Protestants and the Bible?

[thephilosopher6]

Yes this an excellent example. There are also many Independent Baptist Churches as well who vary greatly in their beliefs.

Mary.

Yes, indeed. There are many different Baptist denominations. There are Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Reformed Baptist etc. There are even Independent Baptist churches that don’t belong to a particular Baptist denomination. All these groups hold to similar theology, but they are not all one denomination. Baptist is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought. Lutheranism is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought. Calvinism is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought etc. etc.

 

[RPRPsych]

Yes, indeed. There are many different Baptist denominations. There are Southern Baptist, American Baptist, Reformed Baptist etc. There are even Independent Baptist churches that don’t belong to a particular Baptist denomination. All these groups hold to similar theology, but they are not all one denomination. Baptist is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought. Lutheranism is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought. Calvinism is not a single group, it’s a Protestant theological school of thought etc. etc.

Absolutely.

The (say) Ruthenian Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church may have different languages, liturgical traditions and customs, but they do not have separate Creeds or a separate authority. They would consider Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, etc…members of the same Catholic Church.

On the other hand (say) the Southern Baptists, while holding to Baptist theology, would have their own “Creed” or “Statement of Beliefs”, and would not consider members of other Baptist denominations “part of THEIR church”.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Absolutely.

The (say) Ruthenian Catholic Church and Syro-Malankara Catholic Church may have different languages, liturgical traditions and customs, but they do not have separate Creeds or a separate authority. They would consider Roman Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, etc…members of the same Catholic Church.

On the other hand (say) the Southern Baptists, while holding to Baptist theology, would have their own “Creed” or “Statement of Beliefs”, and would not consider members of other Baptist denominations “part of THEIR church”.

Exactly. They have similar beliefs about things such as baptism. But there may be other beliefs they disagree on. And heck, even if they did doctrinally agree on all things they are still governed by a separate authority. The Catholic Church on the other hand has one single authority, that is the Pope.

 

[Tomdstone]

Exactly. They have similar beliefs about things such as baptism. But there may be other beliefs they disagree on. And heck, even if they did doctrinally agree on all things they are still governed by a separate authority. The Catholic Church on the other hand has one single authority, that is the Pope.

What is your definition of a denomination.

 

[thephilosopher6]

What is your definition of a denomination.

A denomination is a group who adheres to a set of beliefs or theology’s and/or is under its own particular authority or governance, whatever that may be.

Now what is your definition?

 

[po18guy]

Yes. It all started when Dr. Luther began endorsing his own private interpretations of Scripture as opposed to the Church’s. That gave us “sola fide”. Soon he was cutting books out of the Bible (infamously saying that he wanted to “throw Jimmy (the epistle of St. James) in the stove”) and even adding to it (“by faith alone”). It’s been a long, seemingly endless slippery slope ever since then.

In one of the very few cases where I will come to poor Martin’s defense, he did not cut or otherwise excise any books from the bible, regardless of his opinion of them. What he did was segregate them, by his own assumed authority, to their own section within the bible that bore his name. He felt they were edifying reading, but doubted their canonicity. A kind of theological apartheid.

Interestingly, protestant groups to this day will endlessly cite Saint Jerome, who also had doubts about the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books - while staunchly disagreeing with Jerome on everything else. Cherry-picking, indeed!

It is believed that Philipp Melanchthon (Martin’s “lieutenant”) convinced him not to remove the books - for which Martin displayed a rather infamous disdain. In fact, Melanchthon went so far as to research and write an apologia reconciling the Letter of James with the writings of Saint Paul. Who else for, but Martin, who badmouthed the inspired Letter of James because it countered his personal opinions.

 

[po18guy]

What is your definition of a denomination.

First, let’s review your list of Catholic “denominations” shall we? You will see the term “Rite” used to describe these so-called Catholic denominations. What that means is that the liturgical “rite” used in those Churches is based upon the ancient liturgical rituals of their geographical areas. So what, you say? Well, that means that all are unified in beliefs and doctrines and of the primacy of the successor of the Apostle Peter (the Pope, the Bishop of Rome). One Church, universal beliefs, one authority - the Bishop of Rome, but liturgical rites consistent with geographically varied ancient Apostolic traditions.

In other words, Paul celebrated the sacrifice of Christ in one way, while Peter may have celebrated differently, Thomas differently, Matthew differently, etc. But, all were unified in belief and the varying liturgies had the same content.

Non-Catholic denominations and the whimsical “non-denominations” that exist are utterly free of any binding rules. None whatsoever. In America, the errant doctrine of bible alone has produced such disparate Christian and non-Christian groups as the SDA, JWs and LDS. All claim to have derived their authority from the bible, which is nonsense.

The bible never produced a true church - ever. Rather, the Church which Christ founded produced the bible. Therefore, be wary of any and all ecclesial communities that claim to be “bible-based”, as that is not how Christ founded His Church.

As to denominations, no one has ever shown me where Christ authorized more than 1.0 denominations.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I fail to understand how this thread is an appropriate topic under Traditional Catholicism.

 

[steido01]

On the contrary, there are different denominations who hold similar theology’s. The LCMS the WELS and the ELCA, for example, are all Lutheran Churches. But they are all different denominations who share a similar theology. They are not in full communion with each other in the sense that they are the same denomination.

On the contrary to the contrary, there are different denominations who hold full pulpit-altar fellowship, yet they are still counted as separate “denominations” by this silly (yet elusive) list of “33,000.”

Take the LCMS and the LCC (and most members of the ILC). Or the WELS and the ELS (and all members of the CLC). Or the ELCA and all the members of the LWF. Just because a group maintains legally separate leadership doesn’t mean its a separate denomination.

Another example is that all the ‘Liberal Protestant’ bodies are in total fellowship with each other: ELCA, PCUSA, RCA, UCC, TEC, UMC, the Moravian Church, etc. Are they really separate denominations if they all [dis]believe the same things and share the same teachers? Not really. They’re one denomination.

 

[MaryT777]

On the contrary to the contrary, there are different denominations who hold full pulpit-altar fellowship, yet they are still counted as separate “denominations” by this silly (yet elusive) list of “33,000.”

Take the LCMS and the LCC (and most members of the ILC). Or the WELS and the ELS (and all members of the CLC). Or the ELCA and all the members of the LWF. Just because a group maintains legally separate leadership doesn’t mean its a separate denomination.

Another example is that all the ‘Liberal Protestant’ bodies are in total fellowship with each other: ELCA, PCUSA, RCA, UCC, TEC, UMC, the Moravian Church, etc. Are they really separate denominations if they all [dis]believe the same things and share the same teachers? Not really. They’re one denomination.

Do the ELCA and PCUSA RCA UCC TEC and UMC truly believe all doctrinal Faith issues together? If so then it begs the one question as to why they don’t merge into one Faith and name.

Hmmmmm…

Mary.

 

[steido01]

In one of the very few cases where I will come to poor Martin’s defense, he did not cut or otherwise excise any books from the bible, regardless of his opinion of them. What he did was segregate them, by his own assumed authority, to their own section within the bible that bore his name. He felt they were edifying reading, but doubted their canonicity. A kind of theological apartheid.

To be more fair, this was common practice for Catholic theologians (of whom Luther was one) prior to Trent. Even some of Luther’s harshest Catholic critics agreed with him on the elevation of certain books of Scripture over others (Gospels take precedence over Epistles, Epistles over the anitlegomena, etc.) Heck, even the Catholic Church today refers to the questionable books as ‘Deuterocanon,’ meaning “second[ary] rule.”

Interestingly, protestant groups to this day will endlessly cite Saint Jerome, who also had doubts about the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books - while staunchly disagreeing with Jerome on everything else. Cherry-picking, indeed!

Scripture has always been a historical question, not a theological one. Why is it strange that academics in the church should come to similar conclusions as the early fathers?

It is believed that Philipp Melanchthon (Martin’s “lieutenant”) convinced him not to remove the books - for which Martin displayed a rather infamous disdain.

You;'re being less than truthful. Luther never wanted to “remove” books. He **always ** was clear that these books were “good and useful for the edifciation of the faithful,” even if he personally (as was his prerogative as a Catholic scholar!) did not consider them true Scripture. He never imposed his personal views regarding the canon on others.

And for goodness sakes, “Lieutenant?” Really? Was Luther some despotic, demonic general commanding the hordes of Hades? Your post is only slightly softer in polemicisms than Cochlaeus’ works.

In fact, Melanchthon went so far as to research and write an apologia reconciling the Letter of James with the writings of Saint Paul.

Oh, dearie, me! The Lutherans are researching and supporting their arguments based on Scripture and the Fathers! Horror! Why does it upset you that Lutherans see no disconnect between Paul and James regarding faith that works?

Who else for, but Martin, who badmouthed the inspired Letter of James because it countered his personal opinions.

Luther’s criticism of James was purely academic; he questioned the authenticity of the author, as did/do many Catholics. His comments about it being “an epistle of straw” are in comparison to Paul’s letters, where the Gospel is clearer. (No surprise - James is less about sharing the Gospel and more about Christian living.) This is similar to how one might say “Joe Flacco’s a Super Bowl-winning quarterback, but he’s just a floppy bench warmer compared to Aaron Rodgers.” Remove those last four words, and you’ve twisted the intent.

But you neglected to tell all the good things Luther says about James, and how he still recommend the book as it “sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.” He also concludes by explaining that his personal academic view is just that - his personal view that no one is bound to: “I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”

 

[kdbueno]

Protestants at most at 90 some percent, does not have an authoritative content for their own Papal registry.

 

[pianistclare]

Why?
Just why?

 

[Padres1969]

Do the ELCA and PCUSA RCA UCC TEC and UMC truly believe all doctrinal Faith issues together? If so then it begs the one question as to why they don’t merge into one Faith and name.

Hmmmmm…

Mary.

Because while we share fellowship and a general understanding of major doctrinal issues, there are still minor differences in liturgy and the like that we prefer to maintain for now. But you’re right, there may be a merger of two or more of these bodies in the future as they work out the more minor differences as well.

 

[MaryT777]

Because while we share fellowship and a general understanding of major doctrinal issues, there are still minor differences in liturgy and the like that we prefer to maintain for now. But you’re right, there may be a merger of two or more of these bodies in the future as they work out the more minor differences as well.

Thanks,

Mary.

 

[simspt]

First, let’s review your list of Catholic “denominations” shall we? You will see the term “Rite” used to describe these so-called Catholic denominations. What that means is that the liturgical “rite” used in those Churches is based upon the ancient liturgical rituals of their geographical areas. So what, you say? Well, that means that all are unified in beliefs and doctrines and of the primacy of the successor of the Apostle Peter (the Pope, the Bishop of Rome). One Church, universal beliefs, one authority - the Bishop of Rome, but liturgical rites consistent with geographically varied ancient Apostolic traditions.

In other words, Paul celebrated the sacrifice of Christ in one way, while Peter may have celebrated differently, Thomas differently, Matthew differently, etc. But, all were unified in belief and the varying liturgies had the same content.

Non-Catholic denominations and the whimsical “non-denominations” that exist are utterly free of any binding rules. None whatsoever. In America, the errant doctrine of bible alone has produced such disparate Christian and non-Christian groups as the SDA, JWs and LDS. All claim to have derived their authority from the bible, which is nonsense.

The bible never produced a true church - ever. Rather, the Church which Christ founded produced the bible. Therefore, be wary of any and all ecclesial communities that claim to be “bible-based”, as that is not how Christ founded His Church.

As to denominations, no one has ever shown me where Christ authorized more than 1.0 denominations.

It’s interesting how the typical response to Catholics discussing divisons among Protestantism by Protestants is to bring up the divisions that occurred pre-Reformation. As if this is analogous to the divisions that have occurred post-Reformaion.

 

[steido01]

It’s interesting how the typical response to Catholics discussing divisons among Protestantism by Protestants is to bring up the divisions that occurred pre-Reformation. As if this is analogous to the divisions that have occurred post-Reformaion.

Actually, that’s not at all what Tomdstone did. He asked for a definition of “denomination” and pointed out that some definitions would count today’s Catholic
Church as nearly 250+ denominations.

But even so, how are pre-Reformation schisms any different from post-Reformation ones? When the church fractures, isn’t it the fault of all Christians?

Also, “Protestantism” doesn’t exist. Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists may have gained traction around the same time period, but they never shared a common catalyst (other than Rome, of course).

 

[susanlo]

I don’t believe that there are over 30,000 Christian denominations.
Give us the list and the names of each separate denomination.

I don’t believe there are 30,000 either.

According to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

24 Catholic
23 additional claim to be Catholic, but are not in communion

30 Eastern Orthodox
9 additional claim to be Eastern Orthodox, but are not in communion

19 Oriental Orthodox
2 additional claim to be Oriental Orthodox, but are not in communion

2 Church of the East

10 Proto-protestant (from pre-reformation groups)

67 Lutheran

39 Anglican
5 Uniting Anglican churches
27 additional claim to be Anglican, but are not in communion

56 Reformed
81 Presbyterian
27 Congregationalism

54 Anabaptist

6 Plymouth Brethren/Free Evangelical

18 Methodist

15 Pietism/Holiness

94 Baptist
1 Spiritual Baptist

77 Pentecostal

10 Charismatic

7 Neo-Charismatic

8 African initiated

16 United and Uniting Churches

10 Quakers

26 Millierism/Seventh Day Adventist

27 other

=790 (If I counted right)

This sounds like a more believable number. Of course this doesn’t capture the independent non-denominational churches that are probably factored into the higher numbers. I don’t know if there are 29,210 of these churches…

 

[Padres1969]

I don’t believe there are 30,000 either.

According to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

24 Catholic
23 additional claim to be Catholic, but are not in communion

30 Eastern Orthodox
9 additional claim to be Eastern Orthodox, but are not in communion

19 Oriental Orthodox
2 additional claim to be Oriental Orthodox, but are not in communion

2 Church of the East

10 Proto-protestant (from pre-reformation groups)

67 Lutheran

39 Anglican
5 Uniting Anglican churches
27 additional claim to be Anglican, but are not in communion

56 Reformed
81 Presbyterian
27 Congregationalism

54 Anabaptist

6 Plymouth Brethren/Free Evangelical

18 Methodist

15 Pietism/Holiness

94 Baptist
1 Spiritual Baptist

77 Pentecostal

10 Charismatic

7 Neo-Charismatic

8 African initiated

16 United and Uniting Churches

10 Quakers

26 Millierism/Seventh Day Adventist

27 other

=790 (If I counted right)

This sounds like a more believable number. Of course this doesn’t capture the independent non-denominational churches that are probably factored into the higher numbers. I don’t know if there are 29,210 of these churches…

There may be if you count non-denominationals. But that said, most non-denominational churches are really able to be categorized into one of the above categories. I mean I take my cousin’s church as an example. It’s a non-denom, but it’s really just a Baptist church with Baptist references removed. I’ve yet to encounter a non-denominational church personally that can’t easily be folded into one of those categories based on either church history or their theology.

 

[simspt]

Actually, that’s not at all what Tomdstone did. He asked for a definition of “denomination” and pointed out that some definitions would count today’s Catholic
Church as nearly 250+ denominations.

But even so, how are pre-Reformation schisms any different from post-Reformation ones? When the church fractures, isn’t it the fault of all Christians?

Also, “Protestantism” doesn’t exist. Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calvinists may have gained traction around the same time period, but they never shared a common catalyst (other than Rome, of course).

I never said Tomdstone did but it is a common objection or rebuttal re the topic. No it isn’t always the fault of all Christians when schism occurs howevere re the Reformation sure there was plenty of blame to go around but that doesn’t negate the false teachings resulting from it.