How to Establish Authority in a Church

Catholic Culture ^ | 5/9/11 | Dr. Jeff Mirus

[marshmallow]

I intended to give the poor Protestants a break, but now I read that the Lutherans are imploding or exploding, depending on your point of view. It seems that the two largest Lutheran “churches” in America have broken up, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).

The first split occurred in the 1960’s and 1970’s after a long battle between resurgent conservatives and liberals, the latter including especially the faculty of Concordia Seminary. The liberal losers in the LCMS moved on to help shape the ELCA in the late 1980’s, but they crafted a self-destructive mode of governance. Insisting on disproportionate minority representation in all governing bodies and committees, the ELCA ultimately shifted power to special interest groups, hastening an inevitable disintegration in the last few years. Meanwhile, the more conservative LCMS seems doomed to be locked in constant theological squabbling, encompassing spiritual, social and political concerns.

A brief survey of what has gone on is available from First Things in Robert Benne’s The Trials of American Lutheranism. One of the key problems in all this is unwittingly raised by Benne when he notes that “the refugees from the first conflict were instrumental in shaping the flawed foundation for the second.” After all, when it comes to shaping the structure and governance of a “church”, one must surely wonder how—as a purely human enterprise—the foundation could be anything but flawed. What would constitute an unflawed foundation?

Wouldn’t it have to come from God?

The incredible confusion in Protestant circles on this subject is captured nicely in Benne’s final paragraph, as he closes his commentary on the shattered fragments that remain:

These Lutheran perspectives retain crucial importance as distinctive insights into the Great Tradition. They of course are not the whole and should not be taken for the whole. But they do provide flashes of illumination and insight for the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. That is justification enough for their preservation.

Really?

Here we go again with the Great Tradition, which nobody can adequately define. What is part of it and what is not? And once again we meet a sort of ideal but non-existent “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”, which apparently the Lutherans have been attempting to approximate with flawed foundations by forming or reforming their own “churches”. So how do we know that anything these groups provide qualifies as an “insight”? Which “insights” are to be retained, and which rejected?

Please. My friends, none of this works, and the sad thing is that it should be obvious to anyone capable of basic reflection that none of this works. Protestantism is capable of offering some goods conducive to salvation only to the degree that it continues to cherish what it has inherited from a real and identifiable “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. Insofar as it progressively abandons this inheritance, Protestantism has less and less help to offer, less and less “insight” into the relationships between God and man, less and less similarity to what it means to be a church.

The whole matter depends on the basic principles of what we might call Religion 101. Any Revelation which God discloses to us must necessarily include details of the ongoing authority by which that Revelation is to be transmitted and implemented over time. Without this, God has no means of making His Revelation effective; His Word would return to Him void (Is 55:11). The ultimate structure and authority of a Church, if it is to be taken seriously as something which can achieve God’s purpose despite human weaknesses, cannot be drawn from human imagination or fashioned through human debate and compromise. In other words, to avoid being irremediably flawed and inherently self-destructive, the mechanism of authority in a true Church must come from God Himself.

Logically, it would have to, wouldn’t it? Well, wouldn’t it?

[Cronos]

in fact, one also was cribbing that Catholics did not play a part in the American revolution.

Had to explain to them that

• There were 3 Catholic Founding fathers C. Caroll, D. Caroll & Fitzsimons -- not bad for 1.8% of the population. Much more than the number of Baptists (0) or Lutherans (2) or Dutch reformed (2) or Methodists (2)
• John Caroll had initially been a priest before devoting himself to the Revolution?
• Fr. Pierre Gibault who pledged the support of the region of S-W Indiana to the USA (to Col. George Rogers Clark)
• John Barry, a native Irishman who captained a number of ships during the war. Barry was the first to capture a British war vessel on the high seas; he also was wounded in a sea batter yet captured two British ships and fought the last battle on the seas of the Revolutionary war. He was George Washington's choice for commander of the US navy -- he was issued Commission Number 1 by Washintong and was not only the first American commissioned naval officer but also it's first flag officer
• Marquis de Lafayette, a Catholic was key in the Revolutionary War
• Tadeusz Kosciuszko Casimir Pułaski, a Pole who led Washington's cavalry and died in the battle for Savanna
• John Caroll says this about Catholic participation in the Revolutionary war (remember the country was only 1.6% Catholic):"Their blood flowed as freely, in proportion to their numbers, to cement the fabric of independence as that of their fellow citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body of men in recommending and promoting from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good orders, and civil and religious liberty" (Brent, 97,
• the Catholic Philadelphia merchant Stephen Moylan who became Quatermaster General of the Continental Army

People don't read the Bible or history and just talk anti-Catholic rot.

[Cronos]

To explain, the Bible is clear if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

Just using human logic as Calvinist thought does, without God's blessings behind it fails in grace.John 6:63 does not refer to Jesus's statement of his own flesh, if you read in context but refers to using human logic instead of dwelling on God's words.

And, all of this is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)

6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

and also 1 Cor 11:27-29

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.

Finally, the Earliest Christians also said any consideration of this as just a metaphor was false -- Ignature of Antioch (disciple of Apotle John) wrote in AD 110 wrote about heretics who abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (Letter to the SMyrnaens). The earliest Christians beleived this to be the ACTUAL body of Christ. Why, they were also accused by pagans of being cannibals and Justin MArtyr had to write a defence to the Emperor saying "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

in view of this overwhelming evidence from scripture and supplemented by the practise and belief of the earliest Christians, we can only say that there IS a real presence in the Eucharist. Martin Luther too believed in the True presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist

[Cronos]

Another common historical mis-statement by some posters is whether scientific breakthrough was purely or even lead by "Protestant nations"
Let's set the historical background first -- Europe in 1500. Population estimates taken from Internet Medieval Source book

Country	Population (millions)	Position as a nation-state
British Isles	3	Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king.  When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans.
France & low countries	12	See above.  France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas.  The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy   The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600.  These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce.   Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic.  In 1830 it fights and gets independence.
Germany & Scandanavia	7.3	No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union.   The strongest nation-state is Denmark.  Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s.   Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies.  This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!).  Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s
Italy	7.3	No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states.  This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc.  Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s.
Spain/Portugal	7	Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors.  Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural.  However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France
Greece/Balkans	4.5	Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule.   Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe.   Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria are devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains.  Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes.  Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives.
Russia	6	Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great.  It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems.  Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe.
Poland/Lithuania	2	Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews.  This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era.
Hungary	1.5	Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar).  However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants.  The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs.  The state is one of war
Bohemia	1	Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity.  It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary.

The net effect is that before the reformation you essentially have only 5 viable "nation"-states. In orders of strenght of national identity:

1. England
2. Denmark
3. France
4. Spain
5. Portugal

The financial positions of these countries do NOT change as part of the reformation. They remain more or less the same until the mid-1700s. In fact, the economic position of Germany declines due to the 30 years war and even worse, the Peace of Westphalia

1683, Battle of Vienna and 1701-1714 there is the War of Spanish succession -- THAT changes everything in Europe.. At the end of this, Spain and Portugal are in decline, France is the most powerful state and will remain so until 1812. the Ottoman Turks are in precipituous decline, Russia is expanding south and east rapidly and modernizing fast from an Asian monarchy to a more European-style feudal state. Germany gets consolidated into 4 majory states: Austria, Bavaria, Brandenburg-Prussia and Hesse-Hanover. The Swedes are now extremely powerful and in 50 years invade Poland and Russia (the Deluge) -- this destroys the commonwealth and even though it reforms it is never the same under the Swedish Vasa kings of Poland nor the Saxon kings of Poland. THe commonwealth is irrevocably headed for 1791 when Poland is carved up by Prussia, Russia and Austria.

======================================================================================================================================================

Next, urbanization in Europe in 1800

As you can see, the heaviest urbanization has been in the triangle formed by London, Paris and Amsterdam

======================================================================================================================================================

Scientific innovation --> I couldn't find an online map for this, but there are books available and there should be something online. however, I need to figure out the right google-words!

Anyway, scientific innovations leading the industrial revolution are exclusively found in these 2 countries:

England (right from the north to the south)
1. France (mostly in the north)

England is Anglican, France is Catholic. Germany is Lutheran and Catholic (60-40) and the Dutch republic is reformed. The latter two have their scientific developments but in sheer quantity they lag behind England and France. Scandanavia is Lutheran and has fewer scientific developments and mostly in Sweden or Denmark i.e. in the populated states). Eastern Europe and southern Europe are in the throes of war or recovering from their declines as powerful entites, so the developments are least over here.

So, the scientific developments are not exclusively any type of Protestant -- if anything, the industrial revolution is led by High-Church Anglican Britain and Catholic France.

======================================================================================================================================================
But does religion have a role to play in this?
======================================================================================================================================================

I would argue yes in the case of Anglicanism -- it is far less rigid in it's structure than either the CAtholic countries OR the Lutheran/Reformed state countries. While all the countries had state religions, Anglicanism was the most "flexible" -- you had near Catholics in the High-Church Anglicans and reformed in the "Low Church Anglicans", so religion did play a factor because Anglicanism was flexible compared to Catholicism, Calvinism or Lutheranism -- but what were the other factors?

The other factors are:

• Population -- by the late 1700s, France is the most populous country in all of Europe and the richest and it has the second strongest sense of "self"
• England is heavily populated -- by the late 1700s it has to import foodgrains as it can no longer feed itself. It is rich and getting richer due to it's gains in north america and India (1756 Battle of Plassey where it threw out the French to get exclusive trading rights -- note, the british Indian Empire had still not formed, but the Brits controlled Indian trade). England has a STRONG sense of who is it, a very strong 'nation-state' identity that other states envy and has built up a mythology about itself which is important in building a sense of self
• Spain, Portugal, Italy etc. have stable, lower populations that resemble the populations of 1500, so no growth due to war etc. the Netherlands had a growing population but then they lost the Anglo-Dutch wars (how we got the disparaging terms in English like "go Dutch" etc) and lost a lost of national self-confidence

Which brings me to the second fact -- war and peace. England and France mostly fight on the periphery or on overseas territories. They are not fighting like Spain or Eastern Europe or Germany on their homelands. This means that the home populations have the peace to focus on science and economy.

Finally, the last factor -- success breeds success. By the Victorian era, the momentum of scientific discovery in England and France meant that smart people were encouraged to come to these countries as they knew they'd get opportunities. It's the same reason why silicon valley is the centre of IT research -- as we reach a critical mass of smart folks, this mass expands itself, absorbing smart people from elsewhere --> on a side note, check how many American nobel laureates were born outside the US and see how the key factor affecting our scientific growth is that we no longer have the super-critical mass of smart folks we once had

[bronx2]

You would be well advised to address the anti-catholic history of this nation before venturing back to medieval times

How can you justify the Know Nothings, the KKK the election of 1928 and in recent history the election of 1960 where rabid anti-Catholicism was overtly demonstrated by protestants .

Protestants need to deeply display shame for their past behavior in this nation before demonstrating unmitigated audacity in accusing other groups.

[Cronos]

well, to be fair it wasn't most non-Catholics who were in the Know-nothings. This was led by followers of Calvin and was mostly such followers of Calvin who formed this bunch.

I doubt (but don't have the figures with me) if Mennonites or some Baptists or Christian Scientists etc. belonged to these.

The groups that did that persecuting are now dead or dying. Just like Arianism which persecuted our Catholic faith, the persecutors in the Know-Nothing etc. died out, while, thanks to the grace of the Holy Spirit, Christ's bride, The Church remained and remains -- purely due to God looking after her.

[bronx2]

Why don't you look for how many Catholics died in Ireland in the 18th 19th and 20th century under the rule of the loving protestants.

Explain the current day Act of Secession, the Easter Sunday rebellion and the continuing antics of one Ian Paisley the Methodist minister in Northern Ireland.

Protestants would be well advised to focus on their reprobate behavior in regards to treatment of Catholics in the South where the KKK ruled and still has a strong presence.

Let us view the record of protestants in this nation and see what reprobate activities they orchestrated in our own times. This disgraceful record of anti-Catholicism in this nation should preclude them from ever raising the subject of Catholic intolerance towards protestants in foreign nation 500 years ago.

From reading the messages of some rabid anti-Catholics posters on this forum one wonders are they closet members of hate organizations? What say you ? What defense can you offer to justify the aforementioned events in this nation?

[bronx2]

And followers of Calvin are what Catholic? The South where these activities proliferated is a Baptist strong hold. Look at Bob Jones University in So Carolina a hotbed and incubator of anti-Catholicism. This "Educational institution" is just one of many current protest entities ,examples of current day bigotry manifested by protestants in this nation.

What about the infamous meeting in 1960 with the protestant ministers and John Kennedy. I venture those folks are not all dead.

[Cronos]

Good point :)

however, there are other non-Catholic groups that were not in the KKK or know-nothings like the Mennonites. The KKK and know-nothings were started by followers of Calvin. Mennonites etc. didn't have much to do with them.

I prefer to consider each of these groups as a separate group -- their theology, dogma and beliefs are so different it's like clubbing Moslems and Hindus as the same religion.

[Cronos]

All of these groups disagree with each other on fundamentals

Each new bunch of Reformatters reformats the old.

1. You have the first generation namely Lutheran sticking close to orthodoxy with the Lutherans holding to the True Presence in the Eucharist, to Baptismal regeneration etc.
2. Generation 2: Then you have the Calvin-Zwingli crowd rejecting these two as well as other aspects of orthodoxy
3. Generation 3: Knox and the Anglican compromise
4. Generation 4: The Unitarians like Michael Servetus who went from being Catholic to Lutheran to Reformed to denying the Trinity.
5. Generation 5: the Baptists who now rejected infant baptism (quite unlike their namesakes the Anabaptists (now called Mennonites)) and said that there was a great Apostasy in the first centuries of Christendom (Gen 1-3 took later centuries as the dates of their "Great Apostasy")
6. Generation 6: the Restorationists at the Great Awakening, like
   
   • The Millerites, to become the Seventh DayAdventists -- with Ellen G White saying that Jesus was the same as the Archangel Michael and that Satan woudl take the sins of the world at the end of time and other beauties. They came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Unitarians and Universalists -- reborn and reinvigorated by this reformatting, they tossed out the Trinity and eventually they end up as they are today where they believe in nothing
   • Jehovah's Witnesses: they tossed out the Trinity too and came up with their own version of the Bible
   • The Mormons: they took the Trinity and made it three gods. They too came up with their own version of the Bible
7. Generation 7: the Orthodo Presbyterian C, the FourSquare Ahoy! Pentecostalists, the Raelians, the Branch Davidians, the Creflo-Dollar crowd, the Jesse Dupantis (I went to visit Jesus in heaven and comforted Him) etc -- one step further beyond generation 6
8. Generation 8: ... any one of the thousands of new sects formed since 1990

[Cronos]

Also, if you read the Bible you will see that it reads as baptism for the remission of sins (which is what Lutherans and Anglicans etc. also believe)

Paul himself says in 1 Cor 1:14 "[14] I give God thanks, that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Caius; " and 16 "[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanus"

Paul DID baptise and Paul did preach that baptism is for remission of sins, and here is what Paul said Acts 2:38,

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16;

16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.

Rom. 6:1–4;

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Cor 6:11,

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

1 Cor 12:13;

13 For we were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Gal. 3:26–27;

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

Eph. 5:26;

to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word,

Col. 2:11–12;

11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by[b] Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Titus 3:5;

5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

This was no symbol -- look at all of the examples above, look at the language, consistently same the same in each, that in baptism we are saved and buried with Christ, washed of our sins by this and born again

Remember, the words of Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 28:19

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

[Sloth]

The ultimate structure and authority of a Church, if it is to be taken seriously as something which can achieve God’s purpose despite human weaknesses, cannot be drawn from human imagination or fashioned through human debate and compromise.

Quite correct. For example, if the Bible tells us that a bishop must be a husband of one wife, and some church tells us otherwise, then we know the church in question is organized on man-made ideas rather than divine revelation.

[bronx2]

To be a purest and make informed judgments to segregate this protestant group from another is folly. If nothing else Mennonites are guilty of "Benign Neglect" in this matter by probably voting for those who perpetuated these anti-Catholic programs. Only when you can prove by dispositive evidence that their voting patterns did not support these rabid anti-Catholic groups can they be excused. What did they do to mitigate this anti-Catholic sentiment.

The historical evidence in this nation condemns as intolerant bigots such as the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians ,Episcopalians Mormons, SDA Masons Christian Scientists Lutherans and many others. This nation forced me to fight their war but couldn't afford me freedom from religious bigotry.How can the bigots on this forum , and we all know who they are, justify that fact.

[Cronos]

I prefer to treat them as separate as their doctrines differ so substantially as to be utterly separate religions

1. Some say one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
2. Some say that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
3. Some say that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
4. Some say that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
5. Some say that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
7. Some say that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
8. Some say that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
9. Some say that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
10. Some say that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
11. Some agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
12. Some agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
13. Some agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
14. Some believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
15. Some agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
16. Some say that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
17. Some say that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
18. Some say that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
19. Some say that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
20. Some say that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
21. Some say that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

[Cronos]

also, many of our most splendid anti-Catholics will never tell you what they believe in -- they won't even answer if they believe Jesus Christ is Lord, God and Savior

As we found out last year, there are a few left-leaning types who hide behind the "Protestant" umbrella and use it to foment intra-Christian fights. When the Catholics stayed away from the forum, these same folks start fighting with pentecostals etc. -- they only enjoy it when we fight and refuse to tell you what they personally believe (which is strange as any Christian is going to tell you about his/her belief in Christ)

[bronx2]

Preferring to distinguish protestant groups is nice but ignores the issue of their historical anti-Catholic behavior in this nation. Would you excuse their historical anti-Catholic behavior based on their theology or their historical activities. Which standard more clearly demonstrates their hatred of Catholicism, theology or historical activity?

When Members of the KKK greeted Al Smith in Oklahoma during the 1928 presidential election did these hooded individuals discuss theology while waiting for Gov Smith to arrive?

The history of this nation is rife with protestant bigotry against Catholics and to camouflage or airbrush these historical events is tantamount to joining forces with those who are intolerant. To segregate these protestant groups is amusing since these protestant were the masters of segregation especially in the south.

Bible Protestant Belt hypocrites are not the friends of Catholics and to interject theology is comical. Look at their historical record of religious hatred and how they post on these threads and then reconsider your position.

[Cronos]

And yet they differ from each other on fundamental beliefs. At the basic level they are different religions

[bkaycee]

When Members of the KKK greeted Al Smith in Oklahoma during the 1928 presidential election did these hooded individuals discuss theology while waiting for Gov Smith to arrive?

It is certainly amazing how you can paint all protestants with loony fringe group stripes, but react a bit differently when protestants mention St. Barts massacre.

I would also be curious as to how your source for "30,000" defines a denomination? Barret, using apple to apple terms finds there are 16 Catholic groups vs 21 protestant groups.

[bronx2]

And yet they show no difference, notwithstanding differences in fundamental beliefs, using same beliefs to justify prejudices and hatred of Catholics.

[Cronos]

And yet they show no difference, notwithstanding differences in fundamental beliefs, using same beliefs to justify prejudices and hatred

Because for many, this hatred of us Christians define their religion. Theirs is not a positive religion but a negative one (they say "We are not...") -- they do not joyfully shout out "We believe in Jesus Christ, Lord, God and Savior, part of the ONE God with the Father-Son-Holy Spirit, 100% God and 100% man".

[bronx2]

Read prior posts where I discussed the impeachable source. The F 990 captures data need to make this determination. I have never read Barrett.

It is amazing how protestants will not address the hatred and bigotry demonstrated by them in the USA in recent periods . Why is that so? Do we have the relatives of the Holocaust deniers in our midst.

Let us first address the shame of the protestant historical record in the USA before fleeing to ancient times.