|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
What did the RCC Popes do instead? Add more to the churches laws instead of saying what Christ and the Apostles wrote is enough. Why isn't the RCC following the Apostles tradition if they claim tradition? Remember they had a real hard time with the early churches who were wanting to "ADD" rituals and conditions to the church and place mans demands upon the churches.
Apostle succession as the RCC refers to would have had those following the initial Apostles abiding in their traditions. Meaning they would actually be following the Apostles teachings instead of allowing Pope after Pope to add more as Paul warned of. They've added "conditions" set by man upon the believers that are not there in scripture.
Those are some examples of why Protestant churches do not follow the doctrines and teachings of the RCC and why the split off from int happened. The Gospel got set aside made secondary and replaced by man written RCC DOGMA and rituals added incrementally throughout two millennium that simply is not Biblically correct.
"Uh oh, by your own logic, that makes the Catholics followers of Wesley, and you have therefore indicted your own church with your original post."
=============================================================
Wrong. We accept and approve anything anybody says which is true, and reject anything anybody says which is untrue. It is that simple.
When Charles Wesley wrote a beautiful hymn that was completely truthful, we accepted it joyfully.
Even when you say something that is true, we accept that joyfully as well. When you say something that is untrue (like your erroneous statement falsely claiming that because we love some of Charles Wesley's hymns that makes us followers of Charles Wesley) we reject that untruth. (It should be obvious to everyone that that statement is totally false and illogical.)
=============================================================
What Protestant bashing? Saying that we love our Protestant brothers and sisters?
My three main posts here in the beginning of this thread did the following:
1. The first post provided a link to a list of some currently existing Protestant denominations in the world, and a few links to some other sites where they try to determine an accurate count of all the current Protestant denominations, as well as a link to a great old WWII song.
2. The second post provided pictures (photos and paintings) of a number of prominent founders of various Protestant denominations, each of which was found from a simple Google image search.
3. The third post contained some scripture quotes, and a couple hymn links.
Are you angrily objecting here to the: 1) pictures of the Protestants from a simple Google search, or 2) the list of some of the Protestant denominations and estimates of the counts, or 3) the Bible texts and hymns?
(I would think you would really want to see the pictures of founders of some of the Protestant denominations, and that you would really want to see all those Bible texts and listen to the hymns, and that you would really want to see the estimates of the latest denominational counts, and be fascinated by those denominational posts. After all, you claim that all the Protestants here get along just fine, and the more the merrier, don't you?)
=============================================================
Did the "infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture" that Jesus Christ embodied and employed = complete "harmony" among his first followers?
(The answer, of course, as the Bible makes clear, is an emphatic no!, and your post is fallacious.)
=============================================================
Absolutely not!
Rather, that verse is talking about causing divisions between the truth and falsehood, and between those who choose to accept the full truth (from "The Truth" Himself -- Jesus Christ) when they encounter that truth, and those who prefer to accept falsehoods and deceptions and self-delusions. That is a proper and justified division, and worthwhile to pursue, like Jesus promulgated and declared that He "came to give", as recorded in that Bible verse.
=============================================================
You could not be more wrong if you tried, metmom. The purpose of this thread is not to sow disunity and discord, but just the opposite -- to sow complete, 100% Christian unity. We Catholics seek and pray for the exact same thing Jesus Christ sought and prayed for -- that we all be one, not that we all be thousands, and thousands, and thousands.
We want you all to come join us, with all your gifts, and knowledge, and talents, so that we can all be "one" just as Jesus Christ prayed for.
=============================================================
Probably better than they look on a big computer screen (especially those pictures of the first Protestants).
(I'm sure most of us are very grateful and glad that you wisely and judiciously refrain from posting your own Protestant picture (selfie) here, Elsie, even those folks who are using their phone screen and duct tape). :-)
=============================================================
Are you a heretic?
That "Sextus Decretalium" was part of old Canon Law, and has since been abrogated and superseded.
(Much of Canon Law is changeable, when it is not related to "doctrinal matters" concerning "faith and morals", and has in fact changed over time. : See this reference concerning that: "http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/where-does-the-churchs-authority-to-change-canon-law-come- from".)
Regarding that abrogation of that obsolete code you referenced, read this:
=============================================================
EWTN Catholic Q&A
Laymen Prohibited from Debating?
Question from Dave Downing on 02-20-2001:A Catholic Encylopedia entry at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm shows that:
By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: "Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur." (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.)
Is this still in force and does it prohibit apologetic efforts by laymen over the Internet? Can you explain where it was revoked or superceded?
Thank you
Answer by Saint Joseph Foundation on 02-21-2001:
The decree is indeed part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici; but the Corpus was abrogated by the first Codex Iuris Canonici in 1917, which was in turn abrogated by the 1983 Code. Canon 6 of the Code now in force states:
§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1 the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;
2 other universal or particular laws contrary to the prescripts of this Code unless other provision is expressly made for particular laws;
3 any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See unless they are contained in this Code;
4 other universal disciplinary laws regarding matter which this Code completely reorders.
§2. Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition.
(SOURCE: "http://ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=359399&language=en"
=============================================================
Rev. Franklin Graham comments:
It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins,” said Graham.... “Jesus was clear when He said, ‘I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me’ (John 14:6).”
Worshiping their pagan Moon God Allah in the WAshington National Church
A protester, one woman from Michigan who declined to give her name, managed to sneak into the tightly secured, invite-only service and interrupt the introduction.
"Jesus Christ died on that cross over there!" she yelled after the announcements......." He is the reason why we are to worship only him.... Jesus Christ is our lord and savior!" "Get out of our church.........She continued in a loud voice,...... "We have built, and allowed you here in mosques across this country. Why can't you worship in your mosque, and leave our churches alone?"
The woman was physically removed from the prayer service by a reverend and cathedral police
Catholics regard the church primarily as a visible, earthly organization. Therefore they cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines.
This is an Episcopal Church, not the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, the Catholic National Cathedral.
American Family Association Director of Issue Analysis Bryan Fischer said the Muslim prayer service violates the Ten Commandments.
“The first one of the Ten Commandments is what, you—talking the nation of Israel, true for individuals but this was the Ten Commandments for a nation – you shall have no other Gods before me. Allah is another God,” He explained on his Focal Point podcast.
=============================================================
Your overall point in your post #89 seems to be that people cannot possibly interpret the scriptures wrongly, which is patently false and ridiculous. They do it all the time.
Your assertions there in post #89 about scriptural interpretation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and cults are false. You mentioned the Jehovah's witnesses (who use a truncated Bible of only 66 books, just like you do, and who built their entire new denomination based on their own personal interpretation of the Bible -- which is also what you do, and you strongly recommend that everyone do, and they are frankly much closer to your own way of doing things than to the Catholic Church's way of doing things).
You should keep track of the fact that the New Testament came from the Church, not the Church from the New Testament. Stephen became the first martyr of the Church before one single line was written in the New Testament (and Saul was there), and the Church eventually decided exactly which writings truly belonged in the New Testament. God ordained that His Church do those things that way, and that His Church provide authoritative guidance for the interpretation of His Holy Scriptures, and when you downplay and reject those things, you are not just dissing the Church, but you are also dissing God and His Holy Will.
That was why I tried to share those biblical links with you, and you are certainly free to reject them, but from this day forward, you will never be able to truly claim that you were never given the opportunity to learn these things. I urge you to take a look at those links in post 94.
I especially urge you to start with the first link, and to watch the whole video there, in order to get a good background for the rest of those biblical sources. Here is that first link again for your convenience:
"The Bible Is A Catholic Book"
In your post #93, the quotes you include are referring to "religious". As used there, the term "religious" is a noun, and means a person or group of people belonging to a monastic order and bound by monastic vows (a monk or a nun), and does not apply to me or my activities. I thought you were being facetious in your post, but apparently you were just misinterpreting that term "religious" as it was being used there.
The links in my post #94 are not spam, but links to the words of Jesus Christ, and teachings from the written Word of God, and to call them spam is both false and disrespectful of Our Lord and His Holy Written Word.
(Signing off now -- goodnight to all.)
It's referred to as 'Our Capital City' Church Salvation...it's where capital functions, funnerals etc. are conducted....and several of our Presidents have attended there.....and that makes all the difference regardless of it's Denomination. Politically it matters what happened here to the Islamic Muslims...for it's representive of our Government as it's national Church. The Muslims know far better then most Americans what this means for them to have THEIR first Worship Service there....Americans are just dumber than a box of rocks for not seeing what's happening because they're so deceived now...
Further Catholics are not innocent either regarding their agenda and association with Islamic Worshipers as well as other false religions
Not according to Scripture, but obviously the context was heretical Rome's definition, thus your reply is irrelevant.
That "Sextus Decretalium" was part of old Canon Law, and has since been abrogated and superseded.
Which is why i carefully prefaced my remark with "And which if not now," though it should have said, "whole" not now, as i myself in times part have shown that. Later i
said to CB. "But which has changed, as excommunication by Rome in some centuries can be changed to obedience in another." For one, RC rulers were excommunicated if they did not cleanse their land of the heretics, while now freedom of religion is enjoined, much to the displeasure of trad. RCs.
Much of Canon Law is changeable
Which is one of my points.
Keep looking for more verification. This is the church that Bill and Hill could always be seen coming out of. It is an Episcopal Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_National_Cathedral
“Your overall point in your post #89 seems to be that people cannot possibly interpret the scriptures wrongly, which is patently false and ridiculous.”
No, that’s wasn’t my point at all. Let me try and state my point for the third time:
You have included cults such as Jehovah’s Witnesses in your list of Protestant denominations, specifically referencing their stance on who has authority to interpret scripture. Yet, the stances of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults on this issue are more similar to the Catholic church’s stance than they are to the stance of mainline Protestant churches.
The only essential difference between the Catholic teaching and the cults’ teachings on this point is that the cults substitute their own version of the magisterium as the exclusive, unquestionable interpretive authority for their followers, instead of Rome’s magisterium. Mainline Protestant denominations, on the other hand, all assert that the church authorities and the individual believers share authority to interpret Scripture.
If you don’t want to address that point, which I have already demonstrated by comparing sources from the churches in question, then I’m not going to be sidetracked into discussing some other points that you would like to drag into this. We can’t possibly keep a coherent thread of argument if we do that.
“In your post #93, the quotes you include are referring to “religious”. As used there, the term “religious” is a noun, and means a person or group of people belonging to a monastic order and bound by monastic vows (a monk or a nun), and does not apply to me or my activities. “
I may have been a bit facetious, but yes, I had misunderstood that term, sorry about that. If you’re allowed to evangelize and do apologetics, then good for you, I think all Christians have a duty to be ready for those tasks myself.
“The links in my post #94 are not spam, but links to the words of Jesus Christ, and teachings from the written Word of God, and to call them spam is both false and disrespectful of Our Lord and His Holy Written Word.”
I didn’t call the Word spam, I called your post full of links spam. When you send people posts full of unsolicited links that are not related to the topic of discussion on an internet forum, that is considered spam. Sure, you weren’t sending me links to Rolex watches, or prescription drugs, but that is not what makes it spam, those are just the more annoying varieties.
Is it your contention that everyone has to be Roman Catholic before we can all be "one"? That is what is being objected to here. The pretentious, elitist and monopolistic power over ALL Christians to command obedience to whatever the Pope and the magesterium determines is the truth - at the time - is the REAL goal. Do you think no one is wise to this? Why haven't the Greek Orthodox succumbed after one thousand years? If they refused to be in submission to the Pope of Rome, to hold that he is infallible and the rest of the dogmas Rome "developed" that caused that split in the first place, what makes y'all think "Protestants" will, or should, knuckle under? Is Rome going to admit her errors and be reformed back to the original doctrines taught by the Apostles?
The truth is that Jesus' prayer HAS been answered - how could it not have been. We ARE all one IN Christ. We ARE all one as the body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, one with the Holy Spirit and are each one living stones being built into the spiritual house which is HIS church - no matter what visible church one chooses to worship in. As long as one has been born again into the family of God by faith in Jesus Christ, he/she IS already part of THE church. Roman Catholicism is not the owner of the appellations "church", "Christian" or "Body of Christ". His own know Him and He knows His own.
You made your intention quite clear for the purpose of this thread. Not only did you rely on false information - facts of which HAVE been shown repeatedly here - the sarcasm, condescension and patronizing tone hasn't a hint of gentle unity sowing. Did you miss all the responses that read the OP the same way? If real Christian unity is your goal, then spend your time speaking the truth of the Gospel and leave off the Protestant-bashing. Maybe then, it really WILL seem to be the point.
“Wrong. We accept and approve anything anybody says which is true, and reject anything anybody says which is untrue. It is that simple.”
Yet you seem unwilling to allow Protestant churches the same liberty. You asserted that some Protestants are following Wesley’s interpretation of the Bible. When it was pointed out to you that he was mainly writing hymns, you said that the hymns were a vehicle for his preaching. That was basically the evidence you offered that Protestants are following Wesley’s interpretation of Scripture, no? Yet, when Catholics use the hymns, it is no longer evidence of that?
“It should be obvious to everyone that that statement is totally false and illogical.”
Yes, of course it’s illogical, but then it is also illogical if you make the same assertion about Protestants. Please note, I didn’t assert that the statement was true, I prefaced the observation with “by your logic”, meaning that if we consistently apply your argument, that would be the apparent result. I don’t believe that simply singing someone’s hymns mean that person dictates your interpretation of Scripture. But, if that is what I was going to argue, I would have to do it consistently.
“between those who choose to accept the full truth (from “The Truth” Himself — Jesus Christ) when they encounter that truth, and those who prefer to accept falsehoods and deceptions and self-delusions”
Can I safely assume that you believe Protestants are included in those who have not accepted the full truth?
Jesus Christ is my saviour. I have been baptized, and I witness to Christ being the Son of God, resurrected, saviour of mankind. What more truth must I accept? Is not, according to Scripture, that enough for me to be accepted as a Christian, treated equally to all others in the family of God? Or did Christ teach that some were second-class family members, only half-way there?
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.