Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[ICA04]

I’ll tell you when you answer me - I asked you first.
**Show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction **with the word of God, as you assert.

PS - I’m going to PM you about how to post responses - since you’re new.

I can name you several. It’s nothing new.

 

[SteveGC]

I didnt mean to say Catholics dont believe in the Holy Spirit, But I often see posts on this board mocking protestants who believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a way I think is disrespectful to Him, even if they dont mean it. (This is not directed to you but a general observance)

I know it’s not personal. No problem. And I think I can speak for most Catholics who you might think discredit the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We don’t. We love Him. We need Him. And He certainly is meant to be with us all. But the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit comes to all through the Church Herself (She, being the Bride of Christ). Further, the Spirit was intended to protect and preserve the teachings of Christ, as delivered unto the world by Christ’s apostles, and their ordained successors. The Holy Spirit is not, therefore, a personal interpreter of the truths as contained within Sacred Scripture. And when we say truths, we specifically mean the teachings on faith and morals. Faith being the essentials for salvation, and morals meaning the arbitration of proper Christian living. The Church actually interprets and reveals this to the faithful through both Sacred Scripture and Tradition (oral teachings passed down through apostolic lineage). Does this mean that we aren’t allowed to read Scripture, being guided by the Holy Spirit? Not in the least. We are encouraged to read it so very often, and if we would attend Mass daily for 3 years, nearly the entire Bible would be read to us prayerfully. The difference therefore, is in what the Holy Spirit guides us to. He guides us into understanding and application of already revealed truths regarding faith and morals. In other words, the Spirit is first with The Church (specifically Christ as Bridegroom, and His lineage of apostles [today’s pope and bishops]) for knowledge of precise teaching of faith and morals. Subsequently, through baptism and faith, the Holy Spirit is with all of us, to guide and lead us through our lives as we pray, worship, serve, and yes, read Scripture within the framework provided by The Church. I’m sure I’m not explaining it as eloquently as it truly is. But nevertheless, we do not discredit the Holy Spirit at all, rather, we discredit what many non-Catholics use Him for.

if I give instructions for something in detail and its written down, does that make the instruction less taught by me? no.

Actually, this is the problem. The premise that the Bible is written in sufficient detail, and is clearly understood, is not an accurate characterization. So, in one sense, I would agree that if you wrote something in plain, clear detail, it could be seen as being taught by you when I read it. But this analogy doesn’t fit Scripture. Now, can the Holy Spirit make it all possible for me? Sure. But this is clearly not the role of the Spirit, otherwise you and I would agree that baptism is essential for salvation. Everyone would agree. This goes back to my explanation above of The Church’s teaching on the role of the Spirit.

That doesnt negate the need to devote ourselves to knowing what God wants. It does mean that we wont know ALL of it till we get the heaven!

And I agree. But God did not intend for us to wait until heaven for us to know His specific plan for salvation, nor His specific arbitration on moral behavior. In other words, whether or not we’re supposed to be baptized is not supposed to remain a mystery…nor is the determination of whether abortion is or is not murder.

I suppose we can agree that first and foremost is our love and devotion to Christ, our willingness to say “yes” to everything He wills for us. We disagree on the fact that He willed into existence a visible (and invisible) Church, a unified Body of Believers, which today holds the official title (and definition of) Catholic.

God Bless, and thanks for the healthy debate.

 

[Syele]

No, I am stating that they have roughly the same amount of christian denominations that Barrett expounds in the World Christian Encyclopedia. This makes the case for Barrett more difficult to refute.

Actually he cited the encyclopaedia that lists Barrett’s list and cited that definition as well. He gave no new evidence or list to back up what he said except Barrett. “World Christian Trends” IS the book I’ve been quoting directly from!

As for the denominations you keep refering to, the webster definition for a denomination is this:

“a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.” (like the CC)

in that case all independent individual churches cannot be denominations at all, because they are not united in a single legal and administrative body.

For example, some Baptist congregations want nothing to do with the greater body of Baptists, due to the administrative structure of independence they crave or due in part to some doctrinal/practical issues (splits). These Baptists are therefore considered independent and classified a denomination.

no the main Baptist group would be one denomination… they have a legal body. Those who declare themselves independent could be called congregations or Churches but if they are not united and have no overseeing group they would NOT be individual denominations by this definition.

P.S. There is a list I managed to find of Christian denominations, here it is: www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Pentecostalism

Im guessing you actually mean :fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Category:Christian_denominations

If so, how is that even remotely close to 33,000? most of what the lists are is sub categories within overseeing groups(Denominations!) Even the Catholic lists cover several not under the Pope.

 

[josie_L]

well of course you got so many since you included Denominations. Google uses the OR search by default. search: “white-led pentecostals” and you will get 2 results.
this is trying to say there are 813 types of denominations that can be called “white-led pentecostals” first of all I dont think anyone is putting themseves in a catergory like “white-led pentecostals” expecially not 813 different denomoninations. also this implies that those 813 denominations are not part of any of the other groupings listed. that means none of these “white-led pentecostals” are also Charasmatic or other things. Even more, it implies that who leads these linked Churches HAS to be White people as a matter of Doctrine. Otherwise a simple change in Pastor would have their whole dnomination shift to a new category, that is very impractical for any classifying system!

No, that is not how either Barrett or The Gordon Conwell Seminary are defining denominations, look carefully at the letter I posted, it explains how it derived and defined denominations. In fact, it states that the amount of 39 000 is rather conservative. I posted a website that gives a pretty good breakdown of christian denominations, please look into it.

 

[Howie01]

If so, how is that even remotely close to 33,000? most of what the lists are is sub categories within overseeing groups(Denominations!) Even the Catholic lists cover several not under the Pope.

Syele, FYI, from Alpha & Omega Ministries, dealing with this specific topic in January. Click on the source link in White’s call to Steve Ray, et al, it goes to a more in-depth look at the silliness of the RC apologists concerning this. There’s more to read as well. Simply type in “33,000 protestant denominations" for a number of different refutations of this going back several years.

 

[Syele]

josie_L:
No, that is not how either Barrett or The Gordon Conwell Seminary are defining denominations, look carefully at the letter I posted, it explains how it derived and defined denominations. In fact, it states that the amount of 39 000 is rather conservative. I posted a website that gives a pretty good breakdown of christian denominations, please look into it.

That was actual “Denominations” from the list provided by the study. You cant jsut pick and choose what you want it to say.

Edit: I looked at your list and I posted to you a question about how that could be remotely close to 33,000? Also please explain the list in there of Catholics who broke from the Catholic Church but are obviously are not Protestant:

 

[Syele]

Syele, FYI, from Alpha & Omega Ministries, dealing with this specific topic in January. Click on the source link in White’s call to Steve Ray, et al, it goes to a more in-depth look at the silliness of the RC apologists concerning this. There’s more to read as well. Simply type in “33,000 protestant denominations" for a number of different refutations of this going back several years.

Thanks I am familiar with Eric Svendsen but wasn’t as familiar with Alpha & Omega Ministries. I started out a few years ago reading Svendsen and getting as much info from the encyclopaedia as I could get since I dont own it myself, *World Christian Trends *was VERY enlightening about it. It says, right there clear as day, the denominations are not based on Doctrines and yet its still bandied about all the time that the 33,000 is proof of all sorts of stuff. :banghead:

 

[josie_L]

Actually he cited the encyclopaedia that lists Barrett’s list and cited that definition as well. He gave no new evidence or list to back up what he said except Barrett. “World Christian Trends” IS the book I’ve been quoting directly from!

The list I posted does not rely solely on WCE, but lists another book and websites in its references. As you can see the numbers given by Gordon Conwell are not exactly the same as those listed in Barrett’s encyclopedia. Also, if you were quoting from World Christian Trends, why did you keep refering to Barrett? As for the definition (although similar to the definition used in WCE), there is if you look carefully in the last paragraph a solution to your problem. Since the author of the letter states a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country, then look at each country individually. For example, the RC was stated to have 236 denominations, however, when viewing each separate country in which the RC resided, the denomination always remained at 1. He also states how they (Gordon Conwell) tried to distinguish each denomination without inflating nor underrepresenting the numbers. He uses the Baptists as a case in point.

The problem I think you seem to have is your narrow view of what a denomination is. You view, for example Baptists as being one denomination, but if you look at the definition given in Webster, you can see that a denomination is determined not only by its creed but its autonomy. Amongst Baptists, and from one congregation to the next, there can be a multitude of differences.

in that case all independent individual churches cannot be denominations at all, because they are not united in a single legal and administrative body.

Don’t understand your reasoning.

no the main Baptist group would be one denomination… they have a legal body. Those who declare themselves independent could be called congregations or Churches but if they are not united and have no overseeing group they would NOT be individual denominations by this definition.

Yet again, you are wrong. You are oversimplifying the situation.

Im guessing you actually mean :fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Category:Christian_denominations

how is that even remotely close to 33,000? most of what the lists are is sub categories within overseeing groups(Denominations!) Even the Catholic lists cover several not under the Pope.

It was to show you that even if you did not believe the stats given thus far, we are supposed to be one, holy catholic and apostolic, and this list is contrary to the will of God.

I will give you a website, apart from Alpha and Omega, since they are pretty anti-catholic, it is where I derived a good portion of what I know concerning this issue:

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm

 

[josie_L]

Syele, FYI, from Alpha & Omega Ministries, dealing with this specific topic in January. Click on the source link in White’s call to Steve Ray, et al, it goes to a more in-depth look at the silliness of the RC apologists concerning this. There’s more to read as well. Simply type in “33,000 protestant denominations" for a number of different refutations of this going back several years.

"Never has there been such a thorough reference as the two large volumes, running 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Barrett has doggedly visited most of the lands in person, collecting raw material, including national census figures and United Nations data, and recruiting the 444 specialists who feed him material. Among them: Vatican missions librarian Willi Henkel and editor J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Barrett’s encyclopedia sought to count each human being in each religion and religious subcategory in each country as of 1900, 1970, 1990, 1995 and 2000, with projections to 2025.

The 2001 edition, successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations."

Now if your friends at Alpha and Omega, can achieve something similar to this, I’d be ready to listen to them. In the mean time WCE and WCT and other websites I have posted in various responses to Syele, will have to be recognized for what they are: a valid authority on the subject matter.

 

[josie_L]

well of course you got so many since you included Denominations. Google uses the OR search by default. search: “white-led pentecostals” and you will get 2 results.
this is trying to say there are 813 types of denominations that can be called “white-led pentecostals” first of all I dont think anyone is putting themseves in a catergory like “white-led pentecostals” expecially not 813 different denomoninations. also this implies that those 813 denominations are not part of any of the other groupings listed. that means none of these “white-led pentecostals” are also Charasmatic or other things. Even more, it implies that who leads these linked Churches HAS to be White people as a matter of Doctrine. Otherwise a simple change in Pastor would have their whole dnomination shift to a new category, that is very impractical for any classifying system!

If you key in denominations you get a lot more information pertaining to white-led pentecostals, it’s only a matter of common sense and practicality that I should use it for my search.

 

[Howie01]

"Never has there been such a thorough reference as the two large volumes, running 1,699 pages, of the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Barrett has doggedly visited most of the lands in person, collecting raw material, including national census figures and United Nations data, and recruiting the 444 specialists who feed him material. Among them: Vatican missions librarian Willi Henkel and editor J. Gordon Melton of the Encyclopedia of American Religions. Barrett’s encyclopedia sought to count each human being in each religion and religious subcategory in each country as of 1900, 1970, 1990, 1995 and 2000, with projections to 2025.

The 2001 edition, successor to his 1982 first edition, which took a decade to compile, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity, he counts 33,820 denominations."

Now if your friends at Alpha and Omega, can achieve something similar to this, I’d be ready to listen to them. In the mean time WCE and WCT and other websites I have posted in various responses to Syele, will have to be recognized for what they are: a valid authority on the subject matter.

Josie, I really don’t care what you believe.

 

[Syele]

It was to show you that even if you did not believe the stats given thus far, we are supposed to be one, holy catholic and apostolic, and this list is contrary to the will of God.

Well if the list is wrong then you should sure OTHER evidence we are supposed to be one, holy catholic and apostolic, there is plently yet you insist that the list is right, despite lots of proof otherwise.

I will give you a website, apart from Alpha and Omega, since they are pretty anti-catholic, it is where I derived a good portion of what I know concerning this issue:

www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm

I will look over it after work.

 

[ICA04]

Great answer . . .

You leave nothing to the imagination, that’s for sure.

 

[elvisman]

You leave nothing to the imagination, that’s for sure.

If you want to add something to the conversation, please do.
Your curt posts only display your inability to do so . . .

 

[ICA04]

If you want to add something to the conversation, please do.
Your curt posts only display your inability to do so . . .

And your lengthy character assasinations on folks who don’t agree with you are repulsive and completely uncharitable. If you acted the way you do in a non-Catholic forum, you would be thrown out on your butt before you could even get a second jab in.

 

[christian1]

evilsman you said: I’ll tell you when you answer me - I asked you first.
Show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction with the word of God, as you assert.

I’m sorry I’m not using your instructions because I have a big feeling I didn’t get what you were trying to explain about posting. So, I’ll do it like this for now. Ok, so, let me know if this is good enough proof or if you would prefer I find more:

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

concerning:

VI. The Catholic Church

number 20

Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

evilsman you said: I’ll tell you when you answer me - I asked you first.
Show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction with the word of God, as you assert.

I’m sorry I’m not using your instructions because I have a big feeling I didn’t get what you were trying to explain about posting. So, I’ll do it like this for now. Ok, so, let me know if this is good enough proof or if you would prefer I find more:

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

concerning:

VI. The Catholic Church

number 20

Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

You’re learning fast…

 

[elvisman]

And your lengthy character assasinations on folks who don’t agree with you are repulsive and completely uncharitable. If you acted the way you do in a non-Catholic forum, you would be thrown out on your butt before you could even get a second jab in.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

evilsman you said: I’ll tell you when you answer me - I asked you first.
Show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction with the word of God, as you assert.

I’m sorry I’m not using your instructions because I have a big feeling I didn’t get what you were trying to explain about posting. So, I’ll do it like this for now. Ok, so, let me know if this is good enough proof or if you would prefer I find more:

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

concerning:

VI. The Catholic Church

number 20

Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

And how would you feel if this was true?

 

[elvisman]

evilsman you said: I’ll tell you when you answer me - I asked you first.
Show me some dogmas of the Catholic Church that are in direct contradiction with the word of God, as you assert.

I’m sorry I’m not using your instructions because I have a big feeling I didn’t get what you were trying to explain about posting. So, I’ll do it like this for now. Ok, so, let me know if this is good enough proof or if you would prefer I find more:

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.

concerning:

VI. The Catholic Church

number 20

Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

I don’t understand how this is in direct contradiction with the word of God.

Matt. 16:15-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:13-15, John 17:11-2, 21-23, John 20:23 and 1 Tim, 3:16 are but a few passages that support it.

Please explain.

PS - I sent you another, less-confusing PM on how to post.