Why do some Protestants refuse to tell what their denominations are?

[Reuben_J]

Yes, arguing to win (the argument) rather than discussing to give information. But then again, it is the reality - different people come with different purposes and disposition.

 

[JonNC]

Boy, do I. Indeed.

Me too.

Now…

 

[GKMotley]

Roughly 20 years for me.

 

[adf417]

adf417:

From this point forward you have implied the church, after 250 years, came to a consensus of what the canon would be. Doesn’t one have to ask then:

It is important to note that the vast majority of New Testament books were used as scripture from very early in the church. There was a consensus on most of the books we call the New Testament easily by the beginning of the 3rd Century and probably closer to the beginning of the 2nd Century.

No there was not a consensus. There was a consensus on “most”, “a majority”, “much”…pick a adjective you prefer that fits but “all” does not fit.

So it is not correct to say that we didn’t have any scripture for the first 250 years of the church.

I agree that is why i didn’t say it. I said we did not have the 27 book NT as you have it in your bible today seperate from all the other writings which were being considered scripture at that time.

The Apostolic Fathers quoted many of our New Testament books and considered them as scripture.

They also quoted from some of the other books they considered scripture at that time.

What we didn’t have was a final canon. The final canon was formed when a consensus was formed about the final few books.

You are failing to address the fact that the list of books was growing not shrinking Ianman. This glaring piece of historical evidence is the sillyness behind a comment that the church “formed a consensus” and the reason a council needed to be called to clear it up for the faithful.

Peace!!!

 

[Wannano]

adf417:

From this point forward you have implied the church, after 250 years, came to a consensus of what the canon would be. Doesn’t one have to ask then:

It is important to note that the vast majority of New Testament books were used as scripture from very early in the church. There was a consensus on most of the books we call the New Testament easily by the beginning of the 3rd Century and probably closer to the beginning of the 2nd Century. So it is not correct to say that we didn’t have any scripture for the first 250 years of the church. The Apostolic Fathers quoted many of our New Testament books and considered them as scripture. What we didn’t have was a final canon. The final canon was formed when a consensus was formed about the final few books. But up until that time the other books were already being used as authoritative scripture.

From this point forward you have implied the church, after 250 years, came to a consensus of what the canon would be. Doesn’t one have to ask then:

It is important to note that the vast majority of New Testament books were used as scripture from very early in the church. There was a consensus on most of the books we call the New Testament easily by the beginning of the 3rd Century and probably closer to the beginning of the 2nd Century. So it is not correct to say that we didn’t have any scripture for the first 250 years of the church. The Apostolic Fathers quoted many of our New Testament books and considered them as scripture. What we didn’t have was a final canon. The final canon was formed when a consensus was formed about the final few books. But up until that time the other books were already being used as authoritative scripture.

I agree with you. And that is why I suggested that anything Jesus orally taught the Apostles before His Ascension that was necessary for church doctrine would now be found in the NT scriptures.

Maybe I have a faulty idea of what the Catholic Sacred Tradition is. My idea is that it is oral transmission from Christ that was not recorded in Scripture. Maybe I have it wrong.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It seems logical to me that this being accurate, any teachings Jesus gave the disciples before His ascension into Heaven that are necessary for the Churches of God would be recorded in those scripts from the first century. In that complete way Jesus certainly never left His Church stranded or floundering for pure doctrine.

Quite. This is why Christ established the visible Church; which already had 2nd and 3rd generational leadership present in some places before the ink was dry on the very last pages of the canonical NT.

This is also why Christ didn’t write a book. If the religion was to be textually based, Christ would have proceeded in a way more similar to Muhammad - he’d have written his religion down!

It is from the Church that “pure doctrine” flows. Scripture is obviously one of the many products of that Church since there is obviously a time in Christian history when there was no (NT) scripture and there was no canon - but there WAS a Church.

And there were churches. When did the different churches form one entity?

 

[exnihilo]

"The New Testament developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. No one particular person made the decision. The decision was not made at a church council. The particular writings that became those of the New Testament gradually came into focus and became the most trusted and beneficial of all the early Christian writings. "

Granting the decision was not made by a Church council, it was still made by the Church. Not everyone agreed. If the question is settled by saying the orthodox fathers of the Church cited the books then on what basis do we know they were orthodox and not heretics? We can’t say because they agreed with Holy Scripture because that would be question begging.

 

[runningdude]

The accusation here is too vague to respond to, and borders on hearsay. Who refused to disclose their background to you. Where and when did these discussions occur? How cordial were the discussions?

You are asking us to criticize unnamed persons acting under unknown circumstances. The question is vague and accusatory, and the answers can only be vague and accusatory in return. Please share specific examples you have experienced of Protestants refusing to share. I personally have never met a Protestant who was not eager to share the details of their faith journey.

 

[adf417]

I agree with you. And that is why I suggested that anything Jesus orally taught the Apostles before His Ascension that was necessary for church doctrine would now be found in the NT scriptures.

Maybe I have a faulty idea of what the Catholic Sacred Tradition is. My idea is that it is oral transmission from Christ that was not recorded in Scripture. Maybe I have it wrong.

If your first statement above were true then should be blame the apostles for not handing us the 27 book canon before they all died and left us with the confusion off which books to form a consensus to? Or is the list of books in the NT itself not necessary?

It could be said oral tradition is not recorded in scripture but i wouldn’t say “all” oral tradition is not recorded in scripture. Also one must be careful how he views the recorded message. Not all of God’s message was recorded explicitly as we know with the Trinity. Many are recorded implicitly.

Peace!!!

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Wannano:

It seems logical to me that this being accurate, any teachings Jesus gave the disciples before His ascension into Heaven that are necessary for the Churches of God would be recorded in those scripts from the first century. In that complete way Jesus certainly never left His Church stranded or floundering for pure doctrine.

Quite. This is why Christ established the visible Church; which already had 2nd and 3rd generational leadership present in some places before the ink was dry on the very last pages of the canonical NT.

This is also why Christ didn’t write a book. If the religion was to be textually based, Christ would have proceeded in a way more similar to Muhammad - he’d have written his religion down!

It is from the Church that “pure doctrine” flows. Scripture is obviously one of the many products of that Church since there is obviously a time in Christian history when there was no (NT) scripture and there was no canon - but there WAS a Church.

And there were churches. When did the different churches form one entity?

From literally the very start. This is why ecumenical council meant something. This is why the writings of Apostles and early Bishops like Clement meant something. Being a visible, single entity is what actually gave the Church its authority to teach and, subsequently, rebuke other Churches that began to teach error.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Vonsalza:

Wannano:

It seems logical to me that this being accurate, any teachings Jesus gave the disciples before His ascension into Heaven that are necessary for the Churches of God would be recorded in those scripts from the first century. In that complete way Jesus certainly never left His Church stranded or floundering for pure doctrine.

Quite. This is why Christ established the visible Church; which already had 2nd and 3rd generational leadership present in some places before the ink was dry on the very last pages of the canonical NT.

This is also why Christ didn’t write a book. If the religion was to be textually based, Christ would have proceeded in a way more similar to Muhammad - he’d have written his religion down!

It is from the Church that “pure doctrine” flows. Scripture is obviously one of the many products of that Church since there is obviously a time in Christian history when there was no (NT) scripture and there was no canon - but there WAS a Church.

And there were churches. When did the different churches form one entity?

From literally the very start. This is why ecumenical council meant something. This is why the writings of Apostles and early Bishops like Clement meant something. Being a visible, single entity is what actually gave the Church its authority to teach and, subsequently, rebuke other Churches that began to teach error.

Just a question…is being a visible single entity really what gave the Church it’s authority to teach? Would not that authority have to be given by God? Are we 100% sure that the strength and power in numbers had nothing to do with over powering and squelching others in any man made effort to assume power and control? Are we absolutely sure that the eventual mingling of Church and civil authorities saturated with greed of wealth and power was not the “different doctrine”, “wolves” that St. Paul warned of? Maybe you can help me here. It just seems like the message Jesus portrayed in His ministry is so different than the message the Church delivered. I don’t know how to reconcile that.

 

[exnihilo]

Just a question…is being a visible single entity really what gave the Church it’s authority to teach? Would not that authority have to be given by God? Are we 100% sure that the strength and power in numbers had nothing to do with over powering and squelching others in any man made effort to assume power and control? Are we absolutely sure that the eventual mingling of Church and civil authorities saturated with greed of wealth and power was not the “different doctrine”, “wolves” that St. Paul warned of? Maybe you can help me here. It just seems like the message Jesus portrayed in His ministry is so different than the message the Church delivered. I don’t know how to reconcile that.

You are right. God gave the Church authority. But marks of the true Church are: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. It is how we can know the Church.

Can we be absolutely sure of anything? Most especially, can we be absolutely sure of anything historical of which we were not a direct witness? I don’t think we can apart from a grace that few if any people have. So everyone is unsure of history. Everyone is forming opinions with lack of surety.

When you say the message Jesus portrayed in his ministry you mean the message contained in the Gospel accounts, right? So you are accepting that the Gospel accounts are historical and possibly inspired texts, right? If so I see what the Church teaches as being completely in harmony with what Jesus taught. In fact I think it the only institution that provides a teaching which accounts for all of Jesus’ teachings. This is important because Jesus teachings are far more complex than many acknowledge.

 

[Vonsalza]

Just a question…is being a visible single entity really what gave the Church it’s authority to teach?

No. Christ is what gave the Church its authority to teach.

Visibility is just required so you know what the Church even is. It’s how you separate the teacher from the false prophet. One is affirmed by the visible Church, one is not.

Would not that authority have to be given by God?

Sure. Given by Christ directly.

Are we 100% sure that the strength and power in numbers had nothing to do with over powering and squelching others in any man made effort to assume power and control?

This is an inherent problem to any group activity in history; including in your own congregation or those like yours. Due to this reality, your objection here just isn’t pertinent. You can levy it against literally any mature organization. Literally any of them.

What we do know is that Christ said the Church cannot fail. So if one’s “church” doesn’t pass the historical continuity test, then it simply cannot be the Church without making a liar of Christ.

Are we absolutely sure that the eventual mingling of Church and civil authorities saturated with greed of wealth and power was not the “different doctrine”, “wolves” that St. Paul warned of?

Are we certain that these wolves weren’t Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or any modern “brother” who walks forward claiming to be “anointed”, just like every false prophet in history?

Again, Christ said the Church can’t fail. If your flavor of Christianity is newer than 1950 years old (plus or minus a decade), then it’s not the Church.

It just seems like the message Jesus portrayed in His ministry is so different than the message the Church delivered. I don’t know how to reconcile that.

I see no difference between the message that Christ portrays in scripture and the message proclaimed by his Catholic Church.

For example, CCC 430:
430 Jesus means in Hebrew: “God saves.” At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses both his identity and his mission.18 Since God alone can forgive sins, it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, “will save his people from their sins”.19 in Jesus, God recapitulates all of his history of salvation on behalf of men.

 

[lanman87]

No there was not a consensus. There was a consensus on “most”, “a majority”, “much”…pick a adjective you prefer that fits but “all” does not fit.

That is exactly what I said.

There was a consensus on most of the books we call the New Testament easily by the beginning of the 3rd Century and probably closer to the beginning of the 2nd Century.

You are failing to address the fact that the list of books was growing not shrinking Ianman.

It is my understanding that while the number of books claiming to have been written by the Apostles or first Century witnesses grew the number that were ever considered scripture by the church remained fairly constant. Early on there were a few, Clement for example, that some considered as scripture, that were finally rejected. And a few, Hebrews and Jude for example, that were debated for some time before finally being accepted.

Can you give a source that the number of books that were considered (what we would call the New Testament) grew beyond 35 or so. And if so, how long were those extra books considered scripture before finally being rejected by the church as a whole?

 

[adf417]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

I asked that question a few years ago and got this list which i have been working through for some time now. Not sure how exhaustive it is.

Peace!!!

 

[lanman87]

I asked that question a few years ago and got this list which i have been working through for some time now. Not sure how exhaustive it is.

Just because something was written in that time period doesn’t mean it was automatically considered scripture. My question is, how many of those writings were considered scripture that didn’t end up in the canon?

 

[adf417]

adf417:

I asked that question a few years ago and got this list which i have been working through for some time now. Not sure how exhaustive it is.

Just because something was written in that time period doesn’t mean it was automatically considered scripture. My question is, how many of those writings were considered scripture that didn’t end up in the canon?

Well for starters you might check this out -

https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Early-Fathers-Three-Set/dp/0814610250

This 3 volumn set of early church fathers writings give their canon references to what you might be looking for.

Peace!!!

 

[Reuben_J]

I think you haven’t read the whole posts. Your tone is actually accusing. The OP is asking why a Christian, non-Catholic, probably from some Protestant denomination, did not want to tell what her/his denomination is. The experience came from an online inter-faith discussion/dialogue. He was asked what his church is and he did not want to tell.

Nowhere this is accusing or asking you to criticize the fellow. The OP, being a Catholic, just want to know the reason behind this because it’s unusual to him. Was the reason dubious, wanting to be secretive, not wanting people to know his church, being insecure or ashamed of it? He did not know.

Anyway, this thread has been answered. Basically I think, this Christian does not want to be associated with any denomination. Beyond that, there are probably better and more accurate answer.

The fact that you think this post is accusatory probably is supporting the OP at being puzzled except that you could not believe any Christian won’t want to tell what their denomination is.

 

[Wannano]

I am finding it rather humorous Reuben. You are upset that someone did not want to disclose their particular church affiliation.

In the same way now you are answering a poster that indicates the OP was someone other than yourself. Why don’t you want running dude to know you are the OP?

 

[runningdude]

I think you haven’t read the whole posts.
…
The experience came from an online inter-faith discussion/dialogue. He was asked what his church is and he did not want to tell.

This information was not given, and I had read far enough to realize people were giving speculative answers without knowing the circumstances. I for instance had assumed it was an in person discussion, because the OP said they had come up to him.

The first several responders offer opinions about why unindentified person acted a certain way under undisclosed circumstances. At least the first several of the OP’s replies do not clarify an online context. The answers the OP received can only be based on the responder’s own biases and assorted past encounters, encounters that may have little to do with the OP’s experience. As I said, I assumed an in person encounter; when non-Christians came up to me and told me my faith were wrong, they were trying to sell me on theirs!

With the information given, I had no way of knowing why of an would not disclose their background, and was absolutely perplexed as to how the OP expected me to know, and also how others would presume to know.

Nowhere this is accusing or asking you to criticize the fellow.

Are they coming with bad intention…

This is what I was referring to; asking if someone has bad intentions is inherently criticizing them. It is asking for a judgement of their motives with no information with which to make that judgement.