B
Britta
Guest
I think the idea of the 30,000 denominations is more about the fact that we are not unified in proper interpretation of scipture.
God Bless
- Status
God Bless
P
PaulAckermann
Guest
It is stronger than that. Mormonism is not just comparable to Protestantism. Moromonism is PART of Protestantism. Protestantism consists of Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Metholidist - AND ALSO Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism.
I think if you analyze the definition of Protestantant, you would see that Mormons would be Protestant. Here are the possible definitions of a Protestant.
- A Protestant is one who adheres to the tenets of the Reformers in the Reformation.
- A Protestant is one who believes in sola scriptura.
- A Protestant is one who professes to be a Christian but not a Catholic.
This fits the Mormons. They consider themselves to be Christians and they consider the Catholic Church corrupting the gospel. In fact, all Protestants, whether they be conservative or liberal. Whether they be Anglican or Baptist. Whether they be charismatic or fundementalist. There is only one thing they all agree on - they agree that the Catholic Church corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
There is no such thing as Protestant theology. There is no unified system of beliefs that all Protestants agree on - except that the Catholc Church corrupted the message of Jesus. Since Mormons would believe this, they are Protestant.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
Hi Britta,
The point is that there is no such thing as 30,000 denominations. To put a little perspective into this please read the article: 30,000 Denominations?
Peace,
CM
S
Stu
Guest
He would suddenly erupt with: ‘The world is a gigantic anus and I am a ripe stool, ready to drop from it.’ Then in a moment he was back on the religious tack.
Is anyone denying this quote or in some way is it too being taken out of context? While OVERALL I don’t believe Luther was positive for Christianity he isn’t Satan and he did have some valid points. His catechism, which I grew up on, as I recall is great. But the defenders of Luther in this thread cannot deny that Luther was certainly a little “off level”. Can you imagine Billy Graham proclaiming himself a “ripe stool” in this day and age? Reminds me of John Belushi in Animal House. “I’m a zit, get it”
Is anyone denying this quote or in some way is it too being taken out of context? While OVERALL I don’t believe Luther was positive for Christianity he isn’t Satan and he did have some valid points. His catechism, which I grew up on, as I recall is great. But the defenders of Luther in this thread cannot deny that Luther was certainly a little “off level”. Can you imagine Billy Graham proclaiming himself a “ripe stool” in this day and age? Reminds me of John Belushi in Animal House. “I’m a zit, get it”
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I don’t know what your point is, but yes, Luther said it and it isn’t unusual for him. He definitely loved to rile up those he spoke to. I admit that it is crass, but it doesn’t seem obscene IMHO. Check out verses such as Ezekiel 4:12-16 and Malachi 2:3.
Nope, no one is denying it and, as far as context is concerned, I believe he said that to his wife whom he lovingly provoked.
Thank you for your honestly. He did have some valid points even though some here don’t give him as much.
You know, no one on this thread has made any attempt to paint Luther as a saintly hero, but there are some who go to the other extreme. Again, I thank you for your balance in recognizing the good things, such as his catechism.
I’m sure these idioms were acceptable in Luther’s day and age
Peace,
CM
C
Churchmouse
Guest
I don’t think this follows the theme of this thread. Maybe you can post this as a separate thread.It is stronger than that. Mormonism is not just comparable to Protestantism. Moromonism is PART of Protestantism. Protestantism consists of Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Metholidist - AND ALSO Unitarians, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism.
I think if you analyze the definition of Protestantant, you would see that Mormons would be Protestant. Here are the possible definitions of a Protestant.
This cannot be the definition, because Arminians who believe in free will would disagree with the Reformers. By this definition, Arminian could not be Protestants. Also, the reformers taught infant baptism. This would mean Baptists are not Protestants.
- A Protestant is one who adheres to the tenets of the Reformers in the Reformation.
This cannot be the definition, either. There are many liberal Protestants who do not believe in scripture at all. They may not be Christian, but they are still considered Protestants even by conservative Protestants. Also, Jehovah Witnesses believe in sola scriptura.
- A Protestant is one who believes in sola scriptura.
This is the definition that fits.“Protestant” comes from the word “to protest”. We could devote a whole topic on what in particularly they were protesting, but I think there is a general agreement that it had something to with the Catholic Church. So Protestant is more defined in the negative, it is someone in some way protesting against the Catholic Church.
- A Protestant is one who professes to be a Christian but not a Catholic.
This fits the Mormons. They consider themselves to be Christians and they consider the Catholic Church corrupting the gospel. In fact, all Protestants, whether they be conservative or liberal. Whether they be Anglican or Baptist. Whether they be charismatic or fundementalist. There is only one thing they all agree on - they agree that the Catholic Church corrupted the original teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
There is no such thing as Protestant theology. There is no unified system of beliefs that all Protestants agree on - except that the Catholc Church corrupted the message of Jesus. Since Mormons would believe this, they are Protestant.
K
Katholikos
Guest
It’s very amusing that YOU know my “assumptions” and you assert that I do not! rofl
I never gave a single thought as to who A.Believer is, other than that his name appears in the email exchange. Your phychic antenna is sending you the wrong signals.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
To lump all Protestantism in with Mormonism is a straw man tactic. The comparison was intentionally made to pick the most extreme of the group and claim that it is the viewpoint of the whole. It was like saying that all black people are Michael Jackson.
Regardless, from what I understand – and I could be wrong on this, is that Mormons do not Baptize themselves in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Lutherans do not view Religions that baptize as such part of the union…. so to speak.
Regardless, from what I understand – and I could be wrong on this, is that Mormons do not Baptize themselves in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Lutherans do not view Religions that baptize as such part of the union…. so to speak.
B
Britta
Guest
I did read it and thank you for sharing. The fact is many times, in an effort to prove a point in a debate, material is slanted toward the writer’s agenda. Is it right/wrong? That is for the reader to decide.
When I read information for a Russian Orthodox perspective I always keep in mind their agenda. When I read from a Baptist writer, I keep in mind their agenda. When I read from a Catholic perspective, I keep in mind their agenda…
My point on the 30,000 is that it is not so much about the actual number. It could be 30,000 or 3,000. The bigger picture here is that we have a large number of differing views of interpretation - not what I believe Jesus intended.
God Bless
T
Tom_of_Assisi
Guest
I didn’t realize that Michael Jackson was considered black anymore
.The question is: are Mormons and some Protestants aligned in the view that the Catholic Church suffered an “apostasy” that God had to correct? No other point of Mormon and Protestant doctrine was compared.
Can Luther and Smith both be viewed as being sent by God to form a new, uh “true,” Church which was not infected with the errors of apostasy?
And is Churchmouse or anyone else suggesting that as a result of Luther’s work on behalf of God there are many new Protestant denomenations…some liberal, some fundamentalist…none agreeing on all points. How is this reform and new creation?
And yes, Catholics hold to Church tradition and teachings as to what Scripture does and can mean. Most Protestants, correct me if I’m wrong, read the Bible on their own, individually, and decide what it means for themselves…that probably goes a long way in explaining why there are so many denomenations.
C
Churchmouse
Guest
This is funny. It’s as simple as looking at post #63 where you claim my “friend” (your word) and I didn’t give credit to Pastor King (which A.Believer did if you would only read what you post). Your assumption that the “friend” that I was referring to is A.Believer is as plain as day, but now you attempt to save face. Not very cool
No “psychic antenna” involved, just common sense.
Peace,
CM
Z
ZoeTheodora
Guest
Way to go, Britta.
I’d like to add something here, because I am sooooo tired of the “30,000-figure-is-bogus” argument.
30,000 nuthin’. There are probably more like 300,000. And even that’s a conservative figure.
I live in the Bible Belt. Here, whenever somebody doesn’t like what Preacher Jones is saying down at Good Old Fashioned Baptist Church, he ups and leaves and founds his own church.
This happens constantly–and I do mean constantly. Our next-door neighbor attends one such church. She didn’t like the way her AOG mega-church was trending. So she up and left. It happened that another disgruntled ex-AOGer had founded his own teeny “house church,” whose beliefs my neighbor approved. So she joined it.
I call these teeny startups “micro-churches.” Most consist of just one congregation. Many meet in storefronts. (Storefont churches are as common as mud around here.)
Sure, they don’t qualify as “denominations” per whatever criteria the data wonks use. But they are distinct ecclesial entities nonetheless. However unjelled their structures may be, however vague their creeds, they are still separate Christian communities which call themselves churches. As such, they exemplify the pitfalls of Sola Scriptura just as compellingly as more “official” denominations do.
If not more so.
I’m sure many of these micro-churches share the same basic doctrines. But I bet you’d be hard put to get even two of them to merge with each other. After all, these micro-churches were founded because some dude split hairs and picked nits and found some niggling little thing to disagree with at his former church. Dudes like that major in minors and make mountains out of molehills. So even if Storefront Pastor A finds that he has much in common, doctrinally, with Storefront Pastor B, he’ll still find some little theological nit to pick, some point of Biblcial interpretation where he feels he “divides the word of truth” more “rigthly” than the other guy does. Hence, these micro-churches never merge. Their tendency is entirely in the other direction–toward greater and greater fragmentation.
I really think we have to factor these micro-churches into the equation. They are the very apotheosis of Sola Scriptura. They are Sola Scriptura to the nth degree and cubed. They exemplify what happens when Sola Scriptura runs amok. Therefore, they are relevant to the present discussion.
And therefore, IMHO, there are not merely 30,000 denominations and counting. There are more like 300,000–including the fissiparous micro-churches.
Protestantism is like a hyperactive amoeba–dividing and subdividing with compulsive intensity.
Blessings,
ZT
K
Katholikos
Guest
Please see my thread, How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? 33,820?
It explains the origin of this number.
K
Katholikos
Guest
SHOUT IT OUT SISTER! You’re absolutely correct! None of the statistical or anecdotal studies in existence report the actual total number of conflicting and competing Protestant denominations!The Handbook of Denominations in the United States (1995)reports denominations larger than 200. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia is a statistical study of self-reporting groups.
Only God knows the true number. May God have mercy.
JMJ Jay
S
Shibboleth
Guest
And we won’t stop dividing until we infect the entire universe…Bwhaahahah
In all do respect since it is Sola Scriptura one could say that their are 3 billion denominations becuase we are all potential secular temples within ourselves - when it comes to sola scriptura.
Anyways back to the original question. Luther was neither Hitler or a Saint. He had his problems and for those that are interested in what his problems were there is literature available on that so that people can preach the truth on him and there is literature on his good points and people can use that to preach what they think is the truth also.
He is dead now, we all can agree upon that and our actions are our own and not due to the evil or good acts of another.
In all do respect since it is Sola Scriptura one could say that their are 3 billion denominations becuase we are all potential secular temples within ourselves - when it comes to sola scriptura.
Anyways back to the original question. Luther was neither Hitler or a Saint. He had his problems and for those that are interested in what his problems were there is literature available on that so that people can preach the truth on him and there is literature on his good points and people can use that to preach what they think is the truth also.
He is dead now, we all can agree upon that and our actions are our own and not due to the evil or good acts of another.
S
Shibboleth
Guest
sorry I meant non-secular
K
Katholikos
Guest
The evil that men do lives after them. Luther desecrated the Christian Scriptures, rejecting 11 writings from the canon --and succeeded in eliminating seven books permanently from all Protestant Bibles, but not the other four – though he declared that all 11 “were not Scripture.” He introduced doctrines into Christianity that Christ and the Apostles didn’t teach: Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide have been especially harmful. He splintered the Church that Christ founded, wounding it so severely that the Church still suffers to this very day. His anti-semitism was used by the Nazi’s as justification for their treatment of Jews. He approved plural wives because he “could find no Scriptural basis” for forbidding the practice. Shall I go on? You’re defending the indefensible and minimizing the damage that Luther wrought that will reverberate down though the centuries. It’s already been five centuries, and look at the state of splintered Christianity, in opposition to the will of Christ (John 17).
The Church is facing its greatest foe in history – Islam – in a weakened condition, thanks to Luther. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. and the world because of splintered Christianity. Experts who study demographics predict that Europe will become Muslim. Gone will be the beauty and the art of Christendom. The beautiful cathedrals will become mosques.
That’s Luther’s legacy.
JMJ Jay
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Before I get started I just want to point out that Luther was anti-Jewish not anti-Semitic, there is a difference. I do agree that his actions that he called for against the practicing Rabbis should never be acceptable. No one but no one should suffer or burn at the hands of man in the name of Christ… for confessions or anything else.
Katholikos:
All that you say here has happened and more. It still does not change that our actions are our own. A man might pave a path but it is my choice whether I follow it or not. When my time of judgment comes all fingers will point to me. I will not point to the snake, the woman, the apple, or Luther…
Just so that you know… when I am on the few Lutheran message boards that I visit, if someone starts rambling on about the bad Popes, I defend them just as vigorously. I try not to speak ill about anyone, though it happens more often than I like to admit. Do I speak out about the evil actions and behaviors… yes… but those are rarely tied to one person, so often times I just mention the behavior and not the name of the perpetrator.
Luther is long dead and people have a choice whether or not to follow the path that he has lain out. It is his time to rest and he has but only one person to answer to for his sins.
Katholikos if I asked you to write about the good things the Luther did in his lifetime or the good aspects of his legacy, how would you react. Would your first response be, “He had no good things or his bad traits outweighed anything good that could be said about him.” Just at the mention of this, do you feel a knot in your stomach, and would you feel that knot as you wrote good things about Luther?
If you feel this then that is the hate that boils within you… let it go.
And if it is not there, I would love to see a post on the good aspects of Luther by your hand.
K
Katholikos
Guest
Shibboleth,
You are mistaken in describing my feelings about Luther as “hate.” It’s against my religion to “hate” anyone. I assess the man and his “accomplishments” quite dispassionately.
As soon as you write a post on the good aspects of Hitler, I’ll write one on the good aspects of Luther.
It’s not a question of “choice.” We’re faced with living the reality of Luther’s legacy and suffering the consequences. It will be with us forever.
We are all accountable to God – Popes and Luther and you and me. I make no judgments about Luther’s everlasting fate. But when I evaluate the everlasting impact of Luther’s actions on Christendom and on human society, I grieve.
JMJ Jay
S
Shibboleth
Guest
Hitler was a distraught man that I believe really had good intentions at one time. His country was still recovering from the First World War and the economy of Germany was in shambles. Germany with all of its noble past was now defaced and it hurt him and many other Germans to see the country in such shape. For a short time he brought back pride to those that were hanging their heads in shame and helped the economy recover.
Unfortunately his ambitions and hate took control of him. Even in his evil he brought forth some good by causing a unification of Allied Powers to combat him.
Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.
- William Shakespeare
"Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us now. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, This was their finest hour.
-Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
So you can greive for what has come about by Luther’s actions or you can use it to achieve greatness – it is up to you.
Your turn…
- Status