|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 11/13/2014 6:49:41 PM PST by Heart-Rest
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?
Partial List of 5000+ Protestant Denominations by Name
How Many Protestant Denominations Are There? The 20,000 / 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
"The Facts and Stats on "33,000 Denominations" The 20,000 / 30,000 numbers and David Barrett's statistics
Part II
(Above links derived from here) ===> ("How Many Protestant Denominations Are There?")
⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪⛪
There are many, many more Protestant denominations out there, not just those reflected in the links above. How many? Well, nobody really knows for sure exactly how many Protestant denominations exist at any given point in time, because after you get done counting the first forty or fifty thousand, several thousand more new ones pop up here and there all over the place, like popping pop corn! :-)
We Catholics love all our Protestant brothers and sisters (no matter how many denominations or "non-denominations" they belong to), and we simply want to share the fullness of the truth with them, so that they can find the precious jewel (the "pearl of great price") that we have already found (by the Grace of God). With that in mind, the following song is dedicated to all our beloved Protestant brothers and sisters, and their ever-increasing number of distinct and ever-changing denominations with contradictory, mutually-exclusive, incompatible teachings. (And, no, that is not a bunch of cardinals singing that song!)
☺
(Song -- "Bless 'em All!")
(This song is a tribute to all our beloved Protestant brothers and sisters, no matter what denomination -- or "non-denomination" -- they are currently in.)
"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
Amen!
That, and all the other such statements are fallacious, except in cults and in Rome, in which both basically hold an individual as having assuredly veracity.
Likewise fallacious is the premise that holding Scripture as supreme is unscriptural while holding the pope and church as supreme is, and produces a superior Scriptural unity.
And that holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired and supreme authority does not produce fruit of superior conservative unity than the fruit of the Roman model, as while Scripture does not change, leadership can, and to which the laity look for interpretation, and faith is shown by what we do.
And that the one true church is the visible one, only consisting of members of the body of Christ.
Is your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, dissent from which invalidates one form having authority?
And that the Roman model precludes the church being one in which there was an almost entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments, and severely lacking discipline in morals, and erudition in sacred literature, and reverence in divine things, so that true religion was almost extinct, so that the true Church had to be sought outside the institution.
Answer me.
Thank you for saying what I had been attempting to say. They are just trying way too hard. It is like they are trying to convince themselves.
Well said and written. Ah the ‘long night of the soul’ — I definitely went through that, didn’t think I was ‘good enough’ for God and stopped all church activities and fortunately, others at church didn’t let me drift away.
Where is Henry VIII’s body of work in theology and exegesis? Charles Wesley is remembered as a hymnodist, not a theologian, and even his brother John is revered by Methodists more as a founder of a tradition than as an authority.
You argument lacks coherence (and paragraphs), but the primary distinctive of the Reformation was that of holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, not the assured veracity of men as in Rome.
Thus truth claims in Scripture were established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) If you have a problem with this, tell me why common people in the 1st century should have followed itinerant preachers whom the historical learned magisterium rejected, and whom they reproved by Scripture as being supreme? (Mk. 7:2-16)
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)
But not that 9 times out of 10 it is due to threads by RCs, including those which attack Prots.
And yet these typically see far more activity than political threads, and do indirectly promote cause of conservatism, as evangelicals are by far the most conservative, and if all RCs votes as they typically do then conservatives would be the ones elected )even Romney got 79% of their vote)
That, and all the other such statements are fallacious, except in cults and in Rome, both which basically hold an individual as having assuredly veracity.
Likewise fallacious, is the premise that holding Scripture as supreme is unscriptural while holding the pope and church as supreme is, and produces an superior Scriptural unity.
And that holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired and supreme authority does not produce fruit of superior conservative unity than the fruit of the Roman model, as while Scripture does not change, leadership can, and to which the laity look for interpretation, and faith is shown by what we do.
And that the Roman model precludes the church being one in which there was an almost entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments, and severely lacking discipline in morals, and erudition in sacred literature, and reverence in divine things, so that true religion was almost extinct, so that the true Church had to be sought outside the institution"
Is your argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority?
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, dissent from which invalidates one form having authority?
Answer me.
Sorry: my post to you was meant to reply to Heart-Rest.
Do they really pray that? Unreal. She is dead.
**Over on my own blog, I have my own occasional feature called**Well, to see the truth some people have to be "made" to click over to it.There you go again — making us go to your blog.
I'm glad you were encouraged (made) to do so, it's very informative.
Here's the rest of the context of the sentence you cut off in your quote:
Over on my own blog, I have my own occasional feature called, Blueprint for Anarchy. What I've been doing is simply keeping track of all the times I come across Rome's zealous defenders disagreeing with each other, or pointing out the lack of clarity within Roman Catholicism as well as the confusion.
If you are finished reading that, Daniel1212 has another link at the bottom of his post that would be good for you to read if you wish to have the Holy Spirit help you understand what is going on. Just ask and He will help you.
Here is the link in context:
I didn't even mention any of my "We Have Apostolic Tradition"- The Unofficial Catholic Apologist Commentary " posts. In those posts, you can see that Catholic apologists disagree with each other when they interpret the Bible... Shall we conclude that an infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture = harmony? The facts speak for themselves(Notice how there are just a few links, readable in a few minutes. Not 50 or so live links that would take all day to read them)
Born again Christians in Jesus and Jesus in them pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us through the Bible, and agree with it 100%.
Also that group of people are Jesus' church, there are no "incomplete" brethren.
Can you imagine Jesus welcoming one of His saints (we are all saints if we are Christians) to Heaven with the phrase "welcome incomplete brethren?"
You see, non Catholic Christians don't have to go to "purgatory," Jesus has paid the price for us with his blood at Calvary. All of our sins paid in full so when we die we go to heaven "white as snow."Are those verses in the Catholic Bible?
Purgatory is an interesting concept, presented as like the bottom rung of Heaven, but maybe it is actually the top step to hell?
Unnecessary and un-Biblical but if Catholics have to believe in it, it's fine with me.
Thanks Daniel for your amazing research and your zeal in getting through all the muck to bring out the truth in so many areas!
You would have to take the up with the apostle who said it. Inspired by the Holy Spirit I might remind you.
Adored by all Protestants! Does not compute. This Protestant does not adore him.
Cults are always comforted with numbers.
Isn't that interesting? And all based on scripture alone.
Nice attempt at not answering the question.
We are dealing with eternal life or damnation, and with the cultic obsession of a few RCs here. If these were private conversations they would have ended long ago but until RCs stop highjacking FR into a RC information and apologetics organ, or are forced by the owner to do so, then they should be countered.
Time and time again RCs have been refuted into silence, as can be shown, and refuse to even answer questions as the answers will expose their fallacies, but instead they just post more of their propaganda as they are driven by a cultic devotion to a particular elitist church, which hold an imaginary view of, past and present.
And like the liberals victim-entitlement mentality, these RCs - which are more like SSPX members, expect they can promote their elitist church and implicitly or explicitly attack evangelicals, and then whine when challenged and reproved, yet such can even assert that RCs do not incite arguments with Prots or ever show bigotry toward them.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)
Seems you have a few Catholics on these threads who just love the guy...
Indeed, but which is why RC claims are refuted, as they make their visible church that of the body of Christ, while being critically contrary to the NT church.
Which church as manifested in Scripture,
1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as
• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.
We do know from the NT Jesus Christ addresses 7 churches through the apostle John (Revelation 1-3).
So why not one revelation to John for One church?
Better yet why not reveal to John to write a letter to the bishop of Rome to deliver the message to all bishops under him?
We certainly learn some from how Jesus Christ commands John to deliver messages to the churches (plural).
From these passages in Revelation and the epistles of the apostles, and the Acts we get a firm picture what Christ wants for His Church in all locations.
Also, according to historical tradition, the Apostle John was bishop of Ephesus before going home to the LORD. Did he as a bishop of Ephesus submit to the bishop of Rome?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.