Protestants and the Bible?

[Reuben_J]

Secondly, I think the word “denomination” has outlived its usefulness as a means of describing Protestants. I can drive through a particular city close to where I live and every time I drive through I see a brand spanking new independent church. Every time. What “denomination” would I put them in? None.

Thus they would be each a denomination, by itself, which is why they are so silly numerous.

Christian denomination definition from Wiki:

A Christian denomination is a generic term for a distinct religious body identified by traits such as a common name, structure, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or fellowship.

Would it solve the quandary if we allow the Protestants themselves to decide on what they think as a denomination? Example, are all the different Lutheran/Anglican/Reformed churches one denomination respectively?

Or are denomination to be determined strictly by its doctrine, organization and leadership? Especially leadership, those who call the shot?

 

[GKC]

Thus they would be each a denomination, by itself, which is why they are so silly numerous.

Christian denomination definition from Wiki:

A Christian denomination is a generic term for a distinct religious body identified by traits such as a common name, structure, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or fellowship.

Would it solve the quandary if we allow the Protestants themselves to decide on what they think as a denomination? Example, are all the different Lutheran/Anglican/Reformed churches one denomination respectively?

Or are denomination to be determined strictly by its doctrine, organization and leadership? Especially leadership, those who call the shot?

Certainly would help to use a common definition for what a “denomination” is. Here’s how the group that (most likely) is the source of the figures used by folks who have no idea where they came from, defines a “denomination”, in their studies:

"The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:

‘Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.’ "

 

[JonNC]

Isn’t free interpretation of Sacred Scripture without consulting proper ecclesiastical authority one of the first errors of the protestant “reformers”? It seems as though they supported all kinds of anarchy of that sort.

Which reformers? You need to be specific. Lutherans, for example, do not practice personal interpretation. Doctrine is the responsibility of the Church. When I became a member of the APA recently, I was not told I could interpret scripture myself.

Jon

 

[Wannano]

Certainly would help to use a common definition for what a “denomination” is. Here’s how the group that (most likely) is the source of the figures used by folks who have no idea where they came from, defines a “denomination”, in their studies:

"The definition for denominations used in WCT, and also in our publication World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford, 2001) is as follows:

‘Any agency consisting of a number of congregations or churches voluntarily aligning themselves with it. As a statistical unit in this survey, a ‘denomination’ always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world’s 238 countries.’ "

So who really cares about the numbers and definitions. It is obvious to me that some Catholics just love to throw these numbers around in disdain for so called Protestants. It is very saddening to see this happen as God has instructed us not to bear false witness against our neighbour. If as much effort was made to build bridges in loving and understanding each other the light that the Catholic Church reflects would shine brighter. My understanding is that is the desire of the leadership of the Catholic Church.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Luther’s commentary on James:

. Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], “You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.” (ibid).

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

Do you have a source that Luther was talked out of removing James or any other book? I have heard this often but have never seen a source.

Jon

 

[GKC]

So who really cares about the numbers and definitions. It is obvious to me that some Catholics just love to throw these numbers around in disdain for so called Protestants. It is very saddening to see this happen as God has instructed us not to bear false witness against our neighbour. If as much effort was made to build bridges in loving and understanding each other the light that the Catholic Church reflects would shine brighter. My understanding is that is the desire of the leadership of the Catholic Church.

If the source is, indeed, way back up the citation chain, the WORLD CHRISTIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA, it’s not false witness to use the figures, but faulty understanding. IMO.

Fact still remains that there are a lot of denoms out there. Whatever a denom might be defined as.

 

[Wannano]

If the source is, indeed, way back up the citation chain, the WORLD CHRISTIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA, it’s not false witness to use the figures, but faulty understanding. IMO.

Fact still remains that there are a lot of denoms out there. Whatever a denom might be defined as.

Once one realizes his understanding is faulty and he still persists in presenting false information I think the commandment applies.

 

[GKC]

Once one realizes his understanding is faulty and he still persists in presenting false information I think the commandment applies.

I’ve been one of the folk posting what is likely the source of the figures for several years. I don’t so much see a recognition that the figures are false, but a misinterpretation what the figures represent. IOW, I have never seen someone acknowledge that the source is what it is presumed to be, then lie about what the source says. In even additional other words, I haven’t seen a demonstrable lie anywhere in these discussions, over the years. I see lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding.

And, in the final analysis, regardless of whether the source is known, or correct, or off the mark, no one can really cite a rigorous study, using commonly agreed to definitions, as to what a good number might be. So, anyone’s number would be as good as anyone else’s.

I don’t care what numbers someone might use for polemical purposes. I do try to show what the likely source of the most common figures actually is saying.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

So who really cares about the numbers and definitions. It is obvious to me that some Catholics just love to throw these numbers around in disdain for so called Protestants. It is very saddening to see this happen as God has instructed us not to bear false witness against our neighbour. If as much effort was made to build bridges in loving and understanding each other the light that the Catholic Church reflects would shine brighter. My understanding is that is the desire of the leadership of the Catholic Church.

You are exactly correct, Wannano. And I agree with the warning against bearing false witness. The Joint Catholic Lutheran Commission agrees with you, too.

The effort to denigrate non-Catholics is done by Catholics actually in direct opposition to the command of the Holy See in the dispositive document, The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.
*When speaking of other Churches and ecclesial Communities, it is important to present their teaching correctly and honestly. Among those elements by which the Church itself is built up and given life, some—even many and very valuable ones—are to be found outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church. The Spirit of Christ therefore does not refuse to use these communities as means of salvation. Doing this also puts in relief the truths of faith held in common by various Christian confessions. This will help Catholics both to deepen their own faith and to know and esteem other Christians, thus making easier the search in common for the path of full unity in the whole truth. (From Par. 61 b)

Catholics should also give value to certain elements and goods, sources of spiritual life, which are found in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, and which belong to the one Church of Christ: Holy Scripture, the sacraments and other sacred actions, faith, hope, charity and other gifts of the Spirit. These goods have borne fruit for example in the mystical tradition of the Christian East and the spiritual treasures of the monastic life, in the worship and piety of Anglicans, in the evangelical prayer and the diverse forms of Protestant spirituality. (From Par. 63 a)

This appreciation should not remain merely theoretical; in suitable particular conditions, it should be completed by the practical knowledge of other traditions of spirituality. Therefore, sharing prayer and participating in some form of public worship or in devotional acts of other Christians can have a formative value when in accord with existing directives (From Par. 63 b)

The spirit of charity, of respect, and of dialogue demands the elimination of language and prejudices which distort the image of other Christians. (From Par. 68 a)*
On the other hand, Unitatis Redintegratio, the document of Vatican II, lays out concisely how Catholics are to act regarding ecumenism, which every Catholic is to embrace and carry forward by directive of the Council…their words and actions in utter conformity and submission to the determination of the Church’s bishops on this issue:
*4. Today, in many parts of the world, under the inspiring grace of the Holy Spirit, many efforts are being made in prayer, word and action to attain that fullness of unity which Jesus Christ desires. The Sacred Council exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work of ecumenism.

The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities. At these meetings, which are organized in a religious spirit, each explains the teaching of his Communion in greater depth and brings out clearly its distinctive features. In such dialogue, everyone gains a truer knowledge and more just appreciation of the teaching and religious life of both Communions. In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform.

When such actions are undertaken prudently and patiently by the Catholic faithful, with the attentive guidance of their bishops, they promote justice and truth, concord and collaboration, as well as the spirit of brotherly love and unity.*

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Luther’s commentary on James:

Do you have a source that Luther was talked out of removing James or any other book? I have heard this often but have never seen a source.

Jon

Your excerpt. He basically said it didn’t have Paul’s value or more specifically it didn’t agree with his doctrine of sola fide.

There was only one Church. People just broke away from it,

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’ve been one of the folk posting what is likely the source of the figures for several years. I don’t so much see a recognition that the figures are false, but a misinterpretation what the figures represent. IOW, I have never seen someone acknowledge that the source is what it is presumed to be, then lie about what the source says. In even additional other words, I haven’t seen a demonstrable lie anywhere in these discussions, over the years. I see lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding.

And, in the final analysis, regardless of whether the source is known, or correct, or off the mark, no one can really cite a rigorous study, using commonly agreed to definitions, as to what a good number might be. So, anyone’s number would be as good as anyone else’s.

I don’t care what numbers someone might use for polemical purposes. I do try to show what the likely source of the most common figures actually is saying.

I see the use of such polemics as exactly what is condemned in *From Conflict to Communion. *
*233. How theologians presented their theological convictions in the battle for public opinion is quite another matter. In the sixteenth century, Catholics and Lutherans frequently not only misunderstood but also exaggerated and caricatured their opponents in order to make them look ridiculous. They repeatedly violated the eighth commandment, which prohibits bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. Even if the opponents were sometimes intellectually fair to one another, their willingness to hear the other and to take his concerns seriously was insufficient. The controversialists wanted to refute and overcome their opponents, often deliberately exacerbating conflicts rather than seeking solutions by looking for what they held in common. Prejudices and misunderstandings played a great role in the characterization of the other side. Oppositions were constructed and handed down to the next generation. Here both sides have every reason to regret and lament the way in which they conducted their debates. Both Lutherans and Catholics bear the guilt that needs to be openly confessed in the remembrance of the events of 500 years ago. *
Unfortunately, there yet remain controversialists. Such controversialists today who are Catholic are acting in direct defiance of Church authority.

I especially remark the wonderful work of the American bishops on the issue of dialogue. They have done truly great work and are to be commended.

 

[Reuben_J]

So who really cares about the numbers and definitions. It is obvious to me that some Catholics just love to throw these numbers around in disdain for so called Protestants. It is very saddening to see this happen as God has instructed us not to bear false witness against our neighbour. If as much effort was made to build bridges in loving and understanding each other the light that the Catholic Church reflects would shine brighter. My understanding is that is the desire of the leadership of the Catholic Church.

I think it came about of the OP’s ‘free interpretation of the Bible without consulting proper authority’ which led to many different churches.

We have not come to an agreement on what a denomination is. Catholics have no problem with what constitute a denomination, I think, but Protestant posters here seem to dispute it. I have suggested for the Protestants themselves to define it to arrive at a practical figures. Is that alright?

 

[JonNC]

Your excerpt. He basically said it didn’t have Paul’s value or more specifically it didn’t agree with his doctrine of sola fide.

There was only one Church. People just broke away from it,

He says that, although the ancients rejected it, he praises it.
Had he wanted to remove it, he would have

Jon

 

[steido01]

The Episcopal church doesn’t even seem to have one unified theological outlook, nor does the Anglican Communion as a whole. I mean, the Anglican Communion is rather notorious for its theological plurality. You have Anglo-Catholics and you have Evangelicals. You got some supporting gay marriage and you got others against it. It’s a mad house. Though, the Anglican Communion does seem to be getting itself together in the last few months, especially with the suspension of the Episcopal church in America.

The ELCA doesn’t seem to have one theological outlook either. They profess Lutheran theology, but many don’t believe all that is “officially” professed and it’s not “enforced.” They are not confessional Lutherans like the LCMS and WELS. There seems to be similar theological plurality among the ELCA as there is in the Episcopal church. Out of all the Protestant bodies in America, the ELCA and the Episcopal church seem most likely to merge.

:sad_yes: Exactly.

That’s actually not the case at all. I’d read up on it more. But suffice it to say the “suspension” is only from a couple of consultative bodies, nothing more. And that has no bearing on the ECUSA’s standing in the communion as a whole as the decision was not rendered by a body with any authority to suspend the ECUSA’s membership in the Anglican communion.

As for the ECUSA and ELCA being “indistinguishable” I suggest more research as both are quite different liturgically, theologically, etc… even if we are in communion with each other.

Actually, they’re not. The historic liturgies used by each today have their origins in Luther’s Deutsche Messe, which -depending on whose history you read- either heavily influenced the Anglican Mass, or was the very model for it. In fact, the liturgical rites were so similar that when German-American and Scandinavian-American Lutherans decided they needed to celebrate the Divine Service in English, they simply borrowed the Anglican (German) rite back from the Anglicans and tweaked it to fit with German-style chorales. Liturgically, there are no closer cousins than American Lutherans and Anglicans. This article has some interesting factoids, beginning at the bottom of page 9. Or you could just ask our resident Anglo-Lutheran, if you don’t believe me.

And theologically, the modern ELCA and Episcopal Church are, as thephilosopher6 pointed out, utterly lacking in any enforceable beliefs. So they share “nothing” in common, if you get what I mean. But that’s a state that they fell in together. Historically, there has always been a closeness in theology between Anglicans and Lutherans, especially in America. At times, they’ve shared clergy and communion. So it’s also no surprise to see Lutherans and Anglicans on the “confessional/continuing” end of the spectrum also working closely together.

 

[Wannano]

I think it came about of the OP’s ‘free interpretation of the Bible without consulting proper authority’ which led to many different churches.

We have not come to an agreement on what a denomination is. Catholics have no problem with what constitute a denomination, I think, but Protestant posters here seem to dispute it. I have suggested for the Protestants themselves to define it to arrive at a practical figures. Is that alright?

You are right in saying this came from the immediate response to the OP. As I read the article from the World Christian Encyc.the over 30,000 number flipped out by the second poster actually includes the approx. 240 Catholics denominations established by their own definition of what comprises a denomination. I have not seen a Catholic poster who does not have a problem with that. Yet some insistently delight in throwing that number against Protestantism.

Some are pointing out with apparent alarm that every time they drive thru a nearby city there is yet another “protestant” church built. If pepole are in fact turning to God in these times and establishing “mega” churches so rapidly what is keeping them from being attracted to the very church that it is said Jesus Himself established?

It is my opinion that that question is more pertinent than trying to agree on how to package up all the non-Catholics into useless categories.

 

[GKC]

You are right in saying this came from the immediate response to the OP. As I read the article from the World Christian Encyc.the over 30,000 number flipped out by the second poster actually includes the approx. 240 Catholics denominations established by their own definition of what comprises a denomination. I have not seen a Catholic poster who does not have a problem with that. Yet some insistently delight in throwing that number against Protestantism.

Some are pointing out with apparent alarm that every time they drive thru a nearby city there is yet another “protestant” church built. If pepole are in fact turning to God in these times and establishing “mega” churches so rapidly what is keeping them from being attracted to the very church that it is said Jesus Himself established?

It is my opinion that that question is more pertinent than trying to agree on how to package up all the non-Catholics into useless categories.

RC posters who have a problem with 240 RC “denominations” don’t understand how those folks at the WCE (etc) are defining and counting “denominations”. It is likely that some of those posters never will understand it.

But I’d say your conclusion was right.

 

[Wannano]

RC posters who have a problem with 240 RC “denominations” don’t understand how those folks at the WCE (etc) are defining and counting “denominations”. It is likely that some of those posters never will understand it.

But I’d say your conclusion was right.

Thanks for the affirmation.

 

[Reuben_J]

You are right in saying this came from the immediate response to the OP. As I read the article from the World Christian Encyc.the over 30,000 number flipped out by the second poster actually includes the approx. 240 Catholics denominations established by their own definition of what comprises a denomination. I have not seen a Catholic poster who does not have a problem with that. Yet some insistently delight in throwing that number against Protestantism.

Some are pointing out with apparent alarm that every time they drive thru a nearby city there is yet another “protestant” church built. If pepole are in fact turning to God in these times and establishing “mega” churches so rapidly what is keeping them from being attracted to the very church that it is said Jesus Himself established?

It is my opinion that that question is more pertinent than trying to agree on how to package up all the non-Catholics into useless categories.

Thanks for your reply. It is important to hear what the Protestants would say on this. You didn’t address the issue though. Like how many denominations are there. Is the stand alone church considered a denomination or if not, is it included in the affiliation where it is just a branch of a bigger church? I think that is where the inflated figure coming from.

As for Catholics, admittedly we come from many backgrounds, ranging from a cradle Catholic like myself, coming from a very Catholic community. I can say I know very little about Protestantism, perhaps most of them I pick up from CAF here. There are however, many of us here who were former Protestants, and they have clearer insight on Protestantism and thus able to comment on this issue.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for the affirmation.

You are very welcome.

 

[Michael68]

The belief in Sola Scriptura mixed with private interpretation has caused a major division between protestants.