Did I make it in first?

Can someone please explain to me the oft bandied "28,000" denominations? The only way you could possibly cite this number is if you count each individual independent (that is, unaffiliated with any larger church body) church as a separate denomination. But this is unreasonable. Many of these churches would be very close or identical in doctrine. Calling each of these a separate denomination is akin to saying that there are thousands of Jewish denominations, simply because each individual synagogue is autonomous.

I've always wanted to be first and my timing was always off. Well, it only took 156 threads...

Can someone please explain to me the oft bandied "28,000" denominations?

It must be part of their talking points memos. It's used enough (without one attempt at verification). In a dictionary of denominations I was reading the other day, they listed a whopping 120 or so. And how different is the AOG from Foursquare from Pentecostal Church of God from Church of God - Cleveland, TN? Not very. More bureaucratic differences and differences in church government than actual doctrinal differences. Similarly with the multitudes of Baptist denominations. But it sounds cooler to say 28,000.

I've always wanted to be first and my timing was always off. Well, it only took 156 threads...

LOL!

More bureaucratic differences and differences in church government than actual doctrinal differences.

I suspect there are greater differences among Catholic churches in a single diocese than between certain protestant denominations.

Man, you would make a great Protestant!

In my former life as a Protestant, I attended a Nazarene church where a prayer group with a AOG background started a bible study up where tongues were encouraged.

Seems that to the Nazarenes tongues are a NO, NO.

Split a church clean in two, with each side saying that Satan had influenced the other.

I guess that is just a result of Protestant ALL knowing the ONE CORRECT way to look at scripture.

Do you have an actual comment about my #3? When Catholics say 28,000 protestant denominations, what do they mean? Does this count independent churches or not?

This from a church which contains such opposites as Richard McBrien and Cardinal Ratzinger, Ted Kennedy and Mother Angelica. You should be a little more forthright in acknowledging doctrinal dissent within your own church.

And you have all the Jews in Hollywood!

Look at the spiritual jewels Speilberg and Company has come out with lately.

I don't think you can use fairly look to a Kennedy as a example of Catholic teaching.

And if you can tag Kennedy as a Catholic, can I call the 'Toon a Protestant?

I have no idea where the 28,000 comes from, I didn't use it, but while the Cathloic Church itself teaches against birth control, divorce and remarriage, abortion ect, the point is that it is hard to find consistency amoung our Protestant brothers on issues like these.

When Catholics say 28,000 protestant denominations, what do they mean? Does this count independent churches or not?

----

I have cited this before, on various threads. It's taken from the World Christian Encylopedia, published by Oxford University Press. (http://www.ywam.org/books/wce.htm). The Web site says it was published 'late December 2000.' I assume this is the most recent revision of the book, since I've seen it cited in other articles dating back to at least as early as 1996.

I don't personally own the book, but I would be interested to hear what qualifications they used to distinguish separate denominations. I would venture to guess that it had to do with particular doctrinal differences, of small or great significance (e.g., whether one believed in post-trib, pre-trib; whether one believed in the real presence, the necessity or existence or efficacy of Sacraments; the necessity of ordained ministers; etc.) Although I would certainly argue that there are many different denominations that are for the most part identical in doctrinal beliefs, I find it very difficult to believe that the only spot of contention that separates them is whether they believe it's OK to use snare drums in a worship song.

You wrote: About that "based on scripture" thing, every denomination, every storefront church, every street corner preacher claims his exotic doctrines are based on scripture.

So true! But all you need to do is compare his exotic doctrines to what Scripture says on the same subjects to see that it is not based on Scripture. Compare them with the whole context of the Word. "He who is spiritual appraises all things." "Examine everything carefully, and hold fast to that which is good." We ought to examine teachings in the light of God's Word, and the more familiar you make yourself with the Word, the easier that is.

Furthermore, if the Bible really is "all that is necessary," then you don't even need the teaching. Indeed, if sola scriptura were really followed, there would be no "teaching." When it came time for the sermon, the pastor would go to the pulpit, read some scripture, and then sit down.

I would say that it is true that the sacred writings ARE sufficient. The only thing, tho', is that Jesus instructed His disciples to teach all men to observe all that He had commanded them. (Mt. 28) In the same vein, Paul told Timothy to "Preach the Word." [It's interesting to note here what Paul said was to be the content of the preaching---the Word.]

Because I have seen for some time the havoc created by celebrity Catholics and dissenting Catholic religious, I always felt incredibly sorry for Baptists and Methodists when the Clintons paraded around with their Bibles. I also knew how embarrassed Orthodax Jews were when Lieberman explained how abortion was not contrary to Judaism. I am sure you can identify with how Catholics feel about geeks like two of the four you mentioned. There is no question that to hear a McBrien or a Ted Kennedy claim they are Catholic makes an orthodox Catholic sad or furious.

They simply are not Catholic and whatever doctrine or dogma or practice they teach,preach or exhibit if it is not in accord with the Catholic Catechism,which is the official teaching of the Church,is error. That is the beauty of the Catholic Church,there is a repository of the faith and we can all access it.

Unfortunately,most Catholics these days are so caught up with the post-Vatican II new,touchy,feely,Kumbaya Church and they don't even know the dreck they are accepting as Catholicism,is not. If all they did was read the catechism and the Encyclicals of the Pope they would have been able to have influenced our society, so that citizens of this country would live in a Culture of Life rather than a the Culture of Death. I believe that the rot of the last ten years which led to the events on September II would not have occurred had the people,clergy and lay,not tried to broaden their appeal and get worldly and throw the supernatural aside.

It is a tragedy and a profound embarrassment that Catholics voted for the likes of a Clinton or a Gore with their unwavering dedication to provide unlimited oppurtunity to enjoy, through personal experience or vicariously,every type of perversion and ill-behavior man is capable of imagining. The Catholic Church,much like our country has been infiltrated by persons claiming beliefs and values,in accord with the "true believers". These infiltrators or subversives actually hold to evil ideologies far,far from those they claim to espouse. They have an agenda that,in fact, is probably too frightening for most people to comprehend. But God is Just and He is Merciful and He will prevail. But if His people don't wake-up,powerful and loving as He is, there is little that He can do about us with our free will which we interpret as "our 'God-given'right to choose". I guess,we can only pray .

And finally, Cardinl Ratzinger and Mother Angelica are both pretty darn orthodox Catholics despite disparate styles.

Hi, SD! You wrote: I'll try again. The Scripture says that the Word of God will equip a man, making him perfect. This does not say that only the Bible is necessary to equip the man, only that it is essential. Contemplate my parallel sentences. Essential is not sufficient.

Here are the two verses from 2 Tim.3:16, 17 (New American Bible): All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

If you have all the weapons you need for battle, we would say you are "equipped" for battle, right? If, then, you are equipped for battle, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED? NO. The word "equipped" signifies sufficiency.

Please,this is the third time I have asked. How do you account for Jesus changing Simon bar Jonah's name,was it just whimsical? Thank you.

" I don't think we agree what Jesus' message was."

Ok, can ya do it 1,000 words or less.

I'd also be interested in your interpretation of "through" as in "no one… except through me." (Jesus)."

"If, then, you are equipped for battle, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED?"

Well, if I'm goin into battle, I'll take anything I can carry that I think might possibly be of help. And if I'm drawn to spiritual growth, I'm hoping to increase not decrease what I find of value in that growth.

So, I'm confused by this emphasis on determining the bare"sufficient" when it comes to spirituality and religion. I may not need to make a special place in a corner of my house, make it sacred, for morning prayer, it may be entirely sufficient not to even have that morning prayer, come to think of it, I could eliminate a lot of stuff, it's just not necessary is it? And while we're on the subject, do we really need every word of scripture, couldn't we remove a lot and still have what is sufficient for realizing salvation? What's the use of all that extra unnecessary stuff anyway?

So, pilgrim, I still don't get the point here; it seems like a minimalist effort at increasing our conscious contact with God - and that oxymoronizes me.

From Thread 155 #111

For one, Paul and Barnabus spoke after Peter did.

Yes they did and they no longer spoke about circumcision. The matter was settled. We also have the example in Acts 10 where an angel instructed Cornelius to send for Peter. Peter went to him and became the first apostle to receive gentiles into the church and the first to baptize them.

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. "(Acts10:48)

What Peter speaks about in Acts 15 is what he had already done in Acts 10. Peter not only made the decision, he had already implemented it.

From Thread 155 # 112

A careful reading of II Peter 1:16-19 would indicate that Peter (your 1st Pope)believed Scripture to be more reliable than God's audible voice. In verse 19 he refers to scripture as a "more sure word".

A more careful reading of 2 Peter will show that Peter did not indicate that scripture was more reliable than God’s word. What Peter was referring to was God’s voice validated the prophetic word. That’s why he said “And we have the prophetic word made more sure. “(2Pet 1:19)