Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Um, no he doesn't because he doesn't claim any affiliation or membership with any mainline Protestant or Evangelical church. A black liberation theology church, which by the way, he threw under the bus when necessary for his political career, isn't Protestant by any stretch of the imagination.
In the end, since he disowned that church and pastor, it's not a valid argument to say that he's Protestant.
If they are representative of the Catholic Church (which they are because they ARE Catholics) like it has been claimed ad naseum on these threads (has the Catholic church ex-communicated them??) then by the same logic ya'll are stuck with Barry, Michelle, Billy-Jeff, and Hillary.
Since obama has more ideologically in common with the liberal, socialist, America destroying Catholic Democrats, he's better called a Catholic than anything.
Oh, and just where does obama claim to be Protestant? Links? You made a statement. The onus is on you to support it.
Obama’s admission of being a muslim.
This is what happens when he talks off the cuff without a teleprompter. The truth slips out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw
Don't ya wonder why so many Catholics voted for him, and Protestants didn't..? Maybe we spot phonies better ?
Oh? He claimed to be an active, baptized into the church member in good standing adherent? Just like Peolsi, Kerry, Kennedy (who got a Catholic funeral), etc?
Who knew....?
Probably no one. And no one will unless you can provide links to prove it.
With over 1.4 million in membership the United Church of Christ has over 50 times as many followers as the OPC.
"has the Catholic church ex-communicated them?
Surely you aren't calling for another Inquisition are you?
"Since obama has more ideologically in common with the liberal, socialist, America destroying Catholic Democrats,"
You mean like Jesse Jackson, Jr., Maxine Waters, Alcee Hastings, John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Pete Stark, Elijah Cummings, Chaka Fattah, Shelia Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, Cynthia McKinney, Daniel Akaka, (Shall I go on? The list is endless).
Religious Affiliations of Members of Congress[1]
Religion Percent
Protestant 54.7%
Catholic 30.1%
Jewish 8.4%
Mormon 2.6%
Orthodox 1.3%
Unknown 0.9%
Other Christian 0.6%
Other Faiths 0.6%
Muslim 0.4%
Buddhist 0.4%
54.7% of seats are currently held by members of Protestant denominations.
45 Jews currently serve in Congress. Eleven representatives and five senators are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Senator Olympia Snowe, as well as Representatives John Sarbanes, Zack Space, Gus Bilirakis, Dina Titus, Niki Tsongas and Melissa Bean are Orthodox Christians.
In 2007, Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first practicing Muslim to become a member of the United States Congress. He was joined by André Carson of Indiana following a special election on March 11, 2008. Both are converts to Islam.
Senator Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Representatives Walt Minnick (D-Idaho) and Pete Stark (D-CA) are the only Unitarian Universalists currently serving in Congress. In a response to a March 2007 survey from the Secular Coalition for America, Rep. Stark became the only open atheist in the history of Congress.[2] One member of the current Congress is a Quaker, Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ).”
Wikipedia Source
OBAMA BAPTISED CHRISTIAN
” Obama grew up living all across the world with plenty of spiritual influences, but without any particular religion. He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
Whoopsie.
Looks Like Obama is a OSAS type of Protestant”
“Still, Obama is unapologetic in saying he has a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” As a sign of that relationship, he says, he walked down the aisle of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in response to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s altar call one Sunday morning about 16 years ago...”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article
“Obama claims to be Protestant EXACTLY like that list of Dem politicians you listed...”
But, apparently, only when THEY consider someone Protestant.
Explains the 30,000 different sects, doesn’t it?
When is an altar call not an altar call? When it conflicts with their own flavour of Protestantism! LOL!
Obama isn’t a Christian, when asked who Jesus was, he could not give a biblical answer, saying that He was “a bridge ( a prophet like muslims believe)” and a “great teacher”. Martin Luther King also only believed that Christ was only a human
Particularly humorous was the attempt at qualifying the discussion by limiting membership to "mainstream" Protestantism when the overly represented OPC denomination in these anti-Catholic assaults has only 1/50th the membership of Obama's United Church of Christ.
obama never said he was Protestant. He said *Christian*.
So, it seems that you equate calling oneself Christian with being Protestant. Does that mean that you don’t consider Catholics Christian?
+++++Explains the 30,000 different sects, doesn’t it?++++
One more time
Upon This Slippery Rock (Calvary Press, 2002).
Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
When this figure first surfaced among Roman Catholic apologists, it started at 20,000 Protestant denominations, grew to 23,000 Protestant denominations, then to 25,000 Protestant denominations. More recently, that figure has been inflated to 28,000, to over 32,000. These days, many Roman Catholic apologists feel content simply to calculate a daily rate of growth (based on their previous adherence to the original benchmark figure of 20,000) that they can then use as a basis for projecting just how many Protestant denominations there were, or will be, in any given year. But just where does this figure originate?
I have posed this question over and over again to many different Roman Catholic apologists, none of whom were able to verify the source with certainty. In most cases, one Roman Catholic apologist would claim he obtained the figure from another Roman Catholic apologist. When I would ask the latter Roman Catholic apologist about the figure, it was not uncommon for that apologist to point to the former apologist as his source for the figure, creating a circle with no actual beginning. I have long suspected that, whatever the source might be, the words “denomination” and “Protestant” were being defined in a way that most of us would reject.
I have only recently been able to locate the source of this figure. I say the source because in fact there is only one source that mentions this figure independently. All other secondary sources (to which Roman Catholics sometimes make appeal) ultimately cite the same original source. That source is David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982). This work is both comprehensive and painstakingly detailed; and its contents are quite enlightening. However, the reader who turns to this work for validation of the Roman Catholic 25,000-Protestant-denomination argument will be sadly disappointed. What follows is a synopsis of what Barrett’s work in this area really says.
First, Barrett, writing in 1982, does indeed cite a figure of 20,780 denominations in 1980, and projects that there would be as many as 22,190 denominations by 1985. This represents an increase of approximately 270 new denominations each year (Barrett, 17). What the Roman Catholic who cites this figure does not tell us (most likely because he does not know) is that most of these denominations are non-Protestant.
Barrett identifies seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.
According to Barrett’s calculations, there are 8,196 denominations within Protestantism—not 25,000 as Roman Catholic apologists so cavalierly and carelessly claim. Barrett is also quick to point out that one cannot simply assume that this number will continue to grow each year; hence, the typical Roman Catholic projection of an annual increase in this number is simply not a given. Yet even this figure is misleading; for it is clear that Barrett defines “distinct denominations” as any group that might have a slightly different emphasis than another group (such as the difference between a Baptist church that emphasizes hymns, and another Baptist church that emphasizes praise music).
No doubt the same Roman Catholic apologists who so gleefully cite the erroneous 25,000-denominations figure, and who might with just as much glee cite the revised 8,196-denominations figure, would reel at the notion that there might actually be 223 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism! Yet that is precisely the number that Barrett cites for Roman Catholicism. Moreover, Barrett indicates in the case of Roman Catholicism that even this number can be broken down further to produce 2,942 separate “denominations”—and that was only in 1970! In that same year there were only 3,294 Protestant denominations; a difference of only 352 denominations. If we were to use the Roman Catholic apologist’s method to “project” a figure for the current day, we could no doubt postulate a number upwards of 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations today! Hence, if Roman Catholic apologists want to argue that Protestantism is splintered into 8,196 “bickering” denominations, then they must just as readily admit that their own ecclesial system is splintered into at least 2,942 bickering denominations (possibly as many as 8,000). If, on the other hand, they would rather claim that among those 2,942+ (perhaps 8,000?) Roman Catholic denominations there is “unity,” then they can have no objection to the notion that among the 8,196 Protestant denominations there is also unity.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them. The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
However Barrett has defined “denomination,” it is clear that he does not think of these as major distinctions; for that is something he reserves for another category. In addition to the seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above), Barrett breaks down each of these traditions into smaller units that might have significant differences (what he calls “major ecclesiastical traditions,” and what we might normally call a true denomination) (Barrett, 14). Referring again to our seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” (mentioned above, but this time in reverse order): For (1) Catholic (Non-Roman), there are four traditions, including Catholic Apostolic, Reformed Catholic, Old Catholic, and Conservative Catholic; for (2) Marginal Protestants, there are six traditions; for (3) Anglican, there are six traditions; for (4) Non-White Indigenous, which encompasses third-world peoples (among whom can be found traces of Christianity mixed with the major tenets of their indigenous pagan religions), there are twenty traditions, including a branch of Reformed Catholic and a branch of Conservative Catholic; for (5) Orthodox, there are nineteen traditions; for (6) Protestant, there are twenty-one traditions; and for (7) Roman Catholic, there are sixteen traditions, including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic. It is important to note here that Barrett places these sixteen Roman Catholic traditions (i.e., true denominations) on the very same level as the twenty-one Protestant traditions (i.e., true denominations). In other words, the true count of real denominations within Protestantism is twenty-one, whereas the true count of real denominations within Roman Catholic is sixteen. Combined with the other major ecclesiastical blocs, that puts the total number of actual denominations in the world at ninety-two—obviously nowhere near the 23,000 or 25,000 figure that Roman Catholic apologists constantly assert—and that figure of ninety-two denominations includes the sixteen denominations of Roman Catholicism (Barrett, 15)! Barrett goes on to note that this figure includes all denominations with a membership of over 100,000. There are an additional sixty-four denominations worldwide, distributed among the seven major ecclesiastical blocs.
As we have shown, the larger figures mentioned earlier (8,196 Protestant denominations and perhaps as many as 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations) are based on jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs and practice. Obviously, neither of those figures represents a true denominational distinction. Hence, Barrett’s broader category (which we have labeled true denominations) of twenty-one Protestant denominations and sixteen Roman Catholic denominations represents a much more realistic calculation.
Moreover, Barrett later compares Roman Catholicism to Evangelicalism, which is a considerably smaller subset of Protestantism (so far as the number of denominations is concerned), and which is really the true category for those who hold to sola Scriptura (most Protestant denominations today, being liberal denominations and thereby dismissing the authority of the Bible, do not hold to sola Scriptura, except perhaps as a formality). Any comparison that the Roman Catholic apologist would like to make between sola Scriptura as the guiding principle of authority, and Rome as the guiding principle of authority (which we have demonstrated earlier is a false comparison in any case), needs to compare true sola Scriptura churches (i.e., Evangelicals) to Rome, rather than all Protestant churches to Rome. An Evangelical, as defined by Barrett, is someone who is characterized by (1) a personal conversion experience, (2) a reliance upon the Bible as the sole basis for faith and living, (3) an emphasis on evangelism, and (4) a conservative theology (Barrett, 71). Interestingly, when discussing Evangelicals Barrett provides no breakdown, but rather treats them as one homogeneous group. However, when he addresses Roman Catholics on the very same page, he breaks them down into four major groups: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.
Eric Svendsen
Catholic nuns who support abortion?
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/10/11/state-5530/
Pro-Abortion Nun at Catholic University of Detroit Mercy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2492989/posts
And there’s all these Catholic leftist, socialist promoting democrats in Congress who are still, (were in one case) members in good standing in the Catholic church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators
Representatives who are (were) Catholic...
Edward Kennedy Democratic Roman Catholic
John F. Kerry Democratic Roman Catholic
Kirsten Gillibrand Democratic Roman Catholic
Jack Reed Democratic Roman Catholic
Patrick Leahy Democratic Roman Catholic
Patty Murray Democratic Roman Catholic
MariaMaria Cantwell Democratic Roman Catholic
Nancy Pelosi Democratic Roman Catholic
Members in good standing in the RCC.
“obama never said he was Protestant. He said *Christian*.”
You’ve implied that Obama is neither.
He’s professed Christ as his personal savior.
I guess that one’s altar call is NOT as good as another’s altar call, but then again, that business is Y’all’s, not mine.
He hates protestants because most protestants have a personal relationship with Christ, While less than one in a thousand catholics do.
The hatred of protestants is jealousy, pure and simple.
Jeremiah Wright’s ‘church’ is not Christian in any way shape or form; it is borderline to black moslem, but not exactly.
Anyone that wishes to read up on Black Liberation Theology (and its strong similarity to Roman Catholicism) can go to Jeff Head’d website.
obama SAID (when corrected) Christian....which you keep insisting means Protestant.
It's a good thing you aren't conflating being Christian with being Catholic.
So?
You can post lists until Christ comes again, but the fact is that y’all own a considerable amount of protestants who vote with their Marxist conscience.
Oh well.
As I said, one’s altar call must not be as good or valid as another’s altar call.
I’m sure that y’all can judge them.
*I wouldn’t even touch that.
Ta, can’t play because I have to leave the comfy-chair missionary society and go to do good tmo.
Obama’s Black Liberation Theology is a mixture of Roman Catholicism and Black Moslem. They have strong similarities with the Early French Catholics that claimed that Christ married Mary Magdalene.
BLT is everyone’s ‘problem’ because of of the evil that it sows.
.
So what if it isn't 30,000, or even 8,196. What if the number is only 800, or 500, or 100? If the number is anything greater than one (1), then your whole charade of Protestant solidarity falls apart and someone is lying about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Once you concede fallibility your entire dogma and doctrine is open to personal interpretation making the number somewhere in the millions, one for each Protestant.
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.