomination = division of doctrine, division of community, division of accountability

PC Master:

Protestant doctrine – varies somewhat, but each of the major denominational groupings shares most of the same doctrines.

So Protestant doctrine varies. Point made. Thank you for that.
As for the ‘but’ do you think the word ‘most’ suffices to negate what you have said about ‘somewhat’ variance? Hint: no. You have posted a self-contradictory sentence. You have not even bothered quantifying ‘somewhat’ or ‘most’.
PC Master:

Community – generally divides along doctrinal lines.

You have admitted that doctrine varies. So communities are divided, split off, according to varying doctrines.
PC Master:

Ultimate Accountability – God. Completely unified in this regard, except for perhaps a couple of groups, who recognize an earthly governing authority.

Equivocation. We are talking about accountability on the human level for doctrine and community. God doesn’t change. If God were truly recognized as the Bottom Line, then there would be no variance in doctrine, community, and accountability. The truth is that within the Protestant denominations there is considerable variance. So who is pulling the strings? God? The communities? Or some pastors promoting their novelties?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Philthy:

I dont understand your point in saying this, since it is a reiteration of the point I made: they all believe, based on the bible alone, that they each most closely resemble the early Church - but they cant all be right. Wouldnt you agree?

PC Master:

I agree - only one is right.

Then which denomination – if any – is right? This is so overwhelmingly important that you shouldn’t have to even breathe before answering. You have to believe that your own denomination is right. Moreover you have to be able to demonstrate the rightness of your denomination. Otherwise why are you there?
PC Master:

But then, I’ve heard Roman Catholics say you must

pray the Rosary every day, and others say you don’t have to pray it at all.
You are not arguing in good faith.

This has already been explained to you. Praying the Rosary is not obligatory. If you want to understand the teaching of the Church, then go to the Church. Specifically go to the Catechism. Don’t go to Joe Hophkophoofendoofer down the street and then try telling us that he has spoken infallibly on the teaching of the Church. That is just plain misrepresentation; not charitable at all.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

This is disagreement, but Roman Catholics simply say it is a minor thing that doesn’t really matter, and so doesn’t constitute the need for another denomination.

Correct. The point is that Catholics can disagree among themselves on teaching which is not infallible. We can even disagree on teaching which IS infallible as long as it does not produce scandal, mislead the innocent, and split community. Is this a problem for you?
PC Master:

The only difference is Protestants draw the line a little higher up. In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, charity.

This is SO not true. You cannot even agree on what is Scripture. As I have already demonstrated on this thread more than once. Moreover you disagree on many other ‘essentials.’ The Real Presence. The form of Baptism. Images in church. The Virgin Birth. Women in the priesthood. The priesthood period. As for charity: that seems to end where variances in doctrine begin.

IOW it is in looking at history that one scratches their head and says, "Wait a second - the evidence from the *actual *

early Church simply doesnt look like the Protestant version of the *alleged *early Church.
PC Master:

That’s nice, but totally untrue.

Your UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion.
PC Master:

Actually, in my

studies of those other sources, I don’t find anything substantiating the major Roman Catholic doctrines and dogmas that differ from Protestantism.
Your UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion.
continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… can you see how Protestants (a man-made name to group certain churches) would consider themselves united far more than Roman Catholics consider Protestants to be?

Um… who decided on the name ‘Protestant’? Who decided to group themselves? And as for seeing why Protestants would consider themselves united far more than Catholics:

1. There is no such thing as being ‘more’ united. You are either united or you are not. You are certainly not united with the Church which Jesus instituted which is the Catholic Church.
2. We cannot see why you consider your disunited united churches to be united because you have not demonstrated their unity.

As I said, no system is perfect because the goal of the system (absolute definition of denomination) is undefineable.

We’ve given definitions. Was whoever posted this not reading?
PC Master:

Goal: To follow the teachings of God as found in divinely inspired writings and as revealed through the Holy Spirit, in order that we may become closer to God’s desires for us.

And the method? You see, it is in the method that you fall down. Why? Well, let’s look at the truism which Martin Luther King Jr gave us before he was assassinated. He said

“Not only are the means not justified by the ends, but the ends are inherent in the means.”

That is, you can have whatever vainglorious stated goals to get folks into the pews.

However, how those goals are ultimately manifested in outcomes depends entirely on what methods you deploy en route.

So if your methods include meddling with ‘inspired writings,’ removing inconvenient truths from those writings, interpreting those writings a million different contradictory ways, then guess what you end up with?

Hint: confusion, chaos, and 30 000 denominations.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But I think you would be surprised of the OSAS people who would say that you need to do penance to, say, “restore” your relationship with God, or to get rewards in Heaven, or that if you dont do it you’re not “truly saved”. I have encountered all of those OSAS variations personally.

PC Master:

And what denominations are these, exactly? I’d really like to know, because this sounds like more rhetoric.

In other words it sounds like something you are not prepared to refute so you dismiss it as rhetoric.
PC Master:

Actually, that Roman Catholicism is

the largest only further emphasizes my point – Broad is the way that leads to destruction. In other words, being the biggest probably isn’t a good thing.

Gnosticism. Jesus prayed for unity. For you to say that he prayed that only the few, only the smallest group, should be unified is to say that He meant only the few should be saved. That is Gnosticism. He may have said that not all WILL be saved. But He certainly did not say to preach to the few and not worry about the ALL. The truth is that He came so that ALL may be saved. Not the Gnostic elitist few.

If we see that the largest group is Roman Catholicism then we have to ask ourselves these questions:

1. Did Jesus mean to be successful in saving souls?
2. If so, what kind of soul-saving provision would he have left us after he died, was buried, and rose to Heaven?
3. Would that soul-saving provision not be the most successful among those claiming soul-saving provisions?
4. Is that soul-saving provision not the Catholic Church?

If not, then what happened for 1500 years until Luther arrived on the scene? Was Jesus tricking us about coming so that ALL may be saved when He only meant that followers of Luther should be saved? Was He tricking us when He said that he will never abandon us, never leave us orphans except for the 1500 years before Luther?

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Again, I never claimed that there is nothing wrong with disunity. I also never claimed that protestant splintering isn’t a problem. I also never claimed that there is more than one truth or that it isn’t important that doctrine conform to that one truth. I’m saying that throwing numbers around invites trivial disputes about things like how to count denominations and detracts from these very same important points.

And that’s the problem. That’s the disconnect.

There is a direct causal relationship between disunity, splintering, contradicting truth claims and NUMBERS.

The more disunity, splintering, and contradicting truth claims you have, the more NUMBERS you have.

NUMBERS are a plain, clear way for simple folk to twig onto the fact that something is wrong with the way their pastors are doing church.

NUMBERS do not detract from discussion of disunity, splintering, and contradicting truth claims. NUMBERS signal that a discussion should take place.

Censor the NUMBERS and you stop the discussion. Stop the discussion and folks can go on living with the elephant in the room which is that

they are vulnerable to being gulled and lulled into a false sense of security when in fact their funds are being used for wrong purposes and their souls and wellbeing are in terrible peril.

 

[PC_Master]

Read this, and understand that I say it in love, before you jump to conclusions. There’s no anger here. In fact, you’re all in my prayers.

As a majority of the previous posts come from “The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church as instituted by Christ, and everything else didn’t come into being until hundreds of years later – and oh yeah, we agree completely on everything and thus are perfectly united.”, I won’t respond to the conclusions given, as they’re mostly nonsense, ignoring the very reason for schisms and denominations.

As long as you can’t consider that you might not have the full and total truth, I don’t believe it’s within your ability to understand why there are so many denominations. You will assume, of course, that I’m being hateful here, and that the reason for so many denominations is that people are rejecting God’s truth (as you see it) and just want something easy. This couldn’t be more wrong. The entire point of splitting, in most cases (not all – there are some trivial ones) is due to honest disagreement in doctrine. Both sides believe they are right, and that the issue is important, so they end up with no choice but to split.

This still leaves the remnant of my original point. When Jesus prayed for unity, he included in that all who would ever come to have faith in him through the apostles’ teaching (and either, by extension, the teaching of those taught by the apostles or Jesus was referring to the things being taught, not the teachers). He said that he wanted us to be one as he and the father are one. What does this mean? Does this really refer to an earthly, physical sense of unity, via an organization? Can you honestly support that from the text? I really do understand how you build up a framework based on other information, but this passage would seem to be clear. Jesus and the father are united (according to the trinity concept) in spirit, but not in flesh. Is that what he was referring to?

If it’s about organization, I’d say Jesus prayer for unity has not been answered (at least completely) because his prayer was for all those who would ever come to have faith in him. That includes me, and many, many Protestants.

As to a question earlier – Yes, I believe there are some Roman Catholics who are included in the “invisible church” (that is, the true body consisting of all true believers in Jesus). I also believe there are a great many Protestants (of every denomination) who are not true believers, just as there are many Roman Catholics who are not (even if they are “officially” members of their respective churches). These are certainly not included in the invisible church.

[edit] As long as we play the numbers game with the RCC vs The World data set, it will be useless, because Protestants are never going to agree that it’s an accurate data set anyway. Your time would be better spent demonstrating why the lack of a central man-made authority is a fatal flaw in Protestantism.

 

[cpayne]

Your time would be better spent demonstrating why the lack of a central man-made authority is a fatal flaw in Protestantism.

Okay, let’s imagine two scenarios. One scenario is that the entire Church worldwide, visible and invisible, has one name: The Universal (Catholic) Church. It accepts the tradition passed along, the Scriptures, and the Magisterium as the arbiter of essential doctrinal truths, while still allowing debate over non-essentials or things which cannot be authoritatively determined. EVERY CHRISTIAN in the world belongs to this CC.

The second scenario is that the situation is as it is today.

And the better scenario is? The better witness to the world is? The greater glory to God comes from?

 

[cpayne]

By the way, the teaching authority in the Church is not man-made: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.”

 

[PC_Master]

Okay, let’s imagine two scenarios. One scenario is that the entire Church worldwide, visible and invisible, has one name: The Universal (Catholic) Church. It accepts the tradition passed along, the Scriptures, and the Magisterium as the arbiter of essential doctrinal truths, while still allowing debate over non-essentials or things which cannot be authoritatively determined. EVERY CHRISTIAN in the world belongs to this CC.

The second scenario is that the situation is as it is today.

And the better scenario is? The better witness to the world is? The greater glory to God comes from?

In your example above, and considering that it would have no singular earthly authority, it would be quite a bit more successful.

However, I have another scenario. Given that we know that many (both Roman Catholic and Protestant [not to mention Orthodox] alike) are not true believers, it would seem even better if we were able to recognize those who are not true believers, and actually take it as seriously as they did in Biblical days, throwing out those who bend or break “the rules”. It can’t work starting now, but it could work if you start with the apostles and move forward, with each generation highly valuing the leading of the holy spirit.

 

[cpayne]

In your example above, and considering that it would have no singular earthly authority, it would be quite a bit more successful.

However, I have another scenario. Given that we know that many (both Roman Catholic and Protestant [not to mention Orthodox] alike) are not true believers, it would seem even better if we were able to recognize those who are not true believers, and actually take it as seriously as they did in Biblical days, throwing out those who bend or break “the rules”. It can’t work starting now, but it could work if you start with the apostles and move forward, with each generation highly valuing the leading of the holy spirit.

Hello. (Quick response!) However, I did specify a central earthly authority: the Magisterium as the arbiter of essential doctrinal truths.

I am sympathetic to your second paragraph, but I think it’s an unscriptural attempt. Jesus taught that the wheat and the tares would grow together, and it’s not up to us to try to determine which is which. He said, “Let them alone until the harvest, when the tares will be bound together to be burned,” or something similar (quoting from memory). It’s all part of our not judging the final destination of others.

But my point remains: The world would have a better witness, the faith would be stronger, and God would receive greater glory, were all Christians part of one universal (Catholic) church. (In both the visible and invisible senses.)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

The perspectives being used here, in general are… Roman Catholic vs The World. Everything that isn’t in union with Rome is considered heretical in some fashion.

Um… that is because it is. If it were not heretical then it would be in union with Rome. I don’t know why this is not obvious to you. Let’s try it this way: if by some special dispensation, your novel ideas were to accepted by Catholicism, then you would be perfectly happy to be considered ‘in union with Catholicism’?
As for terminology, please check Jimmy Akin’s blog. We are not Rome. We are Catholic. Period. Please have the courtesy to not disparage us by calling us inaccurate names. Thank you.
PC Master:

Even though many of these groups broke with (again, not from) Roman Catholicism at various points, this somehow doesn’t count as Catholic.

Catholic means ‘universal’. Why would you want to be multifarious and still call yourselves ‘universal’? Does language count for zero communication? Does it count only for power over the simple, the gullible, and the vulnerable?
PC Master:

Schism only applies when it’s not the Roman Catholic Church we’re talking about.

Schism from the doctrine, community, and accountability of the Catholic Church. If you want to talk about the schism of one Protestant group from another, no one is stopping you.
Thing is that I bet you don’t even have a name for it. It is one of many elephants in the room. Things that don’t get talked about, things that should not get noticed. INCONVENIENT TRUTHS.

Protestant view. The goal is to be as close to God’s truth as possible. God reveals different things to different people at different times in their lives, all in an effort to bring them closer to his will.

Where in the Bible does Jesus say that we should await further revelation?

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

There is exactly one truth, and the Holy Spirit exists as an agent to bring us into line with that truth.

Correct. Now account for the multifarious truths among the denominations. Which denomination is right? It has to be your own denomination, otherwise why would you be there. And why have you not stated plainly and clearly – given the overwhelming importance of being right on this – why your denomination is the chosen one?
PC Master:

It’s not about denomination, and being completely in

or completely out of the church (the only options available under Roman Catholicism).
But you have just implied as much!

1. You have said there is only one truth.
2. It is critical to pursue truth.
3. You have to concede that there is more than one denomination.
4. Therefore only one denomination has the truth.
5. So it IS about denomination. To say it is not about denomination is to attempt to hide the fact that yall are split as to doctrine, community, and accountability. It is to be OK with the elephant in the room.

As for being completely in or completely out of the Catholic Church being the only options available under Catholicism: that is a flat and bald misrepresentation which flies in the face of our dogma on Invincible Ignorance and Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus. There is no excuse for your rhetorical excess here. None.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

It’s about no one being perfect, but all undergoing continual effort to understand God’s will more fully.

Pelagianism. It is true that no one is perfect. That is why Jesus came to save us. That is why He sent the Holy Spirit to protect His Church from all error and from the gates of Hell. His Church. Not his 30 000 denominations.

What you are attempting to say is that folks should be left to their own devices; they should just flounder around, starting over each generation, searching for a truth which is convenient to their own imperfect fallible prejudices.

And that eventually through sheer dumb luck and hard work they will seize upon truth. This is Pelagianism.
Ani Ibi:

Easy to say until someone asks you to back up what you are saying with evidence. And that is what I am asking, in full knowledge that if you had had any evidence you would have offered it and been done with it.

PC Master:

Actually, I have not, and will not provide the evidence here, because it would only derail this thread.

Then withdraw the claim.
PC Master:

This thread is about how many Protestant denominations there are. It isn’t about the flaws in Roman Catholic theology.

You see, you just want to take cheap shots at the Church without having to back up your claims with evidence. How charitable and discursive is that? Hint: not very.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

We all obviously disagree on what the truth is (if you consider every aspect of that truth, I’m sure you’ll find no two Christians that agree on every little bit).

So what’s your point?
PC Master:

Which church has maintained the truth properly (assuming they were supposed to “maintain the truth” at all) doesn’t apply to this thread.

Oh SO not true! If we cannot discuss the causal relationship between error and denominations then we cannot discuss numbers. If we cannot discuss numbers, then your pastors get to continue gulling the simple, the gullible, and the vulnerable.
Ani Ibi:

So then what you are left with has to have changed not one jot because God does not change. Now let’s look at the evidence. Has Protestant tradition and scripture changed?

PC Master:

Eh, how about “has Roman Catholic tradition and scripture changed”? Yes, and the incredible number of apparent changes is why many Protestants reject it.

That is where your misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church actually teaches – instead of what is convenient for you to claim She teaches – begs to be shown up for what it is: bald and empty rhetoric.
PC Master:

But this is better discussed elsewhere.

If it is better discussed elsewhere, then why did you bring it up? That seems like simply another quick and nasty cheap shot at the Church while dodging any accountability as to backing up your claims with evidence.
continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Scripture: yes. Before 1880 the KJV had the deuteros. Then they ‘disappeared.’ Then they ‘reappeared.’ The Emerging Church Movement is attempting to take even more bits out of the Bible.

PC Master:

The ECM isn’t Protestant by the definitions of most Protestants.

Quantify ‘most’ please. Thank you. I think it would be very apropos to inform those unfortunate Emerging Churchers in the pews that they are are no longer Protestant. Don’t you think?

Not that I disagree with you. It’s just that I am sure there are many folks who think that post-modernism, the way the ECM pastors define it, is the all-new improved Protestantism of our age.

Post-modernism allows for – among many others things – pluralism. Nice end run around denominational unity, eh?
Ani Ibi:

Tradition: yes. Some Protestants believe in the Real Presence, some don’t.

PC Master:

Really…that’s interesting. Which denominations would these be?

Some forms of Lutheranism. Even Luther was loathe to disengage from the Real Presence.
PC Master:

In any case, it’s a good thing tradition isn’t a rule of faith.

But in practice, it IS a rule of faith among the denominations. The folks in the pews get sold on a traditionless faith.

In practice they are subjugated by anonymous magisteria applying unidentified traditions interpreting a changeable scripture.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ani Ibi:

Red herring. It is irrelevant whether or not the Church anathamized folks or whether folks just took their toys and left the park. Clarity of dogma resulted in folks leaving and inventing their own dogma.

PC Master:

Interestingly, that’s the same

reason most Protestant splits occur – clarification of doctrine and dogma.
So?
PC Master:

The relevance, however, is that if someone chose to split from or with Rome, the church was not (just prior to the split) united.

Equivocation. The Church is united on doctrine, community, and accountability. She is just not united (fully) with Protestants. Protestants as I have pointed out earlier have one foot in the Catholic and one foot outside the Catholic Church. The foot outside the Catholic Church is the part that is splintering.
PC Master:

If unity means “kick out anyone who disagrees over what you consider to be important”, then yes, you’re united (with yourself).

We are united on doctrine, community, and accountability. Those who want to take their toys and leave the park have done so. If they have any claims to unity, then those have gone the way of all flesh in the form of 30 000 denominations.
PC Master:

But in that regard, each and every Protestant church is united with itself.

Each denomination among the 30 000 denominations! That’s unity? Moreover you say each denomination can be unified in itself. Even that is not true.

At any moment a new pastor can come along with a new idea and – bang – you are praying new prayers, singing new hymns, believing new doctrines. Lex orandi lex credendi. That’s what you tout as unity? If that’s unity, I would hate to see what you call chaos!
PC Master:

That people leave (schism) and start a new church is exactly what you’re faulting Protestantism for!

Yep.
PC Master:

But if it happens to the Roman Catholic church, it’s actually demonstrating the unity of the church?

When has the Catholic Church left the Catholic Church?

You are equivocating again. You are also building a strawman. You are misrepresenting the position of the Church. And that’s not charitable.

Splitting from the Church does not demonstrate our unity. The integrity of our doctrine, community, and accountability demonstrates our unity. That integrity is exactly what the 30 000 denominations lack.

You say each denomination can be unified in itself. Even that is not true. At any moment a new pastor can come along with a new idea and – bang – you are praying new prayers, singing new hymns, believing new doctrines. Lex orandi lex credendi.

continued…