|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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)
Sounds like Rome has run out of CHEEKS!
imardmd1: To me, this sentence is not quite clear. What it seems to me that you are saying is as follows:
>> Please prove that:
>> (a) that which is not found in Scripture, and
>> (b) which today the Catholic Church calls "tradition",
>> (c) was taught by the Apostles.
Have I got that right? Is that what you meant?
Thanks --
Cynical Bear: Nice attempt at not answering the question.
imardmd1: Ah, from your phrasing I really did not understand what you were getting at. You yourself could be civil and respond with better clarity. If I didn’t want to answer, I wouldn’t have asked. It’s up to you.
CynicalBear: Well, then answer the question as you phrased it.
imardmd1: You still have not indicated that this is what you meant. Also, in this medium I don't take commands very well. You might want to revise your approach, eh?
CynicalBear: Yeah, didn’t think you could.
I'll answer your question, but not in the way you would suppose.
The Romanists have nothing on hand from the apostles not written or taught by the apostles and recorded in the Bible. Any extrabiblical traditions they have are solely man-made by fallible pseudoreligionists, who have such a mixture of falsehood and truth that is difficult to sort out all their faults. But you could start with one, which is misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, which makes Simon Peter grammatically feminine, and makes him the head of a church, which is a position he never occupied in the New Testament or in his life.
However, this is a statement from me, a fallible human, one of many who are offering their sometimes valid conclusions in this thread.
Here is my answer to you:
From Post #94, where Heart-Rest assumes that both Boogieman (Post #89) and imardmd1 (myself)(Post #88) are in error regarding the value of tradition outside of and not included in Holy Scripture. (S)he tries to correct us by merely doubling up on an even greater plethora of Catholic traditionalist writings from yet more fallible men who deny that one's faith rests on the Holy Scriptures alone; except, that is, a final citation (mistranslated) from the Bible, which is:
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (translation source not given)
* * * * *
Here are two better and correct English translations of long-standing acceptance, followed by the Greek Koine text basis:
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 Authorized Version).
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 (2:14) Douay-Rheims Bible).
αρα ουν αδελφοι στηκετε και κρατειτε τας παραδοσεις ας εδιδαχθητε ειτε δια λογου ειτε δι επιστολης ημων" (2Thess. 2:15 Textus Receptus).
* * * * *
Here are conditions and suppositions used in interpreting the thrust of this verse, with which Catholics would like to try to justify giving equivalent (or greater) authority to the fallible, uninspired writings of the Patristics such as ought to be given only to the infallible God-breathed Scripture set down by the New Testament writers.
adelphoi = restricted in this epistle to and for the constituents of the assembly that met in Thessalonika, only; the only ones coming under the second person plural. The primary application of the counsel in this letter is to the Thessalonikans alone, and not to any other group then or now. A secondary, qualified meaning may be extracted for application to other Christians, but only when universal, general conditions prevail or when other Spirit-inspired epistles from Paul were passed around.
hemon = restricted in this epistle to the authors Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy only, for all time. No other teachers, then or later, who are fallible, are to create new, uninspired doctrine to be added to that already imparted to the Thessalonikans. They are only to believe "our gospel" (see v. 14), that of Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy; which is in essence "my gospel" (Gal. 1:8-12; Rom. 2:16, 16:25; 2 Ti. 2:8).
logos = that body of doctrine proceeding out of and certified by Scripture (graphe), in which the Thessalonikans had been less noble than the men of Berea, who resorted to the Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was so; and thus that it proceeded from The God, through Paul; and not merely from Paul alone.
epistole = God-inspired pastoral letters, later inscripturated into the canon of the New Testament, and now considered Holy Scripture, as does this very epistle.
paradoses = traditions, here only the oral precepts committed to and drawn from the Holy Scripture, and handed over (paradidomai) by indoctrination from the Scripture of the Tanakh, which was already approved and accepted as Logos; or new doctrine from Christ's Gospel solely given to His Apostles for transmission only by them orally or by letter to the churches as they were being formed.
Vincent's Word Studies defines paradoses, tradition, thusly:
"See on 1 Cor. 11:2. Not emphasizing a distinction between written and oral tradition. Tradition, in the scriptural sense, may be either written or oral. It implies on the part of a teacher that he is not expressing his own ideas, but is delivering or handing over (παραδίδωμι) a message received from some one else. See 1Cor. 11:23. The prominent idea of παράδοσις is therefore that of an authority external to the teacher. Comp. by word nor by letter, 2 Thess. 2:2."
The authority in this case is God Himself to the prophet ("Thus saith The LORD . . .") or by inscripturation of what God has said by inerrant verbal inspiration. Only such authority validates an argument or tradition made from Scripture alone.
What the Romanists try to do is to place the writings such as of Clement of Alexandria, or Origen, or Eusebius, or Irenaeus, or Ignatius, etc. to be of equal or above Scriptual Authority, superseding the plain sense of Scripture to formulate new, uninspired, and burdensome tradition not contained in or supported by Scripture.
This places the decisions of the Magisterium above the Voice of God found in His Word, making Romanism another (heteros) gospel with another (allos) Jesus and another (heteros) Spirit (2 Cor. 11:3-4), worthy of rejection by those regenerated by new birth in the Spirit, and not equated with real Crist-followers by having been sprinkled with water as an infant (another tradition bearing a false hope of salvation).
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 6:17-7:1 AV)
And He gave it to us in His word. Jesus told us that His word is truth. And being Holy Spirit breathed, there simply is no other option.
The Catholic church is not consistent in its doctrines. They've changed over time and to get around the obvious, it's been labeled *doctrinal development*. Merely a semantic cover to try convince people that they didn't change their doctrine after all.
Some Protestant denominations (like the Calvinist ones, and the various other "once-saved-always-saved" ones) believe and teach that you cannot lose your salvation after genuinely accepting it, and other Protestant denominations like the Methodists and Seventh Day Adventists believe and teach that you can lose your salvation after genuinely accepting it.
And Catholicism tells us that you both can and can't lose your salvation. You're saved when you're baptized, but not saved after you've been baptized, except that you are.
And you're saved when you take communion, except after you sin, you're not.
But you are if it's a venial sin, you just have to spend uncounted years in torment in purgatory.
It's totally a works based salvation, which Catholics deny it is, saying that it's by grace.
Catholicism isn't even internally consistent.
We love all our Protestant brothers and sisters, but if we find that they are teaching a false teaching, we try to respectfully point that out, just like we try to point out false teachings coming from "Catholics" like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
Not all. A few.
I DON'T CARE about denominational labels when meeting a brother or sister in Christ.
Denominations don't save. Christ does.
I DON'T CARE about the alleged "founders" of different denominations. I don't follow them or any man.
What they taught has no bearing on what I believe.
You clearly don't get what being in Christ is about. When *Protestants* get together, they don't compare churches. Born again believers focus on Christ and what HE is doing in our lives. We don't discuss church history, the lives of the *founders*, the doctrinal differences between our churches, or any of that kind of stuff.
Some clarification is needed. Paul wrote an Epistle, not a Gospel. An epistle is a letter written to a person or a church or a group of people, giving them general teaching or answers to specific questions.. A gospel is a historical account of the life of the Lord Jesus. Gospel means "Good news" in Old English.
There are 4 Gospel writers - Matthew, Mark, John and Luke. With the exception of Luke, all were eyewitnesses. The order of the Gospels in our printed Bible is that sanctioned by Tradition. The first three Gospels are frequently called the Synoptics (from the Greek terms syn "together," and opsis "view"). When placed side by side and brought under one view, these three Gospels present a striking resemblance and appear as one narrative. Not only are many of the same events and speeches recorded in each, but the order and manner in which they are narrated is nearly the same.
Matthew's Gospel was intended for the Jewish converts of Palestine, and was written in Aramaic, the language of the country.
Mark's Gospel was written for Gentiles, especially for Roman Gentile converts.
Luke was a native of Antioch - a city renowned for its learning - where he received his early education. From the fluency and perfection of his literary style, it is inferred that he was a Greek. Luke's Gospel is a record of Christ's life and teaching as preached by Paul.
St. John wrote his Gospel partly with a view to supplementing those of his predecessors but principally to establish on a firm basis the Divinity of Christ, even then impugned by Cerinth and other heretics. John has explicitly told us what was the object of his Gospel: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples which are not written in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name" (20:30, 31). The particular scope of the author and the time of composition have given the fourth Gospel a character quite different from that of the Synoptics. In the first place, St. John's Gospel has little of the Synoptic material. This absence is not due to St. John's ignorance of the first three Gospels, for he knows the Synoptics and makes a clear allusion to their contents (1:26-33; 6:68; 12-27). St. John's aim is not to rewrite the Synoptics but to give the Church another Gospel, a more profound presentation of the Person and teaching of Christ.
The Galatians to whom the letter is addressed were Paul’s converts, most likely among the descendants of Celts who had invaded western and central Asia Minor in the third century B.C. and had settled in the territory around Ancyra (modern Ankara, Turkey). Paul had passed through this area on his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6) and again on his third (Acts 18:23).
What is the purpose of his letter? The new Christians whom Paul is addressing were converts from paganism (Gal 4:8–9) who were now being enticed by other missionaries to add the observances of the Jewish law, including the rite of circumcision, to the cross of Christ as a means of salvation. For, since Paul’s visit, some other interpretation of Christianity had been brought to these neophytes, probably by converts from Judaism (the name “Judaizers” is sometimes applied to them); it has specifically been suggested that they were Jewish Christians who had come from the austere Essene sect.
These interlopers insisted on the necessity of following certain precepts of the Mosaic law along with faith in Christ. They were undermining Paul’s authority also, asserting that he had not been trained by Jesus himself, that his gospel (i.e. message) did not agree with that of the original and true apostles in Jerusalem, that he had kept from his converts in Galatia the necessity of accepting circumcision and other key obligations of the Jewish law, in order more easily to win them to Christ, and that his gospel was thus not the full and authentic one held by “those of repute” in Jerusalem (Gal 2:2). His letter is intended to correct their misunderstandings.
What is the purpose of Paul's Epistle (letter) to the Romans? Like all Paul’s letters, Romans too arose out of a specific situation, when the apostle wrote from Greece, likely Corinth, between A.D. 56 and 58 (cf. Acts 20:2–3). Paul at that time was about to leave for Jerusalem with a collection of funds for the impoverished Jewish Christian believers there, taken up from his predominantly Gentile congregations (Rom 15:25–27). He planned then to travel on to Rome and to enlist support there for a mission to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28). Such a journey had long been on his mind (Rom 1:9–13; 15:23). Now, with much missionary preaching successfully accomplished in the East (Rom 15:19), he sought new opportunities in the West (Rom 15:20–21), in order to complete the divine plan of evangelization in the Roman world. Yet he recognized that the visit to Jerusalem would be hazardous (Rom 15:30–32), and we know from Acts that Paul was arrested there and came to Rome only in chains, as a prisoner (Acts 21–28, especially Acts 21:30–33 and Acts 28:14, 30–31).
The existence of a Christian community in Rome antedates Paul’s letter there. When it arose, likely within the sizable Jewish population at Rome, and how, we do not know. The Roman historian Suetonius mentions an edict of the Emperor Claudius about A.D. 49 ordering the expulsion of Jews from Rome in connection with a certain “Chrestus,” probably involving a dispute in the Jewish community over Jesus as the Messiah (“Christus”). According to Acts 18:2, Aquila and Priscilla (or Prisca, as in Rom 16:3) were among those driven out; from them, in Corinth, Paul may have learned about conditions in the church at Rome. Paul writes to introduce himself and his message to the Christians at Rome, seeking to enlist their support for the proposed mission to Spain. He therefore employs formulations likely familiar to the Christians at Rome. The gospel (i.e. message) Paul presents is meant to be a familiar one to those in Rome, even though they heard it first from other preachers.
Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and of faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians at Rome, and to all Christians, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law (see note on Rom 10:4). At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others (Rom 12:1–2) or as a repudiation of God’s law and will.
To sum up, the Gospels are the actual teachings of Jesus Christ. The Epistles (letters) are directed to specific groups of christian converts in various communities, intended to correct misunderstandings or reinforce what they have already been taught (orally preached). ALL of these "communities" or "churches" were united in one faith, i.e. the Catholic Church.
Does this answer your question?
Perhaps we ought to focus first on what unites us, which to me is Jesus’ gift of salvation to us and forgiveness of all our sins.
Then please show where Jesus or the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and her exalted position in heaven as the "queen of heaven".
Lurking or sleeping, mostly.*—0-
And Catholics retroactively proclaim them all Catholic!
Well put!
Is it any wonder Catholics can’t be sure about salvation?
I would be dead if i did.
cva66snipe, I think NYer did a fine job of answering your questions. One that struck me is the following:
“What did the RCC Popes do instead? Add more to the churches laws instead of saying what Christ and the Apostles wrote is enough.”
Please show me where Jesus or the Apostles ever addressed the following issues:
- abortion
- embryonic stem cell research
- surrogacy pregnancy
- nuclear war
- preemptive war
- and literally thousands of other issues
Quite frankly it is impossible for any group - even the Church - to exist for 2,000 years and not flesh out a number of moral principles and their application (you’re calling them “laws” - and that’s fine). All Protestant groups do EXACTLY THE SAME THING. They’re just not as organized about it. Seriously, it can change from pastor to pastor. The catechism, however, has the same principles - further explicated but the same principles - for century after century.
Mary's body is dead. Mary's soul and spirit are alive and in Heaven.
That’s because protestants have had an inferiority complex for the last 500 years.
Actually that was not my quote you are responding to, while it is RCs who quite evidently seem to feel the need to constantly repeat propaganda, as if to comfort themselves that their fantasy is true.
Despite your imaginative assertion that "Catholics never belittle or challenge beliefs from protestants."
Either its an inferiority complex or narcissism: take your pick, as the propaganda certainly has been exposed as being so.
No; they aren’t.
To vladimir's post, I would also point you back to Scripture and the subject of infallibility. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
You mean your post is fallacious, as the infallible interpreter + infallible tradition + infallible scripture is what the Roman model claims, but she is not God, despite her attempts to essentially deify herself and others.
And while under the cultic model she employs, that of holding herself as possessing assured veracity (in competition with Mormonism etc.) a degree of unity is more easily achieved, as it is under dictators rather than democracy.
Yet contrary to the Roman model, the church began with both writings and men of God being recognized as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation) without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from the valid one (Mt. 23:2; Mk. 7:2-16; 11:27-33) that existed.
And under which the strongest Biblical unity was realized, if limited. But which depends upon leadership such as the apostles manifested,
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:18-19)
The Scriptures were preached to the Jews and the confirmatory miracles moved the illiterate Gentiles, but the source of the latter was established by Scripture.
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
For he [Apollos] mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
The Lord and His disciples established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The degree that these credential are lacking is an indictment upon the church, and thus a corresponding lack of unity is realized.
While Rome dares to claim she constitutes the successors to the apostles, she utterly fails of both the requirements and credentials. As do i but i do not claim to be an apostle. But as with them, the veracity of my Truth claims cannot rest upon the premise of assured veracity as per Rome, but must rest upon "manifestation of the Truth," (2 Cor. 4:2) by the grace of God.
Good find, but some evidence that the Roman firewall would prevent them from seeing "expresses insults" from applying to rants against Prots such as that they are dishonest or just stupid, mostly completely biblically illiterate and absolutely alien to Christianity, as is seeing such as being anti-Protestant bigotry, or belittling or challenging beliefs from protestants or initiating arguments against them.
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.