Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.
Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.
Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.
The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.
It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.
Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.
There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".
Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.
This was the belief and practice of the early Church
. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]
>>I do not need to desperately believe it.<<
I think you need to go see what is contained at this site.
Important Christian Dogma You Must Believe to be Saved
http://www.catholic-saints.net/dogma/
Here is just one paragraph of a host of demands.
There is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church is His Mystical Body. Since there is no entering into the Catholic Church of Christ without the Sacrament of Baptism, this means that only baptized Catholics who die in the state of grace (and those who become baptized Catholics and die in the state of grace) can hope to be saved.
The RCC is scary off track from what Jesus said.
If you act in this fashion concerning a secular matter how much more does your actions leave to be desired in discerning religious affairs.How can you formulate a rational discernment of these independently generated statistics given the flawed rebuttal offered in your post?
You need to acquire critical analysis before making unfounded unsupported statements. Study Pub 78 and the attendant 990's before making any factual statements concerning same or just fire away without the slightest understanding of the underlying foundation supporting its contention. Your comment about the number coming from a "Roman apologist" underscores your ignorance in this matter. If you only knew, but then it appears you don't have any idea of what you just wrote.
And I could have included previous verses proving He was talking to all of the apostles but I thought people could read the entire chapter for themselves without me taking up space. There is way more evidence in scripture to show that Peter was not the leader, pope, or any other top guy type designation.
You need to read the Bible for yourself and not just listen to some guy telling you what to believe. Luke tells us in Acts 15 that the Apostles all got together in Jerusalem after Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement to discuss the issue. James was the one who declared what the position would be on the issue.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Before you use the excuse that Peter wasn’t there you had better read the whole chapter, especially verse seven where it tells us that Peter was there and spoke to the group.
Also in Luke we see that the disciples themselves did not think that Peter was the designated leader or they would not have asked the question of Jesus they did.
"Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26)
If Jesus had designated Peter the leader He would have told them at that point but He clearly didn’t. The RCC uses Matthew 16:18 to try to justify the papacy yet 26 years later when Luke was written it was clear that Peter was not the leader.
If Peter was the final authority as Catholics claimed then why did James even feel the need to make the final decision. I agree that Peter was the one to make the case for inclusion of Gentiles, since he had the personal experience. But, if he was the first pope, then why didn’t he just say this is how it’s going to be - I’m the pope and I decide to let the gentiles in. Instead, it was a conference and Peter was just making an appeal and was obviously looking for agreement from others.
It appears that you are trying to dismiss James’ involvement and authority. You stated that he merely agreed with what Peter presented. You’ve missed the whole point, that it was James who put the issue to rest - not Peter. James is the one who concluded the matter, which is a definate act of authority.
Peter certainly didn’t act like he had authority over James, and Paul certainly didn’t think that Peter had authority over him. So why do Catholics insist that Peter was the first pope who had authority over the other apostles?
Per your request in #140, Notwithstanding gave you a link to a document containing Church Tradition in written form and noted that you are able to search that document.
As you can see from the response you made from being given exactly what you asked for, a simple sentence far less complex than many in the Scriptures, and embedded within a very straightforward context, can and often is misinterpreted due to a preconception on the part of the reader.
That example speaks volumes about the reality of what happens when every individual bases their belief on Scripture alone interpreted by Scripture alone.
Christ said he is the Word, but Sola Scriptura asserts that you can each one individually determine what the Word is for yourself, then determine everything else based on your own individual interpretation of the Word. Yet time and again very simple things said here are mischaracterized, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, even though they are written in the original native language of the majority of if not all of those commenting.
Sola Scriptura is a carefully crafted way to divert those who do find Christ from the path He would have them follow which weakens the Church. And to divert millions upon millions from ever finding Christ by legitimizing tens of thousands of interpretation falsehoods for those searching to fall into, falsehoods explained away by saying the true Church is invisible.
Party on Invisible Church dudes.
I just posted what the rest of Luke said in the chapter you use to deny that Luke said what Luke clearly does say. Luke did write that Christ himself singled out Simon as servant to the rest just after defining the chief among them as being servant to the others.
That is not true. Sola Scriptura only says that if anyone establishes a dogma of faith it must be proven by scripture. The Catholic meaning of Tradition is that even if it isn’t in scripture but it is told us by the Church it is true regardless of whether it is in scripture or not. An example would be the assumption of Mary.
Each of the following base their dogma on what they prove by Scripture.
Catholicism - 1.2 billion
* Catholic Church - 1,147 million[1]
o Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite) - 1,129.9 million
o Eastern Catholic Churches (Eastern Rite) - 17.1 million
+ Alexandrian
# Ethiopian Catholic Church - 0.21 million
# Coptic Catholic Church - 0.17 million
+ Antiochian (Antiochene or West Syrian)
# Maronite Catholic Church - 3.1 million
# Syro-Malankara Catholic Church - 0.5 million
# Syriac Catholic Church - 0.17 million
+ Armenian
# Armenian Catholic Church - 0.54 million
+ Chaldean (Eastern Syrian)
# Syro-Malabar Catholic Church - 4.0 million
# Chaldean Catholic Church - 0.65 million
+ Byzantine (Constantinopolitan)
# Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church - 4.3 million
# Melkite Greek Catholic Church - 1.6 million
# Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic - 0.8 million
# Ruthenian Catholic Church - 0.65 million
# Slovak Greek Catholic Church - 0.37 million
# Hungarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.29 million
# Italo-Greek Catholic Church - 0.07 million
# Croatian Greek Catholic Church - 0.06 million
# Belarusian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million
# Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million
# Georgian Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million[2]
# Macedonian Greek Catholic Church - 0.01 million
# Albanian Greek-Catholic Church - 0.01 million
# Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - 0.01 million
# Russian Catholic Church - 0.01 million
* Breakaway Catholic Churches - 28 million[citation needed]
o Apostolic Catholic Church - 5 million[citation needed]
o Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association - 4 million[3]
o Philippine Independent Church - 3 million
o Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church - 1 million
o Old Catholic Church - 0.6 million
o Mariavite Church - 0.03 million
Protestantism - 670 million
* Historical Protestantism - 350 million
o Baptist churches - 105 million[4]
+ Southern Baptist Convention - 16.3 million[5]
+ National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. - 7.5 million[6]
+ National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. - 5 million[7]
+ Nigerian Baptist Convention - 3 million[8]
+ Progressive National Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[9]
+ American Baptist Churches USA - 1.4 million
+ Brazilian Baptist Convention - 1.4 million
+ Baptist Bible Fellowship International - 1.2 million[10]
+ Myanmar Baptist Convention - 1.1 million[11]
+ Baptist Community of the Congo River - 1 million[11]
+ National Baptist Convention, Brazil - 1 million
+ National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. - 1 million[10]
+ National Missionary Baptist Convention of America - 1 million
+ Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches - 0.8 million[12]
+ Baptist Convention of Kenya - 0.7 million[11]
+ Union of Evangelical Christians-Baptists of Russia - 0.6 million
o Methodism - 75 million
+ United Methodist Church - 12 million
+ African Methodist Episcopal Church - 3 million
+ Methodist Church Nigeria - 2 million[13]
+ African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church - 1.5 million
+ Church of the Nazarene - 1.9 million
+ Methodist Church of Southern Africa - 1.7 million[14]
+ Korean Methodist Church - 1.5 million[15]
+ United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast[16]
+ Christian Methodist Episcopal Church - 0.9 million
+ Methodist Church Ghana - 0.8 million[17]
+ Free Methodist Church - 0.7 million
+ Methodist Church in India - 0.6 million[18]
o Lutheranism - 87 million[19]
+ Evangelical Church in Germany - 26.9 million[20]
+ Church of Sweden - 6.7 million
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - 4.8 million
+ Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus - 4.7 million
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania - 4.6 million[21]
+ Danish National Church - 4.5 million
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - 4.3 million[22]
+ Batak Christian Protestant Church - 4 million[23]
+ Church of Norway - 3.9 million
+ Malagasy Lutheran Church - 3 million
+ Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod - 2.4 million
+ The Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria - 1.7 million[24]
+ United Evangelical Lutheran Church in India - 1.5 million[25]
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Papua New Guinea - 0.9 million[26]
+ Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church - 0.8 million[27]
+ Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil - 0.7 million[28]
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia - 0.6 million[29]
+ Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa - 0.6 million[30]
o Reformed churches - 75 million
+ Presbyterianism - 40 million
# Presbyterian Church of East Africa - 4 million[31]
# Presbyterian Church of Africa - 3.4 million[32]
# Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - 3.0 million
# United Church of Canada - 2.5 million
# Church of Christ in Congo–Presbyterian Community of Congo - 2.5 million[33]
# Presbyterian Church of Korea - 2.4 million[34]
# Presbyterian Church of Cameroon - 1.8 million[35]
# Church of Scotland - 1.1 million[36]
# Presbyterian Church of the Sudan - 1 million[37]
# Presbyterian Church in Cameroon - 0.7 million[38]
# Presbyterian Church of Brazil - 0,7 million [39]
# Presbyterian Church of Ghana - 0.6 million[40]
# Presbyterian Church of Nigeria - 0.5 million[41]
# Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[42]
# Presbyterian Church in America - 0.3 million
+ Continental Reformed churches - 30 million
# Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar - 3.5 million[43]
# United Church of Zambia - 3.0 million[44]
# Protestant Church in the Netherlands - 2.5 million[45]
# Swiss Reformed Church - 2.4 million
# Evangelical Church of Cameroon - 2 million[46]
# Protestant Evangelical Church in Timor - 2 million[47]
# Christian Evangelical Church in Minahasa - 0.7 million[48]
# United Church in Papua New Guinea - 0.6 million[49]
# United Church of Christ in the Philippines - 0.6 million[50]
# Protestant Church in Western Indonesia - 0.6 million[51]
# Evangelical Christian Church in Tanah Papua - 0.6 million[52]
# Protestant Church in the Moluccas - 0.6 million[53]
# Reformed Church in Hungary - 0.6 million[54]
# Reformed Church in Romania - 0.6 million[55]
# Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[56]
+ Congregationalism - 5 million
# United Church of Christ - 1.2 million
# Evangelical Congregational Church in Angola - 0.9 million[57]
# United Congregational Church of Southern Africa - 0.5 million[58]
o Anabaptism and Free churches - 5 million
+ Schwarzenau Brethren/German Baptist groups - 1.5 million[59]
+ Mennonites - 1.5 million
+ Plymouth Brethren - 1 million[60]
+ Moravians - 0.7 million[61]
+ Amish - 0.2 million
+ Hutterites - 0.2 million
o Quakers - 0.4 million
o Waldensians - 0.05 million
* Modern Protestantism - 274 million[citation needed]
o Pentecostalism - 130 million
+ Assemblies of God - 60 million
+ International Circle of Faith - 11 million[62]
+ The Pentecostal Mission - 10 million
+ Church of God (Cleveland) - 9 million
+ International Church of the Foursquare Gospel - 8 million
+ Apostolic Church - 6 million
+ Church of God in Christ - 6.5 million[63]
+ Apostolic Church - 5.5 million
+ United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
+ Christian Congregation of Brazil - 2.5 million
+ Universal Church of the Kingdom of God - 2 million
+ Church of God of Prophecy - 1 million
+ God is Love Pentecostal Church - 0.8 million
o Non-denominational evangelicalism - 80 million
+ Calvary Chapel - 25 million
+ Born Again Movement - 20 million
+ Association of Vineyard Churches - 15 million
o Christian and Missionary Alliance - 4 million[64]
+ New Life Fellowship - 10 million[citation needed]
+ True Jesus Church - 2.5 million
o African initiated churches - 40 million
+ Zion Christian Church - 15 million
+ Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim - 10 million
+ Kimbanguist Church - 5.5 million
+ Church of the Lord (Aladura) - 3.6 million[65]
+ Council of African Instituted Churches - 3 million[66]
+ Church of Christ Light of the Holy Spirit - 1.4 million[67]
+ African Church of the Holy Spirit - 0.7 million[68]
+ African Israel Niniveh Church[69]
o Seventh-day Adventist Church - 17 million
o Restoration Movement - 7 million
+ Churches of Christ - 5 million
+ Christian Churches and Churches of Christ - 1.1 million[10]
+ Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - 0.7 million
Eastern Orthodoxy - 228 million
* Autocephalous churches
o Russian Orthodox Church - 125 million
o Romanian Orthodox Church - 18 million
o Serbian Orthodox Church - 15 million
o Church of Greece - 11 million
o Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 10 million
o Georgian Orthodox Church - 5 million
o Greek Orthodox Church of Constantinople - 3.5 million
o Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch - 2.5 million
o Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 1.5 million
o Orthodox Church in America - 1.2 million
o Polish Orthodox Church - 1 million
o Albanian Orthodox Church - 0.8 million
o Cypriot Orthodox Church - 0.7 million
o Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem - 0.14 million
o Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church - 0.07 million
* Autonomous churches
o Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) - 7.2 million[70]
o Moldovan Orthodox Church - 3.2 million
o Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia - 1.25 million
o Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia - 0.62 million
o Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric - 0.34 million
o Estonian Orthodox Church - 0.3 million
o Patriarchal Exarchate in Western Europe - 0.15 million
o Finnish Orthodox Church - 0.08 million
o Chinese Orthodox Church - 0.03 million
o Japanese Orthodox Church - 0.02 million
o Latvian Orthodox Church - 0.02 million
* Non-universally recognized churches
o Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchate) - 5.5 million[70]
o Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 3.8 million
o Belarusian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - 2.4 million
o Macedonian Orthodox Church - 2 million
o Orthodox Church of Greece (Holy Synod in Resistance) - 0.75 million
o Old Calendar Romanian Orthodox Church - 0.50 million
o Old Calendar Bulgarian Orthodox Church - 0.45 million
o Croatian Orthodox Church - 0.36 million
o Orthodox Church in Italy - 0.12 million
o Montenegrin Orthodox Church - 0.05 million
* Other separated Orthodox groups
o Old Believers - 5.5 million
o Greek Old Calendarists - 0.86 million
o Russian True Orthodox Church - 0.85 million
Oriental Orthodoxy - 82 million
* Autocephalous churches in communion
o Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 48 million
o Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria - 15.5 million
o Armenian Orthodox Church - 8 million
o Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church - 2.5 million
o Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church - 2 million[71]
o Armenian Orthodox Church of Cilicia - 1.5 million
o Syriac Orthodox Church - 1.05 million
* Autonomous churches in communion
o Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church - 1.2 million[72]
o Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople - 0.42 million
o Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem - 0.34 million
o French Coptic Orthodox Church - 0.01 million
o British Orthodox Church - 0.01 million
* Churches not in communion
o Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church - 1.1 million
o Malabar Independent Syrian Church - 0.06 million
Anglicanism - 80 million
* Anglican Communion - 80 million[73]
o Church of Nigeria - 18 million
o Church of England - 13.4 million
o Church of Uganda - 8.8 million
o Church of South India - 3.8 million
o Anglican Church of Australia - 3.7 million
o Episcopal Church in the Philippines - 3.0 million
o Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia - 0.5 million
o Anglican Church of Tanzania - 2.5 million
o Anglican Church of Southern Africa - 2.4 million
o Episcopal Church of the United States - 2.2 million
o Anglican Church of Canada - 2.0 million
o Anglican Church of Kenya - 1.5 million
o Church of North India - 1.3 million
o Church of the Province of Rwanda - 1 million
o Church of Pakistan - 0.8 million
o Anglican Church of Burundi - 0.8 million[74]
o Church of the Province of Central Africa - 0.6 million
o Church of Christ in Congo–Anglican Community of Congo - 0.5 million[75]
o Scottish Episcopal Church - 0.4 million
o Church of Ireland - 0.4 million
* Continuing Anglican movement - 1.5 million
o Traditional Anglican Communion - 0.5 million
o Anglican Church in North America - 0.1 million
Nontrinitarianism - 27.5 million
* Latter Day Saint movement (Mormonism) - 14.1 million
o The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - 13.8 million[76]
o Community of Christ - 0.25 million[77]
* New Apostolic Church - 11 million
* Jehovah’s Witnesses - 7.3 million [78][79]
* Iglesia ni Cristo - 6 million[80]
* Oneness Pentecostalism - 6 million
o United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
o Pentecostal Assemblies of the World - 1.5 million
* Church of Christ, Scientist - 0.4 million
* Friends of Man - 0.07 million
* Christadelphians - 0.05 million
Nestorianism - 0.6 million
* Assyrian Church of the East - 0.4 - 0.5 million
* Ancient Church of the East - 0.07 - 0.1 million
Believe as you will.
Feel free to append “none of the above” to that list. I’ll believe as I’m led, not as I will. Thank you.
Regards
That's the question to me, what limit would make sense other than Peter as servant which would, I don't know, ensure they all agreed and preached the same? That's not ultimate it's final word of agreement? Something can't be preached unless he agrees with the majority?. The Ante-Nicene fathers were already often, but not always, quoting the Pope to support an argument or point of theology, so they accepted some role of importance, great importance it seems, but I'm still reading.
Having spent decades as a Lutheran, believe me, accepting the Pope as Vicar of Christ is tough to work through. I am convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ left us and I am convinced I have to be reconciled with the Church. More so every time I ask questions and don't get the sort of reasonable response you just gave me.
I'm looking at the Eastern Orthodox differences of opinion as well which are akin to what you're saying.
Thanks & Regards
have a nice day
i think you seriously misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity. section 12 means there is One God, not 3 Gods.
we must take and understand God as He has revealed Himself to us, not as we think it should be.
also, you don’t realize that the Catholic Church received the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the Apostles, as the Church Fathers testify.
your understanding of God seems to preclude that Jesus was truly man.
do you believe that Jesus was merely the Father appearing in flesh, without actually being human?
was Jesus praying to Himself in John 17?
i am not sure what your questions about “divine attributes” mean? the Father requires no attributes from the Holy Spirit, and vice versa.
Jesus received His name when he became man , but He always existed, He was not “created”
John 1 tells us that.
Acts 2:38 is from God, using the Body of Christ on earth, the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
you sound like a cambellite, which only appeared in the 19th century.
what do you believe happened to the true Church from the 1st century to the 19th century - didn’t anyone understand who God was all that time?
That is NOT a Catholic website. I repeat:
They are not in union with the Catholic Church - rather they are a sedevacantist group that considers Pope Benedict to be an 'antipope'.
If you want to read Catholic dogma, I would suggest going to the Vatican website and reading the CCC there.
Thank you, GCC
You can scream all you want but with the Pope snuggling up with the Muslims and the picture of him kissing the Koran they have a point.
The whole religion has a problem with there view on Muslims in my view. This from their own catechism.
# 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]
Anyone, let alone any church, who thinks the moon god of Islam is the same as the God of the Bible doesn’t know the God of the Bible.
I didn't ask for your church tradition...I ask for the tradition that you guys claim was handed down orally from the Apostles to your religion...
And of course you guys can't produce any because there isn't any...It's a farce...
Well, that is what you got, exactly what you asked for even if you say that isn’t really it. Church tradition includes what was handed down orally. That is the basis for it, that is where it originated, and whether you like or not, that is what was passed down orally then written down for all.
That you don’t accept it as such is not surprising in the least.
Now that's just goofy...How can you make a goofy claim like that???
Church tradition includes what was handed down orally.
That's what I'm saying...If you can come up with a non scriptural tradition that was passed on to your church by an Apostle, post it...IF you got it, post it...
Don't dance around the topic trying to cover your hind end...
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.